PDA

View Full Version : Big Hurt and others invited to testify to congress.


ChiSox14305635
03-03-2005, 06:10 PM
Just saw this on Sportscenter:

Current Players

Jason Giambi
Sammy Sosa
Rafael Palmeiro
Curt Schilling
Frank Thomas

Former Players
Jose Canseco
Mark McGwire


EDIT: Not sure if this belongs on this forum, Talking Baseball forum, or even the Roadhouse. Mods, move it where you deem it appropriate.

Rocklive99
03-03-2005, 06:12 PM
I just turned it on SportsCenter and they had a graphic that said "Players Invited to Testify" and they had a former player list of Canseco and McGwire and a current player list of Schilling, Sosa, and Frank Thomas, including others. This better not be jerkoffESPN just assuming names and trying to accuse, I missed the piece, but at the end Patrick said they would get immunity, what are you getting at:cuss:

EDIT: 2 min late :'(

Unregistered
03-03-2005, 06:12 PM
Hmm... why is everyone on that list an accused juicer but Frank (and Schilling)? Maybe cause he's been pretty outspoken on the issue for a while, but still - that's pretty crappy company.

RKMeibalane
03-03-2005, 06:15 PM
I just turned it on SportsCenter and they had a graphic that said "Players Invited to Testify" and they had a former player list of Canseco and McGwire and a current player list of Schilling, Sosa, and Frank Thomas, including others. This better not be jerkoffESPN just assuming names and trying to accuse, I missed the piece, but at the end Patrick said they would get immunity, what are you getting it:cuss:

It's possible that Thomas has already been proven clean, and they want his testimony for the prosecution, whereas Canseco, McGwire, and the other turds represent the defense.

RKMeibalane
03-03-2005, 06:17 PM
Hmm... why is everyone on that list an accused juicer but Frank (and Schilling)? Maybe cause he's been pretty outspoken on the issue for a while, but still - that's pretty crappy company.

As I said in another thread, they may want Frank and Schilling to testify because they represent the "other side" of this story- the guys who didn't cheat.

samram
03-03-2005, 06:21 PM
As I said in another thread, they may want Frank and Schilling to testify because they represent the "other side" of this story- the guys who didn't cheat.

Agreed. What would be the point of just inviting guys who have been accused? Their credibility would be in question. Inviting guys who have been vocally opposed to steroid use not only adds credibility, but also allows those paying attention to see that not all the players are juiced, and don't think MLB didn't perhaps plant a seed about that.

VeeckAsInWreck
03-03-2005, 06:27 PM
Nice to see that our tax dollars are going to solve an important issue like this. I mean, who cares about poverty and unemployment anyway? :mad:

ChiWhiteSox1337
03-03-2005, 06:28 PM
Wow. I wonder how Sammy will react to this. Anyone remember his little "incident" with the guy from Sports Illustrated?

Ol' No. 2
03-03-2005, 06:30 PM
Reported by Ben Maller (http://www.benmaller.com/archives/2005/march/01-jose_canseco_to_testify_before_congress.html).

TheBull19
03-03-2005, 07:18 PM
whereas Canseco, McGwire, and the other turds represent the defense.

I doubt Canseco would "represent the defense" since he's been the biggest steroid accuser yet.

StillMissOzzie
03-03-2005, 07:28 PM
Confessed 'roid user Joes Canseco has been invited to testify before a Congressional subcommittee. Also invited to the party are Barry Bonds, Mark McGwire, Sammy Sosa, and Frank Thomas, along with a few others, under oath, with no vail of secrecy.

Does anyone know if subcommittee testimony falls under the same penalty for perjury as does testimony before a grand jury? Sounds like things are just starting to heat up now. MLB can't sweep this under the rug.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2004390

SMO
:gulp:

Norberto7
03-03-2005, 07:36 PM
The full invitation list is Canseco, Giambi, McGwire, Palmerio, Schilling, Sosa, and Thomas, as well as Selig. I wonder if they suspect Thomas of using...? Schilling as well, he's not usually mentioned in the whole scandal. I guess they are either believing those two used, or are looking to get some sort of balanced testimony. And Sosa!? Nah, he still looks like that skinny kid from the Rangers.

Lip Man 1
03-03-2005, 07:37 PM
Testify for what? Is there sometype of legal action by Canseco against MLB?

Lip

RKMeibalane
03-03-2005, 07:51 PM
I doubt Canseco would "represent the defense" since he's been the biggest steroid accuser yet.

Allow me to rephrase that: Canseco and McGwire would be the defendants in the case. In other words, they are ones on trial here.

RKMeibalane
03-03-2005, 07:52 PM
Testify for what? Is there sometype of legal action by Canseco against MLB?

Lip

I think it's just a general hearing about steroid use in MLB, and how widespread it has become.

hold2dibber
03-03-2005, 07:57 PM
I think it's just a general hearing about steroid use in MLB, and how widespread it has become.

A general hearing convened by whom?

RKMeibalane
03-03-2005, 08:01 PM
A general hearing convened by whom?

The United States government, apparently. I guess they're tired of waiting for Selig and Fehr to sort this mess out, so they're going to do it themselves.

Nard
03-03-2005, 08:03 PM
Whoa, it's actually being held in front of a House committee.

The part that doesn't make sense... here's the invite list:

- Canseco
- Giambi
- Palmeiro
- McGuire
- Sosa
- Frank

What the ****?!

This is kind of infuriating. Frank has never even been mentioned at all throughout this entire media circle jerk fest and now he's being invited to a "hearing" along with four other guys who were all accused of using steroids and who have denied it.

voodoochile
03-03-2005, 08:05 PM
Here's a link:

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2004390

voodoochile
03-03-2005, 08:09 PM
No way ShamME* shows up and risks perjuring himself to congress. Since it is strictly an invitation, look for him to be "busy" with something. Hopefully that something won't cost him another $10K...:rolleyes:

RKMeibalane
03-03-2005, 08:11 PM
I wonder what Giambi will say to Thomas, given that he stole his MVP award in 2000.

Ol' No. 2
03-03-2005, 08:22 PM
Confessed 'roid user Joes Canseco has been invited to testify before a Congressional subcommittee. Also invited to the party are Barry Bonds, Mark McGwire, Sammy Sosa, and Frank Thomas, along with a few others, under oath, with no vail of secrecy.

Does anyone know if subcommittee testimony falls under the same penalty for perjury as does testimony before a grand jury? Sounds like things are just starting to heat up now. MLB can't sweep this under the rug.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2004390

SMO
:gulp:If it's testimony under oath it's subject to perjury prosecution. But not all subcommittee testimony is under oath. So the answer is a definate maybe.

MRKARNO
03-03-2005, 08:33 PM
A committee of the House or the Senate has the ability to bring in anyone they want to give "expert" testimony to that committee. There isn't a lawsuit, but it's just that the representatives (I believe it was Rep. Waxman of California) want to hear testimony under oath from these various people in order to guide any possible legislation that they may write in the future.

samram
03-03-2005, 08:54 PM
A committee of the House or the Senate has the ability to bring in anyone they want to give "expert" testimony to that committee. There isn't a lawsuit, but it's just that the representatives (I believe it was Rep. Waxman of California) want to hear testimony under oath from these various people in order to guide any possible legislation that they may write in the future.

Not to mention, they get to look like they're "doing something" or "taking action."

NSSoxFan
03-03-2005, 08:54 PM
The best thing that Big Frank could do is to accept the "invitation" to testify. He has to take it upon himself to make it painfully obvious that he never took steroids but was annoyed at the amount of players that were taking them.

FJA
03-03-2005, 08:57 PM
The SI story says this:



WASHINGTON (AP) -- Former baseball slugger Jose Canseco and several players he has accused of joining him in abusing steroids have been invited to testify before a House committee.



And then, a few paragraphs down, this:


On the invitation list are Palmeiro, Boston Red Sox (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/baseball/mlb/teams/red_sox) pitcher Curt Schilling (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/baseball/mlb/players/4267), current Baltimore Oriole Sammy Sosa (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/baseball/mlb/players/4344) and Frank Thomas (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/baseball/mlb/players/4527) of the Chicago White Sox (http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/baseball/mlb/teams/white_sox).



They had already mentioned McGwire. Is it just me, or does the SI story read to say that Frank has been accused of steroid use?

Here's a link to the full story:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2005/baseball/mlb/03/03/congress.steroids.ap/index.html

Ol' No. 2
03-03-2005, 09:01 PM
:toolYou guys don't want to have hearings, do you? Here, forget about that stuff. I've got some Nats tickets for you guys. Come on out and enjoy the game. Besides, now that we have a testing program in place, there's nothing to worry about. Problem solved. Baseball is clean as the driven snow. (Psst. Send out for more whitewash.)

Ol' No. 2
03-03-2005, 09:03 PM
The SI story says this:



And then, a few paragraphs down, this:


They had already mentioned McGwire. Is it just me, or does the SI story read to say that Frank has been accused of steroid use?

Here's a link to the full story:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2005/baseball/mlb/03/03/congress.steroids.ap/index.htmlIt just says he's on the invitation list. It sounds like they're being invited to the senior prom.

Daver
03-03-2005, 09:04 PM
Your tax dollars at work folks.

Random Senator 1 "Let's hold a congressional hearing for steroids in baseball."

Random senator 2 "Why, we have no control by any legal means of how MLB conducts their business"

Random Senator 1 " Yeah, but we'll get ourselves mentioned on ESPN, as well as every news outlet in the country, there is no such thing as bad publicity, Elections are not far away."

Random Senator 2 "You're onto something here, let's do it."


Waste of time and money, plain and simple.

Ol' No. 2
03-03-2005, 09:10 PM
Your tax dollars at work folks.

Random Senator 1 "Let's hold a congressional hearing for steroids in baseball."

Random senator 2 "Why, we have no control by any legal means of how MLB conducts their business"

Random Senator 1 " Yeah, but we'll get ourselves mentioned on ESPN, as well as every news outlet in the country, there is no such thing as bad publicity, Elections are not far away."

Random Senator 2 "You're onto something here, let's do it."


Waste of time and money, plain and simple.I don't think I'd agree that there's nothing they can do. Selig is desparately hoping everyone will forget about the whole thing, and they just might. By keeping the issue on the front burner, congress may be able to force MLB to implement a real testing program for all performance enhancing drugs.

This is not to say that grandstanding is not a major motivation, here. But something good may yet come out of it.

FJA
03-03-2005, 09:32 PM
It just says he's on the invitation list. It sounds like they're being invited to the senior prom.

It just bothered me how it first said "Canseco and other accused" and then listed Thomas on the list of those invited (which, presumably, are those who have been accused). It's just written kind of weird ... I don't think they're necessarily trying to imply Thomas is accused of taking steroids, but as a former editor, it's one of those things that stuck out at me as needing clarification as a matter of how it's written.

But you're right about how it sounds like they're being invited to prom. :redneck

I want Mags back
03-03-2005, 09:40 PM
After u read this thread, I suggest u all visit the I support Frank Thomas thread

robiwho
03-03-2005, 09:45 PM
It would seem likely that Frank has been invited to testify specifically because he has been so outspoken against steroids and because his career numbers have followed a logical trajectory for a player his age -- unlike most of the others on the list. (Considering that Frank and I are the same age, it always freaks me out a bit when he's referred to as "aging.")

Of course, having his name on the invitee list with a bunch of known juicers is troubling. I hope he does testify and comes out swinging--pun intended.

A. Cavatica
03-03-2005, 09:46 PM
Sounds to me like some members of Congress want autographs.

Daver
03-03-2005, 10:00 PM
I don't think I'd agree that there's nothing they can do. Selig is desparately hoping everyone will forget about the whole thing, and they just might. By keeping the issue on the front burner, congress may be able to force MLB to implement a real testing program for all performance enhancing drugs.


How?

By calling Selig to the stand?

He'll just lie to them under oath again, as he has done in the past.

Congress has no legal power over MLB, and has no voice in how they conduct their business. This is a pure case of self promotion on the part of the elected officials, and I do not appreciate my tax dollars being spent on it. I am drafting letters to my local congressman, as well as to both senators to let them know my opinion on this whole fiasco.

Ol' No. 2
03-03-2005, 10:13 PM
How?

By calling Selig to the stand?

He'll just lie to them under oath again, as he has done in the past.

Congress has no legal power over MLB, and has no voice in how they conduct their business. This is a pure case of self promotion on the part of the elected officials, and I do not appreciate my tax dollars being spent on it. I am drafting letters to my local congressman, as well as to both senators to let them know my opinion on this whole fiasco.My guess would be that if they actually get players to accept their "invitation", they're going to ask some pretty direct questions that the players aren't going to want to answer. But in the case of anyone who has testified before the grand jury, they're not going to able to contradict what they said there. This has the potential to be a huge storm, and even though congress doesn't have any real authority, they can exert a lot of pressure.

It's likely to get ugly, and I don't like it any more than anyone else. But what I dislike even more is the whitewash job Selig and MLB is perpetrating. MLB has got to clean up its own house, but they won't until the alternative becomes even more painful.

Daver
03-03-2005, 10:20 PM
My guess would be that if they actually get players to accept their "invitation", they're going to ask some pretty direct questions that the players aren't going to want to answer.

You just hit the nail on the head on why this is nothing but posturing by congress, they have no legal way to compel anyone to appear before their hearing, none. Players that have nothing to hide will be more than happy to take the stand, and those that prefer not to will never be seen, and thus, the whole thing is an excercise in media masturbation, and the only winners will be congress, because in the eyes of the masses it will look like they tried to do something.

Brian26
03-03-2005, 10:22 PM
Testify for what? Is there sometype of legal action by Canseco against MLB?


No- it's actually for the Michael Jackson trial.

mccombe_35
03-03-2005, 10:27 PM
Why the hell lump Frank in that group? Mac, Sammy, Giambi, Canseco, etc????

I really don' tlike seeing Thomas thrown in with those names.... The idiots are gonna run with this one.......

Must be the 1/2 season Canseco was on the Sox - & Frank was on the DL.....
:angry:

Ol' No. 2
03-03-2005, 10:29 PM
You just hit the nail on the head on why this is nothing but posturing by congress, they have no legal way to compel anyone to appear before their hearing, none. Players that have nothing to hide will be more than happy to take the stand, and those that prefer not to will never be seen, and thus, the whole thing is an excercise in media masturbation, and the only winners will be congress, because in the eyes of the masses it will look like they tried to do something.That may, indeed be what happens. I'm sure the MLBPA lawyers are already busy trying to figure out a way of keeping all the players from testifying. Even if only the innocent players testify, all they need is one congressman asking a player "Did you ever observe anyone injecting steroids into himself or anyone else?" and the whole thing could blow sky high.

These things have a way of taking unpredictable turns. I wouldn't take bets either way.

owensmouth
03-03-2005, 10:59 PM
Congress has no legal power over MLB, and has no voice in how they conduct their business. This is a pure case of self promotion on the part of the elected officials, and I do not appreciate my tax dollars being spent on it. I am drafting letters to my local congressman, as well as to both senators to let them know my opinion on this whole fiasco.

Actually, the government has quite a bit of control over MLB, but for years they have failed to enforce anything. Baseball is a monopoly and the government could, if it chose, put some very serious limitations on it. Transportation, communication, interstate trade, are all government areas of interest. And there is always the beloved IRS.

By the way, this is a congressional investigation. Senators will not be involved. They might stage their own investigation.

No lawsuit is involved. No one is the prosecution and no one is on the defense. The individuals called may have lawyers present. If they lie and are caught, they can be held in contempt of congress. They can be prosecuted for that.

Why Frank? Because he has, over the past dozen of so years, been one of baseball's premier hitters. The congressmen are looking to talk to anyone who is important, who can lend credence to their meetings. What do they know about baseball? Nothing

Dadawg_77
03-03-2005, 11:16 PM
How?

By calling Selig to the stand?

He'll just lie to them under oath again, as he has done in the past.

Congress has no legal power over MLB, and has no voice in how they conduct their business. This is a pure case of self promotion on the part of the elected officials, and I do not appreciate my tax dollars being spent on it. I am drafting letters to my local congressman, as well as to both senators to let them know my opinion on this whole fiasco.

This is a House Committee not the Senate. Rep Danny Davis is on this committee and may have put Frank and Sammy on the list.

Here is a link to the membership of the committee http://reform.house.gov/UploadedFiles/Government%20Reform%20Committee%20-%20Full%20Roster.pdf

Dadawg_77
03-03-2005, 11:23 PM
That may, indeed be what happens. I'm sure the MLBPA lawyers are already busy trying to figure out a way of keeping all the players from testifying. Even if only the innocent players testify, all they need is one congressman asking a player "Did you ever observe anyone injecting steroids into himself or anyone else?" and the whole thing could blow sky high.

These things have a way of taking unpredictable turns. I wouldn't take bets either way.

If they have been invited, it doesn't sound like they were subpoenaed to appear before the committee. So I think they can choose to attend on their own accord.

Daver
03-03-2005, 11:30 PM
Actually, the government has quite a bit of control over MLB, but for years they have failed to enforce anything. Baseball is a monopoly

No it isn't.

They have an anti trust exemption that excludes them from being a monopoly, because baseball is a sport, not a business.

Dadawg_77
03-03-2005, 11:36 PM
No it isn't.

They have an anti trust exemption that excludes them from being a monopoly, because baseball is a sport, not a business.

Which was granted by the Courts which said Congress can legislate the anti-trust exemption away. While Congress has no power currently, the threat of removing anti-trust exemption has been enough.

downstairs
03-03-2005, 11:47 PM
What the heck are you guys talking about, the government has no control over the MLB, or that these hearings are irrelevant.

*Steroids are ILLEGAL*. The government enforces laws.

I'm all for less government intervention. But when it comes to things like this, where young kids are being influenced by their heroes... I'd say go all out.

I hope these are under oath, and someone has the guts to ask each and every one of them- under penalty of prison for purjury- if they did steroids.

samram
03-03-2005, 11:51 PM
What the heck are you guys talking about, the government has no control over the MLB, or that these hearings are irrelevant.

*Steroids are ILLEGAL*. The government enforces laws.

I'm all for less government intervention. But when it comes to things like this, where young kids are being influenced by their heroes... I'd say go all out.

I hope these are under oath, and someone has the guts to ask each and every one of them- under penalty of prison for purjury- if they did steroids.

They don't have to admit to their own illegal acts, what with the Fifth Amendment and all.

Rocklive99
03-04-2005, 12:00 AM
That's what got me so mad about this, we all know Frank has been outspoken and never took steroids, but people around the country though, and this invitation will make it worse, especially being in the same breath as Sosa and Giambi.

Will these testimonies be public? It's cool if he says he never took roids but if he names other players than there could be a backlash.

Forget it Frank, just come to Spring Training, we need you more than they do!

Daver
03-04-2005, 12:00 AM
Which was granted by the Courts which said Congress can legislate the anti-trust exemption away. While Congress has no power currently, the threat of removing anti-trust exemption has been enough.

You're the stathead, what are the odds that congress can actually set it in motion and get it passed by the senate and the white house?

My money is on none.

voodoochile
03-04-2005, 12:00 AM
They don't have to admit to their own illegal acts, what with the Fifth Amendment and all.

Oh yeah... that is going to go over REAL well in the court of public opinion. They might not go to jail, but their advertising revenue would completely dry up and fans would boo the crap out of anyone who took the fifth.

This one is going to get BIGTIME press coverage and woe be the athelete who tries to pull that "I know my rights" routine.

Can you picture the signs in the stands with needles and cracks about smaller testes? It would get seriously ugly...

Daver
03-04-2005, 12:05 AM
Oh yeah... that is going to go over REAL well in the court of public opinion. They might not go to jail, but their advertising revenue would completely dry up and fans would boo the crap out of anyone who took the fifth.

This one is going to get BIGTIME press coverage and woe be the athelete who tries to pull that "I know my rights" routine.

Can you picture the signs in the stands with needles and cracks about smaller testes? It would get seriously ugly...

You are assuming that congress can get anyone other than Canseco to testify, something they have no right in law to do.

voodoochile
03-04-2005, 12:06 AM
You are assuming that congress can get anyone other than Canseco to testify, something they have no right in law to do.

No, I don't expect any cheaters to show up. It isn't worth the risk. I was merely commenting on what would happen if anyone was foolish enough to show up and then take the 5th.

MRKARNO
03-04-2005, 12:07 AM
Oh yeah... that is going to go over REAL well in the court of public opinion. They might not go to jail, but their advertising revenue would completely dry up and fans would boo the crap out of anyone who took the fifth.

This one is going to get BIGTIME press coverage and woe be the athelete who tries to pull that "I know my rights" routine.

Can you picture the signs in the stands with needles and cracks about smaller testes? It would get seriously ugly...

The ones who have something to hide wont bother to show up on Capitol Hill. They have no need to and they'll spin it as them being too busy and wanting to focus on spring training or whatnot.

MIgrenade
03-04-2005, 12:09 AM
I think Frank is being asked because he has been around so long and knows a lot about the use of steroids since he is a power hitter himself. I doubt he has used and hoped his name won't be tarnished in all of this.

samram
03-04-2005, 12:10 AM
Oh yeah... that is going to go over REAL well in the court of public opinion. They might not go to jail, but their advertising revenue would completely dry up and fans would boo the crap out of anyone who took the fifth.

This one is going to get BIGTIME press coverage and woe be the athelete who tries to pull that "I know my rights" routine.

Can you picture the signs in the stands with needles and cracks about smaller testes? It would get seriously ugly...

Well, I was just saying that threats of perjury can't be used to compel someone to confess to a crime.

In regards to what you're saying, I agree that it would look bad in the court of public opinion, and therefore, most of these guys just won't appear. I don't think there will be a sentiment of "Oh, he admitted his mistake, I forgive him" amongst baseball fans.

minastirith67
03-04-2005, 12:30 AM
If I was Frank, I wouldn't bother wasting my time in this media charade. Damn Congress for doing this...it's gonna be a big waste of time.

That fraud Jerry Weller's gonna hear from me...

owensmouth
03-04-2005, 12:35 AM
No it isn't.

They have an anti trust exemption that excludes them from being a monopoly, because baseball is a sport, not a business.

What has been given can be taken away.

owensmouth
03-04-2005, 12:38 AM
You're the stathead, what are the odds that congress can actually set it in motion and get it passed by the senate and the white house?

My money is on none.

Remember who is in the White House

DumpJerry
03-04-2005, 12:45 AM
ok, this thread has caused me to put my lawyer's hat on..................

If you're subpoenaed to appear before Congress, it is my understanding that to ignore it could result in a charge of contempt of Congress (insert joke here).

Now, the bigger issue: what is this all about and will result from it? Well, Congress wants to ride the bandwagon of negative publicity over the use of 'roids and be able to brag to folks back home that they "saved" Baseball by getting tough on the abuse. However, what can Congress do? They cannot outright bad 'roids. Steroids do have legit medical applications, so to outright ban them is throwing the baby out with the bath water.

Also, if Congress passes a law which states "Major League Baseball players may not use steroids without a doctor's prescription," it will be thrown out on more Constitutional grounds than the WSI server can handle. Evev if Congress passes a law banning 'roids in all professional sports, it would probably not survive a Constitutional challenge. The main Constitutional challenge would be due process in the form of an equal protection argument. To single out baseball players or professional athletesa may not pass due process muster. Another problem is that the law would have make exceptions for medical applications. If a player gets a doctor to write a prescription, then the 'roids are legal. A player can find a doctor to write the scrip since the medical records are strictly confidential so prying eyes cannot see if the need is legit.

Yes folks, this is your tax dollars at work. I'm very happy to see this because it means some of the more important problems facing our country have been resolved.

SoxWillWin
03-04-2005, 03:00 AM
Ya know I could picture the schlubs on this "house commitee" sitting around a table and one of them says..."hey my daughters, best friends, uncle told her that Frank Thomas is a big guy. He's probably on steroids too". After all we are dealing with Government intelligence here

The Racehorse
03-04-2005, 03:01 AM
Also, if Congress passes a law which states "Major League Baseball players may not use steroids without a doctor's prescription," it will be thrown out on more Constitutional grounds than the WSI server can handle. Evev if Congress passes a law banning 'roids in all professional sports, it would probably not survive a Constitutional challenge. The main Constitutional challenge would be due process in the form of an equal protection argument. To single out baseball players or professional athletesa may not pass due process muster. Another problem is that the law would have make exceptions for medical applications. If a player gets a doctor to write a prescription, then the 'roids are legal. A player can find a doctor to write the scrip since the medical records are strictly confidential so prying eyes cannot see if the need is legit.

Congress doesn't have to pass any 'roid laws because they already did that back in 1990. No doctor will risk their license prescribing steroids to a professional athlete on the pretext that the steroid is to correct a medical problem, when in actuality it is to enhance the athlete's abilities on the field.

---------------------

As for Congress, I wish they'd somehow withdraw the anti-trust exemption. The whole idea that a MLB player doesn't have to abide by federal law [steroid use w/o a prescription being the most obvious example] because MLB doesn't have a rule prohibiting the [i]transgression absolutely disgusts me. MLB rules preside over federal law... what a concept. Also, we're all missing the fact that MLB players will have to consult with the MLB Players Union before they can go before the House committee because the union's word takes precedent over any federal mandate [or law passed by the United States Government]. What a joke.

Too me, Frank being asked to testify is a left-handed compliment. It's good to see that "someone" thinks he is still a big star (he is), but being lumped into the syringe gang isn't good either.

The Racehorse
03-04-2005, 03:40 AM
Wouldn't be great to see Canseco, Big Mac, and Raffy start shouting at each other, breaking into a fist-fight in front of the House Committee? Man, I'd pay to see that!

Btw, where's Ivan in all this?

Deadguy
03-04-2005, 08:22 AM
If I was Frank, I wouldn't bother wasting my time in this media charade...

I agree, but the problem is that if he doesn't show up, he will be judged as being guilty by association in the court of public opinion.

Damn Congress for doing this...it's gonna be a big waste of time.

Amen.

daveeym
03-04-2005, 08:49 AM
I agree, but the problem is that if he doesn't show up, he will be judged as being guilty by association in the court of public opinion.



Amen. True, and while the articles seem to imply Frank as a user, I'm going with those that believe he's wanted to balance out the testimony as an outspoken big man against steroids.
Now Mr. Thomas you're a naturally big guy you never used steroids did you?
No Mr. congressman.
You obviously think players are using with how outspoken you've been?
Yes Mr. congresswoman.
Did you ever consider using them Mr. Thomas.
How could you not Mr. congressman, look at the money these guys are getting, the fame, the records.
So why didn't you ever use them Mr. Thomas?
My future health is more important than that, I'd be cheating the game and myself and be setting a poor example for children and others that Cheating is ok.
Thank you Mr. Thomas.
Now Mr. Sosa
*Chirrrrup Chirrrrup*
Mr. Sosa????

wdelaney72
03-04-2005, 09:00 AM
What will happen is NONE of these players will testify, the players union will see to it. Even though Frank and some others could use this is a springboard to keep their legacies clean, they won't out of loyalty to the players union.

daveeym
03-04-2005, 09:18 AM
What will happen is NONE of these players will testify, the players union will see to it. Even though Frank and some others could use this is a springboard to keep their legacies clean, they won't out of loyalty to the players union. My guess is everyone of them except maybe Mac testifies. Let's get in a pissing match with the gov. Its like getting in a pissing match with a mod around here.

Ol' No. 2
03-04-2005, 10:01 AM
What will happen is NONE of these players will testify, the players union will see to it. Even though Frank and some others could use this is a springboard to keep their legacies clean, they won't out of loyalty to the players union.As of now, they've been "invited". But this isn't like being invited to an open house at your neighbors. If they don't show, there's such a thing as a subpoena, and you're kidding yourself if you think congress won't use it. They'll be there to testify one way or the other.

Hokiesox
03-04-2005, 10:14 AM
As of now, they've been "invited". But this isn't like being invited to an open house at your neighbors. If they don't show, there's such a thing as a subpoena, and you're kidding yourself if you think congress won't use it. They'll be there to testify one way or the other.


If you're invited by Congress, you show up. Congress won't subpoena a bunch of baseball players, we're already accused of not doing the right things already. Congress will not use a subpoena for this. Subpoena's are used in cases of national security or national interest in our way of government (see: Iran Contra, Anita Hill v. Clarence Thomas, and the impeachment). However, I imagine these guys will all show up. Hopefully I can make it to the hearing and give a report.

Lip Man 1
03-04-2005, 11:59 AM
Frank has long been outspoken against steroid use. I think he should go as long as it doesn't cut into his rehab time. It would be a highly public forum where he could explain how against steroids he has been over the years. The Sox could provide him with clippings of statements that he has made in the past and he can give them to the committee.

Honestly I don't see a down side to this. It will generate publicity for Frank and the White Sox. Even Jay Mariotti has written that it's time to look at Frank in a different light considering he has accomplished so much without drugs.

As far as Sosa, I'd love to see him show up. I'd love to have him explain the situation with S.I.'s Rick Reilly and the ten thousand in cash that was stolen out of his hotel room in Miami.

Lip

Ol' No. 2
03-04-2005, 12:01 PM
If you're invited by Congress, you show up. Congress won't subpoena a bunch of baseball players, we're already accused of not doing the right things already. Congress will not use a subpoena for this. Subpoena's are used in cases of national security or national interest in our way of government (see: Iran Contra, Anita Hill v. Clarence Thomas, and the impeachment). However, I imagine these guys will all show up. Hopefully I can make it to the hearing and give a report.That's kind of what I was trying to say. This isn't an invitation to a garden party. I can't envision these guys just not showing up. But if they did all decline, I also can't envision a congressional committee allowing itself to be snubbed like that. They just might start issuing subpoenas.

gosox41
03-04-2005, 12:23 PM
Frank has long been outspoken against steroid use. I think he should go as long as it doesn't cut into his rehab time. It would be a highly public forum where he could explain how against steroids he has been over the years. The Sox could provide him with cluippings of statements that he has made in the past and he can give them to the committee.

Honestly I don't see a down side to this. It will generate publicity for Frank and the White Sox. Even Jay Mariotti has written that it's time to look at Frank in a different light considering he has accomplished so much without drugs.

As far as Sosa, I'd love to see him show up. I'd love to have him explain the situation with S.I.'s Rick Reilly and the ten thousand in cash that was stolen out of his hotel room in Miami.

Lip

I would also love Sosa to be humilated, but it's doubtful that will happen. Congress will either lob softball questions at him or Sosa will flat out lie or both.

That's assuming Sammy doesn't forget English and shows up to testify.


Bob

Rocklive99
03-04-2005, 02:03 PM
Just turned on ESPN Radio for a sec and what a coincidence, Dan Patrick says "Frank Thomas? Guilty by Association." :angry:

Ol' No. 2
03-04-2005, 02:11 PM
Looks like they should have invited Jeff Kent to the party. He's got plenty to say."I wish more players would voice their opinion, whether it's for or against," the Dodgers' new second baseman said Thursday at Dodgertown. "Everybody's hiding behind the bush, instead of coming out and saying what they feel. I wish people weren't so fearful. "Our game has such a public face. There's media here every day covering everything we do, but for this subject, all of a sudden, everyone clams up. I just say my opinion and I don't sugarcoat it." Linky (http://mlb.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/news/article.jsp?ymd=20050303&content_id=955892&vkey=news_mlb&fext=.jsp&c_id=mlb)

Daver
03-04-2005, 07:02 PM
Remember who is in the White House

Yeah I remember, former Rangers owner, and one of the twelve men responsible for making Bud Selig the acting commisioner. Yeah, he'll sign a bill to yank MLB's anti trust exemption.

SoxEd
03-04-2005, 08:00 PM
As a Card Carrying Cynic, and self-confessed Tinfoil-Hat Wearing Conspiracy Theorist, it is my opinion that Frank, as someone who is generally accepted by everyone to be clean, is on that list as The Big Hitter Who Can Be Asked The Direct Questions...

Questions like "did you ever use steroids, or any other performance enhancing drug in order to knowingly defraud the Baseball-watching public?", and be certain to give an answer in the negative.

Those who are 'more likely to be guilty' will be asked "did you know that you were on steroids?", to which they can always answer "gee sir, no, I didn't", or other non-questions such as "did you ever see members of your club injecting?" - to which they can always say "no", because the only way they'd be caught out lying is if some previously-anonymous juicer were to come out of the woodwork and say "that's a lie - I used to shoot up in front of Player X all the time".
I put it to you that that outcome is rather unlikely.

Thus, Congress gets to look like it was 'tough on the Steroids issue', no-one goes to jail, and MLB and the Players' Union get to say "we have been exonerated by a Congressional Hearing - it was only a few bad apples".

Everyone comes out Smelling of Roses...

And, just perhaps, the Media get to slight Frank (and the White Sox too) by association with 'known juicers' - though even I find that one to be a bit of a stretch.

samram
03-04-2005, 08:11 PM
Let the excuse parade begin. Rafael Palmeiro leads off (http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news;_ylc=X3oDMTBpNWZic251BF9TAzI1NjY0ODI1BHNlYwN0 aA--?slug=ap-steroids&prov=ap&type=lgns):

``March 17th is my wife's birthday. That should tell you right there what my answer is,'' Palmeiro said at Baltimore's camp in Fort Lauderdale.

He later added, "And it's her 38th, and you know how important the 38th birthday is to a woman. Maybe next year, eh?"

RKMeibalane
03-04-2005, 08:58 PM
Let the excuse parade begin. Rafael Palmeiro leads off (http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news;_ylc=X3oDMTBpNWZic251BF9TAzI1NjY0ODI1BHNlYwN0 aA--?slug=ap-steroids&prov=ap&type=lgns):



He later added, "And it's her 38th, and you know how important the 38th birthday is to a woman. Maybe next year, eh?"

I want to hear what Sosa's excuse is. The only thing he's said so far is that he hasn't talked to his agent, yet.

:nandrolone

"Beisbol has been berry, berry, goodtome."

MRKARNO
03-04-2005, 09:46 PM
I want to hear what Sosa's excuse is. The only thing he's said so far is that he hasn't talked to his agent, yet.


:shammy

"We're playing the Cardinals on that day, the defending NL champions. The team needs me and I'm a team guy that doesnt walk out on his team when the times are good or when they are bad, spring training or the last game of the year, so I will be there and not on Capitol Hill."

MRKARNO
03-04-2005, 10:15 PM
According to the Drudge Report (http://drudgereport.com/) (not exactly the most reliable source in the world, but a decent one nonetheless):

Baseball players who decline congressional invitation to testify about baseball's steroids policy may be subpoenaed... Developing...

Ol' No. 2
03-04-2005, 10:25 PM
According to the Drudge Report (http://drudgereport.com/) (not exactly the most reliable source in the world, but a decent one nonetheless):

It's hard for me to believe that the players can all flip off a congressional committee and congress is going to just take it.

:sopranos Are you sure you wouldn't like to reconsider? We can make you an offer you can't refuse.

StillMissOzzie
03-05-2005, 12:31 AM
I think subpoena power is what it's gonna take to get ANY current players there, what with spring training, spousal birthdays, and other vitally important reasons we are sure to hear.

And as much as I would like the scenario described in Moronatti's column today to unfold, I don't see it happening without those subpoenas.

SMO
:gulp:

StillMissOzzie
03-05-2005, 01:37 AM
Let the excuse parade begin. Rafael Palmeiro leads off (http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news;_ylc=X3oDMTBpNWZic251BF9TAzI1NjY0ODI1BHNlYwN0 aA--?slug=ap-steroids&prov=ap&type=lgns):



He later added, "And it's her 38th, and you know how important the 38th birthday is to a woman. Maybe next year, eh?"

I thought that this post was ajoke until I read the story on ESPN.com. It doesn't sound like an excuse from someone who endorses Viagra, it sounds like an excuse from someone who has no use for Viagra. Or maybe the juice has already shrunk his 'nads to raisins.

SMO
:gulp:

BRDSR
03-05-2005, 03:02 AM
This whole thing has me a little confused. On the one hand, Congress has invited some very big names who, in general, can do whatever the heck they want to whoever the please at any time. On the other hand, Congress invited them. If I'm Sammy Sosa or Mark McGuire and I know I've been on 'roids the last half decade or more and I get a letter in the mail asking me to appear before Congress to discuss the subject, I think my stomach does a summersault. All of a sudden they don't have to dupe Selig, tell off reporters, and act lovable to the hometown fans, they've got to go before the United States Congress and either admit to the world that they've used steroids or lie to the United States Congress. The stakes are getting kind of high for these guys. And I have to agree with a previous poster who said that Congress probably wouldn't roll over if they were snubbed by these players. A lot of big egos involved here.

As far as Frank being invited, I don't think he's being suspected of steroid use. Tom Davis, Republican senator from Virginia, who invited these sluggers didn't just take a look at a few pictures and pick out the big ones. I'm sure he realized that this is the most high-profile thing he'll be doing in Congress and did his homework. He knows that Frank is not suspected of using steroids.

Edit: I'm not sure if this link has been posted, but apparently Conseco has confirmed he'll be in attendance, Palmeiro has said he won't, and everyone else has given vague or no-comment answers. The fact that almost everyone involved has no idea what they want to do really shows what a surprise this was. I know I was surprised.

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=ap-steroids&prov=ap&type=lgns

samram
03-05-2005, 10:00 AM
I want to hear what Sosa's excuse is. The only thing he's said so far is that he hasn't talked to his agent, yet.


:shammy
"March 17th? No, that's no good. That's St. Patrick's Day, or as I call it, Opposite Day, because it's the one day a year I kiss Mike Kiley's ass. Oh, and the 18th is my wife's birthday."

minastirith67
03-05-2005, 10:07 AM
It's hard for me to believe that the players can all flip off a congressional committee and congress is going to just take it.

:sopranos Are you sure you wouldn't like to reconsider? We can make you an offer you can't refuse.

Congress isn't as lofty as they once seem, eh? Never trust a bunch of politicians when it comes to 'enforcing' MLB policy.

Dadawg_77
03-05-2005, 10:43 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/05/sports/baseball/05steroids.html?oref=login

New York Times is reporting that players who don't attend the hearings will be subpoena.

Deadguy
03-05-2005, 11:38 AM
As far as Frank being invited, I don't think he's being suspected of steroid use. Tom Davis, Republican senator from Virginia, who invited these sluggers didn't just take a look at a few pictures and pick out the big ones. I'm sure he realized that this is the most high-profile thing he'll be doing in Congress and did his homework. He knows that Frank is not suspected of using steroids.


But why Frank? Why not specify the reasoning behind asking Thomas and Schilling to show up? He's just lumping these two in with a bunch of supposed juicers. Why muddy up their image?

Why not Mike Piazza, Manny Ramirez, Jim Thome, Carlos Delgado, Ken Griffey Jr., Alex Rodriguez, Edgar Martinez etc.?

And why not guys who are prime suspects for steroid use, such as Bonds, Juan Gonzalez, Jeff Bagwell, Ivan Rodriguez, Miguel Tejada, Roger Clemens, etc.

Why are Frank and Curt being asked to show up when no one has suspected them of steroid use? I know Thomas has been outspoken about steroid use, and has offered to take a test any time any pace, but is this something that Davis is aware of? Why single these two out, and associate them with the other juicers?

I hope Thomas goes, just tells the truth, and gets some publicity for himself, since he is not really a household name anymore, and he could end up being pushed into the spotlight as the poster boy for players who remained clean during this era.

Lip Man 1
03-05-2005, 02:13 PM
Deadguy:

Because Congress wants to speak with some players who did it right, who achieved great things simply by hard work.

Lip

A. Cavatica
03-05-2005, 03:04 PM
What do the invitees have in common? They're all big names. I repeat, it sounds like someone in Congress wants autographs.

MRKARNO
03-05-2005, 03:26 PM
Now Mr. Thomas you're a naturally big guy you never used steroids did you?
No Mr. congressman.
You obviously think players are using with how outspoken you've been?
Yes Mr. congresswoman.
Did you ever consider using them Mr. Thomas.
How could you not Mr. congressman, look at the money these guys are getting, the fame, the records.
So why didn't you ever use them Mr. Thomas?
My future health is more important than that, I'd be cheating the game and myself and be setting a poor example for children and others that Cheating is ok.
Thank you Mr. Thomas.
Now Mr. Sosa
*Chirrrrup Chirrrrup*
Mr. Sosa????

If Congressmen asked such direct questions, I doubt that most committee hearings would be as long as they are. The testimony of all of the ballplayers will last half the day, guarenteed.

Ol' No. 2
03-05-2005, 06:17 PM
If Congressmen asked such direct questions, I doubt that most committee hearings would be as long as they are. The testimony of all of the ballplayers will last half the day, guarenteed.The testimony will last half a day, but they WILL get around to asking direct questions. Remember, this is, at least partly, grandstanding by the congressman, and what better way to assure you make the TV news than to ask a direct question?

MRKARNO
03-05-2005, 06:28 PM
The testimony will last half a day, but they WILL get around to asking direct questions. Remember, this is, at least partly, grandstanding by the congressman, and what better way to assure you make the TV news than to ask a direct question?

Maybe after a two and a half minute lead in.

RKMeibalane
03-05-2005, 07:00 PM
Do we know if this event will be televised? Even if ESPN doesn't show it, I would except CSPAN to offer live coverage.

Ol' No. 2
03-05-2005, 07:04 PM
Do we know if this event will be televised? Even if ESPN doesn't show it, I would except CSPAN to offer live coverage.I'd expect CSPAN for sure. ESPN and the networks will show only the juicy parts. (And we all know what those will be don't we?)

wassagstdu
03-05-2005, 07:12 PM
I think this is great. Look what we have now: a lot of rumors and suspicions and leaked testimony and one turkey's attempt to sell a book. The questions should be asked in public, under oath. Anybody who refuses to appear or takes the fifth can be assumed (by me, not in a court of law) to have used steroids. I think they do need to issue an exemption against being forced to incriminate any other individual, so that if someone refuses we can be sure it is himself he is protecting. If the intent were to get them up there and force them to be snitches, then I think the union would be right to try to prevent anyone from testifying.

Jjav829
03-05-2005, 07:20 PM
Frank's gotta be really pissed right about now. There better be some good reason they choose him other than other than they suspect him. It better be something like they wanted to get a bunch of different viewpoints so they asked: Canseco - a known cheater; Mark McGwire, Jason Giambi and Rafael Palmeiro - accused cheaters; Sammy Sosa - a suspected cheater; Curt Schilling - an outspoken pitcher for something other than a hitters viewpoint; Frank - a naturally big player known for being outspoken against steroids.

I'm sure Frank probably was going to turn it down, but now that he'll be subpoenaed...

ChiWhiteSox1337
03-05-2005, 07:23 PM
Can someone explain to a stupid young kid like me what it means to be subpoenaed? I looked up the definition and it made no sense to me!

Ol' No. 2
03-05-2005, 07:33 PM
Can someone explain to a stupid young kid like me what it means to be subpoenaed? I looked up the definition and it made no sense to me!It means you HAVE to show up or you can be found in contempt and sent to jail.

daveeym
03-06-2005, 06:24 PM
If Congressmen asked such direct questions, I doubt that most committee hearings would be as long as they are. The testimony of all of the ballplayers will last half the day, guarenteed. I agree, but if Frank's truly there to give the non-cheaters side there's no reason for them not to ask him direct questions, they'll play those other games with the suspected users, cuz that's where the story really is.

OG4LIFE
03-06-2005, 07:27 PM
:tomatoaward

The Racehorse
03-08-2005, 07:01 PM
ESPN Sportscenter just reported that the invitations are now subpoenas.

MRKARNO
03-08-2005, 07:07 PM
ESPN Sportscenter just reported that the invitations are now subpoenas.

All of them? I heard that Schilling and Thomas may have been left out of the list of subpoened players, but that might be wrong.

Ol' No. 2
03-08-2005, 07:08 PM
All of them? I heard that Schilling and Thomas may have been left out of the list of subpoened players, but that might be wrong.I'm still trying to figure out how come Barry Bonds wasn't on the list.:?:

FightingBillini
03-08-2005, 07:11 PM
I dont remember if Bonds was on the list, but I specifically heard them say Frank and Schilling were. See my post about Frank in "Whats the score?".

The Racehorse
03-08-2005, 07:15 PM
ESPN radio said the source was the Baltimore Sun [which I haven't googled].

Also, I saw somewhere [prolly an ESPN source, can't remember though] that the list of names "invited" would grow by a few names at least... FWIW.

MRKARNO
03-08-2005, 07:20 PM
ESPN radio said the source was the Baltimore Sun [which I haven't googled].

Also, I saw somewhere [prolly an ESPN source, can't remember though] that the list of names "invited" would grow by a few names at least... FWIW.

Yup, he defintely is:

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2008206

I think it's probably a good thing that he's on that panel as long as his ankle is ok from the flying. Worse comes to worse, the doctor says he cant fly and I'm sure the committee will allow him to appear via teleconferencing.

The Racehorse
03-08-2005, 07:29 PM
Someone posted a few days ago that it would be great if the Sox organization had someone go back and compile all of Frank's anti-steroids comments to help him prepare for his time before Congress.

For both Frank and the organization, why not use this as an opportunity to accentuate Franks accomplishments in combo with his very public anti-drug stance? I hope someone in the Sox organization is seeing this.

shoota
03-09-2005, 05:11 AM
Question 1: Who are the baseball executives and other non-players who have been asked to testify?

Question 2: On what day(s) will this hearing take place?

Cubbiesuck13
03-09-2005, 05:15 AM
Question 1: Who are the baseball executives and other non-players who have been asked to testify?

Question 2: On what day(s) will this hearing take place?
1. Dunno
2. March 17 per ESPN

Hokiesox
03-09-2005, 12:06 PM
I'd expect CSPAN for sure. ESPN and the networks will show only the juicy parts. (And we all know what those will be don't we?)


EDIT: I will try to be in the audience...

The Racehorse
03-09-2005, 12:15 PM
EDIT: I will try to be in the audience...

If you make it to the hearings, wear your Sox tie [if you have one]... not that I'm trying to tell you how to dress or anything. :D:

The Racehorse
03-09-2005, 12:35 PM
Mike & Mike interviewed Senator Bunning this morning. Golic asked him if the Government should investigate MLB's steroid situation. Bunning said [paraphrasing] "the Government should stay the hell out of it if baseball and the players association can handle it themselves… and only get involved if they show they can’t handle it”

Obviously the ‘98 & 01 seasons mean nothing to Jim Bunning. With him being a HOF pitcher, he should know better… Jim, how long can ball players use illegal drugs before it is decided that MLB and the players association cannot handle it, 20 years? In addition, for the billionth time, ephedra is an illegal substance that MLB & the players union cannot agree on to put on baseballs [laughable] list of banned substances… no shame what so ever.

ja1022
03-09-2005, 12:41 PM
All of them? I heard that Schilling and Thomas may have been left out of the list of subpoened players, but that might be wrong.

ESPN radio reported this morning that Frank and Canseco accepted the invitations to appear and therefore, weren't subpoenaed.

I have not had an opportunity to read all the posts, but I don't think this is an indication of suspicion about Frank from the committee. I think they're looking for someone to represent clean players who have achieved a lot in their careers. Hopefully this whole thing casts Frank in a positive light from a national perspective.

Ol' No. 2
03-09-2005, 01:35 PM
Mike & Mike interviewed Senator Bunning this morning. Golic asked him if the Government should investigate MLB's steroid situation. Bunning said [paraphrasing] "the Government should stay the hell out of it if baseball and the players association can handle it themselves… and only get involved if they show they can’t handle it”

Obviously the ‘98 & 01 seasons mean nothing to Jim Bunning. With him being a HOF pitcher, he should know better… Jim, how long can ball players use illegal drugs before it is decided that MLB and the players association cannot handle it, 20 years? In addition, for the billionth time, ephedra is an illegal substance that MLB & the players union cannot agree on to put on baseballs [laughable] list of banned substances… no shame what so ever.That's fine, Senator Bunning, but I would say that it's perfectly clear that baseball and the players association have already shown that they can't handle it themselves.

balke
03-09-2005, 01:58 PM
So if Bonds is introducing everyone to steroids theortetically, (there seems to be a "Bonds and his trainer introduced me" kind of theme for a lot of players) do you believe some prosecution may take place? In essence this could be the creation and manufacture of a designer drug. Pushing an illegal substance, and selling it for a profit.

I'm wondering if this trial could actually have results. Perhaps Bonds or his trainer serve jail time? These clean players testify to the damage of illegal substances and how it hurts clean careers financially as discussed earlier in this thread?

Lip Man 1
03-09-2005, 02:05 PM
I am still trying to get a sense of why Bonds wasn't 'invited?'

Lip

daveeym
03-09-2005, 02:10 PM
I am still trying to get a sense of why Bonds wasn't 'invited?'

Lip Finally the in I've been looking for. I'm assuming because Jose had no knowledge of Bonds using combined with he's already involved with the Grand Jury. Giambi's in both because of Jose. The question it raises in my mind then is WHY SOSA??? If we get a Sosa love fest out of this and he's treated as clean I think I may actually cry.

The Racehorse
03-09-2005, 02:11 PM
So if Bonds is introducing everyone to steroids theortetically, (there seems to be a "Bonds and his trainer introduced me" kind of theme for a lot of players) do you believe some prosecution may take place? In essence this could be the creation and manufacture of a designer drug. Pushing an illegal substance, and selling it for a profit.

I'm wondering if this trial could actually have results. Perhaps Bonds or his trainer serve jail time? These clean players testify to the damage of illegal substances and how it hurts clean careers financially as discussed earlier in this thread?

I listened to Roger Cossack say on ESPN radio that in his opinion, it's those distributing steroids to players who need to beware, more so than the users... FWIW.

Ol' No. 2
03-09-2005, 02:12 PM
I am still trying to get a sense of why Bonds wasn't 'invited?'

LipI've been trying to figure that one out, too. At first I thought it was because they didn't want to interfere with the BALCO grand jury, but then why Giambi? Maybe they just don't have the stomach to listen to Bonds mouthing off and accusing them all of being racists.

voodoochile
03-09-2005, 02:12 PM
1. Dunno
2. March 17 per ESPN

Are you crapping me? They picked St Pats day? *****! That is almost as bad as the Sox doing Soxfest on SB weekend last year. Between the people getting drunk and claiming some Irish blood and the people watching the NCAA tournament, much fewer people will be paying attention.

What a joke...

Daver, you nailed it. This is a sham and a farce... a shammockery burglefickle...

Voodoo lauging so hard he------------------>:whiner:

The Racehorse
03-09-2005, 02:18 PM
I've been trying to figure that one out, too. At first I thought it was because they didn't want to interfere with the BALCO grand jury, but then why Giambi? Maybe they just don't have the stomach to listen to Bonds mouthing off and accusing them all of being racists.

The talk on ESPN radio is that Bonds is the LEAST credible witness, with hurricane BALCO brewing and all. Also, one of the congressman was on Cold Pizza saying the list of those subpoenaed isn't final, FWIW ...

... the talk of Bonds not being credible warms my heart. :cool:

EDIT: here's a Roger Cossack quote regarding Bonds, "Reports claim that Giambi owned up to knowing steroid use; Bonds reportedly said he unknowingly used a steroid. Perhaps the committee simply doesn't want to hear Bonds' rather-hard-to-believe testimony."

Whatever their decision, ballplayers will have to talk (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2008742)

Ol' No. 2
03-09-2005, 02:25 PM
The talk on ESPN radio is that Bonds is the LEAST credible witness, with hurricane BALCO brewing and all. Also, one of the congressman was on Cold Pizza saying the list of those subpoenaed isn't final, FWIW ...

... the talk of Bonds not being credible warms my heart. :cool:Less credible than Shammy??? Wow. That's saying something. Besides, who gives a rat's ass about if these guys are credible? This isn't about credibility. It's about putting them on the spot and asking them the questions that sportswriters should have been asking them for the last 10 years.

Spicoli
03-09-2005, 03:43 PM
ESPN's Kurkjian had this to say during his chat today:



Pete (Chicago, IL): Why is Frank Thomas being "invited" to testify before Congress in the Steroids scandal? Any chance it's because common agreement has it that Frank is clean and the committee is looking for a contrasting perspective on how steroids affected players who were not cheating?

http://espn.starwave.com/i/sn2.gif Tim Kurkjian: (3:22 PM ET ) That might be the reason why, I've never heard ANY rumor about steroids attatched to Frank Thomas. The complaint with him in the last few years is that he's gotten a little bit too soft -- NOT too big and too strong. So, maybe they just want a guy from the other side, as you suggest.



Mike Fournier Chicago, Illinois: Tim- Out of all the names mentioned being summoned to Washington to testify about steroids, one seems to stand out, Frank Thomas. He has never been linked to steroids and has been outspoken about his stance against them. Do you think that Franks numbers and the belief that he was roid free increase his chances for the HOF?

http://espn.starwave.com/i/sn2.gif Tim Kurkjian: (3:24 PM ET ) Frank Thomas's numbers, with a few more good years, will be indisputable as far as the Hall of Fame goes. He is really close right now. People tend to forget exactly how dominant he was his first eight years in the league. That will be enough to get him in eventually, but I don't think he'll win extra credit points for being clean, b/c I think there are plenty of clean guys who will be heading into the Hall.

SoxEd
03-09-2005, 04:48 PM
Are you crapping me? They picked St Pats day? *****! That is almost as bad as the Sox doing Soxfest on SB weekend last year. Between the people getting drunk and claiming some Irish blood and the people watching the NCAA tournament, much fewer people will be paying attention.

What a joke...

Daver, you nailed it. This is a sham and a farce... a shammockery burglefickle...

Voodoo lauging so hard he------------------>:whiner:

The next thing you know, they'll announce a 'full, and rigorous' investigation into the issue, headed by the respected and utterly impartial British Judge Lord Hutton, using a Mr. J. Blair to unearth 'the truth'....

cheeses_h_rice
03-09-2005, 05:04 PM
It's official -- subpoenas issued to 11 players and officials, including Big Frank and Sham-ME*.

I for one am very happy to see this happen, if only to make certain Flintstones-vitamins-inhaling Cheaters get taken to the woodshed.

:nandrolone

The House of Representatives isn't the kind of "house" I like to be welcomed to.

*Gulp*

voodoochile
03-09-2005, 05:14 PM
It's official -- subpoenas issued to 11 players and officials, including Big Frank and Sham-ME*.

I for one am very happy to see this happen, if only to make certain Flintstones-vitamins-inhaling Cheaters get taken to the woodshed.

Well, I hope it actually means something, Cheeses. I got a bad feeling that Daver is 100% right and this is all smoke and mirrors to convince an apathetic voting public that they truly do care about the simple things that give our lives pleasure.

Given the scheduled time table and the general feeling that there isn't a damned thing they can do about it except toot their own horns and look concerned, I don't see this as being anything other than a circus. Of course Caesar said it best... Bread and circuses...

If they really wanted to do something big, they wouldn't schedule it to happen on an otherwise huge news cycle day for most major newspapers. Front page of the major news publications in NY, Chicago and LA (just to name a few) are all going to be about the parades and parties and Major sporting services will be splitting the story with early round NCAA tourny news. If they had come out and admitted they were trying to look tough while requestint the story and results get buried as far down the page as possible, they couldn't have achieved a bigger success.

How soon until they go after pro cycling or is this just because MLB is America's Sport...

I repeat... burglefickle...:rolleyes:

cheeses_h_rice
03-09-2005, 05:25 PM
Well, I hope it actually means something, Cheeses. I got a bad feeling that Daver is 100% right and this is all smoke and mirrors to convince an apathetic voting public that they truly do care about the simple things that give our lives pleasure.

Given the scheduled time table and the general feeling that there isn't a damned thing they can do about it except toot their own horns and look concerned, I don't see this as being anything other than a circus. Of course Caesar said it best... Bread and circuses...

If they really wanted to do something big, they wouldn't schedule it to happen on an otherwise huge news cycle day for most major newspapers. Front page of the major news publications in NY, Chicago and LA (just to name a few) are all going to be about the parades and parties and Major sporting services will be splitting the story with early round NCAA tourny news. If they had come out and admitted they were trying to look tough while requestint the story and results get buried as far down the page as possible, they couldn't have achieved a bigger success.

How soon until they go after pro cycling or is this just because MLB is America's Sport...

I repeat... burglefickle...:rolleyes:

Considering the alternative of what they could do -- nothing -- I'll take this window dressing. It's going to make Frank look a hell of lot better, and Nandrolone/HGH Boy Sham-ME* a lot worse, especially if he dodges the questions.

As for the timing, I'm not convinced that they purposely are doing it on the 17th to "bury" it. The footage will come out, and be replayed over and over and over for weeks to come, especially if Captain Hulk et al. tell the truth about the stuff they've used to "make their fans happy."

voodoochile
03-09-2005, 05:34 PM
Considering the alternative of what they could do -- nothing -- I'll take this window dressing. It's going to make Frank look a hell of lot better, and Nandrolone/HGH Boy Sham-ME* a lot worse, especially if he dodges the questions.

As for the timing, I'm not convinced that they purposely are doing it on the 17th to "bury" it. The footage will come out, and be replayed over and over and over for weeks to come, especially if Captain Hulk et al. tell the truth about the stuff they've used to "make their fans happy."

Sure, but that's also a very busy two week news period for sports in general. The tournament, the NBA season is winding down and teams are fighting for playoff spots, ST is coming to an end as teams set their rosters and get ready to play for real and normally the NHL is in the final weeks of it's season too.

I agree, it won't be completely buried, but it isn't going to be as big a story as it could be. I think that says they realize that they really can'd do much but ask some questions and look good for the cameras.

Ol' No. 2
03-09-2005, 05:42 PM
Sure, but that's also a very busy two week news period for sports in general. The tournament, the NBA season is winding down and teams are fighting for playoff spots, ST is coming to an end as teams set their rosters and get ready to play for real and normally the NHL is in the final weeks of it's season too.

I agree, it won't be completely buried, but it isn't going to be as big a story as it could be. I think that says they realize that they really can'd do much but ask some questions and look good for the cameras.What's the alternative? I'm sure they want to get the hearings over before the real season starts. It's not like St. Patrick's day is a national holiday or anything. This will get plenty of coverage. Sammy's testimony will lead the TV news in all Chicago stations for sure.

daveeym
03-09-2005, 05:45 PM
Sure, but that's also a very busy two week news period for sports in general. The tournament, the NBA season is winding down and teams are fighting for playoff spots, ST is coming to an end as teams set their rosters and get ready to play for real and normally the NHL is in the final weeks of it's season too.

I agree, it won't be completely buried, but it isn't going to be as big a story as it could be. I think that says they realize that they really can'd do much but ask some questions and look good for the cameras.Bah, Hokie give us some insight here, does this mean it's a 1 day hearing or is that undetermined right now? I'd imagine this may get convened on the 17th, they do the MD's on thursday and friday, they say everything we all know, "steroids are berry berry bad for you," and the fireworks start up on monday with the players and have the headlines all to themselves. I think the Office Space "Jump to Conclusions" mat needs to be brought out as it stands now. I mean come on we know congress has casual half day fridays.

voodoochile
03-09-2005, 05:48 PM
What's the alternative? I'm sure they want to get the hearings over before the real season starts. It's not like St. Patrick's day is a national holiday or anything. This will get plenty of coverage. Sammy's testimony will lead the TV news in all Chicago stations for sure.

What country you living in? No one is even going to read the newspaper in Chicago for at least 2 days until their ears stop ringing and their head stops pounding. At least most of the "sports fans" will be that way... booze and baseball, booze and St Pats, booze and the NCAA tournament. It's a party, dude and in Chicago it goes on for at least 2 days - one on the southside (which a LOT of people go to) and one for the whole city (which all of those same people go to plus a WHOLE lot more).

Bartenders work 2 hour shifts in downtown Chicago bars because if they worked a full one, they'd make something like $1500 so they split the shift up for everyone to get a slice. It's green, it's crazy, it's a whole lot of drunk people. Sounds like a national holiday to me. It's ata least a national holiday the way the SB is...

balke
03-09-2005, 05:57 PM
All the drunks can bond together and watch silent talking heads on their local sports bar flatscreen. Boos will roar for Canseco, SLowsa and Selig, cheers for Frank. It'll be a great running gag for bar hopping.

Lip Man 1
03-09-2005, 07:20 PM
Some significant updates. Apparently the MLB owners in so many words told Congress to 'go to hell.' They are going to fight this. You can also see a report on this tonight on Newsnight with Aaron Brown starting at 10PM Chicago time on CNN.

Also even though Thomas said he'd testify Monday as part of the formal response by MLB Thomas is listed with the others as refusing to testify.

http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/3449268?GT1=6209

Lip

mccombe_35
03-09-2005, 09:18 PM
a couple of lines from chisox.com that i liked:

"There are ways to try and help it," said Thomas, who fractured the navicular bone in his left ankle last June, had it operated on in early October and now says that the ankle "swells like a grapefruit" when he flies. "I'll ice [in Washington] and I'll ice when I get back here. If it's that serious that they need us to get there, then I'm willing to go. It's not a problem."

&

"With me, I have nothing to hide. I have my reputation on the line. I don't care. If they want me up there, I'll go up there. What questions do you want to ask me? I'm going to tell you the truth."

the full article is at:

http://chicago.whitesox.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/news/article.jsp?ymd=20050309&content_id=962964&vkey=spt2005news&fext=.jsp&c_id=cws

balke
03-09-2005, 09:29 PM
They had a live interview with kucinich on ESPN about what will take place. He made it sound like there won't be prosecutions, they just want to get to the bottom of this.

Apparently Bonds hasn't been invited (yet) as that may put all the attention on him. He may still be called to the hearing. This sounds like it will be a meeting to discuss what is going to be done now that steroids are such a problem. "No witchhunting" is the guarantee. He repeated they weren't looking to prosecute anyone, just to discuss and remedy this issue of America's favorite pastime.

That's what I remember from the interview, it was a couple hours ago.

voodoochile
03-09-2005, 10:41 PM
They had a live interview with kucinich on ESPN about what will take place. He made it sound like there won't be prosecutions, they just want to get to the bottom of this.

Apparently Bonds hasn't been invited (yet) as that may put all the attention on him. He may still be called to the hearing. This sounds like it will be a meeting to discuss what is going to be done now that steroids are such a problem. "No witchhunting" is the guarantee. He repeated they weren't looking to prosecute anyone, just to discuss and remedy this issue of America's favorite pastime.

That's what I remember from the interview, it was a couple hours ago.

Yeah, they're going to get to the bottom of it and all on St Patricks day. Driving the needles out of baseball...

It's like a bad movie plot or some twisted soap opera...

Congress: We love you baseball and we're here to save you.

Baseball: We don't have time to be saved. Leave us alone.

Congress: No, We are going to save you and you have to let us.

Baseball: Screw you congress. We said we don't need your help.

Congress: Well, we weren't really going to harm you, we just want to help you figure out where your heart is at. Did we mention that we love you, baseball? We just want to talk. We would never ever hurt you. Please, let us help you... (did that come through well for the cameras? Yes? Great, now someone get me a green beer. All this posturing makes me thirsty...)

:gulp::gulp::gulp:< ----- 1 for congress, 1 for baseball and one for the fans who won't be paying attention until after they get over their hangovers.

Lip Man 1
03-10-2005, 01:26 AM
On Outside the Lines they had one of the committee members from Indiana and he said he grew up admiring Nellie Fox and Luis Aparicio...that being said he could not give Bob Ley any type of coherent answer as to why Bonds is not on the list. Ley grilled him over it.

I'll tell you why...congress is deathly afraid of a confrontation televised live between Bonds and some committee member. He's nutty enough to call them an MF or something like that and they want no part of it.

Gutless aren't they?

Lip

DaleJRFan
03-10-2005, 01:58 AM
On Outside the Lines they had one of the committee members from Indiana and he said he grew up admiring Nellie Fox and Luis Aparicio...that being said he could not give Bob Ley any type of coherent answer as to why Bonds is not on the list. Ley grilled him over it.

I'll tell you why...congress is deathly afraid of a confrontation televised live between Bonds and some committee member. He's nutty enough to call them an MF or something like that and they want no part of it.

Gutless aren't they?

Lip

He'd be the one to scream "race" and call in Jesse and his "Sports Diversity Task Force". Has Barry ever played a game in Fenway, yet he claims all Bostonians are racists, correct? He sucks. :angry:

The Racehorse
03-10-2005, 01:18 PM
Just saw a blurp on CNN's Headline News where Frank was saying he didn't know why he was chosen (to testify), except maybe because of him speaking out against steroids, especially two years ago...

... nothing new. I hope this happens... No way Frank gets mud on him. He'll end up being the star of the show.

Squeaky Clean Frank. :nod:

BRDSR
03-10-2005, 05:41 PM
TORONTO (Reuters) - Major League Baseball players and owners stood united on Thursday in their opposition to subpoenas to appear before a Congressional committee investigating the use of steroids in the sport. If MLB chooses to ignore the subpoenas, which now appears almost certain, it would delay the hearing and lead to months of legal wrangling that could end up in a U.S. District Court and be another unwanted distraction to the start of new season.



http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=577&e=5&u=/nm/20050310/sp_nm/mlb_subpoenas_dc

My question is, is Thomas expected to comply with this? Can he accept his subpoena even though players and owners supposedly stand united? If not, can a union really tell you not to accept a subpoena from the United States House of Representatives? And who actually ignores United States Congress subpoenas? MLB is making a mistake here. This is going to drag it well into the beginning of the season and put MLB in federal courts while it gets resolved. How embarrassing. Just accept the subpoenas and get it over with.

Ol' No. 2
03-10-2005, 05:45 PM
http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=577&e=5&u=/nm/20050310/sp_nm/mlb_subpoenas_dc

My question is, is Thomas expected to comply with this? Can he accept his subpoena even though players and owners supposedly stand united? If not, can a union really tell you not to accept a subpoena from the United States House of Representatives? And who actually ignores United States Congress subpoenas? MLB is making a mistake here. This is going to drag it well into the beginning of the season and put MLB in federal courts while it gets resolved. How embarrassing. Just accept the subpoenas and get it over with.MLB and the PA will stomp their feet, hold their breath, and generally act like fools, but unless they get the subpoenas legally quashed, they're not going to tell the players to ignore them. And if they did, the players would be idiots to listen to them because it's the players' hides that will be on the line for contempt. JMO