Quote:
|
Originally Posted by JRutledge
The report lacks credibility because many of the names are listed did not speak to the entire scope of the problem and many names were mentioned were based on a conversation and not a failed test or a direct interaction. This would be like if there was an investigation on sports officials fixing games and someone referenced a conversation you had with them about a coach, player or team and then your name is listed without any corroboration or specifics to your wrong doing. I guarantee you or I would want think that would be wrong for your name to be mentioned simply on a conversation with a person that has an interest to save themselves from personal legal issues. And when you leave off the poster boys of this steroid era (which often is based on suspect evidence as well) then why mention names. Many of the players mentioned were not even good players or players that fit the description of a steroid user. I do not know if anyone ever saw David Segui, but he is smaller than I was in HS. The wind could blow and he would fall over and he is in the report as a steroid user.
Peace
|
So, you fall into the category of picking both.
Nothing happened since there was no testing, and nothing happened involving THESE players since many more (for which there was also no testing) were NOT named. It is a circular justification for denial.
The lack of hard evidence means the union could probably successfully fight any disciplining of players. But, if they do fight the kind of weak-kneed response that would be consistent for the pretend commissioner, there may be bigger trouble ahead.
If the union fights this, or if the pretend commissioner's response is too weak, Congress is just itching to wade into this. And, make no mistake, Congress will have no problem viewing the work of one of their own as being credible.