Monday, February 09, 2009


So I'm wondering--since A-Rod has the "okay, I did it" factor of Andy Pettitte, but also the "cheater headed toward coveted record" factor of Barry Bonds...will the people who held up asterisks to Bonds hold them up to A-Rod? They goddamn better...we'll see how committed to the premise they are. Will it be "we don't want cheaters breaking famous records--unless that cheater has shown the pre-scripted remorse that's proven to 'work' on people"?

To follow up on the last post, doesn't the "Admitting it after you're caught" method show kids that it's okay to cheat, just make sure you admit to it when you're caught, and then all will be forgiven?

I, for one, think the asterik absolutely needs to be held up, but at the same time, it should only mar those three years it was proven that he was juicing. While he probably did take more than just three years' worth, the fact is, (and I am saying this as an avid A-Fraud hater) that was all that was proven. So, hold up that asterik, strike the 156 home runs he hit over those three years from the record, and keep testing him.
I think him and everybody else who cheated should be thought of as cheaters, it's really just a semantic issue about the actual asterisk, I guess.

But still, no timeframe was "proven," because A-Rod just made that up--or at least that's what he's chosen to admit to. He's setting himself up for disaster, because somebody's gonna find evidence of him doing it before or after. Canseco already said he did it before, and I feel like I'm onto something a few posts above, regarding the after.

Post a Comment

If you're "anonymous," please leave a name, even if it's a fake one, for differentiation purposes.

If you're having trouble commenting, try signing in to whatever account you're using first, then come back here once you're signed in.

<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?

My Photo
Location: Rhode Island, United States