Arbitrator reduces A-Rod's suspension to 162 games

The only one who has talked about the deposition is Tacopina. The "one source familiar" would be him. (Sorry, just realized I've been dislexic for two weeks about this dude's name!)

 

Sure, but not because "you won." The source is still an A-Rod attorney. Honestly, I had missed this previous disclosure, which is negligent on me for not being as up on the story as I should be before starting a thread on it. Nonetheless, it doesn't come from an identifiable source, MLB execs certainly aren't talking, so it has to come from the other side. Therefore the information has to be suspect.

 

It's a fact none of your articles quote MLB execs directly, they only use third-party unnamed sources. Just like in politics when that happens, it is one side or the other providing the info with the caveat it is without atribution. Google, for example, "MLB executives confirm baseball bought BioGenesis evidence" and you will get nothing regarding an on-the-record MLB exec interview, but you will get a lot of these same third-party, non-attributed stories like you've been posting. Sorry, CCR, but it is not possible to prove something that doesn't exist. You haven't provided anything but the aforementioned kind of article, and you won't be able to find one, because the only source for this is Rodriquez's attorneys.

I have. I just did again.

Then I'm sure you can find one of them being quoted by name, post it here, and make me look foolish. Go for it.

 

It's a fact none of your articles quote MLB execs directly, they only use third-party unnamed sources. Just like in politics when that happens, it is one side or the other providing the info with the caveat it is without atribution. Google, for example, "MLB executives confirm baseball bought BioGenesis evidence" and you will get nothing regarding an on-the-record MLB exec interview, but you will get a lot of these same third-party, non-attributed stories like you've been posting. Sorry, CCR, but it is not possible to prove something that doesn't exist. You haven't provided anything but the aforementioned kind of article, and you won't be able to find one, because the only source for this is Rodriquez's attorneys.

I have. I just did again.

Then I'm sure you can find one of them being quoted, post it here, and make me look foolish. Go for it.

Yes, which is why I can stated the above regarding third-party unattributed sources without fear of contradiction. The question then becomes, have you read them?

They have neither confirmed nor denied.

All of their comments regarding making any kind of payment to BioGenesis read like that. The stories are being written by sports reporters. They don't know diddly squat, for the most part, about getting two points of confirmation and at least one of those for attribution. That's the rule of thumb on the front page, but seems to get ignored a lot on the sports page. As a result, there are a plethora of stories about "MLB paid for evidence." You won't find a single MLB exec saying that for attribution, you won't find even an unattributed statement from anyone in the MLB front offices confirming that. It is all coming from A-Rod's attorneys. That's the last time I'm going to say it. You don't like that, no skin off my nose.

 

Any of them named? No. You do understand the meaning of "quoted for attribution," right? If not, here's a hint: The quotes will have names associated with them!!

No you didn't. You gave me another story quoting an unnamed source, or in this case, two. When you find an MLB executive quoted by name who says the office bought evidence, let me know. This isn't even close. More of the same junk journalism. This would never pass muster for the front page except as an opinion piece, or as some liberal media editors like to call them, "deep background" pieces. Shorthand for "we ain't got nuthin' but we want to do the story anyway." Keep looking.