Dipre

HGH is directly correlated to increased testosterone levels. It's an obvious save-face attempt by using semantics. HGH is a type of drug that has an anabolic effect, that is indisputable. Do you know what increased levels of testosterone mean for an athlete? Increased strength, recovery time and all of the benefits that come along with abnormal testosterone levels. HGH is a type of anabolic steroid, and not only that, an extremely powerful anabolic drug: http://www.steroid.com/Human-Growth-Hormone.php I am not implying there is a difference, i am affirming that one is part of the category represented by the other. Look at what you're saying here (or quoting from a 2007 article without acknowledging the fact that you're doing it), basically that an increase in lean tissue and recovery time is not linked to an increase in athletic performance, even though empirical evidence (Barry Bonds) and f***ing logic (increased muscle equals increased strength). Read the above quote for actual effects from HGH. That has to be one of the biggest leaps in logic i have ever seen. Excerpt from the article you quoted by the way. By the way, you didn't address my point about Petitte breaking the law.

Wait wait wait wait wait. Since when is HGH not a steroid? HGH is an anabolic steroid. This definition comes directly from the Oxford Dictionary of Chemistry: Human Growth Hormone: Steroid hormones related to the male sex hormone testosterone. They promote the development of masculine characteristics and increase muscle growth. Anabolic steroids have been used medically for various conditions but are also used illegally by sportsmen and women and by bodybuilders. They have a number of deleterious side effects and are a controlled drug in the UK and many other countries. Their use is banned by nearly all major sports regulating bodies. They can be detected in blood and urine by gas chromatography-mass spectroscopy. Two things: First, saying that he used HGH but "didn't use steroids" is absolute fallacy, since HGH is a steroid. Second, i have read Petitte's statement several time and nowhere does it say that he "didn't use steroids", so either you're making it up, or both him and his PA team are uninformed idiots. My money is on you "misreading" or outright making it up. Correct me on which of the two it is. Secondly, it doesn't matter whether or not he used them before they were banned, he did use them, now i'm on the opinion, like Y228, that since the use of steroids was rampant, discovering that someone did in fact use steroids doesn't necessarily change my opinion of them as an athlete. Still gotta hit the ball, still have to hit your spots. That being said: This is not a judgment about the legal ramifications of whether or not he cheated, but rather a knock on his character, because he never "came clean" until after he was mentioned in the Mitchell report, making it very plausible to assume it was indeed a damage control move. And by the way, the fact that HGH wasn't "banned until 2005" doesn't mitigate the fact that before he used HGH, the distribution or acquisition of steroids without a prescription was (and still is) illegal as per the Comprehensive Drug Abuse Prevention and Control Act of 1970. Not only is your logic faulty, but you're trying to rationalize Petitte's transgression as "harmless" when he broke the law. Enlighten me on how any of the points in this post make sense.

http://www.motifake.com/image/demotivational-poster/0804/end-end-demotivational-poster-1207611276.jpg

I'd love to go see it, but it'd take away time from my Palodios chasing, and we can't have that now, can we? Now if you'll excuse me, i have to go bore myself to death preparing a presentation about the need for balance between political appointees and civil servants in government agencies. I'll be back later for more Palodios chasing and perhaps some baseball discussion on the side. (Mila Kunis, yum).

Definitely agree on the "no plans for tonight" point, since i have a big-ass presentation for Public Budgeting tomorrow, and i'm procrastinating like they're paying me for it.

They contradict each other how? I said, not in all circumstances, but that the common denominator for the "hatred" to exist had to be justified. They are not mutually exclusive. Someone you don't know personally can harm you, and you can hate them for it. There is no contradiction, specially in the context of the current discussion. A joker can phish your credit card number, max it, and you can hate them, and there's your "he screwed me over" factor, while you don't know them. Also, i didn't shift the topic of discussion, it shifted when i was asked to justify why someone shouldn't hate someone they don't know (which is the rule, rather than the exception, but i digress) and i did so, thus shifting the topic of discussion.

I disagree, since i presented flexibility in my stance before you used the extremes in the example, which anyway take the initial point of discussion out of context.

Because every rule has its "extreme" exception, which is assumed (incorrectly) that i wouldn't have to mention due to it being general knowledge. He who does a service to humanity does a disservice to me, by extension. So the "he f***ed me over" part of the equation is still there.

Wait, didn't i explicitly say in my post "Not in all circumstances do you have to know someone personally to hate them?" Right here: You don't even have to go to extremes (which are usually not good ways to demonstrate a point). I can hate someone who repeatedly makes racist comments towards me in the internet, and not knowing them personally, however, there is an interaction, and harm done to my image. Some people do a disservice to humanity so big, that hatred towards them knows no boundaries, and it's justified. I resent the hypocrisy accusations when i have clearly stated that it's not an "absolute" issue, but how can you "hate" someone who has not done you, your relatives, people close to you, or humanity, any harm, and then continually attempt to justify such hatred? Point A: Statements of "hatred" done in the heat of the moment, are "heat of the moment things". Point B: If it is not a heat of the moment thing, then there has to be a justifiable reason to that "hatred". Point C: If you actually "hate" someone on the literal sense of the word, just for the sake of "hating" them, something is wrong with you. Care to put any more words in my mouth? Anyone?

Bingo. I screwed up my back playing when i was much younger, and it was a recurring problem for quite some time. You simply cannot arch your back. And the statistics back up your point by the way, as Beckett's 3.17 BB/9 was the highest of his Red Sox career, and control has never been a problem for him while on the Red Sox.

Not in all circumstances. But i believe that for "hatred" to exist towards someone else they should have done something directly to you to justify that hatred. I'm of the strong belief that "hatred" is the worst feeling a human being can harbor, and that for it to be born, there have to be some pretty serious issues. @ital: Notice how i said that a "i said it in the moment thing" is mostly okay, but if someone tries to actively justify it, i will call them out. And i do it in real life too, for what it's worth. Also, just for the record, my initial "LeBron hate is ridiculous" comment was taken out of context, and then all hell broke loose.

So do you "hate" me for stating my opinion in a civilized manner?

Which brings us to the above point. Hate is a very serious and ugly feeling. Saying it in the spurt of the moment is one thing, actively defending your "hatred" for someone signifies that you hate the person in the most literal of its meanings. The people on this site, even if through the internet, interact with you, you "know them" in the most basic way possible. When has LeBron James interacted with you, how do you "know" him? And for the record, your hatred (if it's literal) for the CEO of Bank of America is misguided.

Beckett's "flavor of the month" injury last year was supposedly a lower back issue, and when pitchers don't arch their back enough, it's nearly impossible for them to keep the ball low or get the desired "bite" from their breaking pitches. His velocity was fine, and most of his peripherals were fine too. If he's relatively healthy, he should at least perform around 2008 level, and that's all the Sox really need from him. Agree on Dice-K.

With a healthy Beckett, Pedroia and Youkilis, the Red Sox lead the league in runs scored and make the playoffs in 2010. Just food for thought.

He's spent time with me before and that hasn't changed his general behavior or perception on things. Perhaps he found your comment "annoying", and believe me, "annoying" is a quality you have. Read the thread, no one is expressing pessimism, but rather concern about injuries, which are a very real issue, and a pertinent topic of discussion after the clusterf*** that 2010 ended up being. No one is saying the bench isn't deep, but Dustin Pedroia is quite possibly the best all-around baseball player the club has, and trotting out anyone besides him would be a downgrade. This is a Red Sox discussion forum, so why can't people discuss Red Sox injury issues? It makes you mad when you call you out on this, but i'll do it anyways: Reading comprehension is essential.

Wait, what? He passed all of his physical examinations in November, and it was well publicized that the Sox believed him to be healthy enough to pitch and that's why they signed him to that contract. After he was diagnosed with the shoulder issue, he wanted to have surgery so he could pitch at least part of the season and the playoffs and the Sox doctors said "no" making the decision that ultimately didn't allow Schilling to pitch at all in 2008. Swindling requires a desire to cheat, so how exactly did Schilling fool the Sox when he passed all of his physical examinations? If he was injured before he signed the contract, the blame goes to the Sox medical team, because he believed he could pitch.

So......LeBron dropped 51 last night with 11 rebounds and 8 assists. Can any of the LeBron hating basketball experts tell me what was different? Can they find some fault? I mean, you're obviously a selfish diva if you drop 51 and only get 8 assists am i right? I'll say it again, and this is not directed at anyone in particular, but the LeBron hate is utterly ridiculous. How can you hate someone you don't even know as a person? The public perception of some guys is usually completely misguided. Alex Rodriguez is known as a consummate *******, but anyone who knows the guy will tell you that the guy's only mistake was trying to get everyone to like him. He's polite, soft spoken, and he's always there for the fans. On the other hand, people think Teddy Bruschi, because of his contributions and personal sacrifice to the Pats, is the greatest guy ever, and from several accounts, he's a prick in real life. The people who criticize him don't know anything about him. Hate him all you want there, but if i were a Celtics fan, i'd want him on the Celtics. I sure as hell would love him on my Lakers.

Is this for real? The Sox have have capable replacements that can provide at least league average innings in Wakefield (assuming health) and Doubront, to some extent, not to mention that the Sox have what the Yankees don't have: Three certain starters in Lester, Bucholz and Lackey, who's actually a good bet to perform better. If Beckett doesn't bounce back (and he's more likely to bounce back according to his peripherals and sustained velocity than Burnett, but that doesn't matter because of the lack of magical pinstripes), the Sox can withstand it given their depth. Similar years from the top three and 320 IP from Beckett/Dice-K (and they'll probably surpass that comfortably) and with some semblance of health, the Sox are easy favorites for the AL East. Rationalize all you guys want, the Red Sox are very much superior to the Yankees because of the disparity in pitching. I don't get why it's so difficult to acknowledge that.

"Meany". Lol. As i said before, realistic thinking seems to be frowned upon in this community.

What i meant by the rose-colored glasses comment is that because one is worried due to the significance of some of these injuries (In my case, mainly Pedroia) doesn't make you a member of the "Doom and gloom" society, but simply means you are worried to some extent about the health of some of these players, because, quite frankly, there is reason to worry.