Part 10 *(final part)* of McGwire story up on You Tube NOW

My bro called me again and said I need to answer this - oh lord.

Big Pern - ok here is the deal.

All this would be very clear if you watched all of the videos, but since very few seem to want to do this then I will address here so we can move on.

1.) SG is CLEARLY ID'd in the video.

2.) I guess SG didn't like that and wanted to make a "joke" video or some "skit" never my intention & not sure how he could think that after knowing me for what 2-3 years, whatever (couldn't resist)

3.) SG HAS credibility concerning my training methods and how much better I got HIM (which is similar to Mark and similar to most athletes I trained)

4.) SG has been drug tested by NCAA, thus establishing that my results with him are drug free and the fact that this mimics my results with other athletes should be pretty indicative

5.) Moreover, if a major outlet is willing to do an IN-DEPTH story on this me &/or this issue to help Mark and the sport I am willing to train any good athlete FOR FREE UNDER THE STRICKTEST DRUG TESTING CONDITIONS AVAILABLE (yet with a strict NDA in place to protect my intellectual property and methods in training) to prove this is real and there is a better way than using drugs.

6.) SG also has credibility to relay the fact that his friends - other athletes at the U of Miami were impressed with me, my strength, and my knowledge. Those are facts & frankly no matter what he says that is still true and I have video tape & pictures of that trip as well (including my 610lb x 2-3 rep squat mentioned in the video in the Miami football weight room with Brenden Kaitin spotting me.

7.) SG has no credibility when it comes to Mark, my relationship with Mark, or my training of Mark. He supposedly "quotes" from my Mark's SIGNED endorsement for me (& yet I still have no cred - lol) yet he misquotes it. This quote has been used extensively in advertising, I have the originals and will be on my website soon in its entirety. Here is a tip - it mentions no specific time frame - it simply says we trained in the off-season.

Moreover, quite frankly how long you train someone MEANS NOTHING - your RESULTS mean everything. I know people who go to trainers for years and see nothing - if I can get awesome results in a shorter period of time that is even better.

To be continued

 

Please go back about two pages and read my descriptions of this, how and why it happened, and the differing weight-of-evidence to give to sg's and JDV's stories about what happened.

I can understand this POV. No complaint about that from me. I don't agree, but I understand this.

A very fair question. To tell you the truth, I haven't watched all of the videos, so I don't know all of what sg said. JDV put SG in the video because SG begged him to do it. I know, personally, that SG has relevant information to this discussion, but I don't know what he revealed in his video spots, so I can't comment on them yet.

Here's why you believe my brother over SG: (1) My brother trained MM; SG did not. That's the basis of this entire discussion. (2) JDV could lose his law license if he is found to have knowingly made false statements. SG has no such constraints. (3) SG has done a very similar 'stunt' with JDV before. I can't go into specifics, but this isn't the first time. This you have to trust me on, I'm sorry I can't say anything else. (4) JDV was going to make these videos w/o SG; the videos in no way were dependent on SG. SG invited himself onto the shoot, which he will admit if honest. (5) JDV is an expert in athletic training, SG is not. (6) Even SG admits he has seen a signed document stating JDV trained McGwire for a period of 2-4 weeks. Though the length of time is disputable, this should satisfy anyone's 'curiosity' if JDV 'has even met MM.' I'm glad you mentioned that, BP.

(continued next post)

 

You know, the entire Old Testament fit into five books.

Just sayin.

 

I'm usually the one called out for long posts on SJ, so I'll go against character ...

I think both of you are certifiable.

 

But Bubs, your posts are usually easy to read, go somewhere and usually have some (or lots) humor to them.

Good Lord, it's the apocalypse! I'm being nice to a Packer Backer.

 

Next thing you know, you'll be eating green hamburger buns in an Ahman Green jersey!

 

Don't push it, I wouldn't do anything like that even when I did live in Cheeseland.

 

I have solved the mystery, whatever. JDV (which sounds like a cross between a wrestler and a pharmacy, whatever) is really long-winded Tuesday Morning Quarterback Gregg Eastabrook, who strikes me as the sort of person who IS intelligent enough to pull off this elaborate hoax.

Although, I also think that Mr. Eastabrook wouldn't waste his time with piddling such garbage. Whatever.

Where's Doc with another Wheaties box?

 

Nice try, jgm. But you're now 0 for 2. Nice selective bolding. My turn.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote from: jgmacg on January 07, 2007, 11:53:39 PM


"Here's the thing. Since we're now comparing your brother to one of the immutable laws of the universe, there's evidence for the Law of Gravity."
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------


So you know, they're not immutable. In fact, scientists have recently discovered anomalies which challenge known gravitational laws. *bzzzzz* "Swing and a miss" This is why they're called theories, and not immutable laws. They have to be able to address all cases, and thus cannot be 'immutable laws.' But you knew that already, right? I mean, the whole 'immutable laws' thing was just a joke, right? Right? Bueler?


----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Quote from: RokSki on January 07, 2007, 10:33:30 PM


"You want to take shots, take shots. No problem. But cut the crap. Don't even dream of taking a run at my brother's credibility. That's not happening.

Like I said, it's your right to think this is all a bunch of crap. I can't tell you different. But we're past the 'evidence' stage. Don't go there. You don't want me going after your family, either."



The correct bolding makes it clear that, as I pointed out, and as the snarky jgm is well aware, what is making me upset is his questioning of JDV's credibility. This subject has been discussed. Thus, my response to his baiting by saying I will go after his family, on similar terms, if he persists. The context is quite clear. This is an 'eye for an eye,' tete-a-tete response: You question my family's credibility, I'll question yours. Particularly if you are just lazy and don't feel like reading what has already been posted. Perhaps you didn't get the allusion? I don't know. I will speak more. . . comprehensively . . . in the future when addressing you. I'm sorry I apparently overvalued your educational background.

You're persistent, jgm. I'll give you that. Unfortunately, you are still 0 for 2. Care to try for the K?

 

What the hell? Posts are appearing and disappearing before my eyes.

 

So you were wrong when you used the same phrase? Or do you just forget everything the instant you post it?

 

I played them at full blast while I was mopping and cleaning today. No different really than The Weather Channel.