Is ESPN Serious with its Coverage of Schilling's Comments

"Mike & Mike In The Morning:" Your moral compass on the sports talk radio circuit.
I am getting real tired of defending Curt Schilling, but he is a lightning rod for undeserved scorn from awfully hypocritical sources. Yesterday, Schilling was on WEEI in Boston and said that because Barry Bonds "admitted" to using steroids, Bonds's records should be wiped from the history books. This seemed to be in line with every sportscaster, news reporter and other personality who has weighed in on the subject and who also feels, like Schilling, that steroids are such a taint to the sport that those who used should be distanced from the game. Later yesterday, on Dan Patrick's ESPN radio program, Dan and Keith Olberman began criticizing Schilling for saying that Bonds "admitted" to using steroids when he technically never has. Then today, ESPN Radio's Mike & Mike in The Morning are just LAMBASTING Schilling for saying that Bonds admitted to using steroids. Now, I think Schilling should do everyone some good and just shut the fuck about all of this, especially since he killed Jose Canseco for spouting his mouth off, but where do these sports opinionists get off killing Schilling for making these comments? Have they not done the exact same thing now for the last 3 years?

Let's examine Schilling's statement. He said Bonds admitted using steroids. Now let's examine what Bonds said. Bonds admitted to using a cream substance and a clear substance supplied to him by Balco. Those substances, it turns out, were steroids. Bonds admitted to using a substance that turned out to be steroids. Bonds claims he did not know this at the time of use, but does not deny using them. Schilling didn't say Bonds admitted that he knew he was taking steroids. Think about it like this this, if you admit to driving 55mph and it turns out you were in a 30mph zone, you've just admitted that you were speeding whether you knew it or not. So if we're splitting hairs here, Schilling arguably was correct in his assertion. Now, Bonds's testimony is very likely inadmissable in a case against him (as most Grand Jury testimony is supposed to be confidential), so this admission in a legal context kinda "never happened." But that is not what the media peeps are saying and it is not the point. The greater point is that the same sports media pundits that were calling out Schilling for his comments also are ones who believe that Bonds has used steroids. Much of their belief is based upon the Bonds leaked grand jury testimony. The portion of that testimony that is most often refered to by these same media folk.... THE PART WHERE BONDS SAYS HE USED FUCKING STEROIDS "UNKNOWINGLY." And why is that testimony so damning? BECAUSE HE SAID HE USED A SUBSTANCE THAT WAS STEROIDS. I don't care if you call that an admission or not. You are using the same statement for the same purpose that Schilling did, as evidence that Bonds used steroids. If you choose to believe that Barry Bonds has used steroids, you are in no position to excoriate someone for making the same assertions even though you choose to character your evidence differently. How is it irresponsible for Schilling to label Bonds testimony as an admission but it is not irresponsible for YOU to assume Bonds is a steroid user from the same testimony? What am I missing here? Morons.