Curt Schilling is entitled to his opinion. And, in accordance with the right to share his opinion, he shares it (and with great frequency and gusto, I might add).
Although he’s a member of the Red Sox, I actually don’t hate Curt Schilling. I’ve had the pleasure of personally corresponding with him and he’s not only a pleasant guy but he understands the fan perspective and “gets” how much baseball means to those of us that follow it passionately.
Having said all that, it bugs me when he makes statements like these. Roger Clemens should have to give back his four Cy Young Awards if he’s found “guilty” of the allegations proffered in the Mitchell Report? Who is to say that the four runners-up were also drug free? In fact, this very discussion highlights what was so wrong about the Mitchell Report’s release of names. It effectively damns the few and makes all others seem less culpable by contrast. Schilling is making a judgment on Clemens based on his inclusion in the report. As if that report wasn’t conflicted enough? Now he’s rushing out to implicitly state that no one else on the list of Cy Young finalists was compromised by PED’s?
Do I believe that Roger Clemens used PED’s? Of course. I’ve said all along that I believe most, if not all, baseball players used some form of enhancement simply because it was encouraged by management and because the incentives to do so were so great. Now, I’d like to ask Curt Schilling a question:
Did his performance receive a boost between 2000 and 2001 and again between 2003 and 2004? Because strictly looking at his statistics from 2000-2001 and 2003-2004, I see huge jumps in performance that make me jump to conclusions…
Curt, it’s best to not run your mouth about steroids: Judge not that ye be not judged. Or did you forget your bible-thumping values already?
Although he’s a member of the Red Sox, I actually don’t hate Curt Schilling. I’ve had the pleasure of personally corresponding with him and he’s not only a pleasant guy but he understands the fan perspective and “gets” how much baseball means to those of us that follow it passionately.
Having said all that, it bugs me when he makes statements like these. Roger Clemens should have to give back his four Cy Young Awards if he’s found “guilty” of the allegations proffered in the Mitchell Report? Who is to say that the four runners-up were also drug free? In fact, this very discussion highlights what was so wrong about the Mitchell Report’s release of names. It effectively damns the few and makes all others seem less culpable by contrast. Schilling is making a judgment on Clemens based on his inclusion in the report. As if that report wasn’t conflicted enough? Now he’s rushing out to implicitly state that no one else on the list of Cy Young finalists was compromised by PED’s?
Do I believe that Roger Clemens used PED’s? Of course. I’ve said all along that I believe most, if not all, baseball players used some form of enhancement simply because it was encouraged by management and because the incentives to do so were so great. Now, I’d like to ask Curt Schilling a question:
Did his performance receive a boost between 2000 and 2001 and again between 2003 and 2004? Because strictly looking at his statistics from 2000-2001 and 2003-2004, I see huge jumps in performance that make me jump to conclusions…
Curt, it’s best to not run your mouth about steroids: Judge not that ye be not judged. Or did you forget your bible-thumping values already?
No comments:
Post a Comment