Thursday Morning Headlines
- Rick Telander explains!
I made the point that [Andre] Dawson deserves to be in the Hall of Fame -- and he will be by next year, mark my words -- but that my protest needed to encompass even the straight arrows of yore, such as him, because the sown doubt from clown-farmers Bud Selig, Donald Fehr and the say-nothing players themselves had made even the greatest, most trustworthy heroes suspect.
If no one can be proved guilty of taking performance-enhancing drugs, no one can be proved innocent. It's an equation.
At any rate, once I read the column to Dawson, he got it.
"I understand you now," he said. "I know that regardless of what I've accomplished, it doesn't count. Because nobody is trustworthy."
I guess. I'm not sure I agree with that point -- in effect, what Telander is saying is that because steroids are used now, they make everyone guilty across every era -- but at least he's explained himself. I wish he had put it better the first time. And this was a poor way of making a protest -- if, as he says, Dawson will get in next year (and implying he'll probably vote for him), why is everyone suddenly trustworthy again because a year's time has passed?
Food for thought.
- The Brian Roberts deal is going to happen. No, really. Seriously. This time for sure. Phil Rogers has the lineup card all filled out, too:
If the Cubs get Roberts (.377 on-base percentage and 50 stolen bases last season), Piniella will shuffle the batting order, likely dropping Alfonso Soriano from first to third. It could look like this: Roberts, Ryan Theriot, Soriano, Aramis Ramirez, Kosuke Fukudome, Derrek Lee, Geovany Soto and Felix Pie.
It could look like that, but probably won't. (And I'm figuring this will start the firestorm of debate that flares up here every time I remind people that Alfonso Soriano's not going to be dropped out of the leadoff spot.)
- Goose Gossage says that if he were playing today, he'd probably have tried steroids. Nice thing to say the day after you're elected to the Hall of Fame, Goose. And this doesn't make sense, either:
"I've been in that situation, trying to prolong my career with the money that was out there to be made at this time in baseball. I can't sit here and say that I would not have done it," he said. "But had I done it, I'm going to face the consequences. And the consequences are, that whether they belong in the Hall of Fame or not, the records can't stand."
"The records can't stand"? How so? The numbers are what they are -- you can't start randomly eliminating numbers from the record books without ripping up the fabric of history. Example: take Barry Bonds' HRs away (or some of them, anyway, say, many of them after 1998, which is the time when he supposedly started doing steroids). What happens to the results of the games where those HR were hit? What if Bonds hit a HR, or several, that won games for the Giants? What if those HR put the Giants into the playoffs some of the years they made them? Do you take those postseason games out of the books?
You see the problem here, I think.
- Mike Downey shows that he understands counting stats! He's got 45 Hall of Famers (and says there are a "couple of dozen" more, and that doesn't even include all the pitchers) listed who have fewer hits than Harold Baines, who got "only" 28 votes this year. As if that alone would qualify Baines for the Hall. And then, there's this nonsense:
Bert Blyleven is not a Hall of Famer. That is a fact as well as an opinion. I have friends and colleagues who all but crusade for Blyleven's candidacy, year after year, citing his very impressive shutout and strikeout counts.
Yet I cannot bring myself to deem Blyleven any better or more worthy than Jim Kaat, Tommy John, Jack Morris and so many others who have failed to gain admission to the Hall. I can't find the discrepancy in their careers.
Hmmm. Blyleven's not qualified? That's a "fact"? Let's see; you can't figure out why a man who's fifth all-time in strikeouts and ninth all-time in shutouts isn't more qualified than Jim Kaat (33rd and 103rd in those categories, respectively), John (47th & 26th) oir Morris (31st and 134th)?
Actually, I think Tommy John ought to be in, for career longevity and the fact that a famous surgery is named for him, and Kaat's a marginal Hall of Famer for longevity and reinventing his career a couple of times; Morris is borderline. But Blyleven's head and shoulders above all three of them -- and likely, rubbed Downey the wrong way during his career, as he did to a lot of writers, which is probably the reason he isn't in yet.
There. Let me wipe my fingers off (after typing about all of that, they need that!) and you can have at it.
0 recs |
169
comments
Comments
Why
by HectorVillanueva on Jan 10, 2008 9:27 AM CST 0 recs
and that's a fact!
by ballhawk on
Jan 10, 2008 9:31 AM CST
up
0 recs
I was thinking about this, too
It's just they're confined by a few major factors:
- Word counts
- Writing for a broad audience. You try writing for casual fans aged 9 to 90 while also appealing to the die hards that spend every free moment thinking about the game. (And do it in 850 words.)
- When writing an opinion piece, as opposed to simply reporting the news, they have to take a strong stand on one side of an issue. Straddling the line and presenting both sides evenly doesn't sell papers.
There are a few good sports writers in Chicago, and a bunch that are merely adequate. Only a few are truly bad.
by MikeJ on
Jan 10, 2008 10:33 AM CST
up
0 recs
King Fraud
In today's column he employs one of his favorite devices for hiding his dearth of substance: the ridiculously long list. He devoured a huge portion of his word count by rattling off names like Johnny Mize and Pie Traynor and George Sisler, names very few of his readers will know. He could have made the same point in a single sentence. If he truly believes his point he should have arrived at such a belief after considering the alternatives and discounting them. Gee, recounting that process would be a good way to fill the space no longer occupied by a list. Acknowledging what should be an obvious weakness of his point (e.g. "I know hit totals aren't everything and I realize guys like Mantle, Gehrig, and DiMaggio aren't in Cooperstown because their careers looked like Baines' career.."). After that a better writer might reveal his earlier statement as a feint and fall back to a slightly weaker position which should represent the real point he wants to make (e.g. "..I'm just saying that this is one of the ways people can get into the Hall and Baines beats out an awful lot of good players including some of the great hitters.."). Or he could go over the top and make a strong statement that discounts the weakness he's just acknowledged (e.g. "Even though hit totals aren't everything, they represent an indispensible part of the game and I think anyone with the sheer number of hits Baines has should be enshrined automatically even if he contributed nothing else to his teams.."). His arguments are routinely insulting to his readers. I have to stop or I'll get worked up.
by Copter OBob on
Jan 10, 2008 11:21 AM CST
up
0 recs
Downey
What's funny is that I use to like Telander back in the old "Sportswriters on TV" days, when he was the "young, cool one." He was good in Sports Illustrated, too, and I remember being excited when he moved to the Sun-Times. I read him fairly religiously for the first few years, but it took that long to fully realize that he had absolutely nothing to offer.
by MikeJ on
Jan 10, 2008 1:22 PM CST
up
0 recs
Agreed.
by Al on
Jan 10, 2008 1:25 PM CST
up
0 recs
Writing a daily column is a lot different
by TR on
Jan 10, 2008 1:44 PM CST
up
0 recs
No doubt
He just skims the surface.
With one-sentence paragraphs.
Sometimes less.
And if he does dig in, it's always from a pure grumpy-old-man standpoint.
Things were better and pure in my day.
He is...a curmudgeon.
by MikeJ on
Jan 10, 2008 2:05 PM CST
up
0 recs
Sportswriters on TV
Oh how I miss Jerry Holtzman.
by Copter OBob on
Jan 10, 2008 4:37 PM CST
up
0 recs
Downey
DmL
by dmlichte on
Jan 10, 2008 10:33 AM CST
up
0 recs
Good hodgepodge of stuff this morning
- Well at least now I can see some logic in what Telander is trying to do. Not sure I agree with his approach but I understand.
- Brian Roberts? Are the Cubs trying to get him ;-) Phil Rogers is a moron. Even if (which I don't believe) Soriano is moved out of the leadoff spot, Theriot will not be moved up to #2 and Lee down to #6. Lee as #2 makes more sense than what Rogers is spouting. Hard to believe he gets paid for that. I guess under his math that all players are worth +1 so it doesn't matter where anyone hits.
- I was a big Baines fan but he is not HOF-worthy. Rarely if ever was he really considered a feared, top of the league hitter. Very solid for a long time but not in the Dawson or even Rice category. I'd put Dale Murphy in before Baines too. Just counting hits is a stupid way to look at it. There are lots of players like Fred McGriff who would be in if you just start looking at counting stats. The one player that I was surprised got so little support was Tim Raines. I wasn't sure he would get in on his first try but he is far away from it right now.
by rlpete on Jan 10, 2008 9:34 AM CST 0 recs
Baines got only 28 votes for a good reason.
Number of seasons with 30 HR or more: 0
Number of seasons with 100 RBI or more: 3
Number of seasons hitting .300 in 500+ AB: 3
Times appeared in top 10 of MVP voting: 2
Times leading league in major offensive category: 1 (SLG, 1984 AL)
He just wasn't that great. He was a very good player for a very long time. And without the DH, with his injuries, he'd likely have had to retire ten years before he did. Number of games played in the field in last 10 years of his career: 24 (23 of them at age 33, only 1 after that)
by Al on
Jan 10, 2008 10:02 AM CST
up
0 recs
Good synopsis
I don't think Murphy had a good enough career for the HOF either but Baines definitely didn't. I don't think you should get in on just longevity. There needs to be a pretty good peak period. I'd even take someone like Albert Belle over Baines. At least Belle was dominating for a few years.
by rlpete on
Jan 10, 2008 10:17 AM CST
up
0 recs
another reason why the DH is an abomination
That's why I believe big Papi shouldn't be an MVP candidate. There's this thing called defence.
OK, OK, I'm ranting...
by blackhawk24 on
Jan 10, 2008 10:21 AM CST
up
0 recs
Your point is taken...
But David Ortiz is ten times the hitter Harold Baines was, in virtually every category. If there were no DH, he'd play 1B -- maybe not very well, but well enough, given his bat.
5 straight years in the top 5 of MVP voting. Three straight years of 35+ HR, 110+ runs, 100+ walks, 115+ RBI, and 158 or higher OPS+.
Baines never came close to any of those numbers.
by Al on
Jan 10, 2008 10:32 AM CST
up
0 recs
Baines
Baines could have gone beyond a very good career to a great career IF he had injuries hampered him. But that's probably the case with many other players.
Harold, Thanks for a very good career Harold. I hope you saved and/or invested the 23 million dollars you earned in your career.
HoF rankings, BAINES/SANTO/MURPHY
BLACK INK: 3/11/31 (AVG HOF 27)
GRAY INK: 40/147/147 (AVG HOF 144)
HOF STANDARDS: 43.6/41/34.3 (AVG HOF 50)
HOF MONITOR: 66.5/88/115.5 (AVG HOF 100)
by DrCrawdad on
Jan 10, 2008 11:16 AM CST
up
0 recs
Word to your ...
by DrCrawdad on
Jan 10, 2008 12:10 PM CST
up
0 recs
Rogers' math
by Copter OBob on
Jan 10, 2008 12:04 PM CST
up
0 recs
Telander and Rogers.....
Al, everytime I see people move Sori out of the #1 spot it humors me, it could happen but wont. Dero could play SS but wont. Lee will NOT HIT 6th.....he should have coleagues tell him that what he is writing is stupid. Theriot is the perfect 8 hitter for this team, not 2 hitter.
Thankfully this site only has a few dopes but when I got to some trade rumor sites its hilarious when they post lineups.
by Hammer on Jan 10, 2008 9:35 AM CST 0 recs
Applying Telander logic
Thanks Rick, for opening my eyes. I had no idea that the best way to approach this was to just distrust everybody. No room for individual thought here, just lump 'em all together.
Now, if you'll excuse me, I have to go get my pitchfork and torch ready for the next icon...
by ballhawk on Jan 10, 2008 9:48 AM CST 0 recs
LSA
by blackhawk24 on
Jan 10, 2008 9:54 AM CST
up
0 recs
FYI To Everyone - New Piniella PodCast Out (1/8/8)
He mentioned that there is "one more (offensive) piece" that he needs, and that Hendry is working around the clock to get it for him.
I get the PodCast through a subscription through iTunes.
by initram on Jan 10, 2008 9:52 AM CST 0 recs
Hope there is
I'll reiterate: Marquis and Dempster in the rotation scares the living shit out of me.
by blackhawk24 on
Jan 10, 2008 9:55 AM CST
up
0 recs
I still think...
by Al on
Jan 10, 2008 9:57 AM CST
up
0 recs
Well if you have some magic formula...
At this time, I may be more happy with the unknown than with the known.
3/5ths of a good rotation does not a champion make.
by blackhawk24 on
Jan 10, 2008 10:00 AM CST
up
0 recs
I Can't Agree More...
We've all heard that Hendry is going after (1) Roberts, (2) a RH who can play all outfield positions (like OF #4, thus pushing Murton), and (3) a veteran SP.
by initram on
Jan 10, 2008 10:01 AM CST
up
0 recs
You can't say, "I want a pitcher"
Zambrano
Lilly
Lieber
Hill
Dempster
(Yes, I know Hill is a better pitcher than Lieber, but I think that's how they'll stack the rotation up to start the season.) That's really not a bad rotation and ideally it leaves open some slots, especially in '09, but potentially this year as well for a rookie who proves he's ready.
In parsing Lou's words, I would focus on that "one...offensive piece" part, that they aren't looking for two. Maybe Lou thinks the RH-OF is not so necessary. I do think there is something to say for letting Pie hit LHP regularly and not committing to platooning him. But it's going to be ugly for a while.
by DGU on
Jan 10, 2008 1:25 PM CST
up
0 recs
Don't Be Surprised If...
The last I heard is that the Mets were interested in Marquis -- this goes back to an MLBTR note some weeks back.
Also, Hart has a legitimate shot at the starting role.
by initram on
Jan 11, 2008 12:00 AM CST
up
0 recs
Sure we can
If the current staff isn't believed to be strong enough to win (even if there's 10 candidates), it has to be improved. What's implied in "wanting a pitcher" is wanting one that is a notable improvement to one of the current 5 starting staff.
Of course Jim won't say this publicly, he's being respectful. Just like he didn't come out about a RF need until after Jones was dealt and Floyd was not picked up for the option.
From our standpoint, I think its safe to say we all believe the current rotation possibilities (with known commodities, not a minor leaguer that will come out of nowhere and pitch lights out through the end of October) will likely not cut it if we want to be celebrating at the end of October.
On press conferences, well I guess that would be the wrong platform to make that announcement. Though Lou will have one of his top 10 comments last year being the 35'-40' curveball comment about Ohman, he was ranting.
by blackhawk24 on
Jan 14, 2008 6:37 AM CST
up
0 recs
Anyone...
by big_lowitzki on Jan 10, 2008 10:19 AM CST 0 recs
Agreed
You don't trade the farm for a leadoff hitter and then have him bat anything other than leadoff.
Then again, Al is waaaay more "in the loop" than I am.
by Kornchex on
Jan 10, 2008 10:27 AM CST
up
0 recs
The lineup
Yes, Roberts has been a leadoff hitter in the past but his skills also would be very good in the #2 spot. In fact, he might be the Cubs best #2 hitter.
by rlpete on
Jan 10, 2008 10:38 AM CST
up
0 recs
Technically...
Dont get me wrong, i am not complaining or bashing the current players, i am just describing their at the plate performance and how it really translated into different spots in the line-up.
by HIGGY on
Jan 10, 2008 2:24 PM CST
up
0 recs
I'd say Ramirez is a pretty solid #4 hitter...
Also, Lee was a pretty solid #3 hitter in the second half of last year, and in 2005 and 2006 prior to the injury. If his second half is any indication, he's ideal for the #3 spot again as his power returned.
What wey've lacked is a true leadoff hitter and a #5 hitter.
Ignoring the debate surrounding whether or not Soriano freaks out in the #5 spot, that's the spot he's best suited for. It'd take advantage of his power and his speed (he can run in front of the #6-8 hitters).
However, I don't think Piniella/Hendry are going to move him down. I think they see Fukudome (who SHOULD be a #2 hitter) as a #5 hitter. Thus, they think they'll have the following lineup:
Soriano/Roberts/Lee/Ramirez/Fukudome/Soto/Pie/Theriot
It's not necessarily the most sensible lineup, but it's what I think Lou will do. He likes splitting up his lefties and he likes speed at the top of the order.
by SouthernCub on
Jan 10, 2008 2:36 PM CST
up
0 recs
This may be
by Hammer on
Jan 10, 2008 2:47 PM CST
up
0 recs
Leadoff
by Fraggin Judge on
Jan 10, 2008 7:52 PM CST
up
0 recs
Flip Ramirez/Dome and Pie/Theriot...
A-Ram has admitted he feels more comfortable in the #5 spot. Fukudome likely bats second, unless we land Roberts.
By the AM radio reports in the last couple of days, it is looking less and less likely (30% chance)...
by initram on
Jan 11, 2008 12:03 AM CST
up
0 recs
My bad...
The misconception that the #2 hitter needs to be quick on the bases (allbeit Lee has good speed) isnt technically true. You need a guy in the 2 hole that will produce and get on base consistently to allow for your #3 to knock him around.
Now addressing what you said about the line-up. You are exactly right about Fukudome, with the addition of him we now have a true #2 hitter (but he will most likely not be used as such. He is not a number 5. We have a number 5, but he leads off. So, yes i would agree with you that in the current situation we need a lead-off guy and a number 5.
by HIGGY on
Jan 11, 2008 7:31 AM CST
up
0 recs
hall of shame
by bernok on Jan 10, 2008 10:22 AM CST 0 recs
Shockingly stupid...
by Al on
Jan 10, 2008 10:29 AM CST
up
0 recs
The real crazy thing
I would ask; experts at what?
by MPH73 on
Jan 10, 2008 10:58 AM CST
up
0 recs
Experts at...
by Al on
Jan 10, 2008 10:59 AM CST
up
0 recs
I don't get it.
Yeah, I'm going to keep banging this drum for a while.
by cwyers on Jan 10, 2008 10:38 AM CST 0 recs
Raines will get in eventually...
by Al on
Jan 10, 2008 10:47 AM CST
up
0 recs
I think you might be right
by pageian on
Jan 10, 2008 2:43 PM CST
up
0 recs
It's an odd state of affairs...
You're absolutely right. It's just... odd.
by cwyers on
Jan 10, 2008 3:28 PM CST
up
0 recs
You're right
by pageian on
Jan 10, 2008 4:27 PM CST
up
0 recs
Al...I pointed this out yesterday elsewhere, but
Steroids have been around athletics for a long time. Long before Dawson's career began and even before the great Nolan Ryan's career began. Lyle Alzado began taking them in 1967 and said they were easy to acquire at numerous gyms across the country.
I mean no disrespect by this, but it's absolutely foolish to think that players that began their careers in the mid to late 60s through the late 70s are all innocent. It was these players that sat and watched the proliferation of steroids into the sport you and I both love. It was these guys who kept their mouths shut that you now blame the likes of Palmeiro, Sosa, and Bonds for.
The use of steroids prior to 1967 by athletes was also probably more than we'll ever know or want to know, but the fact of the matter is that by 1975 they were prevalent in all sports and used by as many athletes as use them today (actually, there are probably fewer who use them today because of testing). HGH was readily available at this time as well.
The point of this is that any and all players who began their careers after 1967 are due speculation about whether or not they used performance enhancing drugs. Every single one of them.
Did Dawson use? I have no clue. If the measure of whether or not someone used is if they didn't decline as you would typically expect then the answer is probably no, but that also means that former and current greats have taken them. It's a stupid way to measure whether or not someone has used steroids because baseball has proven that each and every generation brings with it a handful of stars, or more, that simply aren't your typical ballplayers in any way, shape or form.
Just because you like Dawson and haven't heard speculation doesn't mean he didn't use. It simply means the media is too stupid to realize that PEDs were prevalent in sports while Dawson played...while Dawson was still in high school or junior high for that matter.
The author you've been complaining about for two days has it right in my opinion. They all deserve to be treated on an equal platform and that means that they're all either guilty or not guilty since we sure as hell are never going to know the overwhelming majority of the players who have used these substances. I would prefer the author treat them as if they were all not guilty, but at least he's got it half right, which is 50% more right than any of these other members have it.
And before anyone tries to tell me I'm insane for saying Dawson may have used...read this again. I never said he did. I simply said it's foolish and irresponsible of anyone to assume that he didn't when we know for an absolute fact that steroids were prevalent in sports when he played AND that if you want to blame any players for how steroids became so popular in sports, blame these guys (Dawson, Rice, Gossage, etc) because they were the ones who closed their eyes and allowed it to take over the sport. Their errors were already completed by the time the likes of Bonds, McGwire and Sosa ever came around.
by Maddog on Jan 10, 2008 10:38 AM CST 0 recs
Where's your evidence?
If you have specific evidence to cite, I'd like to see it.
by Al on
Jan 10, 2008 10:48 AM CST
up
0 recs
PEDS in the Olympics
A survey was taken of Olympians in 1972 when steroids were banned. 68% of them admitted to using steroids in some capacity.
Of course, it was in the late 70s that the East Germans had a state sponsored doping program for olympians. It has been argued whether or not the athletes knew what they were getting as they were told that they were getting "vitamins". achem....maybe B12!
For that matter, in 776 BC Ancient Greeks were known to eat sheep testicles as a way to intake testosterone!!! If you put it that way, having a trainer inject you in the butt doesn't seem so bad!
by Ghost of Fred Merkle on
Jan 10, 2008 11:51 AM CST
up
0 recs
Olympics, OK.
That's a stretch.
by Al on
Jan 10, 2008 12:01 PM CST
up
0 recs
an athlete is an athlete
by kylejo on
Jan 10, 2008 12:23 PM CST
up
0 recs
"you're"
I'm simply stating that steroids were a problem in the 60s and 70s for the Olympics. Athletes used them to enhance their performance.
That said, it certainly is conceivable for a baseball player to try them. The opposing argument would be what was alluded to below in that baseball players preached flexiblity more than muscle up until the recent years.
by Ghost of Fred Merkle on
Jan 10, 2008 12:36 PM CST
up
0 recs
Ben Johnson
During the US TRIALS for those same olympics, Carl Lewis was busted for using stimulants. The letter was all but issued to ban him from the Olympics. But the US decided to bury it and allow him to compete.
It was shortly after that when the Olympic committee itself control of the testing for each country's trials.
Interesting stuff.
by Ghost of Fred Merkle on
Jan 10, 2008 12:42 PM CST
up
0 recs
What was Lewis taking?
by SackMan on
Jan 10, 2008 1:35 PM CST
up
0 recs
Hilarious
by McRipper on
Jan 10, 2008 1:55 PM CST
up
0 recs
I think Lyle Alzado's claims
As someone else said, the Olympics banned them in 1972. Do you think they banned them because they didn't think athletes were using them? Of course they were. If Olympians were using them, so were professional athletes. Remember, these guys have more money than amateurs.
The point is that they've been readily available for decades and athletes have taken them on a regular basis for that long as well. It's foolish to think that baseball players of that era weren't taking them. Were they all? No, but some certainly were yet that generation gets a pass and in my opinion, it was that generation that is far more responsible for the damage than this one. They're the lazy fucks who kept their mouths shut and turned a blind eye that allowed it to overtake the sport.
I'm not saying Dawson did steroids. I'm only pointing out that it's silly to assume he didn't when we know they were as readily available then as they are now.
by Maddog on
Jan 10, 2008 12:38 PM CST
up
0 recs
Yes... those Raider teams he played for
You think steroids played a factor into that?
There's absolutely no question that professional athletes have been taking PED's for decades. Just a matter of who they were, and how their use of them effected the outcome on the field, and the sporting league they played for.
Athletes are competitive individuals... they want to win... and sometimes will try new things to get an edge.
None of this is new in the large scheme of things.
by SackMan on
Jan 10, 2008 1:41 PM CST
up
0 recs
The problem with that is...
Remember, these guys were travelling with teams and spending time in clubhouses all throughout the steroids era. They had frontrow seats for the entire thing, and they absolutely refused to confront what was going on, even after Canseco got busted and it was obvious something was going on here.
It's all well and good, and even true, to say that we'll never know what happened for certain in the steroids era. But that's at least partly the fault of the sportwriters who ignored the whole thing, and for them to play the sanctimony card at this late stage of the game?
This isn't honesty and this isn't good judgement. This is refusing to take account and pay for one's own sins - since you didn't do your job as the "fourth estate watchdog" like they taught you in J-school, you can't fairly sit there and lecture us on right and wrong. This really comes off like trying to get the players to take everybody's share of the blame for this. And it comes from people who have a share of the blame.
Before any of these guys feed us any more sanctimonious bullcrap, they need to write a piece entitled "How I Screwed Up Covering Up The Steroids Era, And Why." Each and every one of them.
by cwyers on
Jan 10, 2008 10:53 AM CST
up
0 recs
But do do we!
That, however, does not allow me to not have and express outrage.
Rick Telander has come out and say that no player from the 1980's and 1990s is beyond suspicion. That could be Dawson or Rice, Maddux or Schilling. Saying that no one is beyond suspicion and even specifically say names does equal a belief of use. Every player is a part of a larger era and what Telander is saying is that:
a.) the actions of the players during his era who used along with
b.) Dawson's and other player's inaction in dealing with the situation that was in their own clubhouse
has led to a situation where no one is beyond suspicion.
DmL
by dmlichte on
Jan 10, 2008 11:20 AM CST
up
0 recs
Point B, however...
- it WAS going on in clubhouses that Dawson (to use your example) was in during his career, AND THAT
- he ignored it.
But tarring ALL players with that brush isn't fair.

