This could get really ugly. Why am i so excited about something this dreadful? I think it's because it might scare all professional athletes from taking them. Sure, some of them still will use steroids but these players are gonna ne a bit more paranoid if these 100 or so names comes out. It could also get the ball rolling on a government type testing program that's very harsh and is gonna be the most up to date as far as testing materials goes.
Imagine if Jeter was one of the names? *shivers* UGLY........ I smell Red Mosquito "Steroid fantasy league!!!
its boring..shit never happens..no one will ever get cahrged today if they used steroids 4 years ago..its pointless..especially all the bonds talk..you know and i know nothing will officially ever come outta it..he never got caught..he never tested positive
the only way anybody will get busted is if theyre dumb enough to still be juicin right at this moment..or if they come clean because its weighin on thier conscience (yeah right!)
_________________ bitches I like em brainless
guns I like em stainless steel
I want the fuckin fortune like the wheel
i just dont get how you can be so outraged that baseball players use roids, but have no problem at all with the NFL
it's some line of bullshit involving "skill positions," remember?
_________________ i was dreaming through the howzlife yawning car black when she told me "mad and meaningless as ever" and a song came on my radio like a cemetery rhyme for a million crying corpses in their tragedy of respectable existence
i just dont get how you can be so outraged that baseball players use roids, but have no problem at all with the NFL
I think the difference is that the NFL tests for it and punishes people for failing the tests. I know the tests are pretty much a joke because it is obvious that most of the lineman are on steroids, but still, at least the NFL can claim that they are trying to prevent it.
_________________ "Relaxed, but Edgy" - Ed, Raleigh, NC April, 2003
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 2:47 pm Posts: 13660 Location: Long Island Gender: Male
Peeps wrote:
i just dont get how you can be so outraged that baseball players use roids, but have no problem at all with the NFL
when did i ever say that? It's fucking bullshit that Merriman is even allowed to play the rest of the year. The fact that he's in the pro-bowl is even worse. Fuck that asshole.
And i'm not even "outraged" about baseball players using it. I'm more outraged with the fact that these sports leagues don't do a good enough job of enforcing penalties against usuing it. Football players don't get a pass just because i love the game. I just hopes this new evidence that will be leaked will shake up all professional athletes and perhaps deter them from cheating.
i just dont get how you can be so outraged that baseball players use roids, but have no problem at all with the NFL
Agreement, for gosh sakes.
The whole Merriman thing is a joke. The same talking head ninnies constantly bitching about Bonds and insinuating everyone who ever hit a home run from 1995 to the present time is juiced up are actually debating whether a guy who was suspended for 1/4 of the season deserves the MVP. It's insane.
This stuff being made public is ridiculous, and I can't understand how the names would even be on the tests, much less how a judge would find it correct to defy the tenets of the collective bargaining agreement.
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:52 pm Posts: 10620 Location: Chicago, IL Gender: Male
Peter Van Wieren wrote:
This stuff being made public is ridiculous, and I can't understand how the names would even be on the tests, much less how a judge would find it correct to defy the tenets of the collective bargaining agreement.
I would assume because the government is not a party to the collective-bargaining agreement (and you can't contract to conceal something that is otherwise illegal in order to immunize yourself from legally issued subpoenas).
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 4:34 am Posts: 12700 Location: ...a town in north Ontario...
Chris_H_2 wrote:
Peter Van Wieren wrote:
This stuff being made public is ridiculous, and I can't understand how the names would even be on the tests, much less how a judge would find it correct to defy the tenets of the collective bargaining agreement.
I would assume because the government is not a party to the collective-bargaining agreement (and you can't contract to conceal something that is otherwise illegal in order to immunize yourself from legally issued subpoenas).
These posts make this seem a little more like N&D... weird. It's like a crossover thread.
_________________ I think we relinquished enough... and it's still dark enough... and it goes on and on and on...
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 6:44 am Posts: 14671 Location: Baton Rouge Gender: Male
Chris_H_2 wrote:
Peter Van Wieren wrote:
This stuff being made public is ridiculous, and I can't understand how the names would even be on the tests, much less how a judge would find it correct to defy the tenets of the collective bargaining agreement.
I would assume because the government is not a party to the collective-bargaining agreement (and you can't contract to conceal something that is otherwise illegal in order to immunize yourself from legally issued subpoenas).
But wouldn't that be outweighed by the 4th amendment and right to privacy?
Joined: Mon Oct 18, 2004 4:52 pm Posts: 10620 Location: Chicago, IL Gender: Male
Mitchell wrote:
Chris_H_2 wrote:
Peter Van Wieren wrote:
This stuff being made public is ridiculous, and I can't understand how the names would even be on the tests, much less how a judge would find it correct to defy the tenets of the collective bargaining agreement.
I would assume because the government is not a party to the collective-bargaining agreement (and you can't contract to conceal something that is otherwise illegal in order to immunize yourself from legally issued subpoenas).
But wouldn't that be outweighed by the 4th amendment and right to privacy?
I believe that the players already gave up their privacy rights when they submitted themselves to the testing. Had the subpoenas required testing, then yes, there would be a 4th Amendment issue. But disclosing the results to the government doesn't necessarily invoke privacy rights, just like my educational records, medical records, etc. aren't considered private if a Judge signs a search warrant or the government issues a subpoena.
Although the 4th Amendment argument carries a little bit more weight than the contract argument.
Either way, the Union has virtually no chance if it appeals. The 9th Circuit is the most liberal Circuit in the country.
This stuff being made public is ridiculous, and I can't understand how the names would even be on the tests, much less how a judge would find it correct to defy the tenets of the collective bargaining agreement.
I would assume because the government is not a party to the collective-bargaining agreement (and you can't contract to conceal something that is otherwise illegal in order to immunize yourself from legally issued subpoenas).
But wouldn't that be outweighed by the 4th amendment and right to privacy?
I believe that the players already gave up their privacy rights when they submitted themselves to the testing. Had the subpoenas required testing, then yes, there would be a 4th Amendment issue. But disclosing the results to the government doesn't necessarily invoke privacy rights, just like my educational records, medical records, etc. aren't considered private if a Judge signs a search warrant or the government issues a subpoena.
Although the 4th Amendment argument carries a little bit more weight than the contract argument.
Either way, the Union has virtually no chance if it appeals. The 9th Circuit is the most liberal Circuit in the country.
It is my understanding that in the agreement the tests were supposed to be anonymous. Does one really give up privacy rights by submitting to an anonymous test?
As for the agreement, the leak stated 100 names would be made public. There aren't 100 guys being investigated in the BALCO case, and considering the nature of the test being anonymous when combined with how many players wanted the testing to kick in, could this possibly be the best evidence the government has?
MLB should have destroyed the records immediately once the results were known. The whole thing is ridiculous. And, to be honest, and this may sound ridiculous, but with as much protection as the federal government gives MLB, it's difficult to distinguish between the two. I highly doubt the feds would have called Bonds, Sheffield and the rest if it felt MLB was serious about its steroid problem.
Joined: Sun Nov 21, 2004 12:39 am Posts: 9940 Location: This heart of mine
Peeps wrote:
i just dont get how you can be so outraged that baseball players use roids, but have no problem at all with the NFL
I think a big part of this is because records in baseball, and individual numbers in general are so much more glorified than in football. People care not that Bonds is on steroids because its giving the Giants a better chance to win, but because he's breaking these records. You don't really have that in football. I think thats a part of it.
Joined: Sun Oct 17, 2004 2:47 pm Posts: 13660 Location: Long Island Gender: Male
Where's The Old Board? wrote:
Peeps wrote:
i just dont get how you can be so outraged that baseball players use roids, but have no problem at all with the NFL
I think a big part of this is because records in baseball, and individual numbers in general are so much more glorified than in football. People care not that Bonds is on steroids because its giving the Giants a better chance to win, but because he's breaking these records. You don't really have that in football. I think thats a part of it.
Great point. That's definitely why there is more of an uproar when baseball players(especially record breakers) get caught. Another reason why football is better than baseball(does any football fan really give a shit about LT's touchdown record this year?). Plus, baseball players are much more noticeable by the public because they don't have huge helmets on their heads. Football players are not nearly as recognizable.
BTW, the NY Post is reporting that 8 out of the 10 players indicted in the BALCO case tested positive for steroids in 2003.
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest
You cannot post new topics in this forum You cannot reply to topics in this forum You cannot edit your posts in this forum You cannot delete your posts in this forum You cannot post attachments in this forum
