It's far from hating. The article discusses former Bear QB coach Wade Wilson's involvement with HGH and some speculation that it could have involved Bear players. Haugh lets it be known that the involvement ended with Wilson and no other Bears were or should be implicated. (http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/football/bears/cs-070901haugh,1,3091912.column?coll=cs-bears-headlines).
If Haugh was truly the hater that RobsObs believes him to be, he could have easily cast doubt on the Bear team and "implied" that some of the Bears were involved in the taking of HGH as well. Haugh defends the Bears and the staff and makes sure it is known that Wilson acted on his own. He is also somewhat defensive of Wilson saying that he only took it for treatment for his diabetes and that he did it on his own seeking the drugs on the internet as opposed to the Bears doctors/trainers because he is a very private individual.
I am sure RobsObs will view the article differently and because he is ULTRA sensitive when it comes to his Bears, he will find some tiny nugget in the article that is WAY down in the weeds that somehow will loosely imply that the article is negative and that Haugh is Bear hater #1.
26 comments:
Haugh is the one who speculated that Bears players may have been linked to Wilson.
I am not aware of anyone saying Bears players were getting HGH through Wilson - it is just Haugh who suggested it.
Your comments are ridiculous. Think about it, Haugh sets up a scenario and a potential scandal that does not exist and then says it is not true. It would be like La Canfora writing that there are people who believe that Joe Gibbs is gay, and then in the same story saying that it isn't true.
Haugh is not Bear Hater #1 (that may be you), but this article is based on foolish speculation (by Haugh) and is far from positive. It is neutral at best.
Haugh did not create the story. If he did, why did Lovie speak out? Why did team spokesman, Hagel, speak out? Did they do this just for Haugh? Clearly, they felt a need to make sure that the Bears were clear of any wrong doing. Haugh is just furthering the point that the coach and organization made. He is standing behind the Bears.
Why are my comments ridiculous? You are SO sensitive, RobsObs and what's worse, you have this annoying and pathetic habit of needing to feel like you are right 100% of the time. You can't stand that anyone has a point other than yours. You are the one that is ridiculous. Quit being SO sensitive and be a man.
I still don't understand why you think Haugh is just out to try and get the Bears and he is a hater. If that were the case, seems to me that the fans or the Tribune would be all over Haugh.
I know you say it's because controversy sells but is Haugh really that important? Is he a difference maker in how many papers the Tribune sells? I think you give him more credit than he deserves. Again, you are just silly, plain and simple.
Why did they speak out? Because Haugh probably asked them to comment. So yeah, they did it just for Haugh.
There was no report on the official Bears website, and no other paper or TV station in Chicago (I checked WLS-ABC, WMAQ-NBC, WFLD-Fox, and WBBM-CBS) reported that Lovie had to discuss the "controversy." In fact, there is no mention in any other Chicago news outlet that even hints in a story that there was some controversy about Wade Wilson giving HGH to Bears players. So it is just David Haugh.
I don't care if you have another opinion - but the idea that Haugh's story is positive about the Bears is preposterous. No other writer or news source - other than Haugh - has suggested or hinted or even speculated that Wilson gave HGH to Bears players.
Stop being sensitive? Be a man? When I disagree with you I am not questioning your manhood. I just think you are wrong because quite often your arguments are not based on facts. This article is another example of the case.
Specifically, you seem to believe that Haugh is doing the Bears a favor, but as I point out, he is the only one who is talking about a possible "controversy." Why should he be given credit for first speculating on a negative that no one is talking about and where there is not a shred of evidence to suggest it is even possible, and then writing to say it isn't true?
Look, I don't care if people have a difference of opinion. But that is irrelevant to my strongly-held beliefs. Because someone else thinks something different from me, does not change my opinions. You seem to be suggesting that I should change my opinions based on what you and/or others believe. That would somehow make me "a man." I don't ask that of you, please explain to me why I should do that and how that would make me "a man."
"No other writer or news source - other than Haugh - has suggested or hinted or even speculated that Wilson gave HGH to Bears players." That is not true. I found a Bear beat reporter for a small paper that mentioned the same concern. Also, another reporter who shared the concern. I have those articles at home and will provide them when I get home. Even Wilson himself in his statement makes sure that he limits the blame to himself and does not want speculation of any players doing wrong doing or engaging in his illegal activity with him.
My arguments are not based on facts? Your saying that Haugh asked the Bears coaches and organization to speak up on the speculation is just your thoughts. You have NO proof.
I will prove to you that he is not the only reporter talking about a possible "controversy." As you say, he is a "reporter" specifically, he reports on the Bears so it is his job to report on any activity -- good or bad -- that takes place with them.
No, you don't have to change your opinions. I would only ask that you quit being so sensitive and be open to other people's opinions. There is an annoying level of smugness that surrounds you and you don't seem open to or accepting of other people's opinions.
Why are you so sensitive about my opinions? I don't ask you to change - but you are complaining constantly about my opinions.
Show me the reporters and links to the stories. Please don't send me some blogger's site who posted something after Haugh's article came out - that won't count.
As for Haugh being the one to ask Lovie - you don't have proof he didn't do just that. The mere fact that he is the only writer that I am aware of who wrote about it and what Lovie said is a clear indicator to me that he is the one asking the questions.
I am not sensitive about your opinions. Again, you don't seem respectful of other people's opinions. Your smugness is what gets me.
I will show you the other reporters when I get home. That is what I said.
That's right. I don't have proof and neither do you but you are willing to pass the blame. You seem like you don't like speculation and you say you back up everything with facts but then you do the exact opposite. Whatever, dude.
I give you the reason for my speculation - that Haugh was the only one to write it. Given that he is a Bears insider it seems likely that he asked the questions.
I am speculating, but my scenario is far more likely than yours. In addition, you were the one who asked, "why did Lovie speak out? Why did team spokesman, Hagel, speak out? Did they do this just for Haugh?"
I said, "Because Haugh probably asked them to comment." I never said he DID ask the question - only that it is probable.
I look forward to seeing the other reporters you are referring to, I'll add their links to my list of Bears reporters if they are actually legitimate writers.
As for my smugness, you are just being a wuss. You are quick to come back with name-calling when I question your opinion.
I am quick with name calling when we amicably agree to something offline privately and then you turnaround and forget the agreement and post stuff up that I thought we had just cleared up.
Do you want me to show you all of the examples of where you call me names and question my manhood?
I can assure you that I have plenty of examples that cannot be explained away by your above-stated excuse.
Go ahead. I could use the laugh.
I'll do a quick look tonight and get back to you.
Good. I could use the chuckle before sleepy time.
Please don't go back too far. Lets keep this to the last 2-3 months.
I only had to go back 5 days. From my 8/31 post thread:
“RobsObs, it's like you are perpetually in your time of the month because I don't think I have ever met a guy SO sensitive over his football team. Just accept things like a man (or at least like the hermaphrodite that you are).”
“You know this but again you are so drunk on "3 a day's" jizz that you will defend your team blindly.”
“You are like a little school girl, RobsObs. I don't think I have ever dealt with anyone like you before and you get worse. You are a true ass.”
These were from three different postings you made – not once do I say anything about you personally – they are just examples of your vicious personal attacks.
GOOD DAY SIR!
HA! HA! HA! I love it! I crack myself up!
Actually, these are all from the day when you broke my trust when we amicably agreed to settle our differences on Rexy and then you turned around and stabbed me in the back. That's what stemmed the personal attacks because you broke the trust.
Nigh, nigh!
It wasn't related to your "10 turnovers" B.S. or to my extrapolation of statistics using the "JKD method."
The fact remains that on that post and on the subsequent thread I did not attack you. Apparently you were just mad and decided to attack.
Sleep tight, friend.
That thread took place the exact same day and time as when you stabbed me in the back so yes, I was angry. I still should refrain from personally attacking you. As much as that makes me laugh and done with zero malice, it is juvenile and petty. Still, as you say, don't be a wuss and just relax and have a beer.
I usually don't mind. But my point is simply this - you are the sensitive one who devolves into name-calling and who exhibits smugness. I'll just continue to make my case.
I AM the sensitive one? That is the pot calling the kettle black. Even when I am trying to be sensitive to your feelings on Rexy, Briggs, Bears, Groh, etc. you get ULTRA defensive.
You only make your cases for yourself because we largely disagree on everything on here. Additionally, you always have to leave the discussion with a smugness of your right and everyone else is wrong. Whatever, I know your games.
Boo hoo hoo. Does little baby want a bottle?
Who is devolving into name calling and questioning of my manhood now?
ME!
I cannot believe you had to ask.
Post a Comment