PDA

View Full Version : Reilley on Sosa


Fisk72
07-02-2002, 10:15 AM
I was listening to the Mike & Mike Show this morning on AM1000 and they were talking about how SI's Rick Reilley was interviewing Sham-ME and brought up the topic about taking a steriods test just to dispell the rumors and put an end to everyone wondering about his stats. I guess after hearing that, our favorite target for abuse went off on Reilley and ended the interview there. I'm assuming this will make this weeks SI issue, and I'm hoping it will so people will finally see the selfish, cheating ******* he really is.

Kilroy
07-02-2002, 10:20 AM
Originally posted by Fisk72
I was listening to the Mike & Mike Show this morning on AM1000 and they were talking about how SI's Rick Reilley was interviewing Sham-ME and brought up the topic about taking a steriods test just to dispell the rumors and put an end to everyone wondering about his stats. I guess after hearing that, our favorite target for abuse went off on Reilley and ended the interview there. I'm assuming this will make this weeks SI issue, and I'm hoping it will so people will finally see the selfish, cheating ******* he really is.

What I can't understand is all the defense of Sosa. The guy said "test me right now. I got nothing to hide." He obviously thought no one would call that bluff. But to somehow say that Reilly is out of line in doing so just doesn't make any sense. Sosa offered. Reilly said "Ok, I'll bite."

duke of dorwood
07-02-2002, 10:41 AM
It would be nice if all this peaked at the media heavy all star game

34 Inch Stick
07-02-2002, 10:42 AM
Did Sosa ever really offer to be tested? If not, then it is Reilly who is the dick. These tests are an intrusion on his privacy and whether he is clean or not, he should reject the test.

Rejecting the offer to take the test proves nothing. I may not let a police officer look in the trunk of my car, but that does not mean I have a body in it.

34rancher
07-02-2002, 10:49 AM
I can see your line of thinking. But, if my income was driven by the public relations like Sosa's is (i.e. commercials, endorsements, etc.), I would volunteer very quickly. If you have nothing to hide, why cast doubt in people's minds? Perception is 99% of the battle. Just look at Comisky Park's "perception". Has anyone else noticed that the Robert Taylor Homes are disappearing faster than the Cubs are falling in the NL Central?

Kilroy
07-02-2002, 10:49 AM
Originally posted by 34 Inch Stick
Did Sosa ever really offer to be tested? If not, then it is Reilly who is the dick. These tests are an intrusion on his privacy and whether he is clean or not, he should reject the test.

Rejecting the offer to take the test proves nothing. I may not let a police officer look in the trunk of my car, but that does not mean I have a body in it.

Sosa did offer. I agree with the cop analogy, but it's not Sosa's refusal that produces the stink, its his reaction to the question.

cheeses_h_rice
07-02-2002, 10:56 AM
Sosa said that he would be first in line as soon as MLB and the player's union agreed on testing. This is weaselly wording designed to fool the gullible public into believing that Sham-ME is vehemently anti-steroids and that he's as clean as the kindergarten teacher down the street. Sham-ME knows that testing for steroids is at least a year away from becoming reality (and likely further away than that), and that he and every other player will be given the opportunity to purge their systems prior to the testing. All Reilly did was force the issue a bit; I don't believe for a minute that Reilly thought that Sham-ME was clean, as he claims. Reilly crossed a line that makes a lot of people uncomfortable. Me, I couldn't care less if Reilly makes Sham-ME look like the hypocrite he is. I find the entire episode amusing and delicious.

:nandrolone

You are going to make me burst out of my shirt and pants in a minute, young man.

PaleHoseGeorge
07-02-2002, 10:59 AM
Originally posted by Kilroy
What I can't understand is all the defense of Sosa. The guy said "test me right now. I got nothing to hide." He obviously thought no one would call that bluff. But to somehow say that Reilly is out of line in doing so just doesn't make any sense. Sosa offered. Reilly said "Ok, I'll bite."

Word up. Sammy grandstanded for the media following Caminiti's public revelations about steroid use. Sammy wasn't satisfied to simply claim his innocence; he challenged the public to prove his innocence.

Of course what Sammy MEANT was to prove his innocence on his OWN terms. He trusted MLB or some other interested party (like his agent, for example) to ensure the results came out the way he, Sammy, intended them to.

The lie is revealed. Who's surprised?

Isn't it just typical that NOBODY in the Chicago journalism community had the competency (or balls) to simply take Sammy at his word and confront him with a cup to pee in? Sure, there were mealy-mouthed suggestions from dolts like Moronotti that Sam-me take a test, but nobody seriously believes anything Sam-me organized and "volunteered" for would come back with any result other than testing positive for Flintstones chewables. Gimme a break...

Nope, it took an outsider to call his bluff. Now the Chicago sports media is circling the wagons pretending it was Sports Illustrated, not themselves, who acted incompetently.

Oh, man... the bull**** in this town stacks up so fast, you need wings to stay above it.

:giangreco
"Quick! Get me more footage of empty blue seats! I'm under attack!"

:moron
"Do you have any to spare? I'll cover it in my next column!"

:clueless
"Don't blame me. I skipped town. I'm writing trash in San Jose now!"

:morrisey
"Umm... err... ehhh.... Sox suck!"

34 Inch Stick
07-02-2002, 11:09 AM
Sammy should run a charity event. He will stand in Wrigley's right field on a sunny summer afternoon and pee in a cup. They could sell tickets and probably draw 40,000 (as long as beer vendors were serving).

PaleHoseGeorge
07-02-2002, 11:16 AM
Originally posted by Kilroy
Sosa did offer. I agree with the cop analogy, but it's not Sosa's refusal that produces the stink, its his reaction to the question.

Precisely. He's trapped--and he only has himself to blame. He's the one who claimed he was clean AND THEN went on to say he would be first in line to prove it.

Apparently, Sam-me thinks all journalists are as incompetent as the hacks who draw paychecks in this town, licking Sam-me's feet at every opportunity. WRONG!!!!

Reilly's offer to Sosa has no merit if Sosa himself didn't invite the challenge. Sosa hung himself with his own words. Now he and the incompetent Chicago media, are both scrambling to save face.

Accuse the accuser. It's the oldest trick in the book. Their behavior is utterly contemptible.

alohafri
07-02-2002, 11:24 AM
(from Mrs. Aloha)

EXCELLENT, PHG!!

Also, in that interview, shamMEMEME claims that all of the future stars were skinny when they first were called up. Funny, I don't recall Frank Thomas EVER being a skinny guy...

Randar68
07-02-2002, 11:33 AM
Originally posted by alohafri
(from Mrs. Aloha)

EXCELLENT, PHG!!

Also, in that interview, shamMEMEME claims that all of the future stars were skinny when they first were called up. Funny, I don't recall Frank Thomas EVER being a skinny guy...


LOL, attempting to justify it by demonstrating it's widespread use.....

circular logic, SamME.

cheeses_h_rice
07-02-2002, 11:43 AM
Originally posted by alohafri
(from Mrs. Aloha)

EXCELLENT, PHG!!

Also, in that interview, shamMEMEME claims that all of the future stars were skinny when they first were called up. Funny, I don't recall Frank Thomas EVER being a skinny guy...

Yeah, when Magglio came up weighing only 130 lbs....I remember it vividly.

cheeses_h_rice
07-02-2002, 11:46 AM
Hi, I'm an idiot:

http://boards.espn.go.com/cgi/mlb/request.dll?MESSAGE&room=mlb_chc&id=509816&move=nextThread

duke of dorwood
07-02-2002, 11:50 AM
I bet that if Canseco was still here, he'd be hounded by local press. Of course, he was with us. Sham has the big Cubune spinning machine behind him

Kilroy
07-02-2002, 11:51 AM
Originally posted by alohafri
(from Mrs. Aloha)

EXCELLENT, PHG!!

Also, in that interview, shamMEMEME claims that all of the future stars were skinny when they first were called up. Funny, I don't recall Frank Thomas EVER being a skinny guy...

I have to agree here. Frank was quite a bit smaller in 1990 than he is today. But, Frank was still a big man then.

34 Inch Stick
07-02-2002, 11:51 AM
I would like to hear someone current come out and say "yeah, I use them and I am not ashamed to admit it. They are not outlawed by baseball (although the U.S. government might have a problem) and I will use every competitive advantage that I can, as long as they are within the rules." What are the ramifications? For the average player almost nothing. As long as he hits their will be a market for his skills.

voodoochile
07-02-2002, 11:54 AM
Originally posted by 34 Inch Stick
I would like to hear someone current come out and say "yeah, I use them and I am not ashamed to admit it. They are not outlawed by baseball (although the U.S. government might have a problem) and I will use every competitive advantage that I can, as long as they are within the rules." What are the ramifications? For the average player almost nothing. As long as he hits their will be a market for his skills.

McGwire did that the summer of '98. While people admired his honesty, they nailed him for being a bad role model and for cheapening the record.

Kilroy
07-02-2002, 11:57 AM
Originally posted by voodoochile


McGwire did that the summer of '98. While people admired his honesty, they nailed him for being a bad role model and for cheapening the record.

I don't quite remember it that way. Wasn't some reporter sniffing around his locker and found his supplement? It wasn't exactly a steroid as I remember it either.

voodoochile
07-02-2002, 11:59 AM
Originally posted by Kilroy


I don't quite remember it that way. Wasn't some reporter sniffing around his locker and found his supplement? It wasn't exactly a steroid as I remember it either.

Is that the case? I thought he answered the question, but I could be wrong. It was a "new version" steroid, but I can't remember the exact drug...

34rancher
07-02-2002, 11:59 AM
Originally posted by Kilroy


I have to agree here. Frank was quite a bit smaller in 1990 than he is today. But, Frank was still a big man then.

That card almost looks fake. The difference here is that Frank has put on weight like a normal man does from his 20's to 30's. Look at his waist now, he just looks big. Also, look at his muscles. They are large, not ripped with veins showing everywhere. I would love to think Sammy hasn't used anything, but no where does he seem to have a good "work ethic". If he did, he would back up every play at first and second in case the ball got through. The fastest he ever runs is right before the game starts. I would crack up if he ever rips his hammy trying to wave to the crowd.

34 Inch Stick
07-02-2002, 12:02 PM
And I meant the good everyday player. One who is not breaking records or has huge endorsement deals. What effect (or affect?)is it going to have on him if he has no sponsors to worry about. There are average players who have done a lot worse who are highly coveted by the league.

Dadawg_77
07-02-2002, 12:15 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile


Is that the case? I thought he answered the question, but I could be wrong. It was a "new version" steroid, but I can't remember the exact drug...

The drug/supplement (andro-something something) is illegal in almost every level of sports exept for MLB. But it isn't/wasn't illegal in the US.

Randar68
07-02-2002, 12:21 PM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77


The drug/supplement (andro-something something) is illegal in almost every level of sports exept for MLB. But it isn't/wasn't illegal in the US.

Androstenedione...

See: http://www.angelfire.com/tx2/andro/ for a good synopsis.

Fisk72
07-02-2002, 12:23 PM
Awww, man. Jim Rome is ripping Sham-ME a new one on his radio show! I normally am 50-50 on whether I like Rome, but his rant is right on. Sosa shouldn't feel disrespected or insulted. If he has nothing to prove, do the drug test and throw it in our faces. It's the people who are doing it that are apparently feeling "disrespected" and "insulted." Give me a break!

PaleHoseGeorge
07-02-2002, 12:53 PM
Originally posted by 34 Inch Stick
I would like to hear someone current come out and say "yeah, I use them and I am not ashamed to admit it. They are not outlawed by baseball (although the U.S. government might have a problem) and I will use every competitive advantage that I can, as long as they are within the rules." What are the ramifications? For the average player almost nothing. As long as he hits their will be a market for his skills.

Actually, that has already happened. Ken Caminiti specifically stated that he had made a lot of mistakes with substance abuse in his life, but taking steroids WAS NOT one of them! To the contrary, he credits his use of them for winning the MVP title. Amazing!!!

Everyone is focusing on the use of steroids in the public uproar over this issue. However, I think what is really chilling is the incredible indifference expressed by the users of these drugs.

We're going to let these guys police themselves? I don't think so.

:shammy
"What's the big deal..."

34rancher
07-02-2002, 01:08 PM
Reilly's column is up. Here it is....
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/inside_game/magazine/life_of_reilly/news/2002/07/02/life_of_reilly/

NUCatsFan
07-02-2002, 01:24 PM
Originally posted by 34rancher
Reilly's column is up. Here it is....
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/inside_game/magazine/life_of_reilly/news/2002/07/02/life_of_reilly/

And don't forget to send in your comments. I've already done mine.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/si_online/news/2002/07/02/react_reilly/

34 Inch Stick
07-02-2002, 05:09 PM
The problem is that sport writers are generally tools. Do you think speculation about Sammy and steroids would stop if he took a test and it came back negative? Of course not. He could take a hundred tests and there would still would be someone questioning his muscle mass. Sammy gains absolutely nothing by taking the test.

I've got an idea Rick. Why don't you take those investigative skills that you learned in college and try to find out whether Sammy has taken 'roids. Ask some teamates and doctors under conditions of anonymity. Look through his god damned garbage if you have to. Then if you find some serious evidence come to Sammy with that and ask him to take the test.

We should be offended by Reilly's tactics. It is not incumbant upon Sammy to prove his innocence, but upon Reilly to prove his guilt.

I know Sammy said he would be first in line. Fine, point out that Sammy is pure fluff. However don't imply that he is guilty just because he won't play your little fascist game.

Sammy should have responded to Reilly that if he is really concerned about the game instead of a sensationalistic story, than he would make it his crusade to have the owners test for roids.

By the way, why didn't Reilly try to find a candidate who is more skilled in the English language. A question like that could fluster anyone. Frank has said he would take a test. He is a big guy who played a sport where usage and covering up of usage of steriods is much more prevalent. Ask him, I bet he could give you a great story and backround information.

Lazy reporting and red journalism.

Cheryl
07-02-2002, 05:24 PM
Originally posted by 34 Inch Stick
The problem is that sport writers are generally tools. Do you think speculation about Sammy and steroids would stop if he took a test and it came back negative? Of course not. He could take a hundred tests and there would still would be someone questioning his muscle mass. Sammy gains absolutely nothing by taking the test.

I've got an idea Rick. Why don't you take those investigative skills that you learned in college and try to find out whether Sammy has taken 'roids. Ask some teamates and doctors under conditions of anonymity. Look through his god damned garbage if you have to. Then if you find some serious evidence come to Sammy with that and ask him to take the test.

We should be offended by Reilly's tactics. It is not incumbant upon Sammy to prove his innocence, but upon Reilly to prove his guilt.

I know Sammy said he would be first in line. Fine, point out that Sammy is pure fluff. However don't imply that he is guilty just because he won't play your little fascist game.

Sammy should have responded to Reilly that if he is really concerned about the game instead of a sensationalistic story, than he would make it his crusade to have the owners test for roids.

By the way, why didn't Reilly try to find a candidate who is more skilled in the English language. A question like that could fluster anyone. Frank has said he would take a test. He is a big guy who played a sport where usage and covering up of usage of steriods is much more prevalent. Ask him, I bet he could give you a great story and backround information.

Lazy reporting and red journalism.

Couple of points:

If Sammy isn't on roids, he can get tested (by a third party lab, don't have the team doctor do it, I wouldn't trust those results if we were talking about any ML player). Yes I know, innocent until proven guilty, but this isn't court. It's about PR. He could get a lot of good PR out of taking this stand. Unless of course he's really on the stuff.

No doctor is going to talk to anyone about someone else's medical records. If it's not illegal, it's certainly unethical. No teammate is going to do it either, unless management wants them to.

I'm not at all offended by Reilly's tactics. He went after a story in a legitimate way. I'm impressed he got to talk to Soso without a handler around. I bet the Cubs don't make that mistake again, unless this is what they want.

cheeses_h_rice
07-02-2002, 05:27 PM
Originally posted by 34 Inch Stick


We should be offended by Reilly's tactics. It is not incumbant upon Sammy to prove his innocence, but upon Reilly to prove his guilt.

I know Sammy said he would be first in line. Fine, point out that Sammy is pure fluff. However don't imply that he is guilty just because he won't play your little fascist game.

If Sham-ME wants to be the big man and step up to plate and do everything he can to imply he doesn't use steroids, how exactly is it "fascist" for Reilly to ask him to step up and prove it? I'd have no problem with Sosa saying "no way" or begging off the question if he had kept his mouth shut, but for him to try to CREATE THE APPEARANCE that he is clean and then get all huffy when called on it seems at best a tad bit disingenuous and at worst incredibly, incredibly cynical and hypocritical.

Sorry, but Sham-ME has made his bed here. I have no sympathy for him being asked to sleep in it.

34 Inch Stick
07-02-2002, 05:54 PM
Cheeses, if he had said no way or begged off the question there would be a large group of people out there saying that the refusal to answer is evidence of guilt. Like I said it was a no win situation for Sammy, even if he took it and was clean people would still not accept it.

I agree Sammy should take responsibility for not following through on his words. Great, call him out for the hypocrite we know he is, but don't imply that his refusal to submit is an admission of guilt.

Cheryl, I'm using the doctor/teamate thing as an example of some ways to get a story. I'm not a reporter, let him figure a way to get proof.

The real hypocrite here is Reilly. He asked Sammy if he was on steroids and was told no. He said that he does not believe Sammy is on steroids. The follow up is not attack a person you believe to be innocent, but to pull the move with someone you think is guilty. If you are concerned about the good of baseball go after those who you think are the guilty.

cheeses_h_rice
07-02-2002, 05:56 PM
Then I think one could reasonably presume that Reilly, despite what he wrote, actually believes Sosa is using steroids. I would imagine that most astute followers of baseball would believe this as well.

Randar68
07-02-2002, 06:02 PM
Originally posted by 34 Inch Stick
Cheeses, if he had said no way or begged off the question there would be a large group of people out there saying that the refusal to answer is evidence of guilt. Like I said it was a no win situation for Sammy, even if he took it and was clean people would still not accept it.

I agree Sammy should take responsibility for not following through on his words. Great, call him out for the hypocrite we know he is, but don't imply that his refusal to submit is an admission of guilt.

Cheryl, I'm using the doctor/teamate thing as an example of some ways to get a story. I'm not a reporter, let him figure a way to get proof.

The real hypocrite here is Reilly. He asked Sammy if he was on steroids and was told no. He said that he does not believe Sammy is on steroids. The follow up is not attack a person you believe to be innocent, but to pull the move with someone you think is guilty. If you are concerned about the good of baseball go after those who you think are the guilty.



He didn't just deny it. He blew up like a man trying to throw you off. It's as transparent as when a 10 year old makes a huge stink when you ask them a straightforward question. If they are innocent, they just say it straight out. If they're guilty, they throw a tantrum about how you're invading their privacy or questioning the truth in their words or inherent trust. In Sammy's case, he threw a crap-load of F-bombs out there and stormed outta the room.


I'll draw my conclusion, you draw yours.

34 Inch Stick
07-02-2002, 06:05 PM
Then he should come out and say it.

I follow baseball fairly closely. I watch the games and look at box scores on a daily basis. I have no idea whether Sammy is on roids or not.

He has gotten much heavier and stronger in the years between 19 and 33 (So have I, just heavier not stronger). I saw him when he came up, he always had home run power (but zero discipline). He was "the panther" in the early days because he had both speed and power.

When I think of steroids guys, i think of cut muscles, late age acne and mood swings. Sammy's acne has cleared up in these later years and he is less moody.

I don't know and I am not ready to accuse. Reilly doesn't know, hasn't worked hard enough to find the truth, but he is ready to accuse.

Cheryl
07-02-2002, 06:10 PM
Originally posted by cheeses_h_rice
Then I think one could reasonably presume that Reilly, despite what he wrote, actually believes Sosa is using steroids. I would imagine that most astute followers of baseball would believe this as well.

You know, he may not have believed it until that altercation. He may have gone in there thinking about this great story idea he had, getting Sammy to take the test and come out clean. Then Sammy blows up on him and that gets Reilly to thinking maybe he's wrong and that was an example of roid rage.

34 Inch Stick
07-02-2002, 06:10 PM
Randar, I can take Sammy's reaction to be frustration over being called out about being first in line. He was caught in his own hyperbole and acted like a child.

I do not take it to mean that he is admitting guilt.

FarWestChicago
07-02-2002, 06:16 PM
Originally posted by 34 Inch Stick
Randar, I can take Sammy's reaction to be frustration over being called out about being first in line. He was caught in his own hyperbole and acted like a child.

I do not take it to mean that he is admitting guilt. :nandrolone

That's right, buddy. You can trust me!

Randar68
07-02-2002, 06:17 PM
Originally posted by 34 Inch Stick
Randar, I can take Sammy's reaction to be frustration over being called out about being first in line. He was caught in his own hyperbole and acted like a child.

I do not take it to mean that he is admitting guilt.

Sorry, that may be your opinion of that situation, however, I was convinced he was juicing long before.

If someone asks me to take a drug test, I have nothing to hide, bring it on.

I will not raise someone's suspicions of me because I'm afraid of my privacy being violated.

Sorry, but someone of Sammy's questionable character and self-promoting nature would not pass on the opportunity to be the first to clear his name if he were asked to do so and he was clean. What kind of morals has he shown that he's making a stand for the right to privacy of the common man.

Baseball and Sammy have something in common. They're both a joke and they're both as juiced as a can of Tropicana Concentrate.

34 Inch Stick
07-02-2002, 06:18 PM
Cheryl, then if he started questioning Sammy's veracity after the incident, the responsible reporter needs to do further investigation. This is not the beat reporter writing about the happenings of the day with a 10 p.m. deadline. He is a national columnist who is supposed to write about the bigger picture. He should do more research and then write what you know not what he thinks. I'm sure it was tough for Woodward and Bernstein also.

34 Inch Stick
07-02-2002, 06:24 PM
Randar, as the 4th approaches, never give up the rights that so many have worked so hard to achieve. But for anyone who is willing to give them up, our great U.S. Attorney General is more than willing to take them. :smile:

Randar68
07-02-2002, 06:33 PM
Originally posted by 34 Inch Stick
Randar, as the 4th approaches, never give up the rights that so many have worked so hard to achieve. But for anyone who is willing to give them up, our great U.S. Attorney General is more than willing to take them. :smile:

Sorry, but IMO, people who oppose drug testing for substances illegal to consume or possess in the USA, are more concerned about hiding their guilt than about what's right.

Is this the same group of people who support the strict interpretation of the Constitution or laws written 200+ years ago? Please...

PaleHoseGeorge
07-02-2002, 06:36 PM
Originally posted by 34 Inch Stick
Cheryl, then if he started questioning Sammy's veracity after the incident, the responsible reporter needs to do further investigation. This is not the beat reporter writing about the happenings of the day with a 10 p.m. deadline. He is a national columnist who is supposed to write about the bigger picture. He should do more research and then write what you know not what he thinks. I'm sure it was tough for Woodward and Bernstein also.

Brilliant deduction. First get upset with a reporter who does his job by putting to the test the very thing a sports celebrity has already volunteered. Never mind the outraged reaction of the accused. Attack the accuser.

Next impugn the integrity of the same reporter for offering his own views in an opinion column he regularly writes. Apparently he's not entitled to his opinion anymore.

Then wrap yourself in the flag of U.S. civil rights, as though the reporter had held a gun to Sammy's head and marched him to that lab in Elmhurst at gunpoint.

Man, I don't even know where to begin...

Have you considered a career in sports talk radio? You're a natural.

guillen4life13
07-02-2002, 07:32 PM
Originally posted by 34 Inch Stick
Then he should come out and say it.

I follow baseball fairly closely. I watch the games and look at box scores on a daily basis. I have no idea whether Sammy is on roids or not.

He has gotten much heavier and stronger in the years between 19 and 33 (So have I, just heavier not stronger). I saw him when he came up, he always had home run power (but zero discipline). He was "the panther" in the early days because he had both speed and power.

When I think of steroids guys, i think of cut muscles, late age acne and mood swings. Sammy's acne has cleared up in these later years and he is less moody.

I don't know and I am not ready to accuse. Reilly doesn't know, hasn't worked hard enough to find the truth, but he is ready to accuse.


well I have a question for you, and I think this one could be worth considering. steroids are hormones... and at least in teenagers, the reason we have mood swings and acne is because our body is getting used to the hormones. what if sosa's body if finally used to it, and those symptoms are gone? this could be something to consider, unless I don't really know what i'm talking about (which is quite possible).

yyz
07-02-2002, 09:16 PM
'Red journalism'?

doublem23
07-02-2002, 09:25 PM
Originally posted by guillen4life13



well I have a question for you, and I think this one could be worth considering. steroids are hormones... and at least in teenagers, the reason we have mood swings and acne is because our body is getting used to the hormones. what if sosa's body if finally used to it, and those symptoms are gone? this could be something to consider, unless I don't really know what i'm talking about (which is quite possible).

Well, actually, guillen4life brings up a good point in that the testing for steroids (the urine test, anyways), doesn't actually look for the steroid itself, but it looks for chemical byproducts of the steroid usage. Hence, there is a small percentage of the population that produce that same chemical byproduct naturally for some reason. Granted, that population is incredibly small, but still, there are some people who would fail the test who have never taken steroids in their life. But your body can't just hide steroid use by getting "used" to it. Under that logic, someone doing hard drugs would be able to hide them because their bodies would have just gotten acquainted to the mass amounts of toxic chemicals being dumped into it.

That said, Sammy is so on 'roids. :)

Kilroy
07-03-2002, 12:01 AM
Originally posted by Randar68
If someone asks me to take a drug test, I have nothing to hide, bring it on.

I will not raise someone's suspicions of me because I'm afraid of my privacy being violated.

This is so true. Privacy cannot be violated if there is nothing that you need keep private.

voodoochile
07-03-2002, 12:09 AM
Originally posted by Kilroy


This is so true. Privacy cannot be violated if there is nothing that you need keep private.

You know anyone like that in this world? Anyone know anyone like that in this world? Slippery slope my friends, slippery slope...

LongDistanceFan
07-03-2002, 07:13 AM
Originally posted by 34 Inch Stick
. i find your defense of sham-me amusing....... i been wondering why?

i wonder what other things he is hiding in his blood system? but i bet you that the union will never allow him to get tested, b/c he will be setting a standard for the owners to use in the future. that being said, i am extremely happy on the flake that he is getting............ and i hope he looses his commercial appeal.......

Kilroy
07-03-2002, 09:00 AM
Originally posted by voodoochile
You know anyone like that in this world? Anyone know anyone like that in this world? Slippery slope my friends, slippery slope...


You're right Voodoo. I really should qualify that. I don't mean for it to be a broad, sweeping kind of thing.

For the record, I am only referring to Sosa's privacy as it relates to drugs he may or may not be taking. You want a sample of blood/urine to check for roids, no problem. Look for that and only for that. You want to just take a look and see what you can see?? Problem. That IS an invasion.

steff
07-03-2002, 09:03 AM
Originally posted by Randar68




He didn't just deny it. He blew up like a man trying to throw you off. It's as transparent as when a 10 year old makes a huge stink when you ask them a straightforward question. If they are innocent, they just say it straight out. If they're guilty, they throw a tantrum about how you're invading their privacy or questioning the truth in their words or inherent trust. In Sammy's case, he threw a crap-load of F-bombs out there and stormed outta the room.


I'll draw my conclusion, you draw yours.


I'm with you Randar. A simple "I'll wait for MLB to tell me when and where to go.." rather than " FU, are you my father, you MFer, etc..". And calling security had to be the icing on the cake. Arent' mood swings a symptom... :D: ?

34 Inch Stick
07-03-2002, 09:05 AM
Glad I could entertain. Since I won't be logging on until at least Monday and I'm sure this thread will be long gone, I still think Reilly was wrong and his methods were poor.

Anyway, good conversation.

steff
07-03-2002, 09:06 AM
Originally posted by Kilroy

You're right Voodoo. I really should qualify that. I don't mean for it to be a broad, sweeping kind of thing.

For the record, I am only referring to Sosa's privacy as it relates to drugs he may or may not be taking. You want a sample of blood/urine to check for roids, no problem. Look for that and only for that. You want to just take a look and see what you can see?? Problem. That IS an invasion.


Kilroy, please clarify. If they test for roids.. but happen to find Coke, they should turn away because they were only supposed to be looking for roids?

alohafri
07-03-2002, 10:42 AM
(Mrs. Aloha here)

from an article at ESPN.com:

"The conventional argument is that you can't compare wrestlers and "real" athletes. Plenty of major league baseball players think they can juice themselves safely. Dr. Jose Antonio, an exercise physiologist, told The Magazine's Jeff Bradley he could put "any athlete on a cycle of anabolic steroids and his perfomances would go up, with no side effects . I guarantee it. Your players are not tested, you know anabolic steroids aid performance, so why not use them?"

With all the pharmaceutical advances we have today, I think it's entirely possible for an athlete to be on steroids without obvious symptoms, such as acne, mood swings, yellow eyes, etc.
That's not to say that steroids are safe.

Getting back to the argument that Reilly was out of line asking Sosa to take the test, while I don't think [Reilly] was totally out of line, Sosa's reaction WAS.

BTW, does anyone remember that article several weeks ago where it was stated that only 2 superstar BBall players signed a pledge saying they would not take any performance-enhancing drugs...and one of them was Magglio. If Reilly had approached Maggs with the same questions and challenged him to a drug test, I'm certain that Maggs' reaction would have been much different than shamMEMEME's.

Randar68
07-03-2002, 11:16 AM
Originally posted by steff3603



Kilroy, please clarify. If they test for roids.. but happen to find Coke, they should turn away because they were only supposed to be looking for roids?

Sorry, but testing for Roids will not reveal cocaine use. You have to test for specific compounds and combinations of such. If you only give permission to test for steroids, it is illegal to even test for anything else.

LongDistanceFan
07-03-2002, 11:41 AM
Originally posted by Randar68


Sorry, but testing for Roids will not reveal cocaine use. You have to test for specific compounds and combinations of such. If you only give permission to test for steroids, it is illegal to even test for anything else. i wonder if you can find it out by using a sample of his hair? if so then someone should steal his brush or comb or whatever he uses.

voodoochile
07-03-2002, 12:01 PM
Originally posted by steff3603



Kilroy, please clarify. If they test for roids.. but happen to find Coke, they should turn away because they were only supposed to be looking for roids?

Personally I think that should be the case. For all we know ShamME would test clean for roids but be in violation of some other drug rule - pot, coke, X, etc. and didn't want to be tested then. There is also the point about the union. He owes it to his fellow members to not allow random off the street checks, or they would all have to follow his example and even if ShamME is clean or not, you can bet that not all of them are.

Let's take this example to everyday life. If someone is walking down the street and gets stopped and searched for weapons of terror. The cops find no weapons but find an ounce of pot. Should they be allowed to charge the person with a drug crime?

What about the right to be secure against unreasonable searches? The cops were looking for bomb making equipment. That is what there search was for. Could they use this excuse to stop everyone they think might be carrying drugs?

There has to be a limit to how these new powers can be used to charge people. In the above example, I would say, confiscate the pot, but let the person go with no charges against them. Otherwise the police and FBI have no leash on them at all, especially with the new broader latitude allowed in searches.

Cheryl
07-03-2002, 12:07 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
He owes it to his fellow members to not allow random off the street checks, or they would all have to follow his example and even if ShamME is clean or not, you can bet that not all of them are.


Which is precisely why Sam Me (or Bonds or Clemens or Frank or one of them who is being talked about) should voluntarily undergo the test, get the results back, and dare all the other players to do the same.

Not that I can read his mind or anything, but somehow I don't think Soso was thinking of his fellow players when he yelled obscenities at this columnist and called Security on him.

Fisk72
07-03-2002, 12:36 PM
What was up with Sham-ME's reaction to the media yesterday? He said he "takes care of the media" or something like that. Great way to suck up to the reporters so they ignore your possible guilt and take aim at Reilly. You can run but you can't hide. We'll find out sooner or later.

steff
07-03-2002, 01:17 PM
Originally posted by Randar68


Sorry, but testing for Roids will not reveal cocaine use. You have to test for specific compounds and combinations of such. If you only give permission to test for steroids, it is illegal to even test for anything else.


Sooooorrrreee Randar. I didn't say that it would.. I was just asking a question. My bad.. :whiner:

steff
07-03-2002, 01:19 PM
Originally posted by Fisk72
What was up with Sham-ME's reaction to the media yesterday? He said he "takes care of the media" or something like that. Great way to suck up to the reporters so they ignore your possible guilt and take aim at Reilly. You can run but you can't hide. We'll find out sooner or later.


Maybe he means he gets them roids :D: .

Love your sig, by the way.

alohafri
07-03-2002, 01:26 PM
Originally posted by 34 Inch Stick
Glad I could entertain. Since I won't be logging on until at least Monday and I'm sure this thread will be long gone, I still think Reilly was wrong and his methods were poor.

Anyway, good conversation.

Reilly is one of the "new breed" of sports reporter (read "columnist") who wants to be part of the story. Reilly knows that Sosa has the IQ of a peanut and tried to take advantage of that. SamMe, showing his mental age, blew up and gave Reilly his story.

SamMe is legally within his rights to refuse to take a test that he is not required to take. We can say or think anything we want, but legally, he is innocent of taking this substance until proven guilty. Not only that, but we can't even require him to take this test.

Kilroy
07-03-2002, 02:10 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
There is also the point about the union. He owes it to his fellow members to not allow random off the street checks, or they would all have to follow his example and even if ShamME is clean or not, you can bet that not all of them are.

Let's take this example to everyday life. If someone is walking down the street and gets stopped and searched for weapons of terror. The cops find no weapons but find an ounce of pot. Should they be allowed to charge the person with a drug crime?

What about the right to be secure against unreasonable searches? The cops were looking for bomb making equipment. That is what there search was for. Could they use this excuse to stop everyone they think might be carrying drugs?

This instance would not be a random off the street test. Soso said he'd be willing to be tested. Reilly said go for it. Step up and volunteer. Soso doing so wouldn't infringe on the players union in any way shape or form because he would have volunteered. Soso does charity work. Does the fact that he does it make the other members of the players union required to do it as well? The union garbage is a cop out.

As far as people walking down the street, cops can't search people just for kicks. They have to have a warrant or probable cause. Without either, the only way they can do so is with your permission. If the cop thinks he saw you with a gun and searches you for a gun because he has probable cause and finds a bag of weed, he can (and should) arrest you for that, even tho that's not what he started out looking for.

What if he finds a pound of coke in one ounce bags? Obvious intent to distribute. Should the cop have to let that person go because they started out looking for a gun??

raul12
07-03-2002, 02:20 PM
Originally posted by alohafri

SamMe is legally within his rights to refuse to take a test that he is not required to take. We can say or think anything we want, but legally, he is innocent of taking this substance until proven guilty. Not only that, but we can't even require him to take this test.

very true, HOWEVER, the whole point of the question from Reilly was that Shamme VOLUNTEERED to be tested, and then when someone said, "ok, do it", he blew up. if he had said from the get-go--i will not subject myself to any tests until the union tells me too--that's perfectly fine. we still would all think he's on roids, but it's his right. when you volunteer for something and then when someone asks you to do it and you blow up--therein lies the issue. this is not about rights, privacy, and all that crap that everyone tries to shove us under the name of the bill of rights (that's another can of worms)--it's about reniging (sp?)/lying on a statement.

PaleHoseGeorge
07-03-2002, 02:30 PM
Originally posted by alohafri


Reilly is one of the "new breed" of sports reporter (read "columnist") who wants to be part of the story. Reilly knows that Sosa has the IQ of a peanut and tried to take advantage of that. SamMe, showing his mental age, blew up and gave Reilly his story.

SamMe is legally within his rights to refuse to take a test that he is not required to take. We can say or think anything we want, but legally, he is innocent of taking this substance until proven guilty. Not only that, but we can't even require him to take this test.

Precisely! Sammy's refusal wouldn't warrant so much as even a mention in the "odds and ends" portion of the media's coverage, with two GIANT exceptions:

1. Sammy told the media he would be first in line to prove himself clean, and

2. Sammy flipped out when Reilly took him at his word in #1.

Read Rielly's column. The very first sentence quotes Sammy from last month. His entire column (and the resulting controversy) is based on that. If Sammy never says those words, there is nothing noteworthy for Reilly to write about.

Now Sammy is revealed a liar, suggesting he "always" cooperates with the media and how "everyone knows I'm clean".

In fact, we DON'T KNOW he's clean, because he has refused (so far) to be tested. In fact, he does not always cooperate with the media, as Reilly himself can attest.

In the ultimate bit of hypocrisy, the rest of the media (especially here in Chicago) is suggesting Reilly took advantage of Sammy.

AMAZING! These are the very people who allow the public to believe the cartoon-like image Sammy wants to project as a real-life Chico Esquella. Do these objective journalists actually BELIEVE that's the way ballplayers from Latin America truly are?

How many of these reporters would own up to helping cultivate this outrageous stereotype? Here's betting not a single one of those hypocrites would own up to jack--even as they smear Reilly.

The rock has been turned over, and all the creepy crawly ugliness of sports journalism is there to see. Just watch and listen to what they are saying and doing right now. I'm embarrassed for them.

:shammy
"Besball hab ben berry berry goood, too mei."

Spiff
07-03-2002, 02:37 PM
Originally posted by alohafri


Reilly is one of the "new breed" of sports reporter (read "columnist") who wants to be part of the story.

That is totally false. Have you read his columns before or are you just making a wild assumption?

ma-gaga
07-03-2002, 02:54 PM
Spiff, I agree and disagree. This article was shameless. Normally Riley is ok. Fairly non-objective and throwing out ideas. This was a shameless ploy to "create" a story. The best thing, is that being part of the media, Riley gets the last word over Sosa. He can make Sosa be as ugly as he wants.

The most telling part of the article is when he 'flashes' back to earlier in the interview. I mean, how long was the interview, how insistant was Riley when asking Sosa for a urine sample? We'll never know, because Riley can spin it to make him look good and Sosa bad.

This story did what it did, create contriversy from nothing. The funniest thing that I've heard Sosa should have done was to whip it out, piss all over Riley and say, "There's your sample."

LongDistanceFan
07-03-2002, 02:55 PM
Originally posted by Kilroy




As far as people walking down the street, cops can't search people just for kicks. They have to have a warrant or probable cause. Without either, the only way they can do so is with your permission. If the cop thinks he saw you with a gun and searches you for a gun because he has probable cause and finds a bag of weed, he can (and should) arrest you for that, even tho that's not what he started out looking for.

What if he finds a pound of coke in one ounce bags? Obvious intent to distribute. Should the cop have to let that person go because they started out looking for a gun?? you are 100 % correct in your statement.

voodoochile
07-03-2002, 03:13 PM
Originally posted by Kilroy


This instance would not be a random off the street test. Soso said he'd be willing to be tested. Reilly said go for it. Step up and volunteer. Soso doing so wouldn't infringe on the players union in any way shape or form because he would have volunteered. Soso does charity work. Does the fact that he does it make the other members of the players union required to do it as well? The union garbage is a cop out.

As far as people walking down the street, cops can't search people just for kicks. They have to have a warrant or probable cause. Without either, the only way they can do so is with your permission. If the cop thinks he saw you with a gun and searches you for a gun because he has probable cause and finds a bag of weed, he can (and should) arrest you for that, even tho that's not what he started out looking for.

What if he finds a pound of coke in one ounce bags? Obvious intent to distribute. Should the cop have to let that person go because they started out looking for a gun??

Guns and drug dealers go hand in hand, so no, that would be an accpetable reason to arrest the person. Besides, seeing a gun is plenty of probably cause. I was refering to new powers to randomly search people for weapons of terror. Should we allow those specific searches to become a scattershot way of locating and locking up other criminals? I say no, we should not...

The union issue is another point. If ShamME allows Reilly to bully him into taking a test, then other sports reporters in other cities will soon be bullying other players into doing it. If any one of them agrees, the whole house of cards comes tumbling down. I don't think ShamME was thinking along those lines either, but from a union perspective, it is good that he held the line...

steff
07-03-2002, 03:15 PM
Originally posted by ma-gaga
Spiff, I agree and disagree. This article was shameless. Normally Riley is ok. Fairly non-objective and throwing out ideas. This was a shameless ploy to "create" a story. The best thing, is that being part of the media, Riley gets the last word over Sosa. He can make Sosa be as ugly as he wants.

The most telling part of the article is when he 'flashes' back to earlier in the interview. I mean, how long was the interview, how insistant was Riley when asking Sosa for a urine sample? We'll never know, because Riley can spin it to make him look good and Sosa bad.

This story did what it did, create contriversy from nothing. The funniest thing that I've heard Sosa should have done was to whip it out, piss all over Riley and say, "There's your sample."

First, Sammy created this by offering the statement "I will go test".
Second, Riley did not ask him for a sample... he gave him a piece of paper with the number to a clinic in Wheaton on it and said "why don't you set the example".
The controversy started when Sammy said FU, called him a MF'er, etc.. Was it wrong, perhaps. But if Sosa had not made the offer, and then acted like a monkey on crack, there would be no story. IMO, Riley did a good thing. There's been a cloud over Sosa since the $20K in the brown paper bag hidden in a towel in the hotel lobby stolen from him in the DR. Trouble is.. everyone seems to be scared to ask him about it.

Spiff
07-03-2002, 03:19 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
The union issue is another point. If ShamME allows Reilly to bully him into taking a test, then other sports reporters in other cities will soon be bullying other players into doing it. If any one of them agrees, the whole house of cards comes tumbling down. I don't think ShamME was thinking along those lines either, but from a union perspective, it is good that he held the line...

He wasn't bullying anything. He was telling him to put up or shut up, walk the walk if he's gonna talk the talk etc. Sosa panicked, plain and simple.

Kilroy
07-03-2002, 03:19 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
...I don't think ShamME was thinking along those lines either, but from a union perspective, it is good that he held the line...

Held the line? How? It's not like MLB sent a rep to the Cub clubhouse and Sammy was the first one chosen for a random test.

He was simply asked to put his money where his mouth was. No other player bragged how clean they were, so why would reporters/writers in other cities start after other players?

Randar68
07-03-2002, 03:32 PM
Originally posted by steff3603


First, Sammy created this by offering the statement "I will go test".
Second, Riley did not ask him for a sample... he gave him a piece of paper with the number to a clinic in Wheaton on it and said "why don't you set the example".
The controversy started when Sammy said FU, called him a MF'er, etc.. Was it wrong, perhaps. But if Sosa had not made the offer, and then acted like a monkey on crack, there would be no story. IMO, Riley did a good thing. There's been a cloud over Sosa since the $20K in the brown paper bag hidden in a towel in the hotel lobby stolen from him in the DR. Trouble is.. everyone seems to be scared to ask him about it.


Let's not even bring up one of Sammy's best friends, Manny Alexander, being arrested for trying to buy a crap-ton of steroids...

hmmmmmmmmm....... he is a joke, plain and simple...

ma-gaga
07-03-2002, 04:37 PM
he gave him a piece of paper ... and said "why don't you set the example".

From the article (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/inside_game/magazine/life_of_reilly/news/2002/07/02/life_of_reilly/) "Why not step up right now and be tested? You show everybody you're clean. It'll lift a cloud off you and a cloud off the game. It'll show the fans that all these great numbers you're putting up are real."

I don't know, to me that sounds like he's accusing Sosa already. "It'll lift a cloud off you..." What is Sosa supposed to think that means?

I'd tell him to 'fart off' too. I might even call him a 'momma's boy' as well. This was a sleazy setup job by a good journalist and Sosa fell for it. CNNSI is going to lose their reputation quicker than Sosa. You ask any 20 random baseball players the same questions that Reilly asked, and I would put $ down that EVERY one of them would refuse, and at least half would tell you to 'go away', maybe as simple as Sosa, maybe they'd use larger words. Can you imagine what Curt Schilling would say to Reilly? :D:

Finally, the media will always have the last word, so how did you think Reilly was going to spin the 'story'?

PaleHoseGeorge
07-03-2002, 04:40 PM
Originally posted by Kilroy
Held the line? How? It's not like MLB sent a rep to the Cub clubhouse and Sammy was the first one chosen for a random test.

He was simply asked to put his money where his mouth was. No other player bragged how clean they were, so why would reporters/writers in other cities start after other players?

The Sosa apologists just keep ignoring your point. There is NO story here, unless Sosa opened his mouth FIRST. Reilly didn't "make the news"; Sosa did. Reilly simply followed up on it--like any competent reporter should do!

I'm referring specifically to the talking heads I watched on Chicago's local TV sportscasts: Dan Roan, Mark Giangreco, Mike Adamle, and whoever the twerp was on Channel 5. Teddy Greenstein took the same tack in the Cubune this morning, too. (I bet you're all surprised about that, right? :smile: ). Everyone of them referred to the Sports Illustrated reporter as "making an issue" over Sammy's denial of steroid use.

WRONG, you numbskulls! Reilly is making a story out of Sosa reniging on a promise to be first to be tested, and then blowing up at being revealed a fraud. Can these idiots EVER get the facts straight?

I understand why these lap dogs would lash out at Reilly. As the local media's reporters, it's their professional competence that has been called into question for never asking the same questions that an outsider ultimately had to do on their behalf.

What excuse can the rest of us make?

voodoochile
07-03-2002, 04:41 PM
Originally posted by Spiff


He wasn't bullying anything. He was telling him to put up or shut up, walk the walk if he's gonna talk the talk etc. Sosa panicked, plain and simple.

Oh I'm not suggesting that ShamME put any deep thought into his stance. It sounds like he got caught off guard, but the end results are the same as if he held the line. If he goes along with Reilly's offer, it affects lots of other players in the short run.

FarWestChicago
07-03-2002, 05:36 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge


The Sosa apologists just keep ignoring your point. There is NO story here, unless Sosa opened his mouth FIRST. Reilly didn't "make the news"; Sosa did. Reilly simply followed up on it--like any competent reporter should do!Yep, and I have no idea where the Sham-ME Apologists here are coming from.

raul12
07-03-2002, 05:50 PM
Originally posted by ma-gaga


I don't know, to me that sounds like he's accusing Sosa already. "It'll lift a cloud off you..." What is Sosa supposed to think that means?

I'd tell him to 'fart off' too. I might even call him a 'momma's boy' as well. This was a sleazy setup job by a good journalist and Sosa fell for it. CNNSI is going to lose their reputation quicker than Sosa. You ask any 20 random baseball players the same questions that Reilly asked, and I would put $ down that EVERY one of them would refuse, and at least half would tell you to 'go away', maybe as simple as Sosa, maybe they'd use larger words. Can you imagine what Curt Schilling would say to Reilly? :D:


it's the same thing when you plead the fifth--although it doesn't technically incriminate you, it sure looks bad in the eyes of everyone.

as for the other 20 random baseball players--like PHG said--the difference is that the 20 random baseball players DIDN'T say they were clean and they'll take a test to back it up. sheesh, sometimes it's like talking to a brick wall.

LongDistanceFan
07-03-2002, 05:51 PM
Originally posted by ma-gaga


From the article (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/inside_game/magazine/life_of_reilly/news/2002/07/02/life_of_reilly/) "Why not step up right now and be tested? You show everybody you're clean. It'll lift a cloud off you and a cloud off the game. It'll show the fans that all these great numbers you're putting up are real."

I don't know, to me that sounds like he's accusing Sosa already. "It'll lift a cloud off you..." What is Sosa supposed to think that means?

read PHG and it explains how it all pan out.

LongDistanceFan
07-03-2002, 05:52 PM
Originally posted by PaleHoseGeorge


The Sosa apologists just keep ignoring your point. There is NO story here, unless Sosa opened his mouth FIRST. Reilly didn't "make the news"; Sosa did. Reilly simply followed up on it--like any competent reporter should do!

I'm referring specifically to the talking heads I watched on Chicago's local TV sportscasts: Dan Roan, Mark Giangreco, Mike Adamle, and whoever the twerp was on Channel 5. Teddy Greenstein took the same tack in the Cubune this morning, too. (I bet you're all surprised about that, right? :smile: ). Everyone of them referred to the Sports Illustrated reporter as "making an issue" over Sammy's denial of steroid use.

WRONG, you numbskulls! Reilly is making a story out of Sosa reniging on a promise to be first to be tested, and then blowing up at being revealed a fraud. Can these idiots EVER get the facts straight?

I understand why these lap dogs would lash out at Reilly. As the local media's reporters, it's their professional competence that has been called into question for never asking the same questions that an outsider ultimately had to do on their behalf.

What excuse can the rest of us make? great post

ma-gaga
07-03-2002, 06:42 PM
ok. I'll agree that Sosa is an idiot for opening up his mouth in the first place. But I don't agree with Reilly pushing it and I don't agree with the style or forum he used.

:)

kevingrt
07-03-2002, 07:45 PM
I don't know if anyone else mentioned it, but think of this:

What if Frank was posed with that question and he blew up on Reilly like Sammy did?

What would the media do to Frank? I think they'd rip him up since he isn't as popular as Sammy...

LongDistanceFan
07-03-2002, 08:04 PM
Originally posted by ma-gaga
ok. I'll agree that Sosa is an idiot for opening up his mouth in the first place. But I don't agree with Reilly pushing it and I don't agree with the style or forum he used.

:) reilly didn't push anything............ he asked and then said to clear things up by taking the test........... nothing more.

Mathew
07-03-2002, 08:24 PM
Originally posted by kevingrt
I don't know if anyone else mentioned it, but think of this:

What if Frank was posed with that question and he blew up on Reilly like Sammy did?

What would the media do to Frank? I think they'd rip him up since he isn't as popular as Sammy...


They did ask Frank and he didn't blow up hmmmmm....

kevingrt
07-03-2002, 11:13 PM
Originally posted by Mathew



They did ask Frank and he didn't blow up hmmmmm....

They didn't give him a address to a steriod testing place.

ISUSoxfan
07-04-2002, 07:57 AM
Originally posted by voodoochile


You know anyone like that in this world? Anyone know anyone like that in this world? Slippery slope my friends, slippery slope...
Yeah, that slippery slope might lead right down to Sosa and other athletes who use illegal substances being exposed, other criminals in our society being caught, and people who are clean being cleared. The slippery slope argument is a classic liberal tactic used to scare people away from policies that make sense.

ChiSoxBobette
07-04-2002, 08:41 AM
I'm just amazed how most of the media is sticking up for shammee. On espn radio the morning after the story about S.I. & shammee broke it seemed they were defending shammee saying that he was only doing what the players union wanted him to do and that S.I. ambushed him. My thinking is that he's supposed to be one of the biggest stars in baseball today and if he told S.I. right then and there ok lets go right now and I'll take a test because I've got nothing to hide, whats the players union going to do to him suspend him yeah right. Hey I'm a White Sox fan and over the last weekend I was in heaven when Antonio Asuna struck shammee out for the last out with runners in scoring postion but I would have applauded him if he has taken a real stand and tested right then and there. Instead he gives his usual speech about how everyone knows hes a hard worker and all of the same old bulls**t. Then you hear shammees media buddies defending him. Its the same old thing from all of them they seem to live by a different set of rules then the rest of us, and this guy seems to do no wrong with sports writers, sports talkshow hosts he says everything everyone wants to hear. Just like when he ran around the field with the flag in his hand last year he had a chance to step out and really do something thats right, but this time there was'nt any Chicago Tribune/Flub front office publicity person there to hand him the flag , he was on his own and we all got to see the real shammee.
Go White Sox. :smile: :smile: :smile:

Nick@Nite
07-04-2002, 09:47 AM
Originally posted by ChiSoxBob
[B]I'm just amazed how most of the media is sticking up for shammee.

I agree that everyone is mistakenly fingering Reilly's tactics, saying he bushwhacked Sosa, and implying that that is the story.

Ken Caminiti admitted using steroids, enabling him to win the '96 MVP award. Barry Bonds, Sammy Sosa, Mark McGuire (retired), Kevin Bagwell, ect. (ad nauseam) , all look like NFL linebackers AND continually put up MVP like numbers. They all started out weighing a buck 95 with 32 inch waist-lines, then 5-7 years later they look like Mr. Olympia. That is the story.

Sosa is guilty of being a bad spokesperson for himself by saying he'd be the first in line for MLB mandated testing. Reilly is guilty of being a journalist of distasteful methodology while pursuing a story. Sosa vs. Reilly is a small story... taking the spotlight away (temporarily I hope) from the fact baseball players can use illegal substances.

Lastly, if Babe Ruth used 'roids, he would have hit 1014 ding dongs. Hank Aaron on 'roids? 1055 taters.

EFIL4XOSETIHW WHITESOX4LIFE :)

voodoochile
07-04-2002, 12:29 PM
Originally posted by ISUSoxfan

Yeah, that slippery slope might lead right down to Sosa and other athletes who use illegal substances being exposed, other criminals in our society being caught, and people who are clean being cleared. The slippery slope argument is a classic liberal tactic used to scare people away from policies that make sense.

Ever heard of the 5th amendment?

OH THAT (smacks forehead)... details, details...

How about the presumption of innocence? DOH!

Unresonable search? Um... oh yeah...but... nevermind...

You pseudo-conservatives always want to do away with the very rules that protect the individuals rights you SO claim to love. I doubt you will find much support from the other conservatives who truly understand the constitution and the precious rights they so protect. Your idea sounds more like the KGB - "Hear, pee in this bottle or you are guilty. Heck, you are probably guilty anyway, let's just lock him up..."

I maybe liberal, but I understand the rules this country was founded on. I'd say more, but it might get ugly, so, I'll just sign off...

TornLabrum
07-04-2002, 01:03 PM
First of all, I hate to be defending Sammy Sosa of all people, but in this case Reilly was just plain wrong. Here is why.

1) Sammy said that if MLB and the MLBPA agreed to steroid testing, he'd be the first in line. He did not say anything about going in on his own for testing.

2) Reilly asked him if he would volunteer to take a test outside the perview of MLB and the MLBPA and Sosa said he would not. The next question should have been, "Why not?" and whatever Sosa's answer was should have been the end of it unless there was a legitimate followup question arising from Sosa's answer to that.

3) I never went to jounalism school, but I've been told by people who have that when reporting events, it is not up to the reporter to create the story. This was a clear case of Reilly creating the story. He did that as soon as he handed Sosa that piece of paper that had the name and address of a lab on it. That's an ambush tactic, and ambush jounalism is sleezy at best. The very fact the Reilly had the address and had made arrangements for Sosa to be tested attests to the fact that Reilly was setting Sosa up to look bad, and was out to make news himself, not cover or interpret the news. As baseball people would put it, "That's bush."

Sure Sammy shouldn't have opened his mouth in the first place. It was dumb. But what Reilly did was worse. He intentionally went out to make Sosa look bad. He knew damn well from the start that Sosa wasn't going to go for a test that was not approved by his union. He wanted to make Sosa look bad, and that's all he wanted to do.

It amazes me that the view of so many on this list can be so clouded by their dislike of the publicity machine that is Sammy Sosa that they can't see when he is, for once, the victim.

Let me put it to you another way. I teach. It is important that I be drug free, but there is no agreement between the NBEA and the school board about mandatory drug testing. Some reporter from the Rockford Register-Star comes up to me and asks what I feel about testing. I tell him that I'm drug free and wouldn't hesitate to take a test. So he hands me a cup and asks if I will pee in it for him...or hands me the address of a lab that will test me. I've never heard of this lab. I don't know if I'm being set up. I refuse. He then proceeds to write an article assailing my character and stops just short of accusing me of being a drug user.

Put yourself in that situation. What would you do? Remember, you've never heard of this lab. It's just some name and address that some reporter has given you on a piece of paper. If you tell me you're going to test, then you're either stupid or a liar.

MarqSox
07-04-2002, 01:22 PM
Originally posted by TornLabrum

3) I never went to jounalism school, but I've been told by people who have that when reporting events, it is not up to the reporter to create the story. This was a clear case of Reilly creating the story. He did that as soon as he handed Sosa that piece of paper that had the name and address of a lab on it. That's an ambush tactic, and ambush jounalism is sleezy at best. The very fact the Reilly had the address and had made arrangements for Sosa to be tested attests to the fact that Reilly was setting Sosa up to look bad, and was out to make news himself, not cover or interpret the news. As baseball people would put it, "That's bush."

Sure Sammy shouldn't have opened his mouth in the first place. It was dumb. But what Reilly did was worse. He intentionally went out to make Sosa look bad. He knew damn well from the start that Sosa wasn't going to go for a test that was not approved by his union. He wanted to make Sosa look bad, and that's all he wanted to do.


I'm just baffled at how anyone could criticize Reilly here. From a journalistic standpoint, he did NOTHING wrong.

1.) The issue and the individual in question are newsworthy.

2.) He did the legwork of setting up the exam, thus saving Sammy the time and effort of doing that.

3.) He took Sammy up on HIS OFFER. When an individual makes an invitation like Sammy did, it is irresponsible for a good journalist NOT to follow it up.

4.) How can you say Reilly "created" the story when Sammy started the issue? Bottom line is, if Sammy politely declines or even says "let me get back to you," it might warrant mention in a briefs page that no one would notice. The fact that he blew up made the encounter newsworthy.

5. You have to realize also, as a columnist, Reilly is not bound by the same rules of reporting that your everyday beat writer is bound by. He's an opinion writer, and thus he is allowed to insert himself into the story if it serves the newsgathering role, which it does here.

MarqSox
07-04-2002, 01:30 PM
Remarkably, here's some worthwhile reading on the subject from MLB.com.

http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/mlb/news/mlb_perspectives.jsp?ymd=20020703&content_id=73720&vkey=perspectives&fext=.jsp

TornLabrum
07-04-2002, 01:59 PM
I'm just baffled at how anyone could criticize Reilly here. From a journalistic standpoint, he did NOTHING wrong.

No, he only made an appointment in advance for the person he was interviewing, thus creating the situation in which he could ambush Sosa.

1.) The issue and the individual in question are newsworthy.

Correct.

2.) He did the legwork of setting up the exam, thus saving Sammy the time and effort of doing that.

I'm sure that was Reilly's motive. No, his motive was to put Sosa in an untenable situation. No matter what Sosa did, and it certainly would not be to go in and take a test at some lab he probably never heard of, Reilly had his big story. And isn't all the pre-publication publicity he got cool?

3.) He took Sammy up on HIS OFFER. When an individual makes an invitation like Sammy did, it is irresponsible for a good journalist NOT to follow it up.

Wrong! Sammy did not offer to take any kind of test not sanctioned by MLB and the MLBPA. And that's the whole point as to why Reilly was dead wrong, and why Sosa critics are dead wrong.

Which reminds me...I left out one important point in my analogy about myself, and that is that when I talk to the reporter from the Register-Star, I tell him that if the NBEA and school board agree to testing, I'll be the first in line to test because I'm drug free. I hope those reading this assumed this was the case.

4.) How can you say Reilly "created" the story when Sammy started the issue? Bottom line is, if Sammy politely declines or even says "let me get back to you," it might warrant mention in a briefs page that no one would notice. The fact that he blew up made the encounter newsworthy.

He created the situation where he could have a story. The situation he created became the story: "Sosa Refuses Drug Test Offered by Reporter." That's the story this week, not Sammy saying he'd be first in line when a testing procedure was agreed to.

5. You have to realize also, as a columnist, Reilly is not bound by the same rules of reporting that your everyday beat writer is bound by. He's an opinion writer, and thus he is allowed to insert himself into the story if it serves the newsgathering role, which it does here.

As a columnist he can insert his opinions into the story. As a columnist he still is not supposed to become the story, and that's exactly what happened here.

Bye the way, you didn't respond to the part where I asked what the Reilly defenders would do in a similar situation. Are you going to go to that lab you never heard of?

TornLabrum
07-04-2002, 02:03 PM
Remarkably, here's some worthwhile reading on the subject from MLB.com.

Remember, mlb.com is run by the owners who are in a collective bargaining situation with the players and would like all the leverage they could get. So any opinions expressed in that article are necessarily those of Major League Baseball and its members (the owners) and not those of the MLBPA or its members (the players).

LongDistanceFan
07-04-2002, 02:09 PM
Originally posted by TornLabrum


He created the situation where he could have a story. The situation he created became the story: "Sosa Refuses Drug Test Offered by Reporter." That's the story this week, not Sammy saying he'd be first in line when a testing procedure was agreed to.

Bye the way, you didn't respond to the part where I asked what the Reilly defenders would do in a similar situation. Are you going to go to that lab you never heard of?

the story was created when shamme made the comment and it went over the wires. so 1 reporter took up the challenge. a story was there in the making, and someone did it...... i was wondering that last week and said he should take a test and so forth........ if i remember correctly, so did several other posters.......... shamme made the statement and it was a challenge of sorts.

i would not go to the lab but go to the hospital and have only test for roids.

Nick@Nite
07-04-2002, 02:19 PM
Put yourself in that situation. What would you do? Remember, you've never heard of this lab. It's just some name and address that some reporter has given you on a piece of paper. If you tell me you're going to test, then you're either stupid or a liar. [/B]

Your right regarding Sosa's obligation to Reilly's challenge to test. Sosa doesn't owe anyone anything. Reilly's tactics are in poor taste. But wrong? I dunno because I know nothing about journalism, except "to protect your sources".

Your argument regarding character within your profession being drug-free is compelling. If you turn up positive on a golden flow test not sanctioned by the company you work for, that could mean your pink slip.

I'd be more than happy to be pee searched by some company sanctioned by the company I work for. Being on active duty in the military, I have no choice when it comes to drug testing. I can relate to Sosa if he doesn't want to submit to an unsanctioned test, because if it were unsanctioned, It doesn't mean a damn thing to anyone.


Sham-mee (and the rest of the NFL-linebacker-looking sluggers) always have the right to say testing method's aren't sanctioned by Bud, and his Genghis Khan legion on monopolists.

Until MLB comes on-line with the rest of the country when it comes to banning illegal substances.

Sosa is guilty of shame (without court-legal-binding-proof). Reilly is guilty of being shameless (unfortunately, no rules).

WHITESOX4LIFE! :)

TornLabrum
07-04-2002, 02:25 PM
the story was created when shamme made the comment and it went over the wires. so 1 reporter took up the challenge.

Once again and for the last time. Sosa did not make any kind of challenge. He said that if a testing procedure were to be set into place, he'd be the first in line. That's different from some clown off the street challenging you to take the test now . This is where the Sosa bashers are dead wrong in their interpretation of events.

a story was there in the making, and someone did it......

I'm glad to see that you're admitting that it was the reporter who made the story. Now tell me something: is the reporter supposed to be the story? In this case he is. The story has become Jack Reilly. It's Reilly who is being interviewed all over the place. He's no longer being a reporter or even a columnist.

This is different from other situations in which reporters became part of the story. I'm thinking of Woodward and Bernstein as an example. They had a source inside the White House who was giving them information they reported. But the key is that they reported the information. Columnists like Jack Anderson then commented on their stories. But I don't think Jack Anderson ever offered Nixon or Haldeman or Erlichman the name and address of a polygraph tester on a piece of paper and offer to go with them, did he?

The problem with journalism of all sorts today is that the reporters and columnists now think they should be news themselves. That's tabloid "National Enquirer" "journalism" at its worst.

i was wondering that last week and said he should take a test and so forth........

Did you hear or read what Sosa actually said when you wondered that? My first thought when I heard the story was, "Boy did he set himself up now! Some idiot is gonna pull something on him." I wish I'd written that somewhere. I could be hailed as a prophet...or not since you know that with today's low ethical standards in journalism, some clown was bound to do something like that.

if i remember correctly, so did several other posters.......... shamme made the statement and it was a challenge of sorts.

I'll go back to what I said before. If one of my coworkers admits to using drugs and I say that I'd be happy to take a drug test if the union and school board agree to a procedure, that's not a challenge. That's a statement of fact.

If you assume that I'm saying that if you hand me a slip of paper with the name and address of a lab on it that I'll go now, you're an idiot.

i would not go to the lab but go to the hospital and have only test for roids.

Even if your union is in the process of tyring to negotiate a testing policy? BTW, that option was not offered by Reilly.

LongDistanceFan
07-04-2002, 02:50 PM
thing is i am not in front of the media eyes and have youngster looking up to me...... so was made when he came foreword with his comment whether he meant it as such. he came foreword to dispel any notion that anybody may harbor.

ref the journalist point....... it became an issue when shamme started cussing him out, thus making him part of the story. i remember a reporter who was interviewing a bonds in the pitts day and bonds went off on him........... he was made part of the story when that happen.

that being said, i been saying for a very long time about roids when mark mac came out and said that he took it. my natural suspicion was that shamme was taking them as well.

people who are in the public eyes comes under a tighter scrutiny..... is it justified......... prolly not, but when someone who keeps themselves in the public eye have to expect this. esp when they make stupid comments.

ref to the watergate, they were accuse of not being americans b/c they pursued the matter. i believe it was said that they owed it to themselves as well as america............. i am not saying this is not the same, but if there is doubt and a reporter does pursue it, maybe he was doing it b/c he believe he owe it to all those youngsters who idolize him, shamme, to find out the truth.

Kilroy
07-04-2002, 03:07 PM
Originally posted by TornLabrum

Even if your union is in the process of tyring to negotiate a testing policy?

How does Sosa being tested voluntarily hurt the union's position? Unless of course their position is to hide and protect players that they know are doping.

Daver
07-04-2002, 03:27 PM
Originally posted by Kilroy


How does Sosa being tested voluntarily hurt the union's position? Unless of course their position is to hide and protect players that they know are doping.

Because the union will use testing as a bargaining point in negotiations with the owners,and if they agree to random testing it would be a concession on the unions part and judged that way by the NLRB.

Kilroy
07-04-2002, 11:09 PM
Originally posted by daver


Because the union will use testing as a bargaining point in negotiations with the owners,and if they agree to random testing it would be a concession on the unions part and judged that way by the NLRB.

That's all fine and dandy. It will still be a bargaining chip, just as it is now. One player volunteering to be tested at this point really has no effect on that at all. In reality, the owners don't want this testing. They will be pushing for it to satisy the public. And as dumb as they've already shown themselves to be, I wouldn't be the least bit surprised to see them skip testing depending on what the players ask for in return. They simply don't care that much.

Daver
07-04-2002, 11:15 PM
Originally posted by Kilroy


That's all fine and dandy. It will still be a bargaining chip, just as it is now. One player volunteering to be tested at this point really has no effect on that at all.

Yes it does have an effect,because it breaks the solidarity of the union.A union exists to serve it's members,but the members have to serve the union for it to work.

Kilroy
07-04-2002, 11:25 PM
Originally posted by daver


Yes it does have an effect,because it breaks the solidarity of the union.A union exists to serve it's members,but the members have to serve the union for it to work.

In my opinion, it breaks nothing at all. But I'll defer for a moment if you'd like to paint the scenario that shows how one man being tested voluntarily (and that is key) could be used against the players union later in negotiations about random, involuntary testing. Many people have taken that position, but I have yet to hear anyone put forth a plausible situation...

ISUSoxfan
07-05-2002, 05:14 AM
Unions have served their purpose and run their course. They were a necessary evil back in the day, but their time has come and gone. America has no more use for unions. They are destroying our sports and forcing jobs into other countries. Employers who deal with unions get what they deserve. We are in the year 2002, and unions no longer serve a useful purpose. They hurt us all by raising consumer prices in sports and in the market in general. If Sosa put his own reputation on the line just to protect his union, he has sold his soul to it, but I bet he is on steroids and is counting on his union to save him from criminal prosecution. All of the MLB players who are not using steroids are paying dues and about to go on strike for criminls like Sosa who abuse the system. Sosa belongs in jail, along with Ferh and Selig.

steff
07-05-2002, 09:17 AM
Originally posted by TornLabrum
user.

Put yourself in that situation. What would you do? Remember, you've never heard of this lab. It's just some name and address that some reporter has given you on a piece of paper. If you tell me you're going to test, then you're either stupid or a liar.


Myself in that situation.. "I'll take the test when MLB tells me where and when to". NOT.. "fu, mother f'er". And I'm not stupid or a liar either.

TornLabrum
07-05-2002, 10:09 AM
Steff, I don't know how to tell you this, but you just agreed with me. So you're obviously neither stupid nor a liar. Sammy said he would be first in line to take a test if MLB and the MLBPA agreed to do them.

And, I'm sorry, if some grandstanding clown comes up to me with a paper with a name and address of the lab, I'd probably do exactly what Sammy did.

Just to be sure I wasn't offbase, I asked my 22-year-old son what he thought without giving him my opinion. (He doesn't read the boards here.) His response (and he hates Sosa as much as I do): "I'd probably knock the *******'s teeth out."

steff
07-05-2002, 10:36 AM
Originally posted by TornLabrum
Steff, I don't know how to tell you this, but you just agreed with me. So you're obviously neither stupid nor a liar. Sammy said he would be first in line to take a test if MLB and the MLBPA agreed to do them.

And, I'm sorry, if some grandstanding clown comes up to me with a paper with a name and address of the lab, I'd probably do exactly what Sammy did.

Just to be sure I wasn't offbase, I asked my 22-year-old son what he thought without giving him my opinion. (He doesn't read the boards here.) His response (and he hates Sosa as much as I do): "I'd probably knock the *******'s teeth out."

Obviously, I didn't agree with you. You said you'd do the same thing Sammy did. I would not. I would have answered the question calmly (actually I would have never made a comment about being tested in the first place...). He, Sosa, made this a bigger issue than it needed to be. "Grandstanding clown"... guess Riley was just acting like the company he was with.
Someone please explain why this thread is now 8 pages long with some posters arguing back and forth about union and legal ramifications? Can we not simply have different opinions here rather than get into a debate about who is right or wrong?

TornLabrum
07-05-2002, 11:25 AM
Obviously, I didn't agree with you. You said you'd do the same thing Sammy did....

Steff, here is the section of my original post that you're referring to:

Let me put it to you another way. I teach. It is important that I be drug free, but there is no agreement between the NBEA and the school board about mandatory drug testing. Some reporter from the Rockford Register-Star comes up to me and asks what I feel about testing. I tell him that I'm drug free and wouldn't hesitate to take a test. So he hands me a cup and asks if I will pee in it for him...or hands me the address of a lab that will test me. I've never heard of this lab. I don't know if I'm being set up. I refuse. He then proceeds to write an article assailing my character and stops just short of accusing me of being a drug user.

Put yourself in that situation. What would you do? Remember, you've never heard of this lab. It's just some name and address that some reporter has given you on a piece of paper. If you tell me you're going to test, then you're either stupid or a liar.

Please show me where I said I would do what Sammy did. Please show me where I said that in any of my subsequent posts. (Don't bother. I already went though each one to make sure I wasn't going nuts or suffering from multiple personality disorder. I never said it.)

I think you may have missed the point of the quoted section. I'm challenging those who say Sosa was wrong for whatever reason. I'm not saying that I'd call anybody a mother******. But I sure as hell would refuse the test.

steff
07-05-2002, 12:25 PM
Originally posted by TornLabrum


Steff, here is the section of my original post that you're referring to:


Please show me where I said I would do what Sammy did. Please show me where I said that in any of my subsequent posts. (Don't bother. I already went though each one to make sure I wasn't going nuts or suffering from multiple personality disorder. I never said it.)

I think you may have missed the point of the quoted section. I'm challenging those who say Sosa was wrong for whatever reason. I'm not saying that I'd call anybody a mother******. But I sure as hell would refuse the test.


I never said Sosa was wrong for denying the test. His reaction WAS wrong. He made this an issue. I don't have the time to back through this thread.. so I'll take your word for it. But I'll use your kids response (assuming you agree with him) to punch the reporter..? That is not what I would do. I'd act like an adult and simply say no. Not FU, etc... And I didn't miss anything. You said "Put yourself in that situation. What would you do? Remember, you've never heard of this lab. It's just some name and address that some reporter has given you on a piece of paper. If you tell me you're going to test, then you're either stupid or a liar." And I said "Myself in that situation.. "I'll take the test when MLB tells me where and when to". NOT.. "fu, mother f'er". And I'm not stupid or a liar either.". That is the only part of your post I was replying to. And for the record.. he didn't ask him to pee in a cup. He gave him the address. Small, but very important detail.

WhiteSoxWinner
07-05-2002, 12:42 PM
Originally posted by 34 Inch Stick
Did Sosa ever really offer to be tested? If not, then it is Reilly who is the dick. These tests are an intrusion on his privacy and whether he is clean or not, he should reject the test.

Rejecting the offer to take the test proves nothing. I may not let a police officer look in the trunk of my car, but that does not mean I have a body in it.

Actually, this is a bad analogy. I would liken it more to blowing as a sobriety test. Now, if a police officer pulls me over, and asks me to take a test, whether or not I have been drinking, and I refuse, I lose my license for six months. So, if I want to stand up for privacy and not take the test, there is a cost to me.

In my opinion, you introduce testing like this. Everyone in MLB has to pee in the cup. If you decide you don't want to do it because it is a slam on your privacy, that's cool, but you get suspended for 3 to 4 weeks. Without pay.

Before anyone makes the point that we are keeping these guys from making a living, let me say that that would be the same treatment for a commercial truck driver that decided it was a slam on his privacy to take a field test. He loses his license and can't drive his truck and make a living.

voodoochile
07-05-2002, 01:15 PM
Originally posted by WhiteSoxWinner


Actually, this is a bad analogy. I would liken it more to blowing as a sobriety test. Now, if a police officer pulls me over, and asks me to take a test, whether or not I have been drinking, and I refuse, I lose my license for six months. So, if I want to stand up for privacy and not take the test, there is a cost to me.

In my opinion, you introduce testing like this. Everyone in MLB has to pee in the cup. If you decide you don't want to do it because it is a slam on your privacy, that's cool, but you get suspended for 3 to 4 weeks. Without pay.

Before anyone makes the point that we are keeping these guys from making a living, let me say that that would be the same treatment for a commercial truck driver that decided it was a slam on his privacy to take a field test. He loses his license and can't drive his truck and make a living.

Drunk driving is a life and death issue. While I think Steroids are bad for the sport and the fan's perception of the sport, it is not on the same level as allowing a guy driving a 40,000 pound truck on a highway with familys.

However, your punishment is very similar to the NFL's substance abuse policy. If you miss a test, it is the same as failing one...

steff
07-05-2002, 02:37 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile


Drunk driving is a life and death issue. While I think Steroids are bad for the sport and the fan's perception of the sport, it is not on the same level as allowing a guy driving a 40,000 pound truck on a highway with familys.

However, your punishment is very similar to the NFL's substance abuse policy. If you miss a test, it is the same as failing one...

Didn't see that "drunk driving" thing in WhiteSoxWhinner's post, but understand how that was interpreted. I do agree with the CDL driver analogy 100% though. My dad is one and is out of the blue often tested. Not just for alcohol, but for ANYTHING else illegal. Goes with the job.

TornLabrum
07-05-2002, 03:23 PM
But I'll use your kids response (assuming you agree with him) to punch the reporter..?

No, I don't believe anyone has the right to punch another person except in self defense, no matter how much of a **** they are. The part reason I mentioned him was simply because reading all of the defenses of the reporter, I was beginning to wonder if I was out of touch with reality. I wanted the opinion of another person who is also a fan, and he was the first person I talked to about it.

I would have answered the question calmly (actually I would have never made a comment about being tested in the first place...)

I assume that since Sosa was quoted, that he was in the presence of at least one reporter and was asked about it, just as in my analogy. I imagine the question was something like, "If they institute testing, would you be in favor of it?" Imagine how they'd crucify the poor SOB if he said, "No."

"SAMMY REFUSES TO BE TESTED!"
"SOSA ON JUICE?"

Yeah, he really shouldn't have said that he'd be first in line.

And for the record.. he didn't ask him to pee in a cup. He gave him the address.

Which I brought up as one of two scenarios in my analogy. And if he does go in with the reporter, he isn't going to pee into a snifter. :smile:

Small, but very important detail.

Depends on how you look at it. He obviously (from all the anti-Sosa whaling) comes off better "helpfully" offering him an address of a lab than handing him a cup. But he might as well have done the latter.

TornLabrum
07-05-2002, 03:25 PM
would liken it more to blowing as a sobriety test. Now, if a police officer pulls me over, and asks me to take a test, whether or not I have been drinking, and I refuse, I lose my license for six months. So, if I want to stand up for privacy and not take the test, there is a cost to me.

I'm not exactly sure what you're saying here. If you're comparing the reporter handing Sosa the paper with the lab to a cop pulling you over as a possible DUI, I have to disagree. What Reilly did was closer to my pulilng you over and demanding that you take a sobriety test for my own edification.

WhiteSoxWinner
07-06-2002, 12:58 AM
Originally posted by TornLabrum


I'm not exactly sure what you're saying here. If you're comparing the reporter handing Sosa the paper with the lab to a cop pulling you over as a possible DUI, I have to disagree. What Reilly did was closer to my pulilng you over and demanding that you take a sobriety test for my own edification.

First off, to respond to Voodoo, I was talking about a privacy issue. I didn't imply anything about an actual drunken driver (thanks for pointing that out Steff), I am referring to anyone who feels that being asked to blow is an affront to their privacy. In addition, I am not talking about an actual drunk driver here because in that analogy, Sham-me would be judged to be on 'roids, and that not the assumption I am making for the purpose of this arguement.

Let's take a scenario, where a guy driving late at night swerves to miss a pothole as a cop goes by. Let's make this more interesting and say he has one beer (not enough to impair this guy) on the way back from his friend's house, so there is a smell of alcohol on his breathe. The cop pulls him over because he swerved, and it could be a sign of drunken driver. The cop asks him to come to the station for a Breathalyzer. This guy, offended that the cop thinks he's a drunk, has a decision to make. If he says no, he loses his license, but he strikes a blow for privacy advocates everywhere. If he says yes, he is inconvenienced for a couple hours, but comes away with his license and goes on his way.

Let me spell out the Sham-me analogy. Sham-me was not a big guy a few years ago. All of the sudden, he shows up to spring training huge and starts tearing the cover off the ball. Are we saying he is on the juice? No, maybe he really did just hit the bench day and night with a dedicated work ethic, ate right, and added all that mass. But there is doubt about that given Sham-me's history and the current MLB state of affairs regarding steroid use. Sham-me has a choice, just like the guy in our scenario. If he agrees to the test and is not juiced, he is inconvenienced for a few hours, but comes away with a much more solid reputation. If he says no, the Chicago media comes to his rescue and hangs Reilly in effigy.

Now, where did the scenarios differ? Right, when the guy said no, and lost his license, and Sham-me says no, and he is made a martyr. There are no negative consequences in Sham-me's scenario.

In the end, Sham-me brought this all on himself. Had he kept his trap shut, and not said a thing, none of this ever happens. Well, he decided to open his yap, and I give Reilly a lot of credit for asking Sham-me to put up or shut up. Sorry Sham-me, but not everyone will line up and take your babble as gospel.

I would like to make one other point; I believe that Sham-me and every other player does have some accountability to me, John Q. Public. Sham-me, and every other players gets to be paid $14 million for 7 years because I buy season tickets. I want to see athletes play. If I wanted juiced up "athletes", I would watch the WWE (as it is now called I guess). I think Rod Carew put it best just recently when he said, "If you want the fans to respect what's left of the game's pureness, you're going to have start testing." Full story at: http://espn.go.com/mlb/news/2002/0704/1402161.html

Daver
07-06-2002, 01:25 AM
Originally posted by ISUSoxfan
Unions have served their purpose and run their course. They were a necessary evil back in the day, but their time has come and gone. America has no more use for unions. They are destroying our sports and forcing jobs into other countries. Employers who deal with unions get what they deserve. We are in the year 2002, and unions no longer serve a useful purpose. They hurt us all by raising consumer prices in sports and in the market in general. If Sosa put his own reputation on the line just to protect his union, he has sold his soul to it, but I bet he is on steroids and is counting on his union to save him from criminal prosecution. All of the MLB players who are not using steroids are paying dues and about to go on strike for criminls like Sosa who abuse the system. Sosa belongs in jail, along with Ferh and Selig.

You win the prize for being a fool and an idiot at the same time.
Without the unions everything you take for granted shuts down,no fire protection,no police protection,and never mind the roads you drive on,they don't fix themselves.

Perhaps you should think a little harder before you make another stupid statement like this.

ISUSoxfan
07-06-2002, 08:10 AM
Originally posted by daver


You win the prize for being a fool and an idiot at the same time.
Without the unions everything you take for granted shuts down,no fire protection,no police protection,and never mind the roads you drive on,they don't fix themselves.

Perhaps you should think a little harder before you make another stupid statement like this.
I am honored and greatful to have been given such a prestigious award. I was happy just to be nominated, but to win is truly the highlight of a lifetime.

Seriously, this has gotten way off topic. Step over to the Parking Lot for my response.

TornLabrum
07-06-2002, 12:12 PM
Let's take a scenario, where a guy driving late at night swerves to miss a pothole as a cop goes by.

Okay, that's where your scenario breaks down compared to what happened with Sosa. If Bud Selig tells Sammy to take a drug test (because there is an agreement about such things between MLB and the MLBPA, then the police analogy holds up.

The police officer has the authority by law to demand that the driver take a field sobriety test or blow into the breathalyzer. (In Illinois when you get your driver's license, you are giving him that authority. It's call "implied consent," and you can lose your license if you refuse the test.) If Bud Selig is granted the authority to test for steroids or other drugs by agreement with the MLBPA, then if Sammy refuses, I have no doubt that the Commissioner's Office will have the right to suspend him.

On the other hand, an ordinary citizen has no right to pull a driver over and force them to take a breathalyzer test. I'm under no obligation if I'm the driver, and I can tell him t o go to hell (or use even stronger language) if I want. That analogy is comparable to what Reilly did.

And for those arguing that Sosa should do it on his own regardless of his union's position, as soon as that happens, then reporters are going to be going after Barry Bonds and anyone else anyone starts a rumor about. There is a good reason the union doesn't want its members going off on their own. If steroid testing is going to become part of the game, they want some sayso as to how it's going to be done. If their members are going to go off and test, and make the results public, they lose a whole lot of their bargaining power.

In the short run, it may look as if Sosa going to the lab with Reilly sounds like a good idea, but in the long run, Sosa would be hurting the union at a time when they're trying to protect what they've gained from the owners. That's the reality of the situation.

steff
07-06-2002, 12:25 PM
Originally posted by TornLabrum


That's the reality of the situation.


Actually, Hal... the reality of the situation is that you have way to much time on your hands :D:

WhiteSoxWinner
07-06-2002, 01:04 PM
Its only an analogy and not meant to be a "perfect" comparison. However, what my scenario lacks from a legal perspective, I make up in the fact that the fans DESERVE to know (similar to your implied consent). The steroid issue calls into the question the credibility of the game. If the fans do not deserve to know, then who cares if players bet on games. Why was it wrong for the 1919 Black Sox to throw games? They were doing it to get paid. Just like a guy on steroids takes them to get a bigger payday.

TornLabrum
07-06-2002, 01:26 PM
Actually, Hal... the reality of the situation is that you have way to much time on your hands

And exactly how many posts do you have in this thread, Steff? :D:

LongDistanceFan
07-06-2002, 01:30 PM
Originally posted by TornLabrum


when, in your opinion is it ok for a reporter to pursue a story that may actually goes against the grain. yet later it was found to be a great story.

watergate, iran contra, jfk, and many more.

alot of reporters have said that they owed it to themselves and others to pursue the story. this incident brought a very touche subject to the forefront that needed to be address.


btw do you think shamme, bonds are juiced?

TornLabrum
07-06-2002, 01:34 PM
Its only an analogy and not meant to be a "perfect" comparison. However, what my scenario lacks from a legal perspective, I make up in the fact that the fans DESERVE to know (similar to your implied consent). The steroid issue calls into the question the credibility of the game. If the fans do not deserve to know, then who cares if players bet on games. Why was it wrong for the 1919 Black Sox to throw games? They were doing it to get paid. Just like a guy on steroids takes them to get a bigger payday.

A couple of comments. I know where you're coming from, but there is a flaw or two in your analogy that acts as a defense of Reilly's indefensible action.

Implied consent gives the legal authorities, analogous to the commissioner, the right to test. That information becomes part of the public record when the case goes to trial. The public's right to know is satisfied by going through legal channels.

What Reilly did was to put in an extra-legal element to the case. He is taking it upon himself to subject Sosa to the pressure of deciding whether or not to take a test that he has no right to ask Sosa to take, analogous to your stopping me by pulling your car in front of me and asking that I blow into your breathalyzer (which may or may not be accurate) and then taking the results to the local paper, which you happen to be a reporter for and publishing the results.

I think this is closer to what Reilly did than your analogy.

Kilroy
07-06-2002, 02:10 PM
Originally posted by TornLabrum
What Reilly did was to put in an extra-legal element to the case. He is taking it upon himself to subject Sosa to the pressure of deciding whether or not to take a test that he has no right to ask Sosa to take...



Why does Reilly not have the right to ask Sosa that question? Sosa agreed to be interviewed, right? Did he agree with stipulations? Not that anyone has stated yet.

voodoochile
07-06-2002, 02:58 PM
Originally posted by WhiteSoxWinner
Its only an analogy and not meant to be a "perfect" comparison. However, what my scenario lacks from a legal perspective, I make up in the fact that the fans DESERVE to know (similar to your implied consent). The steroid issue calls into the question the credibility of the game. If the fans do not deserve to know, then who cares if players bet on games. Why was it wrong for the 1919 Black Sox to throw games? They were doing it to get paid. Just like a guy on steroids takes them to get a bigger payday.

No, you didn't just compare taking legal steroids (which like it or not is perfectly acceptable under the current CBA) to betting on baseball and throwing the WS...

Your analogys on this topic are not good ones. This is not a life and death issue. Want to bet that if the next CBA doesn't change the rules that this will all be glossed over and forgotten in a couple of years. Fans say they care and we do, but this is not an end of baseball issue as throwing the WS is...

voodoochile
07-06-2002, 03:02 PM
Originally posted by Kilroy


Why does Reilly not have the right to ask Sosa that question? Sosa agreed to be interviewed, right? Did he agree with stipulations? Not that anyone has stated yet.

He has a right to ask ShamME, are you juiced, and would you be willing to take a test if it is NOT mandated by the CBA. What he did was attempt to coerce ShamME into taking the test by using the power of column as the threat. ShamME has the right to say, "No, I won't take the test until it is mandated." He handled it badly, but, IMO, so did Reilly...

raul12
07-06-2002, 03:32 PM
Originally posted by TornLabrum


Okay, that's where your scenario breaks down compared to what happened with Sosa. If Bud Selig tells Sammy to take a drug test (because there is an agreement about such things between MLB and the MLBPA, then the police analogy holds up.

The police officer has the authority by law to demand that the driver take a field sobriety test or blow into the breathalyzer. (In Illinois when you get your driver's license, you are giving him that authority. It's call "implied consent," and you can lose your license if you refuse the test.) If Bud Selig is granted the authority to test for steroids or other drugs by agreement with the MLBPA, then if Sammy refuses, I have no doubt that the Commissioner's Office will have the right to suspend him.

On the other hand, an ordinary citizen has no right to pull a driver over and force them to take a breathalyzer test. I'm under no obligation if I'm the driver, and I can tell him t o go to hell (or use even stronger language) if I want. That analogy is comparable to what Reilly did.



i hate to say it hal, but your argument too has a major logical flaw. your comparison to an ordinary citizen pulling you over leaves out the very important detail that the driver would have had to volunteer in public to take the test. if i get up in the middle of a public place and say (for the sake of argument) that anyone can come up and punch my lights out, and then when someone takes me up on it, i kick his ass--that's in essence what sham-me did.

i have no opinion on whether Reilly was right or wrong in his approach--but sham-me instigated the ENTIRE incident with his big mouth. and i'm not sure about the world you live in, but the one i live in has consequences for being stupid. reilly being right or not has absolutely nothing to do with the situation.

FarWestChicago
07-06-2002, 04:08 PM
Will somebody tell TornLabrum about the quote button? I can never tell who he is responding to. :D:

Spiff
07-06-2002, 04:34 PM
Originally posted by FarWestChicago
Will somebody tell TornLabrum about the quote button? I can never tell who he is responding to. :D:

OoOooOo fancy new avatar :)

TornLabrum
07-06-2002, 05:01 PM
Why does Reilly not have the right to ask Sosa that question? Sosa agreed to be interviewed, right? Did he agree with stipulations? Not that anyone has stated yet.

I never said that Reilly didn't have the right to ask the question. Sosa made the statement, and Reilly had the right to ask. Where Reilly crossed the line was when he gave Sosa the slip of paper and suggested they both go to the lab and have Sammy test for steroids.

That was an ambush tactic, since it was obvious he had planned this out in advance and would do it no matter what Sosa said in answer to the original question. Pure bush league.

TornLabrum
07-06-2002, 05:05 PM
i hate to say it hal, but your argument too has a major logical flaw. your comparison to an ordinary citizen pulling you over leaves out the very important detail that the driver would have had to volunteer in public to take the test. if i get up in the middle of a public place and say (for the sake of argument) that anyone can come up and punch my lights out, and then when someone takes me up on it, i kick his ass--that's in essence what sham-me did.

That's why I didn't use any such analogy in the first place. My original analogy was a teacher being found taking drugs at my place of employment, my being asked by a reporter if I am drug free and if I would test, my saying yes if an agreement were reached by the NBEA and school board, and then the reporter attempting to have me test on my own before any such agreement had been reached.

raul12
07-06-2002, 05:13 PM
Originally posted by TornLabrum


That's why I didn't use any such analogy in the first place. My original analogy was a teacher being found taking drugs at my place of employment, my being asked by a reporter if I am drug free and if I would test, my saying yes if an agreement were reached by the NBEA and school board, and then the reporter attempting to have me test on my own before any such agreement had been reached.

point taken--but sham-me was still wrong for opening his trap and blowing up. like it or not, there's a difference between john q. public blowing up and a high-profile athlete (role model) blowing up. it just comes with the territory. like they say in spiderman, "with great power comes great responsibility."

TornLabrum
07-06-2002, 05:17 PM
Originally posted by raul12


point taken--but sham-me was still wrong for opening his trap and blowing up. like it or not, there's a difference between john q. public blowing up and a high-profile athlete (role model) blowing up. it just comes with the territory. like they say in spiderman, "with great power comes great responsibility."

I never said he was wrong for blowing up, but I can understand him being angry at being set up like that. He needs to learn to control that anger. (It's a good thing he didn't have a rum bottle handy, isn't it?) :smile:

Kilroy
07-06-2002, 07:53 PM
Originally posted by TornLabrum
That was an ambush tactic, since it was obvious he had planned this out in advance and would do it no matter what Sosa said in answer to the original question. Pure bush league.

Of course it was an ambush. But only a blowhard like Sosa would have been in that position to be ambushed in the first place. In truth, he's just too much of a neanderthal to have realized that thhe next logical response to "I'll be first in line..." is "what are you waiting for since you're so clean?"

In the wake of Caminiti, the majority of baseball fans are looking cross-eyed at Sosa and Bonds. If you're gonna stand up and pronounce you're clean and willing to be tested you really don't have the luxury of hiding behind the fact that MLB doesn't mandate it yet. And saying what he said, he was basically asking for a Reilly to come along and press the issue.

TornLabrum
07-06-2002, 08:01 PM
Originally posted by Kilroy

Of course it was an ambush. But only a blowhard like Sosa would have been in that position to be ambushed in the first place. In truth, he's just too much of a neanderthal to have realized that thhe next logical response to "I'll be first in line..." is "what are you waiting for since you're so clean?"

But again, context is everything, and from everything I've read and heard, Sosa made his original comment regarding being first in line as being at such time as the MLBPA and MLB came to an agreement about testing. And if what he said was reported in the media, which it was, then one can pretty safely assume it was in resopnse to a question within that context. Again, Sosa did nothing that most of us wouldn't do in that situation, especially if we were clean.

At no time did Sosa say anything about testing outside of an agreed to arrangement between MLB and the players. Reilly's actions pretty much confirm that he is exactly what Sosa inadvisedly called him.

WhiteSoxWinner
07-06-2002, 08:01 PM
Amen Kilroy. Nicely put.

LongDistanceFan
07-06-2002, 08:11 PM
Originally posted by TornLabrum



That was an ambush tactic, since it was obvious he had planned this out in advance and would do it no matter what Sosa said in answer to the original question. Pure bush league.
but isn't that is what happens when a reporter has some info that needs to be collaborated or if a rumor is floating that needed to be verified........ the reporter in essence is ambushing the person they need info from?

btw, i now know or have put the 2 names together...... with the article Hal......... i feel like a real idiot, no wonder you you have a good insight.

as i asked before, so you think that sosa and bonds is juiced?

TornLabrum
07-06-2002, 08:27 PM
Originally posted by LongDistanceFan

but isn't that is what happens when a reporter has some info that needs to be collaborated or if a rumor is floating that needed to be verified........ the reporter in essence is ambushing the person they need info from?

Most reporters would simply ask the question and be persistent if the interviewee attempted to sidestep the issue. I can't think of any other time when a reporter or columnist has done something like that. As I said earlier in this thread, it's as if Jack Anderson had offered Nixon, Haldeman, or Erlichman the name of a person who would give them a polygraph test.

That is not a reporter's or columnist's job, and it never has been.

as i asked before, so you think that sosa and bonds is juiced?

It's really hard to tell in the case of Sosa. He doesn't exhibit any of the usual symptoms of steroid use, acne, injuries, etc. Maybe you could attribute his outburst to Reilly as "steroid rage," and make a case that way. Maybe they're "just" taking andro. Or maybe they're both just really hard workers in the gym.

People who bulk up as much and as fast as both of them sure make a person wonder, though, and I do admit to that. As for the rest, remember, I'm a science teacher, I want to see better evidence than what I've seen and heard so far.

LongDistanceFan
07-06-2002, 09:16 PM
thanks....... we have beaten this subject to death imo. we are not going to change any posters opinion and it was fun tho.

:D:

so who was right and who was wrong.........

i hope you continue to have fun w/ this subject. for me i am thru

:gulp:

Kilroy
07-07-2002, 11:37 AM
I posted this:

Originally posted by Kilroy
...If you're gonna stand up and pronounce you're clean and willing to be tested you really don't have the luxury of hiding behind the fact that MLB doesn't mandate it yet.



And you responded with:


Originally posted by TornLabrum


But again, context is everything, and from everything I've read and heard, Sosa made his original comment regarding being first in line as being at such time as the MLBPA and MLB came to an agreement about testing.


I really think that sometimes, people just don't read entire posts before they click "QUOTE". Because obviously, I was aware of the context in which Sosa did his bragging. And it is exactly that context which created the whole situation in the first place.

Did Bonds mouth off? Nope. What about Luis Gonzalez? Nope. Thome? Nope. Strangely enuf, Reilly didn't pursue the issue with any of them. Sosa did mouth off, however. That ham was cooked, glazed, and ready to be sliced...

TornLabrum
07-07-2002, 01:44 PM
Originally posted by Kilroy
[B]I posted this:

I really think that sometimes, people just don't read entire posts before they click "QUOTE". Because obviously, I was aware of the context in which Sosa did his bragging. And it is exactly that context which created the whole situation in the first place.

And you neglected the posts in which I mentioned that if he was quoted as saying that, he had to have done it in front of a bunch of reporters in response to one of their questions. Again, context is everything.

Did Bonds mouth off? Nope. What about Luis Gonzalez? Nope. Thome? Nope. Strangely enuf, Reilly didn't pursue the issue with any of them. Sosa did mouth off, however. That ham was cooked, glazed, and ready to be sliced...

IIRC, Bonds has a reputation for not talking to reporters. So I doubt if that situation came up with Bonds. Of course, players like Bonds who don't like to talk to reporters get crucified for not talking to them whereas reporters like Sammy because eh does talk to them.

I think that part of the defense of Sammy by the Chicago media has to be motivated not by whether or not he was wronged but by the fact that he might just shut his mouth for all reporters, thereby making their job a little more difficult.

Kilroy
07-07-2002, 07:40 PM
Originally posted by TornLabrum
And you neglected the posts in which I mentioned that if he was quoted as saying that, he had to have done it in front of a bunch of reporters in response to one of their questions. Again, context is everything.

I don't see too many ways to interpret his statement other then what we've gone with so far.

34 Inch Stick
07-08-2002, 09:41 AM
So let me see if I can sum this up. Everyone agrees that Reilly was wrong.

My last statement on Wednesday was that this thread would be long gone on Monday.

Kilroy
07-08-2002, 09:43 AM
Originally posted by 34 Inch Stick
So let me see if I can sum this up. Everyone agrees that Reilly was wrong.

My last statement on Wednesday was that this thread would be long gone on Monday.

If that's your summation, you missed it. Not everyone thinks Reilly was wrong. Not by a long shot...

34 Inch Stick
07-08-2002, 09:51 AM
Kilroy, I don't use teal but after 145 or so posts on the topic I thought the sarcasm was obvious.

Kilroy
07-08-2002, 10:18 AM
Originally posted by 34 Inch Stick
Kilroy, I don't use teal but after 145 or so posts on the topic I thought the sarcasm was obvious.

My bad. Sometimes I'm sleeping even tho I'm awake...