Gammons: Bagwell deserves Hall of Fame call

[MusicMan]

I can't decide which is worse: baseball hall of fame voting or the BCS

Both are absurd and everyone knows it

The BCS makes the BBWAA look like the Algonquin Round Table.

[Reuben]

If Knoblauch was using, then how can anyone be sure Alomar or Biggio was not?

If Alex Sanchez was using, then how can anyone be sure any other MLB player was not?

from the article:Red Sox second baseman Mark Bellhorn said, "Anybody can do it. Everybody always thinks steroids are the big, bodybuilder type. Just because you take them doesn't mean you're going to be a huge dude."

Well said, Bellhorn.

[Ron Brand]

Red Sox second baseman Mark Bellhorn said, "Anybody can do it. Everybody always thinks steroids are the big, bodybuilder type. Just because you take them doesn't mean you're going to be a huge dude."

Yeah. Just look at Jerry Lewis.

[astrosfan76]

Yeah. Just look at Jerry Lewis.

Sly Stallone was busted with HGH in Australia and we thought Ivan Drago was the only juicer in Rocky IV.

[OregonStrosFan]

Jeff Pearlman just won't leave it alone (copied from Astros County)

Jeff Pearlman just won't leave it alone
So. Jeff Pearlman appeared on Mike Silva's podcast (link captip to AstroBrit) and reiterated his stance that Bagwell and, yes, Biggio were PED users:

For the record, Pearlman reiterated his position on Jeff Bagwell saying he was “so certain he used steroids from being around that team, era, and researching his Clemens book.” He would go on to tell me that if Bagwell didn’t use then the “world is flat.”When I asked him if Craig Biggio falls into the same category as Bagwell because he played for Houston, a team that he said earlier in the show was hotbed for PED use, he said yes.

Click the link to hear the podcast.

This is beginning to piss me off.

[BudGirl]

Jeff Pearlman just won't leave it alone (copied from Astros County)

Jeff Pearlman just won't leave it alone
So. Jeff Pearlman appeared on Mike Silva's podcast (link captip to AstroBrit) and reiterated his stance that Bagwell and, yes, Biggio were PED users:

For the record, Pearlman reiterated his position on Jeff Bagwell saying he was “so certain he used steroids from being around that team, era, and researching his Clemens book.” He would go on to tell me that if Bagwell didn’t use then the “world is flat.”When I asked him if Craig Biggio falls into the same category as Bagwell because he played for Houston, a team that he said earlier in the show was hotbed for PED use, he said yes.

Click the link to hear the podcast.

This is beginning to piss me off.

I've been reading your twitter, this isn't beginning to piss you off.  It has pissed you off.

[MRaup]

I've been reading your twitter, this isn't beginning to piss you off.  It has pissed you off.

Get a room, you two.

[S.P. Rodriguez]

Jeff Pearlman just won't leave it alone (copied from Astros County)

Jeff Pearlman just won't leave it alone
So. Jeff Pearlman appeared on Mike Silva's podcast (link captip to AstroBrit) and reiterated his stance that Bagwell and, yes, Biggio were PED users:

For the record, Pearlman reiterated his position on Jeff Bagwell saying he was “so certain he used steroids from being around that team, era, and researching his Clemens book.” He would go on to tell me that if Bagwell didn’t use then the “world is flat.”When I asked him if Craig Biggio falls into the same category as Bagwell because he played for Houston, a team that he said earlier in the show was hotbed for PED use, he said yes.

Click the link to hear the podcast.

This is beginning to piss me off.

Hasn't Pearlman ventured far enough in his statements where there might be a case of libel/slander to be made?  I mean, as a writer, he's not likely to have a bloody syringe saved somewhere, just in case. 

[OregonStrosFan]

I've been reading your twitter, this isn't beginning to piss you off.  It has pissed you off.

Indeed it has, ma'am! 

In Pearlman's defense re: my 'Twitter Offensive,' he did give me his email address for me to pose questions to him, and responded promptly when I wrote to him.  However, he conditioned a defense of his comments on my agreement not to repeat the information that he provided me with.  When I explained that I would not be willing to do so and why, he politely withdrew his offer to back up his statements.

His comments have sufficiently drawn my ire at this point, just haven't decided how best to proceed at this point...

[OregonStrosFan]

Hasn't Pearlman ventured far enough in his statements where there might be a case of libel/slander to be made?  I mean, as a writer, he's not likely to have a bloody syringe saved somewhere, just in case.

No. Though supposedly possible, in reality a 'public figure' has no way to combat libel or slander by todays media. 

[astrosfan76]

Indeed it has, ma'am! 

In Pearlman's defense re: my 'Twitter Offensive,' he did give me his email address for me to pose questions to him, and responded promptly when I wrote to him.  However, he conditioned a defense of his comments on my agreement not to repeat the information that he provided me with.  When I explained that I would not be willing to do so and why, he politely withdrew his offer to back up his statements.

His comments have sufficiently drawn my ire at this point, just haven't decided how best to proceed at this point...

That's actually pretty trusting (or stupid, depending on your perspective) of him to offer what he deems as information that needs to remain confidential to a complete stranger.  You were honest to tell him that you wouldn't keep it to yourself, but what could have stopped you, outside of a conscience, from sharing his "information"? 

[EasTexAstro]

That's actually pretty trusting (or stupid, depending on your perspective) of him to offer what he deems as information that needs to remain confidential to a complete stranger.  You were honest to tell him that you wouldn't keep it to yourself, but what could have stopped you, outside of a conscience, from sharing his "information"? 

Actually, it gives him a plausible way to deny any responsibility for anything he said after that, allowing him to say whatever he wanted to to prove his point without actually having to give proof. If there is proof that this was supposed to be a confidential, off the record conversation, he can make up stories without having to prove anything. Stories that could be spread as rumors without him being held responsible for anything he said or implied. Otherwise, he would have to be ready to stand by what he said, and have a way to prove it.

[OregonStrosFan]

Actually, it gives him a plausible way to deny any responsibility for anything he said after that, allowing him to say whatever he wanted to to prove his point without actually having to give proof. If there is proof that this was supposed to be a confidential, off the record conversation, he can make up stories without having to prove anything. Stories that could be spread as rumors without him being held responsible for anything he said or implied. Otherwise, he would have to be ready to stand by what he said, and have a way to prove it.

Sort of, but not really.  Learned early on in my practice never to put ANYTHING in writing that you did not want to see blown up on a 4X6 board and shown before a jury.  I agree wholeheartedly with this statement.  If you want to relay information that you want to otherwise be able to deny or you don't want to be on record somewhere, the only real way to do it is via the telephone or in person (and even then, if it's being recorded you're screwed).  

ETA: My suspicion is that he was going to call out other folks, say stuff he did not have particular proof for, etc., but that by restricting my ability to repeat it or conversely strictly noting that the information was not being provided for my personal benefit and not for "public dissemination" that he would be limiting potential liability for libel or slander which, IIRC, requires that a statement be "public" to be actionable.

[OregonStrosFan]

but what could have stopped you, outside of a conscience, from sharing his "information"?

Not a thing...  Actually, that's not entirely true.  Having been raised by a Texas momma, I am constantly in fear that she will know immediately that I have lied about something (failed to open a door or give up my seat for a lady, etc.) - even though I'm 2500 miles away - and she'll fly up to Portland and kick my ass.  Btw... Anyone that claims not to have this same fear is either lying, or was not raised in Texas.  Just sayin'...

[S.P. Rodriguez]

Not a thing...  Actually, that's not entirely true.  Having been raised by a Texas momma, I am constantly in fear that she will know immediately that I have lied about something (failed to open a door or give up my seat for a lady, etc.) - even though I'm 2500 miles away - and she'll fly up to Portland and kick my ass.  Btw... Anyone that claims not to have this same fear is either lying, or was not raised in Texas.  Just sayin'...

Not afraid of the physical beating.  I'm afraid of the guilt that would be inflicted.  Potato, po-tah-to

[MusicMan]

I'm afraid of the guilt that would be inflicted. 

Texas Catholicism.

[OregonStrosFan]

Potato, potatoe

FIFY.

-Dan Quail

[MusicMan]

-Dan Quail

Dear God, I hope that was intentional.

[S.P. Rodriguez]

Texas Catholicism.

Alas, I must confess

[Noe in Austin]

Is Pearlman the one who said that when he asked a former player on the Astros and a PED user if it were okay to have doubts about Bagwell, the answer was "absolutely".  So if this is the case, Pearlman is basically saying he trust his source until told otherwise by evidence.  That is what the media does and that is not necessarily the route of a litigator or prosecutor.  The media has a source, verifies as much as they can from said source and then defends their source if they believe the integrity of the source and the story they've been told.

It's who you believe at this point and Pearlman has chosen to continue this for either his own pleasure or sense of self-worth (to put himself in the middle of the story and not just report a story).