Jehrico

Am I the only one that thinks Noah just got hot at the right time, and that he's a future NBA flop? I wouldn't waste a #15 pick on him.

I can't stream any real media feeds from work, but I can get MLBTV though... I'm gonna be POd if in a week they figure it out and block that feed too... The only other alternative I can think of off of the top of my head is maybe stream the feed at home, and use slingbox to feed it to your work? Your firewall might not catch that, and you can use one of several remote programs to control your home PC from work. This could leave your computer at home more vulnerable to wanker hackers though.

If you're using them, after awhile, your body begins to depend on them to help heal itself. If you stop using them suddenly, the body won't do as good of a job at healing itself. I'm not an expert, but I know enough that there's more to it than that. Steriods have short term and long term effects. One of the short terms effect is a positive one, in that it can help your body heal from certain types of injuries more quickly. Over the long term though, it can have an opposite effect, from what I understand.

Technically, 4/5 of them are or were from Chicago :D

I give it about the same credibility as CBS News. You got me...I've got nothing on that one....

My problem is that because we are looking at "leaked" testimony, we don't really know what was said. No one is willing to go on the record and say I heard Barry say that. You don't know if the leaks are complete, taken out of context or anything. My point is, anybody who leaks secret grand jury testimony is not the type of person I would trust. It's not just a matter of trusting the reporters, it's trusting their anonymous sources. And their sources are either lying (because what they are leaking isn't really in the grand jury testimony) or criminals (for leaking sealed testimony). Barry's had over a year to refute that he admitted to using the "cream and the clear" during testimony, and has failed to do so. Couple that with him displaying virtually every known symptom of Roid abuse, there's little doubt in my mind. His lawyers tried to sue the writers of the "shadows" book because of illegally obtained grand jury testimony. Not for slander, not for printing lies, but for using illegally obtained testimony. Can he do any more to prove that the leaked testimony was in fact what he said other than coming forward and directly saying so in the press? It's a matter of principle to me. To attach any credibility to illegally obtained leaks of secret grand jury testimony is to encourage more leaks. And the higher the risk of leaks, the lower the probability that people testifying in a grand jury will speak openly and freely, not just about baseball and steroids (who cares), but about organized crime or political corruption, etc. I figure what little I can do to discredit leaks is supporting the grand jury process. I see your point, and agree with your opinion in part. However, the testimony has been leaked, and Bonds has all but publicly admitted that the reported testimony was in fact his. You can't undo it. You don't have to like it, but you can't simply ignore it and treat it with the same credibility as a story off of the back page of the national enquirer because you don't like how the facts were obtained. Right or wrong, Principle or not, the information is out there. In a civil court case, you don't have to prove something beyond a shadow of a doubt, only that there is sufficient evidence to reasonably believe someone did something. In my book, the court of public opinion should fall along the same guidelines as civil litigation. Someone who thinks it's ridiculous to suggest Nomar is on roids because of his injury history but thinks it's okay to perpetuate the line that Bonds is a cheater isn't hypocritical, and shouldn't be treated as such like badger was on the front page (not by you though). It is way more than reasonable to believe the leaked testimony is accurate based on Bonds reactions to it.

I like seeing 4+ pitchers in AAA who could reasonably come up and do well for us if needed.

As long as they're empty... I can't stand it when people waste good beer. Thrown AT them? No. Thrown on the ground 5-10 feet from them to get their attention? I don't see a problem with it. If you can't throw ANYTHING on the field, then we shouldn't be able to throw visiting team's home runs back, either.

My problem is that because we are looking at "leaked" testimony, we don't really know what was said. No one is willing to go on the record and say I heard Barry say that. You don't know if the leaks are complete, taken out of context or anything. My point is, anybody who leaks secret grand jury testimony is not the type of person I would trust. It's not just a matter of trusting the reporters, it's trusting their anonymous sources. And their sources are either lying (because what they are leaking isn't really in the grand jury testimony) or criminals (for leaking sealed testimony). Barry's had over a year to refute that he admitted to using the "cream and the clear" during testimony, and has failed to do so. Couple that with him displaying virtually every known symptom of Roid abuse, there's little doubt in my mind. His lawyers tried to sue the writers of the "shadows" book because of illegally obtained grand jury testimony. Not for slander, not for printing lies, but for using illegally obtained testimony. Can he do any more to prove that the leaked testimony was in fact what he said other than coming forward and directly saying so in the press?

Has anyone confirmed that on the record as opposed to unattributed leaks? If I recall correctly, wasn't it the Grand Jury testimony that got Conte sentenced to prison? Or was it the congressional testimony? It was one of the two. It would be trial jury testimony that is required to sentence someone to prison, not grand jury testimony. I'm not aware of Bonds testifying under oath in open court, and I believe the grand jury testimony is still sealed. Have I missed something? I don't know if it was the grand jury testimony, or the testimony that was given during the sentencing phase, but what I meant was it was either testiminoy given related to the Conte case, or the congressional hearings. The testimony might be sealed legally, but it was leaked, and Bonds has not refuted his alleged testimony. That may not be enough to convict him in a criminal court, but it's enough to erase any doubt in my mind that he did it, and that's without coupling it with all of the other signs of steroid abuse that he's exhibited.

I like bags, which describes how his uniform looks when he wears it. Could also refer to his penchant for swiping bags.

Has anyone confirmed that on the record as opposed to unattributed leaks? If I recall correctly, wasn't it the Grand Jury testimony that got Conte sentenced to prison? Or was it the congressional testimony? It was one of the two.

you should stop throwing around accusations when you have no idea what the truth is. that's a pretty funny thing to say with your sig and all. It's pretty obvious Bonds has used steroids. Not so with Nomar. The amount of circumstantial evidence is infinitely greater for Barroid, than for Nomar. In fact I'd bet alot of money that Barroid has used and Nomar hasn't. you should stop throwing around accusations when you don't know what the truth is. you haven't seen bonds shoot up the same way you haven't seem nomar. just because you think nomar is a likeable guy and barry seems like a donkey's rear doesn't make nomar less likely to have used, it just makes nomar a likeable guy and barry a donkey's rear. i understand that barry LOOKS more likely to have used, but would you have figured felix heredia or some of the small time guys busted through testing would have used? be fair. anyone could have been using. anyone. i'm not making any accusations, just pointing out. Barry has admitted using steroids...has everyone forgotten that? He only denies doing it knowingly.

They opened up July with a bang:

Does anyone know if the guy that had the hitting streak from last year kept it going today?

Barry: Peaked in his late 30s, after hittin 73 when he was 36, and posting more atrocious numbers after that. Admitted to using "the cream and the clear" during testimony (denied knowing they were steriods at the time). Put on considerable mass as he got older, always had a bad disposition. Never missed much time due to injuries before steroid testing began. Nomar: Peaked in his mid to late 20s (typical for a normal person not on roids). Never put on considerable body mass during his career. Had injury concerns before steroid testing began. Never known to go on a "roid rage," nor has he shown any other symptons of Roid abuse. The assumption that Nomar's lack of durability is related to roids is ignorant, as he's had problems like this that predated the Roids controversy. Considering the Bonds described in testimony using the cream and the clear, that's a whole 'nother story.

He was down in the count 1-2...can't necessarily blame him for taking the protective swing. You take protective swings on close pitches... not ones that are about to bounce off the plate... I think it was a curve ball, it started out knee high. Gotta give Harang credit for a good pitch on that one.

Valentin hits one to deep center, Pierre makes a nice catch as he collides with the wall.

He was down in the count 1-2...can't necessarily blame him for taking the protective swing.

Yeah, cuz we're up...

another trivia fact from the announcers...this is the youngest opening day lineup for the Cubs since '77.

No he didn't. That fence is about 15 ft. tall. He snagged it over the padding...I thought clearing the padding was a HR, my mistake. The black backgroudn above it looks confusing on MLBTV.

Murton giveth, and he taketh away!

Murton! Robbed the grand slam to end the inning!

A fan just took a pop foul off of the top of the head...lol