1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Barry Bonds responds to Bob Costas and Patrick 'The Chemist' Arnold

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by RokSki, Jul 26, 2007.

  1. Double Down

    Double Down Well-Known Member

    Thank you for saying that, FB, because it's so true. It's amazing how often he gets away with talking out of both sides of his mouth on this issue, going on Dan Patrick one week and saying 50 percent of the guys in baseball are probably using, then going in front of Congress and saying "he's never personally heard of anyone doing it." What a fricken clown.
     
  2. Inky_Wretch

    Inky_Wretch Well-Known Member

    Costas responds...

    NEW YORK (AP) — A day after Barry Bonds called him a “little midget man who knows (nothing) about baseball,” broadcaster Bob Costas said he wasn’t upset with the San Francisco Giants slugger and responded with a jab of his own.
    “As anyone can plainly see, I’m 5-6 1/2 and a strapping 150, and unlike some people, I came by all of it naturally,” Costas said Thursday in a telephone interview.
    On this week’s edition of HBO’s “Costas Now,” commissioner Bud Selig, Boston Red Sox pitcher Curt Schilling and chemist Patrick Arnold discussed Bonds, his pursuit of Hank Aaron’s home run record and suspicions that Bonds has used steroids. Schilling and Arnold said they believed Bonds had taken performance-enhancing drugs.
    Bonds viewed at least part of the show before Wednesday’s game against Atlanta.
    “I’ve actually always had a pretty cordial relationship with Barry,” Costas said. “I have no ill feelings toward him personally. I regard him as one of the greatest players of all time who got inauthentic boost and then became a superhuman player. I wish him no ill whatsoever.”
    Costas said he understood why Bonds might have denigrated him.
    “He’s under tremendous scrutiny and some pressure. It’s no big deal,” Costas said. “This is a consequence of doing your job, and I’ve never tried to do my job in any case with the intention of calling attention to myself. I think if people watch the program, they can judge for themselves.”
     
  3. dmc

    dmc Guest

    Canseco was just on weei out of Boston. Now he is mad at a-rod. Says he (canseco) is coming out with another book, I think he is calling it "Vindicated" and promised to spill the beans on a-rod. Would not answer the steroid question about a-rod.
     
  4. jgmacg

    jgmacg Guest

    Rok -

    Sorry about this, because I know you've tried to be on your best behavior, and I have as well - with the exception of the usual naval foto fun - in regards to you and John. But the quote above shouldn't go unnoted. Do you really think Mr. King audits these boards in an effort to crib your "analysis?" Do you think he's actually done so, and lifted material from you?

    Do you think none of us here has formulated a series of opinions and viewpoints on these issues separate and apart from whatever you and John might think?
     
  5. Oh, good.
    Ironclad innuenndo again, and on a 50K watt radio station. Nice.
    And I like the first part of Costas's response, but "I've never tried to do my job with the intention of calling attention to myself"?
    Bob, please.
     
  6. KYSportsWriter

    KYSportsWriter Well-Known Member

    Can't wait to see what he has to say...

    Yeah, right, like I'd waste my time and money on a book written by him.
     
  7. John D. Villarreal

    John D. Villarreal New Member

    Hey FB, sorry I was caught up in a few meetings. Yes, it was a pun, but a fitting one, no?
     
  8. John D. Villarreal

    John D. Villarreal New Member

    Ha ha ha ha. Now THAT is some funny shizzle!

    Sweet!!
     
  9. John D. Villarreal

    John D. Villarreal New Member

    I have to dbl check but it depends on the ground rules set up before & if they gave him immunity or not.
     
  10. RokSki

    RokSki New Member

    I absolutely do not think that, jgmac. In fact, I know it not to be true.

    I almost never, ever say - even hypothetically ('might have') - that someone else may have incorporated an idea of mine (or anyone else's) into their own work. It's usually not a big deal to me even if they have.

    What I'm talking about is something I discussed in the present Mike Vick thread. Even if I'm correct in thinking King (or an assistant) saw what I wrote, it's not a big deal. What I discussed isn't groundbreaking, it was just kind of a natural follow-up to what's going on with Vick (that is, that NFL teams would be having their own/the league's security look into the possibility that other players could be involved in dogfighting, in an attempt to quell any further investigations, etc.).

    The information I cited was from Fox Sports' Chris Landry; it wasn't mine. I just made a inference based on the potential numbers of players who could be involved in dogfighting, as well as some other variables. A lot of good analysis/speculation is good because of the timing of it, not so much the content of it. You might have Event A (Vick's case) + Rumor B (100's of NFL players involved w/ dogfighting?) + Fact C (NFL security participated in their own recognizance of Vick's alleged wrongdoing). From that you can come up with Speculation/Analysis D -- NFL security will almost certainly be trying to get out in front of this with individual team's players, etc.

    It's not a groundbreaking thought. It's just something that I hadn't seen or heard anywhere before I wrote it here on SJ. That King's column which included that similarly-worded (but which also advanced what I said, and thus is his own work product) tidbit appeared the next day struck me as more-than-coincidental.

    Again, I want to be perfectly clear here -- I am NOT saying King absolutely used my stuff nor am I saying that if he did, I deserve some credit or whatever. The example was brought up to give other (especially newer) SJ'ers a sense of agency and possible motivation, i.e., 'big-time people are reading this board,' so if you have something to say or want to 'show your stuff,' go for it.'

    Two other points on the subject:

    1. As a writer, I know that I come here to look for ideas. Many people here put a lot of time into things written here, and why not utilize that legwork research? I know I do, and others would be stupid not to. I pointed out a recent Ian O'Connor article on Tiger Woods vs Roger Federer, and some of the researched stats presented here on SJ (many not by me) were used in his piece. Again, if I as a writer know there is a resource I can use, why wouldn't I?

    2. Following-up on point #1 is the example of Jason Whitlock (or Dave Kindred, or
    Jemele Hill, or ...). JW would often come here and kind of toss out an idea and see what people did with it. Then he'd make some counter-arguments, etc and so on and so forth. Shortly thereafter, you might see thoughts based on those threads in his columns. Again, why WOULDN'T someone use this resource?

    That's kind of where I'm coming from. It's not about PK possibly using something I wrote in his MMQBTE. It's about a larger phenomenon, and how SJ and it's posters can be part of that. That was my larger point.

    In terms of mentioning it in this thread, it was used to buttress the importance of not getting bogged down with imbeciles, be they SJ infants as described and decried here ...:


    My response to the intemperate eternal adolescents of SportsJournalists.com (Reply #374, final post on page 15):
    http://www.sportsjournalists.com/forum/threads/42066/


    ...or be they television-camera-seeking, pathetic and exposed jerkoff morons like Schilling.

    Similar to my own experience, Bonds doesn't need to waste his time refuting the likes of the idiotic Schilling, who is merely the latest (following in Kim Bell's wake) in a long line of people trying to gravy-train off of Bonds' pursuit of the HR record. As usualy, Red Light is as transparent as a window pane in his attempts at seeking free media.

    It was not meant as a dig on anyone's intelligence or ability to create his/her own great work product; it was meant to give examples/rationales of how and why people can be and choose to be more efficient with their time, particularly when facing a deadline (for an article, for a career).
     
  11. jgmacg

    jgmacg Guest

    I thank you for your thorough and gracious answer. I have to go out for a few hours, but maybe we'll get the chance to follow up on this later.
     
  12. RokSki

    RokSki New Member

    You're welcome, and thanks. I appreciate your kindness as well. :)

    Have a good couple of hours, or more.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page