JW goes off on the Rocket

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.

 

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

 

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.

 

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

 

Neither is the performance enhancement.

 

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

 

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.

 

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 shit.

 

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 prick 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.

 

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 shit 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.