Comments on: False positive? Parsing Pujols’s reaction to the fake report

By: coopdeville

coopdeville — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 20:15:41 +0000

Yo Pip
I don’t really agree with your last two posts, but kudos to you for having the stones to “call it like you see it.” Houston card must be from one of those households where you aren’t allowed to discuss religion or politics at the dinner table. That said, I always enjoy your site, and am glad to see a little debate here.
P.S.~ If a Dr. believes in the healing power of HGH for Ankiel’s recovery before it was even banned by MLB, how is it that anyone should fault him? INjecting a syringe full of bull testosterone into a butt cheek is one thing, taking HGH to speed recovery as administered by a Dr is another….
As for Albert; the “problem” in the game is bigger than him, how can you make him such a focus and pin your hopes for a brighter future so squarely on his shoulders? What about PED’s in the NFL? Remember that he has to spend 7 months out of the year with a group of men, and he has a responsability to fans and the franchise to be a leader that makes for a positive atmosphere as much by his actions as by his choices! Wouldn’t standing up with a bull-horn and playing “angel boy” elevate a better-than-thou feeling around his locker and otherwise take away from the team dynamic? Would it accomplish anything positive?
As for Jimmy, if the guy wants to spend his summer playing everyday in sunny San Diego to be around his family more often, he has more than earned the right to do so in my book. I live in L.A., grew up in the ‘Lou, and let me tell you, PETCO is a lot more accomodating to an aging centerfielder in the twilight of his career. If you were in his shoes, would you really not consider it? Does it have to be whining?

By: Pip

Pip — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 19:33:33 +0000

Okay, some specific responses:

I don’t see why Albert owes us an appology.

I don’t think I mentioned that he needs to apologize as he should merely quit insulting our intelligence. If he wants to apologize for treating fans contemptuously, so much the better.

Even if Albert went through voluntary and public drug testing, I’d have to imagine it would be frowned upon, if not blocked, by the union and perhaps the Cardinals organization and all of MLB.

If players want us to believe them and be taken seriously these days, they’re going to have to endure “being frowned upon.” Really, isn’t it the least they can do for the game? Besides, if so many people in the game think that using PEDs is bad, why would anyone want to block such behavior?

It woud put ballpayers in a position to prove their innocence, which is something that we traditionaly assume in this country.

Yes, I’m glad you used the word “traditionally” — that is, until or unless people do things to demonstrate that they’re not innocent. Like it or not, players (and owners) have created their own guilt by resisting efforts to reform their culture, and have certainly not done anything themselves to improve it. As a member of the MLBPA, Pujols is a signatory to everything the union has done to foster an environment in which PED use is rampant. This isn’t a question of “innocent until proven guilty” because they’ve already displayed their guilt, Pujols included.

By: Pip

Pip — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 19:19:08 +0000

Readers, both former and ongoing …

Obviously, when one takes a strong stand on an issue or two, people are going to be forced to choose a side because it requires that they, too, check their own feelings on the issues. You may disagree with me, but hopefully you can respect the point of view where I’m coming from.

I view fanship not unlike patriotism: A person can and should be loyal to his country, but that doesn’t mean sticking his head in the sand and blindly following. It’s a healthy part of patriotism to hold leaders accountable for their words and deeds.

I think I’ve built up enough credibility as someone who does give the team, at all levels, the benefit of the doubt (dare I say “optimist”?). So when I’m critical (or as a few of you would have it, “overly critical”), I think that my comments are not the rantings of pessimist but merely some intense opinions from a loyal fan who wants and expects the best for and from his team. If we as fans don’t hold our team to high standards, who will?

By: HoustonCardFan77095

HoustonCardFan77095 — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 18:58:37 +0000

Sorry but I can’t agree. I think your last 2 posts have been overly critical and unfair to Edmonds and Pujols… the kind of stuff I’d expect from a Cub fan, not a Cardinal’s blog site.

My link to your site is history dude.

By: maurerdj

maurerdj — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 16:54:56 +0000

Good article Pip, I like how you challenging us Cardinals fans. But don’t turn Bernie M. on us and become a constant pessimist.

By: Cardinal70

Cardinal70 — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 16:09:00 +0000

I kind of agree. I mean, I could have the Cardinal blinders on, but I don’t see a thing wrong with Pujols’s response. If you aren’t going to trust anyone, then it doesn’t matter what they say. If you aren’t going to trust the tests, because HGH can’t be tested for, then it doesn’t matter how often they get tested.

Has AP turned down a request for a drug test? Heck, for all we know, MLB IS testing him every day of the week.

I feel like I’m missing something here.

By: zubin

zubin — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 04:57:38 +0000

Whoa, Pip! I love your blog, but what is up with the venom of late?

I don’t think the media has much to appologize to Albert about as there was reason to suspect why he could be in the report, but I don’t see why Albert owes us an appology. Even if Albert went through voluntary and public drug testing, I’d have to imagine it would be frowned upon, if not blocked, by the union and perhaps the Cardinals organization and all of MLB. It woud put ballpayers in a position to prove their innocence, which is something that we traditionaly assume in this country.