I disagree that he's "more deserving" in a competition with the Nazi Child Molester War Criminal, though he certainly brought his death on himself.

Well, Show may not have been a child molester or war criminal, but he was a John Bircher, which is pretty much the same thing as being a Nazi.

He also still holds many of UC Riverside's pitching records.

Given the Bible being given such prominence, maybe this is just another case of religious mania. "God told me to skin you alive."

But you used the plural. Pray tell, who is the second '84 Padres you hate more than Eric Show.

There wasn't a second (though if there were, I'd have to go with GGC's inadvertent suggestion of Tim Flannery--nay, Goose Gossage). I found myself grammatically incapable to reconcile the one '84 Padre upon whom I'd wish a nasty fate with the two who actually died young. (How much can I really hate Show, anyway? The Cubs lit him up in Game 1.)

Speaking of--how many '84 WS participants are gone now? I know Aurelio Lopez died a while back...

Given the Bible being given such prominence, maybe this is just another case of religious mania. "God told me to skin you alive."

The Book of Biafra?

So, the GA police just raided the office of Benoit's physician. The physician had been treating Benoit's condition of "low testosterone levels" which the physician attributes to prior steroid use.

Well, Show may not have been a child molester or war criminal, but he was a John Bircher, which is pretty much the same thing as being a Nazi.

Ah, yeah--forgot about that.

Fun fact: we're a week and a half away from the 20th anniversary of the Show game.

I forgot about that, too. Damn, I'm losing it.

So, the GA police just raided the office of Benoit's physician. The physician had been treating Benoit's condition of "low testosterone levels" which the physician attributes to prior steroid use.

I wonder if any other athletes went to this doctor.

(How much can I really hate Show, anyway? The Cubs lit him up in Game 1.)

Yeah, Sutcliffe nailed him as hard in '84 as he wanted to in '87.

Gossage? Yea, I can see that. (checks).

They also had Garry Templeton. Negative: gave St. Louis fans the finger once. Postive: gave St. Louis fans the finger once.

Plus there's Dick Williams, but he was such the ultimate cussed SOB that you almost had to respect him for being such a cussed SOB. Besides, he looked like Wilford Brimley.

Oh, yeah--Templeton was another one.

Speaking of Wilford Brimley--saw him parading through the Rio casino in Vegas a couple years ago with a significantly younger and better-looking woman on his arm. It was quite disconcerting. (I imagined going up to him, asking who he thought he was, and having him say "It's the right thing to do.")

This small group of professional body builders

Enough said. Lifting weights could be a cause, too. And half of them didn't have the side effect cited. Looking for one cause of problems of this magnitude is overly simplistic. And looking for evidence among such a small group of people who share other lifestyle traits is not very meaningful. There are many thousands of people who've taken testosterone long-term for various health problems and if they were dropping dead of heart attacks in statistically signficant numbers those drugs would no longer be prescribed.

Looking for one cause of problems of this magnitude is overly simplistic.

It would scare the hell out of me if there was any one thing that could turn a person into a family murdering monster.

Enough said. Lifting weights could be a cause, too. And half of them didn't have the side effect cited. Looking for one cause of problems of this magnitude is overly simplistic.

You're like a parody of Dial.

How arrogant of you to decide what is productive for others. Should we criminalize posting on BTF too? That would make us all more productive.

You're right ... how arrogant for me to think that a doctor would be more productive saving the lives of children than wasting his talents on facelifts for 55 year old women who've never worked a day in their lives.

Looking for one cause of problems of this magnitude is overly simplistic.

It would scare the hell out of me if there was any one thing that could turn a person into a family murdering monster.

There's a strong correlation b/w working for an ACC school and family murder.

Show was part of the group I think you're talking about, wasn't he?

You're right ... how arrogant for me to think that a doctor would be more productive saving the lives of children than wasting his talents on facelifts for 55 year old women who've never worked a day in their lives.

My other brother does the latter for a living. After having saved the faces of many children. Even plastic surgery is not an "either/or", SBB.

Not too off-topic but Show died from taking a "Speedball" very fitting end for a baseball pitcher.

He was still a gutless, right-wing, slimeball.

My other brother does the latter for a living. After having saved the faces of many children. Even plastic surgery is not an "either/or", SBB.

And he's to be honored and venerated. And I'm sure the matter's more complicated than I set forth; some doctors (like your brother, maybe?) subsidize the surgery on children with the fees the biddies pay.

That said, there are a bunch of doctors who do vanity stuff only, which is who I'm talking about.

Who isn't doing that? Have you not seen articles, particularly by the saberista press, that are not dealing with front office blame. Do you not here these things on baseball tonight? Are you seeing a dearth of posts that question, who knew what and when they knew it. Have you seen any union member that does not want the organizations to fix the problem.

I think the best way to start to repsond to this is to repost some of the stuff I said to Andy:

Andy: As to your broader point, I've yet to see where you show that I've actually defended Selig

.

Me: I'm not saying that you are "defending" him. I am saying you don't seem particularly concerned about his role in the "Steroids Era." Why is that an issue? To be clear, I am not bringing this up either to attack you or your positions per se. Rather, I see it as an issue largely because of the Mitchell Committee. Had Selig simply instituted the testing program--which, as I have said, I support--and said something like "All of us in baseball must take some responsibility for what has happened here", that would be OK with me, and, I think, most fans.

But for Selig to have this committee threatening the players, and ostensibly digging into the past, without going after upper management or letting people look at his own role--well, I think that sucks. On a simple level, if he is going to hassle Giambi, then I want to see other people getting hassled, too.

It is sometimes difficult to assign levels of responsibility to people, and as such it is easy to say stuff like "Selig wasn't the one sticking needles in his butt." And yes, I know that Selig really works for the owners, not the game or the fans, but at the same time, things start at the top, and what is going on at the top sets the tone.

So, I think if the Mitchell Committee is out there, the general indignation about steroids should extend beyond targeting the home run hitters who took them.

Now, one by one:

Who isn't doing that?

IMO, the Mitchell Committee won't, and I think Andy agreed with me in the Miler thread. I will keep an open mind until I see the report, but it is to some extent a creaure of the Commissioner's office. I agree with those who are cynical about it. I hope I am wrong.

Do you not here these things on baseball tonight?

Not sure if this is rhetorical, but I don't watch Baseball Tonight.

particularly by the saberista press, that are not dealing with front office blame.

This is going on--one part of a long-term cultural cold war fought in the digital media that will end in about 20 years. Mainstream columnist trashes Bonds as evil, BPro guy or Blogger trashes columnist, points out Bonds has no positive tests/has not been indicted. It is still often entertaining, but it is old news. One of the smaller theaters of said war is right here at BTF.

Are you seeing a dearth of posts that question, who knew what and when they knew it. Have you seen any union member that does not want the organizations to fix the problem.

I really don't want to make this a Union vs. "Saberists/Fanboys/Apologists" (not sure which group you have me in) thing, as my post to Andy indicates. But, you brought it up, so that said:

kevin has been on Fehr's ass much more than on Selig's. We know about kevin/Bonds.
JC has focused on the players almost exclusively and described steroids as mostly a player's issue.
Andy has focused on the players, mostly McGwire and the HoF, more than anything else.
RETARDO, when he was here, reserved his vitriol almost exclusively for Bonds.

Also, here is what Andy said to my post that I reposted in #79 above:

Andy: Well stated, and point well taken. And the more that comes out about the role of not just Selig but the owners, the more likely I will be pissed at them even more than I am now.

As for you, I have said on numerous occasions that it is your argument about why PEDs need to be regulated in baseball that I find most convincing and it was that, along with talking to a good friend of mine who has a PhD in Biomechanics and knows a lot about anabolic steroids and sports medicine that has helped me to clarify my own thinking on this issue in spite of a paper-thin knowledge base about how the drugs work. And I think it follows both intuitively and logically from that that your rhetoric on the issue would be more macro-oriented and include MLB management. You have been quite reasonable and articulate in tone, except when some dumb fanboy type like me irritates you or you are just having a little fun.

And, again, I am OK with people being pissed off at the players. That is not how I personally respond to the issue, but to each his own. But I think if steroids in baseball are as awful as people say, there should be more heat on the game's caretakers--in all forums--then there has been.

JC has focused on the players almost exclusively and described steroids as mostly a player's issue

I have and did? I pretty much focus on whatever the issue is that's being discussed. I have no a prioris here.

That said, there are a bunch of doctors who do vanity stuff only, which is who I'm talking about.

Isn't pretty much all <strike>plastic</strike> cosmetic surgery vanity stuff?

It sounds more like you're deciding which people are sufficiently disadvantaged by their appearance to be entitled to improve it, and which people should suffer rather than take advantage of a medical procedure that makes them feel better about themselves.

It's not your place or mine to tell someone that they can't get a procedure because it's not justified by the appropriate level of disfigurement or discomfort.

I have and did? I pretty much focus on whatever the issue is that's being discussed. I have no a prioris here.

Actually, whatever I've said or you think I've said what I want is the same: The sports cleaned up of PEDs. I want MLB to pass rules against it, to punish teams who look the other way, to punish players who've used the stuff, or distribute the stuff, and so on.

Isn't pretty much all plastic surgery vanity stuff?

No.

Isn't pretty much all plastic surgery vanity stuff?

No.

A relative of mine got a nose job for the purposes of correcting a deviated septum, for instance.

Actually, whatever I've said or you think I've said what I want is the same: The sports cleaned up of PEDs. I want MLB to pass rules against it, to punish teams who look the other way, to punish players who've used the stuff, or distribute the stuff, and so on.

Assuming you mean all the rulemaking and punishment is to be done by MLB (or other appropriate league for other sports), I'm with you 100%. Does that make me an apologist?

Fixed 128.

Actually, whatever I've said or you think I've said what I want is the same: The sports cleaned up of PEDs. I want MLB to pass rules against it, to punish teams who look the other way, to punish players who've used the stuff, or distribute the stuff, and so on.

You did, specifically, say it was mostly a players' problem a couple of weeks ago. I am not sure which thread it was in, but you did say it. And I have never heard you sneer at or judge Selig/upper management or hold him/them accountable for anything related to PEDs in baseball, but maybe I missed it.

And, like I said, I am in favor of the testing program. Devin McCullen asked you a few weeks ago what outcome you want from the Mitchell Committee. Andy has stated specifically and repeatedly he wants juicers "outed" but is opposed to any sort of retroactive disciplinary actions and would give "MLB immunity" to anybody who named names, etc. Do you agree with that?

Isn't pretty much all plastic cosmetic surgery vanity stuff?

Cleft palate surgery on children, etc. It was pretty clear what I was talking about, notwithstanding your effort to change what I said.

And it very much is my place to say an eight year old kid deserves to have his cleft palate cleared up before a 55-year-old non-worker gets to have her second boob job.

I didn't have you in mind at all, RR. I apologize for not thinking of you

Not surprising. I am the James Denton of BTF, according to the TJ Simers paradigm. My posts are "Desperate Cries for Attention."

Should we send someone over to your house?

Yeah, a paparazzi paid secretly by King Kaufman.

Pardon my ignorance, but what is/was "The Show Game?"

Pardon my ignorance, but what is/was "The Show Game?"

July '87 at Wrigley. Eric Show nailed Andre Dawson in the face with a fastball (believe Dawson had homered earlier in the game); Dawson lay on the ground apparently unconscious for several minutes while a bench-clearing brawl ensued, before standing up and looking around for Show, apparently for the purpose of knocking the crap out of him.

a 55-year-old non-worker

How's the weather way up there? That is some horse.

###### up the italics again. Sorry.

Cleft palate surgery on children, etc. It was pretty clear what I was talking about, notwithstanding your effort to change what I said.

I was thinking of a child with a harelip, myself, as the "cosmetic, but nearly universally accepted as reasonable" surgery. That's still a vanity procedure... there's no health concerns other than the "Johnny looks different and that has mental/emotional effects."

I'm saying that I don't judge a person's mental/emotional distress and then decide whether they are worthy or not of treatment. If a grandmother is uncomfortable with a scar, or a woman feels unattractive after having children, or a man wants a larger penis, or whatever, I'm not going to tell them that they shouldn't have a procedure because it's not a big enough deal or they aren't young enough.

When a child who can afford surgery is turned away in favor of the second boob job matron, then maybe it is appropriate to start judging the doctor.

And it very much is my place to say an eight year old kid deserves to have his cleft palate cleared up before a 55-year-old non-worker gets to have her second boob job.

Then why don't you go to medical school, become a plastic surgeon, and turn away all of the patients that don't meet your threshold?

Looks like I fixed it. Here is what #144 said:

This isn't quite fair, robin. I have been on Fehr's ass more than Selig's because Fehr is openly dragging his feet and Selig isn't. I also think Fehr is in a better position to know what's actually going on than Selig is.

These are reasonable points, although I don't entirely agree with all of them. Again, my issue is more with Selig/Committee/macromedia than with the Union guys on BTF. I disagree with some of your stuff, but all of you have helped me to think about the issue more concretely.

The reason I haven't banged on these guys harder is becauise there haven't been any threads about them.

This is in part because Bonds is a big name, has 750 HRs and is a media and cultural lightning rod, as BL and others point out. Conceding that, my answer to

there haven't been any threads about them

.

is "exactly."

In the 1972 World Series...Tenace set up like he was calling for a pitchout and Fingers delivered the ball right down the middle for a called third strike

I have the MLB-produuced highlight video of this (and of the 1975 Series). It is given prominent play in the highlights.

You did, specifically, say it was mostly a players' problem a couple of weeks ago. I am not sure which thread it was in, but you did say it.

I don't recall it, don't know the context (and thus the meaning), and am not interested in playing some game. I told you what I want out of this: the game (and other games) cleaned up. I am not interested in waiving a priori any punishments. I would continue to judge things case by case.

I also think Fehr is in a better position to know what's actually going on than Selig is.

Fehr is in a tougher position that Selig because he's the representative of the players. That means he has to be their advocate first and let others worry about what is good for the sport, good for America's youth, etc. He at least has the excuse of advocacy.

I think you've (kevin) got a real mad-on for Bonds but you've been pretty solidly pro-testing, pro-punishment, and pro-government interference for every player. Your standard of evidence is a bit lower than I'm comfortable with but you are consistent. I haven't heard much about Palmeiro from you but I'd expect you to have the same contempt for him that you do for Giambi and Bonds. It would be unfair to characterize you as nothing but a Bonds-hater.

I'm not a particular fan of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead but it might be better seen performed than it is as a book. A lot of plays are like that. I'm curious to know what you think.

I'm not a particular fan of Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead but it might be better seen performed than it is as a book. A lot of plays are like that. I'm curious to know what you think.

I really enjoyed the movie, FWIW, and I actually enjoyed reading the play. Reading plays is kind of a cold experience, though. I find I need to move around and read it out loud to try to get a feel for it which makes them tough reading on the Subway and at Starbucks.

Are you blaming Repoz or the press, robin?

I would never blame Repoz for anything. His thread intros are a site highlight even though I understand roughly 5% of them.

I hit this in 148--it is in part a macro-media issue.


It would be unfair to characterize you as nothing but a Bonds-hater.

kevin is a multidimensional poster. His Bonds-hating is merely one of many high-profile traits.

He also cuckolded a buddy and a teammate. That's much worse in my book. You just don't do something like that to someone.

allegedly he wasn't alone either...

did Ryno's wife really hate him THAT much?

I don't recall it, don't know the context (and thus the meaning), and am not interested in playing some game.

Fine. I am not playing a game about it, in any case. You don't remember, fair enough. I may search for it if time allows.

I told you what I want out of this: the game (and other games) cleaned up.

Well, we are not really discussing that or disputing that. The question is to what extent, if any, you hold baseball's upper management responsible for the "mess" and to what extent you see it as an issue that is restricted largely to the behavior of a limited number of unethical players and whether policies/investigations/media coverage should proceed on that basis, or on another basis. You may or may not see this as a relevant question, but given your strong moral stance on the issue, I would think you would. Perhaps I am wrong.

I am not interested in waiving a priori any punishments.

Fair enough, but that would seem to, shall we say, diminish the chances of cooperation with Mitchell and "getting all the names out." One of Selig's problems is he seems to want both "discipline" and "cooperation" which seems to me to be a counterproductive, cover-his-ass stance to take.

Most athletes have enlarged hearts whether or not they take steroids. Guess the number of epidemiological studies completed regarding the long-term implications of steroid use. I believe the answer remains zero. And most of the other studies involving steroids have been done on geriatric patients who are obviously prone to all kinds of health problems.

Someone cited a study of gay men who take testosterone and linked it to depression. Being gay is likely a factor in depression, given how much harder it makes your life and often negatively impacts family dynamics. It's absurd that a study on depression relating to steroid use would focus exclusively on gay men (I'm assuming the reader cited it correctly).

Learned some new things here today. Being athletic is BAD for your health, didn't know that. Being gay causes an uptake in serotonin but only after they take baseline values, didn't know that either.

I hope I learn next that posting on BTF has the same effects of Tag Body Spray.

July '87 at Wrigley. Eric Show nailed Andre Dawson in the face with a fastball (believe Dawson had homered earlier in the game); Dawson lay on the ground apparently unconscious for several minutes while a bench-clearing brawl ensued, before standing up and looking around for Show, apparently for the purpose of knocking the crap out of him.

Yup, Dawson had homered. And before the series manager Larry Bowa had made noises indicating he wouldn't mind his pitchers drilling someone. Dawson got 23 stitches.

Only time I've ever seen a brawl begin when the dugout charged the mound. I've seen plenty of dugouts empty, but only AFTER the fun began. Sutcliffe led the charge. He would've decapitated Show, but Kruk slowed him down.

Only time I've ever seen a pitcher removed from the game for his own safety. I don't think the umps officially ejected him. One just pushed him (literally pushed him) toward the dugout while a stunned Show dodged paper cups and ice thrown at him from the stands.

After the initial melee ended, Dawson had regained enough senses to hear Leon Durham tell another Cub how terrible Dawson looked. Dawson got pissed and went after Show himself (this was before ES had been forcibly removed).

Sutcliffe got ejected. Dawson got ejected. Manny Trillo threw something on the field and got ejected. Starting pitcher Greg Maddux drilled someone in response and got ejected along with the manager. Scott Sanderson drilled someone and got the thumb along with the coach-as-manager.

Williams was a prick but that dude really knew how to game manage.

James Click's study on managerial strategy in the Joe Torre chapter from the Baseball Between the Numbers book indicated that Williams was one of the best tactical managers of the last 30 years. My stuff indcates likewise. Sixth best ever at getting more offense from his team than RC would estimate based on his clubs' offensive lines.

He also cuckolded a buddy and a teammate.

Dunno if he and Sandberg were really buddies. In the long run, you're probably better off getting in a fight with your ace pitcher than screwing your franchise player's wife. Just make sure you don't do the former in public.

Well, we are not really discussing that or disputing that. The question is to what extent, if any, you hold baseball's upper management responsible for the "mess" and to what extent you see it as an issue that is restricted largely to the behavior of a limited number of unethical players and whether policies/investigations/media coverage should proceed on that basis, or on another basis. You may or may not see this as a relevant question, but given your strong moral stance on the issue, I would think you would. Perhaps I am wrong.

Robin: I wasn't discussing that. YOU were. We were discussing other issues.

Post #66: Do you know what also contributes to clinical depression? Having your best friend die suddenly of a heart attack. Not knowing how to care for your mentally disabled child as he gets older. First being injured and not being able to work in your profession that your life has been centered around and then, once you get back, being demoted for no particular reason.
The fact is that steroids aren't being reported as a part of a very complex story, they're being reported as the key, central aspect of the story.

Among the other factors complicating any long-distance diagnosis:
*Mr. and Mrs. Benoit had a preexisting history of domestic abuse. (Possibly steroid-related, perhaps not.)
*Benoit's job kept him away from his family-- and family problems-- for extensive periods of time.
*It is certain that steroids can be "found in the home" of dozens upon dozens of Benoit's former co-workers right this minute.
*Painkiller abuse is as rampant as steroid abuse in wrestling, maybe more so. The wrestler Lance Storm is (was?-- not sure if he's still active) considered unique in refusing to take painkillers, a choice he made because of what he observed around him.
*Anecdotal reports suggest that Benoit's religious views had abruptly moved from antipathy to intense interest.
*Anecdotal reports describe Benoit as a taciturn, uncommunicative personality. It stands to reason that would be harder for such a person to request help, and it would be harder for those around such a person to spot warning signs.

I rarely ever comment in roids threads, but here goes. There are larger lessons to be drawn from this tragedy, but a singleminded focus on OMG TEH STERIODS risks missing the forest for the trees. The larger lessons are not "wrestlers are freaks who do roids and kill people, therefore ban wrestling, say no to drugs" etc. Marchman's article is the first MSM piece I've seen to begin to look at the bigger picture, namely:


"Baseball has to start doing a better job of educating the public about steroids, because no one else is going to do it. Right now, many people believe that steroids drove Benoit to strangle his own child — a belief so self-evidently simplistic and ridiculous that it allows WWE to point to its pathetic drug policy and ignore the real issues at play, which involve not only Benoit's own private demons, but a brutal, dehumanizing schedule, work that requires a level of physical punishment the body just can't handle, drug abuse as a near condition of employment, and a string of dozens and dozens of deaths about which no one has cared."

So yes, steroids are a big problem here. But they are not the root cause. The root cause is the horribly exploitative conditions that these men and women work under, which causes isolation, fear, depression, exhaustion, pain, and the pressure to use dangerous drugs like painkillers and steroids.

At a time when Vince has pretty much crushed any national competition, it would be the perfect time to do something about this. Less shows, less money, healthier workers. My friend suggested taking everyone off the road for three months a year at various points, which would have business advantages as well as the obvious human benefits. Be serious about steroid testing. Promote matches based on athleticism, submission holds, smaller, active workers, rather than huge guys and death-defying bumps. More than any other entertainers, wrestlers need a union.

So, are steroids a problem? Absolutely, a huge one. But if we focus on that, rather than the entire workplace structure that steroids/painkillers are a huge part of, nothing will change. Of course, given media discourse in North America, people want to point to a magic bullet, rather than give any thought to the fact that the exploitation people face in the workplace has toxic effects that leech into every aspect of the wider society.

IMO, the Mitchell Committee won't, and I think Andy agreed with me in the Miler thread. I will keep an open mind until I see the report, but it is to some extent a creaure of the Commissioner's office. I agree with those who are cynical about it. I hope I am wrong.


I'm cynical about it too. Selig has a strong ability to cover up things should he desire to do so.

Moreover, if its important to assign blame in the proper proportion, then MLB management gets some too. Probably different degrees to different managers--after all only one minor league system was called the laboratory, and some of the big roiders were concentrated. Nevertheless, that is a discussion a very limitedly participate in. I'm not interested in giving Bonds 8.3%, Beane 4.1%, Bud Selig 2.4%, and Neifi Perez 1% (just on principal).

I don't think that blame quotient is going to be relevant at all to what has to be done going forward, and I think it impacts some of the honorifics (Andy's domain) in a pretty small measure. If you want to keep Beane, Selig, and Neifi Perez out of the HoF, I'm all for listening.

But there is also an objective criteria to this. Everyone is currently facing the same situation, and I am interested in what they do moving forward. Disclosure, apology, and remorse are virtues, but not necessarily expected. Further abstinance and cooperation is not only virtuous but expected.

WRT Selig, at this point, I can think of things I'd like for him to do, but I also look at what he is doing:

(1) Instituting a tougher PED policy (although I'd like for him to close other loopholes); and
(2) Launching a fact finding investigation.

Those seem prudent. I do not find a per se fault with him naming Mitchell as the chief investigator. If Mitchell bollocks the investigation, I will comment on his fumbling.

It may have been more virtuous to ask a different independent third party to conduct the investigation and open all your books to them, but that is not a virtue I'd expect. Moreover, no matter who Selig would choose they could be subject to some conflict of interest attack.

Does the Mitchell investigation face road blocks? Yes, no doubt.

Is the Mitchell investigation failing to produce results? Too early to tell.

Does the Mitchell investigation have an agenda that precludes forming valid findings? I haven't seen that one yet, but if it happens, I'll voice my displeasure.

Nevertheless, what it seems with many protesters, whether its about Mitchell, lawfully enacted changes to a CBA procedure, criminal investigations, journalistic treatments, or lawful Congressional inquiry, they just want it too stop. They aren't satisfied with anything if it even has remote downstream potential to change regulation or make disclosures about steroid use.

One of the smaller theaters of said war is right here at BTF.


And it should not be that way, but a number of people from the outset are determined for it to be that way. The reason I even brought up the "union" in this context is b/c many perceive us as having the journalists side in this war.

First off, I don't think that is the battle line. Unless you start discounting Marchman, Le Bastard, Dayn Rand and a myriad of others as BPro guys, you have an admitted minority, but a sizable number of journalists writing about the entire range of issues, some of which are staying idiologically aligned to one side like they want to be the sports pages answer to Sean Hannity.

Second, its not true. Its just b/c there is little voice on this site that deals with the more sophistic of the arguments, and we five did deal with these things, we get a 'roids-hawk reputation.

Admittantly, I certainly made a mistake in repeating refutations to the idiocy too often. It got old, and I stopped. I can't speak for the others, but I think you should see some of those same sentiments. Its just boring to regurigate the same medical reports, the same issues about punishment versus honor, the same retorts to lasik surgery, time and time again. Besides there is a whole new generation of posters just rearticulating these same things for us.

If its new and topical, we deal with it because the overall issue is still of interest. I don't see anything hawky about talking about incident rates of death and newer information about steroids and mood. I do see hawky attitudes in "steroids are as safe as mothers' milk" and I see inanity in "Benoit would have killed them anyway."

You have been quite reasonable and articulate in tone, except when some dumb fanboy type like me irritates you or you are just having a little fun.


I've had to tone down my fun for various reasons. I also don't consider you dumb.

The issues I described in response to your post are real and done without insult. I'll grant that reporters are crawling up Bonds ass disproportionately and I'll explain why I think it is so. I also don't dismiss that race could play a part in that.

Beyond that though, I don't see any disproportionate journalistic treatment or Repozian treatment in the steroids issue, with one minor exception. If it deals with 'roids or religion and has even a tangential relationship to baseball, I know Repoz will post it. Whether or not he does that with other submissions is unknown to me. Moreover, it doesn't bother me that he does this.

The site as a whole used to skew wildly pro-Bonds, pro-steroids, pro-atheist, pro-libclaptrap, pro-Beanebag, pro-numerology, and pro-cheating and debautery. That has moved in recent years, but I still imagine many of those sentiments are in the majority.

OK, Mr. Scientist. Show me the data that supports the second comment. And you are aware that there is a difference between a large heart and an enlarged heart, aren't you?

I like being called Mr. Scientist. That's what my seven-year-old son calls me when I try to explain the exhibits at the museum. But this is the last time I'm going to do your work for you. It takes .000018 seconds, son:

http://www.webmd.com/fitness-exercise/news/20050816/bigger-hearts-ok-for-elite-athletes

http://www.ahealthyme.com/topic/ahs

http://heart.bmj.com/cgi/content/extract/89/12/1455

And many others. As world-class athletes tend to have have large hearts, it should not be a surprise that those who take steroids do, too.

And, yes, I understand the difference. Intense athletic training makes your heart bigger, therefore it becomes "enlarged."

Intense athletic training makes your heart bigger

They found that relatively few athletes had left atrial enlargement

You might want to spend a little more than .00018 seconds on that one.

You might want to spend a little more than .00018 seconds on that one.

This is absurd. 20 percent is a lot. And these were competitive athletes as defined in the study. These were not professional athletes. So it's reasonable to infer "Athlete's Heart" (so uncommon it's actually been named for over 100 years) would be even more prevelant in them.

Fred Couples had the same sort of spouse and she ended up killing herself.

I did not know that (the suicide part, I mean). I remember reading an article about Couples in SI in, god--probably '83/84 or so--referring to his "rambunctious wife."

Being gay causes an uptake in serotonin but only after they take baseline values, didn't know that either.

My theory is that the gay steroid body builders were depressed because they broke out and were losing their hair.

And many others. As world-class athletes tend to have have large hearts, it should not be a surprise that those who take steroids do, too.

And, yes, I understand the difference. Intense athletic training makes your heart bigger, therefore it becomes "enlarged."

The studies also seem to indicate that this athletic heart syndrome is very distinct from other enlarged hearts. The lining of the heart also increases and there are no known adverse affects to this large heart. So I am thinking the person who examined Caminiti’s heart would know the difference if it was a cause of death.

Bottom line here is an athlete (which by the way the study also seems to indicate we are looking at the very top athlete also, since Olympic athletes are separated from those who JUST competed nationally) who has the athletic heart syndrome is not in danger. Caminiti’s heart contributed to his death.

Steroids are only proven to cause mostly cosmetic and reversable problems such as acne, hair loss and infertility. Steroids have been used in medicine for many years and none of these more serious dangers have been documented.

Speaking of just prescribed steroids you have to add liver and kidney problem for long term users.

The studies also seem to indicate that this athletic heart syndrome is very distinct from other enlarged hearts.

Very true--Specifically:

An enlarged left atrium was 40 millimeters or bigger. Only 2% of the athletes had a left atrium that was 45 millimeters or bigger. The upper range was 46 millimeters in women and 50 millimeters in men.

That might be the "outer limit" of exercise's effect on heart size, and enlargements beyond that might stem from health problems, write the researchers.

But when the talking points come from PumpMeOff Magazine and you spend .000018 seconds on the research, I can understand something getting lost in translation.

I like being called Mr. Scientist. That's what my seven-year-old son calls me when I try to explain the exhibits at the museum.

By the way I wanted to point out that I liked this line, having a 7 year old son myself. Although it's to the point now that he is explaining the dinosaur exhibit to me.

Robin: I wasn't discussing that. YOU were. We were discussing other issues

Uhh, OK. But that seems like kind of a minor side point. If you don't want to talk about it, just ignore me. You seem testy because you seem to think I am mischaracterizing your position. Not intended. Maybe I should look up the quote in question.

Bisquit, I worked in vascular disease for about a year. What causes enlarged heart in diseased individuals is usually atheroschlerosis, where damage occurs along the vascular lining, including the heart, and scar tissue forms there, which restricts elasticity and causes the heart to become enlarged as means of compensation for poor performance.

When I was reading about the lining of the athlete increasing I was picturing more of a healthy strengthening accompanying the enlargement, is an accurate assumption? The article just kind of expresses the difference.

Plus I am considering adopting your spelling of my name.

You also have other cardiac problems including:

Disintegration of the functional syncytium , cardiac rupture and deterioration of the cardiac function and cell death signaling and myocardial infarction. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol 1992; 43: 469-477. Appell HJ, Heller-Umpfenbach B, Feraudi M, Weicker H. Ultrastructural and morphometric investigations on the effects of training and administration of anabolic steroids on the myocardium of guinea pigs. Int J Sports Med 1983; Cavasin MA, Tao ZY, Yu AL, Yang XP. Testosterone enhances early cardiac remodeling after myocardial infarction, causing rupture and degrading cardiac function. Am J Physiol Heart Circ Physiol 2006; 290: H2043-H2050. J Steroid Biochem Mol Biol 1992; 43: 469-477.

If you are just trying to compare the left atrial differences then:

Steroid-induced hypertrophic cardiomyopathy is characterized by the concentric thickening of the interventricular septum and free walls of the ventricles and reduction in the intracavity dimensions . (lost cite)

Saying "being athletic also enlarges the heart" as a rebuttal to the cardiac affects of steroids is like saying a syringe also penetrates the skin so the bullet didn't really do any harm by entering the body. Utter nonesense.

Someone might write a Wiki article on it though. Check out this bombshell. (Courtesy of Cic in the lounge)

The athletes in the study I cited weren't world-class. For more on the distinction, see below. But this is all silly parsing. The overarching point is that health risks related to steroid use have, at a minimum, been grossly exaggerated and that this incident relating to Benoit will make this misinformation campaign even worse.

http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/552101_2


Dr. Block: I'm here with Dr. Alfred Bove, who is emeritus professor of medicine at Temple University in Philadelphia. We're here to discuss athletes and medicine

Dr. Block: Let's go back to the professional athlete and discuss rhythm abnormalities. What do you see mostly in professional athletes?

Dr. Bove: For the most part, we're seeing atrial arrhythmias in the professional athletes, particularly in those professional sports where big size is important, such as in basketball and football. Even some hockey players have been found to have atrial fibrillation.

What's going on? Large athletes have large atria because of their body size and they have very h igh vagal tone which inthe over-sized atrium, may permit re-entrant rhythms to develop. That means these surges of catecholamines that occur during sporting events will be more likely to lead to atrial fibrillation in large athletes compared to either smaller athletes or nonathletes.

So, for the professional athlete it's primarily atrial arrhythmias that we see, although in the last year or so there have been a couple athletes who developed ventricular arrhythmias due to early and possibly undetected cardiomyopathies.

Anyone else read that authorities are looking into Benoit's wiki page? Apparently somebody posted that his wife was dead 14 hours before police discovered that she was dead. Sort of reminds of the Rod Beck thing we had a few days ago with wiki.

Apparently somebody posted that his wife was dead 14 hours before police discovered that she was dead.

What got the antennae up, though, is that it came from the same place the WWE is headquartered.
If a connection to someone in or associated with the WWE were found, that means the WWE might not have been completely forthcoming with the authorities.

An enlarged left atrium was 40 millimeters or bigger. Only 2% of the athletes had a left atrium that was 45 millimeters or bigger.

What percent were between 39 and 44 mm?

How big was Caminiti's?

About 16 years ago, I was going to a neurologist for migraines shortly after brain surgery. She wanted to put me on an injectable as (at the time) my migraines were frquent and severe. Before she would start me on the injectable, I had to go in for an ECG. The results were sent to my neurologist, who, in a panic, called me and rushed me into the hospital to see a heart specialist. I was monitored for hours. Word was I had an enlarged heart. The heart specialist walked in the room, sighed with disgust, listened to my chest and looked at my data. I asked "What?" He replied, "Are you an athletic male between the ages of 22 and 38?" I said "I guess". He said, "Yes, your heart size is typical, albeit 'enlarged'". He continued, "That's why she's a neurologist and not a heart surgeon." And he left.

Also, I will not defer that the autopsy that said "he had an enlarged heart" necessarily meant anything other than it was bigger than the doctor expected for a man Caminiti's size, as opposed to the "clinical definition".

I definitely think steroids contributed to Caminiti's death. So did amphetamines and cheeseburgers.

I'm not interested in giving Bonds 8.3%, Beane 4.1%, Bud Selig 2.4%, and Neifi Perez 1% (just on principal).

I see that. I tend to irritate people sometimes 'cuz I focus on motivation and minutiae and miss the big stuff. But, I do think Selig is trying to use the committee to focus on totally blaming the players while exculpating everybody else, based on some things I have heard him and Mitchell say. Also, obviously, Bonds is responsible for Bonds using. But, if there is going to be an investigation of/talk about steroids in baseball as a whole, well, I think there should be more focus on the game's off-field caretakers. And I don't think the Mitchell Committee will do that.


I don't think that blame quotient is going to be relevant at all to what has to be done going forward,

This is where I disagree. If the Mitchell Committee plays this like I think Selig wants, there won't be the kind of broad-ranging educational benefits from it there could/should be, nor will there be any real analysis/exposure of issues such as:

Non-playing personnel contributing to enabling PED use
Distribution channels in relation to team personnel/clubhouse access (if such a link exists)
Pressure on non-users/Use among minor leaguers and borderline players

I think they will conclude that Selig is just doing a hell of a job has always done a hell of a job and it is all because of a few unethical rogue ballplayers and distributors.

And, maybe that is actually the best way to describe it. But I tend not to think so.

Does the Mitchell investigation have an agenda that precludes forming valid findings?

Well, as I said several weeks ago, I think that even on the most public,transparent level it is is unclear what exactly the Mitchell Committee is trying to do. Discipline? Educate? An equal amnount of both? Mostly one and a little of the other? That lack of clarity is one reason I think they do have unsavory agendas. As such, I am also interested in your opinion--or anyone else's--about what would/might constitute "valid findings." Not a pseudo-gotcha questions--I really want to know.


The issues I described in response to your post are real and done without insult.

Yeah, I know. I was just kidding around a little about certain parts of that. EDIT To the extent I was serious, I realize the dynamic here is complicated and can't be easily pigeonholed.

BL,
I found your comments regarding Benoit odd. You wanted to meet him? He's a tremendous juicer - you've spouted tons of vitriol for "butt injectors" over the years, but you admire all these wrestlers? Doesn't that strike you as odd? Are those wrestlers "cheating", or is there no actual competition involved?

An overwhelming percentage of people who are taking or have taken steroids don't kill their families and themselves. An overwhelming percentage of homicide/suicides are performed by people with no connection to steroids.

True. it's also true that the overwhelming percentage of cocaine users don't die of heart attacks, but no one is denying the possible circumstances from long-term cocaine usage.

Steroid apologists crack me up.

Are those wrestlers "cheating", or is there no actual competition involved?

I doubt anyone over the age of 11 thinks there is "actual competition involved". Unless you mean the behind-the-scenes competition that determines who gets better booking.

BTW, your I'm surprised your neurologist didn't step in when you didn't deny being athletic. She should have recognized your confusion, with her specialty. That wouldn't have been anything a cardiologist could have picked up on. ;-)

I doubt anyone over the age of 11 thinks there is "actual competition involved".

None? I watched wrestling in the 70s, so I don't know about today's game. While I understand it isn't a true competition, I'm a bit surprised there's none.

None? I watched wrestling in the 70s, so I don't know about today's game. While I understand it isn't a true competition, I'm a bit surprised there's none.

You can't be serious.

I have some tapes of "vintage wrestling" (late 60's to late 70's). I'll send them to you, and you can tell me if it looks fake or not.

There is a tremendous amount of competition involved - or why would people juice?
The competition has very little to do with the winners and losers of matches but with building popularity with fans, selling merchandise, getting main events, TV time, interview spots, moving up the ladder into the championship positions.

That's where the competition is.

Wale,
that's what I thought, but there were times in the old days that two guys ended up not liking each other, and surely it gets out of hand - sometimes. I dunno.

Sometimes guys do end up "stiffing" or "potatoing" each other, but it's rarer that you might think, and the penalties for putting your personal vendettas over doing the job are pretty severe.

but it's rarer that you might think

Okay. I would think when you have these overly juiced guys getting lathered up, there'd be more of it. But I'll defer to your knowledge.

surely it gets out of hand - sometimes. I dunno.

There may have been some "abrupt" endings to some matches, here or there. But to think that entire matches would be "out of hand"...no. Guys would get killed.

The competition has very little to do with the winners and losers of matches but with building popularity with fans, selling merchandise, getting main events, TV time, interview spots, moving up the ladder into the championship positions.

None of which are taken seriously by anyone outside of the fringe lunatics who live and breathe pro wrestling. Not that having a passing interest in it is bad. But anyone who gets upset about the in-character behaviors of wrestlers is either a child, has a screw loose, or is otherwise mentally impaired.

There is a tremendous amount of competition involved - or why would people juice?
The competition has very little to do with the winners and losers of matches but with building popularity with fans, selling merchandise, getting main events, TV time, interview spots, moving up the ladder into the championship positions.

That's where the competition is.

This seems logical. So guys juice so they can buff up faster? Take the falls better? Being absurdly ripped helps you have a chance to get more fans? Seem angrier and crazier in the promo stuff? I'd assume so.

The war on drugs is germaine any time the personal use of a substance is controlled by the government and not an individual. Steroids are illegal substances right now, and more "steroids are evil" discussion makes legalization that much harder. To that end, I'm anti any misrepresentation of the dangers of any drug.

Not to mention that there's criminal and then there's Criminal. Right now, steroids are illegal, but it's treated as a fairly low-level crime, not a threat to humanity like crack.

LOL. Thanks, Mr. Ph.D. I've read the study and I'll inform the lead researcher of your views on the absurdity of his study. I'm gonna clue you in to something, though: When guys put together (even absurd) studies, they account for all kinds of variables. So when they report an increase in depression among those studied, they'll already be accounting for the likelihood of that cohort to experience depression or whatever else they're looking for.

Sometimes they do. Sometimes they do "studies" of ten people which can't possibly control for much of anything and write vague statements about "association" and people treat the studies as if they're the same as cigarette studies, which often comprised epidemiological research involving tens of thousands or millions of people.

Sometimes they do "studies" of ten people

Or fourteen.

Okay. I would think when you have these overly juiced guys getting lathered up, there'd be more of it.

With the high-risk moves that become commonplace since your timeframe of the 70s, that's a big no-no.

It's no exaggeration to say someone could get easily get killed, or at least severly wounded, if there isn't a minimum level of cooperation and trust.

As a side note, according to the AP/ATL Journal-Constitution (RR), the DEA and police raided Benoit's doctor's office.

And it very much is my place to say an eight year old kid deserves to have his cleft palate cleared up before a 55-year-old non-worker gets to have her second boob job.

Not unless you're the plastic surgeon making the decision, it isn't. It's pretty much, like most of the things you seem to care about, none of your business.

It's no exaggeration to say someone could get easily get killed, or at least severly wounded, if there isn't a minimum level of cooperation and trust.

I seem to recall some guys in the late70s early 80s getting severely injured (broken legs and the sort).

I seem to recall some guys in the late70s early 80s getting severely injured (broken legs and the sort).

Accidents happened. in the early 60's, Yukon Eric lost an ear to a Killer Kowalski knee drop off the top turnbuckle. It was an accident.

JC--here ya go, it was in the Dowd thread in response to MCoA:

MCoA: Well, you can lean on Major League Baseball as an organization, and on the owners and team presidents and general managers on down at each club. That won't happen, because the Mitchell investigation is, like everything Selig has done on this issue, both a good effort to clean up the game and a clear move toward breaking the union while strengthening ownership. There's no chance, in my reading, that Mitchell will get access to the records of MLB and the teams. He's just supposed to go after players. And so the union will fight, and as much as I'd like Mitchell's investigation to succeed, I understand where they're coming from - the investigation won't be run fairly, and it will be structured to help the owners' bargaining position.

JC: I agree, Matt; that's partly what I meant. Selig draws his power from the owners who have no desire to turn the steroid issue into an "MLB organizational issue." It will remain largely a players issue, and to be frank, it is largely a players issue. It is also an organizational issue, but that just won't happen. I have no objection to the union's activities on the behalf of their constituency, but I do agree with Dowd that MLB ought to challenge the union on this

.

If you feel I misrepresented you, sorry. On one hand, you are saying more or less some of the same things I am saying about Selig, here. OTOH, you seem OK with the MLBPA getting hassled by MLB as an administrative entity in spite of the Mitchell Committee's apparent slant. This is where we part company to some degree.

There may have been some "abrupt" endings to some matches, here or there. But to think that entire matches would be "out of hand"...no. Guys would get killed.

For those that don't follow wrestling, there's this big wrestler named Sid (he's been various things - Sid Justice, Sid Vicious, Psycho Sid). He was talking trash about other wrestlers and ended up getting in a bar fight. So Sid ran outside to get a weapon and returned - with a squeegee.

To add to 209:

To summarize, I think unless Selig is going to have an impartial investigation with clear goals and parameters that looks at all issues/parties equally, so to speak, then MLB should just stick with the testing program, and move forward without going back into the past. I do not think the Mitchell thing is that investigation, and the public posturing by Dowd, Mitchell and by Selig specifically about Giambi are indicative of that.

Oh, and Portland should have taken Durant.

So Sid ran outside to get a weapon and returned - with a squeegee.

Yeah, but his true love is softball, so he can't be all bad.

Molitor and Rainers were on drugs? WTF?

I have some tapes of "vintage wrestling" (late 60's to late 70's). I'll send them to you, and you can tell me if it looks fake or not.

I haven't watched a pro wrestling match for about 50 years, but in the 50's it was every bit as much of a standing joke as it apparently is now. The villains were all cut from the standard stereotyped cloth---lots of Nazis and Tojo takeoffs, such as "Baron Karl Von Hess," "Hans Schmidt, from MUNICH, GERMANY" (always spoken in grave tones), "Mr. Moto," etc., etc., plus "Gorgeous George," complete with a 'disinfectant'-spraying valet who led His Majesty (in a fancy robe) into the ring. The bit players included such characters as "Hatpin Annie," usually a middle aged fanette who ostensibly was so outraged by the villains that she'd run up behind them and pretend to ram a hatpin in their butt. It was transparent as hell, but then as now it was aimed at thirteen year olds and it was a lot of fun.

By coincidence I just saw a great film noir flick earlier today, Sudden Fear with Joan Crawford and Jack Palance. While Palance is courting her (prior to trying to knock her off), he takes her to a Chicago "acting studio" that expressly trains wrestlers on the fine art of faking it. That film was made in 1952.

I haven't watched a pro wrestling match for about 50 years, but in the 50's it was every bit as much of a standing joke as it apparently is now.

There was a period of time where physically, the wrestling was quite impressive as there were a lot of smaller guys with more international and amateur wrestling experience. Didn't last too long - Guerrero and Benoit are dead, Rey Mysterio and Kurt Angle have fallen apart physically, and Dean Malenko and Chris Jericho are happily retired, and so on.

Molitor and Raines were on drugs? WTF?

Yup, they both apparently got their #### together, though.

Newsblog: SNY: Salfino: Stone Cold in the Bronx
(11 - 10:51pm, Jun 28)

This isn't a Steve Austin thread, is it?

Chris, like you, I am interested in how BL is a wrasslin' fan, yet he doesn't care for steroids. I haven't seen him mention Bob Backlund as a fave.

If you feel I misrepresented you, sorry. On one hand, you are saying more or less some of the same things I am saying about Selig, here. OTOH, you seem OK with the MLBPA getting hassled by MLB as an administrative entity in spite of the Mitchell Committee's apparent slant. This is where we part company to some degree.

No apologies necessary, rr. My point was, as I understand it, close to yours. It is largely a players issue, but it's also an organizational issue and as long as you have a commish who's nothing more than the mouthpiece of an ownership from which he came there will be very little done at that level. And that's unfortunate, yes.

Guerrero and Benoit are dead, Rey Mysterio and Kurt Angle have fallen apart physically, and Dean Malenko and Chris Jericho are happily retired, and so on.


Yes, most of them were WCW mid-carders. Add in Billy Kidman, La Parka, Jushin Liger, and Ultimo Dragon---even Alex Wright, Psychosis and Sliver King could be entertaining, and Chavo always tried real hard. As for aging mid-carders, there was probably no better worker to receive such little fame as Beautiful Bobby Eaton. These were also the dying days of the professional jobber-- the guys that get no mike time, no TV wins, lead off the house shows, but made the stars look really good. Here's a beer for the Hardwork Bobby Walker's of the world.


Meanwhile, this was probably also the glory age of ECW with Perry Saturn, Raven, Sabu, Taz, and Van Dam having either their best characters or best periods (e.g. "Mr. Monday Night"). Vince didn't have the full midcard in those days. When you are relying on Scott Taylor and Brian Christopher, you kind of suck. Also we had the remains of 2 Cold Scorpio as "Flash Funk".

But his midcard did have some interesting promise, even if the matches or workrate wasn't there. You did have Triple H, still in his Hunter Hearst Helmsley persona after getting punished for the clique beer incident. You had a rather dull character named Rocky Maivia, but Duane soon took that into one of the better mike workers as The Rock. Road Dawg Jesse James and Bad Ass Billy Gunn had their brightest moments. Although pretty bland at the time with a weird family gimmick, Christian and Copeland were getting their first real national exposure.

Oh, and Portland should have taken Durant.


Yep. I hope they are happy with Chris Washburn--- wait, that can't be Washburn, that guy is to old, Washburn is only in his 40s.

___________

On another note, I thought I had seen the height of bad argumentation on this sight, but I never cease to be amazed.

This has to be a first.

A poster makes an unsupportable, high level, talking point assertion; googles up some study to support the assertion, but the study actually contradicts the assertion; then spends multiple posts attacking the assertion he googles up with rebuttal points that don't even address any conclusion in the survey.

How does it go --- Wow, Just Wow.

But if that isn't enough, Dial then pops in and expects me to defend the study through an array of non-relevant socratic questions.

That one overtakes the googling of sim stats in the most bizarre things I've seen.

Chris, like you, I am interested in how BL is a wrasslin' fan, yet he doesn't care for steroids.

I'm a baseball fan and I don't want steroids to be part of the sport.

I'm a basketball fan and I don't want steroids to be part of the sport.

...

I'm a wrestling fan and I don't want steroids to be part of the sport.

You are suppose to be the master historian. Did you miss all the times that Dial would do "whatabout bar bar" and I'd respond "I don't want steroids part of that sport either."

I'm really at a loss on this one. There is this expectation that I am crusader and any time there is a hint of steroids, I close my mind and start the hateration. There is a demand by the libs that only way I can express a desire to have steroids out of the sport is to boycott the sport altogether. There is this expectation that if I find a person has taken steroids, I'm suppose to want to burn them at the stake after cutting off their nutsack.

But when I consistently post:

"I'm not interested in retro-active punishments."

"I'm not interested in being a hitter on punishment."

"I was a fan of Barry Bonds all the way back to when he was at ASU, and those are the first CWS I remember. I was excited when there was buzz he was coming to Atlanta in the early 90s."

"I think that anyone that is caught with a needle in their ass should get the proscribed punishment, whether its Barry Bonds or Ryan Franklin."

"I think most every sport needs to do a better job in policing its illicit drug use."

I get hit with these types of questions that read more like accusations. But here is the important thing. It shouldn't matter one iota. It shouldn't matter if I were to think the WWE needs more steroids. It shouldn't matter whether I think Pac Man Jones should have a memorial park built to commerate his legacy. It shouldn't matter if I want to sneak off and have a civil union with HHH. To be honest, it shouldn't matter in most of my posts whether I want to draw and quarter Barry Bonds. Because in all cases, none of those things are remotely relevant to any point that I am making.

Randy Orton took a dump in a female wrestler's gym bag. To be fair, i'd stick my #### in Amy Weber's face too.

God the WWE is a mess. Did I mention Stone Cold beats his wife?