Paging Johnny Cochran!

Shorter Curt Schilling, yesterday: I played softball with Jose Canseco. Once.

Shorter Curt Schilling today: Give the players in the Mitchell Report the benefit of the doubt since you probably didn’t with OJ.

21 comments… add one

  • Curt, buddy, just shut up man.

    LocklandSF December 20, 2007, 3:12 pm
  • And Curt still hasn’t grasped the basic point. Once someone is named as guilty, how can they ever establish their innocence?
    So Clemens testifies before Congress, and now everyone believes he’s innocent?
    Yeah, right.

    Mike YF December 20, 2007, 3:37 pm
  • if curt was so concerned about all this why didnt he agree to talk to Mitchell? Total hypocrisy IMO.

    sam-YF December 20, 2007, 3:41 pm
  • Schilling and Hank really need to get together; it’s a match made in, er, heaven.

    Zooboy December 20, 2007, 3:43 pm
  • Stripping a player of an award and awarding it to the second place finisher is a ridiculous solution. A better solution (not a good solution, mind you, but a better one than going to the 2nd place finisher) would be to void the award entirely for that year. And that would be moronic as well, if only slightly less moronic.
    I can see it now: “The 2001 Cy Young has been stripped from Roger Clemens and awarded to Steve Sparks, the player deemed least likely to have done steroids during that season”, or something to that effect.

    SF December 20, 2007, 3:48 pm
  • I agree completely SF, especially since we dont know the full extent of who used, who didnt, when some one used, etc. Knowing what we know now, it seems just as likely that it would result in stripping from one user to award another user. Plus, when where is the line for these past players drawn as for guilt? We can have our suspicions but without a positive test its hard to say anything definatively.

    sam-YF December 20, 2007, 3:53 pm
  • I say MLB should do nothing about the past. Put a damn stake in the ground and say simply, here are the banned substances, we are going to test for everything on that list once a month. First positive test, 50 games suspension, second positive test, banned for life.
    Done.

    LocklandSF December 20, 2007, 3:58 pm
  • “…I say MLB should do nothing about the past….”
    i agree lockland…the timing of alleged infractions seems cloudy, enforcement was non-existent due to inadequate testing at the time, the evidence is murky, and i think the commissioner would get more cooperation from players and the union by taking the approach you suggest…make the rules clear, enforceable, and administer punishment consistently…

    dc December 20, 2007, 4:11 pm
  • “if curt was so concerned about all this why didnt he agree to talk to Mitchell?”
    Exactly. But it he’d rather pen 5000 words in two days. And then cast it off as his personal opinion.

    Mike YF December 20, 2007, 4:15 pm
  • Exactly. But it he’d rather pen 5000 words in two days. And then cast it off as his personal opinion.
    Damn bloggers! The scourge of human– er, forget that.

    SF December 20, 2007, 4:18 pm
  • And then cast it off as his personal opinion.
    As opposed to…?

    Paul SF December 20, 2007, 4:18 pm
  • To be fair, the MLBPA made it very difficult for the players to come forward.

    LocklandSF December 20, 2007, 4:20 pm
  • As opposed to…?
    John McCain’s!

    SF December 20, 2007, 4:21 pm
  • In case anyone is curious, yes, I have totally checked out for the year.

    LocklandSF December 20, 2007, 4:22 pm
  • “Knowing what we know now, it seems just as likely that it would result in stripping from one user to award another user. ”
    This statement encapsulates the whole problem, to me, as the implication is that there is a great deal that “we know now,” which there isn’t–mainly uncorroborated hearsay—and accepts at face value the report’s massively vague and unsubstantiated argument that PED use is/was widespread, even though the first round of formal testing–FACTS–only implicated 4 percent of players. Tim Marchman has been especially good on this. The fact is the League missed the boat in not testing, and then testing ineffectively, and now the horse is out of the barn, it’s run around the track, and there’s no going back.

    YF December 20, 2007, 4:23 pm
  • Hmm I guess you misunderstood me a bit YF. I meant by my comment is we know very little now and we could just be stripping from one cheater to give to another. There is no way to know. I can see why you read what you did from my comment though, but I agree with your read.

    sam-YF December 20, 2007, 4:32 pm
  • I think what “we now know” is that we have no idea who was using and who wasn’t so we can’t selectively revoke anyone’s awards just because his use of PEDs came to light.

    soxgirl December 20, 2007, 4:34 pm
  • i know we’re on the same page sam. but i think the discussion keeps leading us down these false roads. the actual language here is kind of important.

    YF December 20, 2007, 4:35 pm
  • Well, to be fair, we do know some things we didn’t know before, but it’s absurdly selective and completely unfair.

    LocklandSF December 20, 2007, 4:37 pm
  • Ok, so I need to stop using “to be fair”

    LocklandSF December 20, 2007, 4:40 pm
  • Shorter Curt Schilling: “I am a pompous, self-righteous blowhard that talks out of both sides of his mouth…. Politics here I come!”

    yf2k December 20, 2007, 5:28 pm

Leave a Comment

Next post:

Previous post: