Clemens slams Mitchell Report


We’re a bit Mitchell’ed out around here, but I’m breaking the steroids embargo to bring you this hot news: Roger Clemens has vehemently denied the allegations against him in the Mitchell Report.

His statement, if you please:

“I want to state clearly and without qualification: I did not take steroids, human growth hormone or any other banned substances at any time in my baseball career or, in fact, my entire life. Those substances represent a dangerous and destructive shortcut that no athlete should ever take.

“I am disappointed that my 25 years in public life have apparently not earned me the benefit of the doubt, but I understand that Senator Mitchell’s report has raised many serious questions. I plan to publicly answer all of those questions at the appropriate time in the appropriate way. I only ask that in the meantime people not rush to judgment.”

Who knows the truth? Not I.

Categories : STEROIDS!


  1. Kevin23 says:

    He probably did it. And he should definitely fight. No one deserves to be scapegoated like this. Not Barry. Not Roger. No one. And anyone who believes they value truth and honesty needs to take a good hard look at the last 20 years and start picking better battles. Athletes are not criminals for trying to become better athletes. Rather, they are paid large sums of money to become better. Now you say that, because an arbitrary line has been drawn in the sand by the morality police, they had a responsibility to unilaterally temper that goal. Stupid. Just plain stupid. I hope every player, guilty AND innocent, puts baseball and this BS report through the ringer.

    • Glen L says:

      Agreed completely

    • kris says:

      I think Clemens probably used steroids and should admit. However, I am sick of the radio show hosts acting like they have never lied, cheated on somebody or done anything (in any way, shape or form) that is out of line in their entire lives. The moralizing has been so bad I can’t listen to the radio for 5 min without turning it off in disgust.

      • Kevin23 says:

        Kris, did you know steroids and HGH will make a black guy look at a white woman?

        And we just can’t have that.

  2. Mike A. says:

    Just like Billy Clinton didn’t have sexual relations with that intern.

  3. Jamal G says:

    With Brain Roberts’ recent admission to steroid use this really puts Clemens in a hole he cant possibly climb out of. The main criticism of the Mitchell report was its lack of credibility and flimsy evidence, and the main example was the Brian Roberts situation. Well now that he has admitted (Roberts) to what was in the report, the Mitchell report now is oozing credibility especially in the case of Clemens who even critics agree was the strongest case in that whole report.

    • Kevin23 says:

      One piece of hearsay is corroborated and now we have “oozing credibility”. You should either work for ESPN or get a grip, man.

      • Jamal G says:

        Well when Andy Pettitte corroborates McNamee’s story, it is just bull-headed to simply deny and refute Mitchell’s report by using the “no credibility” excuse.

        • Kevin23 says:

          Pettitte merely admitted to two isolated incidents of doing something perfectly legal at the time. He didn’t lend credibility to the report by essentially saying the report makes a mountain out of a mole-hill. In fact, it helps my argument.

          I’m sick of people claiming that players like Roberts and Pettitte are making the report more credible. No they’re not. They’re telling you that, in their case, the report only has a small ring of truth…then they clarify and draw a distinction between the “truth” and the report. When you make 100 badly evidenced allegations, and a small number of those you invoked stand up and say “we admit to something, but NOT what you said” … does that really make you believe the other allegations? Really?? Because common sense says otherwise.

          • Brian says:

            Just to say, what Pettitte did was not “perfectly legal” at the time given the “no prescription drugs without a prescription” law, which is what this was. The idea that HGH is somehow a “lesser” drug than steroids, and that HGH was used only for “injury recovery” is a mighty suspect set of statements. As much as I love Pettitte, he can’t get a pass for that as “credible use,” even if Vina et al hop aboard the same boat.

            • Kevin23 says:

              Do we know for sure he violated a law? Did he definitely not have a prescription where one was needed? I don’t know, honestly. Thats a legal issue if the answers are yes, for certain. But HGH is used all over the world for all kinds of reasons. I’m not convinced we know what we’re talking about when we spout off and put it next to horse steroids.

              • Relaunch says:

                Pettitte did not have a prescription for HGH.

                • Kevin23 says:

                  And you’re positive that one is needed in every circumstance? Even going back 5-6 years?

                  • Relaunch says:

                    there has to be a medical need for it so it has to be prescribed. You can’t just go into wallmart and buy hgh. The trainer had it illegally.

                    • Kevin23 says:

                      “Medical need” and “prescription” can be two different things. One doesn’t need to necessarily follow the other. And where are you hearing the trainer had it illegally, had no prescriptive rights, etc.? I’ve yet to read it anywhere.

                    • Relaunch says:

                      I am in healthcare. A trainer can’t just get HGH and start adminstering to people. There was no diagnosis on Pettitte regarding this. If this was not a big deal and part of normal treatment you would have heard about it like when a player gets a cortisone shot.

                    • Kevin23 says:

                      And if the trainer had a medical license?

                      The universal excuse for past HGH use seems to be “rehab for an injury” … yet we never hear about HGH treatments in injury updates like we would with cortisone shots as you suggest we would. So what is the missing link here?

                    • Relaunch says:

                      there is no missing link. You are just not making sense. Pettitte was not prescribed HGH, trainers are not certified/licensed to prescribe/give HGH.

                    • Kevin23 says:

                      I asked an honest question. Don’t get snoody.

                      I find it hard to believe that 0% of trainers are without a medical license. That is your underlying assumption, is it not? Is it your opinion, or do you have anything substantial? And is it really that confusing to you that I ask why you claim we’d hear about HGH treatments if they were part of re-hab, many players claim to have had the treatment, yet we never hear about it in the reports. Something is missing. Be clear, or say you don’t know. Don’t attack the guy asking the questions.

                    • Kevin23 says:

                      Oops. Turn that 0% into 100%.

                    • Relaunch says:

                      medical license to prescribe? What is wrong with you. An MD, DO, NP, and PA are the only 4 people that can prescribe in the US.

                    • Kevin23 says:

                      And so, *obviously*, they can’t be trainers? If they have the titles, those titles MUST be referred to by media, etc. at all times? I haven’t read that 400 page crap-fest. I barely made it through the few dozen pages of excepts I sought out. What do they have other than this one guy’s word that Pettitte used the drugs without a prescription? If a real doctor did prescribe them, why would Pettitte release all of his medical records (seeing as how he is still playing)? Isn’t that confidential?

                      Look man, I don’t know. I’m asking. I basically want to know what you know. I’m not brow-beating you.

                    • Relaunch says:

                      Don’t get involved then in a conversation if you haven’t read the “400 page crap fest” and try to make points. If you read it, it says Pettitte received an injection from his trainer. If Pettitte had received a legal prescription for it, he would have said that in his statement and we would not be discussing this right now.

                    • Kevin23 says:

                      I said he did something perfectly legal at the time…which was to get HGH for rehab. I’m sure he says it was done legitimately. The report is one guy saying he did the injections illegally. You presume his lack of a statement means something definitive. That’s just false. Did I miss anything? Last time I checked, it was an open thread. Even if you did read all 400 pages, something tells me you still aren’t an expert on it, so don’t get too cocky or elitist. Answering in good faith would be ideal. Or you could move on and it won’t break my heart. But relax, its just a conversation.

                    • Relaunch says:

                      I am fine and relaxed. You making a statement on the way Pettitte received HGH in 2002 being legal is comical. It will be easy to move on from this conversation because logic doesn’t make sense to you.

                    • Kevin23 says:

                      An expert on logic now? I teach logic games and arguments for The Princeton Review on weekends, so it’s funny that you appeal to your own authority. Especially seeing as how you’ve managed to skirt every honest question posed to you. Get a grip, and stop lashing out like a caged tiger if you know the answers.

                      HGH was and is legal. That’s what he admitted to. Nothing funny about it. If you want to impugn someone, do it right.

                    • Relaunch says:

                      And you teaching Princeton Review proves what? Read before you write, do some research, then you will understand. You are just too lazy to go look up this yourself. For example, if you were prescribed weed for cancer by an MD in California, it is legal. If you got caught with weed not prescribed legally in cali, you will be in trouble.
                      Another example, if you get caught with Percocet without a prescription (buying it off the street), you will legally be accountable for that.

                      So no shit if HGH was legal then, it is illegal the way it was received and adminstered.

                    • Kevin23 says:

                      Yeah…according to one guy who got a deal out of it. Nice research.

                    • Relaunch says:

                      Edited by RAB: Leave the personal attacks at home.

  4. dan says:

    I hear all these people saying that it’s unnatural to put on as much muscle as Clemens did in his late 30′s and 40′s. Before the report, no one had ever said anything about Clemens getting bigger.

    • Kevin23 says:

      True. They went ON AND ON about his “legendary” work outs and off-season routines. My how things change in the blink of an eye when it is convenient.

  5. A non mouse says:

    I wonder if Roger is being advised by legal counsel. If he fights this, he won’t be taken seriously unless he sues for slander/libel. But if he sues, he might open up his past to discovery. And some evidence adduced in a court of law might which casts him in a negative light be even more damaging than the allegations in the Mitchell Report…

    • Kevin23 says:

      You really wonder if he’s talked to a lawyer? Really?

      Come on folks. I know the holidays are almost here, but lets not boycott common sense quite yet. Save that for the decision whether to drink that 5th egg nog on x-mas morning. So what that its not 10am yet!

  6. Relaunch says:

    Clemens realized that the accusations (prob true) do not have any hard evidence. He can refute this as much as he wants because its the trainers word against his.

  7. Grant says:

    I think he is safe, because ultimately he has no legal standing to sue, so he will be able to say “I would have sued, if they had let me”.

    • Kevin23 says:

      How can you say he “has no legal standing to sue”? How do you know? There may be evidence that Mitchell collected or should have known about that was not in the report. In that case, he would have a great case. We just don’t know.

      And why would he say “I would have sued, if they had let me” … isn’t that exactly like saying “I would have bought that if I had the money”? If he had a case, he’d never be told he couldn’t file a claim in court. Saying “they” didn’t allow it is the same as saying you didn’t have a case.

      Best course of action is what he’s doing now. Flush out the bad evidence from the report, make the public aware that it is crap, and hope there isn’t good evidence that can outweigh your arguments. If you’ve got a whole lot to hide, then shut up and say nothing.

      • Grant says:

        Notice how i prefaced everything I said with “I think”. It has been said and written in multiple places that the players may have no legal standing, I am not a lawyer. They may not be able to sue for various reasons, or it may be impossible to prove that MLB tried to slander them. This report was written for MLB, that would be the defendant in any suit.

        Politicians have used very similar excuses in cases like this. Saying “I would have sued but they wouldn’t let me” is nothing like saying “I would have bought that if I had the money”, it’s like saying “I would have bought that, and I had the money, but they wouldn’t let me“.

        It’s a nice safe place where he can say I want to fight this, but the “rules” or the agreement or whatever won’t allow it, it really isn’t that hard a concept to latch onto.

        • Kevin23 says:

          You forget who the lawyer works for…the dollar. A win-able case is taken, a non-case might be, but only by a guy working out of his sister’s basement.

          • Steve S says:

            I am an attorney, and Kevin you are way off base. While I dont do Plaintiffs work, the bottom line is if you have the money you can sue anyone you want. In this case though, Clemens wont be able to sue the media or baseball. The only person he can sue in this situation is Mcnamee. Thats what makes the suit and people saying he has to sue so ridiculous. MLB baseball would not be a defendant in any of these suits, because you could never prove one of the essential elements of the case- MALICE. All that being said, lawyers dont evaluate a case on winnable or not, because the evidence wont become clear until you have actually instituted the action. If Clemens tells his attorneys this is all false, he could go after Mcnamee, but naming Mitchell and MLB in the suit would only go as far as serving them with the complaint because theyll be able to get rid of it rather rapidly.

            And the media is allowed to speculate. They are being irresponsible about a lot of things. But where there is smoke there is usually a fire. Whats real sad here is that regardless of the subsequent admissions, the Mitchell Report disregarded a fundamental constitutional right- Due Process. And while I dont expect the media (especially sports writers) to understand that. I would expect that Senator Mitchell would have had a greater regard for something that anyone who goes to law school understands the significance of. And the fact that Congress is going to parade a bunch of baseball players through DC now is an even greater tragedy (considering everything else going on in this country). Clemens will never be treated fairly because he is not operating in a court of law, that doesnt mean he didn’t do it or that he did it, its just a matter of everyone taking sides now. Thats why we have to stop talking about the legalities of this whole thing. From the moment this thing started the law had no place in this investigation or in what came out of it.

            • Steve S says:

              And Im sorry common sense says that he probably did take something. His performance, at his age, combined with Pettitte’s admission would lead you to believe that Roger did take something. It doesnt change the fact that he worked out like a maniac, or that he kept himself in good shape, its just that steroids and HGH played a role in that.

              • Kevin23 says:

                “And Im sorry common sense says that he probably did take something. His performance, at his age, combined with Pettitte’s admission would lead you to believe that Roger did take something.”

                Really? Sounds pretty flimsy to me. Nolan Ryan was most likely juiced beyond belief under that logic.

            • Kevin23 says:

              Steve, I am an attorney. And I am not sure how I’m “off base” when you don’t seen to disagree with anything I said directly except how attorney’s take cases, which is an individual decision. And as you should know, every lawyer must sign an affidavit attached to every complaint stating that they believe to the best of their abilities that the case is not frivolous and the accusations in it are not fluffed. If you’re arguing that lawyers will take money to bring a bad suit, then you are simply saying what I said: that only the bad ones would do it.

              So what are you trying to advocate by pretending to disagree?

              • Steve S says:

                No what I am saying is that in any litigation, an attorney is going to listen to his client, determine what the problem is. And most of the time no one can say that a case is winnable from the initial conversations. Just like you would put into any retainer agreement. There are cases that are frivolous, but in most tort cases some of the elements are going to be harder to prove than others. Im saying your off base in the way an attorney would evaluate a case. Especially, considering the fact that when institute an action, you are subject to your clients version of events, rather than having everything through discovery available.

                • Kevin23 says:

                  So you take issue with my using the word “winable”? Its subjective, Steve. Win-able does NOT equate to will win. It just means the lawyer sees a legitimate cause of action based on the info available to him. Now I specialize in IP law, Steve, so if you want to have a war over semantics, fine. Or we could have a battle of resumes. I can play that game, too. Neither solves anything.

                  What I said was that Roger can’t say “THEY wouldn’t let me” and have it logically equate to “I had a case but no one would file it”. If he has even the semblance of a case, it’ll get taken.

                  And no, a good lawyer will not blindly follow his client’s every whim in violation of ethics rules and his signed affidavit. That is the mark of a bad attorney. I hope you are not one of them.

                • Kevin23 says:

                  To be more specific, the ultimate defense against any litigation by Roger would be truth. So as long as an attorney could get Roger’s written affidavit that he never took PED’s, they’d take his case. Why? Because it’s winable! If discovery plays out in your favor, it’s pretty much a foregone conclusion. Therefore, the argument that “they wouldn’t let me” is bogus.

                  • Steve S says:


                    I dont want to get into a professional pissing match. And to be clear Im not holding myself out to be an expert in this area. I do corporate work so I acknowledge I have limited exposure to litigation and absolutely no idea the reality of a defamation claim. However, when discussing ethics, its arguable that an attorney would look at Clemens and say “Ill bring the suit if you can affirm that you never did these things. However, be aware that an essential element of this case is going to be difficult to prove when it comes to Mitchell and MLB.” Also consider that you could lose this case even if you are telling the truth. I think at that point Clemens has the right to say maybe I shouldn’t bring this. And an “ethical” attorney would tell him, as a public figure, it may be better to explore other avenues before trying to institute a defamation claim. Which would be a slow process and besides the initial press coverage would not alleviate any of the allegations against him immediately.

                    And consider the fact that any litigation would be subject to the terms of collective bargaining agreement (which I have never read but I would guess provides some administrative steps Clemens would have to take, in order to institute a suit against the league.)

                    The legal profession is inherently subjective and in this case there is a lot of gray area. Its not as black and white as Roger is telling the truth I can institute a case. And I think to phrase it that way is mis characterizing the reality of this type of lawsuit and with these parties. And there is a reality that Clemens could say who should I sue, and the response should be Brian McNamee and perhaps you could try and name MLB and Mitchell as defendnats, but I doubt that claims against the latter would make it past the summary judgment phase.
                    Maybe Im crazy but I would think they would be pretty well insulated from these claims or they would have never gone forth with publishing this stuff.

                    • Kevin23 says:


                      I never claimed he could sue MLB or Mitchell. Why do you keep bringing this up? And it really could be as simple as getting Roger to sign an affidavit, as he would have to in the complaint anyway. Whose going to send him away? Charge him by the hour and tell him the damages might very well not amount to the costs. Done.

                      You repeat many points I have made myself, but in an adversarial way, and I’m confused as to why. Like I said initially, we agree on all basic points. You just misinterpreted my word “winable”. Right? Or am I taking crazy pills?

                      I see no need to keep agreeing and acting like we’re not.

                    • Steve S says:

                      I think we do now, I think everyone in the general public is waiting for Roger to sue baseball, sorry for pinning that on you.

                      And as for the Nolan Ryan comment. Common sense would tell me that its entirely possible at this point for anyone in the last 25 years to be in this boat. Its not limited to body type or character. But common sense would tell you that there have been three pitchers who have been dominant passed the age of 40. Nolan, Roger, and Satchel Paige. Ill leave satchel out of it, but its hard not raise an eyebrow when its been so clearly established by precedent that athletes do not raise or maintain their level of performance beyond age 40. I dont think its flimsy, I think its rather strong.

                    • Kevin23 says:

                      re: Ryan – No, its correlation-causation at its worst. If you want to strengthen the argument, reference the fact that PED’s were widespread during that era. Now you have all the pieces of the assumptive puzzle. Age and skill alone mean nothing. Maybe that’s a bit nit-picky, but Ryan could still throw 90 as a 55 year old man, so he’s a counter-example unless you believe he was still using PED’s as a coach.

                      See my first comment in this thread for my opinion on Roger and PED’s in general..

                    • Steve S says:

                      Nolan Ryan’s ability to throw 90 mph at 55 isnt the measure of whether he took steroids. Rather, its how effective he was over a season at age 40 and above. Roger (like Bonds) has defied every odd by actually improving on his numbers as he aged beyond 35 and 40. Granted some of it is league oriented, but when dealing with this type of circumstantial evidence its hard not to come to this conclusion.

                      And i have to say you are taking this very seriously. You practically cross examined the guy about prescriptions. The bottom line is that these guys cheated. And in a better world, the media and fans would understand how awful this report is, in a legal context. Unfortunately all of this is outside of it, so the rules and fundamental rights we hold so dear, dont matter that much in this debate.

                    • Kevin23 says:

                      Nolan Ryan was throwing more innings, throwing harder and striking out more guys in his 40′s than Roger. And he was smaller, etc. He’s a freak, pure and simple. Go back in time and there is many freaks, and you find different era’s of baseball (taller mound era, small glove era and pitch every day era, etc.). Now there is the steroids era. Taken in that context, and comparing his stats to his era, Roger was also a freak. But every era has its freaks. If he did take PED’s, which makes perfect sense, they didn’t cause anything but endurance later on. Now all of that is the real debate. And you’re right, we can’t change people’s perceptions or stigmas, and the public has the right to speculate.

                      Now here comes this report. And I think you and I know where on the usefulness scale (especially legally speaking) this report ranks. Right there next to Paris Hilton’s career. I think the key is the word you used yourself: circumstantial. We should demand better. And I didn’t mean to cross-exam him. Just trying to get to the bottom of it. Damn these slow workdays!

                    • Steve S says:

                      Got to keep the billables going. I think the problem is the media feeds into the mob mentality and the mob likes this kind of stuff: knock somebody from their pedestal (see Alex Rodriguez in NY). You are absolutely right, but there is nothing we can do about it.

  8. Glen L says:

    Not that I’m anyone at all … but I’ve personally been saying for years that I believed Roger was using both gear and gh

    • Kevin23 says:

      I don’t think you were anywhere near alone, Glen. Anyone who didn’t have the goo goo eyes of a child worshiping his hero had to suspect that his getting better with age might have been assisted by modern chemistry (which not everyone is even convinced is such an “evil” thing to begin with). But the reality is that no one said anything. Instead, they praised him to no end, and attributed it all to his workout regimen, careful to avoid any controversy that could force them to do some research. Then, this magical report comes out and EVERY underlying assumption changes with no second thoughts. It shows just how shallow the media can be. Pandering is not diligence, no matter how you cut it.

  9. Glen L says:

    Sorry that post was supposed to reply to Dan, December 18 at 5:32pm

  10. Old Goat says:

    Funny, I look at his career stats and it looks fairly consistent through out.

    I know plenty of people who are in as good a shape in their 50′s and 60′s as they were in their 20′s. In the military, the drill sargents take pride in running the kids into the ground while they are twice their age.

    Clemens must prove malice from Mitchell. That can be done. Mitchell is the number 5 man in the Red Sox organization, yet he couldn’t get any of his players or the clubhouse people to talk to. Sorry, that is bunk. Mitchell also is financially vested with the Red Sox and this report hurts the Yankees far more than any other team, while it does nothing significant with Red Sox players.

    McNamee might have had a grudge against Clemens, as Clemens no longer required his services. Maybe Clemens is clean, maybe not, but one thing is certain, this report is not helping baseball, but it certainly did give some benefit to the Red Sox.

  11. Kevin23 says:

    Check this out from Mark Kriegel of Fox Sports on MSN:

    “Roger Clemens isn’t interested in a fair fight. Never was. For all his 354 wins, there was always a whiff of something fraudulent about him, as evidenced by his woeful record in elimination games. He was a bully on the mound. And like most bullies, he wanted to be feared, but needed to be protected. For all its shortcomings, the Mitchell Report — five solid reporters, members of the much-maligned media, could have come up with a lot more for about $20 million less — seems proof enough of Clemens’ true character.”

    Now THAT sounds like libel to me if Clemons is innocent. And just for clarity’s sake…the word malice is not entirely accurate. He must prove two things: knowledge of falsity, and reckless disregard for the truth.

    • steve (different one) says:

      For all his 354 wins, there was always a whiff of something fraudulent about him, as evidenced by his woeful record in elimination games

      what does this mean?

    • Glen L says:

      actually since Clemens is, as a matter of law, a “public figure” he does need to prove malice in a defamation claim

      • Kevin23 says:

        Lets be clear, here, because people throw legal terms around with no regard for their specific meanings:

        Under the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, as set forth by the U.S. Supreme Court in the 1964 Case, New York Times v Sullivan, where a public figure attempts to bring an action for defamation, the public figure must prove an additional element: That the statement was made with “actual malice”. In translation, that means that the person making the statement knew the statement to be false, or issued the statement with reckless disregard as to its truth.

        • Glen L says:

          Kevin, I’m an attorney too (a litigator actually) and i meant to use the world malice in its legal sense in a defamation setting

          I didn’t mean to disagree with you completely, simply meant to state that they do need to prove malice … i suppose, however, a layperson may have a different conception of malice .. so you are right to point out what it actually means in this context

          • Kevin23 says:

            I figured. I just wanted to break it down into its simplest form. You and I know the word “malice” can be loaded.

  12. Kevin23 says:

    damn italic tags…obviously last paragraph is me.

  13. Kevin23 says:

    Oh yeah, and did you guys know that he threw a bat towards Mike Piazza in 2000? Obviously that was ‘roid rage. I mean, it sounds good, so it must be true, right?

    Even though I’m the first to admit I believe PED’s were/are rampant, I am just sick of this media wave of hysteria. They praised this guy for years, now it looks like they just couldn’t wait for a “gotcha” moment. I’m sympathizing with Barry Bonds, I guy I’ve hated nearly all my life, more and more each day as I watch this BS “coverage”. Thank god for the internet and giving the power of information back to the people!

    I’ll officially get off the soapbox. Its been raining for as long as I can remember. I’m a little stir crazy.

  14. barry says:

    Every great player of our era is going to be accused of this, this is why I’ll happily give Roger the benefit of the doubt. I think today was the first day i was actually physically mad at maddog he was pissing me off so much with his constant bashing of Clemens and especially Pettitte. This report is basically like one of those presents you get for your birthday and you hate it and are having a hardtime hiding it.

    • Joseph P. says:

      It amazes me how people still listen to those two fucktards. I can think about 50 things off the top of my head that are more fun and more enriching than listening to Mike and the Mad Dog — or any sports talk radio for that matter.

  15. Relaunch says:

    I never thought I would say this, but I prefer Michael Kay’s voice/radio show over Mad Dog anyday.

  16. [...] Roger Clemens believes Senator Mitchell is mistaken. (River Ave. Blues) [...]

  17. Glen L says:

    Russo has his flaws .. but i’m really a huge fan of Mike’s … he has his flaws too and this PED stuff doesn’t make most members of the media look good in my humble opinion

    one of my great small pleasures in life though is listening to Mike and Dog … i disagree with them sometimes and other times i think they’re spot on .. but that’s the fun of it .. what fun is it listening to something that just repeats you’re own opinions .. you can’t grow or learn from that .. you hear something you disagree with it forces you to examine why you disagree with it and reevaluate your own opinions .. sometimes bolstering your position other times pointing out flaws in your position

    • Steve S says:

      I think the problem with those two is when they are off on stuff, its not a matter of opinion, its a matter of fact. Or they take what is subjective and open to debate, and make it a definitive fact/statement, that anyone who argues would be crazy. All that being said they are entertaining most of the time. But I think Michael Kay offers a little more because his interviews actually solicit information from the guest rather than force feed it to someone else.

  18. Glen L says:

    I agree with that … when they think they know something, they do treat it like a fact and those who disagree are made out to be loons

  19. Ben K. says:

    Alright, folks. This thread’s finished. It devolving into personal attacks and we’ve all said our piece. For the sanity and well-being of everyone, I’m closing it.