Tim McG

OK. All due respect, I think you might be riding a fine line there. It will be interesting to see how much benefit of the doubt Clemens gets compared to Bonds. I for one find his stunned denials a little hard to take. The thing about these top-level athletes is, they've been told how good they are since they were 10. Everyone around them and everything they've done through their entire lives is designed to build them up and make them the "best." When they are suddenly confronted with their own failings (we all have 'em) they don't know how to deal with it. They're just not equipped. They fall back onto people who will prop them up. So the weaker ones lie rather than deal with the truth. Even Pettitte's "confession" was slimy, IMO. "... If I did something wrong ...." Ah, yeah, you did something wrong. Just freakin' come clean. Fair enough.

Ah, but "slander" is a legal term, and has to be proven in a court of law, yes? And so if anyone in this report believes he has been slandered, I would think they'd be running to the courthouse to clear their good name (as opposed to offering semi-apologies/excuses ... cough, Pettitte, cough). I'm not sure -- beyond the Bonds thing -- why you feel so strongly that this whole steroid/HGH mess is a bunch of lies, or some huge conspiracy. At a certain point, the body of evidence has to persuade you that something is going on, no? You're entitled to your opinion, but ... Palmiero, McGwire, Sosa. Those three were pretty much exposed during the hearings a couple of years ago. Any doubts about them? Palmiero was flat out nailed. McGwire looked like a lying fool. And Sosa forgot how to speak English and left the country for a year. And Canseco, of course, admitted to using. Bonds is up on federal charges. If he's convicted, will that convince you that there's something amiss here? Or will that just reinforce the notion that it's all a witch hunt with no evidence at all? I never said the steroid issue was a bunch of lies. I was reacting to the comment that if these are lies, why don't the ballplayers sue. My reasons are what followed. Clearly, though, speculation rules the roost here. And that isn't proof.

Same here....and thank God, too.

Not exactly. The tabloids are just full of lies, half-truths and outright slander. People do not sue because it is at the very least an incredibily difficult thing to prove and at most, expensive. Lawsuits or not, lies stand for truth in this country on a regular basis. There is a difference in severity between tabloid trash and the accusations that are being directed towards the ballplayers. If I were Clemens and I were innocent and I would be livid right now. He obviously has the resources to go after Mitchell et al (as do others) and with MLB agreeing to indemnify Mitchell, there are plenty of deep pockets. Even if you don't have the cash, there are plenty of attorneys who would take this on. If you were clean, why wouldn't you go after these guys? I agree with this. There is a world of difference between tabloids and a considered investigative report. And so, if these fine athletes have been wrongly accused, let them file suit to restore their good names. ... We may be waiting awhile. And btw, put yourself in the shoes of a "clean" athlete. How do you think he/she feels about cheaters gaining an advantage, both on the field and in contract negotiations? Having said that, an interesting letter to the ed in today's NYTimes points out that there are legitimate uses for both steroids and HGH. Prescribed under the supervision of a doctor, they can aid healing, etc. ... Maybe baseball and other pro sports shouldn't throw the baby out with the bath water here and consider whether "regulating" the use of these substances is the more reasonable approach. ... Don't know, just something to consider. I disagree. Besmerching ones image in the public eye is as insidious as any baldfaced lie accepted as truth. What does it matter if the tabloids or the Mitchell Report perpetrate it? Slander is slander and it is still pass off as fact in this country and on a wholesale basis. The McCarthy Era speaks volumes on this point.

Basically, that's it...yes.

PayPal Spoof -------------------------------------------------------------------------------- This has been mentioned before [that there are phishers using false PayPal e-mails to access your account info, etc], but there is a new wrinkle: I recently went to [via a service@paypal.com e-mail] what I thought was a PayPal site. The security icon at the bottom of the page checked out and the SSL certificates were up to date. I surfed the site and it came up with every item I searched for and looked legit. In fact, I got this e-mail from this "PayPal" almost immediately after ordering a CD. A coincidence, I am sure...but it still is something to worry about. Today, we noticed three charges against our account via PayPal totaling over $1200 bucks. Long story short, between our bank and PayPal it appears two charges have been removed and the third should be refunded to us within ten days. The scary part was whoever was doing this [some guy from the UK we found out] completely hijacked my account by blocking my access and adding his own e-mail address. In fact, even as I was changing the log-on info, I was kicked off of the PayPal site. I am telling you all this for two reasons: #1 DO NOT open any unsolicited PayPal e-mails, period. None. Zip. Nada. #2 Be mindful of your own e-mail boxes that may have messages coming from my e-mail address. If they can hack into my PayPal account, they surely can hack into my e-mail address book. I am in the process of and have done so on numerous accounts [including my e-mail] changed my access information. Just a heads up: DO NOT OPEN anything with my e-mail address for the next couple weeks or so. OK? Rest assured, I have sent nothing to anyone here and I am doing everything within my power to change any/all log-on information to stop anything further from happening. Be ever diligent, my friends....I just dodged a bullet. Tim

Not exactly. The tabloids are just full of lies, half-truths and outright slander. People do not sue because it is at the very least an incredibily difficult thing to prove and at most, expensive. Lawsuits or not, lies stand for truth in this country on a regular basis.

That's absolute nonsense. It says that Mitchell was conducting research under an imperfect set of circumstances, namely that many parties refused to cooperate and he had no legal authority to compel them to cooperate, and that therefore the report is likely to be incomplete. This is an entirely different thing from saying that his research practices are poor. It is nearly certain that the vast majority of ballplayers who used steriods or improperly used HGH are not named in the report, but that can not be reasonably blamed on Mitchell. On the other hand, there is very damning evidence provided against most of the players who are named in the report, especially the cashed checks written to dealers. Larsen, He asked people to speculate....that isn't hard evidence; it is hearsay. His chief rat, er..."witness" is a convicted drug dealer, fer crissakes. The rest is forced MLB/Giambi testimony or the tabloid media jackals or waton assumption. Did you read the article?

Please notice his plea in a press conference reported on the Evening News today. He asks that no ballplayer be punished as a result of his [obviously piss-poor] report. Now what does that tell you, eh?

Wow pretty damning. A column written and published a few days before the Mitchell report even came out by a columnist who hasn't read it. And reading it changes the flawed method of research the Mitchell people used, um...how? You know, I don't need to experience a shark bite before I can understand how much it hurts, either. I can read about it and be perfectly satisfied that shark bites suck. I'm kinda funny that way. I actually did read that article and it doesn't support your claim at all. If anything, the theme of the article is "in order to judge the report, we'll have to read it when it comes out." From the article: I'm suprised more hasn't been made of all the cashed checks and handwritten notes from players that are included as figures and exhibits in the report; I think I said it above but the one from Paul Lo Duca near the end is a riot. I seriously do not know how you can come to any reasonable conclusion that the authors of this article are promoting the notion we need to read the report and then decide what it means. No. What it clearly states is Mitchell had a vested interest in Red Sox Baseball and that his reseach techniques were fatally flawed or contain irrevocable errors due to shoddy research practices.

Why thanks, Chuck. Nice to see somebody here understands the difference between accepting anything the media feeds you at face value VS actual thinking and reasoning. 'Preciate it.

Wow pretty damning. A column written and published a few days before the Mitchell report even came out by a columnist who hasn't read it. And reading it changes the flawed method of research the Mitchell people used, um...how? You know, I don't need to experience a shark bite before I can understand how much it hurts, either. I can read about it and be perfectly satisfied that shark bites suck. I'm kinda funny that way.

BTW....here's the "list" : The List

Funny...I didn't see Sammy Sosa, Mark McGuire or Rafael Palmiero on the "list." Hm.

Are you suggesting players who were doing unsportsmanlike things to improve their game (whether legal or not at the time) don't deserve scrutiny? Not at all. What I am saying is this report is so full of holes it couldn't pass for a screen door. Credibility is now in question as well as any "evidence" garnered by this group.

I think this does: Questions about the validity of the Mitchell Report

Not so fast, Aggie. You may want to read this first: Questions about the validity of the Mitchell Report

To wit: Mitchell Report

[ahem] I patiently await the over-focused media feeding frenzy to begin on this group of players. Yeah...that'll happen Clemens, Bonds, Tejada named in Mitchell Report By RONALD BLUM, AP Baseball Writer December 13, 2007 AP - Dec 13, 12:03 pm EST NEW YORK (AP) -- Roger Clemens, Miguel Tejada and Andy Pettitte were named in the long-awaited Mitchell Report on Thursday, an All-Star roster linked to steroids and other performance-enhancing drugs that put a question mark -- if not an asterisk -- next to some of baseball's biggest moments. Barry Bonds, already under indictment on charges of lying to a federal grand jury about steroids, also showed up in baseball's most infamous lineup since the Black Sox scandal. The report culminated a 20-month investigation by former Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell, hired by commissioner Bud Selig to examine the Steroids Era. It was uncertain whether the report would result in any penalties or suspensions. Several stars named in the report could pay the price in Cooperstown, much the way Mark McGwire was kept out of the Hall of Fame this year merely because of steroids suspicion. "Former commissioner Fay Vincent told me that the problem of performance-enhancing substances may be the most serious challenge that baseball has faced since the 1919 Black Sox scandal," Mitchell said in the 409-page report. "The illegal use of anabolic steroids and similar substances, in Vincent's view, is 'cheating of the worst sort.' He believes that it is imperative for Major League Baseball to 'capture the moral high ground' on the issue and, by words and deeds, make it clear that baseball will not tolerate the use of steroids and other performance-enhancing drugs." Eric Gagne and Paul Lo Duca were among other current players named in the report, both linked to Human Growth Hormone. "We identify some of the players who were caught up in this drive to gain a competitive advantage," the report said. "Other investigations will no doubt turn up more names and fill in more details, but that is unlikely to significantly alter the description of baseball's `steroids era' as set forth in this report."

Uh, huh. In New York they are performed by the Village Yutz.

30's tonight. 50's tomorrow.

Two strings walk into a bar, sit down and order a beer. The bartender leans over and glares at them then says, "We don't serve strings." After they go outside, one string says to the other, "I'll get us a beer." He proceeds to fray both ends of his string and tie himself into a knot. Then he goes back into the bar and orders a beer. The same bartender leans over and says, "Didn't I just tell you we don't serve strings?" "Frayed knot."

Two guys walk into a bar. The third one ducked.

Circumnsized here. My son, too. So who cares....?

I had forgot about I Can See for Miles...it was another big favorite of mine as a young teen.