XM MLB Chat

Tuesday, February 12, 2008

Chris Russo, Steve Somers, Bob Raissman, Richard Neer, Tony Paige, and many others haven't expressed such relief about Andy Pettitte for much less.

Terry Pluto on Paul Byrd (more a 'Tale of 2 Cities'):
  • "The newspaper reported Byrd used HGH from 2002 until 2005.
  • Baseball banned it on Jan. 13, 2005,
so it's very possible Byrd did nothing illegal - especially since documents show Byrd's final HGH order was a week before the ban was announced.
  • I was relieved when I read that."
Terry Pluto from his Sports Media Guide interview, 1/08
  • (Most NY radio guys support the veracity of McNamee v Clemens, using Andy Pettitte's backing to prove McNamee's accuracy. Logical. Then, the same radio guys have put callers and/or 'doctors' on the air to say HGH must be taken over a much longer period to be effective.
The guys then say, "This proves Pettitte was lying, he must've taken much more." Many times I've heard them use this argument--first saying Pettitte told the truth about McNamee who was telling the truth. Then saying "Obviously Pettitte lied."
  • I've never heard any of them say, "Well, I guess Pettitte didn't take enough to get any benefit." Followed by, "I guess McNamee is a liar too because he didn't say Pettitte took a lot more."
And, NEVER have I heard or read a NY media guy say they were "relieved" because Pettitte's limited use in 2002 while on the DL was not illegal at the time-- "Slate Editors discuss Mitchell Report," 12/13/07
  • P.S. It still goes on 24/7. Chris Russo on WFAN yesterday said,"Pettitte Lied for 7 Years." (Really--to whom, you? In the first place, you're not Pettitte's judge and jury. Second, he owes you nothing--see Paul Byrd who told the media "it was a private matter.") Russo has repeatedly said Pettitte took steroids--which he never did. In the past week Russo asked someone how Pettitte would be now that he's "off the steroids." A simple letter or phone call could put an end to Russo's slander, but apparently no one cares. (sm)

Stumbleupon StumbleUpon

posted by susan at 2/12/2008 02:37:00 PM

4 Comments:

  • Well, now that Pettitte has admitted to doing HGH more than just the two times in 2002, what are your thoughts?

    By Blogger Mark, at 1:32 PM  

  • The difference of 2 vs 3 times is not enough on which to comment. What would be interesting is to have testimony from players of all other teams rather than just reacting to names from the Radmomski/McNamee client list. It would also be interesting to hear why the report allowed HGH and steroids to be perceived similarly in terms of how it benefited players. As a partial result, Andy has been written and spoken about as a steroid user when that was not the case. I think Paul Byrd's $25,000 HGH use still beats Andy's 3x use, although it's not at all exciting to BBWAA members.

    By Blogger susan, at 1:49 PM  

  • I agree on the HGH/steroid issue, and think it's wrong when people say Pettitte did steroids. I also agree that there are many more people than just the Radomski/McNamee clients, but those were the ones labeled in the report, so that's what we have to go on right now.

    You should concentrate your anger on the Cleveland writers. There would be no reason for writers that cover the Yankees to hammer away on the Byrd issue.

    By Blogger Mark, at 2:36 PM  

  • I understand the media are focused on the Radmoski/McNamee names because that's what's come out. That does not make it the right thing to do. And certainly not to the extent it's become. Re your suggestion about Cleveland writers, I have done so. Many New York media people are nationally focused and discuss matters affecting baseball as a whole. They're not confined to New York matters. I've addressed this as well.

    By Blogger susan, at 3:32 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home