It appears no one will rest until there are some more Red Sox players implicated as users of PEDs. Especially not sports journalists and their largest market audience: Yankees fans.
I will say I think it's pretty typical of many Yankees fans to look for flaws in the Red Sox when responding to criticisms of their own team. I've seen this MO played out countless times, and the Mitchell Report is no exception. Immediately I saw many Yankees fans defending Roger, Andy, et al by insisting Mitchell is biased and saying they just knew--they just KNEW--more Red Sox should've been on that list.
You know what we do know? Like, for one of these things called "facts"? How many Yankees were named specifically in an official report supported by evidence, whether it was complete or not. Everything else at this point is speculation, rumor, and misery loving company.
What was it many Yankees fans loved to say to us prior to 2004? Oh yeah. "Worry about your own team."
I'm not saying it will never come out that Red Sox players -- even, God forbid, members of the 04 team-- have used PEDs. What I'm saying is that right now, the facts that are available have not implicated any Red Sox beyond Eric Gagne and Brendan Donnelly, and as far as I'm concerned, until that officially changes, and is supported, as the Mitchell Report is, by evidence, the Yankees fans adopting the "Well I'm rubber and--I think--you're glue!" defense can pretty much fuck off. And that goes double for sports journalists pandering to them with toothless rumormongering, sans names.
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.
Posted by: Texas Gal | January 12, 2008 at 02:57
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.
Posted by: CHEA SON | January 12, 2008 at 03:27
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.
Posted by: beth | January 12, 2008 at 11:44
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.
Posted by: CHEA SON | January 12, 2008 at 21:44
thanks for the advice on how to write my blog, chea. i'll take it under consideration.
Posted by: beth | January 13, 2008 at 00:29
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.
Posted by: CHEA SON | January 13, 2008 at 07:03
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.
Posted by: beth | January 13, 2008 at 12:59
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.
Posted by: CHEA SON | January 14, 2008 at 18:49