• A Tale Of Two Schillings

    Posted by on December 20th, 2007 · Comments (29)

    From the AP, via USA Today, back on November 4, 2001:

    Convinced that a promising pitcher was throwing away his talent, the veteran dressed him down, calling him every name he could. It worked. The young guy listened, began making better choices and blossomed into one of baseball’s top aces. A decade after that discussion in the weight room at the Astrodome, the two were to face each other on the mound for the first time: Roger Clemens vs. Curt Schilling in Game 7 of the World Series on Sunday night. ”I could not have come up with this,” Schilling said Saturday night after his Arizona Diamondbacks beat the New York Yankees 15-2. ”What Roger did for me and has done for me throughout my career, I could not have dreamt this. I’m not that big of a dreamer.”

    Clemens was already on his way to a glorious career in the winter of 1991 when he went to work out at the Astrodome, near his home in Katy, Texas.

    While there, the Boston star noticed Schilling in an adjacent weight room. Clemens, then 28, said he wanted to talk to the 24-year-old Houston pitcher.

    Schilling, a former Red Sox minor leaguer who looked up to Clemens, figured it would be fun.

    “What I thought was going to be kind of a sit-down talk about pitching experience turned out to be an hour-and-half half butt-chewing,” Schilling said.

    “He felt at the time that I was someone who was not taking advantage of the gifts God had given me, that I didn’t respect the game the way I should, that I didn’t respect my teammates the way I should. He hit every nail on the head as far as I’m concerned.”

    Said Clemens: “I was hoping that I was not going to waste my time. It got pretty heated. We hashed it out a little bit.”

    At this year’s All-Star Game, with both players sharing the podium, Clemens smiled as he recalled the talk.

    “It was a pretty good conversation,” he said.

    That’s not exactly how Schilling remembered it.

    “There wasn’t much of a conversation,” he said. “It was one of those conversations your father has with you when you are going down a stage in life and you need to make a right turn.”

    Schilling said Clemens’ words made an immediate impact.

    “I walked away saying to myself, ‘You know, No. 1, why would he care as much as he did? And, No. 2, if he did care, there must be something there,’ ” he said. “I began to turn a corner at that point in my career, both on and off the field.”

    From MLB.com, today:

    Curt Schilling put his fingers to the keyboard on Wednesday, pounding out a 3,676-word blog entry in which he essentially challenged Roger Clemens to fight for his innocence with regards to the findings of the Mitchell Report on performance-enhancing drugs in baseball.

    If Clemens doesn’t put up a convincing case — legal or otherwise — to dispute the allegations in the report, Schilling thinks the Rocket should be stripped of four of the record-setting seven Cy Young Awards he’s won in his career.

    Schilling’s mammoth post appeared on www.38pitches.com, which is the Boston right-hander’s personal sounding board for thoughts on all matters.

    The Mitchell report fingered Clemens for using PEDs. Clemens has strongly denied that it’s true. Personally, I suspect that the Mitchell report is true. But, regardless of what you believe – and even regardless of what is true (about Clemens) – the 2001 report from the Associated Press and Schilling’s entry from yesterday, tell you all you need to know about Curt Schilling.

    If Schilling is, indeed, grateful for what Clemens did for him in 1991, then why not (if you’re Schilling) just keep your mouth shut about Roger now – despite how you feel about the use of PEDs – and not bring any more attention to his situation today? Would have that been so hard?

    Don’t mistake this as me supporting Clemens in some fashion. I’m not saying that Clemens is clean here – and, if he is not, I’m not saying that I agree with his actions.

    This is all about a guy, Schilling, who owes Clemens (big time) for helping him (Curt) get his career (and, to an extent, his life) on a positive track. Curt openly admits to this as truth. And, then, when he (Schilling) gets a chance to grab the spotlight at the expense of the man who did him this huge favor, he grabs it without hesitation – and ignores the high-road of just not saying anything on the matter (regardless of his beliefs).

    Stay classy Red Light.

    Comments on A Tale Of Two Schillings

    1. Raf
      December 20th, 2007 | 9:44 am

      Looks to me, Schilling has repaid Clemens for his “butt chewing.”

      I caught a bit of the entry in today’s Daily News, AFAICT, Schilling is telling those who’ve been accused to step forward and come clean. I think Rivera said the same thing yesterday.

    2. DanTheRedSoxMan
      December 20th, 2007 | 10:26 am

      What a load of crap, Lombardi.

      Because Clemens challenged Schilling to do something with his talent and Schilling responded and appreciated the “kick in the ass”, Curt has forever forfeited his FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS TO SPEAK HIS MIND when it comes to the steroid cheat???????

      Is that the best you can do? “Roger helped you out once Curt, so keep your pie hole shut on this”.

      Do you f-ing understand what you’re saying?

    3. December 20th, 2007 | 10:54 am

      ~~~ Do you f-ing understand what you’re saying?~~~

      Of course I understand.

      Dan, think of it this way:

      Say, you had a neighbor who lived next door. And, say he’s lived there for 15 years – and you both belong to the same lodge, or gym, or your kids go to the same school. And, through the years, he’s helped you sometimes – maybe he drove your kid to school one day when they missed the bus, or, maybe he shoveled your walk during a blizzard when you were out of town, or maybe he chased away some kids, once, who were going to TP the trees in your front yard – - that kind of stuff.

      And, then, the present day, he gets busted for DUI – which, is a terrible, terrible crime. And, soon after, the local press rings your door bell and asks for your reaction to the news that your neighbor was arrested earlier in the week for DUI in the middle of town square.

      What would you do? Would you tell the press that he deserves to be locked up, forever, and have them throw away the key? Or, would you tell the press that he should have his license and car taken away from him? Or, would you take the high-road and say “I have no comment” – out of respect for all your neighbor has meant to you through the years – despite the fact that he now committed a terrible act, that, just also may have been a mistake on his part?

      Me, I’m taking the high-road in that spot. Schilling did not. Why? Because of his “FIRST AMENDMENT RIGHTS TO SPEAK HIS MIND” (your words)? That’s bull. Schilling did it because he loves to hear the sound of his own voice and wanted to get some attention, as always.

    4. JeremyM
      December 20th, 2007 | 10:57 am

      So, do we know that Randy Johnson, Mark Mulder, and Pedro were clean back in their runner-up years too? Also, the report claims that he didn’t start using until 98, so does he get to keep the 97 one?

      If Clemens has used, he sure didn’t leave himself any wiggle room in his recent press release. The trend right now has been to admit to wrongdoing and move on, which Clemens obviously did not do (not that it would be easy for him to move on, he has the most at stake of all the names in that report). Personally, I really hope he didn’t, even if things do look bleak right now.

      One thing is certain, there are no smoking guns in Clemens’ stats that say he used. People can say that he was fading in 1998 because he was 7-6 or whatever, but his actual numbers were fine- his ERA was sitting in the mid-3s. 1997 was a much better year, before he allegedly started using. I never saw the mysterious uptick in velocity that others are claiming. His numbers in Houston weren’t so far-fetched when you consider the leap from the AL East to the NL Central. His last year in Boston wasn’t really that bad, but most analysts can’t get past the concept of wins and losses, so to them, it looks far worse than it was.

      As far as Schilling, don’t like him, but he has been very consistent about his position against steroids. That said, he’s kidding himself if he doesn’t think at least one major Sox player wasn’t using.

    5. Harry
      December 20th, 2007 | 11:18 am

      While a part of me wants to agree with you, Steve, I’m so tired of these “unwritten” rules and players keeping quiet about everything–that’s what led to this problem in the first place.

      Yes maybe Schilling owes Clemens for “turning his career around,” but wouldn’t you be pissed that somebody who undressed you for not having your life in order then started injecting himself with steroids in the ass? Or that a player with a similar pitching style has thoroughly outperformed you in the same era, but was maybe aided by the fact that he cheated?

      I really don’t like Curt Schilling, but it is a breath of fresh air to finally have an intelligent athlete express his opinion, especially when the evidence seems to be against Roger.

    6. Mike
      December 20th, 2007 | 11:30 am

      The main point here is that when Schilling speaks it really is only about one thing – Schilling. He really is a self-important blow hard. It doesn’t matter what he says or if he is correct or not. It is always about him.

    7. Mike
      December 20th, 2007 | 11:33 am

      “…especially when the evidence seems to be against Roger.”

      Harry -

      The “evidence” as you call it is one person’s testimony. That is it. Did Clemens do steroids? Probably, but let’s not make out like there is a mountain of irrefutabel evidence against him.

    8. DanTheRedSoxMan
      December 20th, 2007 | 11:49 am

      Dan, think of it this way:

      Say, you had a neighbor who lived next door. And, say he’s lived there for 15 years – and you both belong to the same lodge, or gym, or your kids go to the same school. And, through the years, he’s helped you sometimes – maybe he drove your kid to school one day when they missed the bus, or, maybe he shoveled your walk during a blizzard when you were out of town, or maybe he chased away some kids, once, who were going to TP the trees in your front yard – - that kind of stuff.

      And, then, the present day, he gets busted for DUI – which, is a terrible, terrible crime. And, soon after, the local press rings your door bell and asks for your reaction to the news that your neighbor was arrested earlier in the week for DUI in the middle of town square.

      What would you do? Would you tell the press that he deserves to be locked up, forever, and have them throw away the key? Or, would you tell the press that he should have his license and car taken away from him? Or, would you take the high-road and say “I have no comment” – out of respect for all your neighbor has meant to you through the years – despite the fact that he now committed a terrible act, that, just also may have been a mistake on his part?
      __________________________________

      What a laughable analogy. Let me give you a more apt one.

      You are an aspiring politician, running for a seat on the Town Council. A veteran member of the Town Council watches you run a poor campaign and get your ass handed to you. He sees great political potential, however, and after the race, he takes you aside and gives you a long lecture about how to run an effective campaign. You take his advice to heart, and in the next election, you win a seat on the council!

      The two of you serve together for a period of time. Then the State Attorney General’s office executes a raid on your friend’s home, where they find $200,000 in the freezer, proceeds from your colleague’s corrupt activities, in which illegal campaign donations resulted in favorable legislation being passed, and more money being received afterwards as payment.

      When the press comes to ask you about your colleague, do you say “no comment” out of respect for the fact that he jump-started your political career many years ago?

      Or do you say how disappointed, and sickened you are by the corrupt, self-aggrandizing deals your colleague has perpetrated?

      Do you say “no comment” or do you say how disturbing it is that your colleague used illegally received campaign contributions to ensure his continued political survival?

      Do you say “no comment” or do you talk about the fact that your colleague has illegally profited from his position in government?

      Do you say “no comment” or do you mention the fact that when your colleague gave you campaign advice, he never mentioned that you should solicit illegal donations from special interests, and sell your office to the highest bidder?

      Do you get the point yet, Steve?
      Do you understand that my analogy is far more accurate? Your analogy pretends that the “friend” broke the law in a manner that is not related to the basis for the friendship, in a way that doesn’t impact the person being asked for comment. My analogy takes the situation exactly as it stands and places it in the political realm instead of the athletic.

      Schilling has every right, and every reason to comment.

    9. Rich
      December 20th, 2007 | 12:14 pm

      Given the MLBPA’s unwillingness to uncover the truth about the PED era, every player is under suspicion. Consequently, how do we know that Schilling never used?

    10. baileywalk
      December 20th, 2007 | 1:20 pm

      JeremyM makes a really good point about Clemens’ stats.

      If you look at them, they don’t suggest a guy who took ‘roids late in his career. For one thing, McNamee says Roger asked him about steroids and shot him up in ’98, but 1997 was Clemens’ best year ever. So this idea that he was struggling in ’98, did ‘roids, and had a great year is ridiculous. As Jeremy pointed out, 1996, his last year with the Sox, was also a good year for him.

      And then what? He leaves Toronto, comes to the Yankees, and stops using? If the steroids were so effective, why didn’t he use them in New York and pitch better? Clemens had a 4.60 ERA in 1999. And what about after that? In the years McNamee said Clemens was “ready to use steroids again”? Never anywhere near the excellence of those Blue Jay years.

      There’s nothing surprising about his Astro days. Clemens is a smart, vet pitcher and he learned how to manage an NL lineup. Put a 3.5-ish AL pitcher in the NL with Clemens’ smarts and there’s little doubt why he dominated. Plus he was no longer the pitcher of old; he didn’t strike people out the way he used to.

      You also have to consider that Clemens DID most certainly age. Did anyone see him throw the ball the same way at 26 that he did at 36? His velocity has fallen off slowly. From the good old days of 96 when he was young to 88-89 when he was 45. To me, that’s a reasonable and steady decline even for someone who worked his ass off in the weight room.

      Clemens isn’t like Barry Bonds. Bonds got bigger and stronger as he got older. He actually WAS better at 36 than 26. Clemens might have stuck around forever, but he clearly saw his performance level deteriorate as he got older. Those Astro years get in the way of logic, because people apparently can’t look into the numbers and just see someone dominating a weak league.

    11. December 20th, 2007 | 1:54 pm

      ~~~When the press comes to ask you about your colleague, do you say “no comment” out of respect for the fact that he jump-started your political career many years ago? Or do you say how disappointed, and sickened you are by the corrupt, self-aggrandizing deals your colleague has perpetrated?~~~

      If you’re smart, you know it makes sense not to throw stones – because what comes around goes around…so, it’s always better to take the high-road than to use someone else’s case to make you look better, no? Or, at least, again, it would be the classy thing to say nothing.

      Dan, you can’t see that point?

    12. jakes
      December 20th, 2007 | 2:05 pm

      –Curt openly admits to this as truth. And, then, when he (Schilling) gets a chance to grab the spotlight at the expense of the man who did him this huge favor, he grabs it without hesitation – and ignores the high-road of just not saying anything on the matter (regardless of his beliefs).–

      So it’s good to tell the truth with a complement, but keep your true opinion to yourself if it’s negative? That makes absolutely no sense. As far as schilling’s ego, sure he likes the attention. And he has his blog. He can’t have a blog? He can’t like attention? A while back you were happily commenting on how your traffic has grown on waswatching. It feels good when people read your opinion, doesn’t it? Nothing wrong with it, no matter if it’s schilling or you.

      I’m sure you’ll admit you don’t like the guy… at all. Schilling is one subject you show no objectivity. Nothing wrong with that either. We all have our hate on for something. But don’t pretend otherwise..

      –Clemens isn’t like Barry Bonds. Bonds got bigger and stronger as he got older.–

      He’s exactly like barry bonds. They could be twins. Roger not bigger and stronger? Are you freaking blind? He’s a lot bigger, and I’ll bet stronger also.

      Did it ever cross your mind that streroids might be helping even if it can’t keep his fast ball at 100mph? It’s not a miracle drug. But I did see clemens reach 93 this year at almost 45 years old.

      The clemens’ apologist are a sad bunch. I’ve never felt sorry for bonds before, but it’s quite clear now that clemens will be forgiven long before bonds.

    13. December 20th, 2007 | 2:36 pm

      Schill is quick to call out a rival. What’s he going to say in 5-10 years when a former Sawx clubhouse attendant/trainer publishes a book alleging half his team was juicing?

    14. Don
      December 20th, 2007 | 2:38 pm

      Did Clemens use steroids? One guy says he did. There is no financial record or any records of tranasactions that have seen the light of day. I just wish Clemens had never been a Yankee. Always have.

      Curt Schilling, when did you stop beating your wife?

    15. baileywalk
      December 20th, 2007 | 2:39 pm

      He’s exactly like barry bonds. They could be twins. Roger not bigger and stronger? Are you freaking blind? He’s a lot bigger, and I’ll bet stronger also.
      —-

      I shouldn’t even respond to you, but I will anyway.

      Take a look at Barry Bonds’ home runs per at-bats during his steroid period. It’s insane. He became twice as good as he ever was, and maybe the best hitter in the history of baseball while on steroids. And it was every year — every year he was on ‘roids he was a world-beater. Clearly those steroids helped him get better as he got older — or, at the very least, maintain that level of dominance until he was 39 years old. There was no sign of age with Bonds; in fact, it was the total opposite — he literally got better with age.

      Clemens, on the other hand, DID age. As I already established. He also had up and down years. If he was on steroids and they help so much, why did he have normal fluctuations in his stats? If the answer is “he was good when he did steroids,” well, then why the hell didn’t he ALWAYS use them? If they helped so much and made him unhittable, then why stop? You think a competitor like Clemens is NOT going to use something that he found helps him perform?

      You also didn’t see Clemens suddenly do something unprecedented at 36 years old. At 36, Clemens was struggling in his first year as a Yankee. Bonds was smashing 73 home runs. Yeah, that really makes them “twins” — one guy becomes superhuman while the other guy sticks around as a slightly above-average pitcher. People make too much of his Astro years when you consider what he was facing and the fact that he became much less of a strikeout pitcher.

      Roger Clemens never threw the ball 100 mph hour, and you only saw Clemens throw 93 on a jacked-up, bullshit ESPN radar gun when he pitched against the Sox. He was at 88-91 all year long.

      Clemens might have gotten bigger — sure, his body is fuller now than when he was a thinner twentysomething, but whose body doesn’t make the same transformation? And he’s not stronger, genius, because if he was stronger now than he was then, he wouldn’t be throwing 91 instead of 96.

      Clemens showed clear signs of age, had down years, saw his velocity diminish — hell, you might even say that Clemens basically got old. But no, because he stayed in shape and managed to play half a year at 44 and 45, he’s the same as Barry Bonds, who made a mockery of the sport. Yeah, that makes sense.

    16. DanTheRedSoxMan
      December 20th, 2007 | 2:40 pm

      If you’re smart, you know it makes sense not to throw stones – because what comes around goes around…so, it’s always better to take the high-road than to use someone else’s case to make you look better, no? Or, at least, again, it would be the classy thing to say nothing.

      Dan, you can’t see that point?
      _________________________________

      Ah, so since I obliterated your completely nonsensical analogy, you’ve moved on to “if you can’t say something nice, don’t say anything at all”.

      In what way has Curt Schilling made “himself look better”?????

      He has simply expressed his opinion, an opinion he is entitled to express on his blog the same way that you are entitled to express your opinion on your blog.

      The idea that he should give Clemens a free pass because Clemens inspired him 15 years ago is laughable. Its painfully obvious that:

      you already acknowledge your suspicion that Clemens is guilty of using steroids and HGH;

      you don’t like Schilling

      you REALLY don’t like Schilling’s view on what should be done if Clemens can’t demonstrate his innocence;

      Therefore you wish Schilling would shut up, and appeal to some ridiculous “debt” he owes to Clemens as reason to be silent.

      Briefly reading this blog since Chad Finn had a link to it a few weeks ago, I thought you weren’t a completely obnoxious Yankee supporter. Now you’re coming closer and closer to the point where there is no reason to keep this site bookmarked.

    17. baileywalk
      December 20th, 2007 | 2:51 pm

      Briefly reading this blog since Chad Finn had a link to it a few weeks ago, I thought you weren’t a completely obnoxious Yankee supporter. Now you’re coming closer and closer to the point where there is no reason to keep this site bookmarked.
      ——-

      Ahem. Don’t see the irony? You’re a completely obnoxious Red Sox supporter who feels the need to preach to Yankee fans. Don’t let the door hit your ass on the way out.

    18. Exit9
      December 20th, 2007 | 3:09 pm

      The main similarity between Bonds and Clemens is that Schilling felt compelled to mouth off about both of them.

      The difference is that he publicly apologized about his remarks about Bonds (http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18557376/), and no one is bothering to take him to task for opening his fat mouth in this case, even though the case against Bonds is obviously more persuasive.

      I can totally admit to the fact that I don’t care for Schilling — he’s a blow hard that doesn’t know when to keep his friggin’ mouth shut, by his own admission. If he were a Yankee, God forbid, Dan and others would be burnng his effigy in Kenmore Square.

    19. gaulen01
      December 20th, 2007 | 3:16 pm

      Forgive the sarcasm, but how, logistically, would one “return” his Cy Young awards?

      Can you imagine Clements pulling up his orange Hummer H3 (The 2003 retirement gift from the Yankees) to the curb in front of the Commissioner’s office in New York, and with his head bowed, flanked by the Hendricks brothers, carrying a cardboard box of all his Cy Young trophies into the building to give to Selig?

      The awkward pause as Clemens hands Selig the box? If you’re Selig, how long do you stand there? Do you engage in small talk to break the tension? “Roger, How’s the groin? Anyway, I’d better take that box of Cy Young Awards.”

      Once Selig has the box, does he keep it in a closet in MLB headquarters for a few months? Or does he call the runner up that year to tell them that they’ve won?

      “Pedro! Hi, Bud Selig. Listen, I know you’re never going to believe this, but Clemens returned his Cy Young Awards. It looks like you’re the winner of the 2000 award. Would you like to come pick it up, or should I UPS it to you?”

      This whole thing is silly. And for the record, I don’t want to kiss Steve’s behind, but the guy provides us with a lot of enjoyment on this blog, so let’s be constructive, and polite, shall we?

    20. DanTheRedSoxMan
      December 20th, 2007 | 4:12 pm

      You’re a completely obnoxious Red Sox supporter who feels the need to preach to Yankee fans. Don’t let the door hit your ass on the way out.

      ____________________________________

      Yes, and you’re the fool who can’t see that Clemens got enormously larger after he left the Red Sox and started using steroids.

      http://i.a.cnn.net/si/2006/magazine/06/26/where.clemens0703/t1_clemens.old.jpg

      http://bostondirtdogs.boston.com/Headline_Archives/RCbos_RChou.jpg

    21. butchie22
      December 20th, 2007 | 4:20 pm

      , so since I obliterated your completely nonsensical analogy, you’ve moved on to “if you can’t say something nice, don’t say anything at all”.

      In what way has Curt Schilling made “himself look better”?????

      He has simply expressed his opinion, an opinion he is entitled to express on his blog the same way that you are entitled to express your opinion on your blog.

      The idea that he should give Clemens a free pass because Clemens inspired him 15 years ago is laughable. Its painfully obvious that:

      you already acknowledge your suspicion that Clemens is guilty of using steroids and HGH;

      you don’t like Schilling

      you REALLY don’t like Schilling’s view on what should be done if Clemens can’t demonstrate his innocence;

      Therefore you wish Schilling would shut up, and appeal to some ridiculous “debt” he owes to Clemens as reason to be silent.

      Briefly reading this blog since Chad Finn had a link to it a few weeks ago, I thought you weren’t a completely obnoxious Yankee supporter. Now you’re coming closer and closer to the point where there is no reason to keep this site bookmarked.Quote
      Mate,I’ve always given props to Schill on the field,BUT in the press he’s a dope!He should really shut his trap on this one,because besides Gagne,Nixon and Nomar ,who knows who else on the Sox has shot up!It is sad that someone with so much athletic talent is such a blowhard AND an inarticulate spokesman for the sport.If Big Papi was found to take steroids ,do you get to give the 2004 American League pennant to the Yanks?What wacky logic Schill!

    22. Nettles vs. Lee
      December 20th, 2007 | 4:23 pm

      Yes, and you’re the fool who can’t see that Clemens got enormously larger after he left the Red Sox and started using steroids.

      http://i.a.cnn.net/si/2006/magazine/06/26/where.clemens0703/t1_clemens.old.jpg

      http://bostondirtdogs.boston.com/Headline_Archives/RCbos_RChou.jpg

      —-

      That’s your evidence? The only thing those pictures show is that Clemens got fatter. The dude developed a gut and a double chin and got fatter pretty much everywhere else.

      If that’s your evidence of steroid use, then Schilling also has some questions to answer.

    23. DanTheRedSoxMan
      December 20th, 2007 | 4:26 pm

      If that’s your evidence of steroid use, then Schilling also has some questions to answer.

      ____________________________

      You’re the dumbest fuck on the planet, but that shouldn’t be surprising since your screen name recalls when a pussy Yankee sucker-punched a Red Sox pitcher and nearly destroyed his career.

    24. JeremyM
      December 20th, 2007 | 4:40 pm

      You actually look at those photos and see proof of steroid use? Wow. First off, those pics are clearly of Clemens in Boston when he was in his early 20s, NOT in 1996 during his last season in Boston, which is implied in the post above. Here’s a link to one of his 1996 baseball cards, which would’ve probably been taken during the 1995 season: http://tinyurl.com/2ytonu He looks pretty much the same as he did in Houston, although maybe a little slimmer. So using your logic, he was using in Boston.

      Now I’m not saying he didn’t use, because I wasn’t there. I don’t know. My gut feeling is he did, because it seems like almost everyone who gets fingered for it did. But for people to claim they can tell because of photos, or because of his stats (which bailey convincingly showed as not being there), or because he threw a bat at Piazza, they are full of it.

      And no discussion of photos of Roger Clemens should take place without this doozy: http://tinyurl.com/ynq6z3 Now not all juicers are ripped like Barry Bonds, or Mark McGwire, or Hulk Hogan, so this proves nothing, but you don’t see a freak of nature in that photo either, other than maybe his wife….

    25. Nettles vs. Lee
      December 20th, 2007 | 5:03 pm

      Nettles kicked that pussy Lee’s ass fair and square, you big Boston crybaby.

    26. Rich
      December 20th, 2007 | 5:11 pm

      “In what way has Curt Schilling made “himself look better”?????”
      ___

      If suspected roiders are denied admission to the HoF by the voters, they may look more favorably on borderline candidates who they believe, rightly or wrongly, haven’t juiced, like, for example, Mussina or um, Gehrig 38.

    27. Rich
      December 20th, 2007 | 5:19 pm

      “You’re the dumbest fuck on the planet, but that shouldn’t be surprising since your screen name recalls when a pussy Yankee sucker-punched a Red Sox pitcher and nearly destroyed his career.”
      ___

      Yo genius, every player in MLB is under suspicion right now.

      As for Nettles, he didn’t punch Lee, he wrestled him to the ground, and then twisted his arm. It was a fair fight, but I do think that he used excessive force, if only because Lee didn’t call him a pussy. Nettles would be more justified in using excessive force with you.

    28. Cooper
      December 20th, 2007 | 9:08 pm

      Dan cannot have an objective opinion on the subject, he is a die hard Sox fan. Every Sox fan is conditioned to hate Clemens, and all of them are happy that steroids is supposedly the reason he had so much success after he left the Sox. The reality of the Mitchell report is it didn’t change a thing. All Sox fans thought Roger used before the report, now they are doing a victory lap. Every baseball fan has opinions on players, even fan boys like Schilling. His comments actually back him into a corner. What happens if/when Ortiz is exposed as a user? What about Varitek? Many fans are of the opinion that these guys got off easy by not being named. Because of your hatred of Clemens Dan you attacked Steve who was making a point that some would agree with. If you don’t like or agree with what Steve says, start your own blog.

    29. Raf
      December 21st, 2007 | 10:19 am

      People focus on the names, but the fact that a report was needed to be generated was/is the problem.

      That there are more ______ than ______ or that Mitchell is on the “Red Sox payroll” misses the point.

    Leave a reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.