Official arguing about caffine thread

[manbearpig]

[ QUOTE ]


You're asking me to make an "educated guess" based upon "what we do know".

But...what we "know" is what has been illegally leaked, and then repackaged in the paraphrased words of a few authors of a book which has been deemed "unable to be viewed as factual."

In short, we don't know anything....so making a guess is anything but "educated".

What I do know is that Bonds has not violated the MLB steroid policy, nor has he been convicted of any crime.

Play Ball!

[/ QUOTE ]

I can't believe you are taking this line. I want to dig up the Politics thread on Ron Paul where you called him a racist over and over again based on circumstantial evidence and a newspaper article. Which just to be clear is the same damn thing you are saying exonerates Bonds at this point.

RP has never "tested positive" for racism (his voting record). BB has never tested positive for steroids.

RP has an article attributed to his name that has racist remarks. BB has leaked grand jury testimony where he admits to using PEDs.

RP has a newspaper article written about him that paraphrases his comment and takes them out of context. BB has numerous articles/books written about him that are paraphrased/out of context.

You label Paul a racist, but defend Bonds.

I am interested in hearing your justification for interpreting the same type of evidence in opposite ways.

[manbearpig]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
There is ton of circumstantial evidence pointing towards Bonds having been a user.


[/ QUOTE ]

Except that most of it isn't credible, and can't be viewed as factual, and only carries weight in the court of public opinion, where the standards are much lower, and it doesn't bother folks if the evidence isn't at all credible

The amount of actual credible evidence that exists has so far not even been enough to constitute "probable cause" to proceed to trial.

[/ QUOTE ]

See previous post. This is the height of hypocrisy.

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
I want to dig up the Politics thread on Ron Paul where you called him a racist over and over again based on circumstantial evidence and a newspaper article. Which just to be clear is the same damn thing you are saying exonerates Bonds at this point.


[/ QUOTE ]

Make sure you dig up the part where Ron Paul took responsibility for the comments. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Because, that makes all the difference in the world.

[ QUOTE ]
BB has leaked grand jury testimony where he admits to using PEDs.


[/ QUOTE ]

No he doesn't. Bonds never admitted to any such thing. The authors of the book who were given the leaked testimony even concede as much.

Bonds admitted to using flaxseed oil and arthritic balm.

That you or anyone else believes that those were actually PED's does not change the fact that he didn't admit to using PED's.

[ QUOTE ]

You label Paul a racist, but defend Bonds.


[/ QUOTE ]

I also like Hall and Oates and think Cindy Crawford is hot.

I don't see how all of this relates to one another, however.

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
See previous post. This is the height of hypocrisy.

[/ QUOTE ]

What's so hypocritical about it?

That I have a slightly different standard for judging who I am going to vote in as President and leader of the free world....versus who I want batting cleanup and watch swinging a baseball bat?

Call me crazy, but when Bonds comes up with two on and two out in a the bottom of the 9th of a tied ballgame, I'm not exaclty concerned about what his position is on restructuring social security and providing universal healthcare.

I just want him to make good contact and hopefully get a basehit.

But hey, maybe that's just me. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[offTopic]

[ QUOTE ]
Call me crazy, but when Bonds comes up with two on and two out in a the bottom of the 9th of a tied ballgame, I'm not exaclty concerned about what his position is on restructuring social security and providing universal healthcare.

I just want him to make good contact and hopefully get a basehit.

But hey, maybe that's just me. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

[manbearpig]

[ QUOTE ]


No he doesn't. Bonds never admitted to any such thing. The authors of the book who were given the leaked testimony even concede as much.

Bonds admitted to using flaxseed oil and arthritic balm.

[/ QUOTE ]

He admits to using what he thought was flaxseed oil and arthritic balm. That he happened to get from a dude who went to jail for distributing steroids. Not to mention the Sheffield quotes where he says Bonds set him up to get the cream, the clear, and red beans (lol).

[ QUOTE ]


That you or anyone else believes that those were actually PED's does not change the fact that he didn't admit to using PED's.

[/ QUOTE ]

If they happened to be the cream and the clear they were most certainly PED's.

[manbearpig]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
See previous post. This is the height of hypocrisy.

[/ QUOTE ]

What's so hypocritical about it?

That I have a slightly different standard for judging who I am going to vote in as President and leader of the free world....versus who I want batting cleanup and watch swinging a baseball bat?

Call me crazy, but when Bonds comes up with two on and two out in a the bottom of the 9th of a tied ballgame, I'm not exaclty concerned about what his position is on restructuring social security and providing universal healthcare.

I just want him to make good contact and hopefully get a basehit.

But hey, maybe that's just me. [img]/images/graemlins/grin.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

It is not that you have a slightly different standard. It is that you are being intellectually dishonest. You have completely different standards. You take circumstantial evidence in one case and damn someone over it. You take the same type of evidence in another case and go to great lengths to defend that person.

To be honest, I could give two [censored] if Bonds took steroids. He is one of the greatest to ever play the game. But we are not judging if Bonds is a good player or not. Or what his political leanings are.

What I want to know is how you can interpret such similar evidence in such different ways.

[BigSoonerFan]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
It is only indisputable that he hasn't been caught, not that he hasn't violated it.

[/ QUOTE ]

It's quite apparent that you don't understand what constitutes a violation of the policy, as it is explcitly defined in the policy.

Either that, or you just don't want to understand it and let it get in the way of your hate. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

[/ QUOTE ]

It's clear to me that you don't understand the word violate. Whether you are caught or not, you can still violate.

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]

It's clear to me that you don't understand the word violate. Whether you are caught or not, you can still violate.

[/ QUOTE ]

I definately understand what constitutes a violation of the MLB steroid policy, as clearly defined in the policy itself, in no uncertain terms.

Perhaps you should read the policy itself, rather than going on what the newspaper man tells you it says. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]

Barry Bonds has not violated the policy.

[MyTurn2Raise]

[ QUOTE ]
Barry Bonds has not vioated the policy.

[/ QUOTE ]

how can you know that last statement RedBean?

Were you around him 100% of the time?
Do you have an account of every single second of his life that is verifiable?

I bet it's because the newspaper man told you to think that way.

such a puppet of the media