BBTF's Newsblog Discussion :: ESPN: Quinn: Rusty Hardin Q&A transcript

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

Saturday, January 12, 2008

ESPN: Quinn: Rusty Hardin Q&A transcript

This goes on forever...with tons of stuff on Andy Petit, HCH and other statestical goodies!

T.J. Quinn: Well, when someone sat and looked at just the numbers for Roger’s career, what conclusions do you think they drew?

Rusty Hardin: Oh, I think, I think they drew incredibly stupid inclusions—uh, conclusions, if they concluded that somehow you can look at his performance and it fits in. For instance, everybody talks about his, uh, doing it in order to extend his career. Think about it, T.J. The guy is supposed to have taken steroids in ‘98. In ‘97 he won the Cy Young. ‘98 he won the Cy Young.

T.J. Quinn: Brain McNamee’s—you know, his story was that Roger had already been taking steroids when he approached him in 1998, which would suggest…

Rusty Hardin: I didn’t remember that. You may—if you’re right about that, I didn’t know that.

T.J. Quinn: That’s what he said. That was in the Mitchell report and I think his lawyers addressed that as well, that Brian McNamee said, “I never suggested that Roger take them. He was taking them.” So that would—wouldn’t that explain…

Rusty Hardin: [OVERLAPPING] I never read that. Are you real sure of that?

T.J. Quinn: Quite.

This has been a Quinn Hardin Production.

Repoz Posted: January 12, 2008 at 07:24 PM | 22 comment(s)
Related News: General, NY Yankees, Rumors, Steroids

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. Shock Posted: January 12, 2008 at 09:15 PM (#2667184)

Every time a Clemens thread is started, God kills a kitten.

2. kevin Posted: January 12, 2008 at 09:22 PM (#2667187)

T.J. Quinn: That’s what he said. That was in the Mitchell report and I think his lawyers addressed that as well, that Brian McNamee said, “I never suggested that Roger take them. He was taking them.” So that would—wouldn’t that explain…

Rusty Hardin: [OVERLAPPING] I never read that. Are you real sure of that?

T.J. Quinn: Quite.

Rusty Hardin: Turn off the goddamned mike!!! Who the hell set me up with this guy????

3. Bernal Diaz has an angel on his shoulder. Posted: January 12, 2008 at 09:24 PM (#2667190)

Why did Hardin fly out to Indianapolis?

4. David Nieporent Posted: January 12, 2008 at 09:26 PM (#2667191)

I know Kevin is desperate to read anything which makes any non-Red Sock look bad, and I know Kevin doesn't care about facts -- he still hasn't admitted that the LA Times story was false -- but he should probably not invent dialogue that makes him look like an idiot. Quinn is wrong. (I don't think, unlike Kevin, that Quinn has reason to lie.) There is no such statement in the Mitchell report.

5. bob gaj Posted: January 12, 2008 at 10:21 PM (#2667210)

where's buddy ebsen and ms. meriwether when you need them?

6. Rich Rifkin Posted: January 13, 2008 at 12:54 AM (#2667249)

Something very strange: I just read the entire interview, and the part Repoz pasted above, beginning with

T.J. Quinn: Brain McNamee’s—you know, his story was that Roger had already been taking steroids when he approached him in 1998, which would suggest…

is not in there.

Either a) I'm blind, b) I mistook Repoz humor for something real or c) ESPN yanked that aspect of the interview off of its site. I would appreciate it if anyone else can confirm what I've found.

7. Larry Mahnken Posted: January 13, 2008 at 01:09 AM (#2667251)

If I've learned one thing from FARK, it's that it's always c)

8. Repoz Posted: January 13, 2008 at 01:14 AM (#2667253)

From Tango

Does ESPN alter their transcripts?

Repoz, the quickest blogger in the east, posted a link to an ESPN interview, including a blurb, which seemed like made up facts to me, and to Clemens’ lawyer. I looked in the article in question, and that exchange is not there. The exchange is very very very long. Probably the longest interview I’ve ever seen online. And that particular passage seemed to have been removed. To confirm that Repoz, a blogger of honor if ever there was one, didn’t just make it up as a goof, I googled it. And the exchange did in fact exist on ESPN, as my screen print shows. Look for that part I circled in the ESPN transcript. However, it’s not there, in the latest version!

And this is not the first time. A Keith Law roundtable was edited because Keith Law was too smart! Here’s the video. Vegaswatch is saying that parts of it was removed, apparently.

UPDATE: I’ve gotten confirmation that the Rice video is accurate, but that the McGwire video was cut. That cut was possibly due to length, and not for the poor showing of Steve Phillips (maybe). However, the first part of this post still stands.

9. Rich Rifkin Posted: January 13, 2008 at 01:19 AM (#2667254)

So I am not blind and Repoz is not funny.

I guess ESPN excised that part of the interview because T.J. Quinn was wrong about what he paraphrased the Mitchell Report as saying. (I concede, Bud Selig and I have not read all of the Mitchell Report.) Do you think that's why ESPN edited out that part of the interview? Maybe Rob Neyer can turn over some desks in Bristol and find out what's going on? (Yeah... yeah.... I know he lives in Oregon.... and Dick Vitale has one eye.)

10. jwb Posted: January 13, 2008 at 01:25 AM (#2667257)

A lot of parties in this dialogue have an axe to grind or an ass to kiss.

And I generally find Repoz funny. Or incomprehensible. Sometimes both.

11. David Nieporent Posted: January 13, 2008 at 01:25 AM (#2667258)

Well, I commend ESPN for fact checking. Well, half-commend, since they didn't do it until after the fact. But it's still better than some.

(I bet Hardin finished the interview and left the room, called an associate to have him check the report, and then called ESPN to let them know that TJ Quinn being "quite" sure doesn't actually make something true.)

12. David Nieporent Posted: January 13, 2008 at 01:29 AM (#2667259)

I printed out the transcript before they changed it. What's interesting is that the amended version isn't just missing those lines; it actually splices together statements before and after those lines to make it look like there's no omission there.

13. Rich Rifkin Posted: January 13, 2008 at 01:32 AM (#2667261)

"And I generally find Repoz funny."

Humor doesn't work as well if I have to explain the joke. But, jwb, consider the choices a, b an c I listed in post #6 to understand why I said, "So I am not blind and Repoz is not funny."

14. SoSHially Unacceptable Posted: January 13, 2008 at 01:42 AM (#2667265)

I printed out the transcript before they changed it. What's interesting is that the amended version isn't just missing those lines; it actually splices together statements before and after those lines to make it look like there's no omission there.

Maybe by morning they'll get around to changing the front-page link, too.

Rusty Hardin was mesmerizing during Roger Clemens bizarre news conference in Houston. Why not hang on every word Hardin said to OTL?*

* Except the stuff we took out that made Quinn look like an idiot.

15. jwb Posted: January 13, 2008 at 02:09 AM (#2667274)

I apologize, Rich Rifkin, I meant no harm.

The twins humor study is kind of odd, though. I assume that the twins in this study were raised by their biological parents, so they should have the same nature/nurture conditions. This is at odds with the separated at birth adopted twin IQ study I read recently which implied that socioeconomic status played a major role only at the extreme ends of the spectrum.

As for me, my father had very little sense of humor, my mother could be hilarious.

And I was thinking d) Just to bait kevin

16. Repoz Posted: January 13, 2008 at 11:11 AM (#2667327)

More from David Pinto's Baseball Musings...

I've reread the section on Roger Clemens in the Mitchell report and there is nothing about Roger using steroids before 1998. Quinn was wrong in part quoted by Repoz. The way the transcript looks now, Hardin comes off suggesting that the Mitchell report indicates Clemens used before 1998. ESPN should return the original section to the transcript with a note that Quinn was wrong about the Mitchell report.

17. Severiano Flitcraft Posted: January 13, 2008 at 11:27 AM (#2667332)

I agree with Repoz. A note would be best. And Quinn should apologize to Hardin.

18. Russ Posted: January 13, 2008 at 12:42 PM (#2667348)

Man... the media is making Hardin look like a genius right now. Every time he deals with one of these mental midgets, he probably changes the last digit of his hourly fees on the sign outside of his office (like the way that the service stations change the price of gas after another suicide bomb explodes in Baghdad). It will be very interesting to see how the Clemens stuff eventually goes down, because every day the MSM makes it look more and more like a witch hunt. They're boxing themselves in by reaching and reaching for stuff that isn't there and making Clemens look better and better.

19. Red Juice Posted: January 13, 2008 at 03:09 PM (#2667394)

great read, thanks for sharing [yes it was long] ..

So.
we have an out of control IRS agent and an out of control ESPN editor.
Which one do you think is more dangerous?

At first glance, I would say the IRS agent, but thinking about it, I am not so so sure.

20. Ray DiPerna Posted: January 13, 2008 at 04:23 PM (#2667424)

ESPN should return the original section to the transcript with a note that Quinn was wrong about the Mitchell report.

Agreed. At least ESPN took some action, but if we're comparing mainstream-type writers like Quinn (he wrote for the New York Daily News and now appears on tv with ESPN) to internet writers or bloggers, I think the internet writers or bloggers would have had the integrity to run a note pointing out the error. Joe Sheehan, for example, doesn't change his columns after the fact to pretend an error in the column never existed; he runs notes.

21. kevin Posted: January 13, 2008 at 04:25 PM (#2667425)

Which one do you think is more dangerous?

None.

The out of control pitcher is the most dangerous.

22. a steroid belt Posted: January 14, 2008 at 10:43 AM (#2667727)

They should leave the mistakes and stuff in. Removing the passage here makes Quinn look more credible than he should look.

Page 1 of 1 pages

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

<< Back to main

Saturday, January 12, 2008

ESPN: Quinn: Rusty Hardin Q&A transcript

Reader Comments and Retorts

Support BBTF

My Bookmarks

Hot Topics