Jay Mariotti Continues To Be An Ignorant Ass

I woke up early this morning, like I always do, even on weekends, and thought, "what haven't I mentioned on that there blog lately?" So I went through the topics discussed and found there are only 12 tags for "Alex Rodriguez" and only 18 with the tag "Jay Mariotti." It's like I never mention these two people on this blog, so I thought I would rectify that. Throw in the fact Peter King may put down his coffee and put up his MMQB-Tuesday today and I have to count up all the different references in Bill Simmons' new column, and I have a lot to cover.

I had a massive decision to make this morning, a Sophie's Choice of blogging "journalism" if you will. Do I critique a positive article about Alex Rodriguez about how really nothing new has been proven or do I critique a negative article about Alex Rodriguez where the author sides with Selena Roberts? An article where yet again it makes it seem like I am defending him when I actually want him and Brett Favre to get in a bathtub and try to make it across the ocean to Cuba together...and fail. But if I write about a positive article, it takes away my incredible ability to mock journalists. Choices...

Negativity won. (Also, if I type really, really slow I think Peter King will have his MMQB-Tuesday Edition out)

Given the option of trusting Alex Rodriguez, Richard Nixon, James Frey, Baron Munchausen or the Boston cabbie who took off with my travel bag Saturday night, well, I'm banking on Pinocchio.

Given the option of ever agreeing with Jay Mariotti...it doesn't matter who else is listed, the odds are good I will never agree with the Joke.

Rodriguez or Selena Roberts? I'll believe the author, thank you.

Don't bother waiting for any reasoning everyone, you won't get it. A-Rod is a liar and Selena Roberts is not a liar...at least that is what Jay Mariotti thinks.

There has been a slight undercurrent of support for Roberts from journalists saying, "why is everyone attacking Selena Roberts? Just because of the Duke rape case and the fact she convicted those kids before they were convicted, well that is stupid." It's actually not stupid. Selena Roberts is not a random whistleblower. She chose to write an entire book about Alex Rodriguez and make allegations that he cheated and lied publicly about when he used steroids. Those allegations naturally bring a little bit of light onto Roberts' previous articles and her history of telling the truth and her previous opinions in these articles.

If I wrote a book called "Selena Roberts: The Woman, the Myth, and Why She Dresses Up Like a Hooker At Night and Works the Vegas Strip," I could imagine someone would check out this blog and try to figure out if I have any credibility or not.

Remember when he claimed to have juiced only from 2001 to 2003, while with the Texas Rangers? Remember when he talked about previously being a skinny, naive kid trying to find his way in the major leagues? According to Roberts' book, A-Rod: The Many Lives of Alex Rodriguez, he was immersed in the steroids culture as far back as high school.

According to "Gulliver's Travels" there are islands of incredibly tiny beings somewhere in the world, we just haven't found it yet. Words written in books can be lies and that is part of the reason the focus is on Roberts right now...to see if she would lie or if her "sources" are credible.

If ample evidence surfaces that he lied to investigators about the steroids time line, I would expect Selig to hammer A-Rod with a lengthy suspension.

Yes, it makes perfect sense to take the only person of a list of 104 people who admitted publicly to using steroids and suspend him despite the fact MLB wasn't testing for steroids at the time. Brilliant and completely fair. The other 103 names on the list, the ones that Selena Roberts was not writing a book about, they should get away without any punishment. Oh, and also, it was a slight violation of A-Rod's rights that his private and anonymous drug test became public. Suspend him though, it's only fair.

If we mustered a smidgen of respect for him when he decided to come out and tell all -- unlike Roger Clemens, Barry Bonds and all the rest -- it turns out he only told some and likely did so for convenience purposes.

So what's worse? Telling part of the truth and lying about the rest or just continuously lying the entire time? I personally appreciate a little bit of the truth. Also, I know this really, really isn't going to sell books for Ms. Roberts, but "sources" and "heresay" that A-Rod used steroids in high school does not count as evidence. I have a source that says Jay Mariotti has the AIDS virus and attempts to spread it to others because of his incredible distaste for humanity. But hey, that's just what I heard and in no way should I be liable for what I am saying...those are super secret sources I have who told me this. Also, you can't sue me because I have a confidential source who told me this...wait, I am not a journalist, so I can't hide behind the curtain of having a "source?" Guess I am fucked then.

The commissioner, who gloriously misread and bungled the steroids crisis when players were shooting up under his bifocals, must grasp that this scam could involve more than juice.

Look, if you suspend A-Rod for steroids, you have to suspend everyone who is on the list of 104 people who tested positive. Equal justice for all involved.

If steroids are injected for individual gain, tipping pitches is a direct assault on the game's competitive code and expectations of clean, honest play.

I don't know of anyone who can disagree with this statement.

Any connection between Rodriguez and pitch-tipping should be treated as an unconscionable breach of integrity.

I will be the first to attack A-Rod if he did pitch-tip, but I also need something that the Pete Rose case did have...and that is some sort of proof or evidence this happened. Anything that says this could have occurred, not just heresay from Shane Spencer or a guy who knew a player who worked with A-Rod on this. This is all circumstantial evidence. Much like in any other judicial arena in the United States and the world, if there is no proof to make people think A-Rod actually did this, there should be no actions taken against him. I really MLB does not need actual judicial evidence but I have high standards that must be met before I just start attacking someone.

We need explanations, denials, something, anything. Without it, he looks like he's slipping out the escape hatch, lying again.

I don't get it. The last time he defended himself in front of the media, involving steroids, he got picked apart even more. Even responding to these accusations by Selena Roberts is justifying their existence with a response.

If I did say Jay Mariotti was spreading AIDS to individuals, would everyone look at him and want him to disprove it? Would we require him to explain, give a list of his partners, take an AIDS test with the results being made public, or even make him deny it? Of course not, because I have no credibility and no proof. If I did have any credibility or proof, then Jay may have to respond to the accusations. Well, Selena Roberts has very little proof and that is why people are focusing on her credibility and looking into her previous columns like the Duke rape case. The only reason people believe her is because she worked for the New York Times and now works for ESPN. I'm not defending A-Rod and I am not judging Selena Roberts, I am saying if you make accusations like this, you have better be sure you can back them up and I really am not sure Roberts can. Of course, I also haven't read the book, so that would help answer my question in regard to evidence, but I would also imagine most of the good stuff has been leaked already.

Why did Shane Spencer, Rodriguez's ex-teammate in Texas, tell SI.com that he wasn't surprised by the tipping charges or anything involving A-Rod?

Why did Doug Mientkiewicz say that he is absolutely sure A-Rod did not use steroids in high school? It goes both ways, Jay.

In fairness to Rodriguez, many baseball people have said pitch-tipping is an unrefined practice at best and a myth at worst. But it's a haunting vision nonetheless.

Also in fairness to A-Rod, there has been no proof he actually did pitch-tip, other than those who "heard something" about A-Rod doing it. It is nearly impossible to prove he did pitch-tip anyway, but if I was writing a book and mentioned this, I would sure as hell make sure I had some good evidence.

Hmmm, I don't seem to recall Girardi being pictured with a stripper, hanging out with Madonna, posing half-naked for magazines and calling news conferences to admit wrongdoing.

Jay is criticizing A-Rod for calling a news conference to admit wrongdoing, even though about two paragraphs up he wanted A-Rod to come out and make a public statement. I bet Jay Mariotti's own mother despises him. All she wants for Mother's Day this year is for him to go the fuck away.

That's how people roll in New York -- just give them the victory, and your private life is yours.

Jay is a complete and utter moron. If there is a city in the United States where this statement is not true, it is New York. Give them victories or losses and your private life is going to be in the spotlight at all times. That's not how people roll in New York. Read the comments to Jay's articles sometime. He is the only columnist in the United States who is only widely read because everyone hates him.

Let us hope, just one time, that the commissioner has wiped off his glasses and is prepared to scrutinize with the rest of us.

Suspend A-Rod for steroids, that is fine, but also be prepared to suspend the 103 other people that Selena Roberts was not writing a book about. Anyone can feel free to believe Selena Roberts all they want, but don't get angry when people look into her previous articles, like the Duke rape case, because that goes directly towards how much credibility she has, which goes directly to whether the public should believe her accusations towards Alex Rodriguez.

-Bill Simmons put up an article that is kind of sort of Kobe bashing. I guess that article he wrote a few months ago about how he doesn't hate Kobe no longer is true. The article is supposed to be about about the press not having as much access to athletes as they used to, but he still gets a little Kobe kicking in.

I am not going to dissect the article right now, I may later...maybe because I really want to. Right now, we will get a self reference and pop culture count for the article.

When I was Li'l Sports Guy, The Boston Globe's John Powers wrote a book called The Short Season about his experience covering the 1977-78 Celtics.

When he was Li'l Boston Sports Guy he means. Notice the paper the writer wrote for. Why the hell did he take the "Boston" off the name? Everyone knows what he writes about, I realize he was probably 9 or 10 when this was written, but why even pretend?

Self reference count: 0. (We are due a mail bag very soon and I am sure this number will go to the hundreds...by the way, you know how Bill always starts off each mailbag with an email from a reader asking him to do a mailbag? I wrote him an email requesting he never do a mailbag again...I wonder if he will honor my request?)

Pop culture count: 7.

-Peter King talks about (don't be too shocked) Brett Favre in his Tuesday MMQB.

Yet again, we did not get our questioned answered that we posed to Peter.

Lots of e-mail this week about Brett Favre and whether he might return to football. I've tried to reach him by phone without success, and the only on-the-record reaction to the latest brushfire about a possible comeback seems to have come in a text message to ESPN's Trent Dilfer. Favre reportedly responded "no'' when Dilfer asked if he was coming out of retirement.

Remember though, Favre is a guy who runs on emotions so words/text messages mean very little in his world. I personally think he is lying and he wants to come back but is not sure how to avoid seeming like a lying douchebag when he does come back.

I haven't spoken to Favre in more than a month, so I can't tell you if that's true or not.

Peter King has moved on and is dating a hot young QB from New York. These two, Favre and King, are the Ross and Rachel of the sports world, so they have to get back together at some point.

But we'll start with that topic, in an e-mail from Michael Healy of Louisville:

"If the reports about Favre's bitterness toward Green Bay are true, it's a sad finish to a great career. The guy has it all: legendary status, piles of cash and the adulation of millions of fans. And somehow he comes out of that a twisted, bitter man who apparently finds no joy in any of it. I don't understand Favre any more than I understand the thought process of a cicada.''

Here's the part where Peter King defends Brett Favre.

I've had three conversations with Favre since he retired from the Jets, and he hasn't conveyed any hatred or venom toward the Packers in any of them. But it's also a topic I haven't probed him on either.

I like how Peter King, NFL Insider and professional NFL journalist, did not ask Brett Favre if he was bitter towards the Packers. I have a feeling he knows the answer to that and that is the reason he has not asked him. Especially since Favre admitted he wanted to stick it to Ted Thompson last year. I am sure there is some bitterness.

But I can tell you that whether he comes back or not, he is not "a twisted, bitter man'' about anything.

Unless you don't count wanting to "stick it" to Ted Thompson as bitter, then yes Peter you are absolutely right. Keep defending him though Peter...it doesn't sound desperate or anything.

My opinion, not from him, is that he didn't like how his career ended in Green Bay and something like that doesn't go away in six or nine months. Six or nine years, maybe. But I'm sure he still feels the sting of what he thought at the time was being dumped by Green Bay to a place he didn't prefer to go.

Brett Favre needs to shut the fuck up and Peter King needs to quit sticking his head in the sand. How can an apparently intelligent journalist make excuses like this?

Let's play a little game, and look at these actions in the 2008 Favre Summer Unretirement Timeline, let's see what actions are Brett's own free will and what parts weren't...you all are smart, you can get the answers on your own:

-Brett Favre retires
-Green Bay drafts two quarterbacks to backup the current quarterback Aaron Rodgers
-Brett Favre unretires and wants his starting job back
-Green Bay offers to let him compete for the job
-Brett Favre wants to be traded and doesn't want to compete for the job
-Green Bay refuses to trade Brett within the division to their closest rival, Minnesota
-Brett demands a trade again
-Green Bay trades Brett Favre to the New York Jets
-Brett Favre stays unretired and plays the entire year for the Jets

Hmm...seems like he kind of made the bed himself and only has himself to blame. Why can't Peter King see this? Because he is absolutely biased for Brett Favre and refuses to even point out a contradiction in his tall tale of a story.

From Bruce Allen of Boston Sports Media Watch: "Why are you praising the Eagles for doing the same thing you knocked the 'drunk with power' Patriots for doing last week?''

In your eye, Peter King! What say you?

Though in principle you might be right, Bruce, it wasn't the same thing. The Patriots didn't have the same result in trading down as the Eagles did, though they did acquire two second-round picks in 2010 in their wheeling-and-dealing.

Good point Peter, the Patriots actually got better draft picks than the Eagles did...or at least higher picks. I guess there could be an argument that even though the Eagles got more picks, the Patriots got better picks. I would be the one making that argument. Two second round picks can easily be turned into a first round pick. All those picks the Eagles got...really can't.

Philadelphia traded down six spots late in the third round and got one of the top guys they would have taken at 85 (Cornelius Ingram),

Teams always insist they wanted the player they drafted. This is nothing new.

and still exited the draft with three potential impact players in 2009 -- Jason Peters, Jeremy Maclin and LeSean McCoy.

Peter King who does not watch college football tape thinks those three are impact players, but Chung, Brace, and Butler (who New England drafted) are not. It's almost like he just makes shit up.

As I wrote last week about New England, "The one reason you can never kill this team about drafting is the Patriots have taken a lot of no-name guys high over the years and many have become cornerstones.'' So let's see how it plays out.

Peter is says, "but I backtracked after saying that about the Patriots. I never stand by any statements I make. I backtracked dammit, AND threw a caveat that the Patriots are usually right in there. Don't hold me to my opinions! Please?"

A SOCCER FAN CHECKS IN. From Jeff (no hometown given)

In Europe there is a real love of the local team, no matter how good or bad they may be. In fact, a lot of fans seem to revel in the fact that they are long suffering.

No Jeff, the media writes tons of articles about how the fans are long suffering. I blame the media for this, the American fans just want their team to win.