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

Flash, to answer your question, no. I'm an old lady. I'm not impressed by much.

JDV, I'm going to point something out to you which you probably wouldn't know as you are new to these parts. You've actually gotten off, at least on the board, easy. (I have no idea off-board, that's why it's 'off-board.') I've seen other posters come on here and get torn apart like a piranha tears apart flesh. You haven't gotten that treatment -- yet. You've come on here in a cloud of bluster, you've been asked legitimate questions and answer them with more bluster.
But as far as SportsJournalists.com goes, you've been treated pretty well.

My suspicion meter goes off the scale when someone comes to an anonymous message board promising earth-shattering 'scoops.' Why not go through the traditional channels? Call ESPN (you said your 'ex' works there), call Fox Sports, call the New York Times, call Sports Illustrated, call the LA Times, heck, call the San Fransisco Chronicle. You said you wanted the big guys to handle this, not the small-time writers such as myself.

Not issuing judgment, just trying to point out the obvious.

 

Big Pern,

Ok you seem reasonable.

Look, here is the deal on the website - as a lawyer and a very honest person you look to cover ALL contingencies when you speak (if you are any good).

Thus, when I talk about ads on the website here is the deal:

1.) The site is not designed for ads and has no ads & I have no plans for any ads at this time.
2.) The site is informational in nature
3.) The sports part of it is more or less incidental to my normal business of growing and running companies.
4.) But as I cannot predict the future I can't say what the site will have (if it is even up ) say 2 years from now. So, I was just trying to be more cautious then anything so as not to be called a liar 3 years from now - that is all.

Ok, I get that you guys get flooded with a lot of flotsam and jetsum all day & it is hard to filter.

I did not try to push story anywhere else first - but on second thought you are probably right - had I gone to my established contacts (instead of coming on here per Rok's advice and trying to be more fair to everyone) I would have CERTAINLY been treated with more respect and reached a wider audience.

So, my mistake I guess - but what is done is done & you just keep moving.

As to my own personal desires. I mean on one level of course I like to get my name out I used to have my own radio & tv shows - I mean come one WE ALL DO that is part of why we are in this business - at least those that aspire to be great. It takes that "type" of person.

I mean at their core no one has "completely unbiased" or "uncomplicated motives" on ANYTHING.

But as explained, the primary motive was to help Mark and the sports world and journalists concerning this issue. I feel that motive has been established and delivered on as explained there were SOO many other ways I could have profited and gotten my name out more.

As to my ESPN ex. She is an ex from a long time ago (actually during part of the Mark era) so yeah some feelings may still there but not that much. Although, yeah that stuff can be complicated & she has been known to have this thing about me. The main problem is that we went out (actually lived together) during some of my time with Mark and when Mark comes up between us (when we talk) - yeah some of those old feelings come up on her side.

Honestly, in 2005 around the CT days I was supposed to go on her show & I really like the host a lot.

Yet, several things:

1.) Ex factor
2.) They always want me to get Mark to come on - which he won't do & I would never ask him to do.
3.) Once we get past that typically people are looking for something salacious only and will give you like 30 seconds to 2 minutes to say it.

In this case we cleared hurdles 1 & 2 and I think we were ok with hurdle 3 as I believe we could have gotten like 3-4 minutes maybe and the host is cool.

Moreover, look, the ex is really cool smart woman and does a GREAT job for the WWL. She was just trying to do her job here and I respect that.

However, after the CT and Mark being bummed out & wanting to just get away from it all I was not going to do anything out of respect. Again, I have only tried to help him on this issue.

Further, to point to my good motives. When the Tim Brown piece came out he seemed impressed with me and what I am trying to do for sports (not putting words in his mouth but that is what I took away from it) - to be honest yet clean things up if possible. He asked me if I had a company to promote or a way for people to reach me that he could put at the bottom of the column or something.

I said "no thanks - I am not trying to make money off of this scandal or Mark unjustly. I have my stuff that I will come out with later to help athletes and talk in depth about drug-free training at an elite level & how to compete with drug users - but I want separation from this scandal and my story. I am just here to help Mark. However, you are really cool Tim and I can tell you want the truth and understand this issue. Thus I will give you that story first."

Why do you think I said that Tim was getting an exclusive from me a while ago?

I keep my word.

As to offering to do other stories - I figured I could help out and you guys would want the relevant info. If you don't that is fine. If you did would it benefit me - yeah I guess but there is no way not too - or rather to separate that. No different than going on Around the Horn will elevate a writer (even if that is not their prime motive) - it is what it is.

To that end I have ALWAYS said I seek to promote drug-free elite training.

Moreover, I am a serious promoter in my business ventures and will be so again when I do something in sports. So, perhaps some of that rubs off here unintentionally, but even so does that mean you won't interview Don King or Trump who FAR outstrip anything I could dream of in that respect.

Lastly, I am not being evasive - or not trying to be but I spent ALL day yesterday answering this and proving myself & I am not looking to repeat that to new people every day that don't read all of this thread or watch the videos

I hope that helps & is fair.

Thanks,

John

 

>>I figured I could help out and you guys would want the relevant info.<<

After all this, I still don't know what the relevant info is.

 

Dude, I thought you said you were busy, whatever.

And Ragu, your transcript made me laugh so hard everyone in the newsroom got scared.

 

I mean, seriously, JDV, with all the time you've spent on here explaining yourself and uploading videos (yes, we understand you're better on-camera than off), don't you think it would have been a lot easier to try and sum up your points the exact way you attempt to defend and explain yourself now? Your continual pontificating on this only clouds the issue--not to mention your credibility--that much more.

 

It is a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.

 

I am guessing that will go over his head. Though he does have an IQ of 2,631, so maybe not.

 

BW - ok, I am not trying to be a jerk but I think I have answered this before clearly and will only take one more stab at it.

If I understand your question correctly

1.) Because I trained Mark clean when he got his biggest gains (and that is documented)

2.) That I was around him a LOT and have a TRAINED eye to look for drug use and believe he did not use & I can detail this in serious depth.

3.) Because I am an expert in the field (drugs, supplements, training, etc.)

4.) Because I know what goes on in professional, Olympic, and world class sports that could shed some major light on this whole subject to try to educate your audience & move towards real solutions rather then just join the witch hunt that ultimately leads nowhere.

5.) Because I am one of the few people that knows how to do this a better way. What many in the media fail to realize is that by chasing down the salacious stories and championing "heros" like Canseco, et al who tell the dirt and giving ink to GOS they are really creating a MOUNTAIN of unintended consequences.

Meaning, yes, on one hand it is hot relevant news that has to be covered. On the other hand, I can tell you that the message to the up-and-coming athletes is that you HAVE to use and USE A LOT. That is EXACTLY what is being talked about today with many of the guys. I can tell you for certain as I am in the trenches.

How is that for "helping the kids" or "helping the game."

The same EXACT thing happens in BodyBuilding (well really all sports). You hear champ X is doing drugs A, B, C, D, & E. Well that means that you need to take 2A, 2B, 2C, 2D, 2E, F, & G. That is how things start getting crazy and dangerous.

Does that make sense?

6.) I can explain how to make good gains clean to compete clean which helps deal with point #5

 

And finally, on page 24, it appears we're getting somewhere.

Why couldn't you just say that (with that much clarity) 23 pages ago?

 

So, either you're not really busy or today is Opposite Day, whatever.

Hopefully, somebody watched The Simpsons last night to get that.

 

Since you said it is Opposite Day, doesn't that mean it actually isn't Opposite Day?

 

Stop attacking me, whatever.