JSngry Posted April 4, 2011 Report Share Posted April 4, 2011 Ketchup is cool on hot dogs, if applied as part of a consistent flavor profile. But other stuff is lots more cool... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Matthew Posted April 4, 2011 Report Share Posted April 4, 2011 Ketchup is okay, but don't get me started on relish -- yuck! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSngry Posted April 4, 2011 Report Share Posted April 4, 2011 Not a relish fan here, either. Chow-Chow, yes. Zucchini relish, yes. Pickle relish, no. And never in combination with ketchup. Never. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim McG Posted April 4, 2011 Report Share Posted April 4, 2011 (edited) As to the rest: Papsrus, I'm not going to re-hash all the pointless palaver about "performance enhancing drugs" which could range from aspirin to that so-called "boo-boo juice" batters get after being hit with a baseball. None of which makes a player hit HRs. Yes, I'm familiar with the "steroids/hgh is equivalent to aspirin/boo boo juice" argument. It is pointless, because it's medically and legally nonsense to compare aspirin with roids. Additionally, as I have already stated, numerous times, on this BBS that he has admitted to using the "clear" and I really don't much care if he did use steroids. ... That's pretty ... er ... clear. ... Eric Gagne did and nobody is talking about taking his Cy Young away. So what is the BFD? I haven't heard anyone demand that Bonds be stripped of his MVP awards. Just a little * is all. That should goe for Gagne's Cy Young, too. We going to put all the guys who did steroids on trial now? A ridiculous concept. Here's a concept: Lets hold people accountable for lying under oath (which is different from taking steroids). See Roger Clemens. I'd think that as someone who deals with kids, you might see this as a teachable moment. As in, hey kids, don't do something wrong and then lie about it to try to cover it up. Come clean, acknowledge you screwed up, and you'll be better off in the end. See Andy Pettitte. You know, if I live to be a thousand, I will never understand why any discussion on this or any other BBS has to include some veiled insult relative to my job. I don't tell you or anyone else how to conduct themselves in the workplace so I fail to understand why you need to, Papsrus. This is a thread about Bonds' trial, not a career....nor does it have anything at all to do with it. No one is saying aspirin is the same as steroids. The term was "performance enhancing drugs". Any pain reliever does exactly that. The point of comparison is neither will make a player hit HRs. Why that is such a bone of contention it is beyond my comprehension. No one is saying that a person who lies shouldn't be held to task, either. But I sure would like the people who insist upon using photoshopped pictures to be taken to task as well. What I am saying is in our court of law the prosecution has the burden of proof. And no such proof exists relative to the charge that Bonds knowingly took steroids. Whether or not lying is a bad thing to do is a separate issue. Whether or not Bonds actually did use steroids is a separate issue. The charge is he knowingly took steroids. Period. The Feds have no case. Edited April 4, 2011 by GoodSpeak Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim McG Posted April 4, 2011 Report Share Posted April 4, 2011 (edited) One of the possible outcomes of the trial is that Bud Selig will declare Bonds home run record wiped out if Bond's is found guilty. Selig hates the idea of Bonds having Aaron's record, and might be his chance to take it away. For the record, I would not agree with that course of action. I don't either. Because if Selig does that but allows Gagne to keep his Cy Young or any other steroid user to keep their records he would be nothing less than a hypocrite. It would also open the proverbial Pandora's Box. How many ballpayers would have to be relieved of their records or put on trial for keeping the truth of their steroid use away from the Commissioner's Office? There would be no end to it. Edited April 4, 2011 by GoodSpeak Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave James Posted April 4, 2011 Report Share Posted April 4, 2011 It would also open the proverbial Pandora's Box. How many ballpayers would have to be relieved of their records or put on trial for keeping the truth of their steroid use away from the Commissioner's Office? There would be no end to it. I suppose they could always claim they didn't know what they were taking. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quincy Posted April 4, 2011 Report Share Posted April 4, 2011 Ketchup is okay, but don't get me started on relish -- yuck! Not a fan of the Chicago day-glow green stuff eh? Now if Bonds had that stuff injected who knows, maybe Goodspeak would be all for imprisonment. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSngry Posted April 4, 2011 Report Share Posted April 4, 2011 Is that Chicago stuff actually considered "relish"? If so, that's the exception to my rule, because unlike other pickle relish, it's not wet in either texture or flavor. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Tim McG Posted April 4, 2011 Report Share Posted April 4, 2011 (edited) It would also open the proverbial Pandora's Box. How many ballpayers would have to be relieved of their records or put on trial for keeping the truth of their steroid use away from the Commissioner's Office? There would be no end to it. I suppose they could always claim they didn't know what they were taking. OK...and? Tell me, do you always know what your doctor injects you with? For myself, I take two injections a week for my allergies. I haven't the foggiest notion what is in those shots. All I know is my doctor proscribed them to combat allergies. Edited April 4, 2011 by GoodSpeak Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aggie87 Posted April 4, 2011 Report Share Posted April 4, 2011 (edited) No one is saying aspirin is the same as steroids. The term was "performance enhancing drugs". Any pain reliever does exactly that. The point of comparison is neither will make a player hit HRs. Why that is such a bone of contention it is beyond my comprehension. I don't believe a single person on this board except you, the Giants homer and Bonds homer, believes that steroids have no bearing on hitting HR's. Your statement therefore has to be taken into account with your inability to be non-biased as a Bonds fan. From Hugo Rivera, a certified fitness trainer and author of 8 books on bodybuilding (here): "Steroids do increase size and strength. In fact, they do so very significantly. In addition to gains in strength and muscle mass they also seem to provide you with more energy and aggressiveness, things that are conducive to good workouts (but not so in interpersonal relationships)." So since steroids add muscle mass AND strength, it is reasonable to conclude that the extra strength easily can translate into hitting a ball further than it would go without that added mass/strength. A farther-traveling ball means that at least some hits that would have only gotten to the warning track may now be able to travel over the wall for a HR. Therefore there's no way to determine how many additional HR's someone (Bonds in this case) may have hit due to his steroid use. So his record will always be in question, and IMO deserves the *. Edited April 4, 2011 by Aggie87 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dan Gould Posted April 4, 2011 Author Report Share Posted April 4, 2011 Of course its something batted around too many times in the past but Aggie nails it. Yes, Bonds was as uniquely talented as any outstanding major leaguer in squaring up a round ball with a cylindrical bat. But he never hit home runs with the frequency that he achieved so late in his career, until he started working with Greg Anderson and BALCO, and after his body became cartoonish. What's funny to me is this: Let's say there was no evidence that Bonds used steroids to bulk up. Let's say that for all anyone knows he simply worked hard and packed on muscle. Would Goodie give any credit to the idea that Bonds' added muscle was behind his home run frequency increase? Or would he still deny the connection? I think that if home runs weren't inextricably linked with physical strength, and Bonds wasn't linked to steroids, Tim would be able to admit the simple truth: stronger players hit the ball further, and the stronger you are the more likely that a hit will reach the bleachers than be caught at the warning track. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Kart Posted April 4, 2011 Report Share Posted April 4, 2011 You don't want to even know what Pandora took. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSngry Posted April 4, 2011 Report Share Posted April 4, 2011 You don't want to even know what Pandora took. Did it involve relish? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TedR Posted April 4, 2011 Report Share Posted April 4, 2011 Dan's comment on Bond's performance "so late in his career" is the rationale for strategically and knowingly taking steroids. Later in careers is when the most lucrative contracts with performance incentives are offered. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Kart Posted April 4, 2011 Report Share Posted April 4, 2011 You don't want to even know what Pandora took. Did it involve relish? No -- but it did involve her box. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSngry Posted April 4, 2011 Report Share Posted April 4, 2011 Relish usually comes in a jar, but a hot dog relishing a box is not unheard of so...I'll just leave it there while I can. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Dave James Posted April 5, 2011 Report Share Posted April 5, 2011 Tell me, do you always know what your doctor injects you with? For myself, I take two injections a week for my allergies. I haven't the foggiest notion what is in those shots. All I know is my doctor proscribed them to combat allergies. I hate to be the one to break the news, but there's about a 99% chance that your allergy medications contain steroids. My advice to you would be that you ask no further questions. I mean, why would anyone want to know what someone was shooting into their body...especially if the person administering the injections wasn't a physician or even a medical professional? If Bonds didn't ask those questions, then they should drop the perjury charges immediately and arrest him for stupidity. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jazzmoose Posted April 5, 2011 Report Share Posted April 5, 2011 Putting ketchup on a hot dog is fucking stupid. You're welcome. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSngry Posted April 5, 2011 Report Share Posted April 5, 2011 No, putting steak sauce on a good steak is fucking stupid. Putting ketchup on a hot dog is like putting mustard on a hot dog, except it's ketchup and not mustard. Either way, it's still a hot dog. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papsrus Posted April 5, 2011 Report Share Posted April 5, 2011 Tell me, do you always know what your doctor injects you with? For myself, I take two injections a week for my allergies. I haven't the foggiest notion what is in those shots. All I know is my doctor proscribed them to combat allergies. I hate to be the one to break the news, but there's about a 99% chance that your allergy medications contain steroids. My advice to you would be that you ask no further questions. I mean, why would anyone want to know what someone was shooting into their body...especially if the person administering the injections wasn't a physician or even a medical professional? If Bonds didn't ask those questions, then they should drop the perjury charges immediately and arrest him for stupidity. Yep Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Quincy Posted April 5, 2011 Report Share Posted April 5, 2011 No, putting steak sauce on a good steak is fucking stupid. Putting ketchup on a hot dog is like putting mustard on a hot dog, except it's ketchup and not mustard. Skip ahead to 1:12. And hey, given the backdrop it maintains the context of the thread! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jazzmoose Posted April 5, 2011 Report Share Posted April 5, 2011 You can't argue with Callahan! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Van Basten II Posted April 5, 2011 Report Share Posted April 5, 2011 No, putting steak sauce on a good steak is fucking stupid. Putting ketchup on a hot dog is like putting mustard on a hot dog, except it's ketchup and not mustard. Either way, it's still a hot dog. How about Spaghetti sauce ? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JSngry Posted April 5, 2011 Report Share Posted April 5, 2011 You mean like to make Spaghetti-Os with franks? I'm all for it! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Noj Posted April 5, 2011 Report Share Posted April 5, 2011 Why have a plain old nasty hot dog, when you can have a spicy sausage? With mustard, or with marinara and mozzarella, a sausage beats a frank in every way imaginable. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
_forumlogo.png.a607ef20a6e0c299ab2aa6443aa1f32e.png)
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.