Scoop Calls Out Sports Media Cowards

[Twoback]

I stopped reading after this:

Roger Clemens is without question the most selfish athlete of our time.

Either that, or he's the most celebrated pimp in professional sports.

Now, I like Roger Clemens, a lot. Always have.

What is he pimping, exactly? Can someone explain that to me? Please?

 

[Sportsbruh]

Doesn't matter.

Nobody laid-the-Pipe like Scoop.

 

[zagoshe]

Doesn't matter.

Nobody laid-the-Pipe like Scoop.


And nobody apparently smokes-the-Pipe like you

 

[Evil ... Thy name is Orville Redenbacher!!]

^^^^^

obviously it's the REAL Bro's with COURAGE that's getting this story right. All other writers are COWARDS for not having integrity.

Yeah, here's another one of those Real Bro's (By the way is Real Bro's an offshoot of Warner Bro's or Ringling Bro's? Just wondering...) who is keeping it real by asking questions about Roger Clemens. And judging by his picture in the column head, he looks like a real gang banger to me......

Smizik: Bonds and Clemens ... The wonders of the game
Sunday, May 13, 2007
By Bob Smizik, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Two of the greatest players in baseball history were all over the news last week. Barry Bonds, whose hitting credentials place him in the exclusive company of Babe Ruth, Willie Mays and Ted Williams, moved closer to breaking Hank Aaron's celebrated career home run record, while his skills show almost no sign of deterioration. Roger Clemens, the second winningest pitcher of the past 75 years, signed to play another partial season at an extravagant rate, this time with the New York Yankees.

It's much more than their prodigious accomplishments and massive salaries that bind Bonds and Clemens in historical perspective. Bonds will be 43 in July; Clemens will be 45 in August. No players in baseball history have performed at such a high level at such an advanced age.

As tied together as they are by their feats and their age, Bonds and Clemens are distinctly separated in another area. And that is quite peculiar.

It is virtually impossible to read about Bonds without mention of the steroid accusations that have dogged the latter part of his career. His production at so advanced an age, the size of is head -- believed to be caused by steroid use -- and a large amount of convincing circumstantial evidence have most people believing Bonds' greatness is chemically enhanced. It doesn't help that he's not a very nice person.

It's not just the fans who don't trust Bonds. If he came up for a Hall of Fame vote tomorrow, in all likelihood he wouldn't have a chance in front of the self-righteous members of the Baseball Writers Association of America, who regularly enshrine players who quite probably used performance-enhancing amphetamines.

By sharp contrast to Bonds, there's barely a whisper of scandal about Clemens. The only outrage concerning him last week came from critics in the New York media who felt the Yankees lowered their standards by agreeing to allow Clemens to be away from the team when he's not scheduled to pitch.

But his body is every bit as bloated as Bonds and his accomplishments every bit as stunning. Yet the feats of Clemens arouse almost no suspicion.

What's more, if he came up for a Hall of Fame vote tomorrow, Clemens would probably be enshrined in a landslide.

In defense of Clemens, although he's hardly been the swellest fellow in the clubhouse, he's not gone out of his way to be antagonistic as has Bonds.

But why is Clemens so in the clear on the steroids issue and Bonds so married to it? Why haven't the amazing numbers Clemens has been posting drawn the same scrutiny as those of Bonds? They are every bit as suspicious.

For the first 21 years of what has been a 23-year career, Clemens assured himself not only of Hall of Fame enshrinement but also with all-time greatness by winning 328 games and posting a career earned run average of 3.11.

To put that in perspective, the career ERAs of Greg Maddux and Steve Carlton, the modern-day pitchers closest to Clemens on the all-time win list, are 3.07 and 3.22. Both declined in later years. Maddux, who is still active, had an ERA last season of 4.20. This season it is 3.67. In Carlton's final two years, his ERAs were 5.10 and 5.74.

In Clemens' two most recent seasons -- when he was older than both Carlton and Maddux -- his ERAs were 1.87 and 2.30. At an age when most pitchers are either retired or significantly declining, Clemens isn't just hanging on, he isn't just getting better, he's getting much much better.

When Bonds improves with age and dominates the game, it's steroids. When Clemens improves with age and dominates the game, it's his great workout regimen.

Bonds, it should be noted, has been steadfast in his denial of using steroids. As near as we can tell, Clemens has never been asked. Neither man has tested positive for steroid use.

Oh, did we mention: Bonds is black and Clemens is white.

That might not have anything to do with the issue and it might have much to do with it. Bonds comes off as an angry, sullen black man, and people don't like that. If he had the demeanor of a Willie Stargell or an Aaron, there's a good chance he'd be getting about as much scrutiny as Clemens. But the nature of his personality leads people, correctly or not, to be suspicious.

Clemens is no sweetheart. His episodes of throwing at Mike Piazza, with a baseball and then a bat, are ugly. But his single-mindedness of purpose, where he has little time for outsiders or the media, has been viewed as a positive. He's just one hard-working guy.

Bonds, too, works hard in the weight room but his regimen has never received the notice of Clemens and he's not regarded as one hard-working guy.

Maybe the difference isn't about race. If not, explain, please, why the magnificent accomplishments of one man are viewed as the result of chemical assistance and the similar accomplishments of another are viewed as the result of hard work.

(Bob Smizik can be reached at [email protected]. )

That's not Smizik's first stab at this question. He has more than once raised an eyebrow about Clemens and steroids. This is just the most recent.

 

[zagoshe]

^^^^^

obviously it's the REAL Bro's with COURAGE that's getting this story right. All other writers are COWARDS for not having integrity.

Yeah, here's another one of those Real Bro's (By the way is Real Bro's an offshoot of Warner Bro's or Ringling Bro's? Just wondering...) who is keeping it real by asking questions about Roger Clemens. And judging by his picture in the column head, he looks like a real gang banger to me......

Smizik: Bonds and Clemens ... The wonders of the game
Sunday, May 13, 2007
By Bob Smizik, Pittsburgh Post-Gazette

Two of the greatest players in baseball history were all over the news last week. Barry Bonds, whose hitting credentials place him in the exclusive company of Babe Ruth, Willie Mays and Ted Williams, moved closer to breaking Hank Aaron's celebrated career home run record, while his skills show almost no sign of deterioration. Roger Clemens, the second winningest pitcher of the past 75 years, signed to play another partial season at an extravagant rate, this time with the New York Yankees.

It's much more than their prodigious accomplishments and massive salaries that bind Bonds and Clemens in historical perspective. Bonds will be 43 in July; Clemens will be 45 in August. No players in baseball history have performed at such a high level at such an advanced age.

As tied together as they are by their feats and their age, Bonds and Clemens are distinctly separated in another area. And that is quite peculiar.

It is virtually impossible to read about Bonds without mention of the steroid accusations that have dogged the latter part of his career. His production at so advanced an age, the size of is head -- believed to be caused by steroid use -- and a large amount of convincing circumstantial evidence have most people believing Bonds' greatness is chemically enhanced. It doesn't help that he's not a very nice person.

It's not just the fans who don't trust Bonds. If he came up for a Hall of Fame vote tomorrow, in all likelihood he wouldn't have a chance in front of the self-righteous members of the Baseball Writers Association of America, who regularly enshrine players who quite probably used performance-enhancing amphetamines.

By sharp contrast to Bonds, there's barely a whisper of scandal about Clemens. The only outrage concerning him last week came from critics in the New York media who felt the Yankees lowered their standards by agreeing to allow Clemens to be away from the team when he's not scheduled to pitch.

But his body is every bit as bloated as Bonds and his accomplishments every bit as stunning. Yet the feats of Clemens arouse almost no suspicion.

What's more, if he came up for a Hall of Fame vote tomorrow, Clemens would probably be enshrined in a landslide.

In defense of Clemens, although he's hardly been the swellest fellow in the clubhouse, he's not gone out of his way to be antagonistic as has Bonds.

But why is Clemens so in the clear on the steroids issue and Bonds so married to it? Why haven't the amazing numbers Clemens has been posting drawn the same scrutiny as those of Bonds? They are every bit as suspicious.

For the first 21 years of what has been a 23-year career, Clemens assured himself not only of Hall of Fame enshrinement but also with all-time greatness by winning 328 games and posting a career earned run average of 3.11.

To put that in perspective, the career ERAs of Greg Maddux and Steve Carlton, the modern-day pitchers closest to Clemens on the all-time win list, are 3.07 and 3.22. Both declined in later years. Maddux, who is still active, had an ERA last season of 4.20. This season it is 3.67. In Carlton's final two years, his ERAs were 5.10 and 5.74.

In Clemens' two most recent seasons -- when he was older than both Carlton and Maddux -- his ERAs were 1.87 and 2.30. At an age when most pitchers are either retired or significantly declining, Clemens isn't just hanging on, he isn't just getting better, he's getting much much better.

When Bonds improves with age and dominates the game, it's steroids. When Clemens improves with age and dominates the game, it's his great workout regimen.

Bonds, it should be noted, has been steadfast in his denial of using steroids. As near as we can tell, Clemens has never been asked. Neither man has tested positive for steroid use.

Oh, did we mention: Bonds is black and Clemens is white.

That might not have anything to do with the issue and it might have much to do with it. Bonds comes off as an angry, sullen black man, and people don't like that. If he had the demeanor of a Willie Stargell or an Aaron, there's a good chance he'd be getting about as much scrutiny as Clemens. But the nature of his personality leads people, correctly or not, to be suspicious.

Clemens is no sweetheart. His episodes of throwing at Mike Piazza, with a baseball and then a bat, are ugly. But his single-mindedness of purpose, where he has little time for outsiders or the media, has been viewed as a positive. He's just one hard-working guy.

Bonds, too, works hard in the weight room but his regimen has never received the notice of Clemens and he's not regarded as one hard-working guy.

Maybe the difference isn't about race. If not, explain, please, why the magnificent accomplishments of one man are viewed as the result of chemical assistance and the similar accomplishments of another are viewed as the result of hard work.

(Bob Smizik can be reached at [email protected]. )

That's not Smizik's first stab at this question. He has more than once raised an eyebrow about Clemens and steroids. This is just the most recent.

So what are you saying -- that Scoop isn't on the cutting edge when it comes to calling out and/or questioning Roger Clemens' status as a deity? I refuse to believe that.....

 

[Boobie Miles]

Luckily it was short, but I was able to make my way through that piece. I had no idea what the hell he was even trying to get across. At least the final paragraph summed it up:

But again, my problem is not with Roger, it's with us. The media cowards. Because all of us, for too long now, have looked past all of this and validated what I've said my whole life: "Pimpin' ain't easy, the media is just scared."

 

[Chuck~Taylor]

Luckily it was short, but I was able to make my way through that piece. I had no idea what the hell he was even trying to get across. At least the final paragraph summed it up:

But again, my problem is not with Roger, it's with us. The media cowards. Because all of us, for too long now, have looked past all of this and validated what I've said my whole life: "Pimpin' ain't easy, the media is just scared."

Pimpin' ain't easy, the media is just scared? WTF?

Here's the real question. Should Roga' Clemens get the same treatment TO has gotten?

 

[Inky_Wretch]

Note to Scoop: Google. Learn it, love it, and use it before you talk about the media not calling Clemens selfish...

http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/baseball/bal-sp.steele13may13,0,3198838.column?coll=bal-sports-baseball
http://www.newsday.com/sports/columnists/ny-spwally105206509may10,0,744065.column?coll=ny-sports-columnists
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13075111/
http://cbs.sportsline.com/columns/story/10180343

 

[I Like HD]

Wow, that was a bad column.

 

[poindexter]

Note to Scoop: Google. Learn it, love it, and use it before you talk about the media not calling Clemens selfish...

http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/baseball/bal-sp.steele13may13,0,3198838.column?coll=bal-sports-baseball
http://www.newsday.com/sports/columnists/ny-spwally105206509may10,0,744065.column?coll=ny-sports-columnists
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13075111/
http://cbs.sportsline.com/columns/story/10180343

What a **** this guy scoop is. I mean, seriously. Is it that hard to get a premise for a column, you know, correct?

 

[zagoshe]

Note to Scoop: Google. Learn it, love it, and use it before you talk about the media not calling Clemens selfish...

http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/baseball/bal-sp.steele13may13,0,3198838.column?coll=bal-sports-baseball
http://www.newsday.com/sports/columnists/ny-spwally105206509may10,0,744065.column?coll=ny-sports-columnists
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/13075111/
http://cbs.sportsline.com/columns/story/10180343

Forget about the over-the-top "I'm keepin' it real" street slang and schtick that Scoop uses -- I get it, ESPN is trying to be hip so they went and got the "hippest" brotha on the block. (wink, wink).

What is embarrassing to me about Scoop is the total lack of research he does before he sits down to write something given the forum he has. His schtick to me isn't the problem, it is his laziness, his inablity to think creatively or come up with anything fresh or new ideas.

ESPN should be ashamed for putting their stamp on this guy's work because it is generally and genuinely just terrible.

 

[shotglass]

Sportsbra Scoop certainly didn't do his homework on this piece of ****.

 

[andykent]

Talk about dropping the hammer with authority and then leaving the room quickly, quietly and with dignity:

Well done Inky.

 

[CarlSpackler]

Wouldn't Clemens be a ***** rather than a pimp? That's my bone to pick.

 

[PTOWN]

First Scoop must not watch his own network because at least Jay the Jerk ripped Clemens. Secondly, why does Scoop write like Stew Scott speaks??

 

[Mmac]

Honestly, WTF is Scoop talking about? I've seen the Clemens is a selfish prima donna angle addressed SO MANY TIMES from SO MANY WRITERS over the years that I'd think that theme could fairly be characterized as beaten to death. And Scoop claims we're "afraid" to write about it? Good lord is that off the mark. Just what more does he think needs to be said?

Aside from the fact that he usually writes like a child (minus the depth), Scoop's pieces suggest someone utterly desperate for a worthwhile original idea. ESPN's decision to dump Whitlock in favor of Scoop has begun to look like sportswriting's version of Jordan/Bowie, Brock/Broglio, Parish-McHale/Carroll on the dumb**** decision scale.

 

[Boobie Miles]

Aside from the fact that he usually writes like a child (minus the depth), Scoop's pieces suggest someone utterly desperate for a worthwhile original idea. ESPN's decision to dump Whitlock in favor of Scoop has begun to look like sportswriting's version of Jordan/Bowie, Brock/Broglio, Parish-McHale/Carroll on the dumb**** decision scale.

It's funny because I never really thought of it like that, but you're right. Of course you can't have one employee insulinting another publicly, but I think it would have been pretty funny (and correct) if ESPN said "You know what, Whitlock's right Scoop does suck" and canned him instead. I'm sure ESPN would rather have the stuff that Whitlock has been writing lately than whatever the hell sportsbra has been.

 

[Sportsbruh]

looks like a klansmen rally in here.

btw: Scoop could have been calling out his OWN organization.

 

[Boobie Miles]

looks like a klansmen rally in here.

btw: Scoop could have been calling out his OWN organization.

I don't think one person has mentioned the author's race at any point during this entire thread. His astonishing lack of talent has come up frequently.

 

[lono]

Doesn't matter.

Nobody laid-the-Pipe like Scoop.

And nobody tortures the English language like you - I haven't seen anything this grotesque since the Sandinistas used to beat nuns with rubber hoses.