Comments on: Report: Curt Schilling’s claim that someone suggested he use PEDs was “completely baseless”

By: DelawarePhilliesFan

DelawarePhilliesFan — Tue, 12 Feb 2013 00:07:39 +0000

Right – and I hear you on that point.

By: hockeyflow33

hockeyflow33 — Mon, 11 Feb 2013 23:44:35 +0000

It seems to me MLB stands to lose a lot more if it is true that some of their team employees are telling recuperating players to take PEDs than anything beneficial for Schilling.

Also, I’m fairly certain Edes has a strong dislike for Schilling.

By: historiophiliac

historiophiliac — Mon, 11 Feb 2013 22:16:36 +0000

I wasn’t really arguing whether his claim was true or not. I was just pointing out that getting caught up in that word (baseless) is kinda pointless. Investigators would use words about whether you could prove it or not — I had more than one case where I thought the claim was true, but I couldn’t prove it (and a couple where I thought the claim was shady but the evidence was on the complainant’s side). “Baseless” is a word the defense breaks out to look good. That’s all I was saying. You could absolutely be right about how that went down.

By: DelawarePhilliesFan

DelawarePhilliesFan — Mon, 11 Feb 2013 21:54:00 +0000

An attorney is partisan though. If these sources are partisan (and maybe they are), then I wold agree with your analogy. But read the article, and read what they say. They say more then just “baseless”,. they usewords liek “it didn’t happen”.

Again, I don’t pretend to know what occured. But Shilling wants us to believe that AFTER testifying before congress, he didn’t think this was such a big deal….and I don’t wnat to name names’s….and uhhhh….I didn’t mean to suggest it was a big deal….and uhhhh…..

By: historiophiliac

historiophiliac — Mon, 11 Feb 2013 21:36:31 +0000

Every time I investigated a case and the claim couldn’t be proven, the company’s attorney was sure to assert that the complaint was “baseless.” It’s popular wording, so I wouldn’t analyze that too much.

By: byjiminy

byjiminy — Mon, 11 Feb 2013 21:05:49 +0000

Uses slander and innuendo to grandstand about dubious accusations, even after they’re debunked…

Rails against welfare while cashing in on corporate welfare…

Pompously lectures the public on things he knows nothing about, based on his experience as a professional athlete and failed businessman…

Constantly acts morally superior despite being an obvious slimebag…

How is this guy not already a U.S. Senator?

By: byjiminy

byjiminy — Mon, 11 Feb 2013 20:51:56 +0000

horseshit the other four…

By: alexb64

alexb64 — Mon, 11 Feb 2013 19:39:43 +0000

I love living in a media world where an ESPN Boston writer can declare a claim coming from a player not hiding his identity to be baseless citing nothing but two “anonymous sources”. The reporter should’ve told the team if they wanted him to be their damage control they needed to go on the record.

By: snowbirdgothic

snowbirdgothic — Mon, 11 Feb 2013 19:33:06 +0000

Reading the article, the implication is that :
A)Schilling claims to have had the incriminating conversation in front of witnesses.
B)Schilling reported the conversation but did not name the training staff member in question.
C)MLB investigated, talked to the witnesses, and was told “Nope, that’s not what happened.”
D)MLB’s investigators also uncovered evidence that Schilling had personal issues with the staff member in question.
E)Schilling then blamed politicians in Rhode Island.

By: DelawarePhilliesFan

DelawarePhilliesFan — Mon, 11 Feb 2013 18:17:05 +0000

Playing Devils Advocate a little further, one possible way that private discussion could be called baseless would be this:

Schilling: I met with Trainer X Tuesday, and he told me to use PED’s
MLB: And you are sure that is what he said?
Schilling: Yes
MLB: And it was just you and Trainer X, no one else was in the room?
Schilling: No, just me and him
MLB: Because Trainer X was not in town that whole week, he was away on vacation and has provided hotel receipts and other proof

You get the idea. There could be soemthing Schilling said that was material to the whole claim that later proved demonstrably false. Of course, I have no clue what did or did not happen, just saying that is how a conclusion like that could have been reached

By: eshine76

eshine76 — Mon, 11 Feb 2013 18:12:31 +0000

Given Schilling’s difference of opinion on how to treat his shoulder, I’m wondering if Schilling acted like an ass to the trainer / doctor in the clubhouse and that person popped of with “If you aren’t going to rest it and rehab like we’re recommending, the only other way you are going to get back out on that field is with some HGH and a round of steroids. If that’s the route you want to go, then fine. If they catch you, your career is basically over anyway. Otherwise, I suggest you get out of my face and get your ass back in that training room.”

By: paperlions

paperlions — Mon, 11 Feb 2013 17:42:29 +0000

I agree with you both….there could have been a misunderstanding, but there is no way to tell, is there, since all you have is the conflicting words of two individuals.

I guess the only way “baseless” would apply is if both guys quoted the exact same conversation and it was clear that Schilling was reading more into it than was there. If true, it would be really strange for Schilling to bring it up again since he would have been informed of the misunderstanding and the two guys would have worked it out, right? Of course, this Schilling….so, it is hard to say, he doesn’t exactly have credibility….I wouldn’t be surprised if he was told it was a misunderstanding and he just ignored that for the sake of self-involved drama.

By: dan1111

dan1111 — Mon, 11 Feb 2013 17:05:40 +0000

Yeah. There could be a difference of opinion about what exactly was said, but the implication that he just made it up doesn’t ring true to me.

By: Old Gator

Old Gator — Mon, 11 Feb 2013 17:04:22 +0000

You mean heartburn.

By: churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged

churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged — Mon, 11 Feb 2013 17:02:49 +0000

Playing Devil’s Advocate here, it could be a question over what was exactly suggested/prescribed? For instance, maybe the doc’s suggested a regiment of Toradol and other drugs that skirt the line between PED and not, and Schilling is just confused? Or Schilling is telling the truth and everyone is circling the wagon?

By: paperlions

paperlions — Mon, 11 Feb 2013 16:51:55 +0000

I am wondering how, exactly, one determines that claims about a semi-private discussion are “baseless”…unless someone had a recording of the conversation, it is just he-said he-said.

Seems like the only thing a player can say with respect to PEDs and be believed is “yes, I used them”….not sure that is fair, but baseball asked for this attitude by first ignoring the issue for decades and then suddenly turning it into a giant witch hunt in which they treat their product like criminals for PR purposes.

By: dan1111

dan1111 — Mon, 11 Feb 2013 16:48:34 +0000

If only you took his words to heart.

By: jlinatl

jlinatl — Mon, 11 Feb 2013 16:46:42 +0000

horse every 5th day…

By: jwbiii

jwbiii — Mon, 11 Feb 2013 16:45:20 +0000

When asked about fried chicken and beer, Schilling belched and said, “No comment.”

By: Old Gator

Old Gator — Mon, 11 Feb 2013 16:44:51 +0000

Gowachin guilty!