If I'm not mistaken, his comments were later disproven/contradicted by Pettite himself: http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/b...how_hgh_triangle_ensnared_andy_pettitte_.html Q: Do you have any idea where your father obtained the HGH? A: Yeah, I do now. Yes. Q: Where is that? A: The gym that he works out in. A guy that's the trainer there.
Why are you avoiding the question? You made the statement, now man up and back it up. Again: Where does anyone state that they themselves gave Jeff Bagwell steroids? As you have stated, time and time again.
'Hey, is this stuff for sale?'" the source said. And he was like, 'No, that stuff's going to Clemens, Bagwell and Pettitte."
Again with the hearsay? Are you in denial here? You claim to understand "hearsay"...yet, here you are. Parroting what some "mystery" source SAID that Blair said?!? Wow. OK, I ask again: Where does someone state that they themselves gave Bagwell steroids?
'No, that stuff's going to Clemens, Bagwell and Pettitte." Let me stop you first - Is this going to lead to a r****ded discourse on hearsay, double hearsay, and the BBS rules of admissibility thereof? Please don't, it will only embarrass you and waste even more time on a board expressly meant for time-wasting. I guess we are going to get to the talking coffee mug today.
That's some else stating that. That is not someone directly admitting that they gave him steroids. Do we need to go over "hearsay" again? Really?
...said the guy who immediately cowed with "but I'm not sure he wasn't telling tall tales," and who was too chicken to give his name for fear of "retaliation". No real link, man. With all these other guys, there was smoke literally *everywhere*. You're hanging your hat on hearsay. The truth is, no one really knows. We can all have our biases one way or the other if we wish: but I refuse to harbour an opinion either that he did or did not, because I simply don't have enough information one way or the other. And to do so, on either side, in my opinion, is just stupid. The grander point in this, however, is Major's excellent point: Here, here. This bull**** witch hunt is just *one* problem from a messed up system.
The only thing embarrassing here is your fundamental lack of understanding. I ask you to show me where someone makes a specific statement. You, in turn, show me where someone makes a statement about someone allegedly making a statement. I can now see your level of intellect. I'll go ahead and let you have the last word on the matter.
Where does Baggy's name come up in that article? Andy's dad is a COMPLETELY different topic not involving Baggy. I get what your saying, don't get me wrong, but even in the original article the only time Baggy's name came up was according to sources who apparently NEVER saw the actual transaction of a proven liar and someone who "bragged" to clients. I won't acknowledge someone's claims unless there is tangible proof that I can see and feel.
Hey, at the risk of further derailing the thread, can you elaborate on that right quick (just one post)? I don't intend to argue at all; I remember what you've said about your background before and you've piqued my interest. You would know this (and Max would) far more than I. Thanks!
ITs only a matter of time for Bags to get in...his 40%+ votes were good and IMHO, will only get better overtime...the steroid hunters will always be there, but until something conclusive comes out, he'll be fine...
Oh please, enough with the hearsay rule. Hearsay is - roughly - an out of court statement made in court to prove the truth of the matter asserted. We're not in court so enough already. This story is somewhat dubious, but it's far from what I'm "hanging my hat" on.... put it together with the other circumstances (not going to bother to recount them becuase it's not going to change anybody's mind) and I'd lean toward the "probably did" use PED side of the fence rather than "shining all-natural exception" side of the fence. Again, that's simply an opinion but who really cares. Honestly I have no idea, I haven't appeared in court in years. All I remember was that there were 3 questions you always had to ask when presenting documentary evidence at a deposition to comply with authentication rules as a precaution - I don't ever recall there being a challenge to anything under rule 901 in anything that I worked on.
Bagwell will go either the same year as Biggio (think of it as Bill White getting more votes because Obama is on the ticket) or the year after. If he doesn't make it then, I'm afraid he'll never get in.
Fine. I don't doubt that I and others misunderstand it. "Dubious" is a great word that you use for "hey a few years back he said to me such-and-such, but oh wait maybe he was just bull****ting, oh yeah and don't use my name cause I don't want to make him mad." The guy could have embellished the list himself, for all we know. I'm glad you realize it's just an opinion. It's all I have, too. Ah ok, thanks though.
I think that Bags is likely on a 3/4 year trajectory to get into the HoF. Biggio should get in on his first vote (or shame on the voters).
The Piazza Bagwell matter can be settled by WAR Bagwell - 79.9 Piazza - 59.1 Game Over. Thanks for playing.
There are former Astros players in the Hall, but the players get to pick their hat/cap (basically they pick a team they played on to represent). Am assuming it goes with their bust. Anyway, all the former Astros have gone with other teams. Bigg will be the "first" Astro, assuming he gets in before Bags.
