These two articles are far from bashing.
The first article on the line (http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/football/bears/cs-070902haugh,1,3485129.column?coll=cs-bears-headlines) talks about the injuries to Hester and Olsen put a little bit of a damper on the passing game and also mentions that the running game has not performed well in the preseason (this is a fact) but it goes on to say that the O-line is a solid group of veterans. Yes, they are old but they are good. That is the underlying theme of the article.
The second article is about Tommie Harris and his wanting to get after Rivers for talking trash during the filming of an LT Nike commercial (http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/football/bears/cs-070903haugh,1,3878346.column?coll=cs-bears-headlines). Additionally, he also gives a lot of credit to the Bears personnel department for being able to bring in quality players.
Again, contrary to RobsObs views, Haugh is not a hater. RobsObs has been so wishy washy on what Haugh is that he has confused even himself.
25 comments:
Great. I thought Haugh's article today was informative and interesting.
It was a totally different style. It explained the many links between San Diego and Chicago (some of which I did not know)
It was not his usual negative speculation and inuendo. Much better article that tells us something about the Bears and some of the goings-on.
Glad to see you realize that Haugh's last three articles were not hating.
Again, you have been so wishy washy on what Haugh is that you have confused even yourself.
I never said last three. I said today's article.
So you still think he was bashing in the other two?
FYI, with respect to Haugh, all I have said about him is that he just does not write anything positive about the Bears. He always focuses on the negative.
You are the one who said that I think Haugh is Bear Hater #1. I never said that and in fact I explicitly disavowed that comment.
I say those two prior articles are neutral at best. I still think the alleged HGH link between Wilson and the Bears is a figment of Haugh's imagination and for that reason it is negative.
You saying that the link is a figment of Haugh's imagination and that he is the only one who thought this up and reported on it is unfair.
I am sure it was news enough that reporters were interested in it. I'm sure that some (if not all) the tv reporters in Chicago talked about it. It made national news. So I am sure there was some discussion locally in Chicago. Maybe it didn't make all the headlines of the sports broadcasts but I would not be surprised if it was mentioned and if local sports reporters asked the Bears coaches and organization about it.
Haugh is going to write anything and everything related to the Bears that is his job. LaCanfora writes a lot of stuff that no one else will write. That still doesn't mean that there won't be mention of it on a newscast or something or that other reporters won't ask the same type of questions.
The point is for you to say that it is all a figment of Haugh's imagination and that he is just creating stories and he is the one to do this and do that is unfair because you have no proof.
Another reason why the speculation of Wilson's "conspiracy" is not SO farfetched and just a "figment" of Haugh's imagination is that Belichik is having to answer questions on a "conspiracy" in NE for Harrison's involvement with HGH (see Boston Globe).
Show me where anyone other than Haugh hints that Wilson was supplying Bears players with HGH. Then we can talk. I had not heard of the link. I read of no such evidence of a link. As far as I know, Haugh is the only one who "reported" on it.
I am not following the Harrison story so I cannot comment. But that is irrelevant to the Bears.
I told you I will give you the other reporters that mentioned it when I get home.
Also, the Harrison story is irrelevant to the Bears but it is relevant to this discussion as it is the same story and they each have to deal with the "conspiracy." Agree?
NO IT IS COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT. Is there some evidence that Harrison had an inordinate amount of HGH (that he might be dealing? Was he rehabbing with other players? Is there some different evidence to suggest a link to other players?
I don't know the answers to those questions, but it is COMPLETELY IRRELEVANT to the Bears.
There is no global HGH "conspiracy" that is ensnaring NFL players.
Why don't we just assume that David Haugh is behind it and be done with it. Will that make you happy?
Your comment is now irrelevant. I assume you are joking, but just to be clear, I have never suggested a global conspiracy. You seem to be suggesting a larger conspiracy that there is no such evidence for.
I am not suggesting a global conspiracy. You are the one that originally used the word conspiracy.
I believe the NE situation and the Bear situation is similar. I still am not sure why you think they are not and why you think it Haugh has conjured up this "conspiracy" in his imagination.
I give up - they are completely unrelated. If you can show me how in the world they are related then I might agree.
I have said that Haugh is the ONLY one who I am aware of who suggested that there was a potential problem for the Bears. I HAVE NEVER HEARD, READ, OR SEEN ANYONE ELSE WHO SUGGESTED, HINTED, ALLEGED, INTIMATED, OR CLAIMED SUCH A PROBLEM EXISTED. That is why I say Haugh made up the "controversy." There never was a controversy.
You say you have some links to other writers - I'll take a look.
Here are the other reporters that I found that said similar things to what Haugh is saying.
First, Gary Myers of the NY Daily News, "The Bears source knows questions will surface about whether Wilson was supplying steroids and HGH to players on the team that went to the Super Bowl last season.
"He was very quiet and kept to himself," the team source said. "If he did, it would shock me. Knowing his character and personality, I would be shocked if he supplied it. He's a very private guy. Very friendly. He was really into his body. A workout freak. He looked great. He was really into it. I'm not beating him up for that. Obviously, he became fanatical with it."
Website: http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/football/2007/09/02/2007-09-02_cowboys_coach_wade_wilson_earns_fivegame.html?ref=rss
Second: Granted it is from a Bear Beat Writer's blog (Nick Hut) for the Northwest Herald. Still he is a beat reporter for the Bears so he must have some sense of what is going on at Halas Hall and in Chicago.
He says, "There is always room to wonder whether Wilson is lying and covering up for his former pupils, I suppose, but the stories out of Texas -- he is now the Cowboys' quarterbacks coach -- make his claim sound genuine."
Website: http://www.nwherald.com/blogs/bearsinsider/index.php
Still, it is clear that Haugh is not just making up some sort of controversy.
Also, if you read the NY Daily News article, it mentions that Harrison received the drugs over the Internet. This leads me to believe that the team was unaware of it and he operated independently and solely. I think it is pretty fair to compare the two situations and the Pats coaches/organization is having to answer the same type of questions as the Bears.
The point is, again, it is not Haugh operating by himself creating a controversy.
As I have said in the past, a blog site is fine for speculation. The blog author didn't write a story, he posted a comment on a blog that probably has about 6 readers. Even with that said, Nick Hut (whoever that is, writing for whatever little newsletter he is writing for) still did not even come close to speculating that there was a possibility that Wilson was supplying Bears players with HGH.
As for the N.Y. Daily News article, both the Trib and the N.Y. Daily News content are distributed through the same company (McClatchy-Tribune Information Services), thus, they are closely linked and likely share information on content. The anonymous "Bears source" referred to in the Daily News story may very well have been Bears beat writer David Haugh.
Myers may have just called Haugh to get some insights on the story - who do you think Myers knows in the Bears organization? But, given the fact that Myers and Haugh distribute their content through the same company, it is quite possible that Myers just called up his fellow sportswriter friend Haugh.
One last point, do you seriously want to argue that Hut's blog entry and the N.Y. Daily News story you linked to demonstrate clear evidence that people were linking Wade Wilson to Bears players having HGH? That is a stretch.
Haugh makes it seem like there was a legitimate cloud of suspicion. Which there never was.
But let's also be clear about what I said in the first place - I simply said that the article was neutral at best. I felt it was negative because Haugh is the one bringing up the suspicions and the potential controversy. You are the one who believed it is positive for the Bears. That is all I have been arguing with respect to that particular story.
I knew you would find every possible reason to discredit the other reporters. I knew you would not be able to even fathom the slightest bit of commonality b/t the Harrison incident and the Wilson incident.
You speculate a lot when it comes to Haugh (who you don't even seem sure of what his job description is) yet, you will not speculate the slightest bit when it comes to the Harrison case. You will assume a lot in the Haugh case, yet you will not let me assume anything when it comes to Olsen.
You are one silly dude.
Lets end this thread and agree to disagree - which is almost always the case.
You choose not to speculate on Haugh, but then you want to bring in an irrelevant external case to the discussion (Harrison) and do all kinds of speculating. You also are SO DESPERATE to show that there was a widespread discussion about a possible HGH scandal for the Bears that you pulled out a blog entry from some backwater Illinois newsletter and from a N.Y. Daily News article that may very well have gotten all of its info from Haugh. Rather thin proof of any widespread story of possible Bears corruption, but that is what you hold on to for proof.
Harrison is a current player on the Pats who will be returning after a 4 week suspension. I am not surprised that Belichek was asked about him. Why wouldn't reporters ask him to comment? That said, I have not read anything about his situation, I don't know the context of any questions Belichek was asked about him or the HGH. IT IS IRRELEVANT TO OUR DISCUSSION. For all I know, there is evidence that he was dealing HGH to other players - I don't know and frankly I don't care about Harrison. That has nothing to do with the Bears - and why you keep arguing it is relevant is simply beyond me.
If you want to obfuscate and try to muddy the waters with an irrelevant tangent like Harrison, go ahead, but that doesn't change the fact that virtually no one was talking about any HGH controversy for the Bears when Haugh wrote his piece.
BUT HERE IS THE BOTTOM LINE - You can say it was a positive piece for the Bears - I completely disagree. That is ultimately what the discussion was about. I agree to disagree with you.
I don't want to do all kinds of speculating (like you). I just don't see why it is SO unfair to compare the Harrison and Wilson scenarios. Sure, it is not an exact one to one comparison but it seems reasonable to compare the two. Actually, if you read the story on the Boston Globe website, it is fairly similar. Harrison purchased the HGH from the same place that Wilson did (Palm Beach Rejuvenation Center). Harrison claimed it was used to help him get over an injury. Wilson used it to help him treat his diabetes. Harrison and Wilson both acted on their own. Both coaches were asked if anyone else on the team is involved in taking the HGH. Again, it seems close enough that you could compare the two and I still don't understand why it is so unreasonble to ask the question on whether other people on the team are taking HGH.
I am not "SO DESPERATE to show that there was a widespread discussion about a possible HGH scandal for the Bears." My only point is that it is not unreasonable for Haugh to report what he did. That's it.
I think the article is more positive than negative. Is it an ringing endorsement to the entire Bear team/organization lauding them for all the goodness that we are so blessed to have in our daily lives? No. Still, in my mind, as I read it, he is backing the Bears and letting it be known that Wilson acted irresponsibly and on his own and the story begins and ends with Wilson. That's it.
Again, it does not seem like it is out of the question for him to report the story.
Great! Your point is that it is a positive story - I think it is negative for the reasons I have stated. We disagree.
Again, we agree to disagree.
Even Commissioner Goodell is having to answer questions about the possibility of wider drug abuse in the NFL (http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/news/story?id=3006050).
Again, I still don't understand why it is SO farfetched and unbelievable that Haugh reported the story that he did.
Haugh was not asking about wider drug use across the NFL. It is irrelevant to the specific Haugh story we have been discussing. If you don't understand - sorry for you. We agree to disagree.
Post a Comment