Mike Lupica quotes an actual source.

Getting closer to journalism (journalesque?), but it's still baffling.

I also seriously wonder if Lupica understands the meaning of simple words, such as "but":

"Here is the way Tim Brown of Yahoo Sports described what happened to Jenrry Mejia of the Mets on Friday:

'(Mejia) was in the major leagues with the New York Mets at 20. He was established in their bullpen at 24. He was suspended twice after testing positive for performance-enhancing drugs at 25. And on Friday afternoon, at 26 years old, Jenrry Mejia became the first player — major or minor leagues — to be banned for life because of a third positive test.' "

Tim Brown of Yahoo sports!

Congratulations to Tim Brown of Yahoo sports. You got an actual real-life mention in a Lupica column.

I'm curious what Lupica has to say about Tim Brown's milquetoast observation. It's just the basics ... who and what ... not a whole lot to comment on.


"That’s it, and that’s all."

Ummm ... here's the whole article by Tim Brown of Yahoo sports.

Couple of things:

1) It's 2016. Hyperlinks have been around for 20 years. Use a hyperlink when you cite another online article. That way, your audience can see for themselves that it's not all that Tim Brown wrote.

2) Lupica lied. While there's not much to Tim Brown's article, there's a lot more than two paragraphs, and I really think Lupica intentionally misrepresented the work of a fellow sports writer.


"Maybe Mejia himself can’t explain why he would keep going back to banned substances, knowing the possible consequences of continued drug use.

Maybe he was willing to take the chance, because he was afraid that he couldn’t perform without the drugs, and ended up throwing away his career, before he is anywhere near the age of 30."

Maybe so.

Is this going anywhere?


"But then Alex Rodriguez, who I keep reading is the toast of the town now, went looking for Anthony Bosch after his career and his reputation had survived being outed as a user of baseball drugs by Sports Illustrated once."

1) ARod is not the toast of the town. You keep reading he's the toast of the town, but you can't cite one article that praises ARod. Because ARod isn't the toast of the town.

2) This is not a "but." "But" is one of the first words a child learns. I seriously can't figure out this transition to ARod. "Maybe Mejia did this ... but probably not ... because ARod did the same thing."


"Rodriguez, so clearly full of his own fears and insecurities, didn’t lose his career.

But he nearly did."

 ARod didn't lose his career. But he nearly did. Hard stop.

That's it?

 
This is what I think Lupica is trying to say:

• ARod's 200-game suspension was not enough of a deterrent to Mejia.
• While Mejia was foolish, ARod was also foolish in a similar way.
• Tim Brown of Yahoo sports shouldn't have commented on Mejia's foolishness without immediately referencing ARod's foolishness.
• Since ARod is now the toast of the town, unknown Mets closer Mejia had every reason to expect that, following his lifetime suspension, he'd also become the toast of the town.

None of this is logical, of course, but I'm trying my best here, folks.