Cal Speaks

[Mackus]

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

"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?

He wasn't asked the question though. It was a prepared, controlled, and pre-written public statement. He could have put anything he wanted in there, and what he wanted to put in there was a flat out denial of the comments Rosenthal attributed to Angelos ever having occurred. If he was asked a question about those comments, he'll deny them again.

If Angelos had said those things, Ripken wouldn't have issues the denial, he would have just let that part go and said other things. That's why some people believe he was rebuffed from an offer to rejoin the team, because he didn't specifically deny that. It'd be interesting to hear him answer a direct question about that.

This wasn't some off-the-cuff answer to an interviewer's question. This was a prepared and unprompted public statement. The denial of those comments is loud and clear and there is zero reason to doubt Ripken's veracity.

[RShack]

There is still a lot of gray area here -- like whether Cal was actually turned down for the instructor's position.

This is getting better and better...

What's goofier? The idea that Cal would want to be an "instructor"? Or the idea that anybody on the planet would turn him down if he did?

Man, some of you guys will believe anydamnthing ;-)

[LookitsPuck]

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

The man is a lawyer. Do the math.

[ledzepp8]

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.

Sweeping something under the rug is not nearly the same thing as flat out denying something.

[LookitsPuck]

He wasn't asked the question though. It was a prepared, controlled, and pre-written public statement. He could have put anything he wanted in there, and what he wanted to put in there was a flat out denial of the comments Rosenthal attributed to Angelos ever having occurred. If he was asked a question about those comments, he'll deny them again.

If Angelos had said those things, Ripken wouldn't have issues the denial, he would have just let that part go and said other things. That's why some people believe he was rebuffed from an offer to rejoin the team, because he didn't specifically deny that. It'd be interesting to hear him answer a direct question about that.

This wasn't some off-the-cuff answer to an interviewer's question. This was a prepared and unprompted public statement. The denial of those comments is loud and clear and there is zero reason to doubt Ripken's veracity.

Please. Prepared or responding off-the-cuff is the same in this regard. This was a prepared statement directly in response to Rosenthal's report to take care of QUESTIONS (that he WILL get) that the media and people have. If he nips it in the bud right now, then the issue is taken care of. If he ignores it and doesn't respond and waits until interviews, it's going to seem fairly suspicious.

He can be professional and diplomatic about this, and he has, IMHO.

[LookitsPuck]

Sweeping something under the rug is not nearly the same thing as flat out denying something.

Well no crap, really? Is that how that works?

Did you even read it? That's exactly what I'm saying. He didn't say no comment because it'd be incriminating. That'd be an attempt at sweeping it under the rug.

We have a fundamental difference here. You guys want to give Ripken some sort of apostolic stature. And whilst I certainly put Ripken high on a pedestal, I'm not about to say the guy isn't diplomatic (or lying, as Mackus would love to use).

Personally, I think people are naive if they think athletes never lie to the media (see: Tiger Woods, Brian Roberts, Alex Rodriguez). And I'll stick by that until the day I die.

I'm going to ask again, let's say Angelos DID say those things, would Ripken oust Angelos in a public message?

I don't think so, but you people do.

[Mackus]

Please. Prepared or responding off-the-cuff is the same in this regard. This was a prepared statement directly in response to Rosenthal's report to take care of QUESTIONS (that he WILL get) that the media and people have. If he nips it in the bud right now, then the issue is taken care of. If he ignores it and doesn't respond and waits until interviews, it's going to seem fairly suspicious.

Why would he directly lie to every Oriole fan if he could just as easily not bring that part up and just say everything else in his statement. He could have very easily made the entire statement except for that one sentence.

I think its utterly insane to suggest at this point that Angelos told Ripken that he doesn't want him back in the organization because he doesn't want Ripken getting the credit for a turnaround. Its just ludicrous.

If you want to suggest that Angelos made those comments to someone else, perhaps even Rosenthal's source, then that's something that can't be roundly dismissed.

But the thought that Angelos in a meeting with Ripken told Cal directly that "we don't want to hire you because I don't want you getting the credit for turning this team around" is just crazy. And is made exponentially more crazy by suggesting that after Angelos told Cal that, Cal would go out lie and flatly deny that it was ever said to him in his first public statement about the meeting. That sounds like something Carl Everett would believe.

[Mackus]

Personally, I think people are naive if they think athletes never lie to the media (see: Tiger Woods, Brian Roberts, Alex Rodriguez). And I'll stick by that until the day I die.

Since when does thinking that Cal isn't lying in this case mean that someone thinks no athletes ever lie to the media.

You're avoiding your comments and trying to back off them by bringing up other comparisons. You think Cal lied to Oriole fans everywhere in his statement today. Flat out lied to everybody. Just to cover the butt of Peter Angelos, who in this fantasy scenario had just told him to go **** in a hat in regards to a job with the team because he didn't want to share the potential success.

[LookitsPuck]

For someone who "stands by his story" its taking Rosenthal an awfully long time to respond to Cal's statement that was issued around lunchtime.

Me thinks something is fishy, and it smells like a Kenny Fish to me!

He flat out stands by his story and is already working on a piece. How long did it take Angelos to muster up his comments again?

[LookitsPuck]

Since when does thinking that Cal isn't lying in this case mean that someone thinks no athletes ever lie to the media.

You're avoiding your comments and trying to back off them by bringing up other comparisons. You think Cal lied to Oriole fans everywhere in his statement today. Flat out lied to everybody. Just to cover the butt of Peter Angelos, who in this fantasy scenario had just told him to go **** in a hat in regards to a job with the team because he didn't want to share the potential success.

Keep painting that picture, Mackus. You're vicious and villainous, really.

I'm not avoiding my comments. I've flat out said my piece, I'm just defending them in a way that you can understand. But apparently you can't because you paint Cal Ripken as apostolic.

[frankpembleton]

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.

Seems like you would have to be very, very close to this particular issue to really know what went on. Not doubting you, really, but how many sources could possibly know exactly what was said?

[LookitsPuck]

As for Angelos lying outside the court room, Rosenthal is saying that Ripken wanted to work with players in a developmental role. Angelos is denying it, but Ripken didn't deny that aspect, instead taking a round about role saying that he's been in talks with both Angelos and MacPhail about coming back to the Orioles. Who is lying here? Angelos or Ripken AND Rosenthal (and his sources?)?

[Mackus]

Keep painting that picture, Mackus. You're vicious and villainous, really.

I'm not avoiding my comments. I've flat out said my piece, I'm just defending them in a way that you can understand. But apparently you can't because you paint Cal Ripken as apostolic.

I've never said he's infallible. But usually when someone lies, they don't do it without even being asked a question.

I don't walk up to girls at bars and tell them I have a foot long Chien-Ming. I wait until they ask me before lying.

An unprompted lie about something he'd have no reason to lie about just makes no sense. Why would he lie about it? He'd justifiably be pretty pissed off about the whole ordeal if Angelos said that to him. No reason to lie about it without even being asked in a prepared statement.

Take that sentence out of the statement, and then there is a reason to believe the comment was made. With that sentence in there, all reason to believe it was ever made flies out the window, because Cal has no reason to deny it in that venue if it was made.

[Mackus]

As for Angelos lying outside the court room, Rosenthal is saying that Ripken wanted to work with players in a developmental role. Angelos is denying it, but Ripken didn't deny that aspect, instead taking a round about role saying that he's been in talks with both Angelos and MacPhail about coming back to the Orioles. Who is lying here? Angelos or Ripken AND Rosenthal (and his sources?)?

Depends on what the truth is.

Ripken by definition isn't lying though, as he didn't make any comment on the developmental role. He may be ignoring it or "no commenting" but that isn't lying. If Ripken was denied a developmental role by Angelos, then Angelos is lying. If he wasn't, then Rosenthal's sources are lying to him and he did a terrible job of vetting that out.

I'd be willing to believe that Angelos denied him a role as a coach of some sort even after hearing Ripken's statement, because he didn't comment about it, leaving it open to further scrutiny.

[alexei606]

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

That is the beauty of the English language. You are correct that it could mean that (but not correct that it exactly means that), and that is why I will amend my post to say, "not neccesarily" and thus my contention that Ripken made a carefully worded prepared statement that looks like a refutation but is not one, is still quite plausible.