Yep, it might. Might have to do with the fact that Mitchell tipped them off too. Seeing as he never resigned his job with the REd Sox it will always be left up to speculation.
You are retarded. To the ignore list you go. I can only take so much stupid, and you're a walking pile.
I am agnostic on the issue. I tend more to support the players, truth be told...(Those who bring up the sanctity of the sport can KMA, until clubs have to have uniformly curved fences, sidelines (no mazes or short porches out there), and they stop messing with the rules/field to porduce more or less offense as the fan dollar dictates..
I repectfully disagree...I would like to see a clean game, without the drugs, and with more youthful players in it than the old, broke players extending their career with drugs. I think having different parks is one of the things that makes baseball great. But, I understand your position, I just disagree.
I understand why there are no Red Sox players just by reading some of the explanations for how some people got there. Read Brian Roberts or Todd Williams or somebody like that. While I don't doubt either one did steroids, the "proof" is so vague and like hearsay that I feel bad.
The guy they got most of their info from lived and worked in New York.......his knowledge of Boston players would be limited, understandably. As I said, there are probably 15 to 30 other trainers like this guy, but he's the one who talked.
They got their info from Radomski, McNamee, and I guess Bigbie. A lot is hearsay, a lot is more believable hearsay, and some players actually have checks. I just think it's stupid that baseball would release a list of probably about 10% of those who did steroids.
The story has it as he did it when he was with the Mets and he didn't know what they were at the time a la Bonds.
i swear that he put the steroids in the twinkes. The Wilpons knew he was sucking so they told him it was frosting that goes on twinkes. Its the only logical explenation.
