tennis-forum.net
Promoting tennis discussion.

Main
Date: 10 Feb 2009 01:12:19
From: Superdave
Subject: Commentary: Let shame be A-Rod's punishment (Rafa's too)



Commentary: Let shame be A-Rod's punishment

By Jeffrey Toobin
CNN Contributor

Editor's note: Jeffrey Toobin is a CNN senior analyst and a staff
writer at The New Yorker. A former assistant U.S. attorney, Toobin is
the author of several critically acclaimed bestsellers, including "The
Nine: Inside the Secret World of the Supreme Court" and "Too Close to
Call: The 36-Day Battle to Decide the 2000 Election."

NEW YORK (CNN) -- Congressional hearings rarely produce much news of
interest, or much good for the world, but the House Government Reform
Committee did a great service to baseball -- and the country -- on
March 17, 2005.

That was the day that several great stars of the recent era, including
Mark McGwire, Sammy Sosa and Rafael Palmeiro, were forced to answer
questions about steroids.

McGwire hedged (he said he didn't want to talk about the past);
Palmeiro may have lied (he later tested positive); and the usually
talkative Sosa developed a sudden unfamiliarity with the English
language (he testified in Spanish).

But the public got to see the stars squirm, and made its own judgments
about the place of steroids in the game. To paraphrase Justice Louis
Brandeis (a Bostonian if not a Red Sox), sunlight was the best
disinfectant.

Those hearings came to mind, of course, when si.com broke the news
that Alex Rodriquez, probably the greatest player now in the game,
tested positive for steroids in 2003. (Rodriguez admitted in an
interview with ESPN Monday, that he took performance-enhancing drugs
while a member of the Texas Rangers for three years starting in 2001.)
VideoWatch Rodriguez admit to taking a 'banned substance' »

The revelations about A-Rod prompted many of the same questions that
the hearing did nearly four years ago. Should he be punished? Stripped
of his records? Prosecuted? Expelled from baseball? These are hard
questions, but my answer is no; what he should be is exposed.

The reputations of McGuire, Sosa and Palmeiro have never recovered
from the exposure they received in 2005. The same will likely go for
A-Rod, who will play the rest of his career under the shadow of the
disclosure about him.

The problem with doing more to steroids users is that it risks an
endless cycle of litigation about the details of the testing program
and the list of prohibited drugs.

Performance enhancing drugs are endlessly evolving and the line
between the permissible and the prohibited is often far from clear. It
would be good to think that we could always identify and punish
offenders, but I'm sure that's pretty much impossible.

So why not establish a system that makes public any kind of drug test
that reveals a substance that is potentially performance-enhancing?
Let the issue be decided in the court of public opinion.

Players (especially A-Rod) care deeply about their public images, and
they may decide they don't want to risk their reputations and thus
steer clear of the juice.

Obviously, the most dangerous drugs will always have to be prohibited,
but for all the others, the prospect of public exposure may deter more
athletes than the uncertain prospect of expulsion or other
punishments.

It's tempting to continue to expand the list of prohibited drugs and
possible punishments. This is especially true because it is the lesser
athletes -- the No-Rods -- who will always be most tempted to abuse
performance enhancers, and they are less likely to be deterred by
public exposure; all they want is to make it in the pros. But in our
litigation-happy society, the best strategy is not always the
harshest.

Drugs will never disappear, but the power of public exposure -- and
the accompanying shame and ridicule -- has its place in the steroids
battle, too.
-------------

Ed Note: What could be more shameful than picking your ass in public ?




 
Date: 10 Feb 2009 13:37:31
From: Hg
Subject: Re: Commentary: Let shame be A-Rod's punishment (Rafa's too)
On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 04:54:03 -0800, blueskates1111 wrote:

> I highly doubt that Rafa is using, I'm more worried that he might throw
> a final to Federer due to pity, consciously or unconsciously.

Too funny - the only time Rafa will throw a final to Roger is when Rafa has
more slams then Pete. And then he'll 'let' Roger equal Pete's record.

Before all of you guy's blood starts boiling, I'm kidding. Rafa and Roger
will never *ever* throw a final - especially a slam final.


--
,/ \,
((___,---"""""---,___))
`-----)~ ~(-----`
'( \ / )'


 
Date: 10 Feb 2009 02:16:31
From: Professor X
Subject: Re: Commentary: Let shame be A-Rod's punishment (Rafa's too)
On Feb 10, 1:12=A0am, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com > wrote:
> Commentary: Let shame be A-Rod's punishment
>
> By Jeffrey Toobin
> CNN Contributor
>
> Editor's note: Jeffrey Toobin is a CNN senior analyst and a staff
> writer at The New Yorker. A former assistant U.S. attorney, Toobin is
> the author of several critically acclaimed bestsellers, including "The
> Nine: Inside the Secret World of the Supreme Court" and "Too Close to
> Call: The 36-Day Battle to Decide the 2000 Election."
>
> NEW YORK (CNN) -- Congressional hearings rarely produce much news of
> interest, or much good for the world, but the House Government Reform
> Committee did a great service to baseball -- and the country -- on
> March 17, 2005.
>
> That was the day that several great stars of the recent era, including
> Mark McGwire, Sammy Sosa and Rafael Palmeiro, were forced to answer
> questions about steroids.
>
> McGwire hedged (he said he didn't want to talk about the past);
> Palmeiro may have lied (he later tested positive); and the usually
> talkative Sosa developed a sudden unfamiliarity with the English
> language (he testified in Spanish).
>
> But the public got to see the stars squirm, and made its own judgments
> about the place of steroids in the game. To paraphrase Justice Louis
> Brandeis (a Bostonian if not a Red Sox), sunlight was the best
> disinfectant.
>
> Those hearings came to mind, of course, when si.com broke the news
> that Alex Rodriquez, probably the greatest player now in the game,
> tested positive for steroids in 2003. (Rodriguez admitted in an
> interview with ESPN Monday, that he took performance-enhancing drugs
> while a member of the Texas Rangers for three years starting in 2001.)
> VideoWatch Rodriguez admit to taking a 'banned substance' =BB
>
> The revelations about A-Rod prompted many of the same questions that
> the hearing did nearly four years ago. Should he be punished? Stripped
> of his records? Prosecuted? Expelled from baseball? These are hard
> questions, but my answer is no; what he should be is exposed.
>
> The reputations of McGuire, Sosa and Palmeiro have never recovered
> from the exposure they received in 2005. The same will likely go for
> A-Rod, who will play the rest of his career under the shadow of the
> disclosure about him.
>
> The problem with doing more to steroids users is that it risks an
> endless cycle of litigation about the details of the testing program
> and the list of prohibited drugs.
>
> Performance enhancing drugs are endlessly evolving and the line
> between the permissible and the prohibited is often far from clear. It
> would be good to think that we could always identify and punish
> offenders, but I'm sure that's pretty much impossible.
>
> So why not establish a system that makes public any kind of drug test
> that reveals a substance that is potentially performance-enhancing?
> Let the issue be decided in the court of public opinion.
>
> Players (especially A-Rod) care deeply about their public images, and
> they may decide they don't want to risk their reputations and thus
> steer clear of the juice.
>
> Obviously, the most dangerous drugs will always have to be prohibited,
> but for all the others, the prospect of public exposure may deter more
> athletes than the uncertain prospect of expulsion or other
> punishments.
>
> It's tempting to continue to expand the list of prohibited drugs and
> possible punishments. This is especially true because it is the lesser
> athletes -- the No-Rods -- who will always be most tempted to abuse
> performance enhancers, and they are less likely to be deterred by
> public exposure; all they want is to make it in the pros. But in our
> litigation-happy society, the best strategy is not always the
> harshest.
>
> Drugs will never disappear, but the power of public exposure -- and
> the accompanying shame and ridicule -- has its place in the steroids
> battle, too.
> -------------
>
> Ed Note: What could be more shameful than picking your ass in public ?

or swearing in front of millions because "fucking hawkeye is killing
you"?


  
Date: 10 Feb 2009 09:14:26
From:
Subject: He's found the keys.....
There's a Seinfeld episode about this "she cried, you caved" ....

I'm serious - some of us will do anything to avoid that type of scene.
I don't think Nadal wants to go through that again, or even Uncle Toni
for that matter.

By golly, I think Roger has found the keys.


  
Date: 10 Feb 2009 05:42:33
From: GOAT
Subject: Re: Commentary: Let shame be A-Rod's punishment (Rafa's too)
On Feb 10, 12:54 pm, blueskates1...@aol.com wrote:
> I highly doubt that Rafa is using, I'm more worried that he might
> throw a final to Federer due to pity, consciously or unconsciously.

hahaha I hope Rafa never feels pity for that closet case! Vamos!


  
Date: 10 Feb 2009 04:54:03
From:
Subject: Re: Commentary: Let shame be A-Rod's punishment (Rafa's too)
I highly doubt that Rafa is using, I'm more worried that he might
throw a final to Federer due to pity, consciously or unconsciously.




  
Date: 10 Feb 2009 11:21:11
From: Superdave
Subject: Re: Commentary: Let shame be A-Rod's punishment (Rafa's too)
On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 02:16:31 -0800 (PST), Professor X
<suebokaian@hotmail.com > wrote:

>On Feb 10, 1:12 am, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Commentary: Let shame be A-Rod's punishment
>>
>> By Jeffrey Toobin
>> CNN Contributor
>>
>> Editor's note: Jeffrey Toobin is a CNN senior analyst and a staff
>> writer at The New Yorker. A former assistant U.S. attorney, Toobin is
>> the author of several critically acclaimed bestsellers, including "The
>> Nine: Inside the Secret World of the Supreme Court" and "Too Close to
>> Call: The 36-Day Battle to Decide the 2000 Election."
>>
>> NEW YORK (CNN) -- Congressional hearings rarely produce much news of
>> interest, or much good for the world, but the House Government Reform
>> Committee did a great service to baseball -- and the country -- on
>> March 17, 2005.
>>
>> That was the day that several great stars of the recent era, including
>> Mark McGwire, Sammy Sosa and Rafael Palmeiro, were forced to answer
>> questions about steroids.
>>
>> McGwire hedged (he said he didn't want to talk about the past);
>> Palmeiro may have lied (he later tested positive); and the usually
>> talkative Sosa developed a sudden unfamiliarity with the English
>> language (he testified in Spanish).
>>
>> But the public got to see the stars squirm, and made its own judgments
>> about the place of steroids in the game. To paraphrase Justice Louis
>> Brandeis (a Bostonian if not a Red Sox), sunlight was the best
>> disinfectant.
>>
>> Those hearings came to mind, of course, when si.com broke the news
>> that Alex Rodriquez, probably the greatest player now in the game,
>> tested positive for steroids in 2003. (Rodriguez admitted in an
>> interview with ESPN Monday, that he took performance-enhancing drugs
>> while a member of the Texas Rangers for three years starting in 2001.)
>> VideoWatch Rodriguez admit to taking a 'banned substance' »
>>
>> The revelations about A-Rod prompted many of the same questions that
>> the hearing did nearly four years ago. Should he be punished? Stripped
>> of his records? Prosecuted? Expelled from baseball? These are hard
>> questions, but my answer is no; what he should be is exposed.
>>
>> The reputations of McGuire, Sosa and Palmeiro have never recovered
>> from the exposure they received in 2005. The same will likely go for
>> A-Rod, who will play the rest of his career under the shadow of the
>> disclosure about him.
>>
>> The problem with doing more to steroids users is that it risks an
>> endless cycle of litigation about the details of the testing program
>> and the list of prohibited drugs.
>>
>> Performance enhancing drugs are endlessly evolving and the line
>> between the permissible and the prohibited is often far from clear. It
>> would be good to think that we could always identify and punish
>> offenders, but I'm sure that's pretty much impossible.
>>
>> So why not establish a system that makes public any kind of drug test
>> that reveals a substance that is potentially performance-enhancing?
>> Let the issue be decided in the court of public opinion.
>>
>> Players (especially A-Rod) care deeply about their public images, and
>> they may decide they don't want to risk their reputations and thus
>> steer clear of the juice.
>>
>> Obviously, the most dangerous drugs will always have to be prohibited,
>> but for all the others, the prospect of public exposure may deter more
>> athletes than the uncertain prospect of expulsion or other
>> punishments.
>>
>> It's tempting to continue to expand the list of prohibited drugs and
>> possible punishments. This is especially true because it is the lesser
>> athletes -- the No-Rods -- who will always be most tempted to abuse
>> performance enhancers, and they are less likely to be deterred by
>> public exposure; all they want is to make it in the pros. But in our
>> litigation-happy society, the best strategy is not always the
>> harshest.
>>
>> Drugs will never disappear, but the power of public exposure -- and
>> the accompanying shame and ridicule -- has its place in the steroids
>> battle, too.
>> -------------
>>
>> Ed Note: What could be more shameful than picking your ass in public ?
>
>or swearing in front of millions because "fucking hawkeye is killing
>you"?


no sorry that's not either.


 
Date: 10 Feb 2009 02:15:53
From: Professor X
Subject: Re: Commentary: Let shame be A-Rod's punishment (Rafa's too)
On Feb 10, 1:12=A0am, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com > wrote:
> Commentary: Let shame be A-Rod's punishment
>
> By Jeffrey Toobin
> CNN Contributor
>
> Editor's note: Jeffrey Toobin is a CNN senior analyst and a staff
> writer at The New Yorker. A former assistant U.S. attorney, Toobin is
> the author of several critically acclaimed bestsellers, including "The
> Nine: Inside the Secret World of the Supreme Court" and "Too Close to
> Call: The 36-Day Battle to Decide the 2000 Election."
>
> NEW YORK (CNN) -- Congressional hearings rarely produce much news of
> interest, or much good for the world, but the House Government Reform
> Committee did a great service to baseball -- and the country -- on
> March 17, 2005.
>
> That was the day that several great stars of the recent era, including
> Mark McGwire, Sammy Sosa and Rafael Palmeiro, were forced to answer
> questions about steroids.
>
> McGwire hedged (he said he didn't want to talk about the past);
> Palmeiro may have lied (he later tested positive); and the usually
> talkative Sosa developed a sudden unfamiliarity with the English
> language (he testified in Spanish).
>
> But the public got to see the stars squirm, and made its own judgments
> about the place of steroids in the game. To paraphrase Justice Louis
> Brandeis (a Bostonian if not a Red Sox), sunlight was the best
> disinfectant.
>
> Those hearings came to mind, of course, when si.com broke the news
> that Alex Rodriquez, probably the greatest player now in the game,
> tested positive for steroids in 2003. (Rodriguez admitted in an
> interview with ESPN Monday, that he took performance-enhancing drugs
> while a member of the Texas Rangers for three years starting in 2001.)
> VideoWatch Rodriguez admit to taking a 'banned substance' =BB
>
> The revelations about A-Rod prompted many of the same questions that
> the hearing did nearly four years ago. Should he be punished? Stripped
> of his records? Prosecuted? Expelled from baseball? These are hard
> questions, but my answer is no; what he should be is exposed.
>
> The reputations of McGuire, Sosa and Palmeiro have never recovered
> from the exposure they received in 2005. The same will likely go for
> A-Rod, who will play the rest of his career under the shadow of the
> disclosure about him.
>
> The problem with doing more to steroids users is that it risks an
> endless cycle of litigation about the details of the testing program
> and the list of prohibited drugs.
>
> Performance enhancing drugs are endlessly evolving and the line
> between the permissible and the prohibited is often far from clear. It
> would be good to think that we could always identify and punish
> offenders, but I'm sure that's pretty much impossible.
>
> So why not establish a system that makes public any kind of drug test
> that reveals a substance that is potentially performance-enhancing?
> Let the issue be decided in the court of public opinion.
>
> Players (especially A-Rod) care deeply about their public images, and
> they may decide they don't want to risk their reputations and thus
> steer clear of the juice.
>
> Obviously, the most dangerous drugs will always have to be prohibited,
> but for all the others, the prospect of public exposure may deter more
> athletes than the uncertain prospect of expulsion or other
> punishments.
>
> It's tempting to continue to expand the list of prohibited drugs and
> possible punishments. This is especially true because it is the lesser
> athletes -- the No-Rods -- who will always be most tempted to abuse
> performance enhancers, and they are less likely to be deterred by
> public exposure; all they want is to make it in the pros. But in our
> litigation-happy society, the best strategy is not always the
> harshest.
>
> Drugs will never disappear, but the power of public exposure -- and
> the accompanying shame and ridicule -- has its place in the steroids
> battle, too.
> -------------
>
> Ed Note: What could be more shameful than picking your ass in public ?

crying like a baby?


  
Date: 10 Feb 2009 11:20:36
From: Superdave
Subject: Re: Commentary: Let shame be A-Rod's punishment (Rafa's too)
On Tue, 10 Feb 2009 02:15:53 -0800 (PST), Professor X
<suebokaian@hotmail.com > wrote:

>On Feb 10, 1:12 am, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Commentary: Let shame be A-Rod's punishment
>>
>> By Jeffrey Toobin
>> CNN Contributor
>>
>> Editor's note: Jeffrey Toobin is a CNN senior analyst and a staff
>> writer at The New Yorker. A former assistant U.S. attorney, Toobin is
>> the author of several critically acclaimed bestsellers, including "The
>> Nine: Inside the Secret World of the Supreme Court" and "Too Close to
>> Call: The 36-Day Battle to Decide the 2000 Election."
>>
>> NEW YORK (CNN) -- Congressional hearings rarely produce much news of
>> interest, or much good for the world, but the House Government Reform
>> Committee did a great service to baseball -- and the country -- on
>> March 17, 2005.
>>
>> That was the day that several great stars of the recent era, including
>> Mark McGwire, Sammy Sosa and Rafael Palmeiro, were forced to answer
>> questions about steroids.
>>
>> McGwire hedged (he said he didn't want to talk about the past);
>> Palmeiro may have lied (he later tested positive); and the usually
>> talkative Sosa developed a sudden unfamiliarity with the English
>> language (he testified in Spanish).
>>
>> But the public got to see the stars squirm, and made its own judgments
>> about the place of steroids in the game. To paraphrase Justice Louis
>> Brandeis (a Bostonian if not a Red Sox), sunlight was the best
>> disinfectant.
>>
>> Those hearings came to mind, of course, when si.com broke the news
>> that Alex Rodriquez, probably the greatest player now in the game,
>> tested positive for steroids in 2003. (Rodriguez admitted in an
>> interview with ESPN Monday, that he took performance-enhancing drugs
>> while a member of the Texas Rangers for three years starting in 2001.)
>> VideoWatch Rodriguez admit to taking a 'banned substance' »
>>
>> The revelations about A-Rod prompted many of the same questions that
>> the hearing did nearly four years ago. Should he be punished? Stripped
>> of his records? Prosecuted? Expelled from baseball? These are hard
>> questions, but my answer is no; what he should be is exposed.
>>
>> The reputations of McGuire, Sosa and Palmeiro have never recovered
>> from the exposure they received in 2005. The same will likely go for
>> A-Rod, who will play the rest of his career under the shadow of the
>> disclosure about him.
>>
>> The problem with doing more to steroids users is that it risks an
>> endless cycle of litigation about the details of the testing program
>> and the list of prohibited drugs.
>>
>> Performance enhancing drugs are endlessly evolving and the line
>> between the permissible and the prohibited is often far from clear. It
>> would be good to think that we could always identify and punish
>> offenders, but I'm sure that's pretty much impossible.
>>
>> So why not establish a system that makes public any kind of drug test
>> that reveals a substance that is potentially performance-enhancing?
>> Let the issue be decided in the court of public opinion.
>>
>> Players (especially A-Rod) care deeply about their public images, and
>> they may decide they don't want to risk their reputations and thus
>> steer clear of the juice.
>>
>> Obviously, the most dangerous drugs will always have to be prohibited,
>> but for all the others, the prospect of public exposure may deter more
>> athletes than the uncertain prospect of expulsion or other
>> punishments.
>>
>> It's tempting to continue to expand the list of prohibited drugs and
>> possible punishments. This is especially true because it is the lesser
>> athletes -- the No-Rods -- who will always be most tempted to abuse
>> performance enhancers, and they are less likely to be deterred by
>> public exposure; all they want is to make it in the pros. But in our
>> litigation-happy society, the best strategy is not always the
>> harshest.
>>
>> Drugs will never disappear, but the power of public exposure -- and
>> the accompanying shame and ridicule -- has its place in the steroids
>> battle, too.
>> -------------
>>
>> Ed Note: What could be more shameful than picking your ass in public ?
>
>crying like a baby?


no sorry it's not.


  
Date: 10 Feb 2009 02:47:49
From: Fan
Subject: Re: Commentary: Let shame be A-Rod's punishment (Rafa's too)
On Feb 10, 11:15=A0am, Professor X <sueboka...@hotmail.com > wrote:
> On Feb 10, 1:12=A0am, Superdave <the.big.rst.kah...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > -------------
>
> > Ed Note: What could be more shameful than picking your ass in public ?
>
> crying like a baby?

It is only fitting for Federer fans to cry along :)