Cal Speaks

[LookitsPuck]

What difference does it make? He's got the two parties involved saying he's full of ****. All he has is "unnamed sources" and all he can do is call Cal and Angelos liars.

Well, one of those sources is constantly full of crap himself (Angelos), who openly lies nearly every day of his life (and even on this exact case). So count him out.

So, that leaves Ripken, and that's up to you to believe whether he's being diplomatic (covering something up) or being honest. Personally, I think he's too diplomatic to oust the owner of the Baltimore Orioles who has helped him in the past. Others don't think so.

I've got nothing against Rosenthal, and until he proves to be a sham, I will continue not to. This forum just loves to grind an axe against the media.

[Mackus]

So, that leaves Ripken, and that's up to you to believe whether he's being diplomatic (covering something up) or being honest. Personally, I think he's too diplomatic to oust the owner of the Baltimore Orioles who has helped him in the past. Others don't think so.

So for the record, you are accusing Cal Ripken of deliberately not telling the truth in his public statement.

That's pretty bold. "Being diplomatic" is just a cop out, you are saying he's lying.

Rosenthal is a good journalist and reporter, but he ran this story too soon and got caught with something that's being roundly denied by all parties involved.

[alexei606]

I don't know what he'd say in response to a direct question in that scenario.

I do know that if Angelos had said that to Cal, that Cal absolutely would not have directly refuted that he had said it in his public statement.

In your case "being diplomatic about it" is "lying about it". I don't think Cal would lie like that. Saying it never happened when it did isn't something Cal would do. If he hadn't addressed it at all in his statement, I would be willing to concede it was possible Angelos said it. But he did address it directly, and he denied it. Therefore, Angelos did not say it.

Here is a scenario, Ripken carefully worded the statement and denied that it was said, which would make it technically true (thus diplomatic). In that scenario, Angelos may have used different words but the gist was the same. Notice that Ripken does not use "once the team returned to prominance", he used "success". Diplomacy is also about "saving face". Angelos needs what appears to be a refutation of "the inflammatory" portion of the article to "save face" - which is an age old diplomatic reality. Ripken (or his attorneys) understands this, thus he addresses this issue with the apparent denial. This in no way means that Ripken is lying - he is using the tools of diplomacy that are used everyday by everyone.

Here is the quote from Ripken:

“First I want to say that Mr. Angelos never said that he didn’t want me to get credit for any success that the club might have. That’s just not true.

"Any success" does not necessarily equate, "a return to prominance". It is quite nebulous and could mean just about anything (a nice year from a pitcher/hitter, a winning streak, an improvement in number of wins, etc.). "A return to prominance" means only one thing - The Oriole Way which is sustained winning and in the playoffs/WS yearly.

[LookitsPuck]

So for the record, you are accusing Cal Ripken of deliberately not telling the truth in his public statement.

That's pretty bold. "Being diplomatic" is just a cop out, you are saying he's lying.

Rosenthal is a good journalist and reporter, but he ran this story too soon and got caught with something that's being roundly denied by all parties involved.

Yes, let's twist my words. Sure, if you want to try and put me on the spot (and let's not kid anyone, that's what you're trying to do), then you can make a case that diplomatic=lying.

Tell me this, are baseball players (Ripken, included) lying when they say that they haven't "seen" anyone taking steroids in the locker rooms? :rofl:

Careful now, that's pretty bold if you say yes.

[Mackus]

Here is a scenario, Ripken carefully worded the statement and denied that it was said, which would make it technically true (thus diplomatic). In that scenario, Angelos may have used different words but the gist was the same. Notice that Ripken does not use "once the team returned to prominance", he used "success". Diplomacy is also about "saving face". Angelos needs what appears to be a refutation of "the inflammatory" portion of the article to "save face" - which is an age old diplomatic reality. Ripken (or his attorneys) understands this, thus he addresses this issue with the apparent denial. This in no way means that Ripken is lying - he is using the tools of diplomacy that are used everyday by everyone.

Here is the quote from Ripken:

"Any success" does not equate, "a return to prominance". It is quite nebulous and could mean just about anything (a nice year from a pitcher/hitter, a winning streak, an improvement in number of wins, etc.). "A return to prominance" means only one thing - The Oriole Way which is sustained winning and in the playoffs/WS yearly.

I think that is getting too detailed in the exact wording. I suppose its possible, but it just doesn't make sense to me. Cal pretty clearly came out and said the comments being attributed to Angelos about not wanting to share success with Ripken were false. He didn't comment anywhere on whether a job was offered/requested, so I'm open to an opinion that says they actually have talked about a job and for whatever reason, nothing is gonna happen right now. But I'm not open to a scenario where anyone believes that Angelos said those things Rosenthal reporter to Cal and then Cal lied about it to everyone to cover it up. That is an impossibility as far as I'm concerned.

[Mackus]

Yes, let's twist my words. Sure, if you want to try and put me on the spot (and let's not kid anyone, that's what you're trying to do), then you can make a case that diplomatic=lying.

Tell me this, are baseball players (Ripken, included) lying when they say that they haven't "seen" anyone taking steroids in the locker rooms? :rofl:

Careful now, that's pretty bold if you say yes.

Yeah i'm putting you on the spot. You are accusing Ripken of lying. Either back off the comment or least call it what it is. You're putting more credence in these "unnamed sources" than in the direct comments from this franchise's most famous member.

As for your question, if any baseball player who has seen someone taking steroids tells the a reporter that he never has, then yes that's obviously a lie. Brian Roberts lied through his teeth for years about his steroid use, and I believe probably is still lying about the number of times he tried them.

[ledzepp8]

Hello? Do you remember what the actual story was about? Go back and see. Certain military records just magically vanished. It was a case where the only possible proof was to have those records produced, and they never were despite the fact that there was nothing about them that was classified, they were just personnel records, that's all. AFAIK, nobody ever claimed the story was not true. Instead, they just changed the subject to the font on the doc's, and lotsa people forgot about what the real issue of the story was...

Uh...when a news source argues that something happened and uses documents as proof and then people accuse said documents of being bogus, isn't that the same as accusing the story of being bogus?

CBS would not have taken the heat they took and heads wouldn't have rolled the way they did if they had thought there was any truth to the story.

I agree with Can of Corn. Rather wanted that story to be true and wanted to run the story because of his own biases. No way in hell he would have run that story if it had been about Kerry.

[BaltimoreTerp]

Yes, let's twist my words. Sure, if you want to try and put me on the spot (and let's not kid anyone, that's what you're trying to do), then you can make a case that diplomatic=lying.

Tell me this, are baseball players (Ripken, included) lying when they say that they haven't "seen" anyone taking steroids in the locker rooms? :rofl:

Careful now, that's pretty bold if you say yes.

Depends on if they did or not. You are assuming they are lying by the way you worded your question, though.

[LookitsPuck]

Yeah i'm putting you on the spot. You are accusing Ripken of lying. Either back off the comment or least call it what it is. You're putting more credence in these "unnamed sources" than in the direct comments from this franchise's most famous member.

As for your question, if any baseball player who has seen someone taking steroids tells the a reporter that he never has, then yes that's obviously a lie. Brian Roberts lied through his teeth for years about his steroid use, and I believe probably is still lying about the number of times he tried them.

Baseball is a game of fraternity. I'd assume that you'd know this. As far as I'm concerned, I'm not going to flat out say that Ripken is a saint and that he never lied to the media. To do so would basically be falling in the same trap as others in the past that thought Roberts was clean and ARod was as well.

These guys lie for one another. Sometimes they oust their players, but for the most part baseball is fraternal.

So, yeah, keep pushing the issue Mackus. I'll push the issue right back.

Whilst Ripken has tried to remain mum on the steroid issue and to take a "I'm not judging" stance on it, do you take everything he says as 100% certain?

I don't. Am I calling him a liar because of that? How about you?

[Mackus]

Baseball is a game of fraternity. I'd assume that you'd know this. As far as I'm concerned, I'm not going to flat out say that Ripken is a saint and that he never lied to the media. To do so would basically be falling in the same trap as others in the past that thought Roberts was clean and ARod was as well.

These guys lie for one another. Sometimes they oust their players, but for the most part baseball is fraternal.

So, yeah, keep pushing the issue Mackus. I'll push the issue right back.

Whilst Ripken has tried to remain mum on the steroid issue and to take a "I'm not judging" stance on it, do you take everything he says as 100% certain?

I don't. Am I calling him a liar because of that? How about you?

Its not a lie to no comment something. If Ripken came out and said "I've never done steroids" and then its somehow proven that he did, that would be a lie. Or if he said "I've never seen a player use steorids or heard anyone discuss using steroids" and that was somehow proven false, it'd be lying.

Its hard to come up with a hypothetical thing that Ripken could say that I would inherently not believe. I guess if he came out and said "I've never heard, seen, or discussed steroid use with any player I've ever played with or against" I'd have a hard time believing that, but, he hasn't said that. He's wisely stayed away from anything like that, because he both doesn't want to be on the record saying something that isn't true and doesn't want to throw any current or former players under the bus.

He has said that (paraphrasing) "Angelos didn't say the stuff Rosenthal attributed to him". I believe that, and don't think he's lying. You, on the other hand, think he's not telling the truth, apparently. If Angelos had said that, Ripken wouldn't have addressed it in his statement. He would have left it just as "no commented" as he has the steroid era.

[ledzepp8]

Well, one of those sources is constantly full of crap himself (Angelos), who openly lies nearly every day of his life (and even on this exact case). So count him out.

So, that leaves Ripken, and that's up to you to believe whether he's being diplomatic (covering something up) or being honest. Personally, I think he's too diplomatic to oust the owner of the Baltimore Orioles who has helped him in the past. Others don't think so.

I've got nothing against Rosenthal, and until he proves to be a sham, I will continue not to. This forum just loves to grind an axe against the media.

You're grinding an axe against Angelos. What are these lies that he so openly tells nearly every day of his life? He's been a bad owner, fine. He's made promises that haven't necessarily been fulfilled, but what are these blatant lies that you think he's apparently telling "nearly every day of his life"?

Even if Angelos felt that way about Ripken receiving unwarranted credit, there's no way he would tell that to Ripken or anyone else. He's not an idiot.

If he did say it to Ripken, Ripken wouldn't deny it. He would either address it or not address it. He flat out denied it.

[LookitsPuck]

Its not a lie to no comment something. If Ripken came out and said "I've never done steroids" and then its somehow proven that he did, that would be a lie. Or if he said "I've never seen a player use steorids or heard anyone discuss using steroids" and that was somehow proven false, it'd be lying.

Its hard to come up with a hypothetical thing that Ripken could say that I would inherently not believe. I guess if he came out and said "I've never heard, seen, or discussed steroid use with any player I've ever played with or against" I'd have a hard time believing that, but, he hasn't said that.

He has said that (paraphrasing) "Angelos didn't say the stuff Rosenthal attributed to him". I believe that, and don't think he's lying. You, on the other hand, think he's not telling the truth, apparently.

It's not a lie to no comment something, but if you said no comment to the following questions:

"Did you take steroids between 1988 and 1997?"

"Did Peter Angelos turn you down from an upper level job because he didn't want to give you credit for turning the franchise around?"

What do you think the entire public would think?

I'd think he was avoiding the question because the answer would be very incriminating.

If you're diplomatic about it, you sweep it under the rug, and you're done with it (in regards to the 2nd question). In regards to #1, well, you saw how that worked out for Mark McGwire.

Whilst I certainly think very highly of Cal Ripken, I don't put it past him to cover up something (see: be diplomatic) if it'll damage the reputation of the Orioles or Angelos (who's reputation is already awful).

If that's the answer you wanted, enjoy. But personally, I think you're naive if you think Ripken doesn't lie at all to the media (and to the fan base).

I have a different outlook. I didn't trust Roberts one second, nor did I trust ARod when they denied use. And sadly, I don't know if I could trust that Ripken didn't, either. But, since it hasn't been proven, I'm not even going to dive further into that.

I guess it's a matter of the state of our game as a whole. These players constantly lie.

[BaltimoreTerp]

You're grinding an axe against Angelos. What are these lies that he so openly tells nearly every day of his life? He's been a bad owner, fine. He's made promises that haven't necessarily been fulfilled, but what are these blatant lies that you think he's apparently telling "nearly every day of his life"?

I'd like to see this answered, as well.

[ledzepp8]

Here is the quote from Ripken:

"Any success" does not equate, "a return to prominance". It is quite nebulous and could mean just about anything (a nice year from a pitcher/hitter, a winning streak, an improvement in number of wins, etc.). "A return to prominance" means only one thing - The Oriole Way which is sustained winning and in the playoffs/WS yearly.

Of course it does. That's exactly what any means. Any success refers to any successes that the Orioles have.

[crowmst3k!]

I'm being almost as cryptic, but I talked to someone closer to the issue.

Rosenthal is credible.

Take it for what it's worth.