Why do you believe Arod is telling the truth? He claims he only used in Texas, barely, and for some reason you seem willing to accept that and believe him. Are you really that gullible?

Look at his offensive numbers, for God's sake. There is no major difference between when he played in Seattle, when he played in Texas, and now while he's playing in New York. His batting average is about the same, as is his On Base percentage, his Slugging, and his OPS. They all fluctuate about the way anyone's do throughout a career. The only major improvement he's ever had is her hit more HR in Texas than he did in Seattle. But considering that in Arlington the balls fly out of there as if they were birds that's no surprise, not to mention he also had more offense around him in Texas as well, so he couldn't be pitched around as much. And three out of five years in New York he's hit a comparative number of home runs as he did in Texas.

So if he only used when he was in Texas, then where is the offensive improvement that is inherent in steroid use? I've looked at his stats, and I don't see it. So he's either never used or always used. And since he has been caught, I think which is more plausible is clear.

So stop giving him a pass on this. He's still lying, and anyone who would just take a look at the facts can see that.

P.S. -To all of you who are complaining about steroid use in baseball as opposed to other sports, keep in mind that the NFL suspended eight players last season alone for steroid use, and that number I believe is the average per season. The NBA doesn't seem to really have a problem, but neither did baseball till Canseco talked.

Okay, now this thread is really done, but I have to respond briefly:

You really think that Arod would continue to use steroids for three years if they were doing nothing for him? For one season maybe, but anyone would either give them up or move onto some other cocktail. But he goes on using something that gave his performance no improvement for three years? That makes sense to you? More sense than he has always been using, and he just got caught in Texas?

None of this Minnesota train wreck is falling on Tim Pawlenty? It's his state, and he seems at least from the national coverage to be nowhere. I understand there's legal cases pending, but shouldn't there be a push to make him certify this election result already, as the outcome is clear and inevitable? And yes, I also understand he's a republican with big dreams, so he might not want to cross the GOP bigwigs (whoever they are these days) and certify Franken, but isn't his non-intervention mean he's allowing his state to go unrepresented and to look really bad, and that is even worse for any national hopes he might have?

The conservative brand of economics and foreign policy has been so discredited by the abundant evidence of its wrong headedness that the only people left who can still promote it are truly, truly stupid. Like Michelle Bachman. It honestly cannot get any dumber than this waste of space.

The days of the intelligent conservative are gone. Today they're all little more than just like the dishevelled dumbass you come across talking up Stalinism on a street corner.

And sat through it. I gotta ask, how do you relly come up with this glowing review? The movie isn't horrible, and it could have been infinitely worse, but its not that good. The dialogue, like most comic book graphic novel dialogue is when said out loud by people, is terrible. Apart from Roscharch and Nite owl, I thought the acting was pretty weak. The pacing was absurd- what with all the things they covered but superficially- either take it out entirely or settle for the four hour epic. And all that eye candy- its great, but it really has to stopped being used to cover the glaring problems of story and character like this and so many other movies do these days. I would have loved to have seen what a better, more talented director could have done with the story.

This movie'll make back its money, there's no doubt about it. For all my problems with it its still a decent flick. But really, I don't think its in the same stratosphere as Chris Nolan's Batman movies.

And you compare it to Stanley Kubrick? Really? Have you ever actually seen a Stanley Kubrick movie?