Wednesday, February 16, 2005
The Truth of "Juiced"
Without actually reading his book, I can tell you right now why I believe what Jose Canseco alleges in his recent bestseller "Juiced," or at least the excerpts that have saturated sports media.
The main reason is that Canseco has nothing to lose. According to Jose, he was blackballed by major league baseball years ago so he bears no risk of not making a team this spring. He need not worry about losing any corporate sponsorships; his image as an egotistical jerk was cemented long ago. Is he trying to make a buck? Of course he is! Who isn't trying to make a buck in this world? His hopes for the success of the book take nothing away from the validity of its content. Jose isn't dumb enough to just make outlandish, totally unfounded claims to sell books. Well, his publishers aren't anyway. For risk of several costly lawsuits, accusations of steroid use by some of mlb's biggest stars would never have been published if they weren't injected with truth. Some would ask, "Are you saying there has never been a book published that contained lies?" No, I am saying they wouldn't be foolish enough to publish this book if it told lies because of the multi-millionaires it accuses and all those millionaires stand to lose by its exposure.
Especially when the accused could so easily refute it. As the wise Colin Cowherd said this morning on his radio show "The Herd," we're not hearing much from Mark McGwire or the others accused. Colin raised the question, if the allegations against you were totally false and you stood to lose as much as they do in terms of reputation and credibility, wouldn't you be screaming your innocence from the rooftops? Wouldn't you be offering to take lie detector tests and giving personal interviews with Mike Wallace on "60 Minutes?" I know I would. But that's not what we've seen. Cowherd's point was that while this is what the logical counter would be, all we have gotten from these guys are brief quotes and generic second-hand press releases. He went on to say that McGwire and Co. are not suing and probably will not sue in the future because they don't want to have to answer certain questions under oath. It makes sense to me.
It makes a lot more sense than Jose Canseco exacting his revenge on baseball in a way that would surely bring him more libel suits than book sales if it were untrue.
The other reason is because Major League Baseball and everyone implicated in this book have so much to lose. This book rips to shreds the credibility of an entire decade of great baseball. Perhaps that's going a bit overboard, but, at the very least, it does tarnish the image of the Oakland Athletics and their 1980s success, including one World Series championship and three straight appearances in the Fall Classic. That image is exactly what former A's manager Tony LaRussa was so quick to protect when news of Canseco's book first came out. I heard with my own ears as LaRussa told Sportscenter that he was upset that Canseco would tell such "lies" in order to take away from the accomplishments of those A's teams. Sounds like a reasonable reaction, right?
What's interesting is that LaRussa then told "60 Minutes" in an interview airing Wednesday night that Canseco openly bragged about his steroid use. Is it just me, or does that revelation contradict his first response? LaRussa was Canseco's manager when he was boasting of using illegal drugs, was he not? How does allowing that to happen help to preserve The Bash Brothers' innocence much less telling "60 Minutes" about it?
It would appear that LaRussa's statement to Sportscenter was a futile attempt to cover his ass, which is another reason why I'm taking the side of a convicted criminal named Canseco over the reputable names of McGwire, Rodriguez, Palmeiro, LaRussa, and, um, Alvarez. As I mentioned before, all we are getting from them or anyone else from MLB is typical C-Y-A stuff if anything at all. Observe Exhibit B...
A's Executive vice president Sandy Alderson was the general manager when Canseco played for the team, yet this is the horse hockey he's going to feed to us on tonight's "60 Minutes":
"...Were there rumors? Yes, there were over a period of time, but never any sort of direct, hard information that steroids were being used...There was no testing policy that would allow us to confirm or deny any of the rumors that existed."
Quick question, Sandy, if I told you right now that I take steroids and I laughed that you had to actually work out to get buff, would you consider that a rumor or a fact? What information is more "hard" or "direct" than the suspected steroid offender personally admitting his use or his manager and teammates corroborating it? There's that saying that goes "You can get a good look at a t-bone by sticking your head up a bull's ass, but wouldn't you rather take the butcher's wor for it?"
Then there's Exhibit C--as in Cashman. Last Friday the Yankees GM went on espn radio and denied the rumor milling about that the Yankees had removed contract stipulations referring to steroid use in Jason Giambi's contract. He called it "a lot of B.S." Apparently, it was so much B.S. that a mere three days later, other Yankees officials confirmed to espn's Jayson Stark that the team had in fact removed language in the contract referring specifically to steroids. They were sure steroids were protected by other "broader language" in the contract.
"Saying that coverage (of steroids) use was removed from that contract is wrong. When you negotiate contracts, language goes back and forth. The reason the Yankees accepted the broader language is that they were absolutely sure steroids were still 100 percent covered."
I guess that's believable, but I'm still suspicious...He said the Yankees "accepted" the broader language. To me, that suggests that the other side of the negotiations, Giambi and Agent, suggested this broader language in lieu of the language specific to steroids. As Yankee officials, wouldn't it worry you that the player's agent wanted the specific reference to steroids removed even if you thought it was covered elsewhere? I think that would throw up a pretty big red flag for me...assuming I cared enough to open my eyes. While this example is not tied to Canseco's book, I think it gives further evidence of players' and teams' dishonesty regarding steroids.
Jose Canseco's got nothing left to protect and little else to lose. He might be a conniving scumbag, but that doesn't make him a liar in this case. All we have heard from the players implicated and of the parties directly tied to them is a remixed album of the same old misdirection and lies. The good news is that "Juiced" will not likely pave way for a more modern sequel. With the swarm of controversy and baseball's new testing policy, the recreational use of steroids is not likely to be as freewheeling in the 2005 season as it was back in the late 80s. It's because of this hopeful future that baseball should stand up and face the shame of its recent past.
|
The main reason is that Canseco has nothing to lose. According to Jose, he was blackballed by major league baseball years ago so he bears no risk of not making a team this spring. He need not worry about losing any corporate sponsorships; his image as an egotistical jerk was cemented long ago. Is he trying to make a buck? Of course he is! Who isn't trying to make a buck in this world? His hopes for the success of the book take nothing away from the validity of its content. Jose isn't dumb enough to just make outlandish, totally unfounded claims to sell books. Well, his publishers aren't anyway. For risk of several costly lawsuits, accusations of steroid use by some of mlb's biggest stars would never have been published if they weren't injected with truth. Some would ask, "Are you saying there has never been a book published that contained lies?" No, I am saying they wouldn't be foolish enough to publish this book if it told lies because of the multi-millionaires it accuses and all those millionaires stand to lose by its exposure.
Especially when the accused could so easily refute it. As the wise Colin Cowherd said this morning on his radio show "The Herd," we're not hearing much from Mark McGwire or the others accused. Colin raised the question, if the allegations against you were totally false and you stood to lose as much as they do in terms of reputation and credibility, wouldn't you be screaming your innocence from the rooftops? Wouldn't you be offering to take lie detector tests and giving personal interviews with Mike Wallace on "60 Minutes?" I know I would. But that's not what we've seen. Cowherd's point was that while this is what the logical counter would be, all we have gotten from these guys are brief quotes and generic second-hand press releases. He went on to say that McGwire and Co. are not suing and probably will not sue in the future because they don't want to have to answer certain questions under oath. It makes sense to me.
It makes a lot more sense than Jose Canseco exacting his revenge on baseball in a way that would surely bring him more libel suits than book sales if it were untrue.
The other reason is because Major League Baseball and everyone implicated in this book have so much to lose. This book rips to shreds the credibility of an entire decade of great baseball. Perhaps that's going a bit overboard, but, at the very least, it does tarnish the image of the Oakland Athletics and their 1980s success, including one World Series championship and three straight appearances in the Fall Classic. That image is exactly what former A's manager Tony LaRussa was so quick to protect when news of Canseco's book first came out. I heard with my own ears as LaRussa told Sportscenter that he was upset that Canseco would tell such "lies" in order to take away from the accomplishments of those A's teams. Sounds like a reasonable reaction, right?
What's interesting is that LaRussa then told "60 Minutes" in an interview airing Wednesday night that Canseco openly bragged about his steroid use. Is it just me, or does that revelation contradict his first response? LaRussa was Canseco's manager when he was boasting of using illegal drugs, was he not? How does allowing that to happen help to preserve The Bash Brothers' innocence much less telling "60 Minutes" about it?
It would appear that LaRussa's statement to Sportscenter was a futile attempt to cover his ass, which is another reason why I'm taking the side of a convicted criminal named Canseco over the reputable names of McGwire, Rodriguez, Palmeiro, LaRussa, and, um, Alvarez. As I mentioned before, all we are getting from them or anyone else from MLB is typical C-Y-A stuff if anything at all. Observe Exhibit B...
A's Executive vice president Sandy Alderson was the general manager when Canseco played for the team, yet this is the horse hockey he's going to feed to us on tonight's "60 Minutes":
"...Were there rumors? Yes, there were over a period of time, but never any sort of direct, hard information that steroids were being used...There was no testing policy that would allow us to confirm or deny any of the rumors that existed."
Quick question, Sandy, if I told you right now that I take steroids and I laughed that you had to actually work out to get buff, would you consider that a rumor or a fact? What information is more "hard" or "direct" than the suspected steroid offender personally admitting his use or his manager and teammates corroborating it? There's that saying that goes "You can get a good look at a t-bone by sticking your head up a bull's ass, but wouldn't you rather take the butcher's wor for it?"
Then there's Exhibit C--as in Cashman. Last Friday the Yankees GM went on espn radio and denied the rumor milling about that the Yankees had removed contract stipulations referring to steroid use in Jason Giambi's contract. He called it "a lot of B.S." Apparently, it was so much B.S. that a mere three days later, other Yankees officials confirmed to espn's Jayson Stark that the team had in fact removed language in the contract referring specifically to steroids. They were sure steroids were protected by other "broader language" in the contract.
"Saying that coverage (of steroids) use was removed from that contract is wrong. When you negotiate contracts, language goes back and forth. The reason the Yankees accepted the broader language is that they were absolutely sure steroids were still 100 percent covered."
I guess that's believable, but I'm still suspicious...He said the Yankees "accepted" the broader language. To me, that suggests that the other side of the negotiations, Giambi and Agent, suggested this broader language in lieu of the language specific to steroids. As Yankee officials, wouldn't it worry you that the player's agent wanted the specific reference to steroids removed even if you thought it was covered elsewhere? I think that would throw up a pretty big red flag for me...assuming I cared enough to open my eyes. While this example is not tied to Canseco's book, I think it gives further evidence of players' and teams' dishonesty regarding steroids.
Jose Canseco's got nothing left to protect and little else to lose. He might be a conniving scumbag, but that doesn't make him a liar in this case. All we have heard from the players implicated and of the parties directly tied to them is a remixed album of the same old misdirection and lies. The good news is that "Juiced" will not likely pave way for a more modern sequel. With the swarm of controversy and baseball's new testing policy, the recreational use of steroids is not likely to be as freewheeling in the 2005 season as it was back in the late 80s. It's because of this hopeful future that baseball should stand up and face the shame of its recent past.
# posted by j.h.k. @ 12:05 PM 
Tuesday, February 15, 2005
Griffey's Next Season-Ending Injury Ahead of Schedule
According to this Fox Sports report, Reds outfielder Ken Griffey, Jr. reported to spring training Monday, eight days before position players are required to report.
When told of his teammate's early arrival, Reds' backup centerfielder Ryan Freel was quoted as saying, "Hey, that's just eight more games for me."
|
When told of his teammate's early arrival, Reds' backup centerfielder Ryan Freel was quoted as saying, "Hey, that's just eight more games for me."
# posted by j.h.k. @ 1:18 PM
And the Nominees Are...
Defense attorneys in the Michael Jackson child molestation trial have announced a list of potential defense witnesses and one of those individuals listed is a certain superstar shooting guard for your Los Angeles Lakers. That's right, the Lakers' Number 8 could soon become The King of Pop's Witness Number 8.
Let me get this straight...in order to defend the character of a man accused of sexual abuse, his attorneys intend to call a witness who within the last year has been charged with sexual misconduct himself? I'm no lawyer, but that seems like a poor choice. Despite having the charges dropped before ever seeing trial, something tells me his credibility might not hold much water under cross examination. Maybe I'm just being cynical.
|
Let me get this straight...in order to defend the character of a man accused of sexual abuse, his attorneys intend to call a witness who within the last year has been charged with sexual misconduct himself? I'm no lawyer, but that seems like a poor choice. Despite having the charges dropped before ever seeing trial, something tells me his credibility might not hold much water under cross examination. Maybe I'm just being cynical.
# posted by j.h.k. @ 1:07 PM
