JW goes off on the Rocket

[novelist_wannabe]

That was excruciating... I just remember Jason on here two years ago with the strained "White folks want to persecute the black guy trying to break Hank Aaron Babe Ruth's record." Now that a white guy is in the crosshairs, you'd think he'd acknowledge that it's about who is the freshest meat, not skin tone... Everyone loves piling on the guy in the crosshairs, regardless of the color of his skin, whether it is Mark McGwire, Barry Bonds or Roger Clemens. Right now, Bonds is off the back page for the moment and Clemens is timely. And Clemens has been taking a beating. Jason's column defies the reality everyone is actually viewing.

I just remembered this exchange from May... I said at the time (and in posts well before this) that if anyone came at Clemens with the same kind of evidence Bonds had working against him, Clemens would take the heat he is now taking. Seems to me the Mitchell Report came out and he got the same kind of fan and media treatment Bonds has--despite the fact that unlike Bonds, at least he is acting the way an innocent man would, with strong denials and lawsuits. Bonds got a free pass from Congress, by the way...

Perhaps, but it's not much of one. He was under indictment for perjury before the Mitchell Report broke, wasn't he? That alone may explain why Congress hasn't called him. He can't talk about it because it might jeopardize his defense.

 

[The Big Ragu]

Bonds wasn't under indictment for anything when Mark McGwire, Rafael Palmiero, Jose Canseco, Sammy Sosa and Curt Schilling were invited to testify. He didn't even make the original list, as Jason Giambi did before he was subpoenaed and subsequently excused because of the ongoing BALCO probe.

 

[TwoGloves]

"Right now, the masses are upset with Clemens because he's turned attention away from Bonds by claiming innocence and glad-handing congressmen."

Who the heck is upset that Clemens is taking attention away from Bonds?

Jason doesn't even believe this. He just knows it will get a reaction. Stop taking the bait, people. He's only as relevant as we make him.

WFW.
Only good thing is he doesn't show his face much around here these days.

If I wrote a steaming pile of crap like that I wouldn't show my face either. Is this guy related to Bonds?

 

[nafselon]

In what way, noles, is that an "otherwise good column"?

Let's try this again, the premise for the column was good. He's right in the sense that there's been a "wait & see" approach on Clemens that wasn't there for Bonds.

And he's right that Clemens needs those people and the congressmen he's been meeting and greeting to protect his image from what could be a damaging truth. And the same people that reference "Game of Shadows" to justify their indictments on Bonds are skeptical of Brian McNamee's evidence because they've been tripping over themselves for the last 10 years proclaiming Clements at the G.O.A.T and completely ignoring any of his physical transformations over the recent years.

So premise good, column could have been better. I think most of Whitlock's writings are average at best and he's still bitter because Vivian C. punked him in front of his peers.

And he's quick to blame hip-hop everytime a young black athlete (Sean Taylor) dies a tragic death but he's the resemblance of what kills far more African-Americans (obesity) than any LudaCris CD.

Sorry for the misunderstanding.

 

[sportschick]

"Right now, the masses are upset with Clemens because he's turned attention away from Bonds by claiming innocence and glad-handing congressmen."

Who the heck is upset that Clemens is taking attention away from Bonds?

Jason doesn't even believe this. He just knows it will get a reaction. Stop taking the bait, people. He's only as relevant as we make him.

WFW.
Only good thing is he doesn't show his face much around here these days.

If I wrote a steaming pile of crap like that I wouldn't show my face either. Is this guy related to Bonds?

He doesn't show his face because he committed the worst board crime possible -- outing on a thread.

 

[Simon_Cowbell]

White folks lining up to forgive him? Everyone I know hates his guts. The guy has been a grade A brick for all his career.

And Clemens' weight gain isn't close to the same shock value as Bonds' side-by-side pictures. Even the ones they showed in the link aren't that striking.

Neither is the performance enhancement.

 

[Shaggy]

I have a feeling that column was written with Mike Lupica (and to a lesser extent, Bob Costas) in mind. And no one else.

 

[Herbert Anchovy]

Typical flimsy research. Then, this is a guy who wrote that the Chiefs should use six linemen in their playoff game last year at Indianapolis. Be a great idea if it it weren't in contradiction with the rules.

You'd think a lineman would know that.

 

[broadway joe]

Whitlock's problem is that he can't admit that his central theory has been blown to smithereens. He kept insisting that Bonds was the victim of a racist witch hunt, which has been refuted by the fact that Clemens, now that there's some actual evidence against him, is getting raked over the coals the same way Bonds did. So what does Whitlock do? Make wild, baseless claims that cannot possibly be proven or disproven, in order to prop up his bogus argument that race is a major factor here. "White folks can't wait to forgive Clemens." "The witch hunters never wanted to burn Clemens at the stake." According to whom, Jason?

Everything Whitlock said would never happen to Clemens is happening. So JW tap dances and says, "Don't you see? They're going after Clemens but they don't really want to go after Clemens. The guy they really want is still Bonds." What a bunch of shirt.

 

[jakewriter82]

"Right now, the masses are upset with Clemens because he's turned attention away from Bonds by claiming innocence and glad-handing congressmen."

Who the heck is upset that Clemens is taking attention away from Bonds?

Jason doesn't even believe this. He just knows it will get a reaction. Stop taking the bait, people. He's only as relevant as we make him.

WFW.
Only good thing is he doesn't show his face much around here these days.

If I wrote a steaming pile of crap like that I wouldn't show my face either. Is this guy related to Bonds?

He doesn't show his face because he committed the worst board crime possible -- outing on a thread.

SC, you know I respect your opinions, but how is that the worst board crime possible? Why's it so important to be kept anonymous?
It's a brick move by Whitlock, especially if the person outed doesn't want to to be outed. I don't, however, understand the value of keeping your identity secret, unless you badmouth your employer or sources on here. Aren't journalists relatively public in their communities anyways?
Anyway, sorry for changing the topic.

 

[spnited]

No, Jake, this is an anonymous board and those who choose to remain anonymous should NEVER be outed by anyone.

Outing someone is the worst offense that can be committed on this board.


Meanwhile, I'm convinced Whitlock doesn't believe even half of what he writes anymore. He just writes shirt to see who he can get riled up.
He isn't even one of the top 100 columnists in the country. He's just a race-baiting blowhard.

 

[jakewriter82]

No, Jake, this is an anonymous board and those who choose to remain anonymous should NEVER be outed by anyone.

Outing someone is the worst offense that can be committed on this board.


Meanwhile, I'm convinced Whitlock doesn't believe even half of what he writes anymore. He just writes shirt to see who he can get riled up.
He isn't even one of the top 100 columnists in the country. He's just a race-baiting blowhard.

Thanks for clearing that up.
I guess I see the whole "anonymous message board" idea interesting on the whole, not just this board.
As for Whitlock, what's his motivation? He's already a nationally recognized persona, why risk that by writing something that might harm his status? Unfortunately it appears to me because people have come to expect him to be the "race-touting" columnist he writes accordingly, even if it doesn't add up.