That's weird Nick hasn't pounced on this one. Hrm.

My count is three confirmed, and probably more. Well played, MFY. More steroid users this century than WS titles. Heyy-ohhh!
 

You can't even find Nick on his own blog!
 

I'm around. Lurking and waiting. Sorry I don't get to update everyday, but thanks for stopping by.
 

Everyone forgets that the Yankess only legitimately won 94 regular season games. On June 15th, they were awarded a 7-5 10-inning victory by the umpires, despite the fact that Sheffield very clearly grounded into a game ending double play in the 9th inning.

http://cbs.sportsline.com/mlb/gamecenter/recap/MLB_20050615_PIT@NYY

And yes, every teams gets some bad calls go their way every season, but those calls rarely come on what should be the very last play of the game. In other words, you rarely can say definitively that the outcome of the game would have been different if not for the blown call. In this case it was unequivocally the different between a W and an L.
 

Sorry, my spelling wasn't up to par on that post, but the point remains legitimate.
 

Ah, the old blown call thing. Are you saying the White Sox should have a tarnished World Series because they were the recipient of so many bad calls? Maybe the umps were paid off in some weird, twisted reversal of the 1919 season.

It's in the books, so it's legit. Live with it, whiner.
 

I'll bet you're still whining to your MFY-fan buddies about the Cano calls in games 3 and 5 of the Yanks/Angels series, as if that was the reason the Halos won, douchebag.

And the point is that, unlike those plays:
1) replays show without a doubt that the umps blew the call
2)it clearly was the SOLE difference between an W and an L; you can't make any claim that the Yanks could have still won the game if the umps had gotten it right.

And I wasn't saying anything about the legitimacy of the ChiSox victory; again, none of the questionable calls in their favor this October can be cited as the only factor in a W for them.
 

"It's in the books, so it's legit."

Spoken like a true yankee fan. You've probably got an excuse for Jeffrey Meier reaching over the fence, too.

All of Giambi's stats are in the books, but he's admitted to doing steroids. Are those stats legit?
 

Be careful Jere. Mr. Giambi has admitted to no such thing.
 

Oh, right. He just apologized for that unspecified "thing."
 

"Be careful Jere. Mr. Giambi has admitted to no such thing"

That's simply not true. Giambi absolutely admitted to a federal grand jury that he had taken steroids and HGH:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/12/02/MNG80A523H1.DTL
 

That last comment and link to Giambi's confession was mine, btw.
 

I didn't hit the link, but I think this was the "illegal leak" of the grand jury testimony, which may or may not be true. But whatever.

Since testing has started, he's come up clean. Those are the facts.
 

Yeah, just ignore a grand jury confession because it directly contradicts your claim. Whatever.

He wasn't clean during the 2003 ALCS. That's a fact.
 

Leaked legally or illegally, it's on the books, so it's legit:

"In his testimony, Giambi described how he had used syringes to inject human growth hormone into his stomach and testosterone into his buttocks. " --not The Boston Globe
 

I'm not sure how you can say that it's a fact that he wasn't clean during the 2003 ALCS? Any facts to back that up.

Maybe you should get a subpoena since you "know" so much?
 

Wow, you're really scraping Nick; you've already been proven dead wrong about Giambi's confession, but you just keep grasping for more straws. From the link that you refuse to read:
"New York Yankees star Jason Giambi told a federal grand jury that he had injected himself with human growth hormone during the 2003 baseball season and had started using steroids at least two years earlier, The Chronicle has learned."

Are you going to defy all logic and try to claim that he was using in-season in 2003, but was clean with nothing in his system by October? Actually, based on your dissembling throughout this thread, I'm sure you will. At this rate, you can always get a job in the Bush Administration.
 

Oh my God- I don't even think I've met any Yankee fans that will dispute the bare fact that Giambi juiced- I mean that much is established. There's no debate.

I mean Jesus guy, what was he apologizing for? Aren't you at least a little bit interested in being taken seriously?

What a fanboy.
 

Sigh. You people are so disappointing.

Never have I said that Jason Giambi does or doesn't (or didn't) use steroids. You could all learn something by a chapter from Rush Limbaugh's first book. The chapter is titled, "Words Mean Things."

So when some idiot says "Giambi was dirty during the ALCS" and makes it sound like a fact when it really isn't, they're confusing fact with opinion.
 

"Never have I said that Jason Giambi does or doesn't (or didn't) use steroids."

You flat out tried to claim that he had never admitted it; which of course, has been proven to be 100% false. Talk about presenting a (wrong) opinion as fact.

Are you trying now to claim that you weren't implying with that statement that Giambi had never juiced?

I supplied the original report of his grand jury confession, and you tried to ignore it with some irrelevant spin about it being illegally leaked. One more time, Nick: Are you going to deny that Giambi confessed to steroid and HGH use during the 2003 season? Are you going to try to claim that he could have been juicing during the season, and not have derived any benefit from it during the post-season? Possible...maybe. Likely...no.

And anybody who thinks that Steinbrenner is baseball's savior, or reading Rush Limbaugh, has a lot of nerve ever calling anyone else an idiot.
 

Jere,

To get back to your original post, was Deadspin the original source for the Matt Lawton steroid rumor? I tried googling for a news item, but nothing came up.
 

It wasn't Big Macs, which made Giambi, look like the Man with The Green Skin, that's for sure. He looked BIGGER than in '03, this past year.
 

Wow, it sounds like some people could really benefit from a reading comprehension class (ahem, BS, ahem).
 

Nick, please do explain the difference for you with regards to even bothering mentioning the distinction.

Unless you were trying to imply something else, why would bring up some pointless semantical issue that really amounts to nothing? You know who else "as admitted to no such thing"? OJ Simpson. Big fuckin' whoop.
 

Talk about someone needed a blow job.......
 

Translation: "Yea, you're right, that was stupid."

And of course I'm always accepting blow jobs from foxey ladies. Who wouldn't?
 

Maybe some fresh air would do you some good.
 

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2005/baseball/mlb/11/02/bc.bba.drugs.lawton.ap/index.html

That's the Lawton article. TJ by me for not linking it in the original post.

Also, I officially declare Nick the loser of this argument.

And using Rush Limbaugh logic isn't going to help anyone.
 

Thanks for the link, Jere. I'm just bemused by the concept of "Matt Lawton, Juicer". Almost as funny as Manny Alexander.

And it's pretty clear that Nick could lose an argument with a potted plant.
 

And what argument would that be? Nothing I've said has been incorrect. Go back and "read" what I actually say and you'll figure it out.
 

"Nothing I've said has been incorrect."

Yawn.

"Be careful Jere. Mr. Giambi has admitted to no such thing."

Once again:
http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?file=/chronicle/archive/2004/12/02/MNG80A523H1.DTL

Rinse, lather, repeat.
 

This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.