Posted on 07/02/2002 10:13:29 AM PDT by marshmallow
Edited on 04/29/2004 2:00:47 AM PDT by Jim Robinson. [history]
It was a simple, straightforward question for Chicago Cubs bomber Sammy Sosa.
"You've said if baseball tests for steroids, you want to be first in line, right?" I asked him last Thursday at his Wrigley Field locker.
"Yes," Sosa replied.
"Well, why wait?" I said.
"What?"
(Excerpt) Read more at sportsillustrated.cnn.com ...
You need a doctor's prescription to have your OWN urine analyzed?
Jim Rome fits the term "BLOWHARD" to a T.
Well, because reporters don't have the right to order others what to do. Neither do we have the obligation to give some jerkoff a big scoop. Rick Reilly is trying to take Sosa down in order to make a name for himself. I wouldn't complain if Sosa had punched him in the face for what he did.
I wouldn't be surprised to know if a slugger like Sammy is "juicin'", but I can stand these little pencil-necked geek journalist and their clever, little ploys.
Of course, that is what they are paid to do and they do it well. I am sure that the writer of the piece wouldn't allow his employee to arbitrairily do drug test...this punk would be the first one on line...a phone line...to the ACLU, begging for defense and how this is a volation of his rights.
Yes. You need a dr's prescription to get your urine tested, your blood tested, or any other medical test.
It would be nice if it wasn't necessary, but that's the way it is now.
He was asking. Not ordering. As he made clear to Sammy.
Neither do we have the obligation to give some jerkoff a big scoop. Rick Reilly is trying to take Sosa down in order to make a name for himself. I wouldn't complain if Sosa had punched him in the face for what he did.
And if Clinton did the same thing to a journalist who was asking searching questions you'd scream blue murder.
When they're grilling people we dislike, they're good guys. When they're doing it to our heroes, they're jerks.
Apparently Sosa made the testing an issue himself by claiming to be first in line if the players voted for it. What's the harm in asking "why not just do it then Sammy?" Seems that Sammy was trying to play the good boy but knew that the players would never go for it so he'd never have to own up to his comments. Now someone asks about it and he looks like he's guilty of it because he won't get tested.
Professional baseball died many years ago after the last strike. Long may it rot.
God Save America (Please)
He was not asking. The moment he approached Sammy, Sammy knew it was a setup, and Rick Reilly was going to write the story whether Sammy cooperated or not. That Rick feigned a friendly tone to the whole thing is just BSing on his part.
And if Clinton did the same thing to a journalist who was asking searching questions you'd scream blue murder.
No I wouldn't. I have posted on FR more than once that I do not believe any reporter has the right to demand information from the president, his press secretary, or anyone else in the executive branch, other than that required to made public by federal law anyway. If they want to do so, that's fine, but journalists do not have special rights. Just because Helen Thomas has an assigned seat in the Briefing Room doesn't mean Ari Fleischer must answer her questions.
When they're grilling people we dislike, they're good guys. When they're doing it to our heroes, they're jerks.
Sammy Sosa is not my hero. My interest in baseball is marginal at best. I'm not sure I would even have been able to remember what team Sammy plays for if it wasn't printed in the article.
Once on campus, however, he used the access graciously afforded him by the administration to get some details about the campus and some other background information; he was fleshing out a story he had already nearly completed--one about how evil the school was, and the horrible things that went on there. He had interviewed a bunch of whiny kids who quit during the first year--of course none of them are going to say "Gee, it was just too tough for me"; they gave him all kinds of stories of things that supposedly had happened to them to make them quit. One kid said his company commander and XO had turned on the heat in his room and given him a "sweat party". Only problems with his story were:
1. His CO and XO were on leave when the supposed incident took place, and
2. The school hadn't turned the heat on yet (it was still September in Charleston, SC after all).
Needless to say, Reilly wrote a real hatchet job on the school, which lead to lots of local and regional media scrutiny, which in turn caught the attention of an obese, meddling young "lady" named Shannon Faulkner, who made destruction of the school's all-male admissions policy her raison d'etre.
Point being, from the episode I witnessed, Reilly is just a malcontent who likes to stir the pot, and never tackles a story without already having decided where it's going to end up.
I don't know what the writer was trying to do, and I don't care. Sammy says he'd be first in line to test for steroids. So why not test? What's stopping him? Nothing. How is asking that question trying to "take someone down." And if Sammy is using steroids, he deserves to go down.
I dunno...if it were me, I'd probably do it, screw the union. What could they do to Sammy, anyway?
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.