Schilling on Clemens

[robinhoodnik]

Curt on Roger.

[asianinvasion]

I'd have to agree with Curt on this one. This should happen to all of the award winners that were in the Michell Report that can't clear their name. They should be stripped of all their awards when they took performance-enhancing drugs. Not all of that persons awards, just the one's that that person won while cheating.

[HoustonGM]

I usually enjoy and agree with what Curt writes, but this time, I don't.

Since when is the burden of proof on the accused? They shouldn't have to prove their innocent. It works the other way around. They have to be proven guilty.

And, I still don't think awards should be stripped or anything, even with proof of guilt. The entire game was dirty, and everybody in it - the guilty players, the writers that voted on the awards, the "clean" second place finishers, the front office, the Commissioner's office, etc. - was part of the problem.

I assume, if you strip the award, it'll go to the second-place finisher. My question is - why don't they have to prove their innocence? Just because they weren't accused? Just because they maybe went to more secretive dealers? Sorry, but I don't think anybody is above suspicion - even Schilling himself. While I have my opinions on who did and didn't use, steroid use was rampant enough in the MLB that anybody could have used, even players that are now parading themselves as crusaders against steroid use. Where were they when steroid use was at an all-time high? Why didn't they speak up and say there was a problem? It is completely unfair to force the accused to "prove their innocence", yet let everybody that hasn't been fingered by somebody else go free.

And, seriously, where does it end? Why is using steroids an offense worthy of removing awards, but popping amphetamine pills like candy isn't? You know, those things that were handed out for free in clubhouses for years and years? Those things that probably more people used than those that used steroids? Those things now banned by baseball? If the awards are removed from Clemens, Bonds, etc., the only fair and rational thing is to go back and have every award winner prove that they did not use any sort of now-illegal substance. Why do other druggies get a pass?

[dps]

Like HGM, I agree with Schilling on many occassions, but not this time.

[Reade]

Schilling likes to talk about other people, its about time he shuts is darn mouth. It really surprised me that he wasn't on mitchells list. He's a true blowhard, he should keep his nose out of other peoples business.

[Alloutwar]

As a sox fan, Schilling is a loudmouth...sometimes (rarely) its nice to have someone outspoken and communicative in print on his website/blog. But he is quite holier-than-thou about politics, religion, etc etc when he gets going, and I don't really need that.

There are enough columnists on Clemens case, pushing him about not responding and asking him to say something, NOW, to give us something to go on. It does seem like popular opinion has been decided, despite the lack of real proof, and despite the fact that this easily might have been 70% of players, not 1-2% that happened to be fingered by these 2 dudes.

Conversely - although I keep an open mind and want to hear his side of things, many others on that list have come out and apologized, admitted use, etc. - even ones that seemed like longshots for steroids, or whom the evidence was quite flimsy for, like Brian Roberts. So I can see people starting to feel a little more certain that the findings in the report have factual basis - but I don't think it was time for an attack like this. Giving up the trophies is tough, too, considering HGMs post above.

I think Schilling is just frustrated because Clemens was an idol of his, and instead of meeting with authorities or quickly disputing these findings, OR admitting the use as a msitake, he was silent and then denied everything. Schilling obviously thinks he is guilty and not man enough to admit it...but that may be entirely false, so you can't just call the person out like this.

[Reade]

I have no respect left for Schilling. He's run his mouth before and it got him in hot water, obviously he has no brains and has no control over his big mouth. Rogers problems are his own not anybody elses esp Schilling. And every reporter knows that given a chance Schilling will say something stupid about someone else and he usually has no facts or proof of what he's spouting.

[boomboom]

I have always thought that schilling used steriods. The thing is that when Schilling thou played for the phillies in the 90's, he was the best pitcher besides Kevin Brown and Greg Maddux in the NL. His W/L record doesn't show that, but that happens when you play for the losingness team in the history of all sports. I have no proof that Schilling uses, but was very surprised that he wasn't named. Also what I am very surprised is that less than 100 names named. And Brett Boone wasn't named. Have you seen pictures of Boone when he was a rookie in 93' with the M's. Then fastforward to 2001. Take a look. Before his breakout season in 01', he hit something like .250 with 20 homers for the Braves... I think boone started using in 99' or 98'. Also Cansaco named Boone in his infamous book.

[HoustonGM]

Also what I am very surprised is that less than 100 names named. And Brett Boone wasn't named.

That's because the only two people that Mitchell could get to talk were two people facing federal prosecution. Just think though. Obviously, there was more than two steroid dealers in the MLB. Two people got 80 players named....

On the award topic, Shysterball has a nice post. The last paragraph is something that I didn't even think about:

As for the records, Schilling strikes me as a man who reads history on occasion. He has to understand that you simply can't undo event A and expect events B, C, and D to have remained the same. Who were the "rightful winners" Curt? In 2001 the AL Cy Young runner-up was Mark Mulder. He wasn't in the Mitchell report, but half of his offensive and defensive support was. Is he legit? And while we're having this conversation, are you planning on returning your 1993 NL Championship ring because it was obtained with the help of Lenny Dykstra? Of course you're not, because playing the alternative history game is silly and ultimately leads us nowhere.

And that's just the thing. Baseball statistics, and thus, the awards, are affected by multiple players. Since steroid use was widespread, ALL the statistics were affected by it in one way or another. As Shyster says, a bunch of players on Mulder's team, scooping up groundballs for him and providing the offense to win games, used steroids. I think that is enough to disqualify Mulder. And then, the same thing goes for likely every other pitcher...so, viola, we have no award winners!

[ohms_law]

Exactly. Thank you! End of story, close the book.

[JayC]

That's because the only two people that Mitchell could get to talk were two people facing federal prosecution.

Yep, and just as important to remember is that those two people only worked for one team each. While they had some contact with players from other teams, it's completely to be expected that most of what they might know would involve players where they themselves were employed. That skewed the report, and in my opinion is why no names should have been dropped in that document. The other information on history, recommendations, etc., would still have been valid.

But because someone didn't get named means little more than it does that someone did get named.

Another interesting fact: I just read in a media-related magazine that both of those two people are shopping book proposals to publishers. Now, if you wanted to write a book about this topic, wouldn't it sell best if some really big names were in it?

[Robert]

You know, I don't read Curt Schillings blogs on his site, I could care less for them. However, I do love Curt Schillings pitching ability. He may not be the dominate pitcher he used to be, but 2004 playoffs made me a Curt Schilling fan for sure.

But about stripping people of their awards, etc. I believe Curt really didn't think about all that, and of course, now getting critizied heavily for it. But why do people even care about what Curt thinks? His opinion really isn't going to change the face of anything.

[Arctic Blast]

I like Schilling. I like guys LIKE Schilling. Most athletes are absolutely boring automatons. Interviews with them are utterly pointless, as they simple spew out the usual cliches like some sort of brainwashed droid. So when someone comes along that actually SAYS something, I tend to pay attention. And so does the media, who are ALSO sick and tired of the usual 'Troops from Dullsville', so of course they're going to focus on anybody who breaks from the mundane party line.

[sardins]

Ironic how Schilling and John Kruk have been recently vocal about their outrage. The '93 Phillies had a lot of players that suddenly became beefed up, the most obvious Lenny Dykstra. Look at his late 80's baseball cards and you see a 140 lb slap-hitter. In 1993 he was a beast. Even back then I was screaming at the TV that he was juiced up. Or how about the entire early 90s Astros suddenly looking like comic book characters (Caminiti, Finley, Gonzalez all putting up modest numbers like 12-15 HRs and then going to 30 to 40 overnight). How about the excuses from the non-power hitters that they wouldn't have any reason for steriods, like Ben Johnson or Marion Jones were weightlifters or something.

[HoustonGM]

Yeah really. Where was Schillings outrage when roided-up Dykstra helped him win a World Series? If Schilling wants Clemens to give up his Cy Young, he should give up his 1993 World Series ring.