|
 |
|
|
December 03, 2004
Finished In New York
Wake up to this. Lost in the wash of the Bonds revelation this morning is the incredible beating Jason Giambi is taking in the New York papers today. He's on the front page of all the tabloids, and it seems like the only choices are between exile from Yankee Stadium and banishment from the Major Leagues: JASON GIAMBI is baseball's smoking gun. He is the Pete Rose of Generation S: Generation Steroid. Instead of an "NY" on his pinstripes, embroider a scarlet "S." Jason Scavone is already looking ahead to a Yankees lineup, sans "Giambi Juice." And you have to love this analogy from Sean McNally at Replacement Level Yankees: There's a scene in an old episode of The West Wing, where C.J. Cregg, the fictional press secretary compares the White House staff to Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid staring over the edge of a cliff worrying that they shouldn’t jump in the rapids below because they might drown.  Here's Mike Lupica: Giambi wasn't trying to be a hero. He was just making sure he didn't perjure himself. He did it by telling the truth, thinking the system would protect him, the way he had always been protected no matter what he was firing into his body. Then that body started breaking down. First it was patella tendinitis, which many experts consider to be a clear marker for steroid users. Then came the tumor last season on his pituitary gland, something else linked to steroid use. Or maybe the people at the Players Association think this is just another one of those crazy coincidences you get in life sometimes.  And finally, John Heyman in Newsday: Now that his production has withered to almost nothing as he's transitioned from the physique of a he-man to Pee-wee Herman (not from cutting fat out of his diet, it turns out), he should realize it behooves him to settle with the Yankees. Because he is done here. A former Yankees official predicted the bad publicity would overwhelm him because he's a "mental midget." Not that he's dumb, but he wilts under pressure. His grand jury testimony is Exhibit A. I've been having some informal conversations around the office today, and just about everybody has come to the same conclusion: to get better, MLB needs to shed itself of everyone involved, and that means happy trails to Giambi and all the rest. A lifetime ban, the players union be damned. Part of me doesn't believe it's really come to that. But how else could it have really ended?
Eric
03:21 PM
Trackback PingsTrackBack URL for this entry: Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Finished In New York:
» Muscles? What muscles? from Patio Pundit Tracked on December 4, 2004 12:21 PM CommentsThe problem is, if Giambi and one or two others get booted - and Bonds doesn't, then it's yet another baseball joke. As a Yankee fan, I expect Jason to not be part of the team next season at this point. You should hear the talk radio here...they were joking this morning that Giambi was being treated like Mohammed Atta, disturbingly enough. Posted by: at December 3, 2004 04:32 PM Hey kids, it's an OffWing Reader Challenge..! Special Sports Media Witch Hunt Edition..! Identify one source in any published news account of the steroid issue who fills one of these criteria: -- Believes that legal steroids ought to be, well, legal and/or medically supervised. -- Objects to the public leaking of sealed grand jury testimony. -- Draws a connection between outrage over steroids and drug war hysteria. -- Argues in defense of Giambi, Bonds or Jones. Bonus Search: -- Find one actual fan quoted in any published account who thinks there is no problem here. (Even by media “polls” there ought to be about one in five who hold that view). Posted by: at December 3, 2004 07:19 PM What if a fan makes a comment about the Grand Jury stuff? I've come across that ont eh World Wide Web on message forums. "Next time I hear the words sealed documents, I'm just going to laugh." Posted by: at December 3, 2004 08:51 PM Sally Jenkins, to her credit, takes a step back for a broader view: Still not quite there, though, in my view... Posted by: at December 4, 2004 01:24 AM Damn, I always like Giambi when he played for Oakland. He seemed to spiral out of control after he left, but he was probably using the super cream while he was here too. I just remember him going on local radio and saying over and over again "I always want to be an Oakland A", and "I will never leave". And then a few months later he was saying, "if only they made me a bigger contract offer at the start of the season, I would have been able to stay". F him. Posted by: at December 4, 2004 01:31 PM Jim -- Objections to the leaks are abundant. Read the stories again. Posted by: at December 5, 2004 08:04 PM Well, aside from the defending attorney, I can locate none. But, please, prove me wrong and provide a link -- that's what make the contest so fun! Just to issustrate the larger point, here's a terrific piece that takes a clear-eyed, balanced look at the steroid story: http://www.reason.com/0301/fe.dp.pumped.shtml Posted by: at December 5, 2004 11:29 PM Here ya go -- a few people with a direct interest in the story and at least one (Toensing) who does not: http://www.usatoday.com/sports/2004-12-05-media-prosecutors_x.htm Jenkins also famously ripped WADA chief Dick Pound during the Olympics, as mentioned elsewhere here. And here are a couple of fans defending Bonds: http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/2004-12-03-letter-bonds_x.htm (disclaimer: this Open Letter was my responsibility, so it sprung to mind rather easily). What do I win? Posted by: at December 6, 2004 11:50 AM There are five sources in that story. Three of them, Bronstein, McMasters and Dalglish come down in favor of the criminal leaking. Kevin Ryan, the prosecutor, objects -- as he is legally obliged to do. Toensing doesn't object, she analyzes it as two competing, sympathetic interets and notes that precedent favors the government. That after USA TODAY prefaces her remarks in scare quotes as the "other side." The rationale for gand jury secrecy, meanwhile, is nowhere described (just the procedure) -- although the paper informs us that what's "at stake" is "freedom of the press to publish information without government interference." The open letters seem to qualify, I guess -- were they published in the paper or on the paper's website? I hadn't seen them, so I'm glad you point them out, but doesn't the fact that they are hard to find underscore the whole exercise: that quotes from fans are hard to find? A better question is why wouldn't you just quote those fans in the actual article about the issue? The whole premise of the story is that the public is angry, is it not? Anyhow, if that's what passes for balance at USA TODAY, then the prize I suggest is strong Bloody Mary's -- we'll make yours with tomAto and mine with TOMaTO... Posted by: at December 6, 2004 10:07 PM Jim, I should suppose I should admire your tenacity. But you're essentially asking us to beat the bushes for people to espouse views that not many people have, then treat them as if they're equal to the mainstream views in this discussion. They're not. In other words, you're basically asking us to misrepresent the situation. (You're hardly alone -- plenty of bloggers and media critics do the same thing on many issues.) I actually did your point of view a big favor -- the mail was considerably more than 60 percent anti-Bonds, but I didn't want to leave that side out, and the two Bonds defenders wrote pretty well. Posted by: at December 7, 2004 02:05 PM Post a commentThanks for signing in, . (If you haven't left a comment here before, you may need to be approved by the site owner before your comment will appear. Until then, it won't appear on the entry. Thanks for waiting.) |
