Jan 10, 2011, 11:36 AM EDT
Say what you want about Jeff Pearlman’s take on steroids in baseball, but at least he’s consistent. He was on Mike Silva’s NYBD podcast last night, and doubled down on his accusations:
For the record, Pearlman reiterated his position on Jeff Bagwell saying he was “so certain he used steroids from being around that team, era, and researching his Clemens book.” He would go on to tell me that if Bagwell didn’t use then the “world is flat.”When I asked him if Craig Biggio falls into the same category as Bagwell because he played for Houston, a team that he said earlier in the show was hotbed for PED use, he said yes.
At this point Pearlman is so far out on an accusatory limb that the notion of holding back for fear of a lawsuit or something is silly. As such — and given how important he and so many others view the issue of steroids to baseball and the Hall of Fame — is he not obligated to actually report on it? To pass along the information he gleaned from his research for his Clemens book which he says implicates Bagwell and Biggio?
This isn’t a rhetorical question. There’s so much irresponsible speculation floating around. Pearlman clearly believes that it’s not a point of speculation: it’s fact. And Pearlman may be right about this stuff. Doesn’t he do baseball journalism a service by settling the matter? If I was a Sports Illustrated editor I’d be calling him ten times a day, imploring him to write the story.
- Video: Josh Hamilton hits his first home run of the season 10
- Rockies starter Chad Bettis loses his no-hitter in the eighth inning 1
- Stephen Strasburg exits start in the second inning with an apparent injury 4
- More than half of polled baseball fans prefer having the pitcher hit 46
- The Marlins aren’t happy with the Dan Jennings hire 41
- Andrew McCutchen is doing just fine now, thank you 19
- The schedule: if it ain’t broke, don’t fix it 69
- And That Happened: Thursday’s scores and highlights 72