BBTF's Newsblog Discussion :: Chicago Tribune: Rogers: Canseco’s haymaker could floor Ordonez (RR)

Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Friday, January 25, 2008

Chicago Tribune: Rogers: Canseco’s haymaker could floor Ordonez (RR)

Perhaps Triple-A hitting coach Von Joshua, who got Ordonez to stop changing his batting stance and approach on a weekly basis, wasn’t the only reason for Ordonez’s emergence. Could steroids and human growth hormone have helped even more?

Ordonez never has tested positive. But that’s just as likely to mean he cheated well as it does that he didn’t cheat.

It doesn’t look good when Canseco, a former teammate, has tried to make Ordonez buy his silence and Ordonez has responded by telling the FBI “no harm, no foul.” Ordonez could have put Canseco in the crosshairs of a serious investigation, but that would have meant allowing someone to look for skeletons in Ordonez’s closet, as well, so the man once honored with the “Oh-ee-oh, Magglio” chant is keeping the bat on his shoulder.

Fa-fa-funny...that a Sly “HGH is nothing. Anyone who calls it a steroid is grossly misinformed. Testosterone to me is so important for a sense of well-being when you get older. Everyone over 40 years old would be wise to investigate it because it increases the quality of your life. Mark my words. In 10 years, it will be over the counter."* Stallone ad is running next to Rogers.

*ShysterBall.

Repoz Posted: January 25, 2008 at 07:43 AM | 22 comment(s)
Related News: General, Chi White Sox

Reader Comments and Retorts

Go to end of page

Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.

Page 1 of 1 pages

1. RMc is the President of the United States Posted: January 25, 2008 at 09:27 AM (#2675897)

Ordonez never has tested positive. But that’s just as likely to mean he cheated well as it does that he didn’t cheat.

Ah, the modern world, where you're considered guilty until proven guiltier.

2. David Nieporent Posted: January 25, 2008 at 09:40 AM (#2675903)

What bothers me most about that statement, RMc, is not that it tosses the presumption of innocence out the window, but that Rogers is a professional writer, and yet he doesn't seem to have any idea that words actually have meaning.

He can't possibly mean that not testing positive is "just as likely" to mean that one escaped detection as it is to mean that one didn't use -- that half of the people who don't test positive actually used. But I don't think Rogers has any idea that the phrase "just as likely" doesn't mean "possible." It's just words to him, not actual thoughts or ideas.

3. Dan Szymborski Posted: January 25, 2008 at 09:41 AM (#2675904)

If true, this whole series of events is very bad for Canseco's credibility. He already has all but said that his "tell-all" book didn't really tell-all and if he's determining who is in the book based on who gives him money, it makes one wonder who was left out of the last book because they paid and who was included because they didn't.

4. SugarBear Blanks Posted: January 25, 2008 at 09:43 AM (#2675906)

What bothers me is that it's extortion even if the underlying allegations are true ... a simple fact that nonetheless escapes the author.

5. Dan Szymborski Posted: January 25, 2008 at 09:48 AM (#2675908)

Rogers is a professional writer, and yet he doesn't seem to have any idea that words actually have meaning.

---
a simple fact that nonetheless escapes the author

Haven't you guys read Phil Rogers before? Rogers not knowing what words men and letting facts escape him isn't that unusual.

6. David Nieporent Posted: January 25, 2008 at 09:52 AM (#2675911)

Haven't you guys read Phil Rogers before? Rogers not knowing what words men and letting facts escape him isn't that unusual.

Yes, I'm aware of that; I know Rogers is a plot to make Mariotti look less bad by comparison (it doesn't work). That particular statement happened to irk me more than most because of its fundamental illiteracy.

7. SugarBear Blanks Posted: January 25, 2008 at 10:00 AM (#2675914)

I'm not sure where the baseball case is for any great "emergence" either. He had a pretty good rookie year and was highly thought of, then blossomed his second year which has happened in sports from time immemorial. He had plainly "emerged" by the time he played with Canseco in 2001.

8. JDLink Posted: January 25, 2008 at 10:18 AM (#2675922)

So, if you mount an all out defense of your reputation, you are clear over reacting, and thus are likely user and cheater. If you don't, then you are likely a user and a cheater.

I am at a loss ...

9. SugarBear Blanks Posted: January 25, 2008 at 10:42 AM (#2675931)

A guy gets extorted by a downtrodden loser but decides to show a little mercy by not pressing charges.

Yes, what a horrible example for our children and grandchildren.

10. Barry`s_Lazy_Boy Posted: January 25, 2008 at 10:48 AM (#2675936)

Thank goodness Jose bounced around so much at the end of his career. Now he can use the "played on the same team as him" card much more often.

11. Ray DiPerna Posted: January 25, 2008 at 12:49 PM (#2676047)

So, if you mount an all out defense of your reputation, you are clear over reacting, and thus are likely user and cheater. If you don't, then you are likely a user and a cheater.

This is the key point to me. It's not merely that people assume guilt; it's that they use logically inconsistent arguments -- because of the fact that they've assumed their conclusion. For example, we were told that Bonds's failure to sue the authors for defamation was an indication of guilt; but Clemens has sued, and yet it's not considered an indication of innocence. McGwire didn't say much in front of Congress and then went away quietly, and that means he was guilty; but Clemens is apparently fully willing to testify and has mounted an all-out defense, and yet that's not seen as an indication that he's innocent.

It seems that the mere accusation alone justifies a conclusion of guilt, and there is nothing an accused player can do to change that.

12. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: January 25, 2008 at 08:47 PM (#2676353)

Exactly. Until Magglio Ordonez files suit against Jose Canseco, he stands guilty in "the court of public opinion." And if he does sue Canseco, then he's still guilty because "lawyering up" is something guilty people do.

13. Dan Szymborski Posted: January 25, 2008 at 09:44 PM (#2676384)

It seems that the mere accusation alone justifies a conclusion of guilt, and there is nothing an accused player can do to change that.

It's because when a player's accused of steroids, anything and everything that player does is considered as evidence that the player used steroids.

Players is injured? Steroids. Player's been healthy? Steroids. Player has one-year spike and then drops back down? Steroids. Player has one-year spike and maintains? Steroids. Player doesn't sue? Steroids. Player does? Steroids. Player buys new hat? Steroids. Player goes on vacation in offseason? Steroids. Player buys pizza? Steroids.

14. Benji Posted: January 26, 2008 at 04:59 AM (#2676514)

That last paragraph is Primey-worthy Dan. Thank you for expressing it so well.

Everything steroid-related is repulsive to me. I hate the cheating, the see-no-evil of management to the cheating, the (let's face it) see-no-evil of us baseball fans to the cheating, but more than anything else, the ascension to "good-guy" status to a creep like Canseco. He'll tar anybody and everybody for the publicity he craves, and the good will get lumped in with the bad. Someone will always throw the "roids" accusation out there, and all sports will be hurt by that.

We have to stop being selectively angry. When Canseco slithers out from under his rock again, we need to tell him to STFU and go away. And we also need to stop deifying those two creeps that wrote the book based on grand jury testimony. Sports doesn't need to trawl the slime pit to stop PED use.

15. kevin Posted: January 26, 2008 at 08:32 AM (#2676523)

That sounds about right, Dan.

16. RMc is the President of the United States Posted: January 26, 2008 at 02:19 PM (#2676583)

Nobody can write that well, Dan; you're obviously on steroids. (And if you get me mad at me for saying that, that proves you're on steroids!)

17. Dan Szymborski Posted: January 26, 2008 at 02:45 PM (#2676593)

That sounds about right, Dan.

I left out about 50 additional determinants since I figured you already knew them!

It's going to be real entertaining if David Ortiz or Albert Pujols or someone gets busted for steroids the week before the May meetup, what with me and Kevin and hopefully BL and JC and DMN and maybe even Dial all in the same place.

18. kevin Posted: January 26, 2008 at 02:54 PM (#2676595)

It's going to be real entertaining if David Ortiz or Albert Pujols or someone gets busted for steroids the week before the May meetup, what with me and Kevin and hopefully BL and JC and DMN and maybe even Dial all in the same place.

You wearing a cup? I am.

19. robinred Posted: January 26, 2008 at 03:08 PM (#2676601)

You wearing a cup? I am.

Pretty good line and an even better set-up line on steroids thread. Well done.

20. David Nieporent Posted: January 26, 2008 at 07:46 PM (#2676712)

TMI, Kevin.

21. Bernal Diaz has an angel on his shoulder. Posted: January 26, 2008 at 08:06 PM (#2676723)

You wearing a cup? I am.

kevin, you aren't supposed to wear it like a dust mask. It goes a bit lower,

22. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: January 26, 2008 at 08:48 PM (#2676745)

TMI, Kevin.

Just be glad he didn't brag that his cup runneth over.

Page 1 of 1 pages

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

<< Back to main

Friday, January 25, 2008

Chicago Tribune: Rogers: Canseco’s haymaker could floor Ordonez (RR)

Reader Comments and Retorts

Support BBTF

My Bookmarks

Hot Topics