Ortiz not sure if he took steroids

[TheKilo]

So wait, you can just change your name whenever you want?

[Soxfan1]

Message Yeszir.

[Jacoby_Ellsbury]

Change your name again. Your reputation under this new name is already shot to hell.

 

Your opinion means the world to me.

 

Seriously just take of the middle school girl panties and man up. There's no sense in acting like a punk, kid.

 

 

000000OOOOOOOOO000OOOOO!!!!

[schillingouttheks]

You still haven't refuted my point.

[Jacoby_Ellsbury]

edit - nvm

[Jacoby_Ellsbury]

You brought up a story about Ortiz and are trying to tie it in to the A-Rod situation. It doesn't fit.

 

I'm tying it into the steroids scandal, not A-Rod.

 

There are at least other first-hand eyewitnesses to McGwire and Sosa and they have accusers. Ortiz doesn't. See what I mean?

 

Show me the convictions and show me the undeniable proof.

 

 

 

The whole point of me doing this was to show how a700 quickly dismisses my view as 'conjecture', but then he believes in something that is no actual, solid proof of. We can make assumptions based on Capitol Hill and all that s***.

[schillingouttheks]

I'm tying it into the steroids scandal, not A-Rod.

 

 

 

Show me the convictions and show me the undeniable proof.

 

 

 

The whole point of me doing this was to show how a700 quickly dismisses my view as 'conjecture', but then he believes in something that is no actual, solid proof of. We can make assumptions based on Capitol Hill and all that s***.

 

...but there's no basis to your conjecture. I have said this time and time again, yet it doesn't seem to stick. There is basis for conjecture of Sosa and McGwire BECAUSE OF THE ACCUSATIONS AGAINST THEM. There is NONE for Ortiz, so it makes no sense to conjecture about him until someone actually comes forward and says something about it. I wouldn't be surprised if Ortiz is also in the middle of this, but as of right now, there is NO REASON to talk about Ortiz.

 

700 has only mentioned Sosa and McGwire because there are already accusations against them. What exactly does he believe? All I've been reading is him giving his input on the possibility of them having used. It makes sense to talk about it, since other people have accused them. Solid proof is not necessary for such a discussion. Neither is it needed for a discussion about Ortiz, but what IS needed for a discussion about Ortiz is a BASIS for the discussion. There isn't any.

[Jacoby_Ellsbury]

...but there's no basis to your conjecture. I have said this time and time again, yet it doesn't seem to stick. There is basis for conjecture of Sosa and McGwire BECAUSE OF THE ACCUSATIONS AGAINST THEM. There is NONE for Ortiz, so it makes no sense to conjecture about him until someone actually comes forward and says something about it. I wouldn't be surprised if Ortiz is also in the middle of this, but as of right now, there is NO REASON to talk about Ortiz.

 

700 has only mentioned Sosa and McGwire because there are already accusations against them. What exactly does he believe? All I've been reading is him giving his input on the possibility of them having used. It makes sense to talk about it, since other people have accused them. Solid proof is not necessary for such a discussion. Neither is it needed for a discussion about Ortiz, but what IS needed for a discussion about Ortiz is a BASIS for the discussion. There isn't any.

 

We're going around in circles with no end in sight.

 

 

Keep in mind, I don't actually think McGwire and Sosa are innocent. The only reason I brought it up was in response to a700's constant 'You don't know that!', 'That's conjecture!', 'No proof!' comments, when he himself is arguing about something that he can only make assumptions about, and doesn't have proof. I've already made my point, so I'm done in here. kthxbai

[BoSox21]

For McGwire and Sosa, there's no tangible proof but where there's smoke, there's fire

 

There isn't even any smoke around Ortiz

[Dojji]

We're going around in circles with no end in sight.

 

"we?"

 

 

Keep in mind, I don't actually think McGwire and Sosa are innocent. The only reason I brought it up was in response to a700's constant 'You don't know that!', 'That's conjecture!', 'No proof!' comments, when he himself is arguing about something that he can only make assumptions about, and doesn't have proof. I've already made my point, so I'm done in here. kthxbai

 

There was a point in there? Seriously all you did is broach a possibility and leave.

[a700hitter]

Eyewitness testimony is direct evidence. It is not circumstantial evidence. Any lawyer prosecuting a crime would love to have an eyewitness. A case with two eyewitnesses is a pretty solid case. That's what you have with McGwire-- a very solid case. If the eyewitnesses were lying, McGwire certainly would have a lible case against them, because their books have ruined him and his future earning ability.

[THE ARS]

 

...Now with Ortiz we have an overweight slugger who resembles a fast food abuser, compared to a steroid junkie. Realize that Ortiz has never be accused, never had a significant weight loss or gain in his career, and asides from a breakout season, has no evidence of every taking PEDs. Steroids taken whether while working out or not would lead to a weight increase, or most likely a muscle increase. There are other results but the muscle gaining is ideal one. Can you honestly sit and argue that Ortiz has gained muscle/lost weight in a dramatic fashion?...

 

Here are two known steroid users.

 

Same size, same age. Fought in 1994, the fat guy weighed in one pound lighter.

 

Now, look at these pictures and tell me how you know who uses and who doesn't?

 

 

:) "Eyewitness testimony is direct evidence. It is not circumstantial evidence." - 700 :)

 

 

700, what f***ing testimony are you speaking of?

 

Eyewitness testimony is a statement GIVEN UNDER OATH.

 

When did this happen?

 

I must have missed it?

[Dojji]

700, what f***ing testimony are you speaking of?

 

Eyewitness testimony is a statement GIVEN UNDER OATH.

 

When did this happen?

 

Not precisely under oath, but if the authors of some of these books had been lying and McGwire could prove it, he could probably sue them for libel, New York Times V. Sullivan notwithstanding.

[Jacoby_Ellsbury]

For McGwire and Sosa' date=' there's no tangible proof but where there's smoke, there's fire[/quote']

 

Sho-wa

 

"we?"

 

Yup

 

There was a point in there? Seriously all you did is broach a possibility and leave.

 

I wish I had a loftier purpose for doing this, but...

[BoSox21]

I don't get it, these are people who carry a considerable amount of credibility who have named McGwire and Sosa. In McGwire's case, his former teammate and his own brother. In Sosa's case, a Federal Agent.

 

NO ONE, let alone anyone who would carry credibility, has named Ortiz.

[BoSox21]

Sho-wa

 

Seriously, do you have any intelligent rebuttal to anything anyone is saying or are you going to keep dishing out your stupid, sarcastic, condescending one-liners?

[italstallianion]

Seriously' date=' do you have any intelligent rebuttal to anything anyone is saying or are you going to keep dishing out your stupid, sarcastic, condescending one-liners?[/quote']

 

I have a feeling that you already knew the answer to that one.

[ORS]

If Canseco saying you did steroids hasn't reached the level of "proof" yet, then the definition of proof must have changed. Canseco was ridiculed for his claims in his books, but he's been vindicated as more information comes out. His word is like gospel on the subject, and he says he stuck McGwire himself. If that isn't "proof", then there never will be.

[Jacoby_Ellsbury]

Seriously' date=' do you have any intelligent rebuttal to anything anyone is saying or are you going to keep dishing out your stupid, sarcastic, condescending one-liners?[/quote']

Angry?

[Jacoby_Ellsbury]

If Canseco saying you did steroids hasn't reached the level of "proof" yet' date=' then the definition of proof must have changed. Canseco was ridiculed for his claims in his books, but he's been vindicated as more information comes out. His word is like gospel on the subject, and he says he stuck McGwire himself. If that isn't "proof", then there never will be.[/quote']

Its a believable source, but it doesn't really fall under 'proof', IMO.

[TheKilo]

Its a believable source' date=' but it doesn't really fall under 'proof', IMO.[/quote']

 

Not just a believable source, but a reliable source. At what point does this become proof for you?

[Jacoby_Ellsbury]

When its something other than word of mouth.

[BSN07]

Jesus, did the artist formally know as JE forget to take his ridilin? Or has he always been like this and I just totally missed it?

 

 

Also, had no idea we could switch names, it has rekindled the creative fires the came up with bosoxnation07, maybe I should change it up as well:D

 

 

What would be everyone's alternative to there current user name?

[BoSox21]

BobSacamano

[TheKilo]

When its something other than word of mouth.

 

Even if Canseco hasn't been wrong yet?

 

Word of mouth also implies he heard it from someone else - Canseco says he witnessed McGwire doing steroids.

[Keeper]

What would be everyone's alternative to there current user name?

 

Posting in the Clutch.

[BSN07]

BobSacamano

 

Posting in the Clutch.

 

:lol: Good stuff.

[Jacoby_Ellsbury]

Jesus' date=' did the artist formally know as JE forget to take his ridilin? Or has he always been like this and I just totally missed it?[/quote']

 

Been like what?

[a700hitter]

Not precisely under oath' date=' but if the authors of some of these books had been lying and McGwire could prove it, he could probably sue them for libel, [i']New York Times V. Sullivan[/i] notwithstanding.

Precisely, if these statements are untrue, they are without a doubt libelous. McGwire's inaction in light of these damaging statements speaks volumes. Even the inveterate liar, Clemens brought a libel suit against McNamee. McGwire's case must really stink if it is not as strong as Clemens' case.

[a700hitter]

When its something other than word of mouth.

An eyewitness account of an incident or crime is not "word of mouth." Maintaining that it is just word of mouth is just foolish.

 

You have obviously let your anger at another poster (me) and your desire to win an argument with that poster interfere with sound logic.