About Brien Jackson

Born in Southwestern Ohio and currently residing on the Chesapeake Bay, Brien is a former editor-in-chief of IIATMS who now spends most of his time sitting on his deck watching his tomatoes ripen and consuming far more MLB Network programming than is safe for one's health or sanity.

8 thoughts on “Great moments in wily-veteranism

  1. Good article Brien. It seems like every time a veteran who has had success in the past talks about his thoughts and advises, the media portrays him as an intellectual. I highly respect guys with experience, but not in cases like what Hudson said

  2. While a head scratcher admittedly, the same could be said of Charlie Lau's being revered as the best hitting guru. Lau's career was hardly noteworthy as a player and had he followed all of his own rules you might have thought he'd have been the second coming of Ted Williams (or at the least a very hard guy for Hudson to trike out). There is also the old adage about "those who teach" which may have some merit here. I'm still puzzled as to why the Cardinals had Mark McGwire coaching for them recently. All you have to do is Google hitting and pitching coaches and the list of names looks closer to the "common" baseball card pile than it does the waiting list to Cooperstown. As for Hudson, I'm thinking he may be thinking more of his pitching days pre-MLB when I seem to recall he was scouted as quite a stud.

  3. I don't know. You have strong points so I can't totally disagree. But Hudson has won 191 games with a .658 winning percentage and 51 total rWAR. It's not like he's chopped liver either. Lincecum has a long way to go to catch up to Hudson's career.

    • Comparing Lincecum to Hudson is like comparing apples to key-lime pie, but the point was that, Hudson's credentials notwithstanding, his diagnosis is completely out of touch with objective reality.

  4. The apologizing for Lance Armstrong is sickening…

    Dude is a white barry bonds… which isn't entirely a bad thing by any means, it means you were the best…. but the ultra jerk behavior, the cheating, he's barry bonds with better PR

  5. I don't follow cycling or Lance Armstrong enough to really know what the heck's going on, but i know that the USADA is a ridiculous joke of an organization, and that from where I sit the entire thing stinks. I mean, I couldn't even envision Tygary & Co. pretending to strip an athlete of their championships for doping without the benefit of even a single failed test, yet here we are at a place where even *I* am insufficiently cynical.

    • I have been following cycling for 20+ years and I agree with you completely about USADA. This is not to say I know that Armstrong never doped. I wouldn't be surprised if he did. But I do agree that if they couldn't catch him at the time, going back retrospectively and stripping him of titles he won (over other guys who have been caught doping) is pretty stupid. Legendary cyclists like Coppi and Anquetil made public admissions of doping and even Eddy Merckx was caught at least once yet no one is going back in time to strip them of their titles.

      Their claim is that they have "non-analytical" evidence (i.e., testimony from teammates concerning Armstrong's use of PEDs). OK, fine. But as Sally Jenkins points out if a guy fails a drug test no "non-analytical" evidence is allowed to overrule that even if the drug test itself is questionable.

      I don't like the idea of PEDs in any sport but given the practical difficulties of enforcing an absolutist ban I'm beginning to think that partial legalization combined with strong regulation (must be used under the supervision of a physician accredited by the sports' governing body and player's union (if there is one) and limits on changes in physiological parameters, like the biological passport used in cycling ) might be a viable answer.