Yet another writer accuses Jose Bautista of PED use

29 Comments

Bob Frantz of the San Francisco Examiner wrote an odious little column today in which he accused Jose Bautista of using performance enhancing drugs.

Well, he didn’t directly accuse him of doing so. No, he’s far too savvy for that.  He merely wrote that “questions remain” regarding Bautista. Said that “normal men don’t go from 13 home runs as a part-time utility player one year to 52 home runs.” He merely suggested that Bautista submit to urine and blood tests and then have the results released to the public. He then blamed his suspicion and subtle character assassination on Jose Canseco, Rafael Palmiero, Roger Clemens and other people who presumably do not have editorial control over Frantz’s columns at the Examiner.

Of course, the fact that he blames Canseco et al, for his own cynical and evidence-free
suspicions of Bautista is intellectual dishonesty at its finest. He clearly suspects
Bautista of using PEDs. If he didn’t, he wouldn’t have been
inspired to write this piece. Well, he wouldn’t have unless the piece itself is a cynical exercise in filling column inches and stirring the pot by peddling crap that the author does not himself believe, but let’s save that for another time.

For now let us merely note that if Frantz has the guts to make an actual accusation, he should make it. To state, in plain language, that he doubts that Bautista’s accomplishments are genuine. To do otherwise — to make oblique reference to
the mere possibility that Bautista cheated and to blame
figures who haven’t played baseball for several years for “the questions
that remain” — is cowardly.
 
And that goes not only for Frantz, but for anyone who wishes to join in the increasingly popular pastime of trashing Jose Bautista. Ladies and gentlemen: if you have evidence, or even reasonable suspicion that Bautista — a
player who has had at least two PED tests this season — has used PEDs,
come out and say it.  If you don’t, please spare us your insinuations to
the contrary.

Ichiro was happy to see Pete Rose get defensive about his hits record

SAN DIEGO, CALIFORNIA - JUNE 14:  Ichiro Suzuki #51 of the Miami Marlins warms-up during batting practice before a baseball game against the San Diego Padres at PETCO Park on June 14, 2016 in San Diego, California.   (Photo by Denis Poroy/Getty Images)
16 Comments

You’ll recall the little controversy last month when Ichiro Suzuki passed Pete Rose’s hit total. Specifically, when Ichiro’s Japanese and American hit total reached Rose’s American total of 4,256 and a lot of people talked about Ichiro being the new “Hit King.” You’ll also recall that Rose himself got snippy about it, wondering if people would now think of him as “the Hit Queen,” which he took to be disrespect.

There’s a profile of Ichiro over at ESPN the Magazine and reporter Marly Rivera asked Ichiro about that. Ichiro’s comments were interesting and quite insightful about how ego and public perception work in the United States:

I was actually happy to see the Hit King get defensive. I kind of felt I was accepted. I heard that about five years ago Pete Rose did an interview, and he said that he wished that I could break that record. Obviously, this time around it was a different vibe. In the 16 years that I have been here, what I’ve noticed is that in America, when people feel like a person is below them, not just in numbers but in general, they will kind of talk you up. But then when you get up to the same level or maybe even higher, they get in attack mode; they are maybe not as supportive. I kind of felt that this time.

There’s a hell of a lot of truth to that. Whatever professional environment you’re in, you’ll see this play out. If you want to know how you’re doing, look at who your enemies and critics are. If they’re senior to you or better-established in your field, you’re probably doing something right. And they’re probably pretty insecure and maybe even a little afraid of you.

The rest of the article is well worth your time. Ichiro seems like a fascinating, insightful and intelligent dude.

There will be no criminal charges arising out of Curt Schilling’s video game debacle

Curt Schilling
10 Comments

In 2012 Curt Schilling’s video game company, 38 Studios, delivered the fantasy role-playing game it had spent millions of dollars and countless man hours trying to deliver. And then the company folded, leaving both its employees and Rhode Island taxpayers, who underwrote much of the company’s operations via $75 million in loans, holding the bag.

The fallout to 38 Studios’ demise was more than what you see in your average business debacle. Rhode Island accused Schilling and his company of acts tantamount to fraud, claiming that it accepted tax dollars while withholding information about the true state of the company’s finances. Former employees, meanwhile, claimed — quite credibly, according to reports of the matter — that they too were lured to Rhode Island believing that their jobs were far more secure than they were. Many found themselves in extreme states of crisis when Schilling abruptly closed the company’s doors. For his part, Schilling has assailed Rhode Island politicians for using him as a scapegoat and a political punching bag in order to distract the public from their own misdeeds. There seems to be truth to everyone’s claims to some degree.

As a result of all of this, there have been several investigations and lawsuits into 38 Studios’ collapse. In 2012 the feds investigated the company and declined to bring charges. There is currently a civil lawsuit afoot and, alongside it, the State of Rhode Island has investigated for four years to see if anyone could be charged with a crime. Today there was an unexpected press conference in which it was revealed that, no, no one associated with 38 Studios will be charged with anything:

An eight-page explanation of the decision concluded by saying that “the quantity and qualify of the evidence of any criminal activity fell short of what would be necessary to prove any allegation beyond a reasonable doubt and as such the Rules of Professional Conduct precluded even offering a criminal charge for grand jury consideration.”

Schilling will likely crow about this on his various social media platforms, claiming it totally vindicates him. But, as he is a close watcher of any and all events related to Hillary Clinton, he no doubt knows that a long investigation resulting in a declination to file charges due to lack of evidence is not the same thing as a vindication. Bad judgment and poor management are still bad things, even if they’re not criminal matters.

Someone let me know if Schilling’s head explodes if and when someone points that out to him.