User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Buy MLB playoff tickets, plus 2011 World Series, 2011 ALCS tickets and NLCS game tickets. We also have Texas Rangers playoff schedule, tickets to Red Sox games and Yankees game tickets. Plus, buy Phillies baseball tickets, Tigers playoff tickets and the biggies like ALDS baseball tickets and 2011 NLDS tickets. |
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
Page rendered in 0.4975 seconds
54 querie(s) executed
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Especially when the organization responsible for handling a perjury charge (DOJ) comes under that head of government.
Hint: Cal Ripken is a free agent. Cal Ripken is retired.
In baseball, "retired" only has a technical meaning when a player is under contract or eligible for arbitration and placed on the ineligible/voluntarily retired list because the retirement prevents him from fulfilling the terms of his contract.
Once a player files for free agency, however, his legal status vis-a-vis baseball is exactly the same as that of a retired player. Baseball can no more test Kyle Lohse for drugs at the moment than they can test Pud Galvin.
Signing one-year contracts does not make you exempt from testing.
Kevin, do you have any proof that Clemens hasn't been tested? Or are you just making things up?
They only test from February to May?
Of course: Clemens hasn't tested positive; ergo, he hasn't been tested. Res ipsa loquitur and semper ubi sub ubi. Or something.
And once again, I ask, do you have any proof? Or are you just making things up?
And as others have now pointed out, players that aren't under contract are exempt from testing. Saying Roger Clemens is signing one-year contracts in order to avoid being tested is like saying Kenny Lofton is on steroids because he's been signing one-year contracts.
It means nothing. Clemens retiring hoopla is irrelevent to the steroid discussion.
You can keep repeating it slightly differently but it won't make it true. Kyle Lohse, who has not announced his retirement, has the exact same position as Jim Palmer, who did announce his retirement. Kyle Lohse is not an employee of MLB and is not constrained by anything in the CBA until such time he becomes an employee of an MLB team.
But he doesn't need to retire to do that. Like you said, he keeps signing one year contracts. Since he's a free agent after each season, he isn't tested. Retiring adds nothing to it.
What do you think?
Why do you say obviously silly things as though they're true?
Once again, Clemens retirement nonsense is 100% completely and utterly irrelevent to the steroid issue.
Players that are under contract.
Players that are under contract with a major league team are.
That is why he is up for Chairman of the Joint Chiefs.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0w6L93kD3xw
Wasn't he up because of his exemplary "service" record?
It's a possibility but it's not what you were saying - you were claiming that announcing retirement was a special status that is different from free agency.
Clemens had a two year contract for 2001-2002, so that's a non-issue. He signed a one year deal in 2003 and then announced his retirement after the season. That's October of 2003.
In January of 2004, he signed with the Astros. On October 21, 2004, the Astros played their final game of the season.
In January of 2005, he avoided arbitration by signing with the Astros for another one-year deal. He was at no point a free agent between January of 2004 and the end of the 2005 season (2004: CY, 2005: 3rd place CY with arguably the best season of his career).
The funny business with retiring (if it is that) covers three offseasons: the 2003-4 offseason (less than 3 months of potential test avoidance), the 2005-6 offseason (he signed a contract in May of 2006), and the 2006-2007 offseason (again signing in May).
Not very respectful to a man who was clubbing communist skulls in the coffee break room so your children could live in a free society.
Considering that as a free agent he was/is exempt from testing, what does he have to gain from being retired?
And, once again, PROOF?
By this argument, Kenny Lofton has been juicing for the last few years. As has every other player that has been signing one-year contracts. The man is in his mid-40's. It's only logical for teams to sign him to a one-year contract, as, despite being a historically great player, you can't count on a mid-40's player to be worth it over a multi-year contract.
Once again, Clemens retirement nonsense and/or his repeated one-year contracts, are completely irrelevent to the steroid discussion.
I'm not a Clemens fanboy. At all. I think the guy is a total moron. I'm just a fan of facts.
Holy hell. As a free agent, he can do that too! Announcing retirement is irrelevent. WTF?
You know, Kevin, if you spent more time trying to participate in a useful way, and less time hijacking threads, we could all have much more meaningful discussions.
Why don't you enlighten us? You're the one claiming there's a difference, despite overwhelming evidence that there ISN'T. So, maybe you should tell us what he has to gain from being retired.
Why does he have to announce his retirement? Why can't he just not sign a contract?
Why don't you just tell me.
Or if you're a levelheaded human being who doesn't think that players signing one year contracts, as many players do and many players have done multiple years in a row, means that the player is a steroid user.
And many of the previous 100+ posts have been by people trying to educate you as to how silly your accusation is.
I would call that hijacked. Whatever.
Clemens has taken part of the early-season off for what, three years now? Any test between the beginning of the season (and for the vast majority of players, many weeks earlier) until Clemens's late signing was a test Clemens didn't have to take ... for the sole reason that he decided to sign late.
How is this even debatable?
He can delay signing a new contract because the 13th amendment outlawed slavery in 1865. He doesn't need to "announce his retirement" to do that.
Assuming arguendo your position, that each of these three offseason events were designed for cycling of steroids, why was the best year of his career the one year that stands out as one where he most certainly did not have a similar gap in the offseason?
And of course there's only one off-season where he signed late, and that was the most recent one, so there's no series of retirements at all.
The 2005 season. The one where he was under contract with the Astros following the 2004 season, and submitted an arbitration request but ended up signing prior to the hearing for $18M.
I'm not foaming at the mouth, because I don't particularly care which players did or didn't do steroids. I just like to see actual proof and facts before making decisions.
That's not debatable. However, it has nothing to do with retiring, and his signing late is not proof that he did it in order to cycle steroids out of his system.
... 2005?
Well, I was trying to give him the benefit of the doubt. (Of course, if there's no doubt... -:)
It's just that, unless I'm mistaken, people have explained to him before precisely why this theory of his doesn't make any sense. Yet, it's like those conversations never happened.
More like the general intelligence of...kevin...needs improvement.
So, you're doing one of two things here:
a) Admitting you're wrong. (A snowball's chance in hell)
b) Claiming that the difference in your intelligence level compared to other human beings is as great as the difference between the intelligence level of other human beings and amoebas.
You, good sir, are freaking insane.
just to shut up this hypocrite.
You must have some knowledge of how steroid cycling works, or you wouldn't have such strong convictions. You are, after all, I assume, a reasonable and intelligent human being. A reasonable and intelligent human being wouldn't simply make up the entire connection between retirement and steroid cycling and test avoidance for something so trivial as support for a position in an internet discussion, would they?
So if, as you suggest, Clemens is using retirement and coming out of retirement as a way to circumvent testing in the off-season, how do you reconcile that with his superlative 2005 season (with no such gap in the prior offseason)?
Or with the fact that the retirement is completely irrelevent because he still isn't subject to testing if he's simply a free agent that never announced his retirement..
2006 WBC WADA TEST CLEMENS
Proof?
hypocrites don't care about such things
Please do not assume that this has any specific relevance to this thread or any poster. Just consider it a general observation.
Your consideration is greatly appreciated.
David Nieporent: (See what I mean, Ray?) Subterfuge for what? Who is he "explaining" it to? Why does he need to "explain away" it at all? Why doesn't he just, you know, sign whenever he feels like it, just like every other free agent?
-----
"It's a smoke screen."
"What?"
"Double bluff... Look, you obviously don't know anything about intelligence work, (David). It's an XK-Red-27 Technique."
"To call you stupid would be an insult to stupid people. I've known sheep who could outwit you. I've worn dresses with higher IQs, but you think you're an intellectual, don't you, ape?"
"Apes don't read philosophy."
"Yes they do, Otto, they just don't understand it."
Well, presumably people enjoy reading and responding to (insert ignorable poster here). But I'm with you -- I suspect you and I have at least one ignored person in common.
"Everything... every single thing that came out in that courtroom, but I mean everything... says he's guilty. What d'ya think? I'm an idiot or somethin'? Why don't cha take that stuff about the old man; the old man who lived there and heard everything? Or the business about the knife! What, just because he found one exactly like it? The old man saw him. Right there on the stairs. What's the difference how many seconds it was? Every single thing. The knife falling through a hole in his pocket... you can't prove that he didn't get to the door! Sure, you can hobble around the room and take all the time you want, but you can't prove it! And that stuff with the El! And the movies! Now there's a phony deal if I ever saw one. I'd betcha five thousand dollars I'd remember the names of the movies I saw! I'm tellin' ya: every single thing that has went on has been twisted... and turned. This business with the glasses. How do you know she didn't have 'em on? This woman testified in open court! And that thing about hearin' the kid yell... huh? Listen, I've got all the facts here... [He struggles with his notebook, throws it on the table] Ah! Well, there it is! That's the whole case! [He turns towards the window as the other jurors stare at him] Well, say something! You lousy bunch of bleedin' hearts. You're not goin' to intimidate me! I'm entitled to my own opinion! [Sees the picture of his son on the table] Rotten kids... you work your life out! [He lunges at the picture and tears it to pieces. He suddenly realizes what he's doing, stops, then breaks down] No. Not guilty. Not guilty!"
Of course, the dramatic highlight was when Rusty Hardin jammed an identical syringe into the wooden table, next to McNamee's "just remembered I still had this" syringe.
Kevin's more of a Juror #10.
Yeah... you declared yourself to be correct despite still not having any proof. Your middle name wouldn't be Hageman, would it?
Move on.
Not anabolic ones.
I don't think I saw that version.
That was the version where the lawyer was Johnny Cochran.
Perhaps a grand jury of angry men could match it, but 23 Angry Men doesn't sound like a good film.
Yes, but they don't say what test this was (it was certainly before MLB's testing program), how they know it was a test given to Bonds, how they know Bonds "failed," or whether Bonds even saw the results of it.
Fair enough. How long is a typical steroid cycle, and how long do the effects last? Some cursory research suggests 10-12 weeks on, 10-12 weeks off.
I have no specialized knowledge, but I have never once heard of any sort of steroid cycle that is on for several months, and then off for almost two years. Do you have any reference points for such a cycle?
Then he can take hGH during the season to maintain, without having to worry about testing positive.
I have also heard this theory of steroids on, HGH off for maintenance (and to replenish artificially lowered levels of testosterone following a cycle). The problem is, unlike with steroids, which are documented as increasing muscle mass, there isn't scientific consensus on the efficacy of HGH in this area.
Almost every source indicates that HGH by itself has no performance benefit. Even if it can maintain the off period from March to May following a cycle from December to February, what is happening for June-October?
The kid really did knife his father in this movie.
Which version of 12 Angry Men are you watching?
I didn't. Someone better tell the news agencies, though, its already Front Page Breaking News on MSNBC and ESPN.
And I love the defense to "Clemens was subjected to testing all of the offseason 2004-2005, and for the WBC, and never failed because the tests don't always work." Kevin, here's another hint, sometimes, players don't fail, because they don't have steroids in their system. *gasp* I know, it's shocking.
Did Clemens do PEDs? It's possible that he did.
Can we find him guilty with any certainty? We cannot.
You're welcome. Good night.
If that is the case, and the WBC test is more stringent than the MLB one, then why did Clemens need to avoid those tests?
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main