1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

2012 MLB Regular Season Running Thread

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by Gehrig, Mar 28, 2012.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. outofplace

    outofplace Well-Known Member

    You'd think if they were so sure, they would have tested Braun again. Of course, they know they would look even worse if he came up clean.

    You're missing the point. Just because there is no positive test out there, even one tainted by a mishandled sample, does not mean Pujols and Armstrong are clean. We just don't know, so insisting that they are somehow cleaner than Braun is ridiculous.
     
  2. outofplace

    outofplace Well-Known Member

    That breeze you felt was my point sailing right over your head.
     
  3. Armchair_QB

    Armchair_QB Well-Known Member

    So you think Pujols is dirty too? Glad we finally agree.
     
  4. Guy_Incognito

    Guy_Incognito Well-Known Member

    Isn't there another thread you guys can take this pissing match to?
     
  5. Armchair_QB

    Armchair_QB Well-Known Member

    I'll stop.

    Sorry. Sometimes I like kicking beehives.
     
  6. Herbert Anchovy

    Herbert Anchovy Active Member

    Please, anything but the Washington Nationals.
     
  7. cjericho

    cjericho Well-Known Member

    No I wouldn't think they'd have tested Braun again. Stuff leaves your system. Unless he's a fuckin moron like Manny Ramirez I wouldn't think he'd fail again. You can say that you never saw Braun actually use or actually take the piss and see the piss analyzed so you don't really know. But the point is he produced a positive test.
     
  8. outofplace

    outofplace Well-Known Member

    Nope. Never said that. Wrong as usual. I said I don't know. Unlike you, I actually think it is important to be able to back it up before accusing somebody of cheating. Your only qualification seems to be that the guy must play for a team you hate.
     
  9. outofplace

    outofplace Well-Known Member

    A tainted sample tested positive.
     
  10. outofplace

    outofplace Well-Known Member

    Actually, I kicked the beehive, drawing the very predictable, flawed response.
     
  11. cjericho

    cjericho Well-Known Member

    Is a guy ever dirty? If you ever talk to anyone who's used steroids or a doctor they will tell you there are definite physical changes. Jose Reyes won't turn into Jose Canseco but Jose Reyes will be a bigger, stronger Jose Reyes if he uses and properly trains with weights. I'm not saying I can tell by looking but there are definite signs. But now there are tests. If a guy tests positive isn't he dirty? Of course guys will beat tests but what's the point of testing or even having a banned substance lists if we can always say well we don't know for sure.
     
  12. cjericho

    cjericho Well-Known Member

    Wrong. It was not tainted. Unless you have confidential information that's not been released, the sample wasn't sent out right away. Basically procedure wasn't correctly followed. If that's your definition of tainted then OK.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.

Share This Page