While Boston Red Sox players were popping pills, rubbing on creams and injecting needles, their baseball writers were ... where, exactly?
And while ex Red Sox come forward to tell their tales, where is their star columnist?
The Boston Globe edit page today complains that while drugs were running rampant, no one was minding the store: "Selig, the owners, and the union might have stopped it from reaching the scale it did in the late-1990s if baseball had not welcomed the explosion of home runs powered by the drugs as a way to lure back fans disillusioned by the strike of 1994."
But in taking everyone to the whipping shed, the paper conveniently spared a few lashes for the one group whose only job is to inform the public: its very own writers.
While the needles were being filled, where was Dan?
And while the battle and disclosures of today rage on, where is Dan?
8 comments:
Objectivebruce already answered that question for you, Chief. It was all legal. There was nothing to report.
Mo Vaughn partying at Foxwoods was legal too, but we had to hear about that a couple million times.
That's right!!! Good call and an even better memory.
Mo was an easy cheap shot target for CHB. Steroid use would have required some actual work which isn't CHB's strong point.
Soxaholix had the most brilliant strip to date today. it even has a link to this site. Congrats, Chief!!!!
Wow, now I am read with the same sort of careless ignorance and preconceived notions that characterizes the "reviews" of Shaugnessy's stuff.
I never said the use of performance enhancing controlled substances without a prescripton was legal. I said baseball didn't have programs to catch it.
And let's turn to the Frank Robinson column and the totally wacked-out conclusion about a hypothesis being "obliterated" by the facts that follow. Unh, the point here was that Robinson was underrated, and when a Hall of Famer is underrated is means he is underrated among his peers. When people mention the greatest of the great, Robinson is rarely mentioned with Mays and Aaron, which is precisely why his MVP awards, Triple Crown season and All Star selections are not only relevant, the help prove the point.
Perhaps we should have a companion contest to the Shaughnessy Pedro-column competiton. Guess the blogger's MCAS score in reading comprehension. Enter early, there are only so many low scores to go around
"...and when a Hall of Famer is underrated is means he is underrated among his peers.
Yeah, sure, that's what Dan meant. Right. OK. Sure. Yeah. You betcha.
Maybe CHB should explain why he thinks Frank Robinson is underrated by his peers. And who is CHB to judge that anyway?
Did anyone notice Dan's assinine comments regarding Paxton Crawford's steroid admission?
A synopsis:
He was a nobody, therefore it is meaningless.
Wrong on so many levels, but Dan can continue to put his head in the sand.
Not surprisingly, all the Red Sox, er, I mean Globe writers agreed that Crawford was a nobody, ergo his admission is a non-story.
Wrong.
The argument by those who don't understand PEDs is that steroids/HGH etc. turn the user into a superstar. Those who understand PEDs say that's not the case. Crawford is proof of the latter. The problem with PEDs is not they they might allow a handful of players to put up obscene numbers, it's that their pervasive use threatens to disrupt the entire game at every level.
Moreover, the Red Sox, sorry, Globe writers have trumpeted the problems on other teams while conveniently turning a blind eye to their own. Now the whole world knows that the local scribes either were 1) covering up players' transgressions or 2) asleep at the wheel.
Post a Comment