Page 17 of 20

Re: Clemens named in Mitchell report

PostPosted: Fri Dec 14, 2007 2:44 am
by noseeum
Lofunzo wrote:Be completely honest. Has this been a known issue for 50 years?? Did the league and the fans know about this for 50 years or did this all recently come out?? I never heard about them and I am as big of a sports fan as they come. I know that you are younger than me so you haven't been following PED use in MLB for that long, have you?? My point is that we can't act like all of us knew about it for 50 years. Just that it existed.


Who cares how longs it's been known? Are you saying because Aaron didn't get caught and no one cared they were using greenies that it makes it OK? The point is that since people started getting paid to play baseball, people have been trying to figure out ways to get paid MORE for baseball. It's been that way in every generation and this one is no different.

I don't know what you're getting at. Are you saying today's players should be punished more because we caught them while they were playing? Who cares when we find out?

Re: Clemens named in Mitchell report

PostPosted: Fri Dec 14, 2007 2:48 am
by Lofunzo
mweir145 wrote:
Lofunzo wrote:Be completely honest. Has this been a known issue for 50 years?? Did the league and the fans know about this for 50 years or did this all recently come out?? I never heard about them and I am as big of a sports fan as they come. I know that you are younger than me so you haven't been following PED use in MLB for that long, have you?? My point is that we can't act like all of us knew about it for 50 years. Just that it existed.

It's been out there all along, people just haven't noticed or cared to notice until recently for whatever reason.


I am asking this question as it pertains to something that I thought of tonight.......When did greenie use become known?? I am not talking about inner circles. I am talking about in public. I ask because I never heard about it until a few years ago.

Re: Clemens named in Mitchell report

PostPosted: Fri Dec 14, 2007 3:22 am
by BruinBlue
KCollins1304 wrote:Plus there is a 12 page thread about Clemens, or at least it was originally.


While it's a little late for me to jump in the conversation here (but I've read the whole thing and it's a great debate), I found this point amusing. Only about 205 more pages until we reach Bond's level :-)

Re: Clemens named in Mitchell report

PostPosted: Fri Dec 14, 2007 3:36 am
by HOOTIE
Lofunzo wrote:I am asking this question as it pertains to something that I thought of tonight.......When did greenie use become known?? I am not talking about inner circles. I am talking about in public. I ask because I never heard about it until a few years ago.


In 1970, Jim Bouton did the unthinkable, he wrote Ball Four. I was 12. It blew me away. Still my favorite bb book ever.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/print?id ... type=story

Re: Clemens named in Mitchell report

PostPosted: Fri Dec 14, 2007 3:40 am
by HOOTIE
Lofunzo wrote:
HOOTIE wrote:Probably the saddest thing of this whole thread, is the general lack of baseball history displayed. Bonds or Clemens didn't invent (cheating) in MLB. Of my years in the Cafe, lack of history seems to be the biggest negative in certain threads.


I disagree. Maybe based on being naive but my problem is based on the purity of history.


When has MLB been pure?

Re: Clemens named in Mitchell report

PostPosted: Fri Dec 14, 2007 11:06 am
by StlSluggers
Do you think his wife knew about this? I mean, the guy's already a loaded millionaire coming out of the last decade. He's already proven that he was a very good pitcher. But he gets greedy and wants more fame, so he takes drugs that could potentially destroy his health down the road.

I can't imagine my wife ever signing off on something like that.

Re: Clemens named in Mitchell report

PostPosted: Fri Dec 14, 2007 11:10 am
by Lofunzo
HOOTIE wrote:
Lofunzo wrote:
HOOTIE wrote:Probably the saddest thing of this whole thread, is the general lack of baseball history displayed. Bonds or Clemens didn't invent (cheating) in MLB. Of my years in the Cafe, lack of history seems to be the biggest negative in certain threads.


I disagree. Maybe based on being naive but my problem is based on the purity of history.


When has MLB been pure?


I never read anything about greenies when I was 12 so I grew up thinking that the records had a sense of purity. Now that I know the basis for your thinking, I understand why you might not feel the same way.

Re: Clemens named in Mitchell report

PostPosted: Fri Dec 14, 2007 11:11 am
by Lofunzo
StlSluggers wrote:Do you think his wife knew about this? I mean, the guy's already a loaded millionaire coming out of the last decade. He's already proven that he was a very good pitcher. But he gets greedy and wants more fame, so he takes drugs that could potentially destroy his health down the road.

I can't imagine my wife ever signing off on something like that.


The difference is that Clemens can kick his wife's ass.

Re: Clemens named in Mitchell report

PostPosted: Fri Dec 14, 2007 11:15 am
by BronXBombers51
Lofunzo wrote:
StlSluggers wrote:Do you think his wife knew about this? I mean, the guy's already a loaded millionaire coming out of the last decade. He's already proven that he was a very good pitcher. But he gets greedy and wants more fame, so he takes drugs that could potentially destroy his health down the road.

I can't imagine my wife ever signing off on something like that.


The difference is that Clemens can kick his wife's ass.


:-b You gunna get him back for these or what, JT?

Re: Clemens named in Mitchell report

PostPosted: Fri Dec 14, 2007 8:02 pm
by mweir145
StlSluggers wrote:Do you think his wife knew about this? I mean, the guy's already a loaded millionaire coming out of the last decade. He's already proven that he was a very good pitcher. But he gets greedy and wants more fame, so he takes drugs that could potentially destroy his health down the road.

I doubt it.