Despite what the article says, I don't vindicate Mark McGwire. I also still believe that, if delivered in way that is perceived as frank, pure honesty is the best way to heal old wounds. Nonetheless, it's good to finally see someone write that maybe McGwire shouldn't get such a bad rap relative to some of his cheating peers. I'd rather a guy equivocate than flat out lie.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
In a situation like this, I think lies of omission are just as bad as lies of commission. I guess I'm of two minds on "I'm not here to talk about the past." On the one hand, it's not the outright admission that I think we were all hoping for, for the sake of ... shame, maybe?
On the other hand, to those keeping even half an eye on the hearings, it was an admission. Were he clean he'd have said so. I think his statement was only useful in working the few people who were already on his side, thinking "He didn't say he did anything wrong, so he must not have."
Your next-to-last sentence - "maybe McGwire shouldn't get such a bad rap relative to some of his cheating peers" - is dead on. At the time he deserved it, because he was the only one copping to it (though, again, not directly). Palmeiro hadn't been hit yet, nor had Bonds, nor Clemens, nor really anybody who's come to light since. Given the popular perception at the time, that he was the lone guilty one, it made sense to heap the scorn on him. Knowing what we know now, though, you're absolutely right that whatever abuse he took should be spread far and wide.
Post a Comment