Jump to content

Larry Bigbie is a MAJOR RAT!


blueberryale77

Recommended Posts

How could they put Brian in there if its only Bigbie saying that Brob told him? Was this a Jack Bauer moment? "Brian told me he did 'roids." "How can I be sure?" "I give you my word"

I suspect Bigbie was actually questioned quite thoroughly about Roberts because of the Grimsley story. When he said he didn't see Roberts do anything or buy anything, he was probably pressed aggressively to say things about Roberts. That's how interrogations work. The questioner knows what he wants to hear and/or believes is true and he does his best to get that answer. I suspect Bigbie didn't want to give up his buddy at first but eventually caved to interrogation techniques. I still blame him though. Ugh! I need a break from this!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 278
  • Created
  • Last Reply
Why are you saying this? At least he had the balls to speak to the investigators, unlike pretty little Brian.

I'm sure he had a reason to speak to investigators. The people who I expected to "rat out" people was not involved in the report at. There was no Jay Gibbons speaking out, there was no David Segui, there was no Jerry Hairston... only one guy who said, "Yeah, he told me he did it a couple of times..."

Let's all give Larry a cookie. :rolleyes:

This report could have been over before they started naming names. It turned into a complete gossip rag as soon as I read BRob's supposed admittance. Freakin' ridiculous.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's ridiculous! He was caught in the Radomski sting and sang to Mitchell to save himself. There is absolutely, positively nothing honorable about that. If he didn't have PROOF against someone who was one of his best friends on the team, he should not have mentioned him. He sold Roberts up a creek, despite not even having evidence against him, in order to protect his own sorry butt!

He wasn't protecting himself at all. He didn't have to talk (actually, no other players did), and nothing would have happened to him if he chose not to speak.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's ridiculous! He was caught in the Radomski sting and sang to Mitchell to save himself. There is absolutely, positively nothing honorable about that. If he didn't have PROOF against someone who was one of his best friends on the team, he should not have mentioned him. He sold Roberts up a creek, despite not even having evidence against him, in order to protect his own sorry butt!

You're irrational. Baseball had a problem. They asked for evidence. He told them what he knew.

I can't believe you're blaming Bigbie for merely reporting what Roberts told him. You're utterly without objectivity at this point.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Is it me, or does it seem that Bigbie was the kingpin of the Orioles steroids distribution ring (i.e. his name seems to be attached to most, if not all, of the Orioles players listed).

-m

Just my personal take... looks to me like it was Segui.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's ridiculous! He was caught in the Radomski sting and sang to Mitchell to save himself. There is absolutely, positively nothing honorable about that. If he didn't have PROOF against someone who was one of his best friends on the team, he should not have mentioned him. He sold Roberts up a creek, despite not even having evidence against him, in order to protect his own sorry butt!

I'll say this for the last time: Roberts admitting the usage to Bigbie WAS PROOF.

If you want to say you don't believe Bigbie's statement on what he claims Roberts said, then fine. But don't keep acting like there is no evidence.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suspect Bigbie was actually questioned quite thoroughly about Roberts because of the Grimsley story. When he said he didn't see Roberts do anything or buy anything, he was probably pressed aggressively to say things about Roberts. That's how interrogations work. The questioner knows what he wants to hear and/or believes is true and he does his best to get that answer. I suspect Bigbie didn't want to give up his buddy at first but eventually caved to interrogation techniques. I still blame him though. Ugh! I need a break from this!

You're "suspecting" an awful lot with virtually no evidence or information to back it up.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I suspect Bigbie was actually questioned quite thoroughly about Roberts because of the Grimsley story. When he said he didn't see Roberts do anything or buy anything, he was probably pressed aggressively to say things about Roberts. That's how interrogations work. The questioner knows what he wants to hear and/or believes is true and he does his best to get that answer. I suspect Bigbie didn't want to give up his buddy at first but eventually caved to interrogation techniques. I still blame him though. Ugh! I need a break from this!

I think you do need a break. You're taking this way too personally, because of the fact that it's Roberts. Back away, take a break, get some air or something.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll say this for the last time: Roberts admitting the usage to Bigbie WAS PROOF.

If you want to say you don't believe Bigbie's statement on what he claims Roberts said, then fine. But don't keep acting like there is no evidence.

Evidence does not equal proof.. pretty big difference actually.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'll say this for the last time: Roberts admitting the usage to Bigbie WAS PROOF.

If you want to say you don't believe Bigbie's statement on what he claims Roberts said, then fine. But don't keep acting like there is no evidence.

I agree. The question then becomes, do you care about Roberts trying steroids a few times in 2003, if that was all he did? Personally, I say no way, especially when his teammates and friends seem to have been using around him all the time. Since that's all the evidence against him even after the Grimsley affidavit, that seems to be a good sign as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's ridiculous! He was caught in the Radomski sting and sang to Mitchell to save himself. There is absolutely, positively nothing honorable about that. If he didn't have PROOF against someone who was one of his best friends on the team, he should not have mentioned him. He sold Roberts up a creek, despite not even having evidence against him, in order to protect his own sorry butt!

Blueberry, your love for Brian Roberts is clouding your take on this issue. What did Larry Bigbie "save himself" from? How did he "protect his own sorry butt?" What consequence would he have faced that he isn't facing now?

If Bigbie had played for another team, or had given the same information about a player you didn't like, I doubt your reaction would be so strong, and you'd be more focused on the fact that there was a serious chance that the player accused of cheating had, in fact, cheated.

As for me, I accepted long ago that Gibbons and Roberts might have taken steroids at one time. That's a huge mistake, and it tarnishes them somewhat. As with Gibbons, I'm willing to forgive Brian and move on. He has shown he's still a good player now that there is stricter testing, he'sa model citizen in the community, and he's a good teammate. And even though I couldn't care less about his dimples or his cute butt, those other reasons are enough for me to forgive him and contunue rooting for him (even if he gets traded).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I realy dont understand why everyone is up in arms over Roberts? Segui did it, Gibbons did it, Bigbie did it all who are close friends to Roberts but yet you dont want to believe Roberts did it? Come on!

Who cares anyway in that 10 year span most likely 80% of players did it in one form or another.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I agree. The question then becomes, do you care about Roberts trying steroids a few times in 2003, if that was all he did? Personally, I say no way, especially when his teammates and friends seem to have been using around him all the time. Since that's all the evidence against him even after the Grimsley affidavit, that seems to be a good sign as well.

If that's all he took, maybe it isn't a big deal. But, we don't know that, do we? The only evidence they have is 2003. That doesn't mean he hasn't since used them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...