PDA

View Full Version : Moronotti Strikes Again


Viva Magglio
03-12-2003, 09:49 AM
I am not even going to post the like to this. This could be one of the stupidest ones he has ever written. :angry:

FanOf14
03-12-2003, 09:56 AM
I hate to disagree, while it wasn't well written, it wasn't any where near as bad as I expected (maybe I have become immune to his articles...who knows...). It definitely wasn't his worst.

cheeses_h_rice
03-12-2003, 10:14 AM
:moron

Here's a hint, Sox fans: it's about steroids, and I don't even mention Sham-ME.

Please, kill me.

Hangar18
03-12-2003, 10:27 AM
I CANT BELIEVE HE WROTE THIS TODAY. Last nite, the very very very very very very 1st thing I thought to myself, (after complimenting the sox) was What NEGATIVE spin would Mariotti put on this. he sure did. hes gotten predictable. these guys should be regarded as Heroes, daring to do the right thing first...
but no. What if it was the Cubs that pulled this?? this article wouldve been Vastly Positive, and cubby blue and fluffy.

Hangar18
03-12-2003, 10:29 AM
The real funny thing about all of this, is in his article, he mentions how Sox Fans wouldnt like this move, and how we'd reject this team for this. FUnny, but all im reading at wsi is Positive Reaction for our South Siders.

Juan Pizarro
03-12-2003, 10:40 AM
Hey, the Sox took a veiled shot at Shammy and his ilk.
Mariotti couldn't abide that!
:angry:
Really, this clown gets more absurd by the day.

joecrede
03-12-2003, 11:39 AM
My money would be on Sosa testing negative for steroids. They aren't testing for Human Growth Hormone, are they? :smile:

Lip Man 1
03-12-2003, 11:39 AM
As someone who has always defended Jay I must say in all honesty that I thought this column was imbecilic.

Can't defend him on this one. (Although I still think it's good to have columnists like him keeping Reinsdorf's feet to the fire on things!)

Lip

gosox41
03-12-2003, 11:39 AM
Originally posted by Hangar18
I CANT BELIEVE HE WROTE THIS TODAY. Last nite, the very very very very very very 1st thing I thought to myself, (after complimenting the sox) was What NEGATIVE spin would Mariotti put on this. he sure did. hes gotten predictable. these guys should be regarded as Heroes, daring to do the right thing first...
but no. What if it was the Cubs that pulled this?? this article wouldve been Vastly Positive, and cubby blue and fluffy.


Mariotti has no clue about anything other then what the voices in his head tell him. He should actually do some research in the issue before spouting off.

1. Sox fans are not upset by the move an actually like it.
2. Why did he say Frank was involved? Was he? I disn't see anything else saying Frank was one of the 16.
3. Here's a point Mariotti will never get. If, according to Jay, Frank is a cancer in the clubhouse, then how did he get 16 players to listen to him?

We all know if Sammy refused the drug test Jay would be praising him and calling anyone who didn't agree with them racists.

Bob

duke of dorwood
03-12-2003, 01:32 PM
Jay is to journalism what quack is to medicine.

jeremyb1
03-12-2003, 01:41 PM
at times it really comes off as though its samme vs. frank so he has to take an anti-sox approach to the whole thing.

pudge
03-12-2003, 01:45 PM
Originally posted by cheeses_h_rice
:moron

Here's a hint, Sox fans: it's about steroids, and I don't even mention Sham-ME.

Please, kill me.

Read the article, cheeses, he sure as heck does mention Shamme....

"It's the usual self-serving stand by Thomas, whose numbers have suffered in the Big Boom power era while crosstown rival and former teammate Sammy Sosa has become a future Hall of Famer."

Does that make you want to puke or what?

Bobby Thigpen
03-12-2003, 01:53 PM
He keeps mentioning chemistry throughout the whole piece. I guess it's easy to have chemistry when you lose 100 games a year and none of your fans or players care.

Really, I try to pay no attention to Mariotti, but he is just so ridiculous as a "journalist" that it's hard to ignore some times.

SoxxoS
03-12-2003, 02:00 PM
I just like the disco-moron, and its a great time for it :D:




:discomoron

cheeses_h_rice
03-12-2003, 02:29 PM
Originally posted by pudge
Read the article, cheeses, he sure as heck does mention Shamme....

"It's the usual self-serving stand by Thomas, whose numbers have suffered in the Big Boom power era while crosstown rival and former teammate Sammy Sosa has become a future Hall of Famer."

Does that make you want to puke or what?

I should have said the article wasn't focused on Sham-ME, who, if you're talking about Chicago baseball and steroid testing, should be the front and center target.

I'm not surprised in the least that he would bash Frank Thomas for standing up for testing, since A) it's the honorable thing to stand for, and B) Jay seems some sort of ulterior, sinister motive on Frank's part.


:moron

Only when Sham-ME selflessly volunteers to have himself tested do I back mandatory testing. Anything the White Sox can only be spawned from Satan himself.

cheeses_h_rice
03-12-2003, 02:30 PM
Btw, I also liked how supposedly, the Sox ruined the fun of having signed Colon by renaming the ballpark.

Yeah, makes sense.

czalgosz
03-12-2003, 03:00 PM
What I don't understand is why the union is against testing. By all logic, they should be front and center for it. Isn't player health in the workplace a concern for the union?

MarkEdward
03-12-2003, 05:54 PM
Originally posted by czalgosz
What I don't understand is why the union is against testing. By all logic, they should be front and center for it. Isn't player health in the workplace a concern for the union?

Maybe the union knows that there is no steroid use in baseball?

doublem23
03-12-2003, 05:55 PM
Originally posted by MarkEdward
Maybe the union knows that there is no steroid use in baseball?

LOL

Riiiiiiiiiiiight

czalgosz
03-12-2003, 05:55 PM
Originally posted by MarkEdward
Maybe the union knows that there is no steroid use in baseball?

If they know that, then why be against testing? Wouldn't every player testing negative every time be a great PR story?

gosox41
03-12-2003, 06:14 PM
Originally posted by czalgosz
What I don't understand is why the union is against testing. By all logic, they should be front and center for it. Isn't player health in the workplace a concern for the union?


It's all about $$$$$. Most of the playes that take steroids on a regular basis are idiots. They have no idea the long term damage they are doing to their bodies.

The union sees players as expendable pieces of meat. It's good for the game when Sammy and Mark go after Maris' record. Why ruin the fun even if both players bulked up a ton over their careers. It means ratings, advertising, etc. It's all about money. So what if McGwire retires early due to back problems, another exciting piece of meat will come along soon and excite the fans and raise questions as to how he got so big.

On that same note, I've always wondered something. I don't believe in everything being a conspiracy, but I always found it odd that players like Sosa and McGwire never got knocked down or thrown at. It's almost like the union sees the players as to valuable for ratings to risk hurting so they put a directive out maybe encouraging pitcher's not to throw at them. Especially Sosa after all that showboating he does. Back in the '70's and before it seemed that if you showed up a pitcher, or even appeared to comfortable at home plate after hitting a homer you were knocked down. Guys like Gibson, Marichal, Drysdale, and Wynn were famous for doing this.

Occasionally there are incidents where players are thrown at and there is debate as to whether it was intentional or not, but it never seems to involve the guys that hit the most home runs or does the most showboating.

Bob

czalgosz
03-12-2003, 07:38 PM
Unfortunately, I think you're right - the union cares more about keeping it's members wealthy than it does about their health.

By all logic, it should be the owners resisting testing, because they like all the juiced athletes hitting homers and bringing in fans, while the players should be pushing for it, to level the playing field and improve the health of the players.

MarkEdward
03-12-2003, 08:11 PM
Originally posted by czalgosz
If they know that, then why be against testing? Wouldn't every player testing negative every time be a great PR story?

Well, I believe it's just a matter of privacy for some players. Why be scrutinized when there's no reason to be scrutinized?

czalgosz
03-12-2003, 08:22 PM
Originally posted by MarkEdward
Well, I believe it's just a matter of privacy for some players. Why be scrutinized when there's no reason to be scrutinized?

Right to privacy is one thing, but this is different. In most workplaces, they test for drugs because it would decrease performance. I can understand and support the argument against that, because you should be looking at the decreased production. If their work isn't being affected, what difference does it make to the workforce?

But for steroids, it's different. The people who use steroids aren't doing it for fun. They're doing it because it puts them at a clear advantage over those who don't. Players who use steroids perform better, therefore they get paid more. Remember that they are in direct competition with each other for a limited number of jobs. Should a player who doesn't want to ruin his life to steroids have to give up his job just so that someone who is willing to take that risk can take it?

If I'm a clean athlete, I would want every athlete to get tested along with me, so that I can be assured that if I lose my job, at least I'm not losing it because someone else is cheating.

MarkEdward
03-12-2003, 09:41 PM
Originally posted by czalgosz
[B]Right to privacy is one thing, but this is different. In most workplaces, they test for drugs because it would decrease performance. I can understand and support the argument against that, because you should be looking at the decreased production. If their work isn't being affected, what difference does it make to the workforce?

But for steroids, it's different. The people who use steroids aren't doing it for fun. They're doing it because it puts them at a clear advantage over those who don't. Players who use steroids perform better, therefore they get paid more. Remember that they are in direct competition with each other for a limited number of jobs. Should a player who doesn't want to ruin his life to steroids have to give up his job just so that someone who is willing to take that risk can take it?

You're assuming that players are even taking steroids. There's no evidence to support that assumption.

voodoochile
03-12-2003, 09:45 PM
Originally posted by MarkEdward
You're assuming that players are even taking steroids. There's no evidence to support that assumption.

*****!!!

You mean other than the admissions by two former big name players? Yeah, they were the only ones...

Daver
03-12-2003, 09:46 PM
Originally posted by MarkEdward
You're assuming that players are even taking steroids. There's no evidence to support that assumption.

How do you get evidence without testing?

34rancher
03-12-2003, 10:40 PM
Originally posted by Bobby Thigpen
He keeps mentioning chemistry throughout the whole piece. I guess it's easy to have chemistry when you lose 100 games a year and none of your fans or players care.


So that is how Sosa did it, he used his Chemistry set. Now I get it.

MarkEdward
03-13-2003, 12:19 AM
Originally posted by daver
How do you get evidence without testing?

Overwhelming reports of steroid use running rampant in baseball would be a good start.

If the MLBPA unanimously agrees to steroid testing, then I'd totally agree with their decision. I don't have an axe to grind or anything.

Voodoo: I don't consider Jose Canseco, David Wells, and Ken Caminiti havens of truth and honesty.

voodoochile
03-13-2003, 12:46 AM
Originally posted by MarkEdward
Voodoo: I don't consider Jose Canseco, David Wells, and Ken Caminiti havens of truth and honesty.

Caminiti and Canseco admitted using the stuff themselves. Why would they lie? For you to assume that not one single other player is using seems naive. Even if their estimates are low, it only takes a little over 2 guys per 40 man squad to meet the 5% cutoff to ensure future testing. Which is a far cry from the figures that Camaniti, Canseco and Wells all mentioned.

I don't think "overwhelming reports" are necessary, just enough to make kids think it helps. I don't want high-schoolers and God forbid pre-teens thinking they can get a leg up on the competition. Reports on illegal drug use among high schoolers list steroids as being one of the fastest growing segment among those kids. That isn't just an inconvenience, it is dangerous.

Every other sport bans steroids. Why not baseball? The fans want it. It sends a good message to amateur athletes and it preserves the integrity of the game. Unanimous approval? Might as well ask Jerry Manuel to stop tinkering...

These guys are pampered enough. Is it really too much to ask them to play the game naturally and cut the illegal drugs out of their system?

If it really wasn't an issue, why not just say, "Okay. Let's ban the steroids and do the testing like we do for recreational drugs."

MJL_Sox_Fan
03-13-2003, 12:57 AM
I was watching the HBO movie "61" tonight and it got me thinking again about the testing and Sosa/McGuire's run a few years ago. In my opinion, Sosa is definitely on roids. Look at the changes in his body and face over the last 7-8 years. McGuire is a pretty easy shot, he was huge and admittedly used other kinds of performance enhancing pills. It is really sad for the game, that players like Frank are criticized for slowing down after great careers. Frank, could have gone to roids and hit massive homerun totals. But he hasn't. I think that is why he is so pro-testing. He is fuming that all these other players get the positive press while cheating and he has to endure the criticism of failing skills. Again, in my opinion, Frank was one of the truly great natural hitters of the past 15 years.

PaleHoseGeorge
03-13-2003, 02:24 AM
The union has placed steroid testing squarely in the arena of collective bargaining. They see no difference between this issue and any other to be agreed to.

Obviously I think they're wrong to take such a position. The very health of their membership is at stake. The union counters that they are all big boys, capable of making big boy decisions, and besides--the league offers counseling and other non-testing means to help the ballplayers. This is a lie, as I'll explain in a moment.

The union's fear is that MLB will use testing as a device to blacklist affected players and make drug screening results a negotiating ploy to drive down salaries. Yes, they're totally serious...

So basically the union is against screening for fear of the fallout it will have on escalating player salaries. To hear the union tell it, drug-screening is no different than free agent rules, pension plan eligibility, traveling and hotel accommodations, and endorsement rights. The health of their membership has NOTHING to do with it, except for what each individual ballplayer voluntarily agrees to.

If 2 percent of the players were juicing, that's a competitive advantage over the other 98 percent. Pretty soon it's 3 percent, and next it's 5. Apologies to at least one unabashed proponent of steroid use (who has been strangely absent around here since Steve Bechler dropped dead), the pressure on the hard-core juicers to keep upping their use and dosage is REAL. This is dangerous if not life-threatening behavior.

The ballplayers can not be trusted to make this decision for themselves. All of them are prisoners of steroids--whether they personally take them or not.

That's the essential truth in Frank Thomas's position.

:moron
"You could read my column for the next 10 years and never get one-tenth as much candor or insight."

gosox41
03-13-2003, 11:42 AM
Originally posted by MarkEdward
You're assuming that players are even taking steroids. There's no evidence to support that assumption.


You sound like a lawyer. Ken Caminiti is one player who admits to using steroids. True, there hasn't been proof yet but I'm convinced that there's at least one other major leaguer using them (and probably a lot more then that). Why do other players keep mentioning how much they are used? Jay Payton just made a comment yesterday about that.

The question I have is does anyone know how long it takers steroids to leave the system? I think the testing is a joke now because players on the juice have known since last July that they would be tested so they could just give the stuff up for a couple of months. If less then 5% of the players fail (which I expect too happen even though I'm convinced there's more then 5% of the players who use) then there is no steroid testing next year so all those juicers can go back to the stuff.

The only thing steroid testing will prove now is who the true morons are in baseball. All the players knew they were being tested and if they didn't quit at the time to let the drug flow out of their system then they deserve their suspensions.

Bob

MarkEdward
03-13-2003, 04:38 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
Caminiti and Canseco admitted using the stuff themselves. Why would they lie? For you to assume that not one single other player is using seems naive. Even if their estimates are low, it only takes a little over 2 guys per 40 man squad to meet the 5% cutoff to ensure future testing. Which is a far cry from the figures that Camaniti, Canseco and Wells all mentioned.

Well then, whose numbers are correct? Wells says 40% are on 'roids, Caminiti says 20%, and Canseco says 50%. If these players are telling the truth, shouldn't their numbers be at least somewhat consistent?

Anyway, I wouldn't be surprised if Ken Caminiti was using steroids. But he's an isolated case. He's also an alcoholic and drug user. He doesn't fit the personification of a normal ballplayer.

Around the time Canseco made these allegations, he was promoting a book. So of course he's going to make outlandish statements. He also seems to have an ax to grind with baseball.

I don't think "overwhelming reports" are necessary, just enough to make kids think it helps. I don't want high-schoolers and God forbid pre-teens thinking they can get a leg up on the competition. Reports on illegal drug use among high schoolers list steroids as being one of the fastest growing segment among those kids. That isn't just an inconvenience, it is dangerous.

So testing MLB players for steroids will stop steroid use among teens? I can't buy that.

Every other sport bans steroids. Why not baseball? The fans want it. It sends a good message to amateur athletes and it preserves the integrity of the game. Unanimous approval? Might as well ask Jerry Manuel to stop tinkering...


My stance is that steroid testing is a collective bargaining issue, and therefore should not be unilaterally enforced.

voodoochile
03-13-2003, 04:47 PM
Originally posted by MarkEdward
So testing MLB players for steroids will stop steroid use among teens? I can't buy that.

My stance is that steroid testing is a collective bargaining issue, and therefore should not be unilaterally enforced.

Might help prevent kids from using them if they didn't think it was a shortcut to fame and riches. Either way, how can it hurt to send the message to kids that steroid use won't help you play professional baseball.

Calling it an issue for the CBA is a copout, IMO. Steroids are illegal. Steroids may be changing the face of the game and causing records to become obsolete at a record pace. Steroid usage is at least a strong rumor - with a former MVP having admitted to using them during his MVP season.

Give me a reason why there shouldn't be steroid testing when every other professional sport has it. The fans don't want steroids usage to be part of the sport they love. Doesn't our voice count for anything?

czalgosz
03-13-2003, 04:55 PM
The problem with making it a CBA issue is that the owners don't care enough about it to give up anything they consider important to get it done. Heck, steroid abuse helps the owners - increased power = more fans = more $.

gosox41
03-13-2003, 06:59 PM
Originally posted by MarkEdward
Well then, whose numbers are correct? Wells says 40% are on 'roids, Caminiti says 20%, and Canseco says 50%. If these players are telling the truth, shouldn't their numbers be at least somewhat consistent?


But none of them say 0%. And they're not the only one's talking about steroids. Why are Sox players hopin to get it instituted permentaly? Because they like to piss in cups?

Anyway, I wouldn't be surprised if Ken Caminiti was using steroids. But he's an isolated case. He's also an alcoholic and drug user. He doesn't fit the personification of a normal ballplayer.

Certainly not the first to fall into either category.

Around the time Canseco made these allegations, he was promoting a book. So of course he's going to make outlandish statements. He also seems to have an ax to grind with baseball.



So testing MLB players for steroids will stop steroid use among teens? I can't buy that.

No, but it may influence them to be more selective. Some teens tend to be easily influenced and what they think is cool because a celebrity does it.

Steroid testing isn't the full answer, but it's a starting point



My stance is that steroid testing is a collective bargaining issue, and therefore should not be unilaterally enforced.


Bob

PaleHoseGeorge
03-13-2003, 07:12 PM
Originally posted by czalgosz
The problem with making it a CBA issue is that the owners don't care enough about it to give up anything they consider important to get it done. Heck, steroid abuse helps the owners - increased power = more fans = more $.

Good point. The owners have put this issue on the negotiating table several times and have always bargained it away while pursuing their #1 priority: Getting control over player salaries.

Wouldn't it be ironic if a CBA with drug enforcement resulted in a fat, flabby Shammy hitting 25 homeruns, offensive numbers in the league deflating, and player salaries taking a commensurate dive?

Have I mentioned recently that the people running baseball are idiots?

:gulp: