From the Boston Globe, 7/5/06, column by Steve Bailey but not in the referenced NY Times article today, 3/3/08:
I've learned not to depend on headlines in the George Mitchell Gazette (aka NY Times) and this was a good example: "Executives Must Answer for Steroids." Forget it--he doesn't mean it. The article ends up asking for executives from only 1 team--SURPRISE!--the Yankees.
You see the Yankees must understand--they are subservient. They must shut up and send money. Period. (The Times owns part of the Red Sox and therefore has a connection with Mitchell). Why doesn't the NY Times question how a private corporation was able to use the public federal government's resources on the one hand. And on the other, there are no public resources with which to query this private corporation and it's operations (ie Mitchell and Selig).
- The point of the article is to burnish yet again the image of George Mitchell--who's apparently president of the world--and slap across the face anyone who has the temerity to say what everyone else says--but who happens to be a Yankee.
The article did highlight what it felt was a most promising development--MLB's meeting with Brian Sabean. What next the Times insists: Answer: The Yankees...blobs of names maybe or maybe not on those teams, but we're going to beat this to death. 2000 and 2001 teams. The Times trots out this media favorite--lumping names of guys who might've been a Yankee at some point in EITHER 2000 OR 2001 EVEN THOUGH an alleged verbal exchange or mail delivery or use did not occur in either 2000 or 2001.
- It's unlikely a well known writer, especially one from the NY Times, is going to call for serious action against baseball executives and mean it anyway. After a few words about "these guys had to know," Kevin Towers, etc., the reporter's phone call with Bud Selig put an end to that thread. And the Times sure as heck isn't going to call for an investigation into the Paul Byrd situation. Or into the many names that could have been on the Televised Mitchell Report but weren't.
Of the 7 Yankee names the NY Times comes up with in groundbreaking fashion, only one qualified for "2000 and 2001," which was Clemens. Only one qualified for 2001 which was Knoblauch. 3 were not cited in Radomski/McNamee or the Televised Mitchell Report until after they left the Yankees: Denny Neagle, Jason Grimsley, and Mike Stanton. That leaves 4 names.
- 4 of the 7 of names were cited for HGH not steroids, and 2 of those have denied the accusation (Stanton, while as a Met, and Justice after the 2000 World Series). To clarify, there would be no "steroids" to answer for in HGH cases.
- Clemens is the only name accused on both 2000 and 2001.
- Knoblauch was named for 2001 not 2000.
- 1. Clemens--Yes, a Radomski/McNamee name from 2000 and 2001.
- 2. Denny Neagle?-Sorry, NY Times, not while he was a Yankee. His canceled checks prove it.
- 3. Jason Grimsley?-Sorry, not til he was gone from the Yankees.
- 4. Andy Pettitte- Sorry, not in 2000 or 2001.
- 5. Chuck Knoblauch-Sorry, 2001 only.
- 6. Mike Stanton-Sorry, 2003 when a Met, and has denied receiving a "package."
(I've posted documentation from the Mitchell Report several times on this blog about the above names).
- 7. David Justice-Sorry, the verbal reference has been denied re: HGH, was a one time thing for which there is no canceled check. Took place "after the 2000 World Series."
For this haul of 2 names, the NY Times writer says:
- So for the 2 years cited, a grand total of 1 name came up for both years--Clemens. No other names for the year 2000. One name came up for 2001- Knoblauch.
Reference NY Times article by William C. Rhoden, "Executives Must Answer for Steroids,"
- (The only people who care enough to do anything about articles like this would love to be sportswriters themselves so they keep quiet. That's my observation). sm
Labels: Andy Pettitte HGH Yankee Bashing Baseball Media Bias, Mitchell Report bias