As a reminder, NSBB etiquette calls for attacking the post, not the poster, although trust me my feelings are not the least bit hurt. I guess in this case it's much easier for you to shoot the messenger than to try to challenge some of the valid points the author made that evidently hit home. If you think they are valid points, I am happy for you to revel in your blindness. Are you disputing the writer's contention that: Quote: For years, decades even, players in every sport have spoken with the media after tough losses. Players can handle it, even the "very best competitors," provided they aren't jerks. Bonds couldn't handle it, but he was a jerk. Steve Carlton and Kevin Brown couldn't handle it, either, but they were jerks. After a period of time, those titles became accepted: Steve Carlton = jerk. If Pujols isn't careful it'll happen to him, and if you're wondering why it hasn't happened yet, look at his address. He plays in St. Louis, a town that for years has looked the other way for its best baseball players. For example, I'm writing this story from the Enos Slaughter Room. Slaughter was behind a near-boycott in 1947 when the Cardinals objected to the color of Jackie Robinson's skin. In some places a player gets maligned for that sort of thing. In St. Louis he gets a room named after him. I don't think he was calling Pujols a racist or saying that he's as bad as Enos Slaughter. The point I got from it is that you can be a jerk in St. Louis and the media will look the other way as long as you're a good player, evidenced by the room named after Slaughter, who was a jerk. He's saying that perhaps the St. Louis media might have looked the other way when Pujols has been a jerk in the past, just as they did with Slaughter. Uhhhh, Enos Slaughter was 60 years ago. And that's your evidence? I'm just telling you what I thought he said. Mark McGwire was also mentioned, if you need more recent "proof"