I just always thought it was very simple: If you did something and someone asks you if you did it and you didn't do it, you say no. Any other answer than no is some form of yes, isn't it?It doesn't surprise me to hear Schilling, a Bush-backing Republican, parrot the wingnuts' mantra that if you are innocent, you shouldn't mind having your house searched, phone tapped, mail opened, web activities tracked, urine tested, being filmed by cameras throughout your town, etc., etc. (How odd, then, that the current group of conservatives pushing this crap are without question the most secretive government in American history, refusing to obey even the most simple laws designed to foster transparency in government.)
I can't believe Schilling doesn't realize there are myriad instances in which a lawyer would advise his client not to answer a certain question, even if the charges against that client are totally inaccurate.
Jose Canseco admitted he cheated his entire career. Everything he ever did should be wiped clean. I think his MVP should go back and should go to the runner-up. ... The year [Rafael Palmeiro] he tested positive, nothing he did that year should count, which I think would take away 3,000 hits for him.You hear this kind of thing every so often -- that known rule breakers should have their achievements erased from the record books -- though you usually hear it from 10-year-old kids. That's because it's a childish, uninformed opinion. (And P.S. Palmeiro did not get 3,000 hits in the year he tested positive.)
Curt's great idea is this: everything Canseco ever did should be wiped from baseball history. Naturally, that would involve adjusting the career records of every single pitcher who ever faced Canseco in the 1,887 games in which he played. Jose went 0-for-3 with 1 strikeout against Schilling, so even Curt would have his career stats changed.
Canseco's other PAs against Schilling were a grounder to second (Rene Gonzalez) and a grounder to short (Cal Ripken), so those two Baltimore infielders would have to lose one assist each from their career fielding records -- and first basemen Ron Kittle and David Segui each would need one putout deducted from their stats.
We would have to do that for every single one of Canseco's 8,129 plate appearances.
What about Canseco's play in the field? Should the fly balls that he caught, assists he made, errors he committed be credited to another fielder? (Or do they simply vanish, leaving sizable holes in nearly 2,000 box scores?) If Canseco's fielding career is erased -- as Schilling suggests -- then the records of every opposing batter who hit a ball to Canseco would have to have his stats changed. Every single pitcher on all of Canseco's teams would have to have his pitching line changed.
To truly remove all traces of Canseco from baseball history, the results of all of those 1,887 games would have to be declared void. This would forever alter many pennant races, as well as one league division series, three league championship series and four World Series. And two All-Star games.
And what do we do with the players involved in trades with Canseco? Do they count? In December 1994, the Red Sox traded Otis Nixon and Luis Ortiz to Texas for Canseco. In Schilling's world, were those players traded for nothing? Can their respective Rangers careers even "exist"?
And naturally, there is the issue of not knowing who cheated when. The national media focuses on Barry Bonds as if (a) he has been found guilty of steroid use and (b) he is the only player in MLB that has done steroids. Both of these statements are completely false. It is beyond question that Canseco had at least one PA against a pitcher who used steroids. He likely hit a ball that was fielded by a player using steroids.
Also -- why doesn't Schilling lobby for the careers of those players who have actually been found to have used steroids to be wiped from baseball history?
When asked why he wasn't so outspoken at a 2005 congressional hearing, he said:
When you're sitting in front of Congress and you're under oath, you'd better be damn sure if you're going to mention a name that you are 100 percent guaranteed sure somebody did something.(Whereas when you're talking to Bob Costas, it's a-OK to let the BS fly.) But these players who have been suspended are clearly guilty. Why not zap them from the Baseball Encyclopedia?
Jason Giambi has admitted he used steroids. Why is Schilling so quiet about him? Why does Schilling talk only about the media-approved steroid scapegoats and not the actual players who have tested positive or have admitted using steroids?