Canseco

[godtomsatan]

I live right by a bookstore and this baseball obsessed associate of mine called and had me go pick up Jose Canseco's book for him this morning.

 

I thumbed through a hundred or so pages on my in. It's a complete advocation of steroids. Very bizarre.

[Down Goes Frazia]

the guy is a lying sack of Athena who's word isn't worth crap & has a rap sheet as long as his arm....... but on this I believe what he says.

[Chargerz]

the guy is a lying sack of Athena who's word isn't worth crap & has a rap sheet as long as his arm....... but on this I believe what he says.

 

697712[/snapback]

 

 

 

[Guest Anonymous User]

I can't possibly imagine why I would want to buy that book.

[Balzac]

I personally don't understand why everyone is having such a hard time believing this stuff. McGwire, Giambi . . . have you SEEN them? Come on, guys. I've been working with weights religiously for 10-12 years and trust me - dudes don't get that big without a little help. People can get plenty big using other supplements, but we're talking about guys who are 250 - 260 lbs of muscle - you don't get that big by simply taking your vitamins.

 

Canseco may not be the most credible source in the world, but I'm thinking there's more truth than falsehood in what he's saying. I also agree with him that steroids, when used correctly and in moderation, can be a great tool for an athlete with no risk to their health. When you start to abuse them (e.g. using the cheap ones w/o any education on what you're doing), then the health risks factor in.

[Skrappy1]

I also agree with him that steroids, when used correctly and in moderation, can be a great tool for an athlete with no risk to their health.

698257[/snapback]

 

 

 

Tell that to Giambi...he had a brain tumor last year.

[Balzac]

Tell that to Giambi...he had a brain tumor last year.

 

699050[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

That was caused by steroids? If that's the case, I'd love to see where you're hearing that. Anyway, I'm talking about correct use in moderation . . .

[godtomsatan]

Canseco may not be the most credible source in the world, but  I'm thinking there's more truth than falsehood in what he's saying.  I also agree with him that steroids, when used correctly and in moderation, can be a great tool for an athlete with no risk to their health.  When you start to abuse them (e.g. using the cheap ones w/o any education on what you're doing), then the health risks factor in.

 

698257[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

I would love to see the evidence that backs this up.

[Skrappy1]

That was caused by steroids?  If that's the case, I'd love to see where you're hearing that. 

699187[/snapback]

 

 

 

You'll never going to get a 100% definitive cause for any kind of tumor, but yes, absolutely pituitary gland tumors are thought to be associated with steroid use. Does the name Lyle Alzado ring any bells (not pituitary, but died of a brain tumor)?

 

Giambi never officially admitted that was his "health problem" last year because he knew that would link him further with steroids...this was before the grand jury testimony was leaked remember. Anyhow, it was leaked, printed in several papers, and never denied by Giambi.

 

Yankee slugger Jason Giambi has been receiving treatment for a benign tumor in his pituitary gland, three major league sources told the Daily News yesterday, revealing what Giambi has refused to share since being diagnosed.

 

The reason for his secrecy was simple, a source said: After testifying before a grand jury in the BALCO steroid-trafficking case and having to deny repeated rumors about steroid use, Giambi was worried that a pituitary tumor would make him guilty by association, according to a source.

 

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/story/228567p-196282c.html

Edited February 15, 2005 by Skrappy1

[Balzac]

I would love to see the evidence that backs this up.

 

699191[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

pick up any number of studies on the controlled use of steroids.

[Balzac]

You'll never going to get a 100% definitive cause for any kind of tumor, but yes, absolutely pituitary gland tumors are thought to be associated with steroid use.  Does the name Lyle Alzado ring any bells (not pituitary, but died of a brain tumor)?

 

Giambi never officially admitted that was his "health problem" last year because he knew that would link him further with steroids...this was before the grand jury testimony was leaked remember.  Anyhow,  it was leaked, printed in several papers, and never denied by Giambi.

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/story/228567p-196282c.html

 

699231[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Exactly - he didn't want people talking about it and assuming that it was steroid related - why deal with that headache? We have no idea what caused his health problem.

 

Anyway, it's my understanding that in order for anabolic steroid abuse to result in something as drastic as a brain tumor, there has to be years and years of serious abuse. Giambi is a young guy that has only been using for a few years - I highly doubt that his abuse would result in something so drastic so soon (though I could be wrong).

 

What I take issue with is people jumping to conclusions regarding health problems and guys who used steroids. With the current stigma attached to steroids, the general populace sees ANYTHING go wrong with a guy associated with steroid use and they automatically blame it on the steroids. It's crazy.

[Skrappy1]

Giambi is a young guy that has only been using for a few years

699241[/snapback]

 

 

 

And you know this how?

 

If we are to believe Jose Canseco, and I do, particularly regarding McGwire and Giambi, then Jason was using at least as early as the 1997 season when Canseco returned to Oakland that year. If you take it from 1997 to 2003, that's at least 7 years of steroid use for Giambi that can be relatively safely assumed.

Edited February 16, 2005 by Skrappy1

[Balzac]

And you know this how? 

 

If we are to believe Jose Canseco, and I do, particularly regarding McGwire and Giambi, then Jason was using at least as early as the 1997 season when Canseco returned to Oakland that year.  If you take it from 1997 to 2003, that's at least 7 years of steroid use for Giambi that can be relatively safely assumed.

 

699245[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

I know nothing but, given the length of his career, I assume that he hasn't used them overly long. Let's use your number - 7. This really isn't really all that long, comparatively speaking. To use your Alzado example, he used roids for close to 20 years (and admitted to taking them daily, the fool) and he didn't contract cancer until a few years after he had retired. That's 20 years of severe steroid abuse. Why people use him as the benchmark when referencing the negative effects of steroids is beyond me . . . he is an extreme case and was completely idiotic in the way he used.

 

If we are to believe that steroid use in the NFL and MLB is as rampant as Lyle and Jose purport(ed) it to be, why haven't we heard of more players and ex-players dying of steroid-related illnesses? More importantly, if Giambi's malady is steroid-related, why can't I think of a single case of an athlete in the prime of his career suffering a serious steroid related illness?

[Skrappy1]

Let's use your number - 7.  This really isn't really all that long, comparatively speaking.

699380[/snapback]

 

 

 

Seven years seems like a fairly long time to use a drug to me.

If we are to believe that steroid use in the NFL and MLB is as rampant as Lyle and Jose purport(ed) it to be, why haven't we heard of more players and ex-players dying of steroid-related illnesses? 

Well, speaking about MLB, steroids supposedly started running rampant in the league around the mid-80s...most of the guys who used them heavily are still probably relatively young. If many of them suffer serious steroid-related illnesses in the near future still remains to be seen.

  To use your Alzado example, he used roids for close to 20 years (and admitted to taking them daily, the fool) and he didn't contract cancer until a few years after he had retired.  That's 20 years of severe steroid abuse.  Why people use him as the benchmark when referencing the negative effects of steroids is beyond me . . . he is an extreme case and was completely idiotic in the way he used.

I think the reason that people use Alzado as an example is fairly obvious...he came forward and became a very outspoken voice against steroids and preached of the negative and ultimately fatal consequences that he believed were their result. If others have had to deal with any serious negative effects from steroids, I don't know that we as a public would have necessarily heard of it...I seriously doubt that's something that guys are proud of or want their name associated with, even after they are out of the game.

 

More importantly, if Giambi's malady is steroid-related, why can't I think of a single case of an athlete in the prime of his career suffering a serious steroid related illness?

That's kind of like saying, "Other than that, how did you enjoy the show Mrs. Lincoln?" You mean besides Giambi?

Edited February 16, 2005 by Skrappy1

[Balzac]

Seven years seems like a fairly long time to use a drug to me. 

 

Well, speaking about MLB, steroids supposedly started running rampant in the league around the mid-80s...most of the guys who used them heavily are still probably relatively young.  If many of them suffer serious steroid-related illnesses in the near future still remains to be seen. 

 

I think the reason that people use Alzado as an example is fairly obvious...he came forward and became a very outspoken voice against steroids and preached of the negative and ultimately fatal consequences that he believed were their result.  If others have had to deal with any serious negative effects from steroids, I don't know that we as a public would have necessarily heard of it...I seriously doubt that's something that guys are proud of or want their name associated with, even after they are out of the game.

That's kind of like saying, "Other than that, how did you enjoy the show Mrs. Lincoln?"  You mean besides Giambi?

 

699487[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

1. It takes more than 7 years of steroid use for cancer to develop. I have yet to read of a single case where a steroid user has devleoped cancer w/in 7 years of use. - and I've read about the issue quite a bit. While on topic, the types of cancer that are commonly associated with anabolic steroid use are kidney and liver cancers. I haven't seen anything (other than Lyle Alzado's personal beliefs) that directly links brain tumors to steroids.

 

2. Your point about MLB is in direct opposition to your point about Giambi. You're saying that we haven't seen the illnesses b/c the users are relatively young? This was my exact reasoning for believing that Giambi's illness wasn't steroid related . . . he's too young, as the long-term deleterious effects of steroids take more than 7 years to manifest. You discredit the reasoning on one hand, and then cite to it on the other.

 

3. When athletes die, it's generally in the news in some respect. How many athletes that you know of have died of steroid-related reasons? I know of one - Lyle Alzado (and that was all based on his personal beliefs). Like I said, Alzado was the absolute extreme example of a steroid user - citing to him when the negative effects of steroids are mentioned is like citing to some guy who drank himself to death when the negative effects of alcohol are discussed (i.e., it's like saying, "when people drink alcohol, their livers shrivel up and they die"). When it comes to steroids, people only cite to the worst case scenario - it's a stigma that's undeserved.

 

4. apparently you missed my point - if you are so sure that Giambi's illness is steroid related, how do you explain the fact that not one of the 90% of NFL players (as per Alzado) and 80% of MLB players (as per canseco) using steroids have developed similar illnesses in their prime? I'll give you my explanation - his tumor had nothing to do with steroid use.

[Skrappy1]

1.  It takes more than 7 years of steroid use for cancer to develop.

699593[/snapback]

 

 

 

You have no way to definitively know that, and besides, every drug can have different effects and timetables based upon the person using them. For the record, Giambi's tumor was benign.

 

2.  Your point about MLB is in direct opposition to your point about Giambi.  You're saying that we haven't seen the illnesses b/c the users are relatively young?  This was my exact reasoning for believing that Giambi's illness wasn't steroid related . . . he's too young, as the long-term deleterious effects of steroids take more than 7 years to manifest. 

Actually, it's not at all. See the above point, and mesh it with the fact that we have no idea of how many actually used, or how much, or for how long. By Canseco's account, and this is paraphrasing a quote from his book, "Giambi had the most obvious steroid physique I ever saw. He was all bloated and you could see the water retention specifically in his face and neck...there was no definition there at all." Giambi was allegedly a heavy user, probably heavier than most, plus there are a wide array of different kinds of anabolic steroids and growth hormone. Again, it would be impossible to know who exactly used how much of what or for how long.

 

Now, if you want to discuss points that truly contradict one another, isn't the quote of yours below in direct opposition to the one found below it?

This was my exact reasoning for believing that Giambi's illness wasn't steroid related . . . he's too young, as the long-term deleterious effects of steroids take more than 7 years to manifest.

I also agree with him that steroids, when used correctly and in moderation, can be a great tool for an athlete with no risk to their health.

 

3.  When athletes die, it's generally in the news in some respect.  How many athletes that you know of have died of steroid-related reasons?  I know of one - Lyle Alzado (and that was all based on his personal beliefs).  Like I said, Alzado was the absolute extreme example of a steroid user - citing to him when the negative effects of steroids are mentioned is like citing to some guy who drank himself to death when the negative effects of alcohol are discussed (i.e., it's like saying, "when people drink alcohol, their livers shrivel up and they die").  When it comes to steroids, people only cite to the worst case scenario - it's a stigma that's undeserved.

Well then, death is an absolute extreme example isn't it? That's why people use that example, because it's the most extreme. It baffles me how you don't understand that.

 

Giambi didn't die. People whose bodies break down from years of steroid abuse don't die (McGwire?). Is it not entirely possible, even probable, that many steroid-abusers are silently suffering from other illnesses and maladies that do not include death? FWIW, many forms of cancer are treatable these days to the point that it's not an automatic death sentence...I still wouldn't be going out of my way to do anything that I thought would give it to me.

 

4.  apparently you missed my point - if you are so sure that Giambi's illness is steroid related, how do you explain the fact that not one of the 90% of NFL players (as per Alzado) and 80% of MLB players (as per canseco) using steroids have developed similar illnesses in their prime?  I'll give you my explanation - his tumor had nothing to do with steroid use.

Is this your professional medical opinion Dr. Balzac? No, I received your "point" loud and clear...steroids used with the correct supervision and moderation are a wonderful thing with no side effects at all. WRONG. Pituitary gland tumors absolutely ARE thought to be associated with steroid use. Is it a 100% etched-in-stone connection? No, but then how long did it take for people to 100% acknowledge that cigarette smoking was linked to cancer? A long time. How long did it take for them to 100% acknowlede that cigarette smoking was addictive? Heck, that just happened within the last 10 years. But, were these things not generally accepted as facts long before? Edited February 16, 2005 by Skrappy1

[T_bone65]

Does the book have a picture of when the ball hits Jose in the head and then over the fence for a homerun? He was such a superstar fielder in his day

[Skrappy1]

Does the book have a picture of when the ball hits Jose in the head and then over the fence for a homerun? He was such a superstar fielder in his day

 

700075[/snapback]

 

 

 

This Week in Baseball used to have that clip on their opening highlight reel...that was awesome. I always remember Kevin Mitchell's catch that they also had in the opening, the one where he was running full speed and made that fully extended, bare-handed grab of that ball by the leftfield side wall...that really was an awesome play!

Edited February 16, 2005 by Skrappy1

[Donutrun Jellies]

Does the book have a picture of when the ball hits Jose in the head and then over the fence for a homerun? He was such a superstar fielder in his day

 

700075[/snapback]

 

 

 

One of the great sports moments of all time -- and the more he runs his mouth, the funnier it gets.

[Balzac]

You have no way to definitively know that, and besides, every drug can have different effects and timetables based upon the person using them.  For the record, Giambi's tumor was benign.

Actually, it's not at all.  See the above point, and mesh it with the fact that we have no idea of how many actually used, or how much, or for how long.  By Canseco's account, and this is paraphrasing a quote from his book, "Giambi had the most obvious steroid physique I ever saw.  He was all bloated and you could see the water retention specifically in his face and neck...there was no definition there at all."  Giambi was allegedly a heavy user, probably heavier than most, plus there are a wide array of different kinds of anabolic steroids and growth hormone. Again, it would be impossible to know who exactly used how much of what or for how long.

 

Now, if you want to discuss points that truly contradict one another, isn't the quote of yours below in direct opposition to the one found below it?

 

 

Well then, death is an absolute extreme example isn't it?  That's why people use that example, because it's the most extreme.  It baffles me how you don't understand that.

 

Giambi didn't die.  People whose bodies break down from years of steroid abuse don't die (McGwire?).  Is it not entirely possible, even probable, that many steroid-abusers are silently suffering from other illnesses and maladies that do not include death?  FWIW, many forms of cancer are treatable these days to the point that it's not an automatic death sentence...I still wouldn't be going out of my way to do anything that I thought would give it to me.

 

Is this your professional medical opinion Dr. Balzac?  No, I received your "point" loud and clear...steroids used with the correct supervision and moderation are a wonderful thing with no side effects at all.  WRONG.  Pituitary gland tumors absolutely ARE thought to be associated with steroid use.  Is it a 100% etched-in-stone connection?  No, but then how long did it take for people to 100% acknowledge that cigarette smoking was linked to cancer?  A long time.  How long did it take for them to 100% acknowlede that cigarette smoking was addictive?  Heck, that just happened within the last 10 years.  But, were these things not generally accepted as facts long before?

 

699775[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

While I would love to repeat myself again and again, I'm going to selectively reply to issues that I haven't really covered yet. With respect to the rest of it, you're just not differentiating the finer points in what I'm saying at all. Anyway, a few responses:

 

1. my 2 quotes aren't contradictory at all. One of them is refering to cases of steroid abuse, while the other is talking about what can be accomplished with controlled use. Apples and oranges.

 

2. Giambi is still alive? Anyway, my point was that no other athletes have had their careers abruptly ended/interrupted because of health complications related to steroid use - why would Giambi be the lone exception? If you're so sure that steroid use caused the ailments that Giambi had, why have there been no other accountings of such steroid-induced illnesses in professional athletes? They're suffering silently while still playing? Is that what you're saying?

 

3. "WRONG"? You're not even addressing the right "point" here, dude. Nicely done. All I was saying there is that it's stupid to assume that roids caused Giambi's brain tumor when there have been zero comparable cases to date. This had nothing at all to do with my "safe use of steroids" statements.

 

4. If it's not a 100% etched in stone connection (FYI - it's not even close), why are you so sure that Giambi's tumor had anything to do with steroid use? Is there a slight chance it was? Of course - but that shouldn't result in you and the rest of the country assuming that there was causation. That's just ignorant.

[Balzac]

  One of the great sports moments of all time -- and the more he runs his mouth, the funnier it gets.

 

700687[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

oddest thing I found about it was that he didn't even act like it hurt - wouldn't a ball travelling that high and far hurt like a mofo when it hits paydirt?

[Skrappy1]

Anyway, my point was that no other athletes have had their careers abruptly ended/interrupted because of health complications related to steroid use - why would Giambi be the lone exception?  If you're so sure that steroid use caused the ailments that Giambi had, why have there been no other accountings of such steroid-induced illnesses in professional athletes? 

700741[/snapback]

Why are there no other accountings? Talk about asking someone to repeat themselves to no end...Why would a player come forward if they suffered an illness or injury and say, "Hey, this is what I'm dealing with and it probably came as a result of my steroid use?" Most would not, plain and simple.

 

THAT is what makes Alzado a compelling example, because along with it being an extreme case in which death resulted, he also took it upon himself to come forward and talk about a situation that he felt too many people were afraid to. With Giambi, him having a brain tumor was a severe illness so there was no real way to hide it, even though he still did everything in his power to attempt to do so.

 

Nicely done.

Thank you.

 

All I was saying there is that it's stupid to assume that roids caused Giambi's brain tumor when there have been zero comparable cases to date.

Zero comparable cases that you know about. Steve Bechler was the only MLB player I can remember to die from using Ephedra, but evidently the FDA found enough outside evidence of it's harmful effects that they made it illegal to use. In the case of steroids, they are already illegal to begin with. To answer your question though, out of MLB baseball players who were currently playing at the time, yes Giambi is the only example I can give you...but that is an extremely limited sample size too, is it not?

 

There are only 750 total players on major league rosters during the season. How many of them are currently abusing steroids? I don't know, for the sake of argument, let's say half. Now we're down to 375. As I have previously stated, there are so many different kinds of anabolic steroids and human growth hormones currently out that we can't possibly know all the negative side effects that each might cause. These things aren't exactly FDA approved so these guys are in all practicality guinea pigs for this new stuff...but there is plenty of scientific proof to show the negative effects of many of the old anabolic steroids, dispute your claims to the contrary.

 

If it's not a 100% etched in stone connection (FYI - it's not even close), why are you so sure that Giambi's tumor had anything to do with steroid use? Is there a slight chance it was? Of course - but that shouldn't result in you and the rest of the country assuming that there was causation. That's just ignorant.

Let's be very clear on one thing here...Giambi admitted to the grand jury that he took several different kinds of steroids. One of them was a drug called clomiphene. It is a legal drug (when prescribed) that is used to help treat infertility in women, and it is KNOWN to be associated with pituitary growth. So your contention that Giambi's steroid use had absolutely no effect on his pituitary tumor is not only unlikely, but it's also poorly informed.

 

Now, if I find out that someone has lung cancer, and I'm told that he was a smoker for I don't know, seven years, I'm going to assume that his smoking was a direct contributor to his lung cancer. Would it be possible that it was NOT a contributor? Anything is possible, but in cases like this I don't need to be beaten over the head repeatedly with detailed studies and statistics before I draw a logical conclusion...it's called "inference" and it's a very useful tool.

 

The bottom line is, if you are waiting for a detailed study on the negative side effects of some of these new steroids before you acknowledge that they are harmful, then you will be waiting for the rest of your life. No one even knew of the existence of THG until the BALCO scandal broke, so it would be very difficult to conduct tests and studies, regardless of the fact that such studies would take upwards of 20-25 years to gauge any long-term effects. But don't worry, I'm sure that someone as upstanding as Victor Conte personally conducted very thorough tests of long term results and side effects, just as I'm sure you are correct in presuming that they are wonderful to use.

Edited February 17, 2005 by Skrappy1

[Meat Face]

oddest thing I found about it was that he didn't even act like it hurt - wouldn't a ball travelling that high and far hurt like a mofo when it hits paydirt?

 

700744[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

His head was encased in steroids, rendering the event pain-free.

[Balzac]

Why are there no other accountings?  Talk about asking someone to repeat themselves to no end...Why would a player come forward if they suffered an illness or injury and say, "Hey, this is what I'm dealing with and it probably came as a result of my steroid use?"  Most would not, plain and simple. 

 

THAT is what makes Alzado a compelling example, because along with it being an extreme case in which death resulted, he also took it upon himself to come forward and talk about a situation that he felt too many people were afraid to. With Giambi, him having a brain tumor was a severe illness so there was no real way to hide it, even though he still did everything in his power to attempt to do so.

 

Thank you.

Zero comparable cases that you know about.  Steve Bechler was the only MLB player I can remember to die from using Ephedra, but evidently the FDA found enough outside evidence of it's harmful effects that they made it illegal to use.  In the case of steroids, they are already illegal to begin with.  To answer your question though, out of MLB baseball players who were currently playing at the time, yes Giambi is the only example I can give you...but that is an extremely limited sample size too, is it not?

 

There are only 750 total players on major league rosters during the season.  How many of them are currently abusing steroids?  I don't know, for the sake of argument, let's say half.  Now we're down to 375.  As I have previously stated, there are so many different kinds of anabolic steroids and human growth hormones currently out that we can't possibly know all the negative side effects that each might cause.  These things aren't exactly FDA approved so these guys are in all practicality guinea pigs for this new stuff...but there is plenty of scientific proof to show the negative effects of many of the old anabolic steroids, dispute your claims to the contrary. 

Let's be very clear on one thing here...Giambi admitted to the grand jury that he took several different kinds of steroids.  One of them was a drug called clomiphene. It is a legal drug (when prescribed) that is used to help treat infertility in women, and it is KNOWN to be associated with pituitary growth.  So your contention that Giambi's steroid use had absolutely no effect on his pituitary tumor is not only unlikely, but it's also poorly informed.

 

Now, if I find out that someone has lung cancer, and I'm told that he was a smoker for I don't know, seven years, I'm going to assume that his smoking was a direct contributor to his lung cancer.  Would it be possible that it was NOT a contributor?  Anything is possible, but in cases like this I don't need to be beaten over the head repeatedly with detailed studies and statistics before I draw a logical conclusion...it's called "inference" and it's a very useful tool.

 

The bottom line is, if you are waiting for a detailed study on the negative side effects of some of these new steroids before you acknowledge that they are harmful, then you will be waiting for the rest of your life.  No one even knew of the existence of THG until the BALCO scandal broke, so it would be very difficult to conduct tests and studies, regardless of the fact that such studies would take upwards of 20-25 years to gauge any long-term effects. But don't worry, I'm sure that someone as upstanding as Victor Conte personally conducted very thorough tests of long term results and side effects, just as I'm sure you are correct in presuming that they are wonderful to use.

 

700869[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

All I can say is - holy crap. Either you're not reading what I've been writing or you're simply reading things into it that I never wrote. I'm not going to waste another second attempting to get my point across . . . but good luck with your making assumptions based on little tangible evidence (I think you call it "inference") going forward - it'll take you far. Peace.

[Skrappy1]

All I can say is - holy crap.  Either you're not reading what I've been writing or you're simply reading things into it that I never wrote.  I'm not going to waste another second attempting to get my point across . . . but good luck with your making assumptions based on little tangible evidence (I think you call it "inference") going forward - it'll take you far.  Peace.

 

700965[/snapback]

 

 

 

Actually I've read everything that you have written, it just doesn't appear that you have any point that you can back up with one bit of evidence. I'll argue the side with "little tangible evidence" over the side with absolutely no evidence whatsoever everytime.

 

Are you claiming that you did not explicitly say that in your opinion Giambi's tumor had nothing at all to do with steroids? Is there not circumstantial evidence (hence the need to utilize inference) that points to the exact opposite being true?

I'll give you my explanation - his tumor had nothing to do with steroid use.

Is that not your quote? But I forgot, according to you...

that shouldn't result in you and the rest of the country assuming that there was causation. That's just ignorant.

You're probably right...you are 100% correct and it's the rest of the country that is ignorant. :doah:

 

 

By the way, I'm still waiting for the Jets to franchise LaMont Jordan.

Edited February 17, 2005 by Skrappy1