PDA

View Full Version : Interesting information on Sosa's cheating


dougs78
06-25-2003, 11:29 AM
I just talked to a buddy of mine last night. Hes a huge cub fan and actually has some secondary connections to some guys on the team. But anyway, he relayed this story about Sosa and the cork incident to me last night. Apparently after Sosa was tossed in the first inning, he came down to his locker with the equipment manager and began sorting through his roughly 160 bats. By the time the 7th inning rolls around the representative from MLB finally arrives and they are still not finished sorting out the bats quite yet. The MLB guy proceeds to let them finish sorting before confiscating the bats. Apparently they removed about half of the bats before handing the rest over. My friend said the main reason he believes this story was that he heard this before there was any talk about how many bats MLB had confiscate, but once he heard 76, the numbers really fit quite well.

As a side note, he said that he really believes Sosa was using steroids for the past 5-6 seasons, but that he has stopped this year with the testing and his way of "compensating" was to use corked bats this year.

Again, this is all second or third hand, but I thought it was interesting nonetheless, and really fit what my logic was already telling me.

cheeses_h_rice
06-25-2003, 11:47 AM
I have yet to see this reported ANYWHERE in the major media, which is pretty disgusting; instead, this mantra of "76 clean bats" was pawned off on the docile TV/print audience so as to protect Sham-ME* and MLB by extension. If you're going to report the 76 bat figure, how about talking about what the original # of bats was, or is unbiased reporting now passe?

:knue

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!

Meixner007
06-25-2003, 12:14 PM
Originally posted by cheeses_h_rice
I have yet to see this reported ANYWHERE in the major media, which is pretty disgusting; instead, this mantra of "76 clean bats" was pawned off on the docile TV/print audience so as to protect Sham-ME* and MLB by extension. If you're going to report the 76 bat figure, how about talking about what the original # of bats was, or is unbiased reporting now passe?

:knue

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!


I actually believe that having no other bats actually HURTS his story. What are the odds of him mistakenly taking the 1 bat that is corked, going up there and having it shatter the First time he ever used a cork bat??? One tenth of One percent...somewhere around there. And has the media picked up on this??? No. Why? My theory is that when they started writing in Chicago they went to a training session that took all reasonable thoughts and logic out of their head and replaced it with cubby crap. Well not really, but you get my point.

voodoochile
06-25-2003, 12:15 PM
Originally posted by Meixner007
I actually believe that having no other bats actually HURTS his story. What are the odds of him mistakenly taking the 1 bat that is corked, going up there and having it shatter the First time he ever used a cork bat??? One tenth of One percent...somewhere around there. And has the media picked up on this??? No. Why? My theory is that when they started writing in Chicago they went to a training session that took all reasonable thoughts and logic out of their head and replaced it with cubby crap. Well not really, but you get my point.

Actually, that was talked about quite a bit in the media...

Dadawg_77
06-25-2003, 12:21 PM
Originally posted by cheeses_h_rice
I have yet to see this reported ANYWHERE in the major media, which is pretty disgusting; instead, this mantra of "76 clean bats" was pawned off on the docile TV/print audience so as to protect Sham-ME* and MLB by extension. If you're going to report the 76 bat figure, how about talking about what the original # of bats was, or is unbiased reporting now passe?

:knue

Pay no attention to the man behind the curtain!

No offense to doug here, but reporting that story is something Jason Blair would do. Without any real confirmation, a source how is a guy who you talked to at a bar and his story heard from this guy who heard from this other guy isn't the best source.

Meixner007
06-25-2003, 12:40 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile


Actually, that was talked about quite a bit in the media...


Sorry, I meant the Chicago writers whose articles are in the National media.

voodoochile
06-25-2003, 12:45 PM
Originally posted by Meixner007
Sorry, I meant the Chicago writers whose articles are in the National media.

I saw it mentioned by The Moron, Rosenbloom, Telander, Morrisey.

alohafri
06-25-2003, 01:11 PM
(from Mrs. Aloha)

Another thing I find extremely suspect is the fact that noone seems to know where the top half of ShamME's bat went. You would think with all the video of that game that it would be possible to see what happened to it.

Just like I wonder what happened to the cub hat that the doofus was wearing at Sox Park last month (the guy from Bolingbrook who got tackled by security).

Call me paranoid, but the media in this town has a huge vested interest in protecting all things scrubbie.

On a side note, it is practically pre-ordained that the Sox will lose 2 of 3 this weekend against the scrubs.

xil357
06-25-2003, 01:24 PM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
No offense to doug here, but reporting that story is something Jason Blair would do. Without any real confirmation, a source how is a guy who you talked to at a bar and his story heard from this guy who heard from this other guy isn't the best source.

The last time I checked WSI wasn't a site limited to only confirmed news. We all are waiting on the edge of our seats for the juicy rumors.

However, the most responsible professional journalists will have their eyes and ears PEELED for any hint of any information. When they hear a rumor, they should follow up on it, no matter how ridiculous it is, in an attempt to obtain a more reliable source for independent confirmation (or refutation) of the original rumor. This is their career. They get chewed out if they don't get the scoop but their competitor does. Actually in today's tabloid media it is surprising that a member of the media hasn't said that they have heard "unconfirmed rumors" that the incident took place. But when sports broadcast journalism is filled with former jocks the tendency is to believe the player and take what he says at face value, like what happened with Sosa.

I don't have to believe the story to be a pillar to journalistic integrity to believe that it is a plausible, even likely scenario. This is like the friggin Warren Commission Report about the JFK assassination. The media -- and the public -- buys MLB's and Selig's conclusion completely. Where is Oliver Stone when you need him!

Meixner007
06-25-2003, 01:30 PM
Originally posted by voodoochile
I saw it mentioned by The Moron, Rosenbloom, Telander, Morrisey.

I'm not living in Chicago right now. I'm still at school. I haven't heard very much about the percentages etc... That's all I'm trying to say. From a person living outside of Chicago I'm sure it's different (coverage wise).

Dadawg_77
06-25-2003, 01:37 PM
Originally posted by xil357
The last time I checked WSI wasn't a site limited to only confirmed news. We all are waiting on the edge of our seats for the juicy rumors.



I wasn't commenting on Doug post just Cheese reaction that this hasn't been reported. The reason I said no offense I just wanted to make sure there wasn't any misunderstandings that the post was attack on some posting it here. Sorry if I wasn't clear that by reporting I meant reporting in mainstream media.

MarqSox
06-25-2003, 01:57 PM
Originally posted by xil357
\
However, the most responsible professional journalists will have their eyes and ears PEELED for any hint of any information. When they hear a rumor, they should follow up on it, no matter how ridiculous it is, in an attempt to obtain a more reliable source for independent confirmation (or refutation) of the original rumor. This is their career.

While I personally believe the story, that doesn't mean it is actually verifiable. Perhaps some reporters have been following up on it and simply can't find anything concrete. As a reporter myself, I've known about scandals in the past that I was unable to actually get in the paper just because I couldn't find any reliable sources who were willing to stick their neck out and go on the record. I'm guessing this is what the case is here.

cheeses_h_rice
06-25-2003, 01:58 PM
Originally posted by Dadawg_77
I wasn't commenting on Doug post just Cheese reaction that this hasn't been reported. The reason I said no offense I just wanted to make sure there wasn't any misunderstandings that the post was attack on some posting it here. Sorry if I wasn't clear that by reporting I meant reporting in mainstream media.

Dawg, it was well known that Sham-ME* had an arsenal of bats in his locker and even reported -- 150 or so. Would it really have been that hard to discuss the amount of time the Cubs and Sosa had to cleanse the selection, or to perhaps peer into the matter just a bit? I mean, if you're going to hype up the 76 clean bats, how about looking at the very real possibility that these 76 were chosen from a much bigger group of Sham-ME* bats? I'm not saying that a rumor should be printed as fact, but surely someone, somewhere connected with the Cubs and/or MLB would have been willing to speak on the matter off the record?

dougs78
06-25-2003, 02:30 PM
Yeah, the whole point of the post was just a FWIW. Just something I heard that I thought others would be interested in. I'm pretty sure I can see why MLB would not want that publicized, I mean if it were found out that Sosa had over 80 corked bats then it would imply that cheating was more than likely rampant and that baseball would have suffered a black eye for it. Additionally, Sosa is among the biggest draws in baseball right now, so it would serve to have that completely wiped out.

However, I do agree, I do think there is a story there for someone brave enough to print it. I would also bet that players/personnel have spoken to media members about this off the record. However, it probably stayed there...off the record. Its hard to publish a huge allegation like that with only anonymous sources. Not to mention the fact that these guys are Sosa's teammates and it would surely disrupt the team concept.

But in the end it is an interesting story and thats probably all it will ever remain.

xil357
06-25-2003, 03:49 PM
Originally posted by MarqSox
While I personally believe the story, that doesn't mean it is actually verifiable. Perhaps some reporters have been following up on it and simply can't find anything concrete. As a reporter myself, I've known about scandals in the past that I was unable to actually get in the paper just because I couldn't find any reliable sources who were willing to stick their neck out and go on the record. I'm guessing this is what the case is here.

The reporter in me totally understands that rumors should not be printed without verification.

However, the voyeur in all of us wants to hear/read/see every rumor, if for no other reason than to see the reaction of the suspected "guilty" party.

As for fairness, balance and bias, I'd much rather have a bunch of media outlets that are overtly biased -- but admit it (like in England) -- than a bunch of networks/papers/stations that have "hidden" biases but claim to be fair and objective (like Fox News Channel and the Trib are just two examples). I'd rather see the Tribune openly cheer for the Cubs and Sosa than try to give us the "we are totally fair, balanced and objective" reach-around. Same with the Sun Times.

If the publishers of the Trib and Sun Times would just come out and write an editorial on the front page that says "We think that Cubs fans are a significantly larger and more prosperous demographic, and therefore we target them with more positive coverage for the Cubs and their marketable superstar, even at the expense of covering the Sox because we think they have no fans of consequence," I could accept it. I'd also expect the Trib publisher to add "Besides, since we own the Cubs, it is our job as loyal members of the Tribune family of companies to promote the financial success of our corporate brethren, the Cubs." I wouldn't like it, but I would accept it. At least the publishers would be honest, because like it or not the people who make decisions on what is published are RUNNING A BUSINESS FIRST AND FOREMOST.

Clarkdog
06-25-2003, 04:09 PM
Originally posted by Meixner007
I actually believe that having no other bats actually HURTS his story. What are the odds of him mistakenly taking the 1 bat that is corked, going up there and having it shatter the First time he ever used a cork bat??? One tenth of One percent...somewhere around there. And has the media picked up on this??? No. Why? My theory is that when they started writing in Chicago they went to a training session that took all reasonable thoughts and logic out of their head and replaced it with cubby crap. Well not really, but you get my point.


I agree with this as well. Jimmy Piersall said something about this that I think is true as well - "If you have 100s of bats at your disposal and you're going to cork a bat, why would you only make one?"

gosox41
06-25-2003, 05:11 PM
Originally posted by alohafri
(from Mrs. Aloha)

Another thing I find extremely suspect is the fact that noone seems to know where the top half of ShamME's bat went. You would think with all the video of that game that it would be possible to see what happened to it.

Just like I wonder what happened to the cub hat that the doofus was wearing at Sox Park last month (the guy from Bolingbrook who got tackled by security).

Call me paranoid, but the media in this town has a huge vested interest in protecting all things scrubbie.

On a side note, it is practically pre-ordained that the Sox will lose 2 of 3 this weekend against the scrubs.

I hope you're wrong about this weekend. What I wonder is every time Sammy hits a HR, why doesn't the other team confiscate the bat and have it X-rayed? At the very least it gets into Sammy's pea brain and rattles him. Best case is he gets suspended again. Assuming he hits any HR's this weekend (which I hope he doesn't) the Sox should definitely confiscate his bat. I'm surprised the Brew Crew didn't last night.

Bob

SoxxoS
06-25-2003, 06:05 PM
My best friends girlfriend babysits Jeff D'Amico and Jason Bere's kids. She told me the EXACT same thing. Jason Bere is still really good friends with Kerry Wood, who told Jason. I didn't want to say anything with the best friend-uncles'-nephew's son relation story, but since it just was posted I figured I would throw my 2 cents in.

cheeses_h_rice
06-25-2003, 06:10 PM
He's too big an a-hole and a fraud for this NOT to come out at a later date, when he's safely retired and in the Hall of Fame. That's little consolation to everyone else who knows differently, but what can ya do...