Skip to content

Quote of the Day: if you disagree with MLB’s tactics, you’re apparently pro-cheater

Jan 14, 2014, 11:07 AM EDT

Bud Selig

This gem from Bob Klapisch is why we can’t have nice things:

Does it bother you that MLB played tough to get the evidence? It shouldn’t, not if you believe baseball needs to root out its cheaters.

This is the sort of logic that has prevented any sense of sanity to prevail in the conversation about performance enhancing drugs. Apparently if you’re bothered — merely bothered! — that MLB paid off a drug dealer, purchases stolen evidence and allows its investigators to sleep with witnesses and all manner of other things, you’re pro-cheater. You think PEDs should be totally legalized or something. If you’re not 100% for MLB, you’re against it.

I think it was the sixth grade when I was introduced into the ethical and moral subject of whether ends justify means. It may have been even earlier than that. Yet here is a big time newspaper columnist who thinks such considerations are silly.  He should be embarrassed.

Or, if he wants to remain consistent with this argument, he can advocate summary executions of suspected PED users. That is, if he doesn’t want us to think he’s pro-cheater.

  1. DelawarePhilliesFan - Jan 14, 2014 at 11:14 AM

    That is terrible to cast such a wide slander

    http://hardballtalk.nbcsports.com/2012/02/24/think-braun-is-still-dirty-fine-but-at-least-admit-you-dont-care-about-drug-testing-then/

    • Craig Calcaterra - Jan 14, 2014 at 11:37 AM

      Yeah, because my point there — that people seem to be totally OK with the drug testing program as long as it gives them results they like — is so different than what I’m criticizing here.

      • DelawarePhilliesFan - Jan 14, 2014 at 11:42 AM

        Wide slander is never a good idea, chief.

      • sabatimus - Jan 14, 2014 at 12:17 PM

        Too bad this isn’t wide slander.

      • ezthinking - Jan 14, 2014 at 12:48 PM

        Del,

        You might want to look up what slander really is because your apparent definition is not remotely close.

  2. philsphilsphils - Jan 14, 2014 at 11:15 AM

    Get off the soapbox already. We get it that you’re above the mainstream thought process.

    • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Jan 14, 2014 at 11:34 AM

      So you think the ends justify the means?

    • indaburg - Jan 14, 2014 at 11:42 AM

      Nuanced thinking causes migraines, doesn’t it?

    • clemente2 - Jan 14, 2014 at 2:22 PM

      Coming right out and admitting you’re an idiot. Admirable.

  3. chacochicken - Jan 14, 2014 at 11:19 AM

    I love entrapment!

    • moogro - Jan 14, 2014 at 5:38 PM

      Especially the laser scene!

  4. Jason @ IIATMS - Jan 14, 2014 at 11:22 AM

    If you believe RBI and wins are the best determinants for offensive and pitching skillsets, respectively, then you are pro-Chass.

  5. sabathiawouldbegoodattheeighthtoo - Jan 14, 2014 at 11:23 AM

    Sounds like GWBush-era patriotism. If you disagree with war and torture, then you don’t really love America.

    • skids003 - Jan 14, 2014 at 11:49 AM

      And you can keep your health insurance if you want to, sabathia.

      • dluxxx - Jan 14, 2014 at 11:59 AM

        I did.

      • sabathiawouldbegoodattheeighthtoo - Jan 14, 2014 at 12:22 PM

        Not quite the same. One was a mis-statement of fact, while the other was false dichotomy directly analogous to the post that my comment refers to.

        I am still waiting to hear about the people who are actually worse off under their new insurance plans though.

      • asimonetti88 - Jan 14, 2014 at 12:27 PM

        “I am still waiting to hear about the people who are actually worse off under their new insurance plans though.”

        My new insurance plan has higher co-pays. It does cover me in case of pregnancy however, which is very helpful as a single male.

      • sabatimus - Jan 14, 2014 at 12:27 PM

        For the people who are too poor to afford insurance, the new law can be catastrophic. I have friends who would have to settle for the cheapest plan…which still costs too much for them and hardly covers anything worth a damn.

      • skids003 - Jan 14, 2014 at 12:33 PM

        “Mis-statement of fact.” You mean ‘lie.?”

      • NatsLady - Jan 14, 2014 at 12:34 PM

        If they are that poor, don’t they qualify for Medicaid?

      • sabatimus - Jan 14, 2014 at 12:41 PM

        In the State I live in, Medicaid qualifications are an absolute joke. You basically have to be destitute. The irony here is that, if my friends signed up for the cheapest plan, THAT would likely make them destitute.

      • cohnjusack - Jan 14, 2014 at 12:44 PM

        “It does cover me in case of pregnancy however, which is very helpful as a single male.”

        And no more dropping you because you’re sick, pre-existing condition exclusions, no more yearly or lifetime limits and the fact that women make up 50% of the population are also in play here…they just haven’t affected you yet.

        Obamacare is a half-assed, corporate ass-licking solution to a much larger problem. Sadly, it was still far superior to what was there before.

    • kopy - Jan 14, 2014 at 12:04 PM

      At least those things only started in 2001 and ended in 2009, right?

      • sabathiawouldbegoodattheeighthtoo - Jan 14, 2014 at 12:24 PM

        I think a good amount of policy has gotten worse, but the associated rhetoric has toned down a bit. The Federal Government may be violating laws, but they are not trying to force us all to love them for doing it.

      • sabatimus - Jan 14, 2014 at 12:28 PM

        sabathia, after Edward Snowden, I think it might be impossible for many people to love the federal government for a long time.

    • sabatimus - Jan 14, 2014 at 12:21 PM

      You beat me to it: “Either you’re with us, or you’re with the terrorists”. Such a reductionist statement by the President, when combined with a nation that was collectively suffering from at least low-grade post-traumatic stress, led to the Patriot Act: possibly the worst piece of legislation I’ve ever seen.

    • rich7041 - Jan 14, 2014 at 2:04 PM

      Jesus said it first: “Whoever is not with me is against me, and whoever does not gather with me scatters.” (Matthew 12:30)

      • sabathiawouldbegoodattheeighthtoo - Jan 14, 2014 at 4:09 PM

        That guys sounds like a hippie.

      • crackersnap - Jan 14, 2014 at 5:30 PM

        Yeah, but could he hit a curveball?

      • sabatimus - Jan 14, 2014 at 6:41 PM

        Thanks for that context-less quote from a book of fiction.

    • sdelmonte - Jan 14, 2014 at 2:24 PM

      My thoughts, too. But a big difference in that at some level, Dubya was reacting to a threat against life and property. There is room to debate what is or is not acceptable for a government to do under such situations. Whereas the idea that a private organization would have the right to do as it pleases to prevent people from cheating at a game is at once laughable and disturbing.

  6. asimonetti88 - Jan 14, 2014 at 11:27 AM

    Baseball is turning into too much of a soap opera. I swear, writers spend more time talking about stuff off the field than on it. Part of that is a function of it being offseason, but even in season, talk has increasingly surrounded the things going on off the field. Let’s celebrate what goes on on the field, not cry about what happens off it.

    • asimonetti88 - Jan 14, 2014 at 12:24 PM

      btw this is a criticism of guys like Klapisch not HBT. Before the inevitable “you don’t have to read it if you don’t want to” comments come in.

    • ezthinking - Jan 14, 2014 at 1:01 PM

      Pretty sure the HOF was created to give the sportswriters something to write about in the offseason since it was created by a newspaper man who decided on his own to attribute the creation of baseball to his friend (which has repeatedly been discredited).

    • paperlions - Jan 14, 2014 at 2:46 PM

      One thing these off-season topic do is help us to see which writers are actually idiots and which ones are not. The amazing thing is how little critical thinking ability and subtlety of thought process exists within the sports MSM.

  7. flyman2 - Jan 14, 2014 at 11:40 AM

    I am pro-cheater. I don’t see why I should care if someone did steroids when the commissioner of the sport didn’t care for a decade.

    • davidpom50 - Jan 14, 2014 at 1:11 PM

      flyman, while I hold a starkly differing opinion from you, I applaud you for being honest about your own opinion. Too many on the pro=steroids side are not.

  8. The Common Man - Jan 14, 2014 at 11:41 AM

    LOVE IT OR LEAVE IT, CRAIG!

  9. scoutsaysweitersisabust - Jan 14, 2014 at 11:52 AM

    The process matters more than the outcome.

  10. tfbuckfutter - Jan 14, 2014 at 11:54 AM

    What if you could care less about MLB’s tactics because MLB isn’t a law enforcement agency and isn’t required to follow any set rules in how they investigate things?

    And what if you also think Alex Rodriguez is a total scumbag for innumerable reasons so you could also care less if he’s railroaded or not?

    Plus the fact that, regardless of how they got the evidence they got….you know….the evidence proves he did it.

    • scoutsaysweitersisabust - Jan 14, 2014 at 12:04 PM

      So, only people you like deserve to be treated fairly and within the guidelines of the system? -merica!

      • peymax1693 - Jan 14, 2014 at 12:18 PM

        The irony about people like tfbuckfutter who say the ends justify the means when it comes to punishing wrongdoers is that if they were ever to find themselves in a legal predicament they would be the first ones screaming for a lawyer.

      • tfbuckfutter - Jan 14, 2014 at 12:21 PM

        Actually pey, you know nothing about me.

        However, if I were caught on camera stealing from my job, and my defense was “I shouldn’t be punished because you didn’t alert us that cameras were installed and monitoring us” I wouldn’t really expect people to rush to my defense.

      • byjiminy - Jan 14, 2014 at 3:07 PM

        Correct, Tbuck, I wouldn’t care about you if you got busted for stealing and claimed the surveillance used to nab you was illegal. I’d care about the person who got fired next, for criticising his boss in private to his wife on the phone, or because the boss wanted to replace him with his mistress, and was able to produce fifteen minutes of videotape showing he was writing comments to Hardball Talk instead of working, a power he now could invoke on whoever he wanted, whenever he wanted, because everyone in the whole office takes work breaks on the internet, so he has something on everyone. It’s not all about you. Nor is it all about A-Rod.

      • tfbuckfutter - Jan 14, 2014 at 3:27 PM

        So….your concern is that MLB will, in the future, buy evidence from drug dealers so Bud Selig’s can replace Derek Jeter with his mistress?

      • scoutsaysweitersisabust - Jan 14, 2014 at 4:51 PM

        It’s a very slippery slope. One day you’re purchasing stolen confidential medical documents, next you’re hanging someone’s baby upside down by their toenails to get them to testify. But it’s OK as long as you are punishing a player for taking an illegal substance that probably caused them more harm than good. Sort of like how it’s OK for the Punisher to brutally kill a father of four for jay-walking.

      • tfbuckfutter - Jan 14, 2014 at 5:01 PM

        Actually it’s not a slippery slope.

        At all.

        Because they can’t threaten or enforce a deprivation of liberty, and anything they do outside of the law is prosecutable.

        It’s not illegal for me to buy documents from you.

        Hell, they aren’t even depriving him of his ability to earn a living….just depriving him of his ability to ply his craft in their organization. He can even still play professional baseball if he wants. Just not in their organization.

      • scoutsaysweitersisabust - Jan 14, 2014 at 5:09 PM

        But purchase and possession of stolen material is ok? How about bribery? How about coercion, threats? How about abuse of the legal system? Yes, Alex broke many laws, and yes he should be punished. But MLB did some pretty illegal things themselves. So who’s to say which laws we can break and which we can’t to get our man? Where does it end?

      • tfbuckfutter - Jan 14, 2014 at 5:45 PM

        No. Possession of stolen material is a crime. And if the material is reported stolen, with an accompanying police report and charges filed whoever is in possession should face a crime.

        And bribery? Who was bribed? Because bribery is only a crime when it involves someone entrusted with the public’s care. I can bribe my neighbor to mow my lawn.

        As for coercion and threats….also if they rise to the level of unlawful and there are charges filed and evidence of such than it ought to be investigated.

    • yournuts - Jan 14, 2014 at 12:11 PM

      tbuckfutter, a really stupid and foolish comment. To say that you don’t care if Arod was railroaded is stupid and outrageous. Nobody and I mean nobody deserves to be railroaded. It doesn’t matter if you think Arod is a scumbag or not.

    • stex52 - Jan 14, 2014 at 12:12 PM

      There is such a thing as professional ethics.

      If you sleep with the dogs, you get fleas. I’m looking at you, MLB.

    • tfbuckfutter - Jan 14, 2014 at 12:15 PM

      Sorry. Don’t care.

      It’s their business. They aren’t a law enforcement agency.

      If the union doesn’t care no one else should either. If they want to collectively bargain what methods can and can’t be used in investigations, fine….but for now, T.S.

      I’m also not crying that someone was suspended from WORK for something they DID because of how their bosses acquired the information needed to suspend them. It’s not like he’s been jailed.

      • NatsLady - Jan 14, 2014 at 12:37 PM

        Right on! Not only has he not been jailed, but no one’s expecting him pay back the salary he got fraudulently.

      • clemente2 - Jan 14, 2014 at 2:43 PM

        Yes, screw people by shoddy and underhand practices. Who cares? It’s not me.

        You will think this way until the moment someone with unchecked power decides you or yours are the bad guys and need to be dealt with by “extraordinary measures”.

        Justice in this world is procedural justice. When you abandon procedural justice you leave decisions to those with power with no limit on how they exercise it. And the history of such people is not good—they go after who they do not like, not who deserves it.

        And we should want that justice whether the infringing part of the machine is the federal government or a private employer.

      • tfbuckfutter - Jan 14, 2014 at 2:48 PM

        Sure. Shoddy and underhanded practices….were we actually talking about the government.

        Who, or what, governs the behavior of a private employer? Where is the line between shoddy and underhanded and acceptable?

        “This guy has the evidence we need. I asked if we could have it and he said no. Want me to offer to buy it?” “Of course not. That would be shoddy and underhanded.” “Oh….want me to threaten to put him in jail?” “Of course not, we have no authority to put him in jail.” “Want me to threaten to turn him in to the cops?” “Of course not! We can’t blackmail people. You do that and the captain will have my head!” “What captain, boss?”

    • paperlions - Jan 14, 2014 at 2:58 PM

      What if you couldn’t care less instead of your current state of caring some amount > 0?

      • tfbuckfutter - Jan 14, 2014 at 3:29 PM

        I don’t know why I use that expression because I hate it for that very reason but it’s so ingrained, both in correct and incorrect form, that I don’t even pay attention to the fact that I am even using it, let alone using the incorrect form of it.

        For all intensive purposes you knew what I mean so irregardless, it’s a mute point.

      • paperlions - Jan 14, 2014 at 3:30 PM

        I was just being a dick. :-)

      • paperlions - Jan 14, 2014 at 3:31 PM

        * intents and purposes
        :-)

        Sorry, couldn’t be helped.

      • tfbuckfutter - Jan 14, 2014 at 3:37 PM

        There’s more goodies conveniently hidden in there.

      • scoutsaysweitersisabust - Jan 14, 2014 at 5:21 PM

        regardless

        I got one! :)

        meant

        I got two!

        Moot point!

        Damn I’m on fire!

  11. jtorrey13 - Jan 14, 2014 at 11:59 AM

    Baseball – don’t question, just watch.
    Hot dogs – don’t question, just eat.
    Apple pie – don’t question what pesticides or genetic modification is used for apples, just smell it until it cools.
    Chevrolet – don’t question any financials, just keep on driving.

    America – don’t question, JUST BUY.

    (Ugh. I’m going to kick this soap box over. I feel no better than a mainstream journalist. It’s kind of a raw spot in my tum-tum.)

    • dluxxx - Jan 14, 2014 at 12:04 PM

      Prilosec – Don’t worry about long term effects. Just keep taking it…

  12. scoutsaysweitersisabust - Jan 14, 2014 at 12:02 PM

    Anyone who uses or has ever used a steroid, or a substance which used to be legal, but then was reclassified as a steroid after you stopped using it (I’m looking at you Mark McGwire) should immediately commit Seppuku. That is the only fair punishment, and the only acceptable solution. The hierarchy of criminals is as follows: Roiders > Murders > Rapists > Those who side with Roiders > People who talk in the theater.

    Remember, it’s about integrity of the game people! Do not F#ck with my childhood memories!

  13. ctony1216 - Jan 14, 2014 at 12:04 PM

    Yes, Klapisch is wrong. But you know, there are some sportswriters doing actual good reporting on the PED issue, including Tom Verducci, who explains that MLB has a new testing regimen that is able to better prevent the the things A-Rod was doing from 2010-2012.

    Writes Verducci:
    “Rodriguez’s drug regimen from 2010-12 is an outdated strategy that likely would not have worked last year when baseball tightened its testing protocols. Baseball owners and players agreed in 2013 to adopt the so-called “biological passport” form of testing — the same testing that disgraced cyclist Lance Armstrong admitted forced him to abruptly end his years of doping.”

    Read More: http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/mlb/news/20140113/alex-rodriguez-drug-testing-gary-wadler/#ixzz2qOR5gIuK

    And hopefully, as a result, there won’t be a need for MLB to “play hardball” and violate players’ rights, break IRS rules, and make deals with drug dealers.

    • dluxxx - Jan 14, 2014 at 12:12 PM

      Great. So why didn’t they do that before?

      • ctony1216 - Jan 14, 2014 at 1:35 PM

        After MLB started testing players for PEDs, the PED dealers and users adjusted their “protocols” to beat the tests. Once MLB learned this was happening, MLB improved the tests, effective for 2013. Players supported this too.

        PED users and their dealers will keep devising ways to try to beat the test, so MLB will have to keep adjusting its testing methods accordingly. It’s good to know that MLB and its players are doing this.

      • crackersnap - Jan 14, 2014 at 5:38 PM

        I still submit that the best way to avoid detection is to undergo your futuristic chemical therapy in a foreign country during the offseason.

  14. yournuts - Jan 14, 2014 at 12:05 PM

    The part that MLB paid off a drug dealer, purchases stolen evidence and allows its investigators to sleep with witnesses and all manner of other things smell fishy to me. The other part was the interview when MLB said that they believed Tony Bosch when they looked into his eyes. How pathetic is that. Arod may be 100% guilty or maybe not, it is for better people than me to decide but it just smells like Arod got railroaded to me. No Federal judge would ever allow Tony Bosch’s statement considering that he is paid and has his legal defense paid for by MLB.

  15. sf69ers - Jan 14, 2014 at 12:07 PM

    So in baseball they do whatever it takes to catch cheaters and keep them out of the hof, while rape and murder in the nfl is allowed, and even gets individuals broadcasting jobs. There is something wrong with this picture.

    • sabatimus - Jan 14, 2014 at 12:36 PM

      If you’re referring to Ray Lewis here, as much as I believe he should have gone to prison, he was never convicted of murder. Ben Roethlisberger was never convicted of rape. Does that mean neither of them did it? No. It just means that they weren’t convicted. If they were convicted, I highly doubt the NFL would “allow” Roethlisberger to play (or ESPN allow Ray Lewis to broadcast) without them first serving their jail/prison time.

      Remember Donte Stallworth’s DUI manslaughter? His sentence was about 30 days. The NFL suspended him for a year.

  16. peymax1693 - Jan 14, 2014 at 12:14 PM

    Bob Klapish, like many sports writers, apparently treats cheating as a black and white issue; if an athlete is caught cheating he is not deserving of any sympathy or, more importantly, due process in order to ensure that he or she is punished appropriately.

    What I love about people like Klapish is that they would be the first ones to run to an attorney if they felt they were unfairly treated by their employers.

  17. largebill - Jan 14, 2014 at 12:19 PM

    In some ways this attitude mirrors the Stop and Frisk situation in some cities (most notably NYC). Anyone who opposes the notion of random searches of people merely for appearing suspicious (who decides what constitutes suspicious?) is called soft on crime or something similar. However, it is quite possible that one could object to Stop and Frisk because it seems to be a clear violation of our 4th Amendment rights against unreasonable search and seizure. Likewise someone can be opposed to un-prescribed steroid use while simultaneously thinking MLB occasionally goes overboard in attempting to catch users or that the penalties are excessive. More things are grey than are black&white.

  18. uwsptke - Jan 14, 2014 at 12:21 PM

    If you’re not 100% for MLB, you’re against it.

    Only a Sith deals in absolutes…

  19. pastabelly - Jan 14, 2014 at 12:30 PM

    It’s too easy to forget that baseball is paying off these scumbags because these are the scumbags that Rodriguez introduced to the equation. Rodriguez can’t criticize others for having dirty hands when his are filthy.

    • sabatimus - Jan 14, 2014 at 12:38 PM

      Sure he can. It’s hypocritical, but that’s like saying it’s ok for MLB to traffic in stolen property as long as A-Rod gets to roid up and get away with it. Both parties think they are above the law.

    • scoutsaysweitersisabust - Jan 14, 2014 at 12:43 PM

      So two wrongs make a right?

      • sabatimus - Jan 14, 2014 at 12:45 PM

        My point exactly :)

  20. anxovies - Jan 14, 2014 at 2:17 PM

    Kind of an Orwellian/Stalinist view of things. If you don’t believe the official version you are an enemy of the state. It ranks right up there with “everything not expressly approved is forbidden.”

  21. bfunk1978 - Jan 14, 2014 at 2:47 PM

    Young children learn whether or not ends justify means when they’re denied a boobie because they’re being weaned. I hope you were weaned before 6th grade.

  22. 18thstreet - Jan 14, 2014 at 3:01 PM

    Years ago, Stephen Colbert was interviewing Nancy Grace. Grace said how defense attorneys are just the worst. Scum of the earth. The audience was aghast. And Colbert said, no, no. She’s right. She makes a great point. So, Nancy, which should we get rid of first: defense attorneys or trials altogether?

    • churchoftheperpetuallyoutraged - Jan 14, 2014 at 4:03 PM

      You should get rid of Nancy Grace. Any time a former prosecutor says:
      “If anything, I would suggest that guilt made her commit suicide. To suggest that a 15- or 20-minute interview can cause someone to commit suicide is focusing on the wrong thing.”

      After a 22 year old guest killed herself post interview from Grace. She’s right up there with “Legal Analyst” Lester Munson as people who shouldn’t be given the time of day.

    • largebill - Jan 14, 2014 at 4:25 PM

      While Nancy may be scum of the earth, I still believe the only time a lawyer does any good is when they are protecting someone from harm by another lawyer. In other words, we wouldn’t need lawyers if it wasn’t for the danger of other lawyers lurking about.

  23. lanflfan - Jan 14, 2014 at 4:36 PM

    Only the Sith deal in absolutes.

  24. chip56 - Jan 14, 2014 at 4:54 PM

    I don’t like the tactics MLB used but I understand their need to use them. When you’re dealing with drug dealers and drug users it is very hard to stay clean. This is especially true when you’re a body without the power to compel anyone to cooperate with you. The result is that you have to make deals and, by the nature of what you’re trying to investigate, the deals you make are going to be with shady characters.

  25. genericcommenter - Jan 14, 2014 at 7:29 PM

    People like Bob Klapisch are the reason a lot of Americans think it’s OK to plant drugs on people, pay informants to lie, shoot dogs as they are running away, run tanks into cars, burn down houses, and murder 90 year-old women. And if you disagree with any of that, you want elementary school kids to be drug-addled prostitutes.

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Featured video

Will Stanton worry about future beanings?
Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. G. Stanton (3496)
  2. J. Hamilton (2451)
  3. A. Rizzo (2447)
  4. G. Holland (2440)
  5. B. Gardner (2313)
  1. B. Belt (2156)
  2. R. Castillo (2152)
  3. D. Pedroia (2102)
  4. A. Pujols (2060)
  5. C. Young (1944)