Fire Jim Tracy

Sunday, March 20, 2005

Hall of Fame Reform

The only reform needed is to take the ballot away from this guy. His conclusion may be right, but as usual he's so busy grinding logic into dust (McGwire no, but Bonds yes? McGwire makes Canseco look...good? What?) that by the end, you're ready to lead a McGwire parade.

Oh, and Simers' unrequited love for Jamie McCourt continues...unrequited. It's the feel-good story of the year. Feel free to skip the whole thing. As usual, I tried to link to Simers, but the computer rejected him as metaphysically non-existent.


  • God he is such a buffoon. You mean to tell me he didn't know McGwire and all these other huge guys were on roids? Umm, probable cause people. Think logically. The pseudo naivete of these pundits knows no bounds.

    By Blogger Rick, at 3/20/2005 02:08:00 PM  

  • I post with great trepidation here since my question might reflect pseudo naivete and/or ignorance but here goes...

    Why is McGwire being pilloried so? Roger Cossack of ESPN said it would've been criminally negligent of a lawyer *not* to tell the ballplayers to take the fifth. I am confused about what McGwire actually did do. I don't know if he took the fifth but the larger point, how is everyone coming to the conclusion that he all but confessed to steroid use? If it's because he took the fifth, how is that a confession? Or did I miss something?

    Hey, I love a parade. If McGwire is deserving of such scorn, I'll be happy to join. I'd just like to know the reason why.

    Apologies if you posted on this earlier. I've been fighting a mother of a computer virus for the better part of a month.

    Suffering Bruin

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 3/20/2005 05:56:00 PM  

  • This is Steve, publishing as anonymous from another computer.

    SB, I agree with half of your position. I think that while the Fifth Amendment is well designed to protect against government action, it is not designed at all to protect individuals from public scorn. While we as a sitting jury, clothed with the mantle of government sanction, would be duty bound not to draw a negative inference were McGwire a defendant in a criminal trial, the Fifth Amendment does not reach us in our role as the general public.

    So it is impossible, in my view, not to draw that negative inference -- after all, even if cliched, all you have to do is say "no." And the others, whether they were lying or not, did. I did say on Thursday that I presume that to be true, because the penalities for lying before Congress are serious, and this appears to be a deadly serious (and bi-partisan) Congress on this issue.

    But confess to what? I don't know either. The questions he refused to answer were pretty general. So I have McGwire as a huge guy who hit 70 home runs, and "took the fifth" and therefore who I know did something, but what did he actually do? That, I don't know. And it would seem at least relevant to McGwire's baseball legacy.

    I think McGwire is stuck in the same place as Pete Rose. Everyone is going to tell him to confess, but then that didn't help Rose in the end (nor should it have).

    This whole situation just sums up how I feel about the steroid issue. I'm against it because 1) it forces players to make a choice they shouldn't have to make to play Major League Baseball and 2) Because regardless of good or bad public policy, steroids make baseball a public enemy of the government, which is a bad place to be in. Jerry is (I think), but I am not, terribly animated about pleas for the children or Hank Aaron's records. Hank Aaron was a great player regardless of Barry Bonds, and 16 year olds, believe it or not, get to take personal responsibility for their actions too.

    I think that Plaschke's article reflects a certain level of bandwagon-jumping that should be familiar to regular readers. It also reflects significant ignorance, as far as any attempts to distinguish Bonds from McGwire, particularly since 1) at least McGwire didn't lie to the grand jury (as Jim Rome would say...allegedly), and 2) because what's good for the steroid goose is good for the steroid gander. And McGwire was a pretty good hitter before the "steroid era" anyway.

    And I agree with Rick, and have said so before. Those ESPN guys have been doing profiles on Barry Bonds for four years, with not a word about steroids, and now all of a sudden, they're shocked, shocked?! I don't believe that selling out the players to protect themselves is either fair or becoming of our media heroes.

    All of which is a long way of saying that however you feel about Mark McGwire, Bill Plaschke was typically unhelpful in the search for something resembling truth or logic.

    Unrelated to anything, I am not sure why Bonds's lawyer thinks it helps his client to say that the BALCO case is "U.S. v. Bonds;" it is.

    By Anonymous Anonymous, at 3/20/2005 06:27:00 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home