Sign in to follow this  
jkrdevil

Game 2 controversy

Recommended Posts

The only thing that sticks out in my mind about Rogers and this situation is that he hasnt exactly been a model citizen. Hes done some pretty shady stuff in the past, whos to say he wasnt trying to pull a fast one on this one?

And im not necessarily saying thats what i believe, im just playing the Devil's Advocate.

I'd like to give Rogers the benefit of the doubt, and I think if it was truly illegal something more would have been done. However I agree with Bucfan in that Rogers has been pretty shady in the past and after seeing his demeanor in the dugout in the 9th last night this guy hates to lose almost to an extreme so it wouldn't suprise me if he was trying to pull something. That being said, game 2 is over its 1-1 lets move on to game three.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest

I'm thinking Weaver must have been cheating too. If La Russa and his team had nothing to hide when Leyland would inevitably scrutinize everything in retaliation, Rogers would've been gone.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm thinking Weaver must have been cheating too. If La Russa and his team had nothing to hide when Leyland would inevitably scrutinize everything in retaliation, Rogers would've been gone.

Good point. I never even thought of that possibility.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Let's not forget that this is a 41-year-old pitcher who coming into this postseason was statistically going by ERA the worst post-season pitcher in the history of baseball. Now he suddenly does something that only Christy Mathewson, a hall a famer who pitched in the dead ball era, does. I find that highly suspicious.

My guess is in the last year or two as he gotten older he picked up the pine tar trick and many older pitchers pick up tricks like this as they get old. He may have used it off an on. This last game of the year he comes in relief without it and gets bombed by the Royals. Seeing that this postseason is probably the last chance to redeem his career he goes to the pine tar for the playoffs. If he had a bad postseason this year he's remembered as the guy who gave up 6 runs against the Braves in the World Series and needed Jim Leyritz to bail him out, the guy who walked in the series winning run in the 99 NLCS, and the guy who putched a camera man. So he goes to the pine tar for a better grip and better control, something that he hasn't had in big games. It worked and thus he stayed with it.

This is the same kind of logic that crucified Barry Bonds for steroid use w/o having hard evidence.

Rogers, like Bonds, may be guilty, but can you prove it? No.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm thinking Weaver must have been cheating too. If La Russa and his team had nothing to hide when Leyland would inevitably scrutinize everything in retaliation, Rogers would've been gone.

Good point. I never even thought of that possibility.

I believe I read Dan Patrick mentioned this on his show as a possibility. You can't rule it out. Especially with the statements now coming out that "most" pitchers use the stuff.

I dunno. Weaver didn't do anything suspiscious, but maybe.

TLR said today that he knew Rogers was cheating but didn't want him thrown out. He wanted him to stop cheating and play fair.

Not how I would have handled it, but I can respect that.

That said, the umps did not do their job. TLR doesn't have to call for the inspection. If they notice it, they should inspect it. They did not. Also, Rogers didn't stop cheating as the substance remained partially on his hand and on his hat.

Oh well. I'm caring less and less, but the MLB is making themselves look bad in their coverup efforts. At least be upfront and say there's a chance but they just can't draw that conclusion or something. Instead they're acting like all their stories add up and that there is a 90% chance it's dirt.

RC, I think the numerous members who have posted similar thoughts to mine but have no connection to the Cards proves this isn't a case of blind homerism. Rather, it's a case of common sense and evidence. Might not hold up in the court of law, but for the MLB's sake, the evidence is there.

At this point, I plan on continuing to give Rogers crap for being a cheater, but my focus shifts to game three.

Let's not forget that this is a 41-year-old pitcher who coming into this postseason was statistically going by ERA the worst post-season pitcher in the history of baseball. Now he suddenly does something that only Christy Mathewson, a hall a famer who pitched in the dead ball era, does. I find that highly suspicious.

My guess is in the last year or two as he gotten older he picked up the pine tar trick and many older pitchers pick up tricks like this as they get old. He may have used it off an on. This last game of the year he comes in relief without it and gets bombed by the Royals. Seeing that this postseason is probably the last chance to redeem his career he goes to the pine tar for the playoffs. If he had a bad postseason this year he's remembered as the guy who gave up 6 runs against the Braves in the World Series and needed Jim Leyritz to bail him out, the guy who walked in the series winning run in the 99 NLCS, and the guy who putched a camera man. So he goes to the pine tar for a better grip and better control, something that he hasn't had in big games. It worked and thus he stayed with it.

This is the same kind of logic that crucified Barry Bonds for steroid use w/o having hard evidence.

Rogers, like Bonds, may be guilty, but can you prove it? No.

See, I think you probably can. Not everything has to be proven with hard science. I don't actually know ALL the evidence against Bonds and how legit it is, but from what I read, there is a ton. This is a ton against Rogers. Do we have a drug test on Bonds? No. Do we have a sample of the crap on Rogers hand? No. But if everything else points towards guilt, why does that have to be there (especially when we are not talking about the US Court system)?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm thinking Weaver must have been cheating too. If La Russa and his team had nothing to hide when Leyland would inevitably scrutinize everything in retaliation, Rogers would've been gone.

Fat lot of good it did him if that's the case... <_<

I do think he cheated at least at first, but ultimately I doubt it would have affected much-before the 9th, the Cardinals couldn't have hit off a little league pitcher.

Anyway, I'll take the split in Detroit and look forward to Game 3.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See, I think you probably can. Not everything has to be proven with hard science. I don't actually know ALL the evidence against Bonds and how legit it is, but from what I read, there is a ton. This is a ton against Rogers. Do we have a drug test on Bonds? No. Do we have a sample of the crap on Rogers hand? No. But if everything else points towards guilt, why does that have to be there (especially when we are not talking about the US Court system)?

like mark mcgwire?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's see Rogers pitch Game 6 and wash his hands before the game. Maybe he'll get rocked like he did as a Yankee!

Need we remind you that Rogers' worst inning in game 2 was the only inning in which he had that substance on his hand?

Once it was gone, he dominated (6 no-hit innings before giving up a single in the top of the 8th)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Let's see Rogers pitch Game 6 and wash his hands before the game. Maybe he'll get rocked like he did as a Yankee!

I'd simply prefer to win all 3 home games and eliminate the need for a Game 6.

Hey, a guy can have hope, can't he?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I would like to just bring up one more point.

MLB has a precedent of not accepting the use of instant replay. So, by their own policies, even if they feel that the evidence provided by FOX proved that Rogers had an illegal substance on his hand, they couldn't use it to hand out disciplinary action. The only footage that they review stems directly from an ejection handed out by an umpire, most often determining who was involved in a brawl, as the bedlam that insues can make it impossible for an umpire to identify the combatants. However, in this case, the umpires did not feel the need to inspect the hand, nor did La Russa demand inspection. Going back to the tape here would break precedent. I do not approve of this, as if they can prove through video (which I have yet to see) that something without a shadow of a doubt was illegal, then they're essentially opening the door for the video challenges of missed calls, as it could be argued that this was a blown call by not inspecting the hand, thus further removing the human element of the game.

What does worry me, although it probably won't happen, is that if this video footage is used to hand out disciplinary action, it could give the networks ammo to slightly doctor footage from past games in order to add a storyline to an undesirable playoff matchup, since it appears that they're trying to spur interest in a midwest series with a "dirtgate" storyline.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See, I think you probably can. Not everything has to be proven with hard science. I don't actually know ALL the evidence against Bonds and how legit it is, but from what I read, there is a ton. This is a ton against Rogers. Do we have a drug test on Bonds? No. Do we have a sample of the crap on Rogers hand? No. But if everything else points towards guilt, why does that have to be there (especially when we are not talking about the US Court system)?

like mark mcgwire?

No. Nobody's investigated Mac to the point where there is that much evidence. There's only enough evidence against Mac to call for a further investigation, not to call for an assumption of guilt.

But if everyone wants to act like they're the same and dismiss everything I say as a homer, well, to each his own, but that's weak.

Let's see Rogers pitch Game 6 and wash his hands before the game. Maybe he'll get rocked like he did as a Yankee!

Need we remind you that Rogers' worst inning in game 2 was the only inning in which he had that substance on his hand?

Once it was gone, he dominated (6 no-hit innings before giving up a single in the top of the 8th)

Need I remind you that the substance remained on his hand and hat throughout the game?

Yes, most of it was gone, but pine tar or most other substances like that would remain sticky and have to be scrubbed hard to get completely off. There was clearly still some residue left.

Also, it was on the back of his hat and he touched that pretty much before every pitch.

His actions indicate he may have had it in his glove too, but that's far more speculative.

While I do wonder if the game would have been different if he hadn't used it, that's not what I'm arguing for. I'm just arguing that he cheated, and I'm getting tired of the argument that he pitched better with it off than with it on, because whatever it was, he had it all night. (Even if it was dirt, he kept using dirt from the back of his hat.)

I would like to just bring up one more point.

MLB has a precedent of not accepting the use of instant replay. So, by their own policies, even if they feel that the evidence provided by FOX proved that Rogers had an illegal substance on his hand, they couldn't use it to hand out disciplinary action. The only footage that they review stems directly from an ejection handed out by an umpire, most often determining who was involved in a brawl, as the bedlam that insues can make it impossible for an umpire to identify the combatants. However, in this case, the umpires did not feel the need to inspect the hand, nor did La Russa demand inspection. Going back to the tape here would break precedent. I do not approve of this, as if they can prove through video (which I have yet to see) that something without a shadow of a doubt was illegal, then they're essentially opening the door for the video challenges of missed calls, as it could be argued that this was a blown call by not inspecting the hand, thus further removing the human element of the game.

What does worry me, although it probably won't happen, is that if this video footage is used to hand out disciplinary action, it could give the networks ammo to slightly doctor footage from past games in order to add a storyline to an undesirable playoff matchup, since it appears that they're trying to spur interest in a midwest series with a "dirtgate" storyline.

I have trouble believing the MLB never uses replay to hand out suspensions. Even in one on one easy to indentify brawls, I'd very much bet the MLB uses replay to review just exactly what happened.

This would be no different, and it was brought up during the game.

At the best, the umps used poor judgement. If the umps were aware something was on Rogers hand (and that is without question), to do their job to the best of their abilities, they should inspect the hand. All they did was say, something's on your hand, go wash it off. If they knew something was there, they needed to inspect it, period.

La Russa could have complained and made them inspect it, but it didn't. I wish he would have, but that's not what he wanted to do. Regardless though, the actual responsibility lies with the umps once they know something is on his hand.

Oh well.

Go Cards!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm thinking Weaver must have been cheating too. If La Russa and his team had nothing to hide when Leyland would inevitably scrutinize everything in retaliation, Rogers would've been gone.

Good point. I never even thought of that possibility.

I believe I read Dan Patrick mentioned this on his show as a possibility. You can't rule it out. Especially with the statements now coming out that "most" pitchers use the stuff.

I dunno. Weaver didn't do anything suspiscious, but maybe.

TLR said today that he knew Rogers was cheating but didn't want him thrown out. He wanted him to stop cheating and play fair.

Not how I would have handled it, but I can respect that.

That said, the umps did not do their job. TLR doesn't have to call for the inspection. If they notice it, they should inspect it. They did not. Also, Rogers didn't stop cheating as the substance remained partially on his hand and on his hat.

Oh well. I'm caring less and less, but the MLB is making themselves look bad in their coverup efforts. At least be upfront and say there's a chance but they just can't draw that conclusion or something. Instead they're acting like all their stories add up and that there is a 90% chance it's dirt.

RC, I think the numerous members who have posted similar thoughts to mine but have no connection to the Cards proves this isn't a case of blind homerism. Rather, it's a case of common sense and evidence. Might not hold up in the court of law, but for the MLB's sake, the evidence is there.

At this point, I plan on continuing to give Rogers crap for being a cheater, but my focus shifts to game three.

Let's not forget that this is a 41-year-old pitcher who coming into this postseason was statistically going by ERA the worst post-season pitcher in the history of baseball. Now he suddenly does something that only Christy Mathewson, a hall a famer who pitched in the dead ball era, does. I find that highly suspicious.

My guess is in the last year or two as he gotten older he picked up the pine tar trick and many older pitchers pick up tricks like this as they get old. He may have used it off an on. This last game of the year he comes in relief without it and gets bombed by the Royals. Seeing that this postseason is probably the last chance to redeem his career he goes to the pine tar for the playoffs. If he had a bad postseason this year he's remembered as the guy who gave up 6 runs against the Braves in the World Series and needed Jim Leyritz to bail him out, the guy who walked in the series winning run in the 99 NLCS, and the guy who putched a camera man. So he goes to the pine tar for a better grip and better control, something that he hasn't had in big games. It worked and thus he stayed with it.

This is the same kind of logic that crucified Barry Bonds for steroid use w/o having hard evidence.

Rogers, like Bonds, may be guilty, but can you prove it? No.

See, I think you probably can. Not everything has to be proven with hard science. I don't actually know ALL the evidence against Bonds and how legit it is, but from what I read, there is a ton. This is a ton against Rogers. Do we have a drug test on Bonds? No. Do we have a sample of the crap on Rogers hand? No. But if everything else points towards guilt, why does that have to be there (especially when we are not talking about the US Court system)?

STL, you are free to think this way.

No one can really stop that.

I pray that you never have to sit on a jury, especially one that holds my fate in its hands.

Edited by ROCHitman

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting discussion, but some issues that still need to be addressed in my opinion.

First, there apparently is evidence that Rogers had this substance on his hand in the ALDS and the ALCS. 3 separate games with the mysterious substance in the same spot each time. What could that mean? If it's legal (such as a mixture of dirt and rosin), then the prevelance of it would point to a simple superstition that Rogers has (i.e. lucky dirt), and would lend some "credibility" of his, "I didn't know it was there" statement. If it's illegal (such as pine tar or whatever) then another question needs to be raised. Why is this an issue now? I doubt that Rogers would put a "little extra" on his hand for one game. So I think it's reasonable to assume that his hand looked the same in the other games as well. So why wasn't Rogers suspected of cheating during or after the games against the Yankees or the Athletics? Why now? Fox trying to boost ratings for a "midwest" Series? Buck and McCarver with their "St. Louis bias" trying to give their team an edge under the shield of fairness? I don't know the answer, but I think we should also be discussing the timing of this whole issue.

Second is the the "wonder" how a guy like Rogers who has been a pretty solid pitcher in the regular season but horrible in the post-season is putting together one of the best pitching performances in the history of baseball. Obviously the guy's cheating, right? I disagree. Let me ask you this. Yadier Molina had a line of .216/.274/.321 in the Regular Season. But in the NLCS he slugs out a line of ..348/.423/.652. That's quite a jump. Obviously he's cheating right? How else could he put ups such monster numbers when he's obviously a mediocre offensive player? Wait, the NLCS was just 7 games. He could be just swinging a hot bat right? Statistical random noise could explain his great NLCS play. Well if it can explain Molina's success, then why are we surprised that Rogers his having success now? He's pitched well before in a 3 game stretch. So we shouldn't be surprised that he's pitching well in this 3 game stretch.

Don't take this as an excuse for cheating. Cheating is reprehensible in all cases. But there are other issues at play here as well. And it's a shame that scandals like this (or steroids) overshadow what is truely great about this game.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

See, I think you probably can. Not everything has to be proven with hard science. I don't actually know ALL the evidence against Bonds and how legit it is, but from what I read, there is a ton. This is a ton against Rogers. Do we have a drug test on Bonds? No. Do we have a sample of the crap on Rogers hand? No. But if everything else points towards guilt, why does that have to be there (especially when we are not talking about the US Court system)?

like mark mcgwire?

No. Nobody's investigated Mac to the point where there is that much evidence. There's only enough evidence against Mac to call for a further investigation, not to call for an assumption of guilt.

Isn't it the same way with Barry Bonds where they only have enough information to continue investigating?

But if everyone wants to act like they're the same and dismiss everything I say as a homer, well, to each his own, but that's weak.

I only called you a homer because you are extremely adamant that what was on his hand can not possibly be nothing more than dirt or mud and that he can not possibly be telling truth, in spite of the lack of concrete evidence. Because it directly affects your team and you appear to refuse to accept any argument to the contrary, all evidence points to homerism. There is as much evidence to you being a homer as there is to Kenny Rogers possibly cheating.

Let's see Rogers pitch Game 6 and wash his hands before the game. Maybe he'll get rocked like he did as a Yankee!

Need we remind you that Rogers' worst inning in game 2 was the only inning in which he had that substance on his hand?

Once it was gone, he dominated (6 no-hit innings before giving up a single in the top of the 8th)

Need I remind you that the substance remained on his hand and hat throughout the game?

Yes, most of it was gone, but pine tar or most other substances like that would remain sticky and have to be scrubbed hard to get completely off. There was clearly still some residue left.

Also, it was on the back of his hat and he touched that pretty much before every pitch.

His actions indicate he may have had it in his glove too, but that's far more speculative.

While I do wonder if the game would have been different if he hadn't used it, that's not what I'm arguing for. I'm just arguing that he cheated, and I'm getting tired of the argument that he pitched better with it off than with it on, because whatever it was, he had it all night. (Even if it was dirt, he kept using dirt from the back of his hat.)

It could be possible that the reason his hat got dirty was because he touched it with his dirty hands. It's possible that the stuff on his hat wasn't there before the game. It's possible the only reason he kept touching his hat was to adjust it because it became loose with the jerking motion of each pitch and not to "use the dirt". Even if he "used it all night", and the substance was legal, the argument is completely moot.

--Roger "Time?" Clemente.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

ROCH, that'd be ashame for you, because you'd be losing a chance to have a pretty darn lenient guy on the jury. I don't like to heavily punish people, and I don't like to punish without the right amount of evidence.

And when the US law (rightfully--as in I think it's a good priniciple for the country to abide by) says that to be convicted there needs to be proof beyond a reasonable doubt, I'm gonna make sure that proof is there.

The thing is, this isn't a case of someone breaking US law. It's MLB regulations, and while assuming guilt without evidence isn't the way to go, not as much evidence should be required.

Why is an umpire taking a look a Julian Tavarez cap for 25 seconds and throwing him out (but not confiscating the cap) more worthy evidence than the numerous photos and video's we have of Rogers doing his thing. I don't believe for one second the umpire who "examined" Tavarez's cap could tell any better what was on his hat than I can tell what was on Rogers hand and hat through photos and video. In fact, Tavarez cap was later tested (not by the MLB), and it was dirt, rosin, and sweat (and by the way, it was about 80x cleaner than a few hats I've seen this postseason). So really, why is the ump credible, but these numerous photos are not?

RC, I'm not sure about Bonds. I don't know all of the evidence. I know there is a multitude of more evidence against him than Mac. People have done a lot of investigating about Bonds already. More goes on now. I feel he probably did steroids, but I'm not sure I could "convict" him of it, even for the purpose of just MLB rules (as opposed to it being a US Court). So, the answer to your question might be yes, but that doesn't make it the same as McGwire. Mac has very little against him right now. Bonds has a ton against him.

I remain adamant that it wasn't dirt or mud. Most people involved don't think it was dirt. Some don't really care that it was pine tar, but most people believe it was.

And in terms of telling the truth, Rogers isn't. He's made modifications to his story, plus the umps story and Leyland's story all differ from each other. They also all reek of being a little fabricated.

I AM a homer. Make no mistake. But that doesn't mean I cannot view things objectively. I'm not an expert, so now, this claim can't be taken as 100%. But I'm pretty damn sure no dirt within a ball field can look like that no matter how much you mix sweat and rosin and rain with it. It just won't. And if it's other dirt, it is illegal.

If the substance on his hand was anything other than the dirt from the field (or bullpen), rosin, sweat, or rain, an he was intentionally applying it to the ball (and it'd be very hard to believe he wasn't the way he looked at it and rubbed it), then it was illegal period. Food? Illegal. Gatorade? Illegal. Dirt from his garden at home? Illegal. Foreign and intentional equals illegal.

Rogers is a cheater. It may or may not have effected the game, but Rogers cheated.

Now we move on to game three. Go Cards!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Interesting discussion, but some issues that still need to be addressed in my opinion.

First, there apparently is evidence that Rogers had this substance on his hand in the ALDS and the ALCS. 3 separate games with the mysterious substance in the same spot each time. What could that mean? If it's legal (such as a mixture of dirt and rosin), then the prevelance of it would point to a simple superstition that Rogers has (i.e. lucky dirt), and would lend some "credibility" of his, "I didn't know it was there" statement.

Well if he put dirt on his hands for good luck every game in the exact same spot then how could he then not know it was there. He intentionally put it there. By saying I didn't knwo it was there he saying he got dirt on his hands by rubbing down the ball. The fact that espn showed a dark spot on the same exact spot on his hands contridicts what he said. Also if it is dirt and it is there for good luck why wash it off? Who cares what the Cardinals think, dirt on the hands isn't illegal. The fact that he went into the clubhouse to wipe it off after the 1st when a teamate told him the cameras cought him is very telling. Remember that was before the umps ever looked at anything or told him to wipe anything off.

I do think the fact that Buck and McCarver are nearly openly rooting for the Cardinals is a reason to why it was just now discovered. I think they are probably watching the Tigers more carefully tahn before. The fact remains though he was found with stuff on his hands. Just because he got away with it in the past doesn't mean he should have gotten away with it this time. Although the person who should be blamed with letting Rogers get away with it is LaRussa.

Second is the the "wonder" how a guy like Rogers who has been a pretty solid pitcher in the regular season but horrible in the post-season is putting together one of the best pitching performances in the history of baseball. Obviously the guy's cheating, right? I disagree. Let me ask you this. Yadier Molina had a line of .216/.274/.321 in the Regular Season. But in the NLCS he slugs out a line of ..348/.423/.652. That's quite a jump. Obviously he's cheating right? How else could he put ups such monster numbers when he's obviously a mediocre offensive player? Wait, the NLCS was just 7 games. He could be just swinging a hot bat right? Statistical random noise could explain his great NLCS play. Well if it can explain Molina's success, then why are we surprised that Rogers his having success now? He's pitched well before in a 3 game stretch. So we shouldn't be surprised that he's pitching well in this 3 game stretch.

Well I wouldn't say he has been a solid regular season pitcher. This is a guy who has usually come up small in any type of pressure situation. This guy couldn't get anybody out while pitching for the Yankees and Mets regular season or postseason. His problem in these big spots has been control, now he was found pitching in a big situation with a substance that looks like pine tar which helps pitchers get a better grip and thus more control. Because his past problem has been control and this is a substance that helps that his past postseason history is definatly a factor to look at in this situation. It goes to motive. He is also done something that no one in the live ball era has done whereas with Molina something like that has happened all the time.

Let's not forget that this is a 41-year-old pitcher who coming into this postseason was statistically going by ERA the worst post-season pitcher in the history of baseball. Now he suddenly does something that only Christy Mathewson, a hall a famer who pitched in the dead ball era, does. I find that highly suspicious.

My guess is in the last year or two as he gotten older he picked up the pine tar trick and many older pitchers pick up tricks like this as they get old. He may have used it off an on. This last game of the year he comes in relief without it and gets bombed by the Royals. Seeing that this postseason is probably the last chance to redeem his career he goes to the pine tar for the playoffs. If he had a bad postseason this year he's remembered as the guy who gave up 6 runs against the Braves in the World Series and needed Jim Leyritz to bail him out, the guy who walked in the series winning run in the 99 NLCS, and the guy who putched a camera man. So he goes to the pine tar for a better grip and better control, something that he hasn't had in big games. It worked and thus he stayed with it.

This is the same kind of logic that crucified Barry Bonds for steroid use w/o having hard evidence.

Rogers, like Bonds, may be guilty, but can you prove it? No.

Yes, I can prove it. Cameras have shown him having pine tar on the exact spot on the hand for at least 3 starts. That's pretty direct evidence. As for what I posted before and what you quoted me that's a possible motive on why he might have cheated and me guessing (which I admit is guess) at a possible time line. But for hard evidence as to that he cheated. THat's all the video and pictures we ahve seen with him having pine tar on his hands.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Ingenious by Fox to manufacture controversy to get people to talk about a series that no one really cares about outside of St. Louis and Detroit (and associated ex-pats).

Still won't get me to watch it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am definately not condoning cheating. By Rogers or anyone else. But taking the "moral high ground" is tougher when he's been getting away with it before when it's been known or suspected. This issue has definately been handled poorly by the appropriate authorities. I think this shows that MLB has a little "pine tar" on its hands as well.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
Sign in to follow this