PDA

View Full Version : Thomas answers subpeona... WILL testify... now via teleconference!


MRKARNO
03-15-2005, 06:38 PM
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2014024

NEW YORK -- Jason Giambi (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/profile?statsId=5386) was excused from testifying at Thursday's congressional hearing into steroid use in baseball, but attempts by Rafael Palmeiro (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/profile?statsId=3897) and Frank Thomas (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/profile?statsId=4527) to avoid appearing were rejected.

Not sure if the MLB put him up to the avoidance request, but I think this news runs contrary to what we've been told about the situation previously. I'm not so sure what to make of this on Thomas's end based on the statements which indicated that he planned on going to the hearing. Maybe the AP got the story wrong? That would be a first.

Ol' No. 2
03-15-2005, 06:45 PM
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2014024



Not sure if the MLB put him up to the avoidance request, but I think this news runs contrary to what we've been told about the situation previously. I'm not so sure what to make of this on Thomas's end based on the statements which indicated that he planned on going to the hearing. Maybe the AP got the story wrong? That would be a first. I think you've got it exactly right. The players who didn't want to testify have probably been putting pressure on Thomas not to testify. I don't think it's going to work. It doesn't sound like Davis and Waxman are going to take no for an answer. At this point, I'd bet that MLB and the players' lawyers are trying to limit the questions asked to avoid having players actually admit to anything.

MRKARNO
03-15-2005, 06:49 PM
I think you've got it exactly right. The players who didn't want to testify have probably been putting pressure on Thomas not to testify. I don't think it's going to work. It doesn't sound like Davis and Waxman are going to take no for an answer. At this point, I'd bet that MLB and the players' lawyers are trying to limit the questions asked to avoid having players actually admit to anything.

The MLB might have put out a blanket request for all 7 players to miss the hearing without taking into account Thomas's position on the matter. I can't imagine, based on what we've heard from Thomas, that he really wanted to miss the hearing.

whitesoxwilkes
03-15-2005, 06:53 PM
I think you've got it exactly right. The players who didn't want to testify have probably been putting pressure on Thomas not to testify. I don't think it's going to work. It doesn't sound like Davis and Waxman are going to take no for an answer. At this point, I'd bet that MLB and the players' lawyers are trying to limit the questions asked to avoid having players actually admit to anything.

Davis and Waxman were on "Meet The Press" Sunday, and said point-blank that any player who doesn't answer their subpoena will face getting blasted with a contempt of Congress resolution by the committee.

Transcript here (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7173024/).

Ol' No. 2
03-15-2005, 06:57 PM
Davis and Waxman were on "Meet The Press" Sunday, and said point-blank that any player who doesn't answer their subpoena will face getting blasted with a contempt of Congress resolution by the committee.

Transcript here (http://msnbc.msn.com/id/7173024/).It sounds more like MLB is into damage control mode. I'm sure they'll try to limit the questions so that no one is asked directly if he took steroids. It will be interesting to see if Davis and Waxman go along. They hold all the cards.

ChiSox14305635
03-15-2005, 07:38 PM
Did anyone read the Sun-Times today? They said that of the 7 who were subpoeaned, only Schilling and Canseco were willing to testify. Did they forget that Frank had already said he would testify almost 2 weeks ago?

spawn
03-15-2005, 08:06 PM
This from chicagowhitesox.com (http://chicago.whitesox.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/news/article.jsp?ymd=20050315&content_id=967941&vkey=spt2005news&fext=.jsp&c_id=cws):


Frank Thomas left for Las Vegas on Tuesday, making a stop at home with a plan to continue the journey and testify before the House Committee on Government Reform in regards to steroids usage in baseball on Thursday. There was talk that Arn Tellem, Thomas' agent, and Dr. Richard Ferkel, Thomas' physician, sent letters to Congress to have Thomas submit the testimony from Tucson, but it appears Thomas is headed for Washington D.C.


He mentioned somethig like this on the MJ&H show his first day in Tucson. The press is making it seem like all of the ball players are trying to duck out of testifying. Have we heard anything from McGwire or Sosa about testifying?

balke
03-15-2005, 08:22 PM
I just assume "My ankle will swell if I fly" is being misconstrued to mean "I don't want to testify". Its a much better story if noone wants to testify.

cubhater
03-15-2005, 08:29 PM
Did anyone read the Sun-Times today? They said that of the 7 who were subpoeaned, only Schilling and Canseco were willing to testify. Did they forget that Frank had already said he would testify almost 2 weeks ago?

I thought I read somewhere that Canseco wants immunity for his testimony?

SaltyPretzel
03-15-2005, 08:43 PM
Does anyone know if this will be televised?

Lip Man 1
03-15-2005, 08:46 PM
There is still no word as of tonight if Sosa or McGwire will show up. They have been very quiet on all this except for a blanket denial by McGwire.

As I understand it MLB basically grouped all seven players together and attempted to quash the call for them to testify. It hurt their case when Thomas or Schilling said 'I'll go..' They were advised to keep quiet or threaten to say they wouldn't go, until the matter could be resolved. Now that it appears that it MLB can't do squat the players are saying they are going to attend.

At least some of them are.

This doesn't change or remove Frank's statements from when he arrived at camp. He said he'd be willing to testify and he is, he said he'd answer any questions the panel asked him and most importantly he reminded the media that he said a few years ago this was going to be a big embarassment for baseball (i.e. steroid use...) Frank was doing what the MLB lawyers told him to do until the issue could be resolved one way or another.

Lip

peeonwrigley
03-15-2005, 09:23 PM
I thought I read somewhere that Canseco wants immunity for his testimony?

Last night Canseco was on Hannity & Colmes with his lawyer. He said he will be there Thursday, and that he will testify that everything in his book is true.

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,150491,00.html

Edited to include link.

Randar68
03-15-2005, 09:54 PM
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2014024



Not sure if the MLB put him up to the avoidance request, but I think this news runs contrary to what we've been told about the situation previously. I'm not so sure what to make of this on Thomas's end based on the statements which indicated that he planned on going to the hearing. Maybe the AP got the story wrong? That would be a first.

Thomas didn't want to appear in person because the time away from trainers and the swelling issue will cause him to be set back in his rehab. I can't believe he's being forced to go to this dog and pony circle jerk...

Daver
03-15-2005, 09:58 PM
Thomas didn't want to appear in person because the time away from trainers and the swelling issue will cause him to be set back in his rehab. I can't believe he's being forced to go to this dog and pony circle jerk...

They are taking his testimony via video conference.

bahn1225
03-15-2005, 10:29 PM
Perhaps no one suggested this to Frank, but if it were me,

I'd take AMTRAK.
He could take the train from Arizona to Chicago,
stop there and take the direct train to Washington D.C.

Yes, I know it would take longer but
his injury wouldn't swell and he would not lose time in his rehab.assignment.

RichFitztightly
03-15-2005, 11:35 PM
They are taking his testimony via video conference.

got a source?

MRKARNO
03-16-2005, 12:30 AM
It sounds like Thomas's request was to not appear in Washington, but to be deposed in Tucson and Congress denied that. The AP article probably just grouped his request as being of the same nature as Palmeiro's request not to give testimony at all:

http://chicago.whitesox.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/news/article.jsp?ymd=20050315&content_id=967941&vkey=spt2005news&fext=.jsp&c_id=cws

Frank Thomas left for Las Vegas on Tuesday, making a stop at home with a plan to continue the journey and testify before the House Committee on Government Reform in regards to steroids usage in baseball on Thursday. There was talk that Arn Tellem, Thomas' agent, and Dr. Richard Ferkel, Thomas' physician, sent letters to Congress to have Thomas submit the testimony from Tucson, but it appears Thomas is headed for Washington D.C.

Mickster
03-16-2005, 09:39 AM
got a source?

ESPN 1000 Sportscenter update this morning indicated that testimony via video conference. Giambi will not testify due to the Balco investigation and Sosa and McGuire are the only two who have not responded to their subpoenas.

Ol' No. 2
03-16-2005, 10:03 AM
I'm beginning to think the immunity demands and everything else was just a smoke screen. What they really want is for the committee to agree not to ask "certain questions" (betcha can't guess what THEY might be). I'm going to predict right now that when these hearings finally happen, no one is going to be asked "Did you take steroids?"

jackbrohamer
03-16-2005, 10:09 AM
It's not fair to read more into this than what Thomas has said, that he is trying to work to recover from an injury & there's a physical problem with flying there, both valid reasons.

Plus it's gotta be intimidating and a royal pain to testify before Congress, especially for a ballplayer who's not in the political arena. There will be a huge amount of publicity & probably hostile questions. I'd try to avoid it too.

Unregistered
03-16-2005, 10:27 AM
ESPN 1000 Sportscenter update this morning indicated that testimony via video conference. Giambi will not testify due to the Balco investigation and Sosa and McGuire are the only two who have not responded to their subpoenas. According to the Trib, Thomas is already gone:
Rehabbing slugger Frank Thomas left the White Sox's spring training camp Tuesday to participate in a Congressional hearing on steroids Thursday in Washington.

Sox trainer Herm Schneider confirmed Thomas' departure, saying Thomas headed initially to his Las Vegas home before leaving to the nation's capital for the U.S. House Government Reform Committee hearing on steroids.

AZChiSoxFan
03-16-2005, 10:38 AM
Perhaps no one suggested this to Frank, but if it were me,

I'd take AMTRAK.
He could take the train from Arizona to Chicago,
stop there and take the direct train to Washington D.C.




Sure, either take Amtrak or walk to DC. I'm not sure which one would be faster.

StepsInSC
03-16-2005, 03:05 PM
Looks like everyoone subpoenaed will be showing up. And no immunity for Canseco.

If this isn't a witch hunt, like some in Congress have said, but rather an effort to get to the bottom of the steroid problem in baseball, then why not give immunity?

http://story.news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&cid=531&e=1&u=/ap/20050316/ap_on_sp_ba_ne/bbo_steroids

Jaffar
03-16-2005, 03:39 PM
I can't figure that out either. I want to set the dvr to get the whole thing but no clue what time or channel this will be aired live. Leaving Bond's off the list and letting Giambi miss better mean they have something better for these 2. I would say most people will be disappointed if the questioning doesn't go something like...

Raise your right hand. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, so help you god?

Can you state your name for the records?

Have you, Mr.xxxx ever used steroids?

I know I will disappointed if it doesn't go down similar to that. I don't necessarily need named names but I need to get something better than a player saying he knows other players use.

Ol' No. 2
03-16-2005, 03:43 PM
I can't figure that out either. I want to set the dvr to get the whole thing but no clue what time or channel this will be aired live. Leaving Bond's off the list and letting Giambi miss better mean they have something better for these 2. I would say most people will be disappointed if the questioning doesn't go something like...

Raise your right hand. Do you swear to tell the truth, the whole truth, so help you god?

Can you state your name for the records?

Have you, Mr.xxxx ever used steroids?

I know I will disappointed if it doesn't go down similar to that. I don't necessarily need named names but I need to get something better than a player saying he knows other players use.I'm predicting that that question never gets asked. MLB lawyers have been negotiating with the committee on limiting what questions can be asked, with that being the obvious one. Since the squawking has died down, I'm assuming they got a favorable agreement. You heard it here first.

Flight #24
03-16-2005, 03:46 PM
I'm predicting that that question never gets asked. MLB lawyers have been negotiating with the committee on limiting what questions can be asked, with that being the obvious one. Since the squawking has died down, I'm assuming they got a favorable agreement. You heard it here first.

I can almost guarantee that the questioning will be focused on how prevalent usage was/is, not who specifically used. The exception might be people named as users in Canseco's book.

SABRSox
03-16-2005, 03:48 PM
I can't figure that out either. I want to set the dvr to get the whole thing but no clue what time or channel this will be aired live.

ESPN.com says they will carry live coverage on ESPN starting at 10a ET, 9am CT. Unfortunately, that's 7am PT for me, and I don't have a DVR.

Unregistered
03-16-2005, 03:52 PM
I'm guessing it'll go something like this:
http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/attachment.php?attachmentid=2600

"That's 'Sosa'. S-O-S-A...

cheeses_h_rice
03-16-2005, 04:13 PM
http://img44.exs.cx/img44/5879/specter3sh.jpg

"Mr. Sosa, while the Committee appreciates the wrapped Dominican sweets you've handed out, and while the Committee is really and truly impressed with the size of your biceps and the photo of you with Hillary Clinton at the State of the Union address, we do request that you answer the question posed to you four minutes ago: Have you or have you not ever used steroids, human growth hormone, or any other banned performance-enhancing substances in your professional career?"


:nandrolone

:crickets:

http://img44.exs.cx/img44/5879/specter3sh.jpg

"OK, I'll take that as an admission of guilt. Thank you for your time."

SpammySosa
03-16-2005, 05:55 PM
ESPN Radio just reported that Big Frank will be allowed to give his testimony via videophone tomorrow during the Congressional hearing.

StepsInSC
03-16-2005, 05:57 PM
Isn't he already flying out there...?

Ol' No. 2
03-16-2005, 05:59 PM
Isn't he already flying out there...?I guess we're going to have to wait for ChiSoxTony to spot him in the DC airport.:D:

Mickster
03-16-2005, 06:10 PM
Isn't he already flying out there...?

See my and Daver's posts earlier in this thread.

Lip Man 1
03-16-2005, 08:49 PM
The Tribune web site has now confirmed Frank will testify via videoconference from Tuscon Thursday morning.

They have also posted the opening statement that Frank will give before questions begin as well as a letter of appreciation from Jerry Reinsdorf to the committee.

Lip

SluggersAway
03-16-2005, 08:59 PM
Not much there, but for what it is worth:

Frank Thomas' statement: Good morning, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee. I want to thank the Chairman and the ranking member for allowing me to make this statement. My name is Frank Thomas and I am a baseball player for the Chicago White Sox--a team I am proud to have been part of since joining Major League Baseball in 1989.

First of all, Mr. Chairman, let me say that as an outspoken critic of steroids, I would like to work with this Committee, Major League Baseball, and the Players Association to warn everyone especially young people about the dangers of performance enhancing drugs. Steroids are dangerous and the public should be educated about them, and in particular, parents should make sure their children are aware that steroids can be bad for their health.

I also believe the league and the Players' Association have done the right thing by reopening our collective bargaining agreement and strengthening our policy on drug testing. I support this new policy as a very good first step in eliminating steroid use from the sport I love.

I have been a major league ballplayer for 15 years. Throughout my career, I have not used steroids. Ever.

Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of the Committee.

Flight #24
03-16-2005, 09:14 PM
I have been a major league ballplayer for 15 years. Throughout my career, I have not used steroids. Ever.



Awesome. By doing this, he also puts some pressure on other players to make similar unequivocal statements. I assume that lying under oath in these proceedings wouldbe considered perjury and punishable accordingly, so my guess is that unless the media's fast asleep (wouldn't be the first time), you'll have this statement compared to anything McGwire, etc sday about their usage.

NSSoxFan
03-16-2005, 09:20 PM
Awesome. By doing this, he also puts some pressure on other players to make similar unequivocal statements. I assume that lying under oath in these proceedings wouldbe considered perjury and punishable accordingly, so my guess is that unless the media's fast asleep (wouldn't be the first time), you'll have this statement compared to anything McGwire, etc sday about their usage.

It's exactly what I wanted Frank to come out first and say. I wonder what players like Sham-me, McGwire, and Palmeiro are going to say during testimony.

spawn
03-16-2005, 09:25 PM
I wish the Trib hadn't posted that. I would've preferred seeing it after he testified. But I love what he said. It validates our support of Frank in a big way.

maurice
03-16-2005, 09:29 PM
My name is Frank Thomas and I am a baseball player for the Chicago White Sox--a team I am proud to have been part of since joining Major League Baseball in 1989....
First of all, Mr. Chairman, let me say that as an outspoken critic of steroids, I would like to work with this Committee, Major League Baseball, and the Players Association to warn everyone especially young people about the dangers of performance enhancing drugs....
I have been a major league ballplayer for 15 years. Throughout my career, I have not used steroids. Ever.

Way to go, Frank! :gulp:

SluggersAway
03-16-2005, 09:29 PM
The only problem is a video conference testimony won't have half the impact that a live statement would have had. Even so, Thomas should come out of this like the class act that he is. 2000 MVP!

The next question is whether MLB will cancel the steroid testing because of the government inquiry as it appears they are ready to do. This would be a horrible PR move, but I wouldn't put it past them.

Brian26
03-16-2005, 09:55 PM
Frank just ensured himself of a first-ballot induction to Cooperstown. :bandance:

ChiWhiteSox1337
03-16-2005, 10:07 PM
http://i154.exs.cx/img154/8004/clap8oh.gif

Very nice statement by Thomas.

Ol' No. 2
03-16-2005, 11:20 PM
Awesome. By doing this, he also puts some pressure on other players to make similar unequivocal statements. I assume that lying under oath in these proceedings wouldbe considered perjury and punishable accordingly, so my guess is that unless the media's fast asleep (wouldn't be the first time), you'll have this statement compared to anything McGwire, etc sday about their usage.Exactly right. Just what MLB and the MLBPA didn't want him to do. Way to put the "Big Hurt" on those bums, Frank.

Chisox003
03-16-2005, 11:40 PM
Frank's statement was just played on Sportscenter....

I cant wait to see what Wife beater and Mcgwire have to say....

Whatever it is, it cant be much better than Hurt's....Go Frank Go :gulp:

Man Soo Lee
03-17-2005, 12:44 AM
I wish the Trib hadn't posted that. I would've preferred seeing it after he testified.

I think Frank probably wanted it to be reported tonight to avoid the guilt by association of being called to testify.

hose
03-17-2005, 07:12 AM
I'm guessing it'll go something like this:
http://www.whitesoxinteractive.com/vbulletin/attachment.php?attachmentid=2600

"That's 'Sosa'. S-O-S-A...

:roflmao: :roflmao:

davenicholson
03-17-2005, 08:49 AM
I think Frank probably wanted it to be reported tonight to avoid the guilt by association of being called to testify.
The word is out to the casual fan on the street. Information like this http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,150677,00.html is pretty much all over the news:
We have a good cross-section of players to tell the story that Major League Baseball is unwilling to tell," Rep. Tom Davis, chairman of the House Government Reform Committee, told FOX News on Wednesday.
Davis said that among the witnesses scheduled to testify are Chicago White Sox slugger Frank Thomas and Boston Red Sox pitcher Curt Schilling both described by Davis as role models in the game who have made the effort to speak out against steroid use.

Palehose13
03-17-2005, 08:58 AM
The word is out to the casual fan on the street. Information like this http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,150677,00.html is pretty much all over the news:

It's about time and it is sooooo nice to read. :D:

mccombe_35
03-17-2005, 09:00 AM
read the whole thing here -

http://chicago.whitesox.mlb.com/NASApp/mlb/news/article.jsp?ymd=20050316&content_id=969342&vkey=spt2005news&fext=.jsp&c_id=cws

best line IMO -

"I have been a Major League ballplayer for 15 years. Throughout my career, I have not used steroids. Ever."

StepsInSC
03-17-2005, 09:28 AM
Time To Purt A Hurt On The Hill!

Baby Fisk
03-17-2005, 09:35 AM
"Throughout my career, I have not used steroids. Ever."
That will look mighty fine on a plaque at Cooperstown. :nod:

spawn
03-17-2005, 09:43 AM
Personally, I think this is the best part of his statement:

"First of all, Mr. Chairman, let me say that as an outspoken critic of steroids, I would like to work with this Committee, Major League Baseball, and the players association to warn everyone -- especially young people -- about the dangers of performance enhancing drugs. Steroids are dangerous and the public should be educated about them, and in particular, parents should make sure their children are aware that steroids can be bad for their health. "
Considering what Canseco has been saying about steroid use, it's important for kids to know there are athletes who don't share his opinion.

Ol' No. 2
03-17-2005, 09:55 AM
I think Frank probably wanted it to be reported tonight to avoid the guilt by association of being called to testify.I don't know why Frank released the statement in advance, but here's one possibility. The players have probably agreed to show each other their statements in advance so they don't have any embarrassing contradictions. If the others saw that statement, they'd probably put pressure on him to change it. Releasing it in advance preempts that.

Flight #24
03-17-2005, 10:27 AM
Allow me to interject one caveat: Frank may not be the only guy to make such a statement, simply because there may be guys who use HGH which IIRC isn't technically classified as a steroid.

Of course, I would think that if asked about HGH, Frank would simply say "when I said "steroids", I meant "controlled performance enhancing substances", (so phrased to potentially distinguish them from things like creatine which are 100% allowed). None of the other guys will be able to say that, and most of them won't even be able to match his initial statement.

NonetheLoaiza
03-17-2005, 10:45 AM
Probably a stupid question, because it has been discussed at length, so pardon me for the moment, but I still don't understand why Congress is hell bent on hearing what Frank has to say. Is it just because he is an outspoken critic? Because I have to say, to people just glancing at the list of names, Frank's name could appear linked...

Ol' No. 2
03-17-2005, 10:49 AM
Allow me to interject one caveat: Frank may not be the only guy to make such a statement, simply because there may be guys who use HGH which IIRC isn't technically classified as a steroid.

Of course, I would think that if asked about HGH, Frank would simply say "when I said "steroids", I meant "controlled performance enhancing substances", (so phrased to potentially distinguish them from things like creatine which are 100% allowed). None of the other guys will be able to say that, and most of them won't even be able to match his initial statement.That's playing a dangerous game. Having made the statement, you can't later invoke your 5th amendment rights if someone asks you to clarify it. And saying you didn't take steroids, but later admitting to taking HGH or something like it would be worse than saying nothing at all.

Flight #24
03-17-2005, 10:58 AM
That's playing a dangerous game. Having made the statement, you can't later invoke your 5th amendment rights if someone asks you to clarify it. And saying you didn't take steroids, but later admitting to taking HGH or something like it would be worse than saying nothing at all.

I agree, which is why I'd guess it's an oversight on Frank's part to generalize and use the term "steroids". But given what we know or suspect about how the committee's not going to ask "have you used steroids", if a player makes that statement in their opening remarks and no one asks "did you use HGH", they'll be free & clear.

Plus given the difference in drugs, I think that a player could make that opening statement, then take the 5th for any & all other questions to avoid the obviousness of doing it for only the HGH one. They'd technically be correct and therefore I don't know if the rules of being unable to take the 5th for cross examination questions (as was posted in the TB thread) would apply.

Ol' No. 2
03-17-2005, 11:10 AM
I agree, which is why I'd guess it's an oversight on Frank's part to generalize and use the term "steroids". But given what we know or suspect about how the committee's not going to ask "have you used steroids", if a player makes that statement in their opening remarks and no one asks "did you use HGH", they'll be free & clear.

Plus given the difference in drugs, I think that a player could make that opening statement, then take the 5th for any & all other questions to avoid the obviousness of doing it for only the HGH one. They'd technically be correct and therefore I don't know if the rules of being unable to take the 5th for cross examination questions (as was posted in the TB thread) would apply.We'll have to wait for one of the lawyers to weigh in on this, but my understanding is that once you've opened the door on a particular subject you can't later refuse to answer questions about the same subject. You can't pick and choose which questions you like and which you don't.

Flight #24
03-17-2005, 11:14 AM
We'll have to wait for one of the lawyers to weigh in on this, but my understanding is that once you've opened the door on a particular subject you can't later refuse to answer questions about the same subject. You can't pick and choose which questions you like and which you don't.

The question is definition of "subject". If I say "I haven't taken steroids", I'd guess that doesn't automatically include HGH any more than it would include genetic doping or whatever other freaky things people do to get an advantage. Steroids is a specific terms. Much like if one got on the stand and said "I've never smoked crack", I believe you could still take the 5th if asked "yes but have you ever smoked pot".

mccombe_35
03-17-2005, 12:05 PM
Not sure if anybody knows this already (or cares), but you can watch everything at foxnews.com

Ol' No. 2
03-17-2005, 01:08 PM
The question is definition of "subject". If I say "I haven't taken steroids", I'd guess that doesn't automatically include HGH any more than it would include genetic doping or whatever other freaky things people do to get an advantage. Steroids is a specific terms. Much like if one got on the stand and said "I've never smoked crack", I believe you could still take the 5th if asked "yes but have you ever smoked pot".It's all subject to the ruling of the presiding officer, but I doubt you could get away with making a distinction like that.

BRDSR
03-17-2005, 03:05 PM
Thomas just made his comments via video at the Congressional hearings. Compared to people like Conseco, McGwire, and Palmiero, he definitely said very little. What he did say was straightforward and not surprising. I think a lot of that has to do with his quieter personality. He definitely looked good though, the man cleans up well! Haha. They haven't had an open questioning period yet, so I'm interested to see how that turns out for Thomas.

irish rover
03-17-2005, 04:17 PM
I find it very interesting how they all talked about themselves and how wonderful they are, except Frank