Mitchell's report to reveal many names

Collapse

Recommended Videos

Collapse
X
 
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts
  • yvesdereuter
    Banned
    • Jun 2007
    • 1688

    #1051
    Re: Mitchell's report to reveal many names

    Originally posted by Squint
    If, by a lot, you mean three (Canseco). Then yes.
    How many other than that and Pettite have admitted it?

    Comment

    • SportsTop
      The Few. The Proud.
      • Jul 2003
      • 6716

      #1052
      Re: Mitchell's report to reveal many names

      Originally posted by yvesdereuter
      How many other than that and Pettite have admitted it?
      Brian Roberts, F.P. Santangelo and numerous players (Bigbie, Dykstra) admitted use in the report.

      The question isn't how many have admitted, the question is how many implicated besides Clemens have denied?
      Follow me on Twitter!

      Comment

      • yvesdereuter
        Banned
        • Jun 2007
        • 1688

        #1053
        Re: Mitchell's report to reveal many names

        Originally posted by Squint
        Brian Roberts, F.P. Santangelo and numerous players (Bigbie, Dykstra) admitted use in the report.

        The question isn't how many have admitted, the question is how many implicated besides Clemens have denied?
        Cool, I wasnt trying to challenge your fanhood. I just wasnt noting this stuff as it has happened in the past few days. Ive had a lot on my plate at work with the year end.

        Comment

        • ComfortablyLomb
          MVP
          • Sep 2003
          • 3548

          #1054
          Re: Mitchell's report to reveal many names

          Originally posted by Squint
          How do you figure?
          Clearly congress has the ability to do what it did but the underlying question is one of government scope. Specifically, how much should the federal government be regulating or controlling. This board doesn't really respond well to political discussion so I'll keep it brief but basically I'm a small government kind of guy. Just because Congress has the ability to do something doesn't mean it should be doing it.

          Comment

          • SportsTop
            The Few. The Proud.
            • Jul 2003
            • 6716

            #1055
            Re: Mitchell's report to reveal many names

            Originally posted by ComfortablyLomb
            Clearly congress has the ability to do what it did but the underlying question is one of government scope. Specifically, how much should the federal government be regulating or controlling. This board doesn't really respond well to political discussion so I'll keep it brief but basically I'm a small government kind of guy. Just because Congress has the ability to do something doesn't mean it should be doing it.
            And baseball shouldn't be abusing certain priviliges granted to it by said government. People in baseball got very, very rich for a very long time living off of laws that really don't apply to them.

            You live by the law, you die by the law.
            Follow me on Twitter!

            Comment

            • ComfortablyLomb
              MVP
              • Sep 2003
              • 3548

              #1056
              Re: Mitchell's report to reveal many names

              Originally posted by Squint
              And baseball shouldn't be abusing certain priviliges granted to it by said government. People in baseball got very, very rich for a very long time living off of laws that really don't apply to them.

              You live by the law, you die by the law.
              The anti-trust exemption? Every other sport has managed to get by without it. I can't think of another privilege that baseball has that other sports don't. So the Twins can't up and move to Las Vegas without getting approval from the league. Why does this matter?

              What you say about living and dieing by the law is all well and good in a tidy "it all balances out" sort of way but why the assumption that the government is acting properly in doing all this?

              Comment

              • NYJets
                Hall Of Fame
                • Jul 2002
                • 18637

                #1057
                Re: Mitchell's report to reveal many names

                Shockingly, looks like Canseco might not really have all that much on A-Rod:
                Originally posted by Jay Bilas
                The question isn't whether UConn belongs with the elites, but over the last 20 years, whether the rest of the college basketball elite belongs with UConn

                Comment

                • snepp
                  We'll waste him too.
                  • Apr 2003
                  • 10007

                  #1058
                  Re: Mitchell's report to reveal many names

                  Originally posted by NYJets
                  Shockingly, looks like Canseco might not really have all that much on A-Rod:
                  http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/ba...seco_book.html
                  Yup, real big shocker.

                  He was right the first time around while looking to make a buck, this time it's just about the buck.
                  Member of The OS Baseball Rocket Scientists Association

                  Comment

                  • oakfan162
                    Get Ducked Up!
                    • Mar 2006
                    • 4724

                    #1059
                    Re: Mitchell's report to reveal many names

                    Originally posted by snepp
                    Yup, real big shocker.

                    He was right the first time around while looking to make a buck, this time it's just about the buck.
                    He probably stopped getting offers from The Surreal Life.
                    University of Oregon
                    A's
                    Sharks
                    Warriors
                    49ers

                    Comment

                    Working...