"Blemish, Tarnish," George Mitchell Gazette not "moving forward?"....

The NY Times brings up the Yankees' 4 championship years, 1996-2000. In the same sentence they cite 5 Yankee players who contributed to those championships. Only 1 of the 5 has been 'named' in the Radomski/McNamee/Novitsky Report (xeroxed and sent to Red Sox Director George Mitchell) during those 4 years (Clemens). So why would Jack Curry put the 5 names all together with the "Championship Years" leaving the average hurried reader the opportunity to connect things that aren't really connected?

• Sometime YES Network celebrity author, NY Times' Jack Curry gives a brief, blurry explanation in the next paragraph, shooting down the connection he's made in the previous paragraph in such a way that the average person probably won't come away with the true facts.

In spite of this lack of clarity, Curry works in 2 prejorative words in hopes people will be left with a certain view of the Yankees:

• "blemish" ...and
• "tarnished."

(Jack Curry, NY Times): "Several significant players who contributed to some or all of the Yankees’ four World Series titles from 1996 to 2000, including Pettitte, Roger Clemens, David Justice, Chuck Knoblauch and Mike Stanton, were mentioned in the Mitchell report for their suspected use of performance-enhancing drugs."

• (Clemens is the only one even "named" during the applicable 4 championships. None of the other 4 'names' were for steroids. Mike Stanton's alleged "first purchase" was in 2003 when he was a Met, and he's denied it. Knoblauch's was stated in the documents as in 2001. Justice was 'named' for having made a purchase after the 2000 World Series which he's denied, and for which there is no record or canceled check. Pettitte was never named during those years for anything). sm

• (Jack Curry): "Some players were cited for use while they were Yankees, and some were cited for use before or after they were with the team. Despite this blemish, Steinbrenner defended the Yankees and insisted their championships were not tarnished."

Reference, NY Times article by Jack Curry, "Yankees Come and Go, but one Thing Remains," 2/16/08

• P.S. More fun defaming Yanks--here's a jubilant false headline on MLB.com FALSELY STATING Mike Stanton "bought" (HGH) when he was a Yankee .The MLB.com article even states his first alleged purchase wasn't until 2003, but this little fact isn't mentioned until the 2nd half of the article, ie Stanton's "first purchase" of HGH was in 2003 as a Met. Its author hasn't been fired or sued as far as I can tell. The message is clear: Defame the Yankees all you want--they won't say a word about it, and your career will improve. (sm)
• Reference:
  "12/13/2007 11:09 PM ET
  "Stanton denies all allegations
  Reliever reported to have bought HGH while with Yanks Mets"
  By Mark Sheldon / MLB.com"
• (From the article): ""Radomski recalled making two sales of human growth hormone to Stanton. The first occurred in 2003, during Stanton's first season with the Mets."

(Best of luck in your career with ESPN/MLB).

Tweet Stumbleupon StumbleUpon