|
|
|
|
Baseball Primer Newsblog— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand
Tuesday, December 18, 2007
Orioles second baseman Brian Roberts admitted last night that he used steroids “once,” in 2003, but said he hasn’t used them or any other performance-enhancing drugs since.
...“In 2003, when I took one shot of steroids, I immediately realized that this was not what I stood for or anything that I wanted to continue doing. I never used steroids, human growth hormone or any other performance-enhancing drugs prior to or since that single incident. I can honestly say before God, myself, my family and all of my fans that steroids or any performance-enhancing drugs have never had any effect on what I have worked so hard to accomplish in the game of baseball. I am very sorry and I deeply regret ever making that terrible decision. My only hope and prayer is that the Orioles, my family, friends and fans that have supported me so faithfully will forgive me.”
...and then trade me the hell out of here as quick as possible! Losing sucks!
Repoz
Posted: December 18, 2007 at 11:58 AM | 128 comment(s)
Login to Bookmark
Tags:
orioles,
steroids
|
Bookmarks
You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.
Hot Topics
Newsblog: Matschulat: Did I Miss The "Paul Konerko Is So Overrated OMG" Bandwagon? (26 - 10:46pm, May 25)Last: Der_K is feeling better now.Newsblog: TBO: Nerdy Rays head north (17 - 10:07pm, May 25)Last: PreservedFishNewsblog: Himrich’s Top Ten Target Field Foods (6 - 9:57pm, May 25)Last: Long John McCaine Mutiny on the Bounty (scott)Newsblog: The Hall of Very Good: Former Cards Slugger Critical of "LaRussa's Regime" (3 - 9:52pm, May 25)Last: asinwreckNewsblog: T.R. Sullivan: Of Frank Robinson, Milt Pappas and Jim Palmer (6 - 9:42pm, May 25)Last: TR_SullivanNewsblog: Dodgers want to host NHL's Winter Classic (22 - 9:38pm, May 25)Last: Cris ENewsblog: Boston.com: Curt Schilling’s 38 Studios lays off all staff (117 - 9:36pm, May 25)Last: Teufel's GraveyardNewsblog: Wilmoth: Nate McLouth Designated For Assignment (8 - 9:25pm, May 25)Last: McCoyNewsblog: Greenberg: Cubs' Ricketts decries proposal (817 - 9:08pm, May 25)Last: The Yankee ClapperNewsblog: HP: Baseball is leaving the human factor behind (55 - 8:48pm, May 25)Last: SquashNewsblog: Bud Selig -- No need for more MLB replay for now - ESPN (85 - 8:37pm, May 25)Last: Harveys WallbangersSox Therapy: A Winning Ballclub? (19 - 8:32pm, May 25)Last: Jose Can You SeabiscuitHall of Merit: Most Meritorious Player: 1973 Discussion (14 - 7:33pm, May 25)Last: Kiko SakataNewsblog: Primer Dugout (and link of the day) 5-25-2012 (48 - 7:04pm, May 25)Last: AndrewJNewsblog: OT: Soccer Thread—May 2012 (1164 - 6:35pm, May 25)Last: The DA Baracus Hypothesis
|
|
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.
Brian Roberts is a good player, I hope he stops using and continues to be successful.
If he gets traded to the Cubs, I hope he keeps using and continues to be successful...
That's exactly why you make this admission, if you actually have been significantly loaded up on steroids -- since you're a good guy and a scrappy team player and etc. (read: white), you come out and admit to using it once, and tack on the stuff about how you're a Christian and all (the Bible doesn't say anything specific about performance enhancing drugs, you know), and everyone starts thinking exactly upon those lines: "Wow. What a stand-up guy, coming out and admitting to it like that when he didn't have to." And nobody will ever even think about the possibility you were much more 'roided up than that.
... suddenly the story about 'new contact lenses' in 2005 sounds even fishier.
Really. It's all the Bill Clinton "I tried it once and didn't inhale" line.
Of course, he could have also made the same admission two years ago, before the report came out.
I remember Steve Phillips saying something like about Roberts "looking like a player who is learning how to hit home runs" in 2005. He based his assertion from Roberts' 50-double campaign in 2004.
I bring this up not to disagree with you, of course. I was just struck that a BTFer said something that even came within a universe of agreeing with Steve Phillips.
What's the theory behind "doubles-turn-to-HR," anyway? Have we seen that most low-HR, high-doubles guys end up developing significant HR power?
I totally agree. Lame.
Yaz & Musial are often cited as examples; except their HR totals weren't really "low" when they had a lot of doubles, just that each had a sudden surge in HRs at age 27
but then, they're both Polish, and we all know how important genetics is (are)
Not really. Below is a complete list of players since 1960 with 40+ doubles, 20+ SB, and single digit HR totals in a season age 26 or younger:
2004 26 Brian Roberts
2003 24 Jimmy Rollins
1994 25 Chuck Knoblauch
1991 23 Roberto Alomar
1991 26 Felix Jose
1986 26 Steve Sax
1978 25 George Brett
Of course, Roberts didn't really develop significant power either. He hit 8 in April 2005, and 32 since then.
No one would've noticed if he'd hit 8 in August 2005.
Al Simmons and Ted Kluszewski both say cze??!
"You're being pulled over for suspicion of DUI".
"Honestly, officer, this is the first time I've done this!"
I think a lot of poeple disagree with you. If Pettitte or Roberts really just tried steroids, then their performances probably weren't enhanced at all, which is a pretty big distinction from a Canseco-type abuser.
Assume for a second that Roberts and Pettitte are telling the truth. Should they remain silent, or should they release a statement that is going to be ridiculed by the kevins of the world?
These statements aren't being released to convince the extremists, who are always going to assume the worst. But the majority of baseball fans seem to be aware that this isn't a black-and-white issue.
And if Roberts and Pettitte are lying, we'll probably find that out at some point in the future when another witness comes forward. It's a pretty bold lie to tell, unless you are certain that you've destroyed the trail of evidence of other steroid abuses.
I hate Brian Roberts for the wholly irrational reason that he ruined what would have been my best [worst] hacking mass team ever in 2005- if only he'd put up his pre-steroid 83 OPS+ numbers rather than that steroid driven 139...
8 HR in one month is a significant power spike, I'd say.
Anyway, has anybody proven the doubles-lead-to-HR thing, or not?
No one would've noticed if he'd hit 8 in August 2005.
Exactly. Roberts never turned into a power hitter. He just had a hot month during which he was able to turn on a few pitches and jerk them down the line for HRs. DOes that mean he wasn't using steroids? No. But his April 2005 power surge doesn't prove anything one way or the other IMO.
So...what? He stopped juicing after April? If the steroids worked so well, why did he stop? Or did they just stop being effective after April?
Roberts didn't explain away the evidence against him in the Mitchell Report. He repeated it.
BTW, weren't you the one who's been calling for a "trade everyone over 25" movement w/r/t Orioles, for at least a year or two? I agreed with you at the time (and still do), and it looks like the FO is finally starting a similar process.
Think it's too late, or are you OK with how it's going so far?
His three year trend before 2005 was 66-87-90, and he was entering his age 27 season, so expecting 83 was probably a mistake.
Anyway, has anybody proven the doubles-lead-to-HR thing, or not?
I don't know if anyone has proven it, but my understanding is that it's really about minor leaguers developing power as they get older, not speedsters who hit a lot of doubles. A Delmon Young type who hits 40 doubles but 10 HRs at age 20 in AA is likely to turn some of those doubles into HRs as he gets older and stronger. A few balls that bounce in front of or hit the wall will end up going over it. I don't think it applies to a 26 year old who hits a lot of doubles in the majors. But again, Roberts never turned into a HR hitter -- he just had a flukey month.
Think it's too late, or are you OK with how it's going so far?
Yes, that's me. ANd I'm pretty happy so far. MacPhail has said all the right things and has made some pretty good moves IMO. He's turned Traschel and Tejada into 8 potentially useful players, and it looks like he'll get 6-7 more guys for Bedard and Roberts. Plus he got a potentially useful reliever in the rule 5 draft. Hopefully he gets something like Murton/Gallagher/Cedeno for Roberts (ideally pie, but I won't hold my breath) and Jones/Clement/Morrow or Votto/Cueto/Hamilton for Bedard, and dumps Gibbons, Mora, Millar, et al. With those moves the Orioles will be well on their way to rebuilding.
(*) Although Roberts wasn't exactly "caught" here, and could have denied it here, and nobody except Mullah Kevin would have cared.
Is he supposed to be 3B-of-the-Future? The 899 OPS (100 Games) in Iowa is an attention-getter, but I don't know much about his defense.
I'm less sanguine about MacPhail; he seems to be moving pretty slowly, and that wasn't exactly the greatest haul I've seen for Tejada. (It's not MacPhail's fault that Angelos delayed the trade for a year or two, of course.) And I don't understand why Ramon Hernandez isn't a Met. I'm withholding any praise until I see what happens with Bedard, Roberts, Mora, etc.
As for MaPhail "saying the right things," I still disagree. This weekend, he was talking about simply accumulating young pitchers, and I think that's completely wrong as a strategy.
I do wonder whether the prominent guys named in the report will be called in front of Congress.
I respect Roberts a good amount more for comming out. I don't particularly care that he did PED's, I just want them out of the game and him comming forward even after getting outed is better than him known.
Still, you know, the evidence in the Mitchell report was all hearsay.
I just wanna see some bombz and strikeoutz.
MacPhail could trade Ramon Hernandez for Phillip Hughes and Joba Chamberlan and you'd still find something to complain about.
Great. Now our starting catcher is Guillermo Quiroz.
Nice job, MacFail.
you should see the riots in houston about te-roider
and the columnists - the SAME writers who been writing what a evil person barry lamar is for (supposedly) doing steroids - all writing ALL these columns about how great te-roider is and how having him on the team will improve all the other guys
uh hunh
he gonna shoot em all up with B-12
but berkman is as anti-roids as frank thomas so there is gonna be some INTERESTING times
I keep hearing this. The evidence was assuredly not all hearsay. Even the supposed statements of named players would likely be exceptions to the hearsay rule (statements against interest, statement of party opponent).
SAN DIMAS HIGH SCHOOL FOOTBALL RULES!
Can you tell me more about Berkman's stance? I hadn't heard he was Thomas-like in his anti-PED position, but I did notice him calling Clemens out the other day, saying that he owed his teammates an explanation at the very least. Increases my respect for Lance, really.
But yeah, Berkman + Tejada = interesting times.
Maybe I'm just a glass half full kind of guy. MacPhail has made it pretty clear that he intends to rebuild and I'm excited about that. I'm willing to give him the benefit of the doubt for a while, and he certainly hasn't made any bad moves to this point. Complaining about the tejada trade or the non-trade of Hernandez is pointless since we have no idea what his other options were. Apparently Minaya turned down Hernandez for Humber. What was MacPhail supposed to do, offer him Hernandez for Mota?
They need to get position players into the system. The key will be what they get back for Bedard, and you'd like to see a nice deal for Roberts. Tough to expect too much in return for the others.
Well obviously
The key for me was that I expected him to play every day and be a below average offensive player. At "worst" I'd thought he'd be roughly league average and have neutral hacking mass value.
This was a guy with a career minor league slugging % under .400 and whose MLB career high was .376 coming in to that season. His career high excluding that .515 is now last year's .432.
Even with the 112 that Roberts just put up, his 2005 is still flukier to me than Erstad's 2000 season, without that 112 in 2007, Robert's 2005 seaosn was even flukier than Beltre's big year-
Both Erstad and Beltre had shown signs before their big year that something was brewing, bith were well regarded when prospects. Robert's 2005 came out of nowhere. (yes I know 50 doubles in 2004- well 56 XBHs in 736 PAs is no big deal- league average XBH rate would have led to 62 XBH in 736 PAs.)
And I don't give anybody associated with the Orioles the benefit of the doubt, but what I'm willing to do is suspend judgment on MacPhail until we see what else he does. (But it isn't, after all, as if MacPhail is some 20-year old wunderkind; he has a track record, and it doesn't give me reason to worship the ground he walks on.)
Not according to kevin.
The players don't need any of us to defend them, and they don't care if any of us accuse them.
Roid Player-Hater Fundys: You going to stop following baseball over this? If so, then go sulk in the corner. If not, then why not just quit your whining and enjoy the dingers and K's!
Roid Player-Marytr Defenders: Is it really worth arguing with the fundys? You can't reason with fundys. Hundreds and hundreds of posts, trying to reason with fundys. It'll never amount to anything. They aren't listening.
We need more bet threads, and less steroid threads.
An argument based on the fact that Hernandez is Venezuelan. Excellent.
Last year was the one that sealed it for me. Cabrera never took the next step, the overpriced bullpen totally broke down, the back-end of the rotation never panned out, the Orioles didn't realize they should have started the rebuilding last July (at the latest), and the whole thing just slid further down the cliff.
I'm happy that MacPhail is dealing for prospects, but I have no faith that the Orioles can get the right prospects, nor I do I believe they can develop them properly. He's taking the first step, but he hasn't exactly dazzled us yet.
In short, you are right, the org has a ton to prove before they can expect people to stop assuming the worst.
C'mon, surely you see his point. The Orioles need to at least try to leverage every possible advantage, and Minaya was certainly ripe for some, um, leveraging.
It's too bad all the people who have access to front-office happenings are too busy/disinterested to post here. I just don't know how GMs miss out on deals like the Lastings Milledge Closeout Special.
And in other news, the sky is orange.
R-S, I'll ask you. Scott Moore played for AAA Iowa very recently. Is he a stud?
I'm not. While DMN is right--many people do try a drug one or two times--I don't think that is as likely to apply to steroids as it is to recreational drugs or even amps (Henry Aaron said he took greenies ONCE as well).
I was somewhat critical of Mitchell for using Roberts' name, and I still think the names should have been differentiated in some way based on the evidence. And, while I never said "Roberts didn't use" my criticism in that case was unfounded.
Also, while Roberts may be telling the truth about his reaction, I thought this was far more over the top and irritating than anything Pettitte said:
"I immediately realized that this was not what I stood for or anything that I wanted to continue doing. I never used steroids, human growth hormone or any other performance-enhancing drugs prior to or since that single incident. I can honestly say before God, myself, my family and all of my fans that steroids or any performance-enhancing drugs have never had any effect on what I have worked so hard to accomplish in the game of baseball."
Seems excessive.
Don't forget "and they didn't work!" A version of which is also included in the Roberts admission.
I'm more apt to believe Aaron than I am Roberts. I suppose some people wouldn't like how they make you feel when the effects kick in, and they make you feel like crap when they wear off.
I never liked them.
Me too, but not by a huge margin. I was just pointing out that the "tried-them-once-didn't-like-it-feel-slimy" thing is used a lot. I have also heard guys use once-and-out about both strip clubs and hookers.
My guess is that they just don't ask. One of the things that Moneyball showed was that Billy Beane is always trying to do something... it's probably annoying as hell to the other GM's, but they never really stop taking his call.
I also could totally see the Milledge thing being the residue of some other trade... Minaya calls about Brian Schneider, not even thinking that he's going to move Milledge. He starts off low-balling Bowden ("I'll give you something like Victor Diaz"), Bowden comes back with something like "give me Martinez", and then boom-boom-boom, you're up to Milledge. Now Minaya's like, "No way can I give up Milledge and not get back an OF in return." Bowden adds Church and then the deal is done.
Minaya was probably so fixated on Schneider, he was willing to do just about anything to get him. If Bowden sensed that, he probably pushed for something he knew he couldn't get (like Martinez), then "settled" for Milledge.
Except fundamentalism connotes a literalist interpretation. And since it's the apologists that that take the literal, must be written down to be a rule line they are the fundamentalists in this extended metaphor.
By contrast I keep arguing for the spirit of athletic competition which would make me a Catholic on steroids.
No. An .899 in Iowa last year is not that impressive. You should see the numbers that some of those guys put up (link). He's seems like he could turn into a solid player, but almost certainly not a stud. The Cubs must not have liked him that much (same with the Tigers) since they both seemed to just give him away for free. I was always looking for him to get a little bit of a shot, but the only chances he was going to get in Chicago were when Lee or Ramirez went down.
And I think if the Cubs give up Murton/Gallagher/Cedeno for Roberts they're giving up too much. But I'm pretty sure we've been over this before...
So all the decision-making that came before the shot was... what? The pinprick of the syringe made you see EVIL? Give me an everlovin' break.
Probably not. Not sure what to believe. What Roberts admitted to is the minimum of what he's guilty of. Maybe some people think he's a steroid fiend who wouldn't have had a career w/o roids. Truth is somewhere in the middle.
I don't think that criticism (which I shared as well) was unfounded. The principle is sound; that the accusation happened to be true in Roberts's case does not change the fact that it was gossip information that had little support and could easily have turned out not to be true.
Regardless, I still don't know what value was redeemed by naming Roberts.
I think many of would be surprised at how badly some may misread the market.
1: The Mets/Omar did not think too highly of Milledge by the end of 2007, and assume that optehr teams think the same way.
2: The Mets throw Milledge out as the centerpiece of a few deals, get turned down*, do not counter or persist, but takes this as confirmation that other teams regard Milledge as they do.
3: Mets then trade Milledge in first deal that fills a perceived need.
4: Other teams' reactions, "damn if I'd known he'd go so cheaply I would have offered more"
Non-NY winter meeting coverage was pretty funny when discussing Haren and Santana and Bedard trade rumors- the standard Mets' reference was, "the Mets are interested, but without Milledge..."
This scenario has happened to the Mutt's before of course**.
*Met Fan/Omar apologists have cranked out an involved scenario that asserts that Omar asked EVERY SINGLE TEAM if they had interest in Milledge and was flat turned down, that the deal with the Nats was the best that could have been made. I have searched high and low for rumors, was Milledge actually offered in a deal for Haren/Santana/Bedard? Someone else? This fall? I pretty much drew blanks- when I did find reports of alleged Met trade offers, they tended to involve the Mets offering Gomez and Humber/Pelfrey/Mulvey etc- and being shot down- and then offering Gomez again- to be shot down again- apparently the Mets hadn't quite realized that no other team regards Gomez as highly as they do.
** It's been pretty well established that the Mets did not shop Kazmir around before that trade. Duquette has admitted as much, in his otherwise largely self-serving take on that trade. Essentially the organization had a collective brain fart- some of them actually liked Zambrano (a major scouting blunder)- Kazmir was disliked, and literally no one who was aware of the trade proposal said, "wait a minute, can't we get more?" or even "wait a minute, we want to trade the best arm in our organization for THIS guy???"
Rondo and Davis have been better than can be expected, and Doc hasn't ###### anything up yet. The injuries are just starting :). Fun team to watch to though. I'll wait until April to go too far overboard on them.
On the other hand, I can tell you now the Bulls suck and I don't care if they turn it around. This team ain't winning ever. And not for the reasons most people normally spout. They just can't win with the undersized and super streaky Gordon/Hinrich backcourt. I've also decided I don't like any of the players on the team except Deng and Thomas. I actually dread going to games.
His defense is considered to be below average and he strikes out a whole lot.
On the other hand, he's got tremendous power which makes him a high ceiling guy.
Wait, so how is that different from Pettitte? Pettitte's "confession" also reflected exactly what was in the Report.
There's still a question here of whether or not including Roberts in the Report was wise given the low threshold of evidence it presented against him.
I don't like Hinrich anymore. He doesn't make the offense better (they look so much better when Duhon's running the point, and I can't stress enough how much I hate to admit that), he makes tons of terrible turnovers, and he's completely lost his shot. He was still able to add value defensively last year (and he shot better), but now teams know to go right at him. Either he gets in foul trouble or the other guy just shoots over him. But I agree the defensive assignments have worn him down, but I just don't think his offensive contributions make him a good option unless the SG is a star (which Gordon never will be).
Kinda funny 2 of your 3 favorites are from the East. I can't take Detroit seriously though, if only cause they can't beat the Bulls (0-2 so far). They're a good team, yes, but I don't see them winning the championship. My other problem with the C's is that historically how many teams have been able to have that good of a turnaround, even considering the roster turnover? Neither Pierce or KG have played in the finals before (not that you have to, so that's not what I'm saying), so I think they get close this year and maybe win it next year after a couple more minor additions/tweaks.
The Spurs are the the Spurs, and it doesn't matter what they do during the regular season. Unless Duncan's hurt in the playoffs (and he kinda was last year and that still didn't stop them), they're still the favorites. Utah's defense is subpar, same with Phoenix. Dallas isn't the same. And Houston can't play with any sort of consistency. But it's still too early to put any of these opinions in stone.
Roberts didn't explain away the evidence against him in the Mitchell Report. He repeated it.
This is no place for facts.
Wait, so how is that different from Pettitte? Pettitte's "confession" also reflected exactly what was in the Report.
I don't remember, but didn't the report say he he did it more than a couple of times?
Indeed. My gut tells me the Spurs will not make it due to the age of the role players, and I think Houston will be a factor come post-season. The Bulls have started badly before.
Moses, what is your take on Skiles?
If the C's don't win the title this season it won't be because of history.
I'm going to wait until they play the iron out west before I make any predictions about the finals. But, barring injuries, the C's breeze through the eastern conference.
Really? People say that? I have always loved KG.
Good coach, stubborn #######, needs to be fired. He's not making the young players better and the team isn't winning. They start slow every year, and that is his fault, IMO.
If the C's don't win the title this season it won't be because of history.
Oh, I agree. Just look at the teams that have won the last, oh I don't know, 30 years. How many of them came from nowhere? The Pistons of a couple years ago just out at you, but they seem to be the exception to a lot of rules. The 93 Suns, perhaps? They had another significant addition without the deep playoff experience. Who else am I missing? The first Spurs title team? It just seems teams, more often than not, and players build up to the championship and don't get it their first time.
We will know more about the Celtics after they play the tough teams in the west. The thing is that the team is well-structured; in addition to adding talent, the talent is aligned well, so they may not need more time. It may happen right now.
At this point, though, I would not pick them in a best of 7 against the West champs, whoever that might be. But it is early.
The Lakers with Magic did, and that's about it, right?
Yeah, but the Celtics and Sixers were really better than the Lakers that year.
45 - bbc:
Can you tell me more about Berkman's stance? I hadn't heard he was Thomas-like in his anti-PED position, but I did notice him calling Clemens out the other day, saying that he owed his teammates an explanation at the very least. Increases my respect for Lance, really.
But yeah, Berkman + Tejada = interesting times.
- oh berkman was most DEFINITELY frank thomas in his anti-roids stance. to put it mildly. VERY mildly. he just isn't the kind of guy who would ever talk to mitchell or rat on anyone. he hasn't even called out tejada. and there is a HECK of a lot more evidence against tejada then there is against clemens. (and you know i am starting to believe raffy palmeiro when he said that the only injection he got was from tejada's "B-12")
he has very carefully never said anything about current teammates.
IF i had to guess (AND i mean guess) i would guess that richard hidalgo was a big roider, so was mo alou, so was scott elarton and (sigh) bagwell. and i wouldn't be surprised if biggio used too - and yeah i know he didn't bulk up big time, but neither did alex sanchez...
sigh
actually there are only a very few ML ballplayers who i would be STUNNED iffn i found out they used roids. i don't mean HGH alone to try to heal something up, i mean ROIDS.
Getting Oscar Robertson the next year didn't seem to hurt them, either.
You really think playing on an AS team once a year really makes that much of a difference? Especially with KG in the West and Pierce in the East?
I think the biggest reason they blend so well is the personality and talent of Garnett. When your big stud is such a team player, he fits in seamlessly and he does make everyone better around them.
Kind of like when Big Red did his stint with the Celtics.
David, everything you say here is true, but when you have so many people trying to feign ignorance about the ones for whom there's a lot longer trail of evidence, then the reaction to that tends to be "they're all lying, and they're all guilty." We have to resist that.
I have no trouble believing, for now, what both Pettitte and Roberts have said, even though it would have carried much more weight if they'd said it earlier and without prompting. (And yes, I know that Pettitte was named for HGH and not 'regular' steroids.) But all I expect to hear in reaction to this (if anything) is ritual cries of "double standards" based on some imaginary inherent agenda, rather than the simple willingness to give almost anyone the initial benefit of a doubt in the absence of any further accusations or evidence. It's almost as if we're supposed to be forced to choose among several abstract opinions, regardless of the specific facts involved:
"It doesn't matter whether they did or not";
"Anyone who's accused has to be presumed to be guilty";
"You can't 'know' anyone is guilty unless they're convicted in court, flunk a drug test, or they confess";
or my personal favorite, which is especially rich when it comes from defenders of known steroid users:
"Everyone who played in 'the steroid era' has to be presumed guilty, on that basis alone"
In the midst of all this, to simply look at the evidence, weigh it in the balance, not rush to judgment but not withhold it when the balance of evidence seems pretty incontrovertible, and judge each case on its individual merits rather than by some grand theory of collective guilt or innocence---this seems almost guaranteed to get you accused of having an "agenda" by all sides. But what the hell---this is BTF.
Wait, so how is that different from Pettitte? Pettitte's "confession" also reflected exactly what was in the Report.
Pettitte's admission isn't necessarily inconsistent with the Mitchell Report, but it is very convenient, after the story breaks, to say, "I only used it twice, and sonofagun, they caught me both times! Don't that beat all!"
The evidence against Roberts was (as best I can recall) unique in the Mitchell Report, as it (a) really was hearsay (though of the admissible variety) with no eyewitness support and (b) as hearsay, contained the declarant's estimation of the amount of the offending player's total use -- once or twice in 2003.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main