swordsman

I did not have a chance to hear the hearings today. Is this a reasonable description of what happened?

Welcome to the thread for eleven year olds.

You mean your Grandfather's barber?

QFT. Look at all the others incriminated. What did most of them do? Keep quiet, admit it, or give a stern "This is a lie" quote and be done with it. Clemens is going through way more than he needs to be doing to defend his so-called innocence. Press conferences, televised speeches, and now a stat report? The more he fights it the more guilty he looks. And from what I've heard he's now bringing in other names to the argument. In that report doesn't he make comparisons of his stats to Randy Johnson and Curt Schilling during his alleged use period? He's trying to smear their names in the mud with his own. At least that's what I've heard. Roger Clemens has very quickly become the most annoying POS in baseball over the span of 1-2 years, and it all started with the "is he or isn't he" BS. Now it's this crap. What a tool. that's lame. when people accused of steroids don't call press conferences, present stats, do interviews etc. people assume that means guilt. then roger clemens goes out of his way to defend himself (not that i believe him, but he's doing what i'd do if i was wrongly accused of something) and now people assume that means he's guilty. hell, when the mitchell report first came out and roger didn't make a statement immediately, i heard the sports radio morons say that means clemens is guilty, because if he didn't do any of that stuff he'd come right out and defend himself. so 1 or 2 days pass and clemens issues a denial, and in the weeks that follow he presents his case that he didn't use steroids and puts a lot of effort into it, and now people say he should shut up. he can't win no matter what. Sure seems that way, huh.

Only if they retain the Wrigley cam that pans across the front of the park on Addison. ____________________________________________________ Sandberg>Mazeroski>Morgan I'll be down there tonight at about 6:30-6:45. I'll wave to you.

Interesting to see Murton referred to as a veteran.

Clemens' agent releases report refuting steroid allegations

I should have been renting out my 2nd bedroom all this time You like the stench of Old Style and strip clubs do you?

You've got to admit though folks that there is a better use for that land than what is there now. Here is a google map of the area. Google Maps of Site Here is the map of the site to be changed. http://img155.imageshack.us/img155/6138/areaforredevlopmentzz2.png

He's going to knock it down, but build them a new space in the same complex. The owner of IO is excited by that prospect (which I concur with because it can get hot up in there). True enough. I hope it really happens. It would be an easy thing for the developer to back out on though. Beware, Charna. Beware.

Can u bat from the batters view?

Where is the little pre-catch hop?

If the Cubs ever decide to do this, how much good will could be bought if Wrigley paid for the rights to keep the name just as it is? A bunch, I'll bet.

I can't say I agree with any of this though I really don't want this to turn into another political war so I'll respond this way: (for the bolded part) 9/11 changed everything. If people associate the Clinton's with the "good old days" then they are in for a very very big disappointment. They can't magic away terrorism. Bin Laden etal. are not going to turn themselves in and start loving America just because we have a new president. We have problems now that didn't exist back then. Clinton's track record for dealing with terrorists was less than spectacular. I won't argue the culpability of Bush regarding our foreign policy. But i disagree that his shortcomings automatically translate to every other Republican. Finally, I don't want Bill Clinton to be co President and it has nothing to do with Monica Lewinsky. I am definitely better off now than I was during the Clinton administration. Statements like the worse Dem is better than the best Rep. -or vice versa- are narrow minded and foolish. McCain for instance is much better than Kucinet (sp?), Obama is definitely better than Romney and Huckabee. You may be, but you're in the minority. The country as a whole is in worse shape that it was 10 years ago, and there is no valid argument to the contrary. Our national reputation is in the toilet, the dollar is in trouble, our troops are dying for essentially nothing, etc. And as far as terrorism goes, Bush has only made it worse. It's not macho, but the only real way to win "the war on terror" is to stop giving these psychos an excuse. Sure, there will always be those who don't need one, but that doesn't make it a good idea to throw fuel on the fire. I think a lot of people are under the impression that we are safer today than we were on 9/11, but that is a falsity. There are far more terrorists today than there were then, and that has everything to do with what this administration has done. Every second we are in Iraq is a boon to recruitment efforts of terrorist organizations. And every stupid and arrogant thing Bush does makes nations on the fence more sympathetic to their twisted cause. And the worst dem is better than the best rep is silly, and I wasn't advocating it. But I see little from any of the Republican probables that lead me to believe they would change a whole lot. They have to pander to the same demographic that Bush and Co. do. If the current situation were less dire, I wouldn't be taking so extreme a position. But because the current administration has been such an apocalyptic disaster, I think the country needs something as close to a 180 degree turn in policy as is possible. John McCain may be the only Republican I would even consider voting for, and he is a lesser choice than Clinton or Obama. Nice to see the politics of fear is getting good use on both sides of the aisle. :wink:

A statement from himself (not his lawyer) the day the Mitchell report came out would have been a good start instead we get a press release from his agent several days later. Sometimes people listen to bad advice. ie Ted Kennedy and his whole career So you're saying Clemens drove under the influence of steroids? No but he did kill a girl with a high hard one.

Don't feel bad for Roger. Even the greatest of the greats don't have their best seasons after age 40 without help. I'm not saying one way or the other what is true, but someone could be the first. It would suck for him if he were the one and no one believed him that's all.

He produced the best ERA+ of his HOF career at age 42. He can't convince me. So you were convinced he was on the juice before anyone accused him of it. Yeah, it seemed more than likely to me. Fair enough. Sucks for Roger if he's innocent and just that good a pitcher, though.

He produced the best ERA+ of his HOF career at age 42. He can't convince me. So you were convinced he was on the juice before anyone accused him of it.

Isn't this all a he said-he said thing? There isn't a dripping syringe, there isn't a video tape, there is no Perry Mason moment here. So they both testify, their stories disagree. Then what? If Roger is telling the truth, that he is innocent, that he didn't do something, how does he prove it or convince people of it?

Thank you all for your interest but we have a taker. This thread can be locked now.

From the NY Times article: Photoshop anyone?

Hey folks, If you are interested in participating in a group owning Cubs Season Tickets this season, please PM me and I'll send you the details. They will cost you $2410.00. Seriously interested folks only please, as we need to get $$ in my Jan 15th. Thanks, Swordsman

Eh, it's an interesting idea but I don't know if I'd really care if there was no ultimate championship to root for. Yay, you won the Big 10. Here's your trophy, go home. Then everyone would be arguing ad infinitum: the Big 10 sucks anyway! Who cares if you won it, you'd never beat the other conference champs! And yada yada. I don't see it solving much, just creates a whole bunch of hypothetical arguments that would never cease. Perhaps not "Go Home" but rather, "please play in our prestigious bowl game for a chance to win this cool trophy and claim to be that Bowl's champion for that year". (I liked how the Rose bowl was the reward for the Pac10 and Big 10 Champs. Tradition feels good sometimes.) Oh, and are you really using the "it would cause too much hypothetical arguing ad infinitum" argument against this concept? Really? Hehe, I see your point but I thought what we were trying to do was to come up with a way to eliminate the hypotheticals, not another way of just continuing with them. The Rose Bowl as it was? It was great, as long as the winner wasn't involved in the National Championship argument for that year. For example, the final year Michigan won it, there were co-national champs, nothing was solved, and it left everyone with a horrible taste in their mouths. That's why you just eliminate the concept of naming a National Champ. People can argue about who was the best team of a given year forever. They do anyway and this way there won't be any convoluted BCS or playoff system to muck it up. Every argument can be ended with "I guess we'll never know." What a fun way to pass the time between the last pitch of the world series and spring training.

Eh, it's an interesting idea but I don't know if I'd really care if there was no ultimate championship to root for. Yay, you won the Big 10. Here's your trophy, go home. Then everyone would be arguing ad infinitum: the Big 10 sucks anyway! Who cares if you won it, you'd never beat the other conference champs! And yada yada. I don't see it solving much, just creates a whole bunch of hypothetical arguments that would never cease. Perhaps not "Go Home" but rather, "please play in our prestigious bowl game for a chance to win this cool trophy and claim to be that Bowl's champion for that year". (I liked how the Rose bowl was the reward for the Pac10 and Big 10 Champs. Tradition feels good sometimes.) Oh, and are you really using the "it would cause too much hypothetical arguing ad infinitum" argument against this concept? Really?

Why do we need to determine a CFB National Champion at all? Why aren't Conference Champions enough with a bunch of exhibitition bowl games enough? There isn't a clearly fair and viable way to determine CFB NC anyway. Eliminate the National Champion designation and you eliminate the problem.