sure, the Mitchell Report came out, but Barry's a poopy face!

by shikantaza on Dec 15, 2007 5:48 PM PST

Not that there isn't any truth to some of the things Stark says, but it's hilarious that he would devote an entire article on defining the distinction between Clemens and Bonds... it's a whole bunch of "Well, we know Coke is a cola, but what about this Pepsi stuff? Can... we... really... be... sure? I mean it tastes like cola, but I don't know!"

They've been concentrating on Barry for years. Now, a report comes out confirming what we all knew: a huge proportion of the league has been on PEDs. And the report gives us only a portion of the picture; more players were using than were named. So, what does Stark want to talk about? Barry! See? The situations are DIFFERENT! SEE? SEE???? BARRY BARRY BARRY!!!!

Fug em...

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/story?columnist=stark_jayson&id=3156189

This FanPost is reader-generated, and it does not necessarily reflect the views of McCovey Chronicles. If the author uses filler to achieve the minimum word requirement, a moderator may edit the FanPost for his or her own amusement.

Tweet Comment 13 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Re: sure, the Mitchell Report came out, but Barry'

I believe you misspelled "fuck."

by boonitez on Dec 15, 2007 5:40 PM PST reply actions

Re: sure, the Mitchell Report came out, but Barry'

I didn't want to make the baby Jesus cry

Psycho killer, qu'est-ce que c'est?

by shikantaza on Dec 15, 2007 7:44 PM PST up reply actions

Stark's a poopy face!

I got as far as "Clemens might be innocent because McNamee spoke and could be a liar while Bonds is guilty because Anderson didn't speak at all."

Ummm... alright. Couldn't go farther than that. A piece of my brain blew up just from reading that far. I'll never get that brain piece back. It might have controlled something important, too. I guess I'll find out later when I find I can't control my poo.

Or something.

Dave Righetti: You Know You Want It. / Also, my blog. For writers.

by howtheyscored on Dec 15, 2007 8:17 PM PST reply actions

Re: Stark's a poopy face!

since there isn't much else going on...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Jd1m3Zai97A

Psycho killer, qu'est-ce que c'est?

by shikantaza on Dec 15, 2007 8:37 PM PST up reply actions

Unbelievable

What's especially silly in all of this is that Andy Pettitte has admitted to using HGH, thus showing that McNamee was telling the truth for at least one of the players. How likely is it that he was lying about Clemens but telling the truth about Pettitte? Not that it was likely to begin with. I don't know if Stark wrote his article before this news broke, but it shows just how easily his convoluted arguments topple.

Only 972 games until the end of Zito's contract.

by thehavenot on Dec 15, 2007 8:37 PM PST reply actions

Re: Unbelievable

that was interesting to me too. Clemens and Pettitte have always been so close that when one signs the other follows to the same team, yet here Pettitte sold Clemens out to save his own image. I usually can't stand midget Mike Lupica, but I give him credit today for continuing to blast Andy Pettitte while the rest of the NY media are totally buying what he's selling, as they continue to bury Roger Clemens. I'm glad Clemens is now being exposed as the liar that he is, but I don't like to see the media and fans falling over backwards to protect guys who might have not used steroids and HGH to the extent that some of the others did. They're all in the same guilty boat.

Bring me a cleanup hitter please!!

by rxmeister on Dec 16, 2007 3:59 PM PST up reply actions

Re: sure, the Mitchell Report came out, but Barry'

Jayson Stark has always been a douche.

by Keano on Dec 15, 2007 10:14 PM PST reply actions

ESPN

is quite frankly the most unprofessional news organization to come about since Hearst took over The Examiner. They just ran a story on what kind of shape Michael Vick will be in during the jailing process and when he gets out.

They're just sick.

Pedro Feliz: Marginally better this year.

by SloIsLonelyForTheOrange on Dec 16, 2007 10:30 AM PST reply actions

Re: ESPN

+1, and it makes me throw up in my mouth when they try to cover tragedies. The death of Sean Taylor, 9/11, etc. They are pros at taking real life catastrophes and smearing them with phony congeniality.

Here's to Kemp, Loney, LaRoche, Hu, and Kershaw not panning out.

by Woody Wins on Dec 16, 2007 1:47 PM PST up reply actions

Re: ESPN

I hate the way they give themselves credit for "breaking news" that they have nothing to do with. The other night a San Diego paper broke that Fukudome signed with the Cubs, and then it was reported by WGN in Chicago. A full 30 minutes later you saw on ESPN News that some ESPN broadcaster is reporting that Fukudome has signed with the Cubs. Someone was goofing on them in the paper awhile back and they said, "ESPN is reporting that the sun rises in the east!!"

Bring me a cleanup hitter please!!

by rxmeister on Dec 16, 2007 4:05 PM PST up reply actions

Re: ESPN

That's because they are narcissistic enough to believe that all sports fans are tuned into ESPN at all times and therefore, if they posess information that they have not yet disclosed, it must be breaking news to their viewers.

I subscribed to ESPN Magazine a few years back and never cancelled. Nowadays I keep the subscription because the guys at work like to check the latest mag in the reading room -- and I'm good friends with my coworkers so I hook em up. That's really the only reason I haven't stopped getting the magazine. The stories they print are sickening. It's really irresponsible journalism if you ask me. I just know that half the crap they print is absolutely made up.

Here's to Kemp, Loney, LaRoche, Hu, and Kershaw not panning out.

by Woody Wins on Dec 17, 2007 11:03 AM PST up reply actions

Re: sure, the Mitchell Report came out, but Barry'

I don't have as many problems with Stark, though I'd love to see a new response post-Pettitte revelation.

I'd disagree with the column a lot, and suggest that we'd have more reasons to believe someone standing up to a prosecution rather than one caving in. But his points are solid enough, even if he's leaving out that Bonds was one of the first major names of this 'wave', whereas Clemens comes at the end of it, when people may simply be tired of hearing of it all.

SFDugout.com - Returning Offseason 2007

by BruteSentiment on Dec 16, 2007 6:04 PM PST reply actions

Re: sure, the Mitchell Report came out, but Barry'

His points aren't solid. They're not even points. They basically amount to: "Bonds is probably guilty because his trainer is more loyal than Clemens', who must be innocent.

by ololo3 on Dec 18, 2007 11:08 AM PST up reply actions