Friday, April 07, 2006

Plunked (Part II)

As I've already admitted, I don't normally read the comments to this blog. But one recent comment caught my attention. It was posted anonymously to my original Plunked post. The comment was very articulate and questioned my support of Barry Bonds given my past anger towards those that tarnish the integrity of the game. And I would have left it alone but the person went on to mention the Doc in the last sentence. That's when my suspicions called time and caused me to step out of the batter's box. Could this be the Doc again trying to coax me into a dialogue? After all, he's just trying to help me. And one of my many issues just happens to be . . . anger. What could it hurt to respond? Back into the batter's box--

Look, when it comes to Barry, I'd just rather deal in concrete facts rather than speculation, hearsay, rumor, or innuendo. That's all I meant.

And unfortunately, I seriously doubt whether Sen. Mitchell will be able to dig up many useful facts. He's already coming unglued with a number of potential conflicts (i.e. he's a director of the Boston Red Sox and the Chairman of The Walt Disney Company, the parent of ESPN).

Bonds has flat out denied using steriods and has never failed a drug test. I'm not ready to throw out his stats or put up an asterisk next to his name just because of some book or a grand jury transcript that was made public illegally. Bonds was not granted immunity for his grand jury testimony leaving him totally exposed to a perjury case if he lied under oath. Given his testimony and the fact that it's illegal to obtain steriods without a doctor's prescription, the Feds obviously didn't think they had a case for either perjury, or anything else, otherwise they would have indicted Barry by now. Therefore, one would have to believe that there just isn't enough conclusive evidence. And lest we forget, until you're proven guilty, you're presumed innocent.

But if he's ever found to be guilty of taking illegal performance-enhancing substances, then he will be forever disgraced and should be dealt with according to MLB steriod policy. Now whether that policy is too weak, that is for the pundits to argue. And whether Bud steps in to do something extraordinary will remain to be seen.

Oh and yes, the Doc has accused me of being in denial on more than one occasion. Perhaps this is just another one of those instances, but I don't think so.

ps: To those who post anonymously, perhaps you would consider using an alias so everyone can identify your comment with past comments and get a better flavor of where you are coming from when you post. Just a thought.

7 Comments:

Anonymous southwest brewer said...

funny that someone who doesn't read comments would request for anonymous posters to assume an alias. who could possibly believe you don't read the comments?

also, who would put the effort into a blog without reading the comments....nobody writes a blog if they don't want it to get noticed AND part of the rewarding part is comments because that's proof that you are getting noticed..... i certainly don't believe the "i don't read the comments" B.S.

3:05 AM  
Anonymous notyourdoc said...

Cutter -

This is the second time you've responded to one of my comments. I'll call myself "notyourdoc" here because, truly, I am not your doc.

As for that Michelin Man mascerading as the Giant's leftfielder, he has as much credibility on his steroid usage as President Bush on Iraq.

At some point, we all have to consider the obvious and draw a conclusion.

7:21 PM  
Blogger Cutter said...

Really, I don't normally read the comments. The Doc wanted me to get some things off my chest and that's been the whole premise of the blog...not me getting noticed. If I had zero people read it or 1,500/day, I'd continue writing just the same.

Although, I must admit I haven't done a good job of keeping my doctor's orders to open up. Thinking it through, I decided that maybe I should start to read them more often. That's why I threw in the alias idea. Maybe that's what I've been missing all along and why I haven't felt the blog doing much good for me. Perhaps on occasion I could respond to a few comments as sort of an extension to my treatment plan. On occasion, of course.

I mean look at notyourdoc. He drilled both Bonds and Bush with one single pitch. Whoa. He's really getting stuff off his chest both sportswise and politically. How efficient. Not a wasted movement. If only you could pitch that good on the mound? . . . Can you?

Anyhow I've never seen a scouting report compare a player to the Michelin Man but that's one I'll have to remember. I like it.

If I had a nickel . . .

9:37 AM  
Anonymous southwest brewer said...

whether this is for treatment or not, you should read the comments. i would bet they all say 1) this is a very interesting story, 2) more posts would be great, 3) most people wish they had a job like yours watching baseball and evaluating talent, and 4) many probably don't realize the long hours and lack of glamour involved in scouting. I try to figure out every weekend what guys are gonna get a shot at the next level (only because I'm at the game anyway), it's fun. You have one of the most interesting and probably toughest, grinds of a job possible (assuming you are a scout).

12:05 PM  
Anonymous notyourdoc said...

Cutter -

Maybe the doc suggested the blog because it would require reflection on your part, not just reportage.

On the mound, I was a junkballer without junk; a control artist with neither control, nor art. My fastball was confused with my change and my slider had as much bite as an octogenerian without dentures. I could, however, do perfect imitations of the pitching motions of Seaver, Koosman and Ryan.

2:28 PM  
Anonymous Anonymous said...

Dude's posting to himself.

5:35 PM  
Anonymous notyourdoc said...

If you mean that "notyourdoc" and Cutter are the same person, they are no more the same person than Jim McAndrew was the same pitcher as Tom Seaver.

9:40 PM  

Post a Comment

<< Home