|
May 18, 2013
Who is Shyster?
Monthly Archives
May, 2012
November, 2009 October, 2009 September, 2009 August, 2009 July, 2009 June, 2009 May, 2009 April, 2009 March, 2009 February, 2009 January, 2009 December, 2008 November, 2008
Or you can search by:
Most Recent Comments
Sam Zell’s Nightmare Continues (10)
William S. Stevens: 1948-2008 (22) Teixeira’s Options (18) Cole Hamels Meets Talk Radio (23) Appropos of nothing (4) Shyster's Daily Circuit
Rob Neyer
AaronGleeman.com Joe Posnanski Blog Baseball Analysts Baseball Musings Cot's Baseball Contracts It IS About the Money Keith Law Cardboard Gods Baseball Think Factory MLB Trade Rumors Retrosheet Vegas Watch Way Back and Gone Bats -- NYT Baseball Blog The Biz of Baseball The Daily Fungo U.S.S. Mariner Braves Journal Scott Simkus The Common Man Jorge Says No! Baseball Over Here Fack Youk Wezen-Ball Chop-n-Change |
Thursday, January 22, 2009Somebody talkedThanks to Michael S. Schmidt, I continue to enjoy not having to read Kirk Radomski's new book. The latest revelation:Officials for Major League Baseball said Wednesday that in the early stages of its steroids-testing program it did not summon players to its offices to tell them they had failed drug tests. I am more than prepared to believe that Radomski is flat out wrong, but in my experience, after the superfluous "quite frankly," the insertion of "categorically" before a denial is the second biggest warning sign that a lie is coming. But even if Manfred is telling the truth, I'd have more confidence in his categorical denial if it wasn't phrased like this: “By no means were we involved in that process; any suggestion that we were involved is untrue,” he said. That's rather specific. Why not deny that players were warned of positive tests during the trial period at all? "We weren't involved in that process?" Were your agents, employees, successors, assigns, mail room lackeys, secretaries, wives, pimps, fixers, or information dissemination designees? As Schmidt -- and George Mitchell his own self -- notes, at least some players were warned of positive tests back in 2004. Mitchell blames the union -- and that makes sense given that the union had access to the trial-run test results -- but there's no escaping the fact that, in this one instance, the union and the league had a common interest in minimizing baseball's steroid problem. I'm still not buying Radomski's book, but it's worth noting that Radomski's veracity and integrity were good enough for Major League Baseball when the Mitchell Report was being compiled. Because of that, I don't know that Rob Manfred flat out calling Radomski a liar on this point is enough. I want to know whether and to what extent players who tested positive in 2003 were warned about it and by whom before testing got teeth in 2004, and in light of this allegation, I think baseball has an obligation to make some showing in this regard. Posted by Craig Calcaterra at 10:48am CommentsCommenting is not available in this weblog entry. Next Post: More Commish for Day>> <<Previous Post: Today at THT | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||