So...We've Got Some Affidavit Names

by Reverend Jim Ignatowski on Jun 8, 2006 11:14 PM CDT

This is a FanPost and does not necessarily reflect the views of SB Nation, Bleed Cubbie Blue, or Al Yellon, editor-in-chief. FanPost opinions are, however, valued expressions of opinion by passionate and knowledgeable baseball fans.

0 recs | 4 comments

Email Print

Comments

Al..help, fix my link, please.

How did I mess this up? Inquiring (or stupid) minds want to know.

"I was not in optimum condition to manage ," Dusty said. "I regret that lapse in judgment."

by Reverend Jim Ignatowski on Jun 8, 2006 11:16 PM CDT   0 recs

No, you got it right...

n/t

by Al on Jun 9, 2006 8:35 AM CDT up   0 recs

Might be true

but it is waaaay too much "hearsay" for my tastes.  They haven't seen the document, they simply have a "source" (or "sources") that tells them what's in it.  And a website called "Deadspin" can get these sources, but the Washington Post or the New York Times can't?  How did they get this information?

No offense, but this is the definition of "witch hunt."  I'm not saying there aren't guilty names in the affidavit, but I'm pretty dubious that their information is accurate.

by Josh77 on Jun 9, 2006 1:44 AM CDT   0 recs

Deadspin could be dead on

They were the first to report that Matt Lawton tested positive for steroids last year, before the press got ahold of the story.

AC036198

by gjdow on Jun 9, 2006 1:59 AM CDT up   0 recs

Comments For This Post Are Closed

• ↑ Top of comments
• ↑ Top of page
• ↑ FanPosts
• ↑ Bleed Cubbie Blue