Jump to content
NBC Sports Edge Forums

ESPN Special: Congressional hearing


Wizard of Boz

Recommended Posts

Well- One of these gents said that this will be the last hearing on the matter- a comment that seems rather odd given the incomplete denouement this particular hearing by its very construct was/is going to offer.

BUT- Given that perjury is so wickedly difficult to prove legally, if there are to be no more hearings on the matter and Pettitte was never crossed during this hearing about his deposition I can't see ANYTHING of a legal nature in a prosecutorial manner will happen involving Clemens.

The two that have appeared before this committee today are self-contradictory liars. We can judge relatively which is lying more. But really, Zara's likening this to a "dog and pony show" is unfair to dog and pony shows everywhere. At least they have some sort of conclusion, arbitrary or not.

I'd go w/ the hamster in it's cage on a wheel. Keep running but going no where. Even equating it to that is a disservice to all hamsters. lol

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 112
  • Created
  • Last Reply
i dont really agree with him being a drug dealer.

to my understanding(and correct me if i am wrong) macnamme followed and order by certain individuals to help them purchase steroids for use. he did not seek out anyone and try to push or convince them to take drugs nor was he the ultimate supplier,. what he did was fulfill a request to obtain the drugs for use by another person. the person whom he had obtained the steroids from was the actual drug dealer. he did not sell these drugs to make a profit and he did not solicit players to take them.

to me a drug dealer is a person who is in the business of selling drugs to make a profit, they have no bias as to who they would solicit and are only involved because of the monetary rewards that come with the business.

I can relate this to a sale of marijuana. Example

Friend 1 smokes marijuana and buys the marijuana from a drug dealer who sells a certain quantity at a marked up price in order for himself to make a substantial profit . Friend 2 smokes marijuana often or occasionally and asks friends 1 that if the next time you make a pickup would you mind grabbing a bag for me(maybe his dealer is out of town or whatever). Friend 1 says sure and purchases 2 quantity's of marijuana from his dealer say for $20 dollars each. Friend 1 is repayed by friend 2 $20 for the cost of the bag from the dealer. Friend 1 is not a drug dealer he simply fulfilled a request from friend 2 to obtain drugs from his drug dealer for personal use.

Based on my understanding and my reasoning I don't think its fair to label macnamme a drug deal, he was engaging in illegal activities no doubt but the label of drug deal doesn't seem fair or accurate simply because he knew how and who to obtain the drugs that were requested by another person

Word. Clemens was McNamee's employer, and McNamee only purchased drugs when asked by Clemens. McNamee isn't a drug dealer, he's a delivery boy.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Yep, and you guys are 3 of the best posters in this forum. Ever considered what Lilguy posted was what he has read? You might say well maybe he needs to read stuff that is from a reliable source, or is credible. I've read three different articles that actually support what Lilguy said, but that doesn't necessarily make one or the other right or wrong. Maybe for what ever reasons he hasn't had the chance to do the research as say, Zara has to backup what he's posting. You guys were real quick to bash him on how wrong he was, but I'm not sure how you can bash somebody if he's posting what he's read. I guess my point here is if you're reading 3, 4, 5 articles stating HGH is most effective when taken @ high doses and in a cycle/s you begin to believe consistency in the articles must make it true. As usual, I'm probably wrong assuming this (fck it). The words you used in this post that was edited really bothered me. I will guarantee you if he attacked you in this forum like you attacked him, and used the word" ignorant or ignorance" you would write three paragraphs on trying to make him feel as small as an ant. Most guys won't even think about starting a debate or argument with you because of your incredible writing skills and your knowledge of the game. Sometimes I wonder if you only respect those who you think are on your level. I'll be the first to admit I don't have excellent grammar/writing skills, but that doesn't take away my right posting on here, and respecting others as I would want to be respected. I have respect for you T-Man and there's no denying your unique writing skills some of the best I've seen. Respond however you like, I can take it I'm a BIG boy.

One cannot make or take an absolutely incorrect position and parrot it and expect not to get a rise.

There is something to be said about refuting via posts, Vette. However- IF you have engaged multiple people iterating and employing similar erroneous information on numerous occasions you get a little tired of rehashing it. Zara suggested as did I that anyone can simply do a search and see the multiple thousand words we have posted previously on this matter. THOUSANDS of words.

You can also see how little effect it had.

I don't care if incorrect information is published thousands of times and that millions might form a completely wrong-headed opinion based on "facts" proffered therein. It will not change the fact that THAT "fact" is erroneous. Once genuine knowledge is disregarded any forensic exercise becomes an engagement of futility. It was out of that frustration that I did not have patience.

But you cannot stand by something as an absolute truth and not expect to get a rise out of me if I know it to be 100% untrue. You can experience effects from one shot of any hormone, synthetic or natural. You do not need to use a cycle. Most often "cycle" advisories exist as a means of explaining peak performance/utilization/enhancement programs. I guarantee that if you take one shot of a hormonal supplement you can experience beneficial effects or growth. I guarantee that because it has. On me. And I would use HGH if it didn't have so many contraindications for my condition. Hell- I used Vioxx for YEARS (and there's that evil Superfluous X again).

Link to post
Share on other sites
Word. Clemens was McNamee's employer, and McNamee only purchased drugs when asked by Clemens. McNamee isn't a drug dealer, he's a delivery boy.

I respectfully disagree. When someone supplies others w/ drugs for profit (the profit being furthering one's own career), I'll call that someone a dealer. If others choose not to use that term, fine. But I am shocked that the use of the term is being questioned.

this guy calling him a drug dealer is a moron, like he said he did what the players asked him to do. i just dont buy this drug dealer label, its complete bs and has nothing to do with roger clemens taking steriods

And as history shows us, "I was only following orders" is not a defense.

Link to post
Share on other sites
So Clemens and his wife, Knoblauch and Pettite are considered junkies?

I know it's supposed to be humorous, but I'll attempt to answer it anyway.

Junkies are addicts, so the term junkie would apply depending on the addictive qualities of PEDs.

I, for ex., am a baseball junkie ...

Link to post
Share on other sites
I respectfully disagree. When someone supplies others w/ drugs for profit (the profit being furthering one's own career), I'll call that someone a dealer. If others choose not to use that term, fine. But I am shocked that the use of the term is being questioned.

when talking about drug dealers the only profit that is relevant is the money taken home after subtracting the cost the dealer paid to obtain the drugs from the cost the dealer charged the end user. Furthering ones career has no relevance imo to macnamme being a druge dealer or not being one, it is simply the result of useing the drug

if im going to my buddies house to watch a game and he calls me and asks if i could pick up a pizza to bring over and that he will reimburse me once i arrive at this house , it doesnt mean im a pizza delivery boy. it just means i know where to get it and can help fulfill a request of friend who wants pizza.

im saying it was way out of line and inaccurate that that one guy kept insisting he is a drug dealer.

and to reply to your other comment, i am saying macnamme was wrong and what he did was illegal. so yes he has no defense against that point

Link to post
Share on other sites
when talking about drug dealers the only profit that is relevant is the money taken home after subtracting the cost the dealer paid to obtain the drugs from the cost the dealer charged the end user. Furthering ones career has no relevance imo to macnamme being a druge dealer or not being one, it is simply the result of useing the drug

if im going to my buddies house to watch a game and he calls me and asks if i could pick up a pizza to bring over and that he will reimburse me once i arrive at this house , it doesnt mean im a pizza delivery boy. it just means i know where to get it and can help fulfill a request of friend who wants pizza.

im saying it was way out of line and inaccurate that that one guy kept insisting he is a drug dealer.

We're going to have to agree to disagree.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Yep, and you guys are 3 of the best posters in this forum. Ever considered what Lilguy posted was what he has read? You might say well maybe he needs to read stuff that is from a reliable source, or is credible. I've read three different articles that actually support what Lilguy said, but that doesn't necessarily make one or the other right or wrong. Maybe for what ever reasons he hasn't had the chance to do the research as say, Zara has to backup what he's posting. You guys were real quick to bash him on how wrong he was, but I'm not sure how you can bash somebody if he's posting what he's read. I guess my point here is if you're reading 3, 4, 5 articles stating HGH is most effective when taken @ high doses and in a cycle/s you begin to believe consistency in the articles must make it true. As usual, I'm probably wrong assuming this (fck it). The words you used in this post that was edited really bothered me. I will guarantee you if he attacked you in this forum like you attacked him, and used the word" ignorant or ignorance" you would write three paragraphs on trying to make him feel as small as an ant. Most guys won't even think about starting a debate or argument with you because of your incredible writing skills and your knowledge of the game. Sometimes I wonder if you only respect those who you think are on your level. I'll be the first to admit I don't have excellent grammar/writing skills, but that doesn't take away my right posting on here, and respecting others as I would want to be respected. I have respect for you T-Man and there's no denying your unique writing skills some of the best I've seen. Respond however you like, I can take it I'm a BIG boy.

BTW- I am actually flummoxed at why people cannot draw a distinction between "ignorance" and "ignorant". Or accept the word "propaganda" for what it is.

When using "ignorance" or "ignorant" I am not (usually) calling the other Member "ignorant". A statement can be one of ignorance. A statement can be ignorant. Smart people make or repeat ignorant statements all the time.

Likewise "propaganda": Views are propagated and this information becomes taken as fact. The best propaganda has elements of truth in it. The idea that a "cycle" maximizes the potential effect of many drugs from Chemo to PEDs is absolutely true. The notion that one such treatment will have no effect is absolutely false.

as for my reaction here, in this thread, I'll revisit what I said in my last post by asking you to make it subjective: Have you ever been in an argument that was so protracted and draining and ultimately unfulfilling that as time went on your answers became curt, pithy, intense and angry? Of course you have. With me I have a very personal stake in this arena: I would do anything to recover abilities that I have lost to my disease...within reason. As soon as the actual truth about Vioxx was known I had to quit taking it no matter how beneficial it was to my hands. I now live with permanent damage that drug did to me.

I have taken steroids and hormones to get over flare-ups. I have been on short cycles but I have had plenty of one and dones as well. I could experience the benefit from HGH in only one shot. I know this because I have been on hormonal supplements with similar properties. Problem was: They didn't know then all the drawbacks to THOSE hormones (this was over 25 years ago). They do now. HGH has many of the same drawbacks, and even moreso. These things ARE known today.

I did NOT feel like posting all of this or revisiting the contraindications of HGH because I already have many times on these boards. (Also- That isn't what this thread is about as at least one moderator pointed out.)

Even in your left-handed "compliment" of my engagement techniques you convey a tacit understanding that I do not back down and usually provide the reasons behind my thought process. If you actually do believe that I am one of the better posters in these Forums I would hope you could stop and ponder my overly direct and blunt assessment and not just think I was bashing another Forum Member out of hubris.

So- Here's your multi-paragraph rebuttal. I hope you read it before it gets edited. I do not mean to be an a-hole, at least most of the time. But I am passionate and those passions are easily inflamed on certain subjects.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Yep, and you guys are 3 of the best posters in this forum. Ever considered what Lilguy posted was what he has read? You might say well maybe he needs to read stuff that is from a reliable source, or is credible. I've read three different articles that actually support what Lilguy said, but that doesn't necessarily make one or the other right or wrong. Maybe for what ever reasons he hasn't had the chance to do the research as say, Zara has to backup what he's posting. You guys were real quick to bash him on how wrong he was, but I'm not sure how you can bash somebody if he's posting what he's read. I guess my point here is if you're reading 3, 4, 5 articles stating HGH is most effective when taken @ high doses and in a cycle/s you begin to believe consistency in the articles must make it true. As usual, I'm probably wrong assuming this (fck it). The words you used in this post that was edited really bothered me. I will guarantee you if he attacked you in this forum like you attacked him, and used the word" ignorant or ignorance" you would write three paragraphs on trying to make him feel as small as an ant. Most guys won't even think about starting a debate or argument with you because of your incredible writing skills and your knowledge of the game. Sometimes I wonder if you only respect those who you think are on your level. I'll be the first to admit I don't have excellent grammar/writing skills, but that doesn't take away my right posting on here, and respecting others as I would want to be respected. I have respect for you T-Man and there's no denying your unique writing skills some of the best I've seen. Respond however you like, I can take it I'm a BIG boy.

Vette, as one of the guys who's posted a fair amount on HGH, it's true that I have supported Zara's & TM's views. But, to be clear, I didn't do it based on the eloquence of their posts, but frankly, because they have the layman's version of HGH as correct as it can be. And yes, their rebuttal of lilguy was abrupt, but after spending multiple threads going through the same arguments over & over, I can understand their lack of willingness to go through it all. I think Zara's solution of referring to the original thread was the best strategy, since there really is *no* need to do it all over again.

And to be clear, I don't think it can be rehashed in any less detail than in that thread - as Zara suggested, the facts and misconceptions and misrepresentations on HGH are best summed up there....

As a health professional, I would echo that anyone who posts that HGH is harmless is being reckless & irresponsible - the fact is, we don't know enough. The history of PED's has demonstrated time & again that there is risk involved, so assuming that HGH is the *miracle* no-toxicity drug is both naive and dangerous. Given TM's personal experience, he feels passionately about it, and so he posts passionately. When someone says HGH is proven to be harmless in specific regimens, I would be the first to step in line and call them out as being in the wrong, and frankly, given the dangerous message that is being sent, if a poster is willing to come out with such an irresponsible statement, I'd have no problem in being *emphatic* in the rebuttal.

As for the respect issue, I don't think the problem lies with Zara or TM's belief of who is on a perceived level. By & large, the posting community is made up of members who want to learn, share and discuss their passions. There are also a few posters who will simply post their perspective, and do little to support it. After the last thread, I can't blame TM & Zara for not wanting to take the trouble to go over it *all* - but to be fair, Zara did provide a link to the original thread, and TM has tried to be both informative and respectful in this issue - do check out the big thread & decide for yourself. If anything, Lilguy may have had the misfortune of repeating some of the dangerous assertions from before, and so did not get the full information rebuttal that was provided - but you know, after spending a couple of hours trying to help shed more light, I don't really feel like doing it all again either - hence Zara's referral to the original thread.

Lilguy took the trouble to post a rationale for his stance, so I'm by no means suggesting he is one of those posters that drive us all nuts by failing to even acknowledge (let alone consider) opposing points of view. However, I would also point out that it does truly appear to be cut & paste, and even if it's from articles or such, frankly, the information source should always be taken with a grain of salt. The fact that the information was giving information on how it should be best administered would suggest that it is from a source that has a direct interest in promoting its use.

There's also a more important message to be echoed here - the Internet is not the definitive source of information for all things. Because it's readily available to all, it is perceived that way. I wouldn't talk nuclear physics using web material only and expect to defend my positions from that alone - or, if I did, I'd have to be prepared to recognize that it's only web-based) if someone else came back with counter-points.

And to be clear, I agree with Zara & TM on this stance, but there are plenty of stuff we have disagreed on - using vetos in trades with TM, and the Yankees' lack of financial freedom (truth or myth) in influencing their chase for Johan with Zara. I don't think they accorded me respect because of my "level" of posting, but simply because I was willing to both provide informed counterpoints *and* truly consider counter-arguments for their merits. When a poster replies, "you can't be right, because this website says so", etc. then it kind of sends a message that no matter what the counterpoint being issued is, you're not willing to listen. *Those* are the only posters I don't think are worth having a discussion with, becaue it takes committed parties on *both* sides to have a meaningful discussion. And to be clear, I believe there are only a handful of such people around. I suspect TM & Zara would say much the same.

Now, you may accuse TM & Zara of doing the same type of behaviour in this thread - but given the information that lilguy was giving, it was nothing new to either one of them - to be fair, vette & lilguy, if you haven't read the Pettite thread, I wouldn't blame you for thinking the rebuttals were just based on bashing alone - but if you see their replies, and read the original Pettite thread, I think you'll see that they have gone through the same points before.

The worst part of this debate is that it underlies how little certainty there is from reading web-based or even print-based information (newspaper/TV articles). The web and newspapers are filled with "promising miracle drug" headlines & stories each & every week - and they're usually featured prominently. There are also a ton of "major problems found with earlier drug thought to be OK" articles, but they rarely find the same type of press. While I can speak on medicine from actual experience, I'm sure the same can be said about a lot of mass-media information on other sciences as well. It underlies the paradox that the more information we get, the less certain we become.

And to be clear, I'm not trashing any one poster here - and vette, you have made your case quite eloquently. But, read the original thread, and tell me if you *really* still think that TM & Zara were just being mean, or if they simply really, really, had the stuff discussed readily before, and just wanted to make it clear that lilguy's statement that HGH in a certain regimen is safe was 100 percent incorrect - which it is (the bottom line - there has never been a truly "safe" PED yet, we don't know enough about HGH to ascertain true long-term risk, and to say anything else is incorrect, and coming from a health professional/trainer, would be irresponsible and reckless IMO - so, if you want to take HGH, fine, but don't sell it as the magic, side-effect free solution - you are taking it at your own risk).

And FWIW, if someone doesn't want to argue with someone else because they feel they can't write as well, well I feel badly for them, but that should *no way* make TM or Zara the bad guy. If they have views that they can support with some facts, and are willing to engage in a truly *meaningful* discussion (not the "I'm right, and I don't need information to back it up" or "I'm right because I read it online", or "I don't really care what you say, I'm just going to keep my opinions regardless" positions that drive most of the posters nuts), then I think almost *all* of us would want to see that type of discussion happen. I won't always agree with TM or Zara, but I look forward to their posts, because it provides both information and thoughtful analysis - even if I still don't agree, I get something from it. In the end, I think that's most of us want - for those that want to simply have their views validated without argument, well that's what the MLB Team Home pages or the special interest pages are for.

Link to post
Share on other sites

And, to stay on the hearings - I'll add my 2 cents here - while nothing here would stand up in a court of law, in the court of public opinion, Pettite's affidavit and Clemens' own admission that Pettite had *nothing* to gain by making those assertions is probably *way* more damning than any 5-year old syringe.

As for the Congressman who asked Clemens what jersey he'd be wearing to the HOF, well, given how much public perception guides HOF voting, I think that's counting his chickens a little too soon (and way to spend your taxpayers' $ usefully.../end sarcasm mode).

Link to post
Share on other sites
BTW- I am actually flummoxed at why people cannot draw a distinction between "ignorance" and "ignorant". Or accept the word "propaganda" for what it is.

When using "ignorance" or "ignorant" I am not (usually) calling the other Member "ignorant". A statement can be one of ignorance. A statement can be ignorant. Smart people make or repeat ignorant statements all the time.

Likewise "propaganda": Views are propagated and this information becomes taken as fact. The best propaganda has elements of truth in it. The idea that a "cycle" maximizes the potential effect of many drugs from Chemo to PEDs is absolutely true. The notion that one such treatment will have no effect is absolutely false.

as for my reaction here, in this thread, I'll revisit what I said in my last post by asking you to make it subjective: Have you ever been in an argument that was so protracted and draining and ultimately unfulfilling that as time went on your answers became curt, pithy, intense and angry? Of course you have. With me I have a very personal stake in this arena: I would do anything to recover abilities that I have lost to my disease...within reason. As soon as the actual truth about Vioxx was known I had to quit taking it no matter how beneficial it was to my hands. I now live with permanent damage that drug did to me.

I have taken steroids and hormones to get over flare-ups. I have been on short cycles but I have had plenty of one and dones as well. I could experience the benefit from HGH in only one shot. I know this because I have been on hormonal supplements with similar properties. Problem was: They didn't know then all the drawbacks to THOSE hormones (this was over 25 years ago). They do now. HGH has many of the same drawbacks, and even moreso. These things ARE known today.

I did NOT feel like posting all of this or revisiting the contraindications of HGH because I already have many times on these boards. (Also- That isn't what this thread is about as at least one moderator pointed out.)

Even in your left-handed "compliment" of my engagement techniques you convey a tacit understanding that I do not back down and usually provide the reasons behind my thought process. If you actually do believe that I am one of the better posters in these Forums I would hope you could stop and ponder my overly direct and blunt assessment and not just think I was bashing another Forum Member out of hubris.

So- Here's your multi-paragraph rebuttal. I hope you read it before it gets edited. I do not mean to be an a-hole, at least most of the time. But I am passionate and those passions are easily inflamed on certain subjects.

Let me make myself clear here, I'm no expert and don't claim to be an expert on HGH and its benefits and side effects. I knew when you and Zara didn't agree with other post that HGH doesn't have to be taken in cycles to be effective, I knew you had your reasons without doubt, and I pretty much knew you could back those reasons up with facts. Don't think for a second when I replied to your post I didn't know what I was getting myself into. I knew you would have a strong response back, and I also knew many would support your argument. If I knew what I knew now, I doubt I would have responded the way I did or at all.

I do think you're one of the best posters in these forums. Sometimes it takes a little longer to understand what you're saying because you use words people don't see everyday. When I used the word bash it was probably the wrong word to use, In other words, a rush to judgment on my part. Even though I didn't like how you responded to another poster, I gave credit where it was due out of respect far as your knowledge and writing skills. That still doesn't excuse my rush to judgment and being wrong doing so.

I'm sorry to hear about your disease, and what Vioxx has done to your body. Everybody who lives this thing we call life has issues and sometimes it isn't fair at all. My mom is battling cancer and those drugs like Chemo & Radiation are taking their toll on someone I love more than anybody that walks the face of this earth. I bring this up because I'm not my normal self these days due to the stress that I've been under for several months. One reason why I come here is to get my mind off of what the disease cancer and the drugs used to fight the disease are doing to my mother. It doesn't take much for me to get angry and want to let my frustrations out, even though the situation I might be in has nothing to do with why I'm so stressed. Some may consider this an excuse, but far from it.

I will be fair and consider your request next time and stop and ponder my overly direct and blunt assessment and not just think I was bashing another Forum Member out of hubris.

RB, thanks for your post and helping to shed some light on the situation (I read the Big/original thread on HGH) All I can say is WOW! Now I see where T-Man was coming from. My bad! Much respect for RB, Zara, & T-Man. No hard feelings here.

Pardon me for my rush to judgment.

Link to post
Share on other sites

No big deal, Vette.

I appreciate your kind words and a mea culpa like that isn't just a pleasant shock but demonstrates a lot more class than my early 2 sentence answers here.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...