December 11, 2013
Who is Shyster?
Or you can search by:
Most Recent Comments
Mike Hargrove Interview (13)
Can they be the California Angels again? (9)
Another great moment in mass transit? (7)
Just another ten-percenter (his mind is like an ocean) (7)
Great Moments in Half-Baked Populism (8)
Shyster's Daily Circuit
Joe Posnanski Blog
Cot's Baseball Contracts
It IS About the Money
Baseball Think Factory
MLB Trade Rumors
Way Back and Gone
Bats -- NYT Baseball Blog
The Biz of Baseball
The Daily Fungo
The Common Man
Jorge Says No!
Baseball Over Here
Thursday, January 22, 2009
Somebody 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
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.
Next Post: More Commish for Day>> <<Previous Post: Today at THT