Yep, a reaction. Not like hives or nausea, but an uncontrollable muscle spasm that forced him to keep picking up and ingesting pill after pill.

What a crazy reaction! Or should I say..... excuse.

His publicist accuses the police of doing something to TO for their gain. WHAT THE FUK can they exactly gain by this?

She's a douche, finishing with "He has 25 million reasons to be alive." I guess we know her favorite thing about him.

I can speak to having taken vicodin after a surgery and it made me real loopy and susceptible to saying and doing stupid s**t. On the other hand, I have had morphine after a surgery and it really didn't do anything to me. People react differently to those types of pain medications, so it is perfectly plausible for T.O. to have been halfway out of his mind mixing vicodin with something else. Unfortunately, he has done so much dumb crap that anything he does becomes NEWS! when it might not be anything at all.

^

That's the one!

By now all should know that john clayton backs up what T.O. and his publicist said about the allergic reaction. apparently, this behavior has happened before when he has been injured enough to need painkillers. because T.O. keeps his system so clean, the effect of something like vicodin is greatly intensified. So, maybe people should back off him on this one.

if he is dating that dumb bitch that is his spokesperson i attmept suicide too

give her a 20 and tell her to take her mannish looking face to the mall

time to end the freak show--fu-- that guy and his ass clownish entourage

 

havent heard dick form the agent--must be getting it on with mr burger king

dante

You should know also that I posted earlier in this thread that I was given vicodin after I got snipped and it made me loopy and stupid, so I have some personal knowledge of the situation. Also, clayton reported that this has happened BEFORE with T.O. so it's not about his knowledge of the body or lack thereof, it's knowledge of his history with painkillers.

You can call a dog a cat if it makes you feel better too Phole. But to call alcoholism a DISEASE is just dumb. You can look at it anyway you want.

Now, in no way am I attempting to trivialize your or anyones predicament, but calling an obsessive compulsive behavioral disorder a  disease really stretches the literal meaning of the definition of the word DISEASE. I hate that classification, because in a lot of ways gives alcoholics just one more reason not to quit..."After all I can't quit I have a disease!" So I don't agree with it's classification as that for that reason alone. The definition of the word disease can and is interpereted very ambiguously and can be applied to many different gray areas of sicknesses and or disorders, but when applied to this one I believe it is an injustice to the cause of the people trying so hard to help people drop the bottle.

I've read both sides of the argument, and that is my opinion of it. 

 

i appreciate your candor. and after "cooling" off do see some merit in your comments. your argument may have validity, your presentation is what pissed me off. nothing personal.

twanne wrote:

---

You should know also that I posted earlier in this thread that I was given vicodin after I got snipped and it made me loopy and stupid, so I have some personal knowledge of the situation. Also, clayton reported that this has happened BEFORE with T.O. so it's not about his knowledge of the body or lack thereof, it's knowledge of his history with painkillers.

---

TO has been in the emergency room of a hospital before because of this? And they gave him some more? Hmmmmmm....... You sure about that? What exactly is this knowledge Clayton has that should make anyone back off?

And you should know that they said he was on Hydrocodone-basically aspirin with codeine. This from a description of the drug is how they would define an allergic reaction:

 · an allergic reaction (difficulty breathing; closing of the throat; swelling of the lips, tongue, or face; or hives);

You still wanna believe the allergic reaction BS? This is from the description of an overdose:

What happens if I overdose? • Seek emergency medical attention if an overdose is suspected. • Symptoms of an hydrocodone and acetaminophen overdose may include slow breathing, seizures, dizziness, weakness, loss of consciousness, coma, confusion, tiredness, cold and clammy skin, small pupils, nausea, vomiting, and sweating.

Sounds like what they are describing, huh? So do you still want to believe John Clayton backing the allergic reaction "theory"?

Here's the website so you can read more if you like:http://www.drugs.com/hydrocodone.html

-- Edited by shack at 18:00, 2006-09-28

GoBearsGalason wrote:

---

It's one of those things phole....Like when I talk about retards and homos and whatnot. Yeah sure someone with a retarded kid or a homo kid might take more offense to it.

But hey, sensitivity or political correctness has NEVER been my strong points. Probably because I can find humor in just about any and every situation...even death. And I definitely am good natured about even my own shortcomings. Therefore I get really pissed when people get sensitive about things. Lighten the fuk up I say.

The only thing that I say is off limits are kid stuff. 1.) they cannot defend themselves 2.) can do very little about their own situations 3.) are just so damn cute and innocent

Alkys

Druggies

anyone above the age of 13 really is fair game i say.

 

And most real drinkers I know are labeled alcoholics by others. They consider themselves people who really enjoy a c0cktail or 25....And I say so long as they aren't hurting others by driving obliterated or neglecting their kids, are they really alcoholics?

My old saying is "Hey It's my fukn liver, right" or as a screamin bull dyke at an abortion rally would say it

"STAY OUT OF MY LIVER!"

I don't know what the fuss is all about, we all fukn die anyway right?  Why not die with a little piss in your pants and and underwear full of dookie from being to drunk to use the washroom. Fuk dignity, dignity is a word invented by a priest.

 

And being a Lithuanian\ Polack from Chicago, everyone of my grandparents were heavy heavy drinkers.

In fact want to hear something wierd. I pride myself in being very well read. current events, history, (especially wars), and many things. I am 28 years old. And just recently I had somebody die of old age in my wifes family.....And I'll be God  damned if I wasn't more stunned by the following revelation than anything in my entire life...Just Flabberghasted

People actually die of old age. Us pollacks Eastern Europeans dont die of old age. Ever. We die of heart attacks and cancer like real people before 70 years old. I had never even heard of anyone dying of old age....I'm not even lying. I had never even bothered to think about what happens when you don't die of a heart attack or cancer or cirrhosis!

I'm not joking about this. I was fukn stunned speechless!

And I also came to this conclusion- I don't want to. YEah lets wither away and get so old that someone has to feed me shakes, wipe my a$$ and bathe me? Nuh uh....If by some crazy chance Cancer doesn't get me, or a heart attack doesnt get me by 83 years old....I want the fukin pillow treatment.

I will however start acting scenile at or around 65...I should still be young enough to beat off and my scenility will allow for me to grab boobies and molest women without going to jail.

"Oh don't worry about uncle Erick, hes out of his tits insane, harmless really, aside from him grabbing the girls assess and jacks, but harmless nonetheless"

-- Edited by GoBearsGalason at 14:56, 2006-09-28

-- Edited by GoBearsGalason at 15:01, 2006-09-28

---

Labas GoBears!

I too am Lithuanian...

...and yes, drinking heavily and dying early tends to come with the territory. 

 

Oops, I guess i'm used to a particular turn of phrase but i know how allergic reactions to pk's work. My wife will die if she is given morphine, so I know T.O. didn't have an allergic reaction. Just reaction is the proper way to describe. Also, I ain't on no high horse, just making the point that T.O.'s reputation (well deserved) automatically leads to negative reaction on anything he does and that should not be the case.

Kind of similar to the "reputation calls" that kornheiser brought up during mnf skins/vikes game.

Small parallel here, I recently read an article on espn page2 concerning Frank Thomas and why he's not even in the discussion of the greatest hitters of all time. One of the reasons that was given is that he's generally been a turd throughout his career. That has worked against him particularly with the media, and we know that baseball writers wield a considerable amount of power in shaping opinions. That frank was/is an ass has no bearing upon his stature among the greatest hitters but it has been made to be an issue. NOT FAIR

Also, don't know if you remember when LT was up for HOF induction, but there was more than a fair amount of debate between Hall voters on whether he should get in because of his drug past/present. NOT FAIR

Same thing is going on now with Michael Irvin. I don't think he should get in, but not because of his drug past/present and that is the argument. NOT FAIR

this incident with Owens could very well be completely innocent, but because it involves T.O. it automatically elicits negative reaction because of his rep.

I Know that LIFE AIN'T FAIR but that doesn't make it right.

twanne wrote:

---

Oops, I guess i'm used to a particular turn of phrase but i know how allergic reactions to pk's work. My wife will die if she is given morphine, so I know T.O. didn't have an allergic reaction. Just reaction is the proper way to describe. Also, I ain't on no high horse, just making the point that T.O.'s reputation (well deserved) automatically leads to negative reaction on anything he does and that should not be the case.

I hear ya. I pretty sure that term was used by others, maybe even his publicist. I was more arguing that than just because you used the phrase. These people trying to defend him lose some of their credibility when they mis-speak on behalf of him. It still doesn't explain why they would give him more if he has a history of bad reactions.

Kind of similar to the "reputation calls" that kornheiser brought up during mnf skins/vikes game.

To some degree, but I think in this case it's more important than a penalty in a game.

Small parallel here, I recently read an article on espn page2 concerning Frank Thomas and why he's not even in the discussion of the greatest hitters of all time. One of the reasons that was given is that he's generally been a turd throughout his career. That has worked against him particularly with the media, and we know that baseball writers wield a considerable amount of power in shaping opinions. That frank was/is an ass has no bearing upon his stature among the greatest hitters but it has been made to be an issue. NOT FAIR

But wasn't Bonds made out to be one of the best before he hit the record HR's? I could be wrong, I hate baseball.

Also, don't know if you remember when LT was up for HOF induction, but there was more than a fair amount of debate between Hall voters on whether he should get in because of his drug past/present. NOT FAIR

In this case I think discussion is deserved because you have to consider how its seen by many people. Does it cheapen what others have done before him? Does it send the wrong message to those coming after? Chris Rock had a great take on being a role model, "I don't smoke crack because I'm a role model. I don't smoke crack because I don't want to smoke crack!" Whether people like Charles Barkley like it or not they are role models. Not everyone will follow their lead, but some will do bad things and try to make it seem okay by stating, "At least I didn't do what LT did", or pick your favorite player who wasn't the best person. That's part of the impact of celebrating a person who was an off-field scumbag, so discussion is warranted, fair or not.

Same thing is going on now with Michael Irvin. I don't think he should get in, but not because of his drug past/present and that is the argument. NOT FAIR

3 Super Bowl rings but mediocre numbers are the bigger issue I thought. Imagine the impact of future discussions of who should get in when he becomes a benchmark. Mediocre numbers AND off-field issues.

this incident with Owens could very well be completely innocent, but because it involves T.O. it automatically elicits negative reaction because of his rep.

But his rep is of being divisive, a distraction, and a self centered showboater who loves attention. Nobody can argue his ability or that he's any kind of community scumbag. He's like the boy who cried wolf though. He goes to the media to say he's being disrespected, he airs a teams dirty laundry in his house in his front yard, he calls a former QB gay, the list goes on and on with him on how he uses media for attention and revenge. Now they should back off? This is just a simple message board, it has no bearing on public perception so we should back off? Do what you like, but I think you should keep it in perspective.

I Know that LIFE AIN'T FAIR but that doesn't make it right.

See above about how fair he has been to people and how not right it was for him to do the things he's done to people and teams.  

---

twanne wrote:

---

To the Bonds thing, he was left off of the all-century team BY THE WRITERS in favor of Griffey Jr. when his numbers ACROSS THE BOARD were better. Reason? he's a turd. On the field performance matters, personal animosity doesn't.

Yeah, not my area. Can't stand the game, or the players usually.

LT? same thing, HOF is about what you did ON THE FIELD, not whether you were an idiot off the field. Ty Cobb was reputed to have killed a man and definitely was a racist, first class, grade A, 100% TURD! but, he was also a legitimate first ballot HOF'er

I hear ya. I was just giving a differeing point of view why they took his off-field issues into consideration. It was pretty high profile, and with ESPN it got even more attention. The NFL is pretty image conscious, maybe too much, but LT painted a pretty ugly image. That's all I'm saying. I'd like to see him go in for what he did to Theisman

Irvin? All the talk for the last 2 HOF election cycles has been about his drug problems, and you stated that there is enough ON THE FIELD evidence to debate without his crackhead tendencies. Mediocre numbers, 3 rings. Numbers vs. Importance in getting the rings. Was he that good or was he a replaceable cog in an unstoppable machine? No need for off the field to come in when all that matters is on the field.

He hit at an even worse time than LT with media scrutiny. It has to come down to numbers though. Nobody will remember whether or not he was an irreplaceable cog in a machine. Other mediocre talents that never won, or even mattered could argue their numbers. It just sets a bad precedence and the only reason he is considered is because he was on a winning team. Hell, Aikman wasn't extraordinary numberswise, but he was the QB. They get a little extra credit, in his case desevedly so, for leading the offense that won 3 SB's.

T.O.? I said reputation well deserved. However, due to the medical (and possibly serious for all we really knew) nature of the situation, hold off a bit until it is clearly shown to be usual T.O. crap. Then jump on him. If I get on a high horse (almost typed high whore) I don't mind it being the horse (or whore) that says i'm decent enough to even give T.O. a fair shake. I've walked enough miles in his shoes to really appreciate being treated fairly especially when I probably didn't deserve it.

I think we basically agree here. I'm not trying to blast the guy, just the situation is absurd and my comments are more geared toward that.

---