LOL Pats Fans - it never ends

[UConn990411]

243 posts and counting.

All of you who claim not to be jealous of the Pats are being very convincing!

 

[FartMan69]

Over the last 10 years, who is the Yankee that Yankee fans dislike the most?

Used to be Arod but boy do times change

 

[nomar]

I like how to Boston Red Sox fans, a failed test isn't evidence.

What did he test positive for? I'm getting a little tired of playing wack-a-mole here. That was the question I've posed 5 times in this thread. Nobody's answered it, because the alleged positive test result (reported to the NYT by an anonymous lawyer) has never been disclosed. Ortiz has asked for clarification and never gotten it. I like how to Yankee fans, an unverified, vague accusation is evidence.

 

[upstater]

I assume you're referring to the texts. Because the balls actually came in at the same PSI that the Wells science people predicted they would. In other words, you can't start from the idea that the balls were tampered with. If they were tampered with, it's a wonder they weren't below the level that the scientists predicted they'd be at due to temperature change alone.

So, there's only the texts to look at for incriminating evidence. And not the PSI. Because the PSI doesn't show any abnormality.

The texts say Brady was pissed at the two guys for allowing overinflated footballs. Then those two schmucks start yucking it up and cracking jokes (apparently one of them didn't get Uggs from Brady and wanted recompense.

Here's the thing though. What do you think the 2 Patriots employees did?

One is accused of leaving with the footballs and bringing them to the field. Video evidence shows him going to a bathroom for 90 seconds. The refs say that has never happened before. The first time ever a ball guy took the balls to the field instead of the refs, which is proper NFL protocol.

Since this McNally guy ran away with the balls for the first and only time referees have ever seen it happen, what's the relevance of the previous texts then?

After all, apparently, only the refs brought the balls to the field? Never the ball guy?

Personally I think the refs are lying. I think the ball guys probably do deflate the balls (especially when the refs are pumping them up to 16 PSI). Aaron Rodgers has said exactly this in the past. The refs screw up the balls. But apparently, there are enough occasions when the guys don't deflate the balls. Otherwise, the balls wouldn't be at 16 PSI a day after the game. Regardless, that's all innuendo. No one gets caught redhanded doing it. Plenty of people admitted doing it. Rodgers for instance had the balls adjusted. Others like the Vikings were caught doing it on camera.

The question is, were the balls at the AFCCG tampered with? The PSIs show they were at a 1.2 drop average. The calculations in the Wells report show they should have been at a 1.22 drop.

 

[zyron]

What did he test positive for? I'm getting a little tired of playing wack-a-mole here. That was the question I've posed 5 times in this thread. Nobody's answered it, because the alleged positive test result (reported to the NYT by an anonymous lawyer) has never been disclosed. Ortiz has asked for clarification and never gotten it. I like how to Yankee fans, an unverified, vague accusation is evidence.

A Union rep informed him that he failed the test. That isn't very vague. All players who failed the 2003 test were informed by the Major League Baseball Players Association.

 

[nomar]

A Union rep informed him that he failed the test. That isn't very vague.

He testified positive of what? At what level?

There's no available answer. Let's stop doing this.

 

[zyron]

He testified positive of what? At what level?

There's no available answer. Let's stop doing this.

Also, if he is tested as much as he says he is, than he failed an amphetamine test too. So if he was telling the truth in that article on Jeter's website, he failed another test.

 

[Deepster]

What did he test positive for? I'm getting a little tired of playing wack-a-mole here. That was the question I've posed 5 times in this thread. Nobody's answered it, because the alleged positive test result (reported to the NYT by an anonymous lawyer) has never been disclosed. Ortiz has asked for clarification and never gotten it. I like how to Yankee fans, an unverified, vague accusation is evidence.

Enough with the Saul Goodman School of Legal Defense. What drug did Sammy Sosa test positive for? Do I have to ask you five times to make the point?

 

[nomar]

Enough with the Saul Goodman School of Legal Defense. What drug did Sammy Sosa test positive for? Do I have to ask you five times to make the point?

I'm actually a litigator. And I didn't get my JD from the American Samoa Law School, either. I'm trying not to be pedantic, but the "evidence" against Ortiz is thin.

No, you don't have to ask the same question five times. I actually answer questions directed to me.

And here's my answer: I don't know. The 2003 testing program remains a mystery. It was an experiment aimed at testing out MLB's testing protocols. That's why nobody was suspended.

So, if that 2003 test was the only piece of evidence we had, the case against Sosa would be thin. Unfortunately for Sosa, there is a gigantic pile of circumstantial evidence. First, his body completely changed and he put up mind-boggling stats. He was called to testify before Congress because it seemed clear to most people he was doing PEDs. OK, well suspicion isn't good enough; what did he do before the Congressional committee? He pretended not to speak English, that's what he did. It was the equivalent of pleading the Fifth. We also know he corked his bat. And finally, after being accused of using PEDs, his production tailed off precipitously.

As for Ortiz, his body shape never changed and he's RAKED for the last 12 years. I suppose you believe he's been doing steroids the whole time. You're free to believe that. I think it's silly, but go ahead.

 

[nomar]

Also, if he is tested as much as he says he is, than he failed an amphetamine test too. So if he was telling the truth in that article on Jeter's website, he failed another test.

That's a theory a guy on the internet made up. But you already knew that.

 

[zyron]

That's a theory a guy on the internet made up. But you already knew that.

Nope, nope, nope. In order for him to be tested that much (2003 test doesn't count) he had to fail a test. Read for yourself. That is the only way he can be tested as much as he says. It is impossible without a failed stimulant test.




A Player who is disciplined under Sections 7.A, 7.B, 7.C, 7.E, 7.F or 7.G, or has otherwise violated the Program through the use or possession of a Performance Enhancing Substance, Stimulant or DHEA, shall be subject to the following mandatory follow-up testing program, administered by the IPA:

2. Stimulants and DHEA: Six (6) unannounced urine collections over the twelve (12) months following the violation that resulted in the follow-up testing.
Follow-up testing conducted pursuant to this Section 3.D shall be in addition to any testing conducted pursuant to Section 3 above or Section 4.B below, and shall not count against the number of tests permitted pursuant to Section 3.A.1, 3.A.2 or 3.A.3 above

 

[nomar]

Nope, nope, nope. In order for him to be tested that much (2003 test doesn't count) he had to fail a test. Read for yourself. That is the only way he can be tested as much as he says. It is impossible without a failed stimulant test.




A Player who is disciplined under Sections 7.A, 7.B, 7.C, 7.E, 7.F or 7.G, or has otherwise violated the Program through the use or possession of a Performance Enhancing Substance, Stimulant or DHEA, shall be subject to the following mandatory follow-up testing program, administered by the IPA:

2. Stimulants and DHEA: Six (6) unannounced urine collections over the twelve (12) months following the violation that resulted in the follow-up testing.
Follow-up testing conducted pursuant to this Section 3.D shall be in addition to any testing conducted pursuant to Section 3 above or Section 4.B below, and shall not count against the number of tests permitted pursuant to Section 3.A.1, 3.A.2 or 3.A.3 above

You're assuming that MLB can't decide on its own to test players more frequently. (What you're quoting shows when the follow-up testing is mandatory.) Jose Bautista has said that he was tested something like 16 times over a two-year span once he started hitting like Babe Ruth. I suspect 80 is an exaggeration (and Bautista was probably also exaggerating), but obviously only MLB knows that for sure. They may get an extra test or two a year, compared to their teammates, and feel like they're being targeted. I think MLB can test a player 4 times a year, and who knows if they exceed that for some players (without 3.D being triggered).

Look, I agree that something doesn't add up -- literally. He may have done greenies. Or, since he obviously has a persecution complex (which is why he wrote that thing), he may simply be overstating (by a lot) how many times he's been tested. (The same may be true for Bautista.) I doubt he's actually counted. 80's a big, round number.

 

[superjohn]

I'm actually a litigator. And I didn't get my JD from the American Samoa Law School, either. I'm trying not to be pedantic, but the "evidence" against Ortiz is thin.

No, you don't have to ask the same question five times. I actually answer questions directed to me.

And here's my answer: I don't know. The 2003 testing program remains a mystery. It was an experiment aimed at testing out MLB's testing protocols. That's why nobody was suspended.

So, if that 2003 test was the only piece of evidence we had, the case against Sosa would be thin. Unfortunately for Sosa, there is a gigantic pile of circumstantial evidence. First, his body completely changed and he put up mind-boggling stats. He was called to testify before Congress because it seemed clear to most people he was doing PEDs. OK, well suspicion isn't good enough; what did he do before the Congressional committee? He pretended not to speak English, that's what he did. It was the equivalent of pleading the Fifth. We also know he corked his bat. And finally, after being accused of using PEDs, his production tailed off precipitously.

As for Ortiz, his body shape never changed and he's RAKED for the last 12 years. I suppose you believe he's been doing steroids the whole time. You're free to believe that. I think it's silly, but go ahead.

You must be the ttiest lawyer of all time. You just absolved Ortiz of juicing and said Sosa failed the same MLB test but the reason it's clear Sosa cheated is because there is a lot of circumstantial evidence. No circumstantial evidence with Ortiz, are you ttin me? I get it you like Boston sports, stop with the charade and act like a normal thinking person.

 

[superjohn]

You're assuming that MLB can't decide on its own to test players more frequently. (What you're quoting shows when the follow-up testing is mandatory.) Jose Bautista has said that he was tested something like 16 times over a two-year span once he started hitting like Babe Ruth. I suspect 80 is an exaggeration (and Bautista was probably also exaggerating), but obviously only MLB knows that for sure. They may get an extra test or two a year, compared to their teammates, and feel like they're being targeted. I think MLB can test a player 4 times a year, and who knows if they exceed that for some players (without 3.D being triggered).

Look, I agree that something doesn't add up -- literally. He may have done greenies. Or, since he obviously has a persecution complex (which is why he wrote that thing), he may simply be overstating (by a lot) how many times he's been tested. (The same may be true for Bautista.) I doubt he's actually counted. 80's a big, round number.

He may have done greenies, yeah that's it. Facepalm.

 

[mauconnfan]

The audacity of ARod to do a curtain call to fans who clearly despise him.

You might want to worry about the Fung Wah which just ran over your pitching coach Juan Nieves and spend less time on ARod. Someone had to get lynched because Cherington put together a crappy staff with Buccy as #1 didn't they? Hey wasn't Farrell a great pitching coach too?

LOL

 

[mauconnfan]

I'm actually a litigator. And I didn't get my JD from the American Samoa Law School, either. I'm trying not to be pedantic, but the "evidence" against Ortiz is thin.

No, you don't have to ask the same question five times. I actually answer questions directed to me.

And here's my answer: I don't know. The 2003 testing program remains a mystery. It was an experiment aimed at testing out MLB's testing protocols. That's why nobody was suspended.

So, if that 2003 test was the only piece of evidence we had, the case against Sosa would be thin. Unfortunately for Sosa, there is a gigantic pile of circumstantial evidence. First, his body completely changed and he put up mind-boggling stats. He was called to testify before Congress because it seemed clear to most people he was doing PEDs. OK, well suspicion isn't good enough; what did he do before the Congressional committee? He pretended not to speak English, that's what he did. It was the equivalent of pleading the Fifth. We also know he corked his bat. And finally, after being accused of using PEDs, his production tailed off precipitously.

As for Ortiz, his body shape never changed and he's RAKED for the last 12 years. I suppose you believe he's been doing steroids the whole time. You're free to believe that. I think it's silly, but go ahead.

Yes I do. He's not the only one but yes, he is. Keep raking - he's a cheater just like ARod there is no difference. Whatever year he attempted to stop and his bat speed was that of a 70 year old and miraculously he was the fn Hulk again - oh damn he must have been injured! LOL

 

[willie99]

to say it's obvious and clear Tom Brady is cheating, you have to make a lot of assumptions and they all have to go against Brady

When there were competing explanations for an action, or for a text, you have to pick a side. And that's what's being done here

You have to assume, as Wells did, that when a text says Brady is pissed about the balls that means "Brady wants the balls below 12.5 PSI"

You have to assume, as Wells did, that when a text says I'll make sure you have a big needle next week that it's not two guys teasing each other about ball pressure and accusations and complaints

You have to ignore the fact, as Wells did, that when Brady learned about the PSI rules last October (according to Wells' report) and he instructed his equipment managers to have his balls at 12.5 PSI, he really wanted them below 12.5 (prosecutional discretion I suppose)

You have to totally ignore the fact that nobody ever said, no text ever mentioned, no communication ever indicated Brady wanted the ball pressure to be below 12.5, and there are a whole lot of communications about balls and ball pressure. How on earth can one choose to ignore this?

You have to assume, as Wells did, that giving the equipment manager two signed balls is a payoff for keeping the balls under 12.5. Ignoring the fact that atheletes sign balls and tip low paid employees all the time.

The fact that all of the above are key facts speaks for themselves. People suggesting I'm biased and I'm not thinking bring a smile to my face. In my world, Tom Brady is UConn all over again, and the haters are Emmet, the NCAA and the rest of the country. Misrepresenting the facts

It's all such a damn charade


and the haters are really going to suffer in 2015. Back to back beatches, deal with it

 

[mauconnfan]

C'monn willie, you as a Pats fan have a post about "ignoring" things? Priceless.

 

[David 76]

As for Ortiz, his body shape never changed and he's RAKED for the last 12 years. I suppose you believe he's been doing steroids the whole time. You're free to believe that. I think it's silly, but go ahead.

You do know that steroids have been refined in effect and dosage since Barry and Sammy don't you? A-Rod's head doesn't look like Barry's either. The drugs are more subtle and don't have the dramatic body effects any more. The other thing you seem unaware of, Counselor, is that the technology to hide PED use has moved faster than than the science to detect PED use.
So your defense of Ortiz by body changes is meaningless. Even passing drug tests means little.

 

[mauconnfan]

You do know that steroids have been refined in effect and dosage since Barry and Sammy don't you? A-Rod's head doesn't look like Barry's either. The drugs are more subtle and don't have the dramatic body effects any more. The other thing you seem unaware of, Counselor, is that the technology to hide PED use has moved faster than than the science to detect PED use.
So your defense of Ortiz by body changes is meaningless. Even passing drug tests means little.

And you know what David, does baseball really want to catch up to the technology?

I'll be honest about this thread I really don't care too much about Brady and the Pats, inflate gate stuff. They're shady but they were the best team on the field and deserved it. I mean the SB ring will not be taken away although with the proof they have there will be some suspensions, rightfully so. Just as fans admit Sir Tom screwed up and move on.

And the Papi stuff, well that's another story. It should go back to the baseball board though.

 

[8893]

"You may draw reasonable inferences from the established facts in this case. The inference which you draw, however, must not be from a guess upon the evidence or surmise, but it must be from a fact which the evidence has established. Inferences that you may draw from these established facts must be logical and reasonable and well founded upon facts which have been proven in the trial of the case. I am going to give you a very simple illustration of a situation where an inference can be probably drawn. There is a cat enclosed in a room with only one door and in the middle of the room is a bowl of milk and only the cat is in the room. The door is locked and it is guarded by a person. One hour later the door is unlocked and the room is entered and the bowl of milk is emptied. You can infer from those facts, that the cat drank the milk or if you go to bed at night and you have a nice green lawn and you wake up in the morning and you see it covered with snow you can infer that it snowed during that evening. That is a logical inference from an established fact.... "Now, if you must relate that to the illustration which I gave you, how more conclusive can it be than the cat drank the milk and if someone said, `I saw the cat drink the milk,' the only way there were no other animals in the room nor other people in the room. Of course, in the passing upon the guilt of an accused person on the basis of circumstantial evidence, you must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt; first, that certain facts or circumstances existed, and second; that the existence of those facts or circumstances do beyond a reasonable doubt lead you to the conclusion that the crime was committed by the accused."

 

[David 76]

The audacity of ARod to do a curtain call to fans who clearly despise him.

No Yankee fan would question A-Rods audacity.
As far as slowly appreciating a new attitude fron Alex and an incredible work ethic to be in the shape he is in at his age, it is working. Are you reguired to defend fans cheering for big Papi? So what is your point?
Oh, I forgot. When David and Alex had their names leaked in that 2003 report, Papi's was a mistake.

 

[mauconnfan]

"You may draw reasonable inferences from the established facts in this case. The inference which you draw, however, must not be from a guess upon the evidence or surmise, but it must be from a fact which the evidence has established. Inferences that you may draw from these established facts must be logical and reasonable and well founded upon facts which have been proven in the trial of the case. I am going to give you a very simple illustration of a situation where an inference can be probably drawn. There is a cat enclosed in a room with only one door and in the middle of the room is a bowl of milk and only the cat is in the room. The door is locked and it is guarded by a person. One hour later the door is unlocked and the room is entered and the bowl of milk is emptied. You can infer from those facts, that the cat drank the milk or if you go to bed at night and you have a nice green lawn and you wake up in the morning and you see it covered with snow you can infer that it snowed during that evening. That is a logical inference from an established fact.... "Now, if you must relate that to the illustration which I gave you, how more conclusive can it be than the cat drank the milk and if someone said, `I saw the cat drink the milk,' the only way there were no other animals in the room nor other people in the room. Of course, in the passing upon the guilt of an accused person on the basis of circumstantial evidence, you must be satisfied beyond a reasonable doubt; first, that certain facts or circumstances existed, and second; that the existence of those facts or circumstances do beyond a reasonable doubt lead you to the conclusion that the crime was committed by the accused."

So you think it's special milk that Papi is taking?

 

[8893]

So you think it's special milk that Papi is taking?

Obviously the milk evaporated. If no one saw it, it didn't happen.

 

[David 76]

Bilichik didn't spy
Tom didn't deflate
Papi didn't use
Manny didn't count
Ray offended the Celtics
Years of having the second highest payroll in the MLB and whining about the effect of big money on baseball.
Thinking Boston is in the conversation as GOAT in all major sports.

It takes a special kind of logic to be a Boston sports fan.

 

[David 76]

And you know what David, does baseball really want to catch up to the technology?

No. Steroids saved MLB after the strike. ML B turned a blind eye and the players union "protected" the players by allowing use to continue. Nomar seems to not know this is what was behind the "confidentiality" of the 2003 drug testing.

 

[UConn990411]

Honest question: Do people still give a crap about steroids?

I thought only insufferable baseball writers with HOF votes still cared about steroid use.

 

[David 76]

I do. Not fair to old timers in a game built on record books. Bad for the players health. Creates a new level of competition where players who don't want to use, are forced to use to keep up.

 

[August_West]

You might want to worry about the Fung Wah which just ran over your pitching coach Juan Nieves and spend less time on ARod. Someone had to get lynched because Cherington put together a crappy staff with Buccy as #1 didn't they? Hey wasn't Farrell a great pitching coach too? LOL

Ha, Juan Nieves struck me out 3 times in a baseball game in high school. Dude had nasty stuff.

 

[mauconnfan]

Ha, Juan Nieves struck me out 3 times in a baseball game in high school. Dude had nasty stuff.

Which prep were you at? My buddy I golf with played against him also while at Suffield Academy - said he was nasty too!