Mark McGwire scoop coming + info & opinions (READ)!!

I'm out.













(Rack me.)

 

David Letterman's = David Lettermen

 

If this guy posts here, puts his video on youtube, and gets mcgwire elected to the hof, do newspapers exist?

 

RokSki, your "bro" has a good point re: us being journalists, but I too couldn't get through any of his posts. Can you, or anyone else, sum up in a paragraph what this scoop is?

I honestly don't know what the heck he is trying to say.

 

Deon (sic) Sanders and Michael Irvin? Oh well, hell, I'm on board now.

 

Look, my brother ('bro') decided to post this himself - it's his thing. I can't tell you what he's going to say. I've told him before he should say something about Mark if he wanted to, and apparently he feels like he wants to now. His choice.

Here's what I can tell you - he has been interviewed by Tim Brown (when Tim was with the LA Times), he had done background with a number of news organizations on the McGwire story, he has worked in various media and knows the ins-and-outs of the business, he has done extensive training with world-class athletes, including Mark McGwire. He's the defending 3rd in the world powerlifter, drug-free, in his division. In short, he's DAMN credible.

Everybody wants to chase the Greg Andersons of the world, you know, the 'dirty' guys, and get the story of who cheated. And they should - it's newsworthy, and the public should know, IMO.

But most sportswriters and media members simply do not understand what they're talking about when it comes to supplementation, doping, and 'cheating' vs. 'not cheating.' The Mike Lupica's, e.g., of the world are all too ready to throw everybody under the same "cheating" bus when they are utterly ignorant of the standards being used to differentiate the cheaters from the non-cheaters. That's not right, not fair. Lupica is totally out of his element on this issue, but people such as he are the ones who make decisions like who gets to be in the hall of fame and who doesn't. That's unfortunate, but that's the 'gotcha' culture we live in now: Why become educated on an issue when you can just yell 'cheater' and smear everyone with the same brush? It's much easier that way, takes less time, and gets the yeller more positive media attention and 'good-guy' acclaim.

So, again, I don't know what my brother's 'scoop' is. I know McGwire, and I spent time hanging out with him and other pros when my brother trained him and others. But John knows a lot more than I do, and spent a lot more time with him than I did. And I'll also add this: John has won three national powerlifting titles, all 'clean,' against others who openly weren't clean. This is how it's supposed to be done. Again, he is no Greg Anderson. John's a Berkeley Law grad, a successful businessman. He's nobody's patsy, and won't be sitting in jail for anyone else's, umm, 'issues.'

So, I'd pay attention to what he says. And I'd look into getting more information from him if you can, because this is one of his fields of expertise. He trained Mark for a long time, trained a bunch of pro guys, worked as McGwire's bodyguard, etc. That's about all I can tell you. Like I said, I didn't even know he was going to post this until I read it myself. I'm curious what he's going to say. We'll see.

John's not a writer by nature, he's an orator. That's his thing. All of us on this board are writers, to one extent or another. We appreciate good writers, and often mock those we consider "lesser" writers. Fair enough, I've done it plenty. When you're dealing with someone with his extensive knowledge of the subject matter, however, I'd suggest you not concentrate too hard on the writing and instead focus on what he's trying to say. If I take Vladimir Putin to lunch and want to talk to him about Russia, I'm not going to chide him for his broken English; the guy knows Russia, so I'll try to stay focused on learning from his expertise, despite my own leanings towards well-spoken English.

 

You know, they do make a good point. The only court that doesn't require either proof beyond a shadow of a doubt (criminal) or a preponderance of evidence (civil) is the court of public opinion. McGwire has been tried, convicted, and hanged already in that court. But I'd kinda like to see some roided-up bloody hard evidence, too, before I put the kibosh on a HOF vote. All we have is Fallstrom's nine-year-old account of a bottle of legal andro in his locker.

 

That and, you know, McGuire's freakish, cartoon character body, back problems, hair loss, pathetic Congressional hearings performance, etc.

I know there's no hard evidence of Sammy Sosa either. But just look at that man's noggin. There's your proof. (I keep thinking of that Simpson's episode where Ken Griffey Jr. took those gigantism pills and his head ballooned.)

 

he had the chance to defend himself and he refused. if he's innocent, wouldn't he, at least once, say, "this is bullshit, i didn't do it."?

 

On second thought, maybe we shouldn't make fun of him or disagree with anything he says.

Hey, can he juggle kegs of beer or pull a tractor like those guys on the Strongest Man competitions? Forget whatever he has to say about McGwire, that would be a cool YouTube video.

 

Or better still Ragu:

As one who trained him (or at least claims to) did Mark McGwire use performance enhancing drugs other than Andro (which was legal at the time)?
What proof, other than your word, do you have that he did or did not use steroids or other performance enhancers?

Answer those two questions instead of asking us to read rambling posts that need to be translated into coherent English.