Jay Gibbons cut from Orioles, but Selig set precedent for amnesty in Dec. 2007--not "magical" wording by Mitchell

AP-"Jay Gibbons was released Sunday by the Baltimore Orioles, who lost patience waiting for the oft-injured outfielder to regain the form that enabled him to hit 26 home runs in 2005.

• Gibbons batted .189 with no homers and four RBIs in 16 games this spring training after playing in only 84 games last season. Baltimore owes him $11.9 million for the next two season as part of a $21.1 million, four-year contract he agreed to in January 2006.

The 31-year-old Gibbons was suspended for 15 days on Dec. 6 by commissioner Bud Selig following a media report that

• he received a shipment of the human growth hormone after January 2005, when it was banned by baseball."...

Today it's "AFTER JANUARY 2005;" 2 days ago it was "IN JANUARY 2005." Why do they do this? Because baseball fans are weak and malleable and find lying perfectly acceptable. Why else?

• Per the Mitchell Report, Selig chose not to discipline a few select players for behavior prior to January 13, 2005. This included such players as Glaus, Schoeneweis, and Ankiel. At that moment, all others accused of anything before that date automatically had to be excused from discipline.

The players already excused by the commissioner were in the category of "alleged internet" activity. There was of course written evidence of their purchases. Also, they were not asked to speak with Mitchell or any of his investigators. That's in the report too. Persons with only hearsay evidence were, on the other hand, not absolved.

• Media stories have long speculated about suspensions which is strange. If they had read the Mitchell Report, they would know all behavior noted before 1/13/05 would be exempt from discipline. If for no other reason than Selig has already set the precedent.

• This is a copy of the referenced language, AP report published on SI.com, 3/28/08: "Gibbons admitted receiving an HGH shipment in January 2005.

The gutless wonders at BBWAA never dared to point out that terms of amnesty were granted long ago by Selig, and were written about in the Mitchell Report. How many will lose their jobs over this negligence? Answer: None. On the contrary, this is what gets them rewards.

Tweet Stumbleupon StumbleUpon