Murray Chass on Tricloinsane.
Early in the column Joel Sherman writes about Piazza’s acne-covered back. This was a physical feature I had always noticed with Piazza. Not that reporters spend their time in clubhouses looking at guys’ bare backs, but when a reporter is talking to a player at his locker before he puts on his uniform shirt or after he takes it off and he turns around to put something in or take something out of his locker his back is what is visible. And Piazza’s acne was always visible. Teen-age kids never had such a problem.
Now as naïve as I might have been about steroids, the one thing I knew was that use of steroids supposedly causes the user to have acne on his back. As I said, Piazza had plenty of acne on his back.
When steroids became a daily subject in newspaper articles I wanted to write about Piazza’s acne-covered back. I was prepared to describe it in disgusting living color. But two or three times my editors at The New York Times would not allow it. Piazza, they said, had never been accused of using steroids so I couldn’t write about it.
But wait, I said, if I write about it, I will in effect be accusing Piazza of using steroids and then someone will have accused him of using steroids. No can do, I was told. I always took the veto to stem from the Times ultra conservative ways, but I also wondered if it maybe was the baseball editor, a big Mets’ fan, protecting the Mets.
Whatever the reason, I never got Piazza’s suspicious acne into the paper. Then all of a sudden the acne was gone. Piazza’s back was clear and clean. There was not a speck of acne on it. His back looked as smooth as a baby’s bottom.
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.
1. Tripon Posted: March 04, 2009 at 08:02 PM (#3092518)Because when one thinks of the New York Times, the phrase "ultra conservative" immediately springs to mind.
And we wanted to read about it Murray. Desperately.
But wait, I said, if I write about it, I will in effect be accusing Piazza of using steroids and then someone will have accused him of using steroids. No can do, I was told. I always took the veto to stem from the Times ultra conservative ways, but I also wondered if it maybe was the baseball editor, a big Mets’ fan, protecting the Mets.
It's a shame that a man with this much integrity isn't writing for a major news organization anymore.
This is just a crazy statement. Bonds and Clemens have extraordinarily longevity with historically late peaks, and much more importantly, witnesses testifying against them. That is actual circumstantial evidence (regardless of how much credibility you give it.) Even with McGwire, you could cobble the fact he was taking other questionably-baseball-legal substances, the fact (IIRC) that he went from injury-prone to not (until his knee died, that is), the late peak, and his brother's and Canseco's book into a Frankenstein monster that could perhaps be charitably called circumstantial evidence. The case against Piazza doesn't even get that far. As for Sosa, well, that's probably true, there's as much evidence against Piazza as there is against Sosa... but I wouldn't take that the way Murray does.
Well, that proves it then; if there isn't Proactive Solution, there must be retribution. I will briefly think about rubbing oil on these women (I don't even know who Ryan Scheckler is, so I can skip that one easily) and then move on.
I guess I could buy that. I mean, abstinence made George Costanza a genius! ("Guys, hitting is not about muscle. It's simple physics. Calculate the velocity, v, in relation to the trajectory, t, in which g, gravity, of course remains a constant.")
By far the most incriminating thing in this article is the picture of Piazza seemingly voluntarily touching Tommy Lasorda.
This is some batshit crazy thinking. I mean, wow.
My neck and my back!
My point being that "He has backne!" really does not equal "ROIDER!" Nor does the "sudden" clearing of the problem mean "EXROIDER!"
I know. It's absolutely stunning. Since a guy wasn't listed as a celebrity endorser of a specific acne medication, he must be a steroid user? Jesus, that's the craziest statement I've seen about steroids yet, and we've seen quite a few high-quality examples of lunacy.
"backne" is one of my favourite combined words.
Others include "shiggles" (s hits and giggles) and "dryballs" (dry eyeballs).
Too bad you weren't at the University of Regina's pop-culture conference last weekend. Due to changing venues I successively went through a Rickard's White phase, followed by Rochefort, and finally, the disaster that was $3.25 Caesars. Had I been coherent enough to form a word by the end of it, that word very well may have been "chuggler".
Wow. That just screams hangover, doesn't it?
We are building up the google hits! Speaking of which, I better make sure it hasn't already been coined...
edit: Well #### it all. Nevermind.
I find this variant slightly confusing.
http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Noodle+Chuggler
Also, he ought to thank his editor from saving him from making a fool out of himself. Jesus, Murray.
I still enjoy running into a fellow Queen City resident on this site. Did you see the story about Sask on cnn.com today?
I think it was mostly a blind item from Neil Travis in the Post.
Or am I confusing that with a Sandy Koufax rumor?
Always nice to see Saskwatchewan get some props. Go Potash!!
I'm not from the Queen City, but I saw that article earlier. How the hell did you guys get all the jobs?
Pot and Ash
oh...and oil too I suppose
Mine is "testiculacking" and I've used it in a few columns--another; although it's more of a euphemism is: "phallucranial."
Best Regards
John
It never really took off, in no small part because he wasn't very bongo himself.
And Cox, Nikki
The number of oil operations at work in the southeast part of the province is amazing.
Here's some information on the Bakken Formation, the geological term for "a whole lot of reachable oil in and around Saskatchewan".
A series of misunderstandings convinced my aunt once that "packed" now meant "cool." I still think this could work.
If the Piazza rumor question is serious, it came from an Out magazine article where the writer claimed to be involved with (paraphrasing) "a prominent East Coast baseball player", and from Piazza's semi-mentor Bobby Valentine saying that he thought that -- prepare yourself for a statement so absolutely shocking that it surely must have had some ulterior motive!!!! -- most players would be ok with a gay teammate.
Respectful nod from Tara Reid's mutant nipple.
i was going to say something like this, but thought better of it ...
btw, bukowski writes about his teenage acne problems in 'ham on rye' at length. its pretty hard to stomach.
too bad there is no such thing as libel because if this was any other country, piazza would sue. i guess that ex-reporter has now become the kind of blogger that bissinger was screeching at will leitch about
i would luuuvvvv to see how ol murr would explain why females (not athletes, not roid users) have backne.
maybe piazza doesn't got backne no more because he now has a wife to run the acne medicine on his back
</barf>
This article is useless without pictures
</barf>
I thought Mike Piazza is supposed to be heterosexual.
Anyway, what's the point of releasing this now? A late run of trying to block Pizzia's hall of fame bid?
This is when you feel for someone in the baseball editor's position. Murray pitches this horseshit to the guy and he has to tactfully turn down the story idea. "Murray, I see where you're going with this, but do you have anything else? Anything?"
And Murray's take is that the guy wouldn't let him run a story because of his rooting interests.
Why? People who say this imply some sort of tampering or something to explain Drew opting out. Why? The Red Sox had a right fielder, Trot Nixon, whose career was falling off a cliff. Drew was exactly the type of high obp player the Sox valued. Why do people think it was so mysterious, only explicable by dark conspiracies and tampering that Drew's agent, Scott Boras, would realize that the Red Sox would be very interested?
Yes, Drew said to some media in LA that he was going to stay. What the hell was he supposed to say? You lala land people make me sick. I'm outta here. He avoided a conflict and then his agent painted an accurate picture of the market. Oh my god! It must've been Sam Giancana and Clay Shaw who made J.D. Drew opt out!!
Are conspiracy explanations that much more appealing than straitforward explanations that they should be preferred by so many people even when an explanation involving honest conduct is perfectly reasonable?
I do think that Piazza could be an insightful HOF case in the sense that, if the BBWAA doesn't vote Mike Piazza into the HOF on the basis of #### like this and the column last week from the guy who asked Piazza if he ever used steroids and then wrote a column saying that he didn't believe Piazza when he said "No", then there's a decent chance that the BBWAA will just decide to elect nobody who peaked during the "steroid era" (except for Greg Maddux), which could leave years between BBWAA electees.
I think it's more plausible that Chass made up the Drew/Sox tampering thing, because he could see no other rational reason why a player like Drew, with an agent like Boras, would opt out of a contract despite claiming beforehand he wouldn't, and to go to a team obviously having the budget, the vacancy, and the track record of desire for the skills he possessed.
Lick Mike Piazza and his bat
Good thing you only looked around when they're backs were turned!
No way to avoid the fact that the locker room is a homosexual atmosphere, especially the professional lockerroom.
My god, does he not understand how ridiculous this sounds? Is he that clueless as to what journalism is supposed to be?
This is embarrassing to Chass. His editor saved him from looking like a fool, but Chass had to get this out so that, in addition to looking like a fool, he'd also be able to take a cheap shot at the editor, thus looking petty as well.
He wanted to do story about the acne on a player's back? In addition to being completely bogus as evidence, doesn't this seem awfully invasive? Isn't there an implied agreement that the writers will not use their access to naked players to their benefit? It seems to me that what Chass wanted to do was somewhat akin to taking video of the undressed players and publishing it or describing their anatomical dimensions in a column. The writers are given that access so that they can talk to the players about the game, not scrutinize their bodies.
I was thinking that myself. Borrowing as must as possible from the above excerpt, I imagined the conversation was something along the lines of:
Murray: I want to write about Piazza’s acne-covered back.
Editor: ???
Murray: I'm prepared to describe it in disgusting living color.
Editor: Ummmm.......
Murray: The one thing I know is that the use of steroids supposedly causes the user to have acne on his back.
Editor: O.K., lemme get this straight: you want to do a story accusing Piazza of using steroids. And the basis of your accusation is that he has acne on his back?
Murray: As I said, Piazza had plenty of acne on his back.
Editor: Alright; other than his acne, what other proof do you have?
Murray: ????
Editor: Yeah, that's what I thought. You know that Piazza has never been accused of using steroids, right?
Murray: But wait; if I write about it, I will in effect be accusing Piazza of using steroids and then someone will have accused him of using steroids.
Editor: Look, Murray, here's what you do: go get some proof that Piazza used the stuff. Do a little of what we around here all investigative journalism. Until then, no can do.
Murray: You're just vetoing my story because you're a big Mets’ fan!
Editor: Sigh.
Murray: Dear god, no. That would be uncomfortable. And he'd just say "no" anyway.
Joel Sherman, busting in the door: But him saying "no" could be considered evidence that he did it!
Murray: Brilliant! What do you say, boss?
Editor: Murray, get the #### out of my office. Joel, that crap doesn't fly here. Take it to the Post.
Shart.
Yeah, you know what it means.
Ryan, please tell me that one of the sexiest women who has ever lived did not feel the need to tamper with her physical features......
If that's true, then you probably shouldn't look at this.
What she's done to herself, or what I'm doing to you?
See how perfect grotox is? See? Work with me, people!
Jealousy. Which is sad and creepy.
Is it better than Icelandosion! though?
I guess the interesting question is this: When Scott Boras has arranged for opt-out clauses in a contract, have his clients ever not opted out? And how has that worked out?
Of course, it would be awesome if this really were a spoof site.
Plus...
MurrayChass.com is for real
So after all the speculation and theorizing about whether MurrayChass.com is a real site written by the real Murray Chass, who used to write for the real New York Times, Sarah finally had the brilliantly simple idea of just calling up the real Murray Chass and seeing what he would say.
Wisely mentioning that she writes for the Boston Metro and glossing over the fact that she also considers herself a blogger (preferring instead to refer to “websites,” which, after all, UmpBump is), Sarah said she had heard some internet chatter that the site was a clever hoax, that she’d been discussing it with some colleagues, and that in the end she figured she’d better go to the horse’s mouth.
Chass was very intrigued as to why people thought the site might be fake and peppered Sarah with questions about that, while not giving away any information. In the end, since Sarah works for a newspaper (”something that’s actually printed on paper,”) and since she actually called him (he did acknowledge receiving “some emails” asking the same question) he said he would confirm that it was really his site.
So in the end, UmpBump’s suspicions turned out to be untrue. But you know what they say in journalism: If your mother says she loves you, check it out.
Last time I saw a mouth like that, it had a hook in it!
Has anybody ever had a lip transplant in which they looked better after having it? I haven't seen it yet.
When (and where) did you marry Jay Mohr?
she look like a not so delicious bass/grouper with obviously fake boobs (maybe even joe E brown in drag)
- i sure do gotta say that the one thing i have learned since i started hanging with all 10,000 of yall non-females is that the words "sexy" "beautiful" "attractive" sure do mean different things to different guys
which is a good thing for us females
which is a good thing for us females
Even a better deal for most men that beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
What's sad for women is that they are so much more susceptible to trying to look like some kind of ideal and then end up as mannequins. Worse, it's mainly women who perpetrate this crime upon one another.
it IS indeed us females who are obsessed with the whole "ideal" crap. i wish i knew why we suddenly decide that our value as humans depends on what we look like and it is just an awful thing. it is really the absolute worst thing about being female. which is why, by the way, you really CAN'T say to your own grrrls not to worry about what they look like. it is not really possible unfortunately
I appreciate women who are 'different', who are individual in their hair and dress, and while I am attracted to some bodies more than others, I am attracted to a wide range of women of differing shapes and sizes. It's what you do with what you've got that counts. For me.
Of course, teenage girls have it the roughest -- even when they are quite beautiful, they don't generally think so. And they don't have the experience to overcome others' expectations.
Not me. I take a set of calipers with me on dates, to make sure that the lady's up to factory spec.
Too risky. You could wind up wasting an evening on a date with one that doesn't meet spec. Gotta make sure they're in compliance BEFORE the date.
Which is another way of saying, "I don't expect to spend most of my adult life in a monogamous relationship."
Of course, a lot happens in life that we don't expect. 8-)
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main