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

John D. Villarreal · Jul 26, 2007

RokSki said:

jgmacg said:

RokSki said:

If I spent time on SJ responding to every single "clown-of-the-day's" latest, possibly-under-a-different-username's 'attempt' (that's stretching the definition) to engage me, there wouldn't be any time to come up with analysis which might be appropriated by the Peter King's of the world.
Click to expand...

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?
Click to expand...

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).
Click to expand...

Exactly, that is obvious & what we have been trying to say.

EVERYBODY does this. I would do this for radio/TV, etc. It is common sense.

The ultimate arrogance is acting like nobody influences you and you come up with great insights on stuff you don't know out of thin air. The real sham is how many good sources get NO CREDIT from many in the media for their info/help. I happily credit mine.

Great post!!!

D-3 Fan · Jul 27, 2007

outofplace said:

Simon_Cowbell said:

boots said:

Simon_Cowbell said:

boots said:

I applaude Barry. Bob Costas IS NOT baseball's resident authority. I don't know why people have put him in that position.
I saw his show and the primary theme to me seemed to be let's smear Barry Bonds and what he's doing.
Click to expand...

He's a pretty good baseball authority.

Just like others are authorities on harassing women.
Click to expand...

Simon, today is July 26, 2007. Time to grow up. Either keep your conversation on the topic at hand or please don't post.
Click to expand...

Learn to respect women, asshole.
Click to expand...

As much as I usually hate to agree with Boots, he's right here Simon. You are the one stepping out of line and going off topic. Not that boots doesn't do it all the time, but here it's you. Please get back on subject.

This garbage about members of the media being restricted by their "lack of sports background" barely deserves a response, but what the heck? I'll give it another shot.

Do athletes have the type of inside knowledge and connections that would make for a great reporter? Absolutely. Do they have the skills as writers, communicators and interviewers to properly use that knowledge and those connections to produce consistent quality work as print or broadcast journalists? Occasionally, but usually not. Would they be willing to go into the dark corners of the world, to question their current and former teammates and opponents on the field to find the truth? Yeah, right.

People have different skill sets. That's life. No, Bob Costas was never able to hit a 95-MPH fastball....but most athletes can't do what he does...or what Rick Reilly does ....or Roy Blount, Jr. used to do (a favorite of mine who I believe is at least semi-retired)....or Frank Deford....or hundreds of other damn good reporters who bring a heck of a lot more to the table than some "insider" who doesn't know the difference between a nut graph and those things he scratches for 10 minutes when he gets up in the morning. (man, that mental image...I just grossed myself out).

We're journalists. We don't have to be there on the field taking swings and throwing pitches to be able to tell people what happened. When we don't know something, we find out. If we don't, we end up out of a job.

If he wanted to, Bonds probably could be a good baseball broadcaster if he could somehow learn to get past his own ego. He has a tremendous knowledge of baseball and I've always heard how personable and witty he can be when he feels like it. Would he get to the level Costas attained and maintained years ago? I highly doubt it.
Click to expand...

Good post, OOP. The best way, IMO, to say it is this: you do your job, I do mine. If you want to tell me how to do my job, then jump over the fence and spend some time seeing what I have to do on a daily basis to interview and get stories from jocks like you.

Simon_Cowbell · Jul 27, 2007

I thought that Bonds' response to Costas' "I came by all of it naturally" was very telling and, to me, incriminating.

"How do you know?" was what No. 25 came up with.

Mystery_Meat · Dec 15, 2014

RokSki said:

jgmacg said:

RokSki said:

If I spent time on SJ responding to every single "clown-of-the-day's" latest, possibly-under-a-different-username's 'attempt' (that's stretching the definition) to engage me, there wouldn't be any time to come up with analysis which might be appropriated by the Peter King's of the world.
Click to expand...

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?
Click to expand...

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).
Click to expand...

John D. Villarreal · Jul 27, 2007

What's with the dumb cat pics?

RokSki · Jul 27, 2007

same old same old

John D. Villarreal · Jul 27, 2007

RokSki said:

same old same old
Click to expand...

Yeah, looks like censorship is alive and well. I guess some can't handle the truth. Hmm, VERY revealing!!

RokSki · Jul 27, 2007

if u cant beat em, cat em? LOL!!!

cranberry · Jul 27, 2007

Just nuked some of the best content ever posted, didn't they? Shame.

outofplace · Jul 27, 2007

I wondered what happened to that. Though I am occasionally annoyed with the decisions made, that's part of the deal on any message board. Don't like what the mods do? Go somewhere else.

Anyway, back to better baseball through chemistry....(yeah right)

John D. Villarreal · Jul 27, 2007

cranberry said:

Just nuked some of the best content ever posted, didn't they? Shame.
Click to expand...

Yes, they did. They are scared and got slammed. The "clique" got smoked so bad they don't know what to do & can't admit they are wrong.

However, in doing so. Whoever did that broke an explicit agreement I had with Webby. Thus, they are defying the rules of the board (AGAIN!).

I am pretty sure I know who it is & if I am correct I would question his moderating credentials.

In any event, we may need to revive that thread here where he can't touch it until Webby clears things up. Peeps can check out the vids in my sig below!

John

boots · Jul 27, 2007

Inky_Wretch said:

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.?
Click to expand...

First off, Fuck Bob Costas. He used the show as an attack on Bonds. That was obvious.
He is not the national spokesman for baseball. Unfortunately, people think that he is but he has his own agenda. His special is proof of that.

Log in or Sign up

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

John D. Villarreal New Member

D-3 Fan Well-Known Member

Simon_Cowbell Active Member

Mystery_Meat Guest

John D. Villarreal New Member

RokSki New Member

John D. Villarreal New Member

RokSki New Member

cranberry Well-Known Member

outofplace Well-Known Member

John D. Villarreal New Member

boots New Member

Share This Page

Log in or Sign up

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

John D. Villarreal New Member

D-3 Fan Well-Known Member

Simon_Cowbell Active Member

Mystery_Meat Guest

John D. Villarreal New Member

RokSki New Member

John D. Villarreal New Member

RokSki New Member

cranberry Well-Known Member

outofplace Well-Known Member

John D. Villarreal New Member

boots New Member

Share This Page

Useful Searches