Yo! You're not logged in. Why am I seeing this ad?
Congressional Hearings gamethread
#1
Posted 15 January 2008 - 09:49 AM
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
Posted 15 January 2008 - 09:56 AM
Focusing on broader conclusions.
#3
Posted 15 January 2008 - 10:12 AM
#4
Posted 15 January 2008 - 10:14 AM
Edited by Lars The Wanderer, 15 January 2008 - 10:22 AM.
#5
Posted 15 January 2008 - 10:15 AM
"players association largely uncooperative"
Rep from NY very concerned about this
#6
Posted 15 January 2008 - 10:23 AM
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
Posted 15 January 2008 - 10:24 AM
#8
Posted 15 January 2008 - 10:28 AM
Personally, I think this statement is bullshit.
#9
Posted 15 January 2008 - 10:30 AM
Mitchell
Past transgressions should not be punished unless the commissioner thinks that discipline is necessary to maintain integrity of the game.
#10
Posted 15 January 2008 - 10:41 AM
"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
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
Posted 15 January 2008 - 10:46 AM
#13
Posted 15 January 2008 - 10:47 AM
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
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
Posted 15 January 2008 - 10:50 AM
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
Posted 15 January 2008 - 10:53 AM
#17
Posted 15 January 2008 - 10:57 AM
#18
Posted 15 January 2008 - 11:02 AM
#19
Posted 15 January 2008 - 11:03 AM
Is this guy high?
#20
Posted 15 January 2008 - 11:05 AM
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
Posted 15 January 2008 - 11:05 AM
Any chance you guys can include as much detail as possible for those of us not watching or listening?No improvement after using?
Is this guy high?
#22
Posted 15 January 2008 - 11:12 AM
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
Posted 15 January 2008 - 11:13 AM
#24
Posted 15 January 2008 - 11:15 AM
Mitchell: "I don't know why."
#25
Posted 15 January 2008 - 11:16 AM
Edited by Lars The Wanderer, 15 January 2008 - 11:17 AM.
#26
Posted 15 January 2008 - 11:19 AM
Also, is Rep. McCollum coherent?
Edited by Delicious Sponge, 15 January 2008 - 11:21 AM.
#27
Posted 15 January 2008 - 11:21 AM
Does that mean there will be refunds?
#28
Posted 15 January 2008 - 11:22 AM
#29
Posted 15 January 2008 - 11:23 AM
#30
Posted 15 January 2008 - 11:24 AM
#31
Posted 15 January 2008 - 11:24 AM
#32
Posted 15 January 2008 - 11:24 AM
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
Posted 15 January 2008 - 11:25 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'm embarrassed to live in Minnesota. This lady sucks
#34
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
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
Posted 15 January 2008 - 11:28 AM
#37
Posted 15 January 2008 - 11:31 AM
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
Posted 15 January 2008 - 11:33 AM
#39
Posted 15 January 2008 - 11:33 AM
#40
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
Posted 15 January 2008 - 11:34 AM
Mitchell: The Commish's office and the baseball clubs, unbelievably cooperative. The Players Assoc., not cooperative
#42
Posted 15 January 2008 - 11:36 AM
#43
Posted 15 January 2008 - 11:38 AM
Might have its effect on Fat Roger...
#44
Posted 15 January 2008 - 11:39 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.Tejada is fucked. DOJ investigation into Miguel's denial of steroid use.
#45
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
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
Posted 15 January 2008 - 11:43 AM
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
Posted 15 January 2008 - 11:46 AM
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
Posted 15 January 2008 - 11:46 AM
#50
Posted 15 January 2008 - 11:48 AM
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)










