Fox investigates henhouse incident - concludes nothing happened.

Shocked! Stunned!

Huh, this was the part that shocked me:

“Schilling didn’t stand up enough [to investigators] for what he said happened,”

Fox investigates henhouse incident - concludes nothing happened.

From TFA we get that (a) witnesses were interviewed and denied any such thing happened, and (b) Schilling admits now he was not forthcoming to investigators at the time.

If someone's saying it didn't happen, I am not sure why, since the two people in the discussion are gone -- I'm retired and the other person was fired last year, I think.

They're saying it didn't happen because they investigated it at the time and couldn't find any evidence that supported your claim, and found evidence that refuted it - and you ostriched when scrutinized, as usual.

The quote above is, to me, revealing. Schilling is questioning the motivation of the team to deny his claims. It should be obvious that the team would do so, especially since he should have known the result of the investigation. I think he's questioning their motivation to deny simply because denial of his claims causes greater scrutiny of his claims, and he didn't anticipate the scrutiny. This is kind of like Valentine's story about Middlebrooks last season: tell a story to make yourself look good, then blame others when it is scrutinized.

The appropriate response to Schilling, as always, is "Shut up, Curt."

The quote above is, to me, revealing. Schilling is questioning the motivation of the team to deny his claims. It should be obvious that the team would do so, especially since he should have known the result of the investigation. I think he's questioning their motivation to deny simply because denial of his claims causes greater scrutiny of his claims, and he didn't anticipate the scrutiny. This is kind of like Valentine's story about Middlebrooks last season: tell a story to make yourself look good, then blame others when it is scrutinized.

You make all kinds of sense, sir. Schilling isn't as smart as I thought he was if he didn't think the team would have to respond.

If only there were some other thread questioning the practices of the team's medical staff...

Monday, February 11, 2013
Edes: Jonathan Papelbon used Toradol ...

Former Boston Red Sox closer Jonathan Papelbon, who was with the team from 2005-11, said Saturday that he and numerous other Red Sox players were regularly injected with Toradol, a legal anti-inflammatory drug whose use has become increasingly controversial in sports [...]

A Red Sox official, speaking on background Saturday, described Toradol as a legal drug with clear pain-management benefits, and acknowledged its widespread use in baseball, including by Red Sox pitchers before their starts. But he added that the club is in the midst of reviewing its policy to ensure players' safety.

"A club's policy is related to how it's using Toradol, not whether it would use it," he said.

The official said the club was in full compliance last year with the legal stipulation that only a doctor inject the medication.

If it wasn't included in the Mitchell Report, it did not happen.

Schilling reminds me of 3 of my friends growing up who were nowhere near as smart as they thought they were. One died of a heroin overdose at 55, one served time for skimming state sales tax from his gas station receipts (the gas station that his parents lent him the money for) and the brother of the gas station guy who floundered until about age 40 when he gave the sauce, got some IT training and made a career and a life for himself (even if he married his good friend's ex-wife).

But then again, the laziest** of that gang of friends worked in a factory til it closed and he retired at 50, letting his school teacher wife work, somehow managing to send 3 kids to med or law school. Maybe I'm not so smart after all. :(

** He was never happier than when he was out on strike.

Why do we need anonymous "sources" saying its not true. Hasn't the team publicly said its not true? How is this source any more trustworthy than the team's public statements? Anyone that believes this anonymous source probably also believes the "independent" Paterno Family Report refuting the Freeh Report.

Toradol wasn't illegal when it was used and it was used by all teams in Baseball. Should it have been banned is another question but you can't blame the Red Sox staff for using something every other team used.

and you ostriched when scrutinized, as usual.

He does seem to have a pattern of doing this.

Toradol wasn't illegal when it was used and it was used by all teams in Baseball. Should it have been banned is another question but you can't blame the Red Sox staff for using something every other team used.

You can't blame them for using it at all, but you can blame them if they were using it excessively.

Note: I have no idea if they were actually using it excessively.

He does seem to have a pattern of doing this.

It's getting quite amusing how often it seems to happen.

Toradol wasn't illegal when it was used and it was used by all teams in Baseball. Should it have been banned is another question but you can't blame the Red Sox staff for using something every other team used.

For one, this completely ignores the medical reality of the drug.

Secondly - and I half-suspect this may have been your point - depending on who the 'you' is that you're referring to, Mark McGwire would disagree with you.

Investigators interviewed one witness to the conversation, who said he did not think in any way that [Reinold] said, 'Hey, this is something you should consider

What does this sentence mean?

That the conversation occurred as Schilling stated, but that Reinhold put the emphasis on trying HGH in a way that meant he was joking, or not recommending it, and Schilling spun it as a recommendation?

Or that the entire conversation never occurred?

The way to investigate this is:

1. Interview both men regarding what was and was not said.
2. Ask the two men who else may have overheard the discussion (Schilling says others did).
3. Interview those other people, if they exist.
4. Consider the histories and credibility of each of the two men.

It shouldn't be hard to come to some reasonable conclusion as to what may or may not have occurred. And if Schilling refuses to provide details, then I'm forced to not credit a word he says. Which is not the same thing as concluding he's lying; it's just to say that I can't do anything with his vague information and I refuse to conclude that the employee in question said this.

Or, essentially: STFU and stop smearing peoples' reputations if you aren't willing to provide details.

Or, essentially: STFU and stop smearing peoples' reputations if you aren't willing to provide details.

You do not work for The Globe, and I do not collect my five pounds.

How does an investigation confirm what was said in a private conversation?.

Lets say you are a small business owner. One of your employees offers to sell drugs to your most valuable and trusted employee. Your trusted guy reports this to you in confidence. Calling the cops to investigate is pointless, so if you believe your trusted employee, you simply fire the drug pushing employee since he is an employee at will and all you have to do is give some severance. You do this to prevent this employee from corrupting your other staff and possibly impact their performance and the companies business.

So the Red Sox ignored Schilling, and even gave the medical staffer a promotion sometime later. What does this say about the Red Sox?. Any evidence that Schilling would lie about this? Blowhard yes, liar no. The Red Sox BTW stood to lose 8 million for nothing in return if Schillings rehab did not progress, so it is not a stretch to think the medical staffer had some backing by someone in the FO.

Schilling reported "everything" to Theo but expected it to be kept inhouse. When Theo went the MLB investigation route (to cover the teams behind no doubt) Schilling did not cooperate with MLB investigators for reasons only he can explain but probably have something to do with his arbitrary code of what is permissible and what is not on discussing clubhouse matters..

There was another investigation in 2008 over security staffers with steroids, one of which had clubhouse access and did shopping for Manny. Might be a link here. These staffers did get fired since there was a police report and charges which prompted the investigation.

Please, there's not even smoke here.

Back in real time a conversation was had and Schilling reported it as he should. The Red Sox reported it as they should. MLB investigated as it should. The guy talking to Schilling was interviewed, a witness was interviewed, Schilling was interviewed. In real time, the investigators decided nothing was going on.

Several years later Schilling says ... absolutely nothing the least bit specific. If he clammed up to investigators at the time (as he admits), he's still clamming up now. If Schilling has a more informative story, he should tell it.

I still suspect this is nothing other than a standard misinterpretation. Guy says something like "you've got nothing to lose, might as well try roids" as a semi-joke and Schilling takes it seriously. Or the guy says something like "Y'know, a lot of guys in your situation turn to roids" as a factual statement but Schilling takes it as encouragement.

Unless the guy said something like "I recommend you use roids", there's just nothing here. If the guy said that with witnesses around, he's an idiot.

Lets say you are a small business owner. One of your employees offers to sell drugs to your most valuable and trusted employee. Your trusted guy reports this to you in confidence. Calling the cops to investigate is pointless, so if you believe your trusted employee, you simply fire the drug pushing employee since he is an employee at will and all you have to do is give some severance. You do this to prevent this employee from corrupting your other staff and possibly impact their performance and the companies business.

Let's also say there were witnesses to the private conversation, and they say the most trusted employee is not telling the truth.

When Theo went the MLB investigation route (to cover the teams behind no doubt)

From TFA reporting an incident like this is a requirement of the drug testing program. The CBA compels them to.

The phrase "no doubt" does not mean what you think it means.

#20 .No evidence of witnesses or that Schilling has a history of lying. Theo may very well have been compelled to report to MLB, but that does not mean Schilling expected it or that he was compelled to cooperate with MLB investigators.

#19. There are no words.

There are no words.

But there are lots of conspiracy theories and plenty of paranoia so you've got enough to keep yourself occupied.