Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
nj meadowlands

Wow... Curt Schilling needs to shut the **** up

Recommended Posts

i know, and he mentioned bonds too but im just saying that if he thinks that they should have their records taken away then it should be the same for everybody on that list because they were'nt the only 2 names, just the biggest 2 names.

I really dont feel like thats what Schilling was getting at here. 99 times out of 100 Schilling really does need to shut up, but this isnt one of those times to me. He wasnt saying "they are guilty" or "I hope they take away the CY Young awards," he was saying IF, then they should be taken away. But that can be said about anyone, for anything.

I do see what you're saying though. The only reason Clemens was brought up is because he's a Clemens fan. No different than anyone else who is a fan of someone else--he doesnt WANT Clemens to be guilty, but if he is then he should face consequences.

A good example would be Big Papi for myself, or any Sox fan. If Big Papi is ever proven to have done steroids, none of his #'s should ever count for anything. If the Red Sox were proven to have cheated to win either or both of their WS Championships, they should be removed. I obviously dont think thats the case for either one, but if they are, then there should be consequences.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You know what happens at school if everyone in a class is caught cheating? They all fail. You dont get to say "well everyone was cheating, so it balances out". Their performance was enhanced because they did it the wrong way.

So we should just wipe out an entire era of baseball. That's logical.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There you are, getting defensive because you think your boy is being attacked. If Roger is innocent, then he should sue and be compensated for it. If he doesnt do that, it speaks volumes. If I was accused of doing something I didnt do, which was a very big deal, I wouldnt just say "I didnt do it," I'd fight back those idiots that accused me of something wrongfully.

You're just attacking Schilling because you dont like him, and you're reading way too much into it. He was saying what should be the case for each and every one of us. He doesnt think Clemens has done anything, which is why he SHOULD get a great team together to fight back. If he doesnt though, and if he IS guilty, then he shouldnt have his CY Young awards since the accused date. Thats what he said, you just wanna make it into some huge deal because you dont like Schilling and because you love Clemens.

You have absolutely no problem saying the same sort of thing when it comes to Bonds, but you dont want to when it comes to your great hero Clemens.

Read the part where I said I don't give two ****s about Clemens. Then Schilling should be coming out and saying the EXACT SAME THING for every single player on that list, from Fernando Vina to Clemens. Why isn't he getting all up tight about Eric Gagne's records?

You're not getting it. You cannot sue as a public figure for slander/libel and expect to WIN unless you can physically can PROVE the contrary evidence. If you can come up with a way for Clemens to do that, then you should probably be on his legal team. If he doesn't sue, it just means that he doesn't have documents or tapes that show every waking moment of his life to prove he didn't do steroids. Clemens doesn't need to do anything, probably won't--as he can't anyway--and if it "speaks volumes" if he doesn't sue then you just don't understand the legal system.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really dont feel like thats what Schilling was getting at here. 99 times out of 100 Schilling really does need to shut up, but this isnt one of those times to me. He wasnt saying "they are guilty" or "I hope they take away the CY Young awards," he was saying IF, then they should be taken away. But that can be said about anyone, for anything.

I do see what you're saying though. The only reason Clemens was brought up is because he's a Clemens fan. No different than anyone else who is a fan of someone else--he doesnt WANT Clemens to be guilty, but if he is then he should face consequences.

A good example would be Big Papi for myself, or any Sox fan. If Big Papi is ever proven to have done steroids, none of his #'s should ever count for anything. If the Red Sox were proven to have cheated to win either or both of their WS Championships, they should be removed. I obviously dont think thats the case for either one, but if they are, then there should be consequences.

I agree with you. I like Roger and although I'm not going to defend him, I'm also not going to jump on the bandwagon of him being a steroid junkie until I have 100% factual evidence that he used them. But you're right if he is found guilty he should face the consequences for it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Schilling was critical of Bonds. I don't recall the outrage over those statements here on the board.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
So we should just wipe out an entire era of baseball. That's logical.

We really should.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No, it doesn't make it wrong. What makes this wrong is that the "whistle blower(s)" to the Mitchell investigation were involved with a few club houses and not all...that's what makes this thing wrong. If you're going to do an investigation of this importance, let's not leave some stones unturned...it's been all half ass.

It was just the tip of the iceberg. The report isnt a complete catalogue of HGH/roid use, nor does it claim to be. Clemens is the big fish named in the report, and it seems likely he was using. But Dirty Kurty is a douchenozzle to open up his trap about it. He broke ranks not only with his mentor, but with all the other players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Read the part where I said I don't give two ****s about Clemens. Then Schilling should be coming out and saying the EXACT SAME THING for every single player on that list, from Fernando Vina to Clemens. Why isn't he getting all up tight about Eric Gagne's records?

You're not getting it. You cannot sue as a public figure for slander/libel and expect to WIN unless you can physically can PROVE the contrary evidence. If you can come up with a way for Clemens to do that, then you should probably be on his legal team. If he doesn't sue, it just means that he doesn't have documents or tapes that show every waking moment of his life to prove he didn't do steroids. Clemens doesn't need to do anything, probably won't--as he can't anyway--and if it "speaks volumes" if he doesn't sue then you just don't understand the legal system.

Clemens was aware he was on the list when Mitchell gave him advance notice and invited him to contact him and explain/prove his innocence. Roger never took him up on that offer.

Now Roger best be carefull (if he did use roids) that he doesn't get subpeonaed and asked to explain the findings under the threat of perjury. Right now he can deny and say anything with no repurcussions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Clemens was aware he was on the list when Mitchell gave him advance notice and invited him to contact him and explain/prove his innocence. Roger never took him up on that offer.

Now Roger best be carefull (if he did use roids) that he doesn't get subpeonaed and asked to explain the findings under the threat of perjury. Right now he can deny and say anything with no repurcussions.

Yep.

Schilling is an arsehole but he called out Bonds and now Clemens.

041024_schilling_hmed_4p.hmedium.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hang on here. Is this the same Curt Shilling that invoked his 5th amendment right in front of congress when asked about steroids? The same guy who opted to go with the ever so candid Mark McGwire response? The same guy who refused an interview with Senator Mitchell when asked? **** him.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
First he needs some Blistex. Then, he needs to STFU.

Hey, Dirty Curty - I guess that whole "innocent until proven guilty" bit doesn't apply to Clemens, eh?

That being the case, I accuse you of being a AIDS-infected child molester and call on you to return your World Series rings until you prove otherwise.

**** you, you fat pile of ****.

Typical jealous Skankee fan thinking. :rl:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
CUrt can go **** himself after CC finishes polishing his knob

Dude, you slurp anything Red Sawx related....now run off and gargle some Veridouche

Red Sox ----> :sheepf: <--- JonE

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What an ungrateful douchebag. It's a known fact-Schilling's career turned on Clemens confronting him in a Houston gym and telling Fatty Curt that he was wasting his talent, to stop partying and start taking his career seriously. I'd acknowlege , Clemens almost certainly used, but if there's one person who might owe his career to Clemens, it's Schilling. To hit Clemens when he's down is just another classless act by a jerk. But fro Clemens, Schilling would be a bum on a barstool rather than a possible HoFer.

Same can be said about Clemens without the roids. Get real man.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I guess you guys missed the part where he said "he should put together a great team to clear his name"

and the part right before he says Roger should give up the Cy Youngs. The part that said if he cant, then he should.

Oh...I also find it funny that some of the people who say Bonds should get an asterisk(and they dont care about physical proof), are saying wait for Clemens. Thats a homer if I've ever seen one.

What a very intelligent post. You must NOT be a skankee fan. :biggrin:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Schilling was critical of Bonds. I don't recall the outrage over those statements here on the board.

pssst...that's because Bonds doesn't play for the Skanks. :biggrin:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Okay Curt, well, you played with steriod using Matt Williams in 2001 (D'Backs WS year), so does that mean you benefited possibly from a steriod user? I think so. So I guess you should be returning your rings now.

Oh and Curt, what about Gagne? Your teammate last season. Got anything to say about him? Of course not.

And Curt, arn't you the same guy a few years ago to say that half of MLB players take steroids and the other half think about taking them? Whose to say that you just havn't thought about it? There are far, far more steroid users than the 85 mentioned in Mitchell's report. You are probably one of them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The people callin g out Schilling in this thread really do not understand where he (and many other players who aren't vocalizing) are coming from.

Because baseball (and the players union included) have tried to sweep as much aas they can under the rug, not cooperate and look as everything as "in the past", EVERY player gets painted with the suspicious steroid drug.

And that is wrong.

Because of what Clemens, Bonds and others did, every accomplishment is viewed with skepticism. And that is just unfair.

And people want to villify Schilling because he vocalizes what he is feeling? We should wish that more players would do this, and not stand behind their guilty brethren.

I admire Schilling for his candor. I wish more players would be more vocal on this subject and castigate the guilty. It would bring sweeping reform much more quickly.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
The people callin g out Schilling in this thread really do not understand where he (and many other players who aren't vocalizing) are coming from.

Because baseball (and the players union included) have tried to sweep as much aas they can under the rug, not cooperate and look as everything as "in the past", EVERY player gets painted with the suspicious steroid drug.

And that is wrong.

Because of what Clemens, Bonds and others did, every accomplishment is viewed with skepticism. And that is just unfair.

And people want to villify Schilling because he vocalizes what he is feeling? We should wish that more players would do this, and not stand behind their guilty brethren.

I admire Schilling for his candor. I wish more players would be more vocal on this subject and castigate the guilty. It would bring sweeping reform much more quickly.

Scott, let me ask you something. Say you and I both used roids. You were listed in the Mitchell report because of some trainer in your locker room said you used them. Me, on the other hand are a user as well, the only thinkg is, Mitchell wasn't able to gain access to anyone in my locker room. Is that fair to you? This is the only thing I'm against in this entire report...it's from a select few locker rooms and not all 30 teams.

And to take it a step further, you know I'm a user and I'm flapping my gums criticizing the players who are listed in the report.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Scott, let me ask you something. Say you and I both used roids. You were listed in the Mitchell report because of some trainer in your locker room said you used them. Me, on the other hand are a user as well, the only thinkg is, Mitchell wasn't able to gain access to anyone in my locker room. Is that fair to you? This is the only thing I'm against in this entire report...it's from a select few locker rooms and not all 30 teams.

And to take it a step further, you know I'm a user and I'm flapping my gums criticizing the players who are listed in the report.

You are making an assumption that Schilling is a user here.

If he is, shame on him for being the hypocrite, and that will catch up with him.

We all know that the list supplied is not complete. But, the players union and others chose not to cooperate. The Union does a disservice to teh INNOCNT players, by standing behind teh guilty ones.

Totally unfair. Bravo to CS for steeping out from behind the curtain and vocalizing what should be said by clean players.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You are making an assumption that Schilling is a user here.

If he is, shame on him for being the hypocrite, and that will catch up with him.

We all know that the list supplied is not complete. But, the players union and others chose not to cooperate. The Union does a disservice to teh INNOCNT players, by standing behind teh guilty ones.

Totally unfair. Bravo to CS for steeping out from behind the curtain and vocalizing what should be said by clean players.

Exactly...I am assuming Schilling is guilty as well because I heard the same things about him a couple of years ago that I heard about Clemens.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Schilling was critical of Bonds. I don't recall the outrage over those statements here on the board.

Precisely

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
And people want to villify Schilling because he vocalizes what he is feeling? We should wish that more players would do this, and not stand behind their guilty brethren.

Really? Where was his vocalization skills when congress asked for them and he invoked his 5th amendment right at the advice of his lawyer? Where were those vocalization skills when he was asked to interview with Senator Mitchell and declined?

I admire Schilling for his candor. I wish more players would be more vocal on this subject and castigate the guilty. It would bring sweeping reform much more quickly.

Admire him for his candor? He didn't castigate the guilty. Are you so naive to think Schilling, the same Schilling that claimed 50% of MLB is using and the other 50% are thinking about it, has not seen plenty of players using? Where was his castigation when the law asked for it in the name of helping baseball? Where was his castigation when Senator Mitchell asked for it in the name of helping baseball? Curt Schilling i a bonafide A$$HOLE. He was an A$$HOLE for calling out Bonds and he is an A$$HOLE for calling out Clemens. Any player in the league is an A$$HOLE if they will cast jabs and blme in the media and yet will do nothing to help with the issue. Remember, Schilling is one of the players lead vocalists in the players union. Why was he not demanding change from his own union. Why did he sit by silently while Donald Fehr was vehemently against steroid testing. Like I said earlier............F#*# Curt Schilling.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Clemens was aware he was on the list when Mitchell gave him advance notice and invited him to contact him and explain/prove his innocence. Roger never took him up on that offer.

Now Roger best be carefull (if he did use roids) that he doesn't get subpeonaed and asked to explain the findings under the threat of perjury. Right now he can deny and say anything with no repurcussions.

How do you know Clemens knew the allegations about him when Mitchell contacted him? Here's what it says: "In order to provide Clemens with information about these allegations and to give him an opportunity to respond, I asked him to meet with me; he declined." Nothing in there about "I told Clemens everything and invited him to talk with me about the allegations." Not talking to Mitchell means NOTHING. Then how come Curt didn't talk to Mitchell?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
pssst...that's because Bonds doesn't play for the Skanks. :biggrin:

ppsssssst...Maybe that's because Bonds admitted he took steroids. Ever think about that? NO, it MUST be because Clemens played for the Yankees. :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Really? Where was his vocalization skills when congress asked for them and he invoked his 5th amendment right at the advice of his lawyer? Where were those vocalization skills when he was asked to interview with Senator Mitchell and declined?

Admire him for his candor? He didn't castigate the guilty. Are you so naive to think Schilling, the same Schilling that claimed 50% of MLB is using and the other 50% are thinking about it, has not seen plenty of players using? Where was his castigation when the law asked for it in the name of helping baseball? Where was his castigation when Senator Mitchell asked for it in the name of helping baseball? Curt Schilling i a bonafide A$$HOLE. He was an A$$HOLE for calling out Bonds and he is an A$$HOLE for calling out Clemens. Any player in the league is an A$$HOLE if they will cast jabs and blme in the media and yet will do nothing to help with the issue. Remember, Schilling is one of the players lead vocalists in the players union. Why was he not demanding change from his own union. Why did he sit by silently while Donald Fehr was vehemently against steroid testing. Like I said earlier............F#*# Curt Schilling.

I think it's pretty funny that every Red Sox fan here is saying we're only defending Roger Clemens because he was a Yankee when all they're doing, and all Curt Schilling did, was come out against him because he was a Yankee.

Also that's a good point about Congress. Completely forgot about that. Makes you wonder when he opens his ****ing mouth about every other thing.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Name one time in his career he has shut up? He has been sticking his giant fat head in the spotlight for as long as he could.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Name one time in his career he has shut up? He has been sticking his giant fat head in the spotlight for as long as he could.

Curt Schilling also does a lot for the community and his charitable work is tireless.

I would much rather listen to him, than Joba Chamberlain tell us how Clemens should be judged on his performance through the years. WTF is that?

If you fans just want to hear the same storyline repeated by players over and over again, fine, be ostriches and stick your head in the sand.

I find Schilling refreshing and candid. Even if I may not agree with what he says. At least it is not the corporate line which the players union likes yo to toe.

Joba Chamberlain and his view on Clemens? WTF?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Curt Schilling also does a lot for the community and his charitable work is tireless.

I would much rather listen to him, than Joba Chamberlain tell us how Clemens should be judged on his performance through the years. WTF is that?

If you fans just want to hear the same storyline repeated by players over and over again, fine, be ostriches and stick your head in the sand.

I find Schilling refreshing and candid. Even if I may not agree with what he says. At least it is not the corporate line which the players union likes yo to toe.

Joba Chamberlain and his view on Clemens? WTF?

Ah yes, so since Curt Schilling has done so much charitable work he can say whatever the **** he wants?

What is wrong with Joba Chamberlain's view on Clemens? He's saying Clemens should be judged on his performance alone until there is even some tangible evidence, which is exactly correct.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Ah yes, so since Curt Schilling has done so much charitable work he can say whatever the **** he wants?

What is wrong with Joba Chamberlain's view on Clemens? He's saying Clemens should be judged on his performance alone until there is even some tangible evidence, which is exactly correct.

In America, yes. i wish more athletes responsibly did so. It would make them worth litening to.

Tangible evidence? Tangible evidence? I think there is plenty. Radomski has not come of as discreditable, with some of the other admissions.

Shall we review the Clemens timelines that have been presented as far as use. And the results after?

How does a pitcher regain speed to his fastball in his mid to late 30's? Magic beans?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Really? Where was his vocalization skills when congress asked for them and he invoked his 5th amendment right at the advice of his lawyer? Where were those vocalization skills when he was asked to interview with Senator Mitchell and declined?

Admire him for his candor? He didn't castigate the guilty. Are you so naive to think Schilling, the same Schilling that claimed 50% of MLB is using and the other 50% are thinking about it, has not seen plenty of players using? Where was his castigation when the law asked for it in the name of helping baseball? Where was his castigation when Senator Mitchell asked for it in the name of helping baseball? Curt Schilling i a bonafide A$$HOLE. He was an A$$HOLE for calling out Bonds and he is an A$$HOLE for calling out Clemens. Any player in the league is an A$$HOLE if they will cast jabs and blme in the media and yet will do nothing to help with the issue. Remember, Schilling is one of the players lead vocalists in the players union. Why was he not demanding change from his own union. Why did he sit by silently while Donald Fehr was vehemently against steroid testing. Like I said earlier............F#*# Curt Schilling.

Eagerly awaiting your response Mr Dierking.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Eagerly awaiting your response Mr Dierking.

Boozer-I am not going to defend everything Curt Schilling says or does. Even moreso, I cannot sneak into his mind and try to understand what he is thinking or how it is processed.

Moreso to teh point, why did Roger Clemens deny talking to Mitchell when he had teh opportunity, when he fully knew that his name was on the report?

If you are going to attack Schilling for not talking, how about looking at the player that has been accused? If he has been so vociferous in his innocence AFTER the report was issued, why did he not try and clear his name earlier?

Where there is smoke, there is fire.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Boozer-I am not going to defend everything Curt Schilling says or does. Even moreso, I cannot sneak into his mind and try to understand what he is thinking or how it is processed.

Moreso to teh point, why did Roger Clemens deny talking to Mitchell when he had teh opportunity, when he fully knew that his name was on the report?

If you are going to attack Schilling for not talking, how about looking at the player that has been accused? If he has been so vociferous in his innocence AFTER the report was issued, why did he not try and clear his name earlier?

Where there is smoke, there is fire.

I am in no way defending Roger. I have stated numerous times that I think he did it and deserves every bit as much backlash as Barry Bonds. I'm just really impressed how you use Curt Schilling as your starring example of what's right about baseball, yet you have no excuse for his behavior when asked to help clean it up. So, in other words, what you are REALLY saying is you are going to pontificate about how great it is that Schilling speaks behind the veil of his blog but would rather not try to get into what he's thinking when it comes to how he really acts on the subject.

Any player who has anything to say about the issue now after declining to speak to congress or Mr Mitchell is as big a douchebag as the players that are using. 'Shill'ing leads the pack in that department.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I am in no way defending Roger. I have stated numerous times that I think he did it and deserves every bit as much backlash as Barry Bonds. I'm just really impressed how you use Curt Schilling as your starring example of what's right about baseball, yet you have no excuse for his behavior when asked to help clean it up. So, in other words, what you are REALLY saying is you are going to pontificate about how great it is that Schilling speaks behind the veil of his blog but would rather not try to get into what he's thinking when it comes to how he really acts on the subject.

Any player who has anything to say about the issue now after declining to speak to congress or Mr Mitchell is as big a douchebag as the players that are using. 'Shill'ing leads the pack in that department.

Wow, have you put words in my mouth.

What I like about Schilling is that what he has to say at times is refreshing. It goes agaiisnt the automaton quote machines that 95% of teh players are under. For teh majority of them, to go and say something against a fellow union guy is forbidden.

Does that mean I agree with everything he says? No. Does it mean Schilling doesn't grandstand? Of course not.

But it is my view that if MORE players become outspoken on the subject, it may actually cause the players union to yield in its "protect the guilty at all costs" mode.

THAT is the true problem here. And if more players can become outspoken against what has been a union shield, I think it will be a much better sport.

That is where I am coming from. Not a Curt Schilling agenda. I wish people the ilk of Albert Pujols or Jose Oquendo would do the same. I would applaud them as much.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ESPN.com news services

Updated: December 21, 2007, 1:16 PM ET

Two of Roger Clemens' teammates on the New York Yankees defended the embattled pitcher on Thursday, the same day his lawyer unleashed another attack on media reports linking the seven-time Cy Young Award winner with the use of performance-enhancing drugs.

Yankees captain Derek Jeter, speaking with reporters on Thursday before a holiday event for his charitable foundation, said the public should not rush to judgment on Clemens, who was named in the Mitchell report by his former strength trainer as having taken steroids and human growth hormone starting in the late 1990s.

"Seems like now people are rushing to judgment and I think you have to let it play out a little bit before you make your decision on whether he's guilty or not," Jeter said.

Asked if he stands by Clemens, Jeter said "Yeah. Rocket's always been a great teammate. I've said that time in and time out, that he's a great teammate. I didn't like him too much when I played against him because he has always been very competitive. But he's always been a great teammate."

Yankees reliever Joba Chamberlain, who had the locker next to Clemens last season in the Yankees clubhouse, also defended Clemens on Thursday.

"It's a question that's going to be brought up for a long time, but the man has been successful for so long, he's obviously doing something right," Chamberlain said during a visit to children undergoing treatment at Sloan-Kettering Cancer Center in New York. "His work ethic has been shown, he does what he does, and he does it for a reason. He's been successful and that's why."

Meanwhile, Clemens' attorney, Rusty Hardin, blasted the media Thursday when it was revealed that a 2006 Los Angeles Times report linking Clemens to an affidavit listing several players alleged to have used performance-enhancing drugs was inaccurate. Clemens' name did not appear in the document, as was previously reported.

"When this grossly inaccurate story broke in October 2006, Roger said it was untrue and the Los Angeles Times chose not to believe him. As the record now clearly proves, Roger was telling the truth then, just as he continues to tell the truth today," Hardin said.

"Roger Clemens did not take steroids, and anybody who says he did had better start looking for a hell of a good lawyer."

Chamberlain said Clemens was a big influence on him in the clubhouse -- and that he'll be missed if he does not return next season.

"The work ethic the guys see makes them push themselves, but he's also a big kid when it comes down to it," Chamberlain said. "He's a funny guy, he keeps it light and knows how to switch gears between being serious and knowing when to go to work."

Former Yankees reliever Goose Gossage, though, was highly critical of Clemens, saying the Cy Young awards Clemens won in 1997, '98 and 2001 should be taken away.

"If Roger cheated, what do the numbers mean? They mean nothing," Gossage told the Bergen Record on Thursday. "Roger has always been a production, everything he's done has been a production. He's always wanted the attention. He's probably getting a lot more attention now than he ever wanted.

"With Clemens, you just shake your head and wonder how it all happened, how it came to this. I mean, why didn't the Red Sox re-sign him [after the 1996 season]? All of a sudden his numbers started getting crazy when he was supposed to be getting older.

"There's no way [those post-1996 Cy Young awards] can stand."

Jeter also said he has recently spoken with Andy Pettitte, who has acknowledged using HGH to recover from elbow injuries. Pettitte is a close friend of Clemens and used the same strength trainer, Brian McNamee.

"Me and Andy have had a great relationship throughout the years, whether he's here in New York or he's in Houston," Jeter said. "I've talked to Andy, Andy knows how I feel about him, he knows how we feel about him as an organization. It took a lot of courage for him to come out and be honest about it and hopefully he can move on."

After the affidavit was unsealed Thursday and the actual names were revealed, the Times apologized.

"We regret our report was inaccurate and will run a correction," Times spokesman Stephan Pechdimaldji said Thursday.

The correction, published Friday, said that the Times incorrectly reported that "an investigator alleged that pitcher Jason Grimsley named former teammates Roger Clemens, Andy Pettitte, Brian Roberts and Jay Gibbons as players linked to performance-enhancing drugs. In the affidavit, which was unsealed Thursday, Grimsley did not name those players."

The Times also said the report inaccurately reported that Grimsley had alleged Tejada had used steroids. "The only mention of Tejada in the affidavit was as part of a conversation with teammates about baseball's ban of amphetamines," the correction said.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please sign in to comment

You will be able to leave a comment after signing in



Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  



Content Partnership

Yes Network

Site Sponsor

MILE-Social - NJ Social Media & SEO company
×
×
  • Create New...