Lex-LOU-thor's Comments

Posted Thursday February 13, 2014, About: The best of the randoms..
Oh..... I get it..... an old man joke.....



hahahahahahahahaha.... ummmm yeh.....
Posted Thursday February 13, 2014, About: The best of the randoms..
It's that easy...
Posted Thursday February 13, 2014, About: The best of the randoms..
Cro-manly way maybe....
Look at the type of bags that ARE allowed. It's not "non-sense" - the bag is clear and of limited size. I think it's more a marketing ploy....... to sell bags.
Posted Thursday August 16, 2012, About: Melky cheated. Who's next? Joey Bats?
Unfortunately you are right. No matter who it is - if they excel - the first thought will now be - how much chemical assistance is that player getting. Just like AP. All negative tests - yet time and again - the cloud hangs over him. It is just now - the way of things.
Posted Thursday August 16, 2012, About: Melky cheated. Who's next? Joey Bats?
So far this is a good TD - keep it up - though - the subject is getting a bit hackneyed by now.
Posted Friday August 10, 2012, About: Bonds and the Hall... yea or nay?
As did others who were never "caught"...... and some are sure to be in.
Posted Thursday August 09, 2012, About: Bonds and the Hall... yea or nay?
That was my point. If he was betting on his team to win..... to me..... meh.....
Posted Thursday August 09, 2012, About: Bonds and the Hall... yea or nay?
Given his passion for the game, and the WAY he played. I could seem him only betting FOR his team.... So - does that make a difference? Just a question...
Posted Thursday August 09, 2012, About: Bonds and the Hall... yea or nay?
Sorry - 1919...... Jeesh...
Posted Thursday August 09, 2012, About: Bonds and the Hall... yea or nay?
The problem is - there is no information of the actual magnitude of the problem in the "steriod" era... you have what, about 100 players on the list? Not all of them are known. And that was only a "select" sampleing of MLB - not the whole league. So who do you keep out? On supposition only? While there may be circumstancial evidence - other than those that have outright admitted it, who do you keep out on "suspicion"? Doesn't sound "fair" to me. And a lot of this is all about fairness. Since he said he didn't do it (and even the jury was hung on that specific set of charges) - the only thing I think that is close to fair is allow him in; (his numbers warrant it). But not until he's gone so there is no "gain" for him personnally in getting in. It's just an opinion. The same issues the writers will be facing when the known users are on the ballet. And since there are possibly others who are aready in (just didn't get "caught). How do you "balance" the landscape? MLB has a huge black eye, just like in 1917. But this time - it's not cut and dried - and as localized in idenifying wrong doing. So - we as fans, the league and the sports writers need to understand it's the dark time again, move on, and do the best we can to not let it happen again.
Posted Thursday August 09, 2012, About: Bonds and the Hall... yea or nay?
Either both in, or both out.... But Bonds out is problematic to me. You can't ban someone who has not admitted they took them (even then - since others weren't caught - that is a mess). So to me. Deal with it. Let them in. No astrisks. Just don't let them in until they are dead and buried.
Posted Thursday August 09, 2012, About: Bonds and the Hall... yea or nay?
Yep - he broke the "Cardinal" rule. Meanwhile - bilking the public of any confidence that the sport is a "clean" sport is o.k. Baseball was complicit top to bottom. So to me - there is no "moral high ground" to stand on for ANY cheating or rules breaking. Spitballs, gambling, steriods, all fall into the "cheating" realm. Relativism doesn't work here. It's robbing the paying public of watching "fair" matchups.
Posted Wednesday August 08, 2012, About: Bonds and the Hall... yea or nay?
And that is fair.... given the circumstantial evidence a lot of people may "think" that way. But some on here are saying - he is guilty of taking steriods... period - and because of that - he shouldn't be in the HoF. To me - that is a criminal accusation and thus should be subjected to a tougher standard. That's all. Again, the HoF is a subjective vote. Look at the controversy Nolan Ryan conjures up..... Again - opinion.
Posted Wednesday August 08, 2012, About: Bonds and the Hall... yea or nay?
Really - it's making a judgement, by definition. The question is - is it one for a criminal case - or a civil case. Given the angst and the impacts to some on here - they consider it a criminal judgement to be made (using the guilty term). as opposed the civil case (what damage was done and what is the remediation). So - if you are going with the "he is guilty" then you MUST use the criminal guidlines. If you are saying - there is evidence that damage was done - then you MUST use the civil guidlines - what damage was done and what are the consequesces in reparations.

As long as they are looking for a guilty verdict then the criminal guides ARE appropriate.
Posted Wednesday August 08, 2012, About: Bonds and the Hall... yea or nay?
And that is part of the "innocence" I was talking about.


And slinks situational quip on it was quite amusing.....
Posted Wednesday August 08, 2012, About: Bonds and the Hall... yea or nay?
ANd that is a fair assessment. And you are more than welcome to that - but to date the only two people that really know are Bonds and Anderson. Neither is talking. So.... he is circumstantially guilty - but not in a court of law - at least until I can read some other stuff.

But honestly - I'm tired of the whole roids issue. It happened - no one knows how much it happened, everyone seems to accept the fact that it happened, just no one really knows what to do with it. So.... move on. The mechanisms are in place now. Deal with it from now on. Astrisks? no - because who really knows how many records are tainted (I'm sure it's not just the HR one).
Posted Wednesday August 08, 2012, About: Bonds and the Hall... yea or nay?
It does if know knows what they really were...
Posted Wednesday August 08, 2012, About: Bonds and the Hall... yea or nay?
Sorry - but again that is supposition. Not that it isn't part of the circumstantial evidence against Bonds.
Posted Wednesday August 08, 2012, About: Bonds and the Hall... yea or nay?
And that the really ****t.i.e part..... There's not even a way to take some of the "innocence" back, that was taken from the fans of baseball....
Posted Wednesday August 08, 2012, About: Bonds and the Hall... yea or nay?
Ventura had no business charging a guy that much bigger than he was even if he was older....
Last Page

Truth & Rumors

MOST POPULAR

  1. 1
    Irving: Fans don't deserve the Cavs
    Views
    10059
    Comments
    680
  2. 2
    Red Sox dodged two injury scares
    Views
    3018
    Comments
    503
  3. 3
    Trump taking a legit run at the Bills
    Views
    2329
    Comments
    106
  4. 4
    Why the Raiders have lost 111 of 160 games
    Views
    7406
    Comments
    66
  5. 5
    Bruins can't count on shut-down D
    Views
    1913
    Comments
    60

SI.com

SI Photos