Options
Schilling on Bonds: "He admitted to cheating on his wife, cheating on his taxes, and cheating o
Connecticoin
Posts: 12,543 ✭✭✭✭✭
in Sports Talk
Link
Already, it looks like Curt needs some attention in light of the Clemens stuff.
The only thing Bonds admitted to was the "cream", so it will be interested to see how #38 tries to wiggle out of this one.
Already, it looks like Curt needs some attention in light of the Clemens stuff.
The only thing Bonds admitted to was the "cream", so it will be interested to see how #38 tries to wiggle out of this one.
0
Comments
Thanks
I am not even going to comments on steroids.
<< <i>What do you mean 0 for 3. Bonds got in trouble for not declaring autograph earnings (as he got paid in cash) and his mistress wrote a book.
I am not even going to comments on steroids. >>
The key is that Bonds did not ADMIT these things (except the steroid cream, which he claims he did not know it had steroids). Schilling should have said that these things were PROVEN, but not that Bonds admitted them.
<< <i>The key is that Bonds did not ADMIT these things (except the steroid cream, which he claims he did not know it had steroids). Schilling should have said that these things were PROVEN, but not that Bonds admitted them. >>
That seems like nitpicking but legally it is an important distinction. I would think Bonds might have a case for pursuing a slander lawsuit, but IMO he's best served by ignoring the comments entirely. Bonds never admitted to cheating on the game that I've heard.
In the hearing they brought up a Schilling quote on how "body parts that just don't fit" and Schilling all of a sudden didn't recall. Schilling is a clown.
Papi saying his stuff is most likely cover for his own use too
<< <i>So Skin, let's let everyone use steroids that wants too, that way you can't "specualte" who has an who hasn't. SHEESH >>
I think that is what is happening now, no?
But yes, nobody right now is beyond suspicion, for that matter even Schilling himself. If he was concerned about steroids, he would have been adament that the union do blood tests for steroids, and the bigger epidemic...HGH. He even had his chance at the Senate hearings, but was a big dissapointment. Now he is making some comments that he should have made before. He has a chance to demand the union to incorporate blood testing. If he does not, then he is just as big a problem as any user(and should be considered under the same suspicion...otherwise why would he hide).
What I was getting at with Papi, is that it was pretty convenient for him to say he took protein shakes in his country, and he didn't know what was in them. That is a good cover, and maybe his intelligence is a step above a snail after all.
He tends to put his foot in his mouth on occasion, but he usually is man enough to admit when he is wrong.
<< <i>Well, Curt issued an apology on his Blog: Link
He tends to put his foot in his mouth on occasion, but he usually is man enough to admit when he is wrong. >>
Im glad, really. Good for him to be a man and apoligize, I have no problem with Curt if he feels that way but to put it on the airways for everyone to see and hear is just wrong.
<< <i>But yes, nobody right now is beyond suspicion, for that matter even Schilling himself. If he was concerned about steroids, he would have been adament that the union do blood tests for steroids, and the bigger epidemic...HGH. He even had his chance at the Senate hearings, but was a big dissapointment. Now he is making some comments that he should have made before. He has a chance to demand the union to incorporate blood testing. If he does not, then he is just as big a problem as any user(and should be considered under the same suspicion...otherwise why would he hide). >>
We must have seen different hearings because the ones I saw, Schilling was 100% for additional tests, harsher penalties, and was hoping Canseco was doing this to out steriods and not sell books.
I could be mistaken but that's what I recall...
on 09 May 2007 at 2:23 pm5 Manny Ramirez
Ey mang, joo think too much bout things that no matter. Come on, mang. Barry Bonds all the way on the West Coast and we here in Boston, mang.
People ask me all the frigging time why I no do interviews on EEI, mang. I say to them, joo never know what they gonna say next.
All I gots to say is God Bless Jesus, joo made a mistake, you kiss it up to him and joo keeps on pitching, mang.
Toronto too cold for Manny, mang. If I not there tonight tell Tito I selling my Escalade.
Peace
<< <i>I cannot stand it when someone says something one day and says sorry the next. You said what you felt (right or wrong) move on and pitch. >>
Normally I agree, but this one went beyond the usual mealy-mouthed, watered-down and weasel worded apology. He called himself out, didn't blame anyone for misquoting him or taking it out of context, and flat out called himself a hypocrite on the matter.
Yeah, there is too much shooting first and apologizing later as if it makes all well. But I did find it refreshing to see the forcefulness and unconditional acceptance of the blame that he took here.
I would have to see the minutes of the hearing, but what I remember is being dissapointed in him when he had a good opportunity to back up statements he made in the past...statements to the extent of guys having body parts that just don't belong on their bodies. It was as if MLB union had told him to keep a lid on things more than anything else.
On another note, I also like Barry Bonds. Or at least I respect him. He may be a cheater, but he's definitely one man who could give a flying fondue about what the rest of the free world thinks about his assault on the HR record, which is enough for me to at least harbor a grudging respect for him.
<< <i>
On another note, I also like Barry Bonds. Or at least I respect him. He may be a cheater, but he's definitely one man who could give a flying fondue about what the rest of the free world thinks about his assault on the HR record, which is enough for me to at least harbor a grudging respect for him. >>
I seriously doubt that anyone outside of Beantown gives two cents what he says about anything. His credibility for anyone who pays attention to him was already shot, this was just another full of himself athlete revealing his intellectual ignorance. Like his manager said yesterday.........just shut up!
So what bothers me about this thread is the hypocrisy of saying Curt should keep his comments about someone else to himself and yet people are reeling off putdowns like calling him a “clown,” an “idiot,” and a “moron” as well as accusing him of “intellectual ignorance,” being “full of himself” and being a flip-flopper for having apologized.
The only real difference between what Curt said and what we post is that very few people read what we have to say and even fewer people care. Frankly, if Volver was famous and he joked on the radio about Manny’s fictional blog entry the whole country would be talking about what a racist he is.
What it boils down to is that free speech has become a freedom enjoyed only by the anonymous. Of course people in the public eye can still say whatever they want to as long as they are willing to pay the price (see Don Imus for a recent example). We’re very quick to burn them at the stake when they screw up like this, but slow to recognize the same mistakes in our own lives.
I enjoy Curt Schilling precisely because he says what he thinks. If you don’t like his politics or agree with his religious beliefs there is a good chance you won’t like him and you will think of him as a blowhard simply because he is an outspoken individual that is willing to talk about more than just baseball. These names we’ve been calling him, however, only serve to prove our own hypocrisy. My point is just that we should all take a couple minutes and think before we start chucking our stones.
That’s just my two cents. Sorry for the soapbox rant.
<< <i>Clearly the things that Curt Schilling said about Barry Bonds were inappropriate and out of line and cannot be supported. He recognized that and apologized for it and his apology appears sincere. If I was Barry Bonds, I’d be really bothered. But s part of the public, I’d be really bothered if he didn’t apologize.
So what bothers me about this thread is the hypocrisy of saying Curt should keep his comments about someone else to himself and yet people are reeling off putdowns like calling him a “clown,” an “idiot,” and a “moron” as well as accusing him of “intellectual ignorance,” being “full of himself” and being a flip-flopper for having apologized.
The only real difference between what Curt said and what we post is that very few people read what we have to say and even fewer people care. Frankly, if Volver was famous and he joked on the radio about Manny’s fictional blog entry the whole country would be talking about what a racist he is.
What it boils down to is that free speech has become a freedom enjoyed only by the anonymous. Of course people in the public eye can still say whatever they want to as long as they are willing to pay the price (see Don Imus for a recent example). We’re very quick to burn them at the stake when they screw up like this, but slow to recognize the same mistakes in our own lives.
I enjoy Curt Schilling precisely because he says what he thinks. If you don’t like his politics or agree with his religious beliefs there is a good chance you won’t like him and you will think of him as a blowhard simply because he is an outspoken individual that is willing to talk about more than just baseball. These names we’ve been calling him, however, only serve to prove our own hypocrisy. My point is just that we should all take a couple minutes and think before we start chucking our stones.
That’s just my two cents. Sorry for the soapbox rant. >>
People calling Schilling the things they do here are their opinions and they have the right to speak them. Schilling made a statement as if it were fact, when it's simply unproven. That's not an opinion, that's slander... There's a difference.
<< <i>People calling Schilling the things they do here are their opinions and they have the right to speak them. Schilling made a statement as if it were fact, when it's simply unproven. That's not an opinion, that's slander... There's a difference. >>
I see what you are saying, but some of the things written here have not been expressed as opinions. For example, the comment that “Schilling is a moron” was not qualified with anything like: “in my view,” or “I think that.” It was said definitively, as if no discussion or alternate opinion could reasonably be entertained. I don’t really see the difference between that sort of comment and the remarks Schilling made.
If Schilling’s comments were slander (I’m not saying they weren’t) then why isn’t “Schilling is a moron” libel?
<< <i>
<< <i>People calling Schilling the things they do here are their opinions and they have the right to speak them. Schilling made a statement as if it were fact, when it's simply unproven. That's not an opinion, that's slander... There's a difference. >>
I see what you are saying, but some of the things written here have not been expressed as opinions. For example, the comment that “Schilling is a moron” was not qualified with anything like: “in my view,” or “I think that.” It was said definitively, as if no discussion or alternate opinion could reasonably be entertained. I don’t really see the difference between that sort of comment and the remarks Schilling made.
If Schilling’s comments were slander (I’m not saying they weren’t) then why isn’t “Schilling is a moron” libel? >>
Schilling said Bonds admitted to those things. Bonds never did.
ooops, hit enter too soon. Also, moron is defined as 1. a person who is notably stupid or lacking in good judgment
Schilling, by making this statement, was lacking good judgement... Thus, Schilling is a moron