- 846
- 13
- Joined
- Jul 11, 2007
can u u guys imnagine if other sports start investigating?
that's like 95% of the NFL
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: this_feature_currently_requires_accessing_site_using_safari
Originally Posted by 23ska909red02
I just saw that Jason Giambi was the only Yankee that agreed to cooperate with the Mitchell investigation, agreeing to be interviewed and what not.
Snitch?
Nook Logan is an outfielder who has played in Major League Baseball since 2004 for the Detroit Tigers and Washington Nationals.
Rondell White, a Tigers teammate, referred Logan to Radomski. Radomski stated that he sold Logan one kit of human growth hormone just before federal agents searched Radomski's house in December 2005. Radomski mailed the package to Logan, who paid by money order. Radomski recalled having between six and eight conversations with Logan about the use of performance enhancing substances. In the course of one of these conversations, Logan confirmed that he had received the shipment from Radomski. Radomski still had Logan's phone number in his cell phone directory at the time of his final interview with me and provided me with the phone number.
In order to give Logan the opportunity to respond to these allegations, I asked him
to meet with me; he declined.
usually when you do a google image of a player that has been named, pictures come up of a dude hitting a homer but nook's specialty was bunting.
i guess he used it to advance his already blinding speed
Originally Posted by hugebird
Why, because of the obscure names?Originally Posted by GUNNA GET IT
This is a crock of %@@$ just as I knew it would be.
I +$+*%!% knew it.
The general public has been had once again!
If anybody expected some kind of star-studded list, or anything more than just a list, you shouldn't have.
The main obstacle in developing a fool-proof drug-testing program is the Players Association. Regardless of what the OWNERS and COMMISSIONERS do or even think about doing, nothing will happen unless it's approved by both parties. And if there is no outstanding proof, there really isn't a reason or motivating factor to change.
THE REPORT CHANGES THAT.
Yeah, what people are missing (and I don't blame them; this thing is 409 pages long in Adobe) is that there's more to this report thanjust naming names. Until that information gets simplified and regurgitated, people are going to look at this as a failure.
Are you serious?
People saying that the list is a "letdown" seem to miss the whole point of the report.
If anything, we should all be saying, "it's as bad as we thought", because frankly, it is.
Those are just the people they had some sort of evidence on.
How many people do you think drink and drive vs. actually get assessed with DUI's?
i guess i came across wrong in the way that i said that. i know how huge this report is for baseball (in fact, i dont ever recall saying it wasnt...). i knownot everybody that is using steroids is gonna be outed. i was just referring to the whole "there are gonna be a lot of big names on the list" hypesurrounding the report. there were what, four or so big names on that list?
i think this could be huge for baseball though. it all just depends on how selig and the mlbpa perceive it. hopefully they start doing something about thetesting, and everything else that mitchell suggested and reported.
Last question he got was about the conflict of interest given that he's a director for the bosox. I'm sure no one on this board believe what he said though. Good question though, I am glad it was asked and addressed.
I didn't see the whole thing, what was his answer to it.
The main obstacle in developing a fool-proof drug-testing program is the Players Association. Regardless of what the OWNERS and COMMISSIONERS do or even think about doing, nothing will happen unless it's approved by both parties. And if there is no outstanding proof, there really isn't a reason or motivating factor to change.
THE REPORT CHANGES THAT.
Yeah, what people are missing (and I don't blame them; this thing is 409 pages long in Adobe) is that there's more to this report than just naming names.
Until that information gets simplified and regurgitated, people are going to look at this as a failure.
i mean all this really is is testimony, no? i mean i havent read the whole report and im not about to either lol. what can happen next?
Yeah, what people are missing (and I don't blame them; this thing is 409 pages long in Adobe) is that there's more to this report than just naming names. Until that information gets simplified and regurgitated, people are going to look at this as a failure.Originally Posted by Kiddin Like Jason
The main obstacle in developing a fool-proof drug-testing program is the Players Association. Regardless of what the OWNERS and COMMISSIONERS do or even think about doing, nothing will happen unless it's approved by both parties. And if there is no outstanding proof, there really isn't a reason or motivating factor to change.
THE REPORT CHANGES THAT.
but my point is really, why even go public with some names when it's obviously such a small scale. I don't get why you are even subjecting these players to the media's scrutiny when, admittedly, there are so many more offenders. I feel like if they wanted this as leverage against the MLBPA to bring about more stringent testing policies, then they could have kept it for when the Union met and presented the information then, without necessarily leaking names to the media. To me it's a lot of posturing, and putting these names out is pretty worthless.
You have to start somewhere, right? Sure it was to save face for the time being, but there has to be a beginning point.
Originally Posted by hugebird
Bas, I totally understand that side of things, but my point is really, why even go public with some names when it's obviously such a small scale. I don't get why you are even subjecting these players to the media's scrutiny when, admittedly, there are so many more offenders. I feel like if they wanted this as leverage against the MLBPA to bring about more stringent testing policies, then they could have kept it for when the Union met and presented the information then, without necessarily leaking names to the media. To me it's a lot of posturing, and putting these names out is pretty worthless.
I didn't see the whole thing, what was his answer to it.Originally Posted by Proshares
Last question he got was about the conflict of interest given that he's a director for the bosox. I'm sure no one on this board believe what he said though. Good question though, I am glad it was asked and addressed.