A-Rod’s lawyer, Joe Tacopina, went on ESPN radio yesterday and reminded people that his client is not the first one to be linked to PEDs:
Of course this is a reference to David Ortiz.
A lot of people are trying to make this comment out as uber-controversial or a “shots fired” moment or something, but that seems silly to me. It’s been nearly five years since Ortiz was reported by the New York Times to have tested positive for PEDs during the 2003 survey testing. He claimed surprise and innocence at the time and made noises about wanting to get down to the bottom of it all, but we never really did get down to the bottom of it.
I have no idea what caused David Ortiz to test positive in 2003, but (a) the union has a list of all of the people who tested positive on that survey testing and if he were wrongfully reported to be on it, they would have corrected it years ago; and (b) regardless, no excuses or explanations like the one Ortiz gave has ever been accepted at face value by the sporting press or most fans. So for anyone to claim now that accusing Ortiz of PED use is somehow controversial or out of bounds is ridiculous. It’s about wanting to slam A-Rod and Tacopina, not about actually being offended at such an allegedly provocative comment.
And, of course, there is a lot of truth to what Tacopina was getting at. While his client is and perhaps always will be a pariah, a lot of guys with PED use in their past are not, and it’s rarely if ever about drugs they took as opposed to whether they were well-liked before or whether they had the nerve to try to defend themselves in a strenuous way.
People like David Ortiz and Andy Pettitte. People hate A-Rod and Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens. I totally understand why and don’t begrudge those differences of opinion at all. But let’s not pretend that Tacopina said something shocking yesterday.
This was inevitable: The Republican National Committee published a ridiculously detailed and self-serious opposition-research report accusing Hillary Clinton of being a “bandwagon” Cubs fan.
If you’re of a certain age you’ll recall that Clinton, who grew up in the Chicago suburbs, spoke about being a Cubs fan as a kid. You’ll also recall that when she was running for her senate seat in New York, she gave shoutouts to a heretofore unheard of Yankees fandom. A lot of people have had fun with this at various times — we’ve mentioned it here on multiple occasiosn — but I wasn’t aware that anyone considered it an actually substantive political issue as opposed to an amusing “politicians, man” kind of thing.
The Republicans think it’s serious, though. Indeed, there’s more detail to this oppo-hit than there is any of the party’s candidate’s position papers. And while someone could, theoretically, have a lot of fun with this kind of material, the opposition report is not even remotely tongue-in-cheek. It reads like a poisition paper on nuclear proliferation. If the GOP had been this serious about vetting its own candidate, I suspect they wouldn’t be in the position they’re in today.
As for the substance: eh, who cares? Sports is entertainment and cultural glue. As a kid in Chicago, being a Cubs fan is both fun and makes some sense. As a senator from New York in the early 2000s, you’re gonna get to go to some Yankees games and sit in some good seats and that’s fun too. And, of course, politicians are going to say opportunistic things in order to attempt to connect with their constituents. Think of that what you will, but if you think of that as something which reveals something deep and dark within their soul about what kind of person they are, you probably need to step away from the cable news for a while and get some fresh air. Or you probably need to admit that you already believed the worse about her and that this is just an exercise in confirmation bias.
Heck, at this point I almost hope she finds a third or fourth team to rot for. Indeed, I hope she makes a comic heel turn, puts on a Chief Wahoo hat for tonight’s game and claims that, deep, deep down, she had always rooted for the Indians. Then even I could get on her case about it. And we could all talk about how, in her own way, Hillary was really bringing the nation together.
Back in July, then-Brewers catcher Jonathan Lucroy vetoed a trade that would have sent him to the Indians, helping the club make a significant upgrade behind the plate after losing Yan Gomes to an injury. At the time, Roberto Perez had only played in 11 games, batting .043. Gomes had hit .165 before his injury, and Chris Gimenez batted .202 over 42 games. It was not much of a logical leap to think the Indians would eventually falter due to a lack of production at the catching position.
But here the Indians are in the World Series facing the Cubs. In Game 1 on Tuesday night, Perez — who finished the season with a .183 average and three home runs in 184 plate appearances — drilled a pair of home runs, accounting for four of the six runs the Indians would score in a shutout win over the Cubs.
Perez’s first blast was a solo that that just cleared the left field fence at Progressive Field, coming on an 0-1 fastball from starter Jon Lester. That padded the Indians’ lead to 3-0.
The second homer put the game away, as he punished reliever Hector Rondon for hanging a 2-2 slider with two runners on base, slugging this one enough to clear the left field fence by plenty. That doubled the Indians’ lead to 6-0, the score by which they would eventually win.
Perez is the first catcher to homer twice in a World Series game since Gary Carter did it for the Mets against the Red Sox in the 1986 World Series. Perez is the first Indian to homer twice in the same playoff game since Jim Thome in the 1999 ALDS against the Red Sox.