Armstrong lied and Rick Reilly cried. Cry me a river, Rickey!!

This part of the interview was most telling.

This just illustrates how Lance Armstrong is, was and always will be the consummate politician -- which is to say sociopath. Good word!!

And it is very important to understand the analogy to what continues to go on today in the political arena.

I've been criticized somewhat in the past for making the linkage, the analogy from sports to real-life, especially politics.

To those critics, I will say you are as wrong as those who stood steadfast in their defense of Lance Armstrong. You need to adjust your mind-set, just a wee-bit.

I have always said that anyone who thought that Armstrong could not only beat cancer, but beat a Tour de France field that was rife with cheating, would require a level of cognitive dissonance that was simply off the charts. I do agree with Armstrong on the "culture of the game" issue and that he took the path of least resistance, ie: if you can't beat them, join them. That cognitive dissonance was snapped in two yesterday.

from the Tampa Bay Times:

Oprah Winfrey gets Lance Armstrong to admit blood doping and some lies, but not much else | TV shows, TV news, media issues: The Feed | Tampa Bay Times:

"Fame just magnifies who we really are,” Winfrey noted at one point, saying such power and wealth can either make someone a bigger jerk or humanitarian, depending on their outlook, The implication to Armstrong: Weren’t you just acting like the jerk you always were?

“I don’t know if you pulled those two words out of thin air; jerk and humanitarian – I’d say I was both,” Armstrong added, looking at a clip of himself lying during a court deposition. “I look at that and say ‘look at that arrogant prick.' I say that today. That’s not good.”

But many commenting on the interview used a different word to describe Armstrong after seeing the interview: sociopath.

Unable to really empathize with those whose lives he upended or admit how his lawsuits, bullying and control of the sport impacted so many, Armstrong came off mostly as a guy only willing to admit what the public already knew, in some head-scratching bid to try salvaging his reputation.

Given how badly this interview went, Armstrong may find that task tough as winning another Tour de France.

'via Blog this'


The Rick Reilly's of the world have spent a lot of time defending this and selectively vilifying and bullying those they don't like while simultaneously protecting those they do like. Today they are paying the price.

They should pay a professional price as well. They left their journalistic integrity, professionalism and any shred of objectivity at the door in order to wave pom-poms for this guy shamelessly for years and years.

Illustration below in Reilly's own article.

Cry me a river, Rickey.  You were a willing and able co-conspirator in Lance's crimes and now you want to disown him? Same thing with the corrupt MSM in other genres.

Go down with the ship, Captain.

You and your ilk are as big a bunch of lying, whiny, little scum-bag, bitches as you portray Lance to be today. Take a look in the mirror, Sherlock Holmes.

from espn.com
http://espn.go.com/espn/story/_/id/8852974/lance-armstrong-history-lying

Keep Your Apology

Lance Armstrong lied for years. Now he apologizes? Forget it

Among my emails Wednesday morning, out of the blue, was one from Lance Armstrong.

Riles, I'm sorry.

All I can say for now but also the most heartfelt thing too. Two very important words.

L

And my first thought was ... "Two words? That's it?"

Two words? For 14 years of defending a man? And in the end, being made to look like a chump?

Wrote it, said it, tweeted it: "He's clean." Put it in columns, said it on radio, said it on TV. Staked my reputation on it.

"Never failed a drug test," I'd always point out. "Most tested athlete in the world. Tested maybe 500 times. Never flunked one."

Why? Because Armstrong always told me he was clean.

On the record. Off the record. Every kind of record. In Colorado. In Texas. In France. On team buses. In cars. On cell phones.

I'd sit there with him, in some Tour de France hotel room while he was getting his daily postrace massage. And we'd talk through the hole in the table about how he stared down this guy or that guy, how he'd fooled Jan Ullrich on the torturous Alpe d'Huez into thinking he was gassed and then suddenly sprinted away to win. How he ordered chase packs from the center of the peloton and reeled in all the pretenders.

And then I'd bring up whatever latest charge was levied against him. "There's this former teammate who says he heard you tell doctors you doped." "There's this former assistant back in Austin who says you cheated." "There's this assistant they say they caught disposing of your drug paraphernalia."

And every time -- every single time -- he'd push himself up on his elbows and his face would be red and he'd stare at me like I'd just shot his dog and give me some very well-delivered explanation involving a few dozen F words, a painting of the accuser as a wronged employee seeking revenge, and how lawsuits were forthcoming.

And when my own reporting would produce no proof, I'd be convinced. I'd go out there and continue polishing a legend that turned out to be plated in fool's gold.

As least Lance didn't make this list (yet):

Buzz Bissinger: I Was Deluded to Believe Lance Armstrong When He Denied Doping - The Daily Beast

So Buzz Bissinger was deluded about Lance Armstrong.....


from The Daily Beast:
Buzz Bissinger: I Was Deluded to Believe Lance Armstrong When He Denied Doping - The Daily Beast:

I gave him the total benefit of the doubt. I used the logic that his blood doping was irrelevant because the sport of competitive cycling was rife with it. I referred to his heroic battle to overcome testicular cancer. I cited his foundation, Livestrong, and the legitimately good work it had on done on behalf of millions of cancer patients. I repeated his mantra that the witnesses cooperating with the USADA were a rogues’ gallery of disgraced cyclists with proven credibility problems. I wondered aloud how, if he had consistently cheated, he had passed more than 500 drug tests.

I called him a hero, using typically defiant and outspoken language. There were millions who felt the same way. But none of these millions had the power of the printed word like I did.

Because I was played by Armstrong. I was played when he told me with such heartfelt conviction that he was “at peace” with the decision he had made not to fight the USADA any longer. I believed the assertions coming time and time again from his camp that USADA head Travis Tygart was conducting a vendetta and witch hunt, offering immunity to known liars just so they would testify against Armstrong.

'via Blog this'

......but The Slav was not. Better late than never, Buzz.

Conte again refuses to roll over on Bonds!! What's wrong with this guy?

SATURDAY, MARCH 18, 2006

http://slavieboy.blogspot.com/2006/03/conte-again-refuses-to-roll-over-on.html

We still want to glorify the guys we like like Lance Armstrong and Roger Clemens and demonize those we don't like. Even when there is as much evidence or questions about one or the other. I still submit that if you truly believe Bonds is a user, you almost have to honestly admit that Lance Armstrong is a user. But few people do say Yes to both. A failed drug test, even though he and his supporters always submit the defense that he never failed a drug test, former teammates who have "testified" in the court of public opinion that he used. Why is the "evidence" of their testimony discounted so readily and others so readily accepted?

Hypocrisy, Hypocrisy, Hypocrisy...and Bonds at 740.

SUNDAY, APRIL 22, 2007

http://slavieboy.blogspot.com/2007/04/hypocrisy-hypocrisy-hypocrisy.html

I think I've about had it with the blatant stupidity of braying jack-asses like this.

Somebody on this planet needs to complete the Honesty and Integrity Trifecta (we'll call it the HIT for short) for me before I give them an ear on this issue. 

That is, whenever I hear or read somebody blast Bonds, (and of course they know everything he's done or didn't do, because he's always been so open and accommodating with his time with the media) I ask, "what do you think about Clemens, might he be cheating to get the results he's getting at an advanced age?"
 "Oh no, no way".

How about Lance Armstrong, couldn't he have done something to help him defeat not only Cancer but his competitors, all of whom seem to be on something? Nobody except the French seems to think he does anything but win Tour de Frances. 

There seems to be just as much of a mountain of real or circumstantial evidence to implicate Clemens or Armstrong from what I've seen, heard or read. But we gleefully leak information on the one hand and blissfully redact in the other? 

Hate to say, "I told you so" but when Armstrong spills his guts to Oprah -- and I fully believe he will or his people would have been out in force with denials of recent reports that he will do just that  -- then everything I was saying six or seven years ago and more about the climate, the culture, the media and the chosen few who were exempted from being publicly vilified and pilloried by the machine that creates false "folk devils" and "moral panics" will be proven to be true!!  This is the media's modus operandi and I've been railing about it for some time.

Good luck explaining why you hid behind the skirts of cancer patients and our inherent distrust of the French to keep the press off your trail, Lance. Hopefully, Oprah presses you on this aspect of your prior denials.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_panic

A moral panic is an intense feeling expressed in a population about an issue that appears to threaten the social order.^[1] According to Stanley Cohen, author of Folk Devils and Moral Panics (1972) and credited as creator of the term, a moral panic occurs when "[a] condition, episode, person or group of persons emerges to become defined as a threat to societal values and interests".^[2] Those who start the panic when they fear a threat to prevailing social or cultural values are known by researchers as moral entrepreneurs, while people who supposedly threaten the social order have been described as "folk devils".

Moral panics are in essence controversies that involve arguments and social tension and in which disagreement is difficult because the matter at its center is taboo.^[3] The media have long operated as agents of moral indignation, even when they are not consciously engaged in crusading or muckraking. Simply reporting the facts can be enough to generate concern, anxiety or panic.^[4]

Characteristics

Moral panics have several distinct features. According to Goode and Ben-Yehuda, moral panic consists of the following characteristics:

• Concern – There must be awareness that the behaviour of the group or category in question is likely to have a negative impact on society.

• Hostility – Hostility towards the group in question increases, and they become "folk devils". A clear division forms between "them" and "us".

• Consensus – Though concern does not have to be nationwide, there must be widespread acceptance that the group in question poses a very real threat to society. It is important at this stage that the "moral entrepreneurs" are vocal and the "folk devils" appear weak and disorganised.

• Disproportionality – The action taken is disproportionate to the actual threat posed by the accused group.

• Volatility – Moral panics are highly volatile and tend to disappear as quickly as they appeared due to a wane in public interest or news reports changing to another topic.^[1]

Bonds was just such a "folk devil", the poster boy for all that was wrong with the steroid issue and baseball.

And guys like Lance -- and for a time Clemens and McGwire -- were getting a pass from the "moral panic" that was ginned up to target Bonds specifically. Now these guys are being splattered as well.

And if people don't believe that this type of process is not symptomatic of the type institutional racism that bleeds through almost every aspect of how we institute justice in this country, than they are hopelessly delusional.

And shame on us, all of us, for that -- I have to give credit where credit is due.

USADA report reveals Lance Armstrong as the greatest fraud in American sports - Yahoo! Sports

A bigger fraud than Barry now? A stunning fall from grace. A lot of stuff in this report including details that Armstrong et al were tipped off to testing times and places. Makes it easier to pass all the tests or at least avoid failing one. It seems like these guys are desperately clinging to the "if everyone was doing it, it's a level playing field, therefore I never cheated" defense.  At least that is what they tell themselves to justify.

from Yahoo Sports:
USADA report reveals Lance Armstrong as the greatest fraud in American sports - Yahoo! Sports:

Armstrong, through his attorney Timothy Herman, continues to maintain his innocence, claiming in a letter sent to USADA that the agency is biased against him and that some of the witnesses are "serial perjurers."
For that to be true, however, the conspiracy would have to be as sophisticated and calculated as the "alleged" doping program itself.

The USADA Report:
http://l.yimg.com/j/assets/ipt/2012.12.10_Armstrong_Doping_Reasoned+Decision_all.1.pdf
[Related: USADA's entire 202-page report]


.......

There's the story about Armstrong testing positive for EPO during the 2001 Tour du Suisse only to have the test covered up after he made a $100,000 donation to UCI; the one about Armstrong telling Christian Vande Velde he had to "use what Dr. Ferrari had been telling him to use" in order to keep his spot on the Postal team; and there's the one when the team bus "broke down" between stages of the 2004 Tour de France while riders, including Armstrong, sat on the bus receiving blood transfusions.

"[The report] is a sledgehammer," says Daniel Coyle. "It's so massive."

In 2004, Coyle moved to Spain to write a book about Armstrong's attempt at a sixth Tour de France victory. In August, he released The Secret Race, a book that reads like a spy novel as he and Hamilton detail the race behind the race that is cycling's doping subculture.

[Eleven teammates turn on Lance Armstrong]

'via Blog this'

Armstrong 'protected' from 2005 hotel raid - lawyer - Yahoo! Sports

This kind of blows a hole in the "well he passed every test" argument. Easy to pass a test when you have all the answers.



Armstrong 'protected' from 2005 hotel raid - lawyer - Yahoo! Sports:

"On Saturday Michel Rieu, the scientific adviser to France's national anti-doping agency the AFLD claimed Armstrong was "warned before all doping controls". 

"The inspectors had a lot of trouble carrying out random checks. Armstrong was always tipped off in advance, so he still had twenty minutes to cover his tracks," Rieu told the paper. 

 "He could thin his blood or replace his urine. He used the EPO (erythropoietin) only in small quantities, so it was no longer there to detect. We were powerless against this.""

'via Blog this'



So that just leaves us with the question of how someone beats not only cancer, but all his competitors -- who no reasonable person argues -- are cheating, BY NOT CHEATING?!?!!

Kind of argues against the efficacy of cheating in the first place, in which case -- WHY ALL THE TESTING AND HAND - WRINGING IN THE FIRST PLACE.

Armstrong, who finishing second in the Power of Four mountain bike race in Colorado on Saturday, insisted afterwards that "I'm more at ease now than I've been in 10 years," and said his cancer foundation, which has raised hundreds of millions of dollars to fight the disease, would remain "unaffected by all the noise out there."

If we can get an answer to that question, then we can all be more at ease.

On Lance Armstrong.....we've come full circle

So we've come full circle in about 10 years. I've been saying for years that once a popular figure was caught in the PED web, they would attack the system. That theory is on full display in this case.

When Barry Bonds was the only one cheating (snicker), I said if you use the same standards you have to look at McGwire, Clemens and Lance Armstrong. It's taken 10 years, but all three have since fallen from grace.

And again using the same arguments that went against Bonds, you at least have to say Hmmmm...... at the run Derek Jeter is making at Pete Rose. And that case has just started to be made in some peoples minds.

from Yahoo Sports:
http://sports.yahoo.com/news/unfounded-suggestion-yankees-jeter-used-hgh-fan-reaction-204000190--mlb.html

Didn't we openly question how Bonds could not be improving as a hitter (granted a power hitter) at such an advanced age? Where are the SABR-cats and the media zealots now with their pocket calculators and their angry rhetoric?

And who is doing the calculations on what the odds are on all these perfect games that are being tossed lately? Even if you say, well it's because testing is working, the rate of perfect games has to be greater than at ANY other time in baseball history, pre and post steroid era.

Hell, perfect games and no-hitters seem to be happening at a rate unexplained by any other era save the war years. Or would this lead us to the conclusion that tinkering with the liveliness of the ball was more of an issue than PED's ever were? This just in, HR's still down in Coors Field, HELLO!!!!

You mean we could have replaced drug - testing with humidors and coefficient of restitution tinkering instead of the PR nightmare that testing has wrought?

And cheating doesn't seem to have gone down much at all. Guys are taking the 50 game suspension like an extended trip to the DL. It's like imposing a fine equal to these guys tip money. No effect. Just apologize, take the PR hit, continue to ring the cash register and get on with it.

This is what happens when we selectively apply morality -- sometimes on an absolute basis (against those we don't like) and sometimes on a relative basis.

It's reflected in society when we can one day hear the President say "rape is rape" to defend an agenda and on another day hear Whoopi Goldberg say "it wasn't rape - rape" to defend a colleague ( Roman Polanski ) who committed statutory rape. What seems absolute is not applied on an absolute basis, we grade our friends on the curve.

That's why I agree with Armstrong in a sense when he says "Why have testing?" If all we're going to do is judge people in the court of public opinion anyway, why not cut out the middle man? He's just taking his ball and jacks and playing the game in a court where he knows he can win. He likely loses in a court of law and wins in the court of public opinion, the other guys -- Bonds, Clemens, et al -- not so much.

I also agree with Lance when he SEEMS TO BE SAYING (if you read between the lines a little bit) that "Hey, I passed all your tests, played by YOUR rules and and therefore competed on a LEVEL playing field, you CANNOT go back retro-actively and change the rules and say I cheated." And I would agree with him completely. YOU CAN'T. But if I give Armstrong the courtesy of that argument, I have to give it to everybody.

In all cases, what these guys are NOT saying is "I cheated by your definition as fans and writers, but not by our definition as competitors." And those are two different standards. And they could NEVER say that openly and publicly, but it does seem to be the truth.

Most sports operate under different legal and moral standards anyway. I can charge the mound and punch a guy, which would be an assault on the street. But it's just good clean fun in the context of a game at the old ball yard.

Anyway, I hate to say I told you so....but you know that's not true. Still just shaking my head at all this foolishness we seem to enjoy putting ourselves through..

Here are some other background stories so you can judge for yourself since that's the direction this seems to be going. THE COURT OF PUBLIC OPINION, ONLY IN AMERICA!!!

from RedState.com
On Lance Armstrong | RedState:

"There’s a lot of jealousy in the world. I don’t know whether Armstrong cheated or it is all jealousy. But he tested clean every time and the USADA has ignored its own statute of limitations to make an example of Armstrong.

The horror stories of professional athletes and the abuse they suffer at the hands of anti-doping bureaucrats can boggle the mind. There’s something very much of the feel of a witch hunt to this. If Armstrong was doping, then by God take away his awards and give him a medal for being the smartest damn athlete on the planet.

You can read Lance Armstrong’s statement here. Again, I’ve got no dog in the fight and I haven’t much cared for Lance Armstrong since he left his family for Sheryl “one piece of toilet paper” Crowe. But objectively, it seems the investigation of the USADA amounts to holding Armstrong under water until he dies to declare him human or, should he survive, burning him at the stake for being a witch. In the process they’ve taken a sport made relevant by Lance Armstrong and put the whole thing under a cloud of suspicion that the anti-doping bureaucrats’ tests can’t even beat Lance Armstrong."

Michael Phelps better watch his back with this as precedent.

Exit point: if we’re going to go through this witch hunt every time an athlete gets too famous, maybe we should just let them dope and then, on the same competitive level, see who is best.

'via Blog this'

http://bicycling.com/blogs/boulderreport/2012/08/24/texas-fold-em/?cm_mmc=Twitter-_-Bicycling-_-Content-Blog-_-texas-fold

There’s been much talk of whether the sanction of Armstrong matters after 13 years since his first Tour win, and the hopeless moral relativism of trying to re-award his seven titles during an era when much of the top 10 on GC was also doped. That conveniently ignores that several of those charged—Bruyneel and Michele Ferrari, most prominently—are still active in the sport.

But in terms of the evolution of anti-doping and its effects on future cases, if Armstrong had really sought to expose the workings of what he calls a personal vendetta by Tygart, a biased system, and the paucity of evidence, he had another avenue available to him: He could have requested an open hearing where the full weight, or absence, of USADA’s evidence would be made clear, along with what he called a “one-sided and unfair” process.

If anyone thought this would finally clear up the Armstrong account, they’re wrong. Those firmly convinced of his innocence or guilt remain so. The rest wonder why this can’t somehow be finally resolved so that it at least just goes away.

Instead, it drags on, and the gravitational pull threatens to suck in the entire sport. If the UCI is overruled by CAS in an arbitration with USADA over stripping the titles, the decision could put them in violation of the WADA code, which would jeopardize cycling’s standing as an Olympic sport.

http://www.bicycling.com/news/featured-stories/injustice-all

I didn’t wonder if I would finally find out if Armstrong had doped—though I do wonder if there is any cyclist left on earth who doesn’t understand the decision has long been rendered. The judgment of Lance Armstrong was not rendered during the SCA arbitration in 2004, when the guaranteer of a contracted $5 million bonus for winning the Tour sought to prove that because he doped he should forfeit the money, nor did it come during the federal investigation that was closed without charges this past February, nor will it arise from USADA. The trial of Armstrong has been held in public and by the public since he first faced questions about cheating during the 1999 Tour, and at some point between then and now society delivered its maddening outcome: The jury is hung.

[ Honest Lance vs. Lying Lance ]

You believe or you don’t, and anything USADA says or decides will change that for few.

Through nearly two decades of various degrees of intensity and proximity as a fan, chronicler, antagonist, and friend of Armstrong, I granted him at times my full belief and at other times at least the possibility that he had raced clean; in 2011, I became convinced beyond any doubt that he had doped. I said so in this magazine more than a year ago, and detailed why, to much clamor and at least one public hope that I would burn in hell. Inciting nearly as much vitriol from his critics, I also said and still believe he was the greatest Tour de France champion of my era, a skilled bike racer with insane focus and a genetic gift that revealed itself when he was still in his teens, and that ­generations from now he will be revered as one of cycling’s complex but astounding legends.

http://www.bicycling.com/news/featured-stories/which-lance-armstrong?page=0,0

We asked two experts—forensic psychologist Ken Manges, and Paul Ekman, a renowned researcher on lying and liars—to help us understand what sort of internal machinations and motivations might be at work in either possibility. While neither Manges nor Ekman would comment directly on Armstrong, both offered insights into the traits, personality types, and reactions most common among celebrities who have faced allegations of dishonesty, cheating, corruption or similar wrongdoing. What follows are two imagined fictional character sketches based on that input. 

http://www.bicycling.com/news/pro-cycling/lance-armstrongs-endgame

 WHEN I told my daughter that I believed that Lance Armstrong had doped, she didn't have much to say. She had more important things on her mind, had a big homework project going—writing a clerihew using her own name. But she knows in her 12-year-old way what Lance Armstrong means to me. She knows that I met him before she was born, that I spent most of a year away from her so I could follow him around the world and write a book about his comeback, that I think he, along with a few guys with funnier names she often can't remember, such as Coppi and Anquetil and Zoetemelk and Merckx, was beautiful on a bicycle. She's heard me talk, for years now, to and about people who confront cancer or their deaths or that of their beloved with more strength because of him. She knows that group includes her own mother. She knows I've been on television telling Jim Lehrer or Larry King or John Roberts that I believed he didn't dope or, sometimes, that we couldn't know if he'd ever doped. She knows that Armstrong has called our house and left messages and her friends overheard and thought that was really nuts so he must be cool even if her dad likes him. She knows that I am embarrassed to have once owned a signed Lance Armstrong lunch box. She knows that I talked to him last time I was down in Austin. She knows I've been sick to my stomach lately.

For all of those reasons and whatever unknowable simple moralities operate in a child's mind, she summoned a moment of empathy for her father and asked, "How does that make you feel?"

[ Innocent? Guilty? You Decide: The Top 10 Cases Against Lance ]

"I don't know," I said, which was both true and false. It encompassed the chaos of everything I was feeling but identified none of it. I figured I should pick one emotion, so I said, "Accepting that Lance cheated makes me want to cry. A 46-year-old guy. Can you imagine that?"

But Natalie had already gone back to her life's own pressing matters. And I was stuck with mine.

You, The Jury

The FDA investigation of Armstrong should finally provide a definitive legal answer—judged by a jury of his peers to be innocent (or not worthy of being indicted) or guilty. We've distilled 10 of the most salient allegations for you. If you were on a jury, your vote would be based in large part on your response to these arguments. By Joe Lindsey

http://www.bicycling.com/news/pro-cycling/you-jury

http://www.velonation.com/News/ID/12726/AFLD-claims-Armstrong-was-regularly-tipped-off-about-tests.aspx

Tim Tebow still sucks, Brady Quinn is still the man. Yup.

Yup. Brady Quinn is THE MAN!!! Yup. Tebow SUCKS!!! Yup.

I'm sure there is a reasonable explanation for this. Other than telling your stats to shut-up.

Perhaps the worst QB evaluation since Parcells went with Scott Brunner (who?) over Phil Simms (s/b in the HOF).

http://scores.espn.go.com/nfl/recap?gameId=310901022

Denver Passing
................C/ATT.. YDS.... AVG.... TD..... INT.... NFL RATING
T. Tebow....... 7/11... 116.... 10.5... 1...... 0...... 129.4
A. Weber....... 1/1.... 89..... 89.0... 0...... 0...... 118.8
B. Quinn....... 4/12... 26..... 2.2.... 0...... 1...... 7.6
Team........... 12/24.. 213.... 8.9.... 1...... 1

Quinn, who started the game, was just 4 of 12 for 26 yards with one interception in his two quarters.

"It was the offense, I think, all the way around," Quinn said. "We need to run the ball better, I need to play better as far as making throws and we need to catch the ball. We didn't make the plays when we needed to, and unfortunately it was a bad game to end the preseason."

Tim Tebow came on after halftime to complete 7 of 11 for 116 yards, including a 43-yard touchdown pass to rookie Eron Riley with 2:57 to play.

"Going into this game I didn't know exactly when I was going to get in there, when I was going to play or how long," Tebow said. "With my opportunity, I tried to make the most of it, try and figure a way to get the team in the end zone, which I was able to do, so that was good.
Coach John Fox had resisted publicly naming a backup to starter Kyle Orton, who had the night off along with the rest of Denver's first unit.

-----
The Tebow issue settled for your amuement by ESPN chief ass-clown Rick Reilly.

The same Rick Reilly who excoriated Sammy Sosa and Barry Bonds over PED's, but couldn't salivate enough at the feet of Lance Armstrong. So he has both eyes open and can see things clearly.

http://espn.go.com/espn/story/_/id/6898262/critics-tebow-critics-wrong

My comment submitted respectfully (cough, cough) to his story. I doubt very he much that he has the spine to respond.

Hate it as usual.

Methinks you doth protest too much. If Cross wasn't referring to you, it shouldn't have stung as much. I'm sure he meant some not all people who root against him no better.

http://slavieboy.blogspot.com/2011/08/cmon-man-cbs-sports-analysts-cool-on.html

Esiason was at our church recently, likeable guy, he should know better.

Read the comment section of most articles on Tebow and see if you don't find MUCH virulent, venomous anti-Tebow rhetoric. And for what? His bad mechanics? PLEASE.

Stop defending the indefensible.

Once an idiot, always an idiot over there at ESPN, I guess.

IT'S SUPER MOUSE!!! AND ELSIE THE WONDER COW!!!

I've said on many occasions, it will not be long before we will look at this current PED-era as quaint and charming compared to what the sports landscape will be faced with in the future. UNBELIEVABLE. They say it won't have uses in sports, and wouldn't be allowed anyway, but who in their right mind believes that? When have pronouncements like that stopped anybody in the past?

Steroids have their positive uses in medicine as well, it was not long before athletes were able to discover the utility applied to healthy individuals as well. The bodybuilders have to be salivating over this one, they will without be the first human guinea pigs for illicit use. But competative athletes will not be far behind.


Genetically engineered 'mighty mouse' is the rodent Lance Armstrong
By Roger Highfield, Science Editor

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/earth/main.jhtml?view=DETAILS&grid=&xml=/earth/2007/11/01/scimice101.xml

Scientists have created a "mighty mouse" that is capable of trotting along at three quarters of a mile per hour (20 meters per minute) for three miles at a time, and that appears healthier, trimmer and longer lived than its peers.

These remarkable mice will underline fears that genetic engineering could one day be abused by athletes, though this kind of approach could equally well be put to good use in hospitals to help keep muscles strong and steady in old age, and reverse the effects of muscle wasting disease.

By boosting levels of an enzyme the mice became "metabolically similar to Lance Armstrong biking up the Pyrenees," said Prof Richard Hanson at Case Western Reserve, Cleveland, the senior author of a paper in the Journal of Biological Chemistry describing the rodents turbocharged with the enzyme, called phosphoenolpyruvate carboxykinase (PEPCK-C).

These genetically engineered mice, "PEPCK-C muscle mice" eat 60 percent more food than normal mice but remain fitter, trimmer - weighing half as much - and lived up to three years of age, longer than wild mice. Some female mighty mice had pups at 2.5 years of age, an amazing feat considering that most mice do not reproduce after they are one year old.

According to Prof Hanson, the key to this remarkable effect is the excessive manufacture (over expression, as scientists say) in muscle of the gene that carries the instructions for the body to make the enzyme.
advertisement

In the past, such discoveries have triggered speculation that this kind of genetic tinkering could be exploited by athletes to boost performance and endurance, though Prof Hanson told the Telegraph that he believed "the possibility of using this procedure to enhance human performance is highly unlikely."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------


And this from Hemmy.net

Does this make steroid use look like child's play?
.http://www.hemmy.net/2007/07/16/belgian-blue-cattle-super-cow-aka-incredible-hulk-cow/

Earlier on we had the incredible hulk dog, Wendy the Whippet. This time meet Belgian Blue Cattle which is famous for their double muscling due to a gene that suppresses the production of Myostatin. This breed produces extraordinary amounts of meat but critics call Belgian blues ‘monster cows’ and some countries have advocated to eliminate the strain. Check out more of Belgium Blue Cattle with 18 more pics after the jump

OH LORDY!! Barry Bonds is going to go all Lance Armstrong on a MF'er!!

And it looks like the first MF'er is going to be that noted Wizard of Words, the current President of the "Why Didn't Barry Sue? - Why Didn't Barry Sue?" Club, none other than Curt Schilling.

These folks have the same simplistic logic and magpie-like talking points as the late Johnnie Cochran used to sway a jury in favor of Orenthal James (O.J.) Simpson, many years back.

"If glove doesn't fit, you must acquit." becomes "If Barry didn't sue, it must be true." Both quotes succeed in creating a diversion in the minds and the ears of the listening audience. And we like our logic to be simple don't we now? Otherwise, we might have to go to Bob Costas and Mike Lupica to explain stuff to us, and we don't want that.

In the Simpson case, it was the "mountain of evidence" pointing to his guilt. In the Bonds case, it is ANY PIECE of evidence or logical train of thought that would explain a scenario different than that which the listener would be inclined to believe about Bonds.

And now it appears that very shortly, the "Why Didn't he Sue?" crowd will go to wherever the "Hank Aaron doesn't approve" crowd is hanging out these days.

The good folks at Steroid Nation are breaking details of this story (along with a more restrained tone then they've exhibited in the past against one Barry Lamar Bonds):

http://grg51.typepad.com/steroid_nation/2007/08/barry-bonds-to-.html

08/14/2007
Barry Bonds wants to sue you, but settles on targeting Curt Schilling
Alleged (note 'alleged') roid-monger Barry Bonds, the recent career home run king, announced that he contracted with two Bay-area lawyers to track down miscreants who would besmirch his good name. The accused juicer threatens to sue Curt Schilling or anyone making false statements about him or his large head.

A local Bay-area TV station(CBS5) first carried the story:

Now that Barry Bonds has passed Henry Aaron to become baseball's all-time home run king, he's threatening to sue anyone who makes false or misleading statements about him, two Bay Area attorneys said Monday.

Attorneys John Burris of Oakland and Todd Schneider of San Francisco said Bonds has retained them "in connection with legal issues arising from the myriad of false statements attributed to him by players, the media and others."

The attorneys, who are veteran civil rights litigators, said they believe "such statements are defamatory and have legal consequences."


I GUESS THIS MUST BE WHAT BONDS MEANT WHEN HE SAID, MY DAY WILL COME. These lawyers are going to busy for quite some time, I hope they're getting paid by the hour. But now that Bonds has the all-time HR record, I guess he can spend his money however he wants to.

Interesting to note that in the Steroid Nation commentary was this paragraph:
"According to The San Jose News, Bonds' old attorney, -- Michael Rains (maybe feeling some jealousy?) Note: words in parenthesis added by Steroid Nation


I posted this comment on their site, If they respond I'll let you know:
Explain to me why Rains would feel any jealousy that Bonds retained civil rights lawyers. Rains is a criminal defense lawyer, whose plate is rather full I'm sure.

The others are civil rights attorneys.

Attorneys specialize in narrow areas of the law. Rains may feel he has little or no competence in this arena.

Are you sure it's not some jealousy or envy or bias that you are showing?

I'M GUESSING THE ANSWER IS YES, BUT THE ANSWER (IF ANY) POSTED WILL BE SOME SORT OF J.K. LINE OF BULL. A TACTIC DISGUISED AS A J.K. IS A TACTIC NONETHELESS.

MIKE LUPICA IS AN INQUISITIVE LITTLE MOUSE

From today's New York Post Online Edition, Mike's confused again.
No, Doctor Freud, it's not about his identity, it's sports related, I'll take this one, you have a cigar.

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/col/lupica/
Thursday, August 9th 2007, 4:00 AM

If this is only about Barry Bonds, as the flacks tell us, Mc-Gwire must wonder what happened to him on his way to being a first-ballot guy in Cooperstown.

If you don't like Bonds, it's race. So what was the problem with McGwire, who is real white?


A: Hey watch who your calling a flack there Sparky. The problem with McGwire is he retired before Bonds. I know you and other BBWAA members think the people you write down to our really stupid, not privy to your outer-worldy form of intelligence. So I'll lay it out so even you can understand it Mikey.

The guys who vote say "Damn I can't very well vote McGwire in on the first ballot and then 6-7 or however many years down the road when Bonds comes up for election, do the one thing I've been dying to do since he flipped me off that one time and that is not vote for Barry Bonds when his turn comes up for Hall of Fame election".

So see Mikey it's really not that hard, most children have figured it out already. They (you media honks) are not going to vote for Barry for the Hall of Fame as a parting F-you shot for his career. But you can't very well do that and leave standing the charade of fairness and impartiality at the same time. You follow? Good boy. Next Question.

Now that Bonds has passed Aaron, we hear, louder than ever, that steroids don't help you swing a bat or stand in there against the curve, that Bonds got here because of talent and determination and longevity and sheer stubbornness. But if all that is true, here is one more question on the Barry Bonds All-Time Home Run King Quiz:

If steroids and other performance-enhancing drugs don't matter, then why do athletes in all sports take them in the first place?

A: Oh dear Lord Michael, you are a slow child. Did your Momma say that to you a lot? Or was it "Michael, stay out of my underwear drawer?" Probably both. Anyway, you remember a fellow named Turk Wendell, pitched for the Mets, Cubs, Rockies among others. Crazy guy used to jump over the foul lines on his way to the mound and back to the dugout, eat licorice and brush his teeth between innings. SOB if he didn't think it helped him pitch better. Now I'll be damned, I've been around baseball a lot of years, near as I can figure it out, IT'S PSYCHOLOGICAL.

If you believe it helps, it helps.

Another little cliche we use around the dugout is "It helps if you can hit". Another thing you will never understand because you spent too many of your youthful days playing with dolls. Next Question, Tinker-Bell.

If Bonds needed no help to hit 73 home runs in a season and hit nearly 350 home runs after the age of 35, if his body grew this way because of all the real hard work he did in the gym with Anderson - why would Anderson even bother to give him steroids in the first place?

A: Read "Faust's Gold", the book about how the East German trainers would give their athletes "vitamins" with their breakfast, so they would swim faster and win gold medals. Maybe he just wanted to enhance his reputation as a trainer with his marquee client. Do you know how hard it would be to get improvement out of a person who drops into your lap as a HOF'er, who had trained with some other trainers in the past who may or may not have given him the results he was looking for, and IMPROVE THAT PERSON ABILITY TO PERFORM IN HIS SPORT BETTER THAN HE EVER HAD IN THE PAST WITHOUT SCREWING THINGS UP???!!! It is difficult, near impossible to improve an elite athlete in the prime of his career or thereafter, without screwing things up, let alone getting continued improvement. But if a lottery ticket fell in your lap and you were a small potatoes trainer, training average Joe's, and an elite athlete knocked on your door, what might you do?

Now I'm not saying that's what Mr. Anderson did. Because he's a big guy and he might hurt me if I make things up and say bad things about him like those Game of Shadows writers did. You know a lot about big guys hurting you, don't you Mike? There, there. I didn't mean to bring up childhood trauma's.

Always remember what a baseball executive told me not long ago:
"They take it because it works."

A: Real scientific.

The idea that steroids don't work is another lie of all this. Keep telling it, though.

A: Actually, I don't say that. Prove to me that it does, without screwing up your career like it has for a lot of players at the major league level and countless others who never get there and are never heard from again. Seems to have worked out well for the kids whose parents testified in front of Congress. I guess we'll see Barry exhibit some sort of late stage 'roid rage or commit murder-suicide.

Keep saying that this is about race, which is the worst lie of all, huckstered by people who ought to be ashamed of themselves.

A: No it isn't. Go back into your FBI files, stupid, around 1992, Operation Equine, Mark McGwire. In fact, do a Google search, which is likely how you found out most of what you know about performance enhancements. Then show me the scathing articles you wrote from 1992 to about the time before McGwire retired. And you show me if you wrote anything with the hatred and vitriol you write about Bonds. Don't make me do the research for you, Skippy. Because you and your kind know I'll find glowing, poetic articles about Paul Bunyan-esque figures and Norman Rockwell moments, and making kissy-kissy with the Maris family under your byline, now won't I?

That's why it's racial. And you and your ilk want a pass on this? Oh, sorry we made a mistake, we had our eyes closed too. They fooled us, too. But we know better this time and we'll take care of it right this time. Save it, bitch.

Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice, shame on me.

You think anybody will ever look at the Tour de France the same way ever again, no matter how many people are on the side of the road? You really think that smart people still believe Lance Armstrong was the only pure one in the race?

A: I'll bet your a little late to the hate Lance Armstrong party, too. Or should I look at your record on that one as well?

Bonds hugs his son and points to the sky and weeps at the sight of Henry Aaron on the huge video screen in the outfield, and everything is supposed to be all right. Not only is the carnival supposed to move on, so are we. Only it doesn't work that way, even with a moment as big as this.

A: Sorry, I thought this was a question. If you don't enjoy it Mike, don't watch it or don't keep making writing articles on the the subject. Write about some other things that will deflect peoples attention away from this. You're a talented writer and gosh darn it people like you.

I guess the powers that be don't agree with you. The Commissioner could have suspended him, the players union be damned. The Feds could have indicted him.

Hey, I got a question for you Mr. Yappy Lap Dog. If this is so obvious to you, how come no suspension, no indictment?

I'll let you think on that one for a bit, Alice. Don't break a nail.

For a guy that acts like he's smarter than everyone who ever appears on that there Sports Reporters show, this boy sure asks a lot of questions.

It's all right here in black and white

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2863623


DAVID ORTIZ COMMENTS:


Ortiz believes Bonds needs to be cheered. Loudly.

“He deserves respect,” Ortiz said Sunday in Minneapolis. “People are not going to give it to him because of all the bad things running around, this and that, but people need to realize. I’ve heard a lot of different things about Barry Bonds, but people should just admit it - this guy’s a bad (expletive).”

Whether or not Bonds will be on the verge of breaking Hank Aaron’s career mark of 755 home runs - he’s at 744 with 34 games to play before he arrives here on June 15 - Ortiz expects Fenway Park fans will be making a mistake by focusing on the performance-enhancing drug allegations against Bonds rather than his home run totals.



Ortiz has an almost willful naivete about both Bonds and steroids. He still does not believe in his heart or his head that Bonds took steroids. And even if it were proven to him, Ortiz still would not link it to what Bonds does with a baseball bat.

“To hit the frickin’ ball, the guy makes it look easy, but it ain’t. I don’t know how you can have that swing, consistently. I don’t know how steroids can do that,” Ortiz said. “There are supposed to be guys using steroids in the game, and there’s nobody close to Barry Bonds. What’s that mean? He was using the best (expletive)? Know what I’m saying?”

Ortiz is not sure how he would feel if someone ever were to prove to him that Bonds took steroids. It sounds as if it would not matter.

“I don’t look at it like that. I look at it hitting-wise, because I don’t know what steroids can do to you as a baseball player. You’ve still got to swing the bat, man,” Ortiz said. “If I ever use steroids, and then I know what the difference can be and I’m using them, I’ll tell you, ‘Yeah, whatever,’ but I don’t know what the feelings are when you use the steroids. But I can tell you how it feels to pull yourself together to swing the bat.”

No matter where Bonds breaks Aaron’s mark, Ortiz wants commissioner Bud Selig to be there.

“He’s just making things worse,” Ortiz said of Selig’s inconclusive remarks about attending. “He’s the commissioner, there’s nothing you can do about it. You can’t be saying that. What are people going to think about the game? They’ll be like, ‘This game is a joke.’ He should come, even if he doesn’t want to.”

Despite revelations in “Game of Shadows,” the book by Mark Fainaru-Wada and Lance Williams that offers a damning chain of evidence linking BALCO and a number of baseball players, including Bonds, Ortiz said he is unaware of any evidence that Bonds used steroids.

“Have they proved he used steroids?” Ortiz asked. “But it was a cream or something he was using. He wasn’t injecting anything, right?”

Ortiz said he just cannot be sure so he doesn’t want to think about it.

“People come to me, talking about Barry Bonds using steroids and I’m like, ‘He’s the only one, or are people focused on him because of what he’s doing?’ So I don’t go there, I don’t even think about it,” Ortiz said. “I think about how he can be that perfect at the plate because I don’t think that steroids mentally get you perfect.”

Ortiz believes people who have a problem with Bonds either never played the game or are pitchers.

“If you go to the hitters, and ask them, ‘A), What do you think about 744 home runs?’ and b), ‘You know how hard it is to hit a baseball. What do you think about that?’ The bottom line is, I don’t care what people say.”


CURT SCHILLING'S COMMENTS:

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18557376/


Boston Red Sox pitcher Curt Schilling suggested that it's a travesty to the national pastime that Barry Bonds is about to break Henry Aaron's home run record, the Boston Globe reported Tuesday.

On the WEEI’s "Dennis and Callahan" radio show, Schilling was asked if fans should "hold their noses" while watching Bonds’s pursuit of the all-time record. Bonds is 11 from tying the all-time record of 755.

“Oh yeah. I would think so. I mean, he admitted that he used steroids,” said Schilling, according to the Globe. “I mean, there’s no gray area. He admitted to cheating on his wife, cheating on his taxes, and cheating on the game, so I think the reaction around the league, the game, being what it is, in the case of what people think. Hank Aaron not being there. The commissioner [Bud Selig] trying to figure out where to be. It’s sad.

“And I don’t care that he’s black, or green, or purple, or yellow, or whatever. It’s unfortunate . . . there’s good people and bad people. It’s unfortunate that it’s happening the way it’s happening.”

Despite Schilling's remarks, Bonds has never admitted to knowingly using steroids. On Dec. 4, 2003, Bonds was one of several athletes forced to testify as part of the BALCO case, which centered around the San Francisco-area lab, its founder Victor Conte, and Greg Anderson — Bonds’ personal trainer and longtime friend.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
So it's apparent again to anyone with a brain that not only is there a divide in America regarding this issue, there is a divide in the Red Sox clubhouse.

I'm sure IRS Agent Novitsky would love to have an admission from Bonds that he cheated on his taxes. It would make his tax evasion case easier to prove. It seems Mr. Schiling doesn't mind if the facts get in the way of his fancy story, but I missed the part where Bonds admitted cheating on his taxes. Hey Schil, get a clue, you fucking dope, Bonds hasn't admitted cheating on his taxes and the government, as yet, has not prosecuted a tax evasion case againt him. Read the papers once in while.

Also, I wonder if the fat blowhard (among others) intends to give his teammate Ortiz the same lack of benefit of the doubt about his admission of a possible "unknowing" use of steroids. I'm sure ther will be some perceptible difference between the two stories (Ortiz and Bonds).

AS I'VE SAID MANY TIMES. YOU SIMPLY CAN'T MAKE THIS STUFF UP, BUT APPARENTLY THAT'S EXACTLY WHAT SCHILLING DOES IN HIS OWN MIND. JUST MAKE UP "FACTS" OUT OF THIN AIR. MAKES YOU WONDER IF HE HAS EVEN READ "GAME OF SHADOWS". AND THIS IS THE GUY THAT CONGRESS WANTS TO HELP LEAD THE FIGHT AGAINST STEROID ABUSE. A GUY THAT JUST MAKES SHIT UP. COME ON, THIS IS TOO EASY.

Very interesting unsolicited comments from Ortiz about the "protein shakes". Makes you wonder what may or may not have been going on in or around those "Baseball Academies" that major league teams have scattered around the Dominican Republic. Makes you wonder if there may or may be be an eerie parallel between the aforementioned "protein shakes" and the "vitamins" of the German Democratic Republic that were given to the German women's swim team and other athletes without their knowledge. Makes you wonder sometimes, if that's why a disproportionate number of players and prospects are making it to The Show from that small island over recent years. God help everyone involved if that turns out to be the case.

Additional Note: The next day analysis by the talking heads focused primarily, almost exclusively, on Schilling's comments (which reinforces the negative evidence against Bonds) rather than Ortiz's comments (which tends to provide exculpatory evidence that Bonds story might be possible or reasonable).

Hypocrisy, Hypocrisy, Hypocrisy...and Bonds at 740.

This is a perfect example of the hypocrisy we'll continue to see as Barry Bonds makes his march towards the home-run crown. Jeff Perlman, the author of Love Me, Hate Me, The Making of an Antihero has his own special man-crush on Josh Hamilton. Well, isn't that special? He clearly hates Barry Bonds and the example he provides, but gushes eloquently over Josh Hamilton. That's just so special.

from espn.com
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=pearlman/070420&sportCat=mlb

Of course, this nation is so full of forgiveness, but apparently on a selective basis only. It may be full of something, but it's clearly not forgiveness.

from espn.com:
http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=pearlman/07411&sportCat=mlb

Another comes courtesy of Sports Illustrated's Peter King, who is not going to mention Barry Bonds any more because he believes he cheated. Here's his take on Shawn Merriman after he tested positive for steroids:

MERRIMANMANIA. From Bruce White of Indianapolis: "Should Shawne Merriman be eliminated from the Pro Bowl due to his positive steroids test?''

No. If he's eligible for 12 games and plays at a very high level in those games, he should be able to play in the Pro Bowl. Now, if he were to miss three games down the stretch for any reason, let's say, I'd say he didn't deserve a bid because he missed too much time. But he paid his penalty according to the collectively bargained rules of the game.

All right, let me get this straight Mr. King:

You're going to protest Barry Bonds achievement with your silence, (sounds more like a reward than a penalty, hey whatever) but have no problem with Shawn Merriman being rewarded for his achievement by participating in the Pro-Bowl even though Merriman flunked a steroids test and to-date Bonds hasn't flunked one?

Sounds like your disdain for cheating is a bit selective, don't you think? Merriman served his time according to the CBA? Weak argument. Apply same logic to Bonds, McGwire, Sosa, than we can talk like intelligent, rational people.

Do you do any special contortionist exercises to reconcile your logic in these two instances?

I think I've about had it with the blatant stupidity of braying jack-asses like this.

Somebody on this planet needs to complete the Honesty and Integrity Trifecta (we'll call it the HIT for short) for me before I give them an ear on this issue.

That is, whenever I hear or read somebody blast Bonds, (and of course they know everything he's done or didn't do, because he's always been so open and accommodating with his time with the media) I ask, "what do you think about Clemens, might he be cheating to get the results he's getting at an advanced age?"
 "Oh no, no way".

How about Lance Armstrong, couldn't he have done something to help him defeat not only Cancer but his competitors, all of whom seem to be on something? Nobody except the French seems to think he does anything but win Tour de Frances.

There seems to be just as much of a mountain of real or circumstantial evidence to implicate Clemens or Armstrong from what I've seen, heard or read. But we gleefully leak information on the one hand and blissfully redact in the other? Not to mention some other guys we let slide because they're still popular, like Pujols, Prior and many others.

And I'm a little tired of hearing, "Well these guys aren't approaching "hallowed" records" as if cheating is somehow OK, up until a point. Try that the next time you rob a bank and don't steal all the money in the vault. You want to start erasing records from the record book, you better get yourself an awful big eraser, or gallons and gallons of white out.

Guys like Perry, Sutton and Whitey Ford are in the Hall of Fame and lionized in spite of careers built on bending rules. Time to put it away folks. Never mind whatever was accomplished as a result of the use of "greenies", which were made illegal in 1970.

There is a huge problem in this country among youth with use of crystal meth. Meth being shorthand for methamphetamine or "speed". Hey, Dad baseball players use it, why can't I?

There is a also a huge problem in this country with alcohol use among youth, but I don't see any major sport turning away sponsorship dollars on principle. I know it's legal and that makes a huge difference, but spit tobacco is legal also and they took a stand there. Tobacco by contrast does not generate sponsorship dollars. Seems like we're picking our spots to take a stand based on dollars to be lost or gained (wait, where have I heard that before?).

Palmeiro I can see venom being directed at. He knew the deal and still tried to get away with something. Anyone else caught under the drug testing program deserves whatever animosity they get.

McGwire, Sosa, Bonds all of them have the Lance Armstrong defense in my opinion, they've never failed a test. You want to blame them for baseball not having adequate testing, that's pretty ignorant and unfair. I don't see anyone at work unilaterally offering up urine or blood tests unless they have to and even then, under protest. You want to retroactively punish people for behavior, start by taking racists like Cobb, Anson, et al out of the Hall of Fame, then you'll have my attention. Or take out some of the cheaters you've glorified in the past. Then I'll be impressed by your position on the issue.

And by the way, Peter King and his ilk on the Football Hall of Fame have no problem whatsoever looking the other way on all sorts of reprehensible behavior when voting on membership in the Football Hall of Fame. Drug Use, Murder, Manslaughter, anything goes as long as you perform on the field. And your little piss-ant silent protest against Barry Bonds is supposed to mean something? Give it a rest you MF-ing hypocrite.

The biggest Performance Enhancer Bonds has used in his favor IMO has always been Questec. Since being put in service in 2001, the year he hit 73 homers, his strikeout to HR ratio has turned from about 1:2 before to about 1:1.25 afterwards. Only Pujols seems to be as close in terms of HR to K ratio. That's a pretty significant change in one year.

Pitchers cannot pitch to him and get him out within the constraints of the strike zone as defined in the rule book, period. And it's possible they were never able to. However, prior to 2001, Major League pitchers had an extra 5-10 inches off the outside corner to work with. Anyone care to debate that fact? I didn't think so.

It's the same problem with Alex Rodriguez. He's so locked in and so good as a hitter and a slugger that he simply can't be pitched to. And even A-Rod strikes out about 4 time for every HR.

There is still a significant portion of the guys who study the game from statistical viewpoint who do not see the numbers of Bonds, McGwire and Sosa as being abnormal.

Here's another interesting outlook from Daniel Engber's article in Slate titled "The Growth Hormone Myth: What athletes, fans, and the sports media don't understand about HGH". The gist of the article is there is really not much data out there that indicates, from an exercise physiology standpoint, that using any of this stuff works to enhance performance on the baseball field. You have to make leaps of faith or assumptions that are not backed up by any scientific data.

The following paragraphs were I thought most interesting:

The most likely reason that athletes use HGH, though, is superstition. A ballplayer might shoot up with HGH for the same reason we take vitamin C when we have a cold: There's no good reason to think it does anything, but we're willing to give it a try. The fact that the major sports leagues have banned growth hormone only encourages the idea that the drug has tangible benefits. Why would they ban something unless it worked?

This mentality has put doping officials and athletes into a feedback loop of addled hysteria. The World Anti-Doping Agency will ban any drug that athletes use, whether or not it has an effect. The WADA code points out that the use of substances "based on the mistaken belief they enhance performance is clearly contradictory to the spirit of sport." In other words, it doesn't matter if HGH gives athletes an unfair advantage. If Jerry Hairston believes he's cheating, then he really is cheating.

That twisted logic has turned the latest round of busts into a giant PR campaign for growth hormone. Every star athlete who gets caught with a vial of HGH turns into a de facto spokesperson for the drug. In a certain sense, that might be a good thing: The media hype may soon make HGH so popular that it squeezes the more dangerous anabolic steroids out of the market. That's one way to clean up the game.

Seems like a silly way to go about it though, travelling from one bogeyman to another, but that seems to be the way things get done in this country.

And who cares if Hank Aaron doesn't show up for the record breaker? As far as I'm concerned, he couldn't hold Willie Mays' jock as a player. And if Mays had played in as hitter-friendly ballparks as Aaron enjoyed, we'd be taking about Bonds breaking Mays' record. And we might be waiting a bit longer for the record to fall. Mays might have hit 800.

I'm not going to go as far as calling Aaron a coward as Rob Parker did in this Detroit News article, but I do feel it shows a lack of class and respect for the game of baseball and Bonds accomplishments.

from detnews.com
http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070420/SPORTS08/704200362/1129/rss15

And Bud Selig can stay home to for all I care. He was gutless at the beginning of this whole "steroids" mess and it wouldn't surprise me if he continued to be gutless now. If you really want to label anyone a coward in this whole mess, the guy for me would be Commissioner Bud Selig, representing all of the owners.

And for all the whiners, who won't be able to face baseball with Barry Bonds as it's Home Run King can always cheer on Alex Rodriguez as he makes a run at 800, 900 or, if he can get to Wrigley Field on a regular basis, who knows maybe 1000 HR's as the mark for future sluggers to shoot for.

Then tell me that the size of ballparks, the springiness of the baseballs, the dilution of pitching, etc. hasn't been a factor all these years. Me, I'll celebrate a great achievement, by a great major league hitter, possibly the best all-around hitter of this generation and most others.

The Keith Olbermanns of the world can stay home and make love to their inflatable Rebecca Lobo dolls or whatever young lady they're currently stalking (ahem, allegedly stalking) and try to pretend that they are the moral compass not only for baseball, but for the entire free world. Give me a M.F.-ing break. Where have you gone Harold Reynolds?