The Voice of Reason

Would have thrown him out if he was still on the roids.

Ok, one inning Howry and one inning Marmol and the Cubs go home winners.

Might want to rephrase that. After all . .

I agree. If he was on them, he stopped taking them after the media report and they instantaneously wore off. "If he was on them" :roll: Come on KyHen, do you also believe in Santa Claus, the Easter bunny and that Clinton didn't inhale?

I agree. If he was on them, he stopped taking them after the media report and they instantaneously wore off. That's nice. I still hate him. Me too. I always hated Disney movies with the fairy tale endings. Even as kid, just too cynical I guess.

LOL, nice. Obviously the HGH is starting to wear off.

Now let's strike out the "Natural" one more time.

You mean the guy Cardinal fans gave the nickname "The Natural" to? :wink:

Yeah, you're completely right -- except the fact that Bonds is notoriously known for being one of the biggest jerks in the game of baseball (this coming from someone who faults Ankiel in this case more than he defends him). Topics like these are why I really like coming to NSBB. You can say this is obvious and expected, but the general "tones" of the topic here compared to GWB are drastically different. It's really neat seeing perspectives from both sides of the spectrum. I don't think anyone would disagree with you (outside of San Francisco) that Bonds is a jerk but despite the great job the authors of the Game of Shadows did documenting Bonds steroid use (mostly with circumstantial evidence), as far as I know, no one has ever tied him directly to the receipt of HGH. The same can't be said for the "Natural." Sorry, I don't think "Jerks" should be held to a higher standard than "Fairy Tales."

People that condem Bonds but support Ankiel are either racists or fools. Jayson Stark does an excellent job laying out the double standard some people are applying. http://proxy.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/story?columnist=stark_jayson&id=3009424

Boy was the Ankiel "press conference" a joke. Way to dodge the tough questions Rick and hide behind doctor/client privledge. Obviously he didn't learn anything from the McGwire fiasco and Ankiel can't use the "under oath" excuse. All he had to do to get the benefit of the doubt was answer a couple of easy and direct questions but instead evaded them. I wonder why? He claims do have done nothing illegal. Why did Ankiel receive medical treatment from a physician who wasn't affiliated with the team? Why did he receive care from a doctor who's under investigation for writing prescriptions to athletes he's never met? Why pick up medicine from a shady clinic if it were prescribed by a licensed physician? "That's just the way it happened," The Natural said. I really don't have any further statements about this." If the Natural can't be a man and answer the easy questions, what happens when he starts getting the hard ones?

That was my first thought. I was reading the story with my wife (a Cardinals fan) and the first thing I said was "wow, this happened under the eagle-eye watch of Tony LaRussa?" Maybe silly coincidence, but who knows. Well this would have happened when Ankiel was in spring training down in Florida. So it would be pretty hard for Larussa to know what he was doing down there. I'll say, you can't expect a guy that spends spring training going on drunken benders and passing out behind the wheel of the car he is driving to know what is going on with his team. :lol:

Would you also teach your kids it's OK to cheat their way through college so they could get better grades and presumably a higher paying job? Or to trade on inside information in violation of the securities laws because it would allow them to make a great deal of money? Absolutely not, but those aren't games meant for public enjoyment.[/quote] So you would be OK teaching your kids that being unethical, not following the rules and cheating is OK as long as it's in a "game meant for public enjoyment" and it allowed them to make a lot of money? Not the lesson I would want to teach my kids but hey to each his own. Let me ask you a question. Imagine you are a 24 year old minor league pitcher. You know the only thing keeping you from becoming a major leaguer is a better fastball. If you thought you could take something that would give you an extra 5-8mph on your fastball and get you to the big leagues, would you take it or just continue to toil in the minors for no money knowing you're not going to make it? Would I place fame and fortune above honesty and integrity? NO, I couldn't live with myself. I would hang up the cleats and find a way to make a honest living. I'd have less money but at least when I talked to my kids about values like honesty and integrity I could look them in the eye and wouldn't be a hypochrite. Now how about answering my question. Sure. What's the question? So you would be OK teaching your kids that being unethical, not following the rules and cheating is OK as long as it's in a "game meant for public enjoyment" and it allowed them to make a lot of money? No, I wouldn't teach them that. Oh I see. Your one of those do as I say not as I do guys. Not a walk the talk guy like me. Oh well like I said to each his own. I guess if you just want to speak in generalities. I can own up to having made mistakes and bad decisions. But hey, the rest of us can't be perfect right? I don't think someone that doesn't advocate cheating in order to make more money (like you do) and isn't a hypochrite to their kids makes them perfect. BTW, do you think Ankiel will own up to having made mistakes and bad decisions like you or will he follow McGwire's lead?

Would you also teach your kids it's OK to cheat their way through college so they could get better grades and presumably a higher paying job? Or to trade on inside information in violation of the securities laws because it would allow them to make a great deal of money? Absolutely not, but those aren't games meant for public enjoyment.[/quote] So you would be OK teaching your kids that being unethical, not following the rules and cheating is OK as long as it's in a "game meant for public enjoyment" and it allowed them to make a lot of money? Not the lesson I would want to teach my kids but hey to each his own. Let me ask you a question. Imagine you are a 24 year old minor league pitcher. You know the only thing keeping you from becoming a major leaguer is a better fastball. If you thought you could take something that would give you an extra 5-8mph on your fastball and get you to the big leagues, would you take it or just continue to toil in the minors for no money knowing you're not going to make it? Would I place fame and fortune above honesty and integrity? NO, I couldn't live with myself. I would hang up the cleats and find a way to make a honest living. I'd have less money but at least when I talked to my kids about values like honesty and integrity I could look them in the eye and wouldn't be a hypochrite. Now how about answering my question. Sure. What's the question? So you would be OK teaching your kids that being unethical, not following the rules and cheating is OK as long as it's in a "game meant for public enjoyment" and it allowed them to make a lot of money? No, I wouldn't teach them that. Oh I see. Your one of those do as I say not as I do guys. Not a walk the talk guy like me. Oh well like I said to each his own. I guess if you just want to speak in generalities. I can own up to having made mistakes and bad decisions. But hey, the rest of us can't be perfect right? I don't think someone that doesn't advocate cheating in order to make more money (like you do) and isn't a hypochrite to their kids makes them perfect. BTW, do you think Ankiel will own up to having made mistakes and bad decisions like you or will he follow McGwire's lead?

Would you also teach your kids it's OK to cheat their way through college so they could get better grades and presumably a higher paying job? Or to trade on inside information in violation of the securities laws because it would allow them to make a great deal of money? Absolutely not, but those aren't games meant for public enjoyment.[/quote] So you would be OK teaching your kids that being unethical, not following the rules and cheating is OK as long as it's in a "game meant for public enjoyment" and it allowed them to make a lot of money? Not the lesson I would want to teach my kids but hey to each his own. Let me ask you a question. Imagine you are a 24 year old minor league pitcher. You know the only thing keeping you from becoming a major leaguer is a better fastball. If you thought you could take something that would give you an extra 5-8mph on your fastball and get you to the big leagues, would you take it or just continue to toil in the minors for no money knowing you're not going to make it? Would I place fame and fortune above honesty and integrity? NO, I couldn't live with myself. I would hang up the cleats and find a way to make a honest living. I'd have less money but at least when I talked to my kids about values like honesty and integrity I could look them in the eye and wouldn't be a hypochrite. Now how about answering my question. Sure. What's the question? So you would be OK teaching your kids that being unethical, not following the rules and cheating is OK as long as it's in a "game meant for public enjoyment" and it allowed them to make a lot of money? No, I wouldn't teach them that. Oh I see. Your one of those do as I say not as I do guys. Not a walk the talk guy like me. Oh well like I said to each his own.

Would you also teach your kids it's OK to cheat their way through college so they could get better grades and presumably a higher paying job? Or to trade on inside information in violation of the securities laws because it would allow them to make a great deal of money? Absolutely not, but those aren't games meant for public enjoyment.[/quote] So you would be OK teaching your kids that being unethical, not following the rules and cheating is OK as long as it's in a "game meant for public enjoyment" and it allowed them to make a lot of money? Not the lesson I would want to teach my kids but hey to each his own. Let me ask you a question. Imagine you are a 24 year old minor league pitcher. You know the only thing keeping you from becoming a major leaguer is a better fastball. If you thought you could take something that would give you an extra 5-8mph on your fastball and get you to the big leagues, would you take it or just continue to toil in the minors for no money knowing you're not going to make it? Would I place fame and fortune above honesty and integrity? NO, I couldn't live with myself. I would hang up the cleats and find a way to make a honest living. I'd have less money but at least when I talked to my kids about values like honesty and integrity I could look them in the eye and wouldn't be a hypochrite. Now how about answering my question. Sure. What's the question? So you would be OK teaching your kids that being unethical, not following the rules and cheating is OK as long as it's in a "game meant for public enjoyment" and it allowed them to make a lot of money?

Would you also teach your kids it's OK to cheat their way through college so they could get better grades and presumably a higher paying job? Or to trade on inside information in violation of the securities laws because it would allow them to make a great deal of money? Absolutely not, but those aren't games meant for public enjoyment.[/quote] So you would be OK teaching your kids that being unethical, not following the rules and cheating is OK as long as it's in a "game meant for public enjoyment" and it allowed them to make a lot of money? Not the lesson I would want to teach my kids but hey to each his own. Let me ask you a question. Imagine you are a 24 year old minor league pitcher. You know the only thing keeping you from becoming a major leaguer is a better fastball. If you thought you could take something that would give you an extra 5-8mph on your fastball and get you to the big leagues, would you take it or just continue to toil in the minors for no money knowing you're not going to make it? Would I place fame and fortune above honesty and integrity? NO, I couldn't live with myself. I would hang up the cleats and find a way to make a honest living. I'd have less money but at least when I talked to my kids about values like honesty and integrity I could look them in the eye and wouldn't be a hypochrite. Now how about answering my question.

And when you are caught doing it, you no longer look like the svelt, well toned 6 foot tall athlete that I remembered you to be. All I see is a 6' tall syringe stepping to the plate. If that's how you wish to be remembered, more power to you. Enjoy your millions and all the public castration. I wonder if Mark McGuire had it all to do over again, if he would have gone near the stuff. I'll also bet there isn't a public place he can go without hearing whispers. Or at least been a man at the congressional hearings and admitted it instead of coming off like a fool. This country is very forgiving to people that admit their mistakes.

Would you also teach your kids it's OK to cheat their way through college so they could get better grades and presumably a higher paying job? Or to trade on inside information in violation of the securities laws because it would allow them to make a great deal of money? Absolutely not, but those aren't games meant for public enjoyment.[/quote] So you would be OK teaching your kids that being unethical, not following the rules and cheating is OK as long as it's in a "game meant for public enjoyment" and it allowed them to make a lot of money? Not the lesson I would want to teach my kids but hey to each his own.

Would you also teach your kids it's OK to cheat their way through college so they could get better grades and presumably a higher paying job? Or to trade on inside information in violation of the securities laws because it would allow them to make a great deal of money?

If any Cubs get caught with HGH like Ankiel and Glaus did they deserve to get nailed and I for one won't spend my time making up flimsy excuses for them and hiding behind technicalities. The flimsy excuses are dog crap - I agree. However neither Ankiel NOR Glaus have been caught with HGH. Giambi admitted it, and faced no punishment. I'm not sure I would expect ANY discipline for anybody this season, short of a failed drug test (like Sanchez, Palmeiro) IMO, records documenting Ankiel received eight shipments of HGH is the same thing as getting caught with HGH. To think otherwise, is to hide behind semantics and technicalities. http://www.freep.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070906/SPORTS12/70907002

If any Cubs get caught with HGH like Ankiel and Glaus did they deserve to get nailed and I for one won't spend my time making up flimsy excuses for them and hiding behind technicalities.

So much for the who cares this was is just a story in a worthless New York tabloid defense.

Agree. The logical thing would be to get rid of Dempster next year, bring in a reliable set up guy and make Marmol and his 1.45 ERA and high strike out ratio the closer. But who's going to take Dempster and the $5.3 million contract Hendry signed him to? Jake - Can we go to the Pirates well one more time please? Demster would be a good compliment to the highly paid Matt Morris.

The latest thoughts and clarifications Jayson Stark gave to Red Bird fans. http://proxy.espn.go.com/chat/chatESPN?event_id=17112 --------------------------------------------------------------------------------