« The Pros and Cons for the Pats and Jags | Main | Dear Jaguars: Asterisk This »

January 11, 2008

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d83451c4ea69e200e54fed9dd58834

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference More Wishful Thinking on Steroids:

Comments

Texas Gal

I think it's appalling that a broadcaster would go on-air and accuse a member of a specific team of doing steroids - and then not name the player he's actually accusing. I don't care what team it is, that's completely irresponsible if not unethical.

CHEA SON

Basically, by stating that the Mitchell Report is supported by "evidence," and positioning it as if this evidence is not inherently flawed (which the majority of it is), you are essentially hurting your own argument. It's even laughable.

The report was not only produced by a man with conflicting interests, but it was totally based upon the testimony of 2 criminals (one of which, has been questioned for sexual assault and has a history of lying to investigators).

Granted, there was evidence that supported some of their statements, but, that hasn't been the case with others who were featured in the report. Basically, either release a completed report (with comprehensive info on the entire league) or don't release a report at all.

It's also very humorous to watch a Red Sox fan further humiliate themselves by saying "how can a radio broadcaster do that? It's unethical." It seems more ethical to state what he knows and not provide the name (which he did).

Hell, one can ask you the same thing about the Mitchell Report. Didn't Mitchell simply do what the radio host did, except he pandered to a much wider audience? And don't say that the report didn't outwardly accuse people without physical evidence, because it did and did so without any apprehension.

beth

i guess i don't know what my "argument" is supposed to be in your mind. the "argument" contained in this post is not about the flaws in the mitchell report or lack thereof, but about the fact that yankees fans can't seem to just deal with the fact that many on their team have been exposed as cheaters without trying to gin up some kind of accusation against the red sox.

and "further humiliate myself"? lol. exactly how have i been humiliated to begin with? at least i haven't compared an irresponsible talk radio report to a Congressional investigation.

let me state it for you simply: people in glass houses shouldn't throw around phrases like that. as the post stated--i'm not saying that no red sox players have ever used PEDs. i'm not saying the mitchell report is complete (as for not releasing it at all if it wasn't comprehensive, good luck with that idea). but i am saying that FOR RIGHT NOW there is no indication of which red sox players other than gagne and donnelly did or did not use. fans of other teams who are busying their minds with that topic in reacting to the mitchell report are simply looking for an escape from facing facts. what i'm saying is, deal with what's been officially disclosed, and we'll worry about who on MY team is guilty at a later date.

and even at that later date, if you're a yankees fan, it would only make us even.

it's like yankees fans also liked to say to us prior to 2004: deal with it. just deal with it, and don't put it on us. not at this juncture, anyway.

CHEA SON

Nobody's trying to stir up false comments about the Red Sox and PED use. This host was merely trying to convey that all of baseball had a problem, and many people, including Red Sox fans (who are for some reason infatuated with Yankee players and their flaws), seem to forget that. Nobody is closed off from allegations, not even a beloved team that did an amazing thing.

Also, in terms of the Mitchell Report, nobody is even saying "hey, let's make up things because the Red Sox aren't in it." What they are trying to say is that the report is rather thin in terms of its "evidence" and league coverage. That's why it is being looked at in a skeptical light.

The Mitchell Report was not even a sanctioned congressional investigation (which is what you called it). I think you should read up on what it actually was before you continue to cite it in your blog.

beth

thanks for the advice on how to write my blog, chea. i'll take it under consideration.

CHEA SON

Well, you're clearly not including accurate or objective information in your writing, so, why shouldn't I say something?

Your failure to acknowledge your own mistakes (e.g. congressional investigation?) indicates a level of carelessness, that seems to suit you well.

beth

so what are you still doing here commenting on it? you made your point. if what i write is such crap, go find something better to read.

CHEA SON

I didn't say it was crap. I just said it was sort of misleading in terms of information. No animosity, just stating what I thought.

The comments to this entry are closed.

My Photo

Twitter Updates

C2F on Facebook


Tumblr


Photos

  • www.flickr.com

Buy these books




  • The first all-fiction collections devoted to the Red Sox. Click the above to order from Amazon for just ten bucks!


Powered by Rollyo

Statcounter C2F


CONTACT


  • I'm happy to talk with you about exchanging links or advertising on this blog, but please don't use my site's comments section to explicitly promote your site or your business without getting in touch with me first.

    For questions, comments, or ad inquiries on Cursed to First, please email - girlanachronism at gmail dot com. Thanks!

Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 03/2005
AddThis Social Bookmark Button

Categories