Well thats unfortunate that you received death threats over this.  I don’t think it was out of line that you brought it up, at first glance it does look like he’s spitting on the ball, but that seems more a folly of the camera angle as its hard to pick up the spit going past the baseball in that shot.  But to bring it up, was legitimate in my opinion. I’m sure most people would’ve swore A-Rod never did steroids, and look what happened.  Rivera is a great player, and a great person, but he’s not a saint, he’s human.

Although I think there is a distinct difference from the Rogers to Rivera situation in that with Rogers we had indisputable evidence that there was something it, it was there to be seen by multiple angles.  In Rivera’s case, there was only one short view of it, which as you said has been somewhat debunked by pictures later anyway. 

This might be the most analyzed spit in the history of saliva.

Craig,

The #1 reason why blogs are important: questions get asked. Bloggers mostly don’t have ties to corporations or extremely important people, so there are very few instances of conflicts of interest. As a result, questions that need to get asked, as you did today.

It’s telling that a blog (I believe it was an Angels blog) started this whole fiasco, and then the mainstream media picked up on it. Of course Yankees beat writers or TV analysts, or what have you, are not going to raise the question because they want to have the privilege of getting quotes from Mo on a daily basis for years down the road. They wouldn’t jeopardize that relationship over something as inconclusive as what was posted on that blog.

The day bloggers stop asking the questions the professional journalists won’t is the day blogs become obsolete.

Keep on doing what you’re doing, Craig.

Totally legit post and question. Really scary that someone threatened you over it. The only critique I would have had was that your question “is this the secret to Rivera’s cutter” had a Selena Roberts’-esque sensationalist feel to it - undeserved given the actual evidence at hand and the presumption of innocence we accord to all. But that’s a quibble. Keep doing what you’ve been doing!

Craig, you handled this issue exactly correctly. Let us remember that the Bernie Madoff scandal went on unimpeded because he had such an impeccable reputation that the SEC simply glossed over, ignored or rationalized warning signs that would have had anyone else on the carpet. Rivera’s reputation should afford him no presumptions at all when evidence surfaces suggesting that further investigation is warranted to confirm or refute suspicions of cheating. Yes: in the absence of unambiguous evidence, reputation enters into the equation; if Don Sutton was doing the spitting, I’d be less concerned about the camera angle. But raising the issue? No controversy here at all: you have an obligation to raise it, and MLB has an obligation to settle the issue to the extent that it can.

Unfortunately, MLB has squandered its own credibility and reputation for integrity, but that’s not your problem. The video raised an important question about the the integrity of the game, and thank you for being among those who didn’t look the other way.

Bob—yes. No question about it. They’re very cool about that kind of stuff.  No complaints about NBC. Just some of the commenters.

Everyone else: good points all. Yeah, the “secret to the cutter” line was kind of a Roberts thing, wasn’t it?  I figured that since this wasn’t exactly criminal it was OK to play a bit, but I appreciate that the distinction between what Roberts riffs on and my little riff here was of degree, not of kind.  Fair enough.

Fair enough.  Like I said above (or in another thread; I’m a little punchy) I am predisposed to argue against the tide, and when I added the Q&A the tide was decidedly “it’s ridiculous to even question the great Mariano!”  That grinds my gears, so I figured I’d challenge the presumption a bit.  I’m sure you’ve had law professors do the same.

I always thought they were being jackasses, though. I stand by my posts, but I was probably being a bit of jackass too.

Theif and Lair was Jim Thorpe the best player in the league in 1929?  NO!  I’m talking about guys who are still in the discussion for being the best in the world at what they do (as professional athletes, not talking 38+ year old businessmen or authors or anything like that). We SHOULD view anything that those 38+ athletes do with greater scrutiny than anyone else. Why is that such a terrible thing to say?

DC:
I wouldn’t say terrible, but I just didn’t like that you are pointing out guys and insinuating that they are doing something illegal/unethical without more than “They are old, they shouldn’t be that good” as your “proof”.

Don’t like Jim Thorpe or Jack LaLanne, that’s cool. How about these:

Nolan Ryan age 42 1989 300 Ks (I seem to remember a no hitter after 40 as well)
Tom Seaver age 40 1985 16 wins 3.17 ERA
Satchel Paige 45 1952 3.17 ERA

I’m not saying that the guys you mention definately didn’t do PEDs (except Mo obviously).  But saying they’re too old to be on top of their game doesn’t do it for me.

First one I took seriously. I’ve gotten a lot of “oh, go die in a fire” or “take a long walk off a short pier” stuff before.  This guy made four or five posts in which he said that he hoped I’d die of AIDS, cancer, etc., and then topped it off with one that said “Craig, I hope someone kills you.”

I suppose I could parse that to make it more aspirational and less of an action plan, but at some point you have to take the broad view of things.

Craig, never forget that it’s most definitely NOT your job to be “even-handed.”

You’re not a news reporter, and if you were, you wouldn’t have as many readers, because news is easily single-sourced.

Opinions and ideas are important. Don’t disguise them as news (we’ve seen what problems dressing up opinion as “fair and balanced” causes), but don’t suppress them either.