Jump to content


Yo! You're not logged in. Why am I seeing this ad?

Photo

Congressional Hearings gamethread


  • Please log in to reply
2399 replies to this topic

#1 Varitekstheman

  • 241 posts

Posted 15 January 2008 - 09:49 AM

being streamed live on espn.com

so far:

we're doing this for the children

Bud and Don have done a good job implementing the PED offender program--many pats on the back

Committee has requested Dopt of Justice to investigate whether Tejada provided false testimony in 05.

"We're not focused on the past"....hmm sounds familiar

#2 Varitekstheman

  • 241 posts

Posted 15 January 2008 - 09:56 AM

Other than Tejada, they are staying away from names.

Focusing on broader conclusions.

#3 Guapos Toenails

  • 1,795 posts

Posted 15 January 2008 - 10:12 AM

more please...

#4 Lars The Wanderer

  • 3,115 posts

Posted 15 January 2008 - 10:14 AM

In a response to Rep. Towns, Mitchell reiterated that the MLBPA was largely uncooperative in the investigation.

Edited by Lars The Wanderer, 15 January 2008 - 10:22 AM.


#5 Varitekstheman

  • 241 posts

Posted 15 January 2008 - 10:15 AM

Mitchell under questioning

"players association largely uncooperative"

Rep from NY very concerned about this

#6 Varitekstheman

  • 241 posts

Posted 15 January 2008 - 10:23 AM

RE: players being given the ability to respond

Mitchell--

players had to consent to an interview to see the evidence against them

Former player was cleared by meeting with Mitchell. That player had bought PEDs but said he never used it. Mitchell says the player provided evidence that he never used the PED.

#7 Lars The Wanderer

  • 3,115 posts

Posted 15 January 2008 - 10:24 AM

Mitchell restated that per the CBA, all requests to contact to players regarding PED allegations had to go through the MLBPA. He said he made two such requests. Both times, the MLBPA stated that the players "respectfully declined".

#8 Lars The Wanderer

  • 3,115 posts

Posted 15 January 2008 - 10:28 AM

Mitchell: "Hundreds of thousands of American youngsters are using steroids".

Personally, I think this statement is bullshit.

#9 Varitekstheman

  • 241 posts

Posted 15 January 2008 - 10:30 AM

RE: Amnesty for past uses

Mitchell

Past transgressions should not be punished unless the commissioner thinks that discipline is necessary to maintain integrity of the game.

#10 Varitekstheman

  • 241 posts

Posted 15 January 2008 - 10:41 AM

Rep Shays CT

"Why should cheating be a matter of collective bargaining?"

references Blacksox scandal


He is going to go after Clemens, hardcore.

EDIT: Shays goes after Selig for keeping Palmeiro's positive test quiet until after he got his 3000th hit. Should be fun when Bud gets up to testify.

Edited by Varitekstheman, 15 January 2008 - 10:46 AM.


#11 Lars The Wanderer

  • 3,115 posts

Posted 15 January 2008 - 10:44 AM

He is going to go after Clemens, hardcore.


It sounds more like Shays has Selig in his sights. He inferred that MLB kept Palmeiro's positive test under wraps until after he got his 3000th hit.

#12 inoffensiv philosophy

  • 92 posts

Posted 15 January 2008 - 10:46 AM

Are other people getting video from ESPN.com? I only have audio...

#13 opes


  • Doctor Tongue


  • 2,811 posts

Posted 15 January 2008 - 10:47 AM

Superfan Rep. Christopher Shay babbles about "Mr. Palmeri" and asks if he was tested before or after his 3000 hit.

It effectively gets ignored by someone,(Congressional committee??) saying he has ran out of time to ask his question.

It was babbbled about for a few minutes, and Mitchell said it he was tested before.

It was a weird exchange.

EDIT: I'm getting video and audio.

Edited by opes, 15 January 2008 - 10:48 AM.


#14 Varitekstheman

  • 241 posts

Posted 15 January 2008 - 10:50 AM

It sounds more like Shays has Selig in his sights. He inferred that MLB kept Palmeiro's positive test under wraps until after he got his 3000th hit.



I think you are right.

Shays, instead, wants to focus on finding the best way to rid baseball of the taint of performance-enhancing drugs. Baseball's leadership, he said, deserves the brunt of the blame for ignoring the problem.

"Part of it is that major league baseball has been incredibly passive on this issue to the point of condoning it," he said. "And so, who do I think is mostly at fault? The commissioner, frankly, for tolerating it and for not having the guts to step up and say we need changes and if you don't agree with me, then find someone else to run this corrupt process."


espn.com

#15 opes


  • Doctor Tongue


  • 2,811 posts

Posted 15 January 2008 - 10:50 AM

More collective bargaining discussion.
A committee member ripping apart the Mitchell's suggestion to MLB to not punish them.

Equating it to giving amenesty to drug dealers and users.

Rep. Mark Souder

#16 InsideTheParker


  • SoSH Member


  • 7,112 posts

Posted 15 January 2008 - 10:53 AM

Was Shays really going after the union there? His point seemed to be that the agreement with the union precluded revealing Palmiero's positive test until after he broke a record. His theme seemed to be Lousy Union Arrogates to Itself the Right to Cover up Cheating which Ruins Historic Records.

#17 opes


  • Doctor Tongue


  • 2,811 posts

Posted 15 January 2008 - 10:57 AM

Now being asked theoretically how successful it would be with subpeona power.

#18 Lars The Wanderer

  • 3,115 posts

Posted 15 January 2008 - 11:02 AM

Rep. Yarmuth from Kentucky taking an opportunity to plug the Lousiville Slugger.

#19 opes


  • Doctor Tongue


  • 2,811 posts

Posted 15 January 2008 - 11:03 AM

No improvement after using?

Is this guy high?

#20 Lukiewerle

  • 261 posts

Posted 15 January 2008 - 11:05 AM

Watching this, am I the only one that is totally shocked by the total ignorance of steroids in regards to what they do, how they work, how they are obtained etc. by everyone involved in this hearing?

Elijah Cummings rambling on about youth taking there allowance and going to stores on weekends and buying steroids, to me, was a prime example of this sort of ignorance.

#21 jayhoz


  • browndog's marshmallow bitch


  • 10,370 posts

Posted 15 January 2008 - 11:05 AM

No improvement after using?

Is this guy high?

Any chance you guys can include as much detail as possible for those of us not watching or listening?

#22 opes


  • Doctor Tongue


  • 2,811 posts

Posted 15 January 2008 - 11:12 AM

Sorry Jayhoz,

Rep. Yarmuth was stating he read a study of a sociologist and someone else(cant recall), that showed of all those named in the report had no improvement after using.
Rep. Yarmuth in a way was downplaying the significance of PED's if they did not actually provide a improved result.

Mitchell replied saying at least there is a placebo effect, but he stated he believed there were many cases that showed significant improvement after use.

#23 Lars The Wanderer

  • 3,115 posts

Posted 15 January 2008 - 11:13 AM

Rep. Horton is probably going to ask about Clemens. She mentioned "one specific player who denied the allegations".

#24 Lars The Wanderer

  • 3,115 posts

Posted 15 January 2008 - 11:15 AM

Rep. Horton asks why Clemens refused to discuss the allegations when they were discovered.

Mitchell: "I don't know why."

#25 Lars The Wanderer

  • 3,115 posts

Posted 15 January 2008 - 11:16 AM

Mitchell states that Andy P.'s confirmation of McNamee's testimony establishes his (McNamee) credibility.

Edited by Lars The Wanderer, 15 January 2008 - 11:17 AM.


#26 Delicious Sponge

  • 1,016 posts

Posted 15 January 2008 - 11:19 AM

Summary of Mitchell's answer: Roger Clemens is a lying asshole.

Also, is Rep. McCollum coherent?

Edited by Delicious Sponge, 15 January 2008 - 11:21 AM.


#27 InsideTheParker


  • SoSH Member


  • 7,112 posts

Posted 15 January 2008 - 11:21 AM

McCollum from Minnesota (?) says baseball fans defrauded by a conspiracy by mlb, owners and players of "cheating for profit."
Does that mean there will be refunds?

#28 ekim colorwaterpit

  • 987 posts

Posted 15 January 2008 - 11:22 AM

I'm embarrassed to live in Minnesota. This lady sucks

#29 Lukiewerle

  • 261 posts

Posted 15 January 2008 - 11:23 AM

I wonder how she feels about football.

#30 opes


  • Doctor Tongue


  • 2,811 posts

Posted 15 January 2008 - 11:24 AM

That was 4 minutes of a pure babbling.

#31 Guapos Toenails

  • 1,795 posts

Posted 15 January 2008 - 11:24 AM

Thanks for the updates...keep em coming...

#32 Delicious Sponge

  • 1,016 posts

Posted 15 January 2008 - 11:24 AM

Rep. McCollum's line of questioning is exactly the problem that, frankly, the Players Union has wrought here by their stonewalling of Mitchell.

By doing that they squarely left this issue in the hands of un-informed legislators with a tailor-made opportunity to grandstand. This will lead to no end of trouble for both the union and the owners. They better come to some kind of a deal soon to "voluntarily" implement serious testing, etc. or else something much worse will happen.

#33 InsideTheParker


  • SoSH Member


  • 7,112 posts

Posted 15 January 2008 - 11:25 AM

I'm embarrassed to live in Minnesota. This lady sucks

I don't know. In a way, she is right. There was a game within the game unknown to most fans. But Mitchell is also right when he responds that "looking for an advantage" in sports is an ancient practice, not limited to modern times. As a fan, it would be nice to think that there was more of a level playing field, but that would require a salary cap. MLB is so far from wanting a level playing field, it ain't funny.

#34 opes


  • Doctor Tongue


  • 2,811 posts

Posted 15 January 2008 - 11:27 AM

I don't know. In a way, she is right. There was a game within the game unknown to most fans. But Mitchell is also right when he responds that "looking for an advantage" in sports is an ancient practice, not limited to modern times. As a fan, it would be nice to think that there was more of a level playing field, but that would require a salary cap. MLB is so far from wanting a level playing field, it ain't funny.



I agree with the point she was trying to make about fraud, but that was grandstanding at its worst.

#35 ekim colorwaterpit

  • 987 posts

Posted 15 January 2008 - 11:27 AM

I don't know. In a way, she is right. There was a game within the game unknown to most fans. But Mitchell is also right when he responds that "looking for an advantage" in sports is an ancient practice, not limited to modern times. As a fan, it would be nice to think that there was more of a level playing field, but that would require a salary cap. MLB is so far from wanting a level playing field, it ain't funny.



Yeah, but really what does she want done? Return billions of dollars to the fans? Yeah right, its so ridiculous that taking 5 minutes to finally spit her question out just wasted 5 minutes of everyones time. Plus she could hardly even read the question and kept missing her place. She came off looking like an idiot.

Edited by ekim colorwaterpit, 15 January 2008 - 11:28 AM.


#36 Lars The Wanderer

  • 3,115 posts

Posted 15 January 2008 - 11:28 AM

Rep. Welch seems to be continuing the line of questioning that suggests that MLB and MLBPA both knew about and condoned PED use.

#37 opes


  • Doctor Tongue


  • 2,811 posts

Posted 15 January 2008 - 11:31 AM

Rep. Davis: Does MLB has the ability to police itself, or does it need legislative help?
Mitchell: I believe MLB can do it.

EDIT: Mitchell saying its a dynamic problem that is constantly changing.

Edited by opes, 15 January 2008 - 11:32 AM.


#38 Lars The Wanderer

  • 3,115 posts

Posted 15 January 2008 - 11:33 AM

Mitchell's time on the hot seat is up. He closes by saying the MLB and clubs were cooperative but the MLBPA was not.

#39 opes


  • Doctor Tongue


  • 2,811 posts

Posted 15 January 2008 - 11:33 AM

Bud Selig is up in 10 minutes. When will players be up? Or will they even?

#40 Lars The Wanderer

  • 3,115 posts

Posted 15 January 2008 - 11:34 AM

Bud Selig is up in 10 minutes. When will players be up? Or will they even?


I don't believe the players are testifying today.

#41 DamonasaNomad

  • 2,613 posts

Posted 15 January 2008 - 11:34 AM

Rep. Davis: How cooperative were the Commissioner's office and the Players Assoc. with your investigation?

Mitchell: The Commish's office and the baseball clubs, unbelievably cooperative. The Players Assoc., not cooperative

#42 Lars The Wanderer

  • 3,115 posts

Posted 15 January 2008 - 11:36 AM

Tejada is fucked. DOJ investigation into Miguel's denial of steroid use.

#43 DamonasaNomad

  • 2,613 posts

Posted 15 January 2008 - 11:38 AM

Roger Cossack saying that the fact that Congress had instructed the DOJ to investigate Tejada for perjury is very serious: "Perjury is what brought Martha Stewart down."

Might have its effect on Fat Roger...

#44 RedSoxTarheel38

  • 363 posts

Posted 15 January 2008 - 11:39 AM

Tejada is fucked. DOJ investigation into Miguel's denial of steroid use.

Many people don't remember this, but Martha Stewart was convicted of the same thing and you see where she ended up. Tejada's fine, the only thing that's going to take a hit is his already tainted credibility.

#45 Lars The Wanderer

  • 3,115 posts

Posted 15 January 2008 - 11:40 AM

Many people don't remember this, but Martha Stewart was convicted of the same thing and you see where she ended up. Tejada's fine, the only thing that's going to take a hit is his already tainted credibility.


Martha ended up in jail. I don't believe Tejada is going to fair any better.

#46 opes


  • Doctor Tongue


  • 2,811 posts

Posted 15 January 2008 - 11:43 AM

Many people don't remember this, but Martha Stewart was convicted of the same thing and you see where she ended up. Tejada's fine, the only thing that's going to take a hit is his already tainted credibility.


Yeah she ended up in prison.
Prison != fine

Sure, if convicted, he wont be on death row in San Quentin. But I havent heard many guys in prison say it was fine and dandy.

#47 Delicious Sponge

  • 1,016 posts

Posted 15 January 2008 - 11:43 AM

Calm down, the committee sent a letter to the DOJ asking them to answer if they think maybe Tejada lied.

Congressional committees-- or even Congress-- can't "instruct" the DOJ to do anything. The DOJ may or may not give much of a substantive answer to the question posed, or do anything about it either way, unless they think there was something systematic going on. Which may or may not become apparent from the work of this committee.

#48 DamonasaNomad

  • 2,613 posts

Posted 15 January 2008 - 11:46 AM

roger Cossack saying that there's "a hanging chad" regarding the fact that the one player's name Mitchell said he took out of the report was implicated by Mcnamee, and therefore hurts McNamee's credibility.

But that player admitted he got steroids, just claimed he didn't use them. So if mcNamee said he gave them to the player, but did not inject them personally, it actually supports McNamee's cred.

#49 Lars The Wanderer

  • 3,115 posts

Posted 15 January 2008 - 11:46 AM

Selig and Fehr up now.

#50 InsideTheParker


  • SoSH Member


  • 7,112 posts

Posted 15 January 2008 - 11:48 AM

Cossack of ESPN seems to be arguing that McNamee must have lied in the case of the player he named who later cleared himself by talking to Mitchell. But I believe that Cossack is wrong, as that the unnamed player convinced Mitchell not that he hadn't bought the peds, but that he still had them and hadn't taken them.

It seems to me that throughout this Cossack has been very hostile to the Report.

Edit: oops, seems that damonasnomad beat me to it.

Edited by InsideTheParker, 15 January 2008 - 11:49 AM.





2 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users


    Google (1)