Joe Crede is Clutch

by CWSKeith on May 8, 2006 12:02 AM CDT in White Sox News

Talk about a clever headline, ehh? I guess that's why I'm not Cheat...

Mark Buehrle labored through six innings, throwing 114 pitches. This was a start where it was pretty clear that he didn't have his best stuff, and Buehrle attested to that in his postgame interview. He couldn't locate his curveball through the first four innings (at least), and his changeup was only mediocre. Really, he was just a fastball/cutter pitcher today.
On the other hand, who am I to argue with results? Buehrle gave up only two runs on back-to-back homers in the fifth inning.
The bench brigade was back today, with Pablo Ozuna in LF, Chris Widger behind homeplate, and Rob Mackowiak in RF. They went a combined 2-for-9; however, Ozuna's two-run triple tied the game up in the 5th inning and was a bright spot in an otherwise abysmal offensive performance.
I really can't complain about Ozzie using the Sunday Lineup ™. Ozuna has carried a hot stick so far this year (and the pitcher was a southpaw), and Widger was bound to be in the lineup, coming off of a night game along with facing the lefty. With RF, I'm glad they're not attempting to rush Jermaine Dye back into the lineup -- he's become a pretty integral part of the offense. Although, somebody needs to tell Mackowiak that it's May.
Who's the worst outfielder -- Emil Brown, Kerry Robinson, or Pablo Ozuna?
Update [2006-5-8 1:31:48 by The Cheat]: I just wanted to leave one of my own thoughts on the main page here.
Some of you might be surprised, but I liked the suicide squeeze call. I like bunting for a run. And more often than not, when you get that bunt down, the throw is coming home anyways. So, if properly executed, you end up with a man on first, a run scored, and no additional outs.
Iguchi just didn't get the bunt down, and Pablo had nowhere to go. It happens. (And here some of you thought all I could do was complain... I'll chime in on the benefit of the doubt thread sometime later.)

Tweet Comment 54 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Robinson

On Crede's ground-rule double, I saw him hangin on the wall. then the ball clearly fall way short of the wall. I thought it must have hit something. -- I'm eating lunch, watchin the game on a dinky little TV, and I'm scanning the outfield for a dead or stunned pigeon, kinda like Randy Johsnon's encounter a few spring trainings ago. -- That was one of the funniest plays I think I've seen in a long time.

AIM: SouthSideCheat

by The Cheat on May 8, 2006 12:50 AM CDT reply actions

Fooled

I thought it was pretty obvious, watching the play on TV even, that the ball hit the track and then went into the stands. Maybe it was easier to mess up watching it on TV. But at the game? I really have no idea how Hawk and whoever sets off the fireworks were fooled. Sure it's nice to look at the outfielder, but don't you ultimately look for the ball at the very last moment to see if it left the park?

I guess Hawk didn't yell "stretch" enough on that one.

by illinikrush on May 8, 2006 12:56 AM CDT up reply actions

I was never fooled that it was a HR

but I legitimately thought it hit something off the screen that made it fall short of HR distance. (And off the bat I thought it was just a long fly bally) It was Robinson's reaction to the ball that threw everything all off.

AIM: SouthSideCheat

by The Cheat on May 8, 2006 1:07 AM CDT up reply actions

Yeah

I didn't mean that you did - what i wrote was poorly worded. I was just giving my own opinion of the play, then ripping on Hawk.

And the fact that a ton of Sox fans at the game were booing the overturn of the call is mindboggling. They are either 1) blind or 2) stupidly biased

by illinikrush on May 8, 2006 1:36 AM CDT up reply actions

I'd have booed too...

When you're in attendance it is a different mindset.

From home I just said "oh yeah, ground rule double." from the stadium you tend to get caught up a little more in the mindset of "if it is good/bad for the Sox I must cheer/boo it..."

AIM: BrentBrookhouse

by Brent Brookhouse on May 8, 2006 8:38 AM CDT up reply actions

No

I think that's completely stupid. I remain unbiased at the games, and don't jump in with the boo crowd who thinks every single call should go the sox way, especially at first base.

If you honestly saw the ball bounce and go into the stands, then booing is just a bunch of nonsense, give me a break.

by illinikrush on May 8, 2006 9:46 AM CDT up reply actions

whoa there big guy...

I'm not saying I'd be booing because I think it should be a home run. But the mentality of baseball crowds are different. At the last game I was at the guy behind me was talking like the king of all baseball knowledge, trying to impress his girlfriend with how he knew all about how we traded Rowand for the new guy Brian Patterson...Most of the crowd (like it or not) is there to drink beer and have a good time while rooting for the Sox to win however neccessary.

I should have expressed it better, but there are times at a game where you think 1 thing happened and it gets overturned. You also have to remember that the Sox aren't going to play a replay to help the umps overturn a pro-sox play (my buddy who was at the game confirmed that no replay was shown until after the reversal).

Most of the fans probably didn't see what happened and honestly I doubt that most of them were watching when the replay were shown because they were too busy trying to figure out what was going on.

I'm very glad that you sit unbiassed at games, a lot of people go to have fun their own way. The way I see it there is no "right way" to watch a game.

AIM: BrentBrookhouse

by Brent Brookhouse on May 8, 2006 12:19 PM CDT up reply actions

of course we are biased

we are sox fans

besides, most people don't like to have taken away something that's given to them

HEY THIS IS JI
JIM THOME

by The Wizard on May 8, 2006 12:20 PM CDT up reply actions

Right

I like when the umps get the calls right, especially on something as obvious as that call yesterday.

I was pretty shocked that many people were booing, found it pretty confusing. I guess these are the same people that go nuts over an intentional walk than you can see coming from a mile away, as well.

by illinikrush on May 8, 2006 2:29 PM CDT up reply actions

btw,

I too was disappointed when they ruled the HR a GRD

http://www.southsidesox.com/comments/2006/5/7/111921/3320/29#29

HEY THIS IS JI
JIM THOME

by The Wizard on May 8, 2006 5:03 PM CDT up reply actions

Crede

I liked how he quickly got in the dugout and it looked like he was trying to hide so that they would just give him the home run.

WIth that said, I think I'm going to order a Crede jersey (Road). I hope they give him an extension.

AIM: shaftr01

XBL: TheMattressMan

by shaftr on May 8, 2006 9:13 AM CDT up reply actions

Reminded me of Riley

When I saw him doing that it made me think of Pat Riley, back in the day during his first stint as the Heat's coach. He was notorious for having his team leave the court quickly if there was a controversial play at the end of the game (back before replay was used)

-Jeeves Chi-Sox Blog

by jeeves on May 8, 2006 4:02 PM CDT up reply actions

Can O' Corn

http://photos1.blogger.com/blogger/7577/1975/1600/RobinsonKC.jpg

by twoeightnine on May 8, 2006 11:16 AM CDT up reply actions

Another thing

Not only did Robinson completely misjudge WHERE the ball has heading, he also completely misjudged WHEN it would get there. He leaped up onto the fence, hung there awhile and only after he dropped down did the ball finally land on the warning track 5-10 feet in front of him. Comical.

At least he was in the right stadium.

by lofistew on May 8, 2006 4:23 PM CDT up reply actions

...and speaking of Barry Bonds...

Hey Barry, Congratulations you cheating jackass. I hope you revel in your bullshit accomplshment. You will receive nothing but derision for the rest of your life. Enjoy.

by solbro on May 8, 2006 9:14 AM CDT reply actions

The Babe is looking down on all of this...

...and laughing at all the hoopla. When Barry has a lifetime BA of .342, a lifetime .690 SLG%, oh, and a lifetime 2.28 ERA, we'll all take notice.

Number 713 came during a losing effort...very telling.

Looks like Barry just might pass the Babe playing against...you guessed it...THE CUBS!

by tailgater on May 8, 2006 10:29 AM CDT up reply actions

hmmm

so with that rationale....
a) Babe was laughing at Aaron.
b) Bonds is laughing at everyone except Ruth, Willliams (& maybe Gehrig).

I find it telling that fans are willing to boo Bonds louder than they cheer their own teams. Until Bonds tests positive, I am not going to boo one of the 3 greatest hitters to ever play the game.

AIM: shaftr01

XBL: TheMattressMan

by shaftr on May 8, 2006 10:36 AM CDT up reply actions

Ummm...he already admitted to taking steroids.

He just said he didn't know he was taking steroids from a clinic famous for supplying athletes with non-detectable steroids.

by chrome on May 8, 2006 10:55 AM CDT up reply actions

No...

a) In between beers (they are free in Baseball Heaven), Babe was likely cheering Hammerin' Hank because Hank was hammerin' without the use of "creams."
b) Bonds is laughing all the way to the bank.
c) I hope he hits 2 off Maddux tonight.

I wouldn't boo him...I feel indifferent about him.

by tailgater on May 8, 2006 11:03 AM CDT up reply actions

Getting ahead of myself

Cubs are in SD starting tomorrow. My bad.

by tailgater on May 8, 2006 11:23 AM CDT up reply actions

Bonds

I would love to see him pass Babe against the Cubs.

We can complain about Bonds all we want, but just about all of our founding fathers, astronauts, and World Series heroes have been either drunk or on cocaine.

Seriously though, I've spent this decade working in the baseball world, and illegal drugs, particularly "greenies" were everywhere until their recent banishment, and I'm skeptical that they are truly gone. I've personally seen at least 75 current big leaguers take these pills over the past few years, and in same cases, stuff much worse and this includes current members of our beloved World Champions. With the exception of a few egregious abusers (all non-Sox guys) I know, I'm not going to look down at any of them. MLB could have put a stop to all of this years ago if they wanted, but they actively chose to ignore the problem. Blame them.

by Bull Pain on May 8, 2006 11:18 AM CDT up reply actions

well said

Bonds is the fall guy for the MLB and their failed drug policies. As I've said before, I feel bad for the guy.

I'm curious some of the players you've seen, Sox and non-Sox, but I understand you do not want to post that information. Feel free to email it to me, if you feel comfortable.

AIM: shaftr01

XBL: TheMattressMan

by shaftr on May 8, 2006 11:52 AM CDT up reply actions

I can understand not wanting

to blame Bonds for participating in an atmosphere that baseball helped create. But let's not kid ourselves into thinking we don't know if he actually took steroids. He admitted as much, he just gave the laughable "I didn't know I was taking steroids when I was taking steroids" excuse.

by chrome on May 8, 2006 1:23 PM CDT up reply actions

I'm no pharmacist but...

...aren't "greenies," also known as "speed" taken to keep alert and be able to (excuse the Sox reference) "grind it out" for an entire season? They are not performance enhancement drugs that turn you from a skinny Pirate into a enormous Giant.

You'd have to be naive to think that players don't need a boost now and then to make it through an entire season. I'm sure even our beloved Sox players need "Mother's Little Helper" now and again.

Whether you pop a pill, inject yourself, snort a powder or rub on a cream, every man should be held accountable for his own actions (not MLB).

Unfortunately for Barry he has become the poster child for "performance enhancement."

by tailgater on May 8, 2006 1:45 PM CDT up reply actions

Greenies are performance enhancing

If a player is too tired to be up for a game because he spent the previous night shagging some groupies/drinking heavily and decides to pop a few speed pills before the game, (which are illegal), isn't that the exact definition of a performance enhancing drug?

by Bull Pain on May 8, 2006 2:26 PM CDT up reply actions

Be careful

Be careful where you go with that definition, because you could start to argue that Advil or even ice are performance enhancing.

by illinikrush on May 8, 2006 2:30 PM CDT up reply actions

or caffene drinks?

I think the issue is stamina. Greenies help maintain stamina far longer than you naturally could. Some say you are more alert and focused.
Called it heightened (you know like spiderman) not just made normal again like an advil would do.

Comonnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnn You White Sox!

by zokmaad on May 8, 2006 2:37 PM CDT up reply actions

Bonds

what was his playing weight throughout his career. Right now he is 228, I saw that in his last years as a pirate he was 210. I guess I'm just saying the weight gain says nothing to me. Look at Thome now compared to his Indians days, or Griffey now compared to his Seattle days (even A Rod). Men get bigger as they get older, I don't think Bonds case is any more insane. Perhaps more can be said of his head size, although I believe people's heads get bigger as they get older too.

Bonds probably did steroids during the "Juiced" era, but he certainly is not an anomally of the time. Any well educated baseball fan will know he hit his 700+ home runs during this era, and can make their judgements from that point.

AIM: shaftr01

XBL: TheMattressMan

by shaftr on May 8, 2006 2:47 PM CDT up reply actions

What people forget...

People tend to use the "you didn't see __ get bigger when he got older" but at the same time people need to realize that this is an age of unprecidented training methods and an understanding of the human body that did not exist for players such as Mays/Mantle/whoever.

Don't get me wrong, steroids are a problem...but the whole "every large man in baseball must be juicing" thing drives me insane. Look at high school football. There are players in high school that are the size of pro players 20 years ago.

Am I denying that steroids are an issue? No. Simply also wanting people to remember that you can not always use players in the past as your models for how bodies should be developing.

AIM: BrentBrookhouse

by Brent Brookhouse on May 8, 2006 3:00 PM CDT up reply actions

OK, so if you are saying

genetics play a role, as in "men get bigger as they get older," then how about some specific genetics?

Look at Bonds' father, Bobby. The guy was a wiry rope throughout his playing days and afterwards. Barry had the same body type when he played for the Pirates. No longer. If his body type is predisposed to stay wiry and thin, then what changed that?

I understant that looking at the guy's father isn't dipositive of the issue, but hell it's got a little more basis in fact than a blanket statement that "men get bigger."

AIM: ozspengler

by spengler on May 8, 2006 3:44 PM CDT up reply actions

Again...

I'm not saying it is a natural thing. You're leaving training and nutrition out of the equation.

Again, his father is from a different era and therefor had different methods of developing his body.

I am admitting that Bonds took roids...just saying that not every player who seems that large is on the juice.

AIM: BrentBrookhouse

by Brent Brookhouse on May 8, 2006 8:18 PM CDT up reply actions

"Probably" took steroids?

Seriously man.

by chrome on May 8, 2006 3:56 PM CDT up reply actions

probably

I work with lawyers, so until I can say that without a doubt he did, I won't say he did take steroids.

AIM: shaftr01

XBL: TheMattressMan

by shaftr on May 8, 2006 4:05 PM CDT up reply actions

example:

If I had to put my money on this, I'd say he did take steroids.

If I was in a jury, there wouldn't be enough evidence for me to say he is guilty.

AIM: shaftr01

XBL: TheMattressMan

by shaftr on May 8, 2006 4:07 PM CDT up reply actions

Did he not admit to the grand jury that

he inadvertently took steroids?

by chrome on May 8, 2006 4:43 PM CDT up reply actions

Grand jury...

that testimony has not been released officially. Any news of him having said it would have been leaked illegally.

again...I'm saying that he did probably do steroids, but until that information is made public and isn't just reported from people who "heard it from a guy" I am with SHAFTR.

AIM: BrentBrookhouse

by Brent Brookhouse on May 8, 2006 8:19 PM CDT up reply actions

thats just it

There is a bunch of 'heard it from a guy' evidence against Bonds, yet there really hasn't been any real hard evidence.

For example, the media is always telling us how awful of a teammate Bonds. This maybe true, but why aren't former teammates stepping up and saying something about Bonds and steroid use?

Even Game of Shadows had a publicized section where Bonds & Griffey were at some dinner and Barry allegedly told Griffey about his steroids and offered to get some for Griffey (at which Griffey declined the offer). Yet, when asked about the incident, Griffey had no recollection of such event taking place.

A lot of the evidence against Bonds seems like a big house of cards, there might be a lot of stories but nothing very firm.

AIM: shaftr01

XBL: TheMattressMan

by shaftr on May 8, 2006 9:21 PM CDT up reply actions

Hard Evidence?

What exactly do you want; him to walk out onto the field with a needle sticking out of his butt? A video of him getting injected? The sheer improbability of his physical "changes" later in life, combined with all the evidence from "Game of Shadows" and "Love Me, Hate Me" put forth some pretty damning evidence.

All I'm saying is, it's fine to think what you want about Barry's legacy, but don't try and pretend that the man didn't use the juice.

my blog

by simplesinger on May 9, 2006 9:21 AM CDT up reply actions

examples

Testing positive. Some kind of medical evidence.

Teammate/Coach/Trainer saying they saw Bonds use steroids knowingly. I'd even accept it if one of them said that Barry admitted to using steroids knowingly.

A lot of the "evidence" is someone saying they heard someone say that Bonds said he does steroids, or that that person saw him take steroids.

I'm not going to say that he didn't juice, I'm just saying I want to wait until there is definitive proof that he did before I criticize him or start the ridiculous talk of asterics.

AIM: shaftr01

XBL: TheMattressMan

by shaftr on May 9, 2006 9:31 AM CDT up reply actions

Teammate...

Check out that "Love Me, Hate Me" link where they talk about Canizaro and "The Code". Also the "Game of Shadows" link talks about all the evidence surrounding his trainer, as well as testimony from his girlfriend stating that she saw him him being injected.

my blog

by simplesinger on May 9, 2006 9:36 AM CDT up reply actions

read it

Love Me, Hate Me doesn't really have any more proof, just an author defending what he wrote. It's a case of author saying one thing, the other parties saying that isn't true, and the author saying that they are denying the truth. I'm sure "the code" exists to an extent, yet just this week we have this:

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2436959

Also, regarding muscle gain, this:
http://www.baseballmusings.com/archives/013389.php

I believe there is a guy (he has a website) who is trying to gain 15 lbs of muscle in 100 days. The last time I checked he was well on his way.

Kimberly Bell is interesting. She has yet to say she has seen Bonds do steroids, just that he said he did and that she could see his body change. I'm not sure how credible she is, she is pimping her book pretty hard. She went public and did speak out though (outside of the book) on Geraldo:

http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,147456,00.html

AIM: shaftr01

XBL: TheMattressMan

by shaftr on May 9, 2006 10:16 AM CDT up reply actions

Also...

It's a little more than just "heard it from a guy".

my blog

by simplesinger on May 9, 2006 9:23 AM CDT up reply actions

I'd love to have you on one of my

juries.

Bonds admitted using them but denied doing it knowingly.

There is a mountain of perfectly good circumstantial- and even some direct- evidence that points to the fact that he knew exactly what he was doing. This isn't the deepest chasm for a prosecution to cross that I've ever seen. I'm a hard-line, old school defense lawyer, but I'd love to prosecute Bonds.

Shaftr I think it's great that you're sticking to your guns in defense of Barry Bonds. You are right that there are serious issues regarding a whole generation of ball players who have put up startling numbers over the last 10 years. It's obvious that many were juiced.

I don't know whether or not it's fair to single out Bonds as the scapegoat for a problem that was institutionally swept under the rug and was the silent engine driving baseball's resurgence during the late 90's. And I also don't care. The game needs to hang him because it's all on the table now, and he's breaking hallowed ground.

It wasn't fair that Shoeless Joe got banned for life either-- a lot less fair than skewering a dickhead like Bonds at the end of his career. But the perception at the time was (and probably rightly so) that the very nature and integrity of the game were at stake. Baseball had had a long, ugly history with gambling, and surely Joe Jackson and the Black Sox were not the first or the last to engage in it. Only they threw the damn WORLD SERIES, and then Landis felt he had to send a message. Fair or not, Selig needs to send a message too. I just doubt whether he has the sack to do it.

AIM: ozspengler

by spengler on May 8, 2006 4:54 PM CDT up reply actions

Agreed completely

-Peder

by Peder on May 8, 2006 6:04 PM CDT up reply actions

slight difference

Gambling was occuring in MLB, and the league wanted to do something about it. The 1919 Black Sox finally gave them the opportunity to do so.

Steroid use is different since MLB did nothing about it for a long time. In fact, I'd argue that they ignored the issue on purpose b/c it was bringing fans back to the game. I'm fine with MLB's steroid policy now, and they should punish anyone they catch. If Bonds tests positive this year or in the future, yes...punish him. With that said, it isn't fair to go back in the past and punish someone for doing something that MLB knew was going on and allowed.

AIM: shaftr01

XBL: TheMattressMan

by shaftr on May 9, 2006 9:39 AM CDT up reply actions

One word on steroids

People act as if steroids magically make you strong and big. They don't. What they do is drastically reduce inflammation in muscles that have been broken down (through exercise or other trauma), drastically cutting recovery time--down to zero in many cases (where it would have been a few days). Long story short, you can lift a lot more frequently, and a lot closer to your max weight when you do lift. This (heavy weightlifting with increased frequency) is what makes you stronger and bigger, not the steroids themselves. If you or I took steroids and continued to live like couch potatoes, we wouldn't get any stronger or bigger.

It's almost like saying that caffeine makes you smarter (well, disregarding the evidence that it does make you more mentally alert) when you take it the night before the big test. It does so, but only indirectly. It doesn't increase mental power in and of itself--but it does let you study a lot longer, which will have the same effect.

by BridgeportJoe on May 8, 2006 3:56 PM CDT up reply actions

So

Let's all give Barry a big pat on the back for his hard work? It's almost as if you tried to make taking steroids similar to eating a PowerBar.

by illinikrush on May 8, 2006 4:23 PM CDT up reply actions

Power Bar?

Not really. More like superconcentrated aspirin or ibuprofen (there's a reason that they call ibuprofen and its ilk Non Steroidal Anti-Inflammatory Drugs). Or anything, really, that basically lets you work out like a madman at a much higher frequency than would be possible relying on diet and legal performance enhancing substances. Because that's all steroids are.

Don't get me wrong. I'm not in favor of unrestricted PED use in sports. I think that it encourages people--and especially young people--to do things that are dangerous to their bodies (though mainstream steroid use with a doctor's supervision probably isn't it), and that it starts to tilt the playing field in favor of those who have come up with the best drug regiment (though how is that any different from current endurance sports where the winner is often the one with the best diet/legal PE regiment?) instead of the those with the most talent and strongest work ethic. I think that Barry Bonds implicates both of those concerns, and would almost be a poster child for the more nuanced anti-steroid case.

But the fact is, people (like one of the posters above) treat steroids like they are magic pills, where you take them and magically get stronger. They're just not like that. Barry Bonds put in a lot of hard work to achieve his level of physical prowess. Now, he had a good bit of chemical assistance that made that hard work easier to stomach, and that may well be cheating. But there was that hard work, in any event.

by BridgeportJoe on May 8, 2006 4:52 PM CDT up reply actions

Hard Work

What % of Major League position players put in "hard work" year in and year without using what Barry used? I highly doubt hard work is exclusive to Barry and a few other major leaguers. I'm under the presumption that the vast majority of guys work/have worked hard, without the assistance of all this crap. I'm not giving the guy a free pass because they aren't "magic pills." The guy had a power spike at 37 or what not - that's not possible without "help."

by illinikrush on May 8, 2006 5:27 PM CDT up reply actions

Back to Crede

I was at the game and sitting near home plate area. Robinson made that look like a homer. No replay was shown and I'll bet most fans in our part of the park thought the issue was one of where the ball hit on the wall or something like that.

Exciting to see Ozuna absolutely flying around the bases and electrifying to see Crede come through again with 38,870 screaming people on their feet and the game on the line - clutch clutch Clutch !!

One other note from the game - Thome making it a point to be one of the first guys to high-five the bullpen guys as they came back in the dugout after their stints were done...not sure what "stat" that falls under but what a great contribution to the overall team chemistry.

by DickdaStick on May 8, 2006 11:35 AM CDT reply actions

Just another thought

Moving this to the bottom of the post as the column was getting a little too skinny to read.

There is a man that lives in my appartment building. He is in his late 60's and is absolutely ripped for his age (one of those weird old guys who goes jogging with no shirt to show off his six-pack). He has shown me pictures of him when he was a younger guy 20's and 30's and he was a pretty large guy (fat).

Now is the transformation from a fat guy during what should be a person's physical prime to a marathon running fitness freak during a person's "old age" normal? Absolutely not. Is it possible? Absolutely.

Again SHAFTR and I have never denied that he PROBABLY used steroids. What we're both saying is that a book based on information that is supposed to not be available (again, the testimony was supposedly "leaked" which is not exactly legal) is not enough for me to say that anyone definately did anything.

If the testimony is made available legaly or Bonds himself admits to the public I will then be able to say he DEFINATELY did.

My beliefs are that I can not say that anyone definately did anything based on anything less than hard concrete facts.

Again let me state: Do I think he did? Probably. Can I personally say that he definately did? No I can't.

Oh. and a spiteful ex doesn't fall into the people whose word I'd take. My ex's say all kinds of nasty shit about me...and only...um...half of it is true.

AIM: BrentBrookhouse

by Brent Brookhouse on May 9, 2006 10:04 AM CDT reply actions

Definitly...

It's not just the muscle, it's the profuse acne, the hair falling out, the hyper-aggression, the supposed sexual dysfunction. There are a number of classic steroid symptoms that he displayed.

I see what you guys are saying, I really do, it's just that nothing is ever "definite" for me, especially when it comes to situations like this. Most of the time all you're going to have is probably.

I guess when it comes down to it, I think the evidence is good enough to implicate that he used steroids. In my mind, his records and his entire career is tarnished by this fact. Same goes for McGwire, Sosa, and all the other guys. I guess it just boils down to the fact that I can't respect that.

If you can, that's fine, I'm not going to try and convince you of anything.

my blog

by simplesinger on May 9, 2006 10:46 AM CDT up reply actions

agree to disagree

and that is fine. We all presented our side very clearly. It was a debate among differing viewpoints, but it never got to name calling or any of that other stuff you often see on other sites.

It was good fun. Another reason I like SSS so much.

AIM: shaftr01

XBL: TheMattressMan

by shaftr on May 9, 2006 11:12 AM CDT up reply actions

Yep...

Baseball is a game for debate. It thrives on it...always has.

As for my spelling accuracy...well...yeah, I suck. Computers have ruined my ability to spell. And here at work I tend to post much too rushed to run a spell check. I am shamed...

AIM: BrentBrookhouse

by Brent Brookhouse on May 9, 2006 11:58 AM CDT up reply actions