Just listened to a Buster Olney interview on EEI. He, speaking as a journalist, raised a good point about the Hohler article. He suggested that if he were writing the article he might have left out the tidbits about the pills and the marriage.
His argument is valid. The article offered no evidence that either contributed to Francona's performance on the field, so how relevant were they? As we've said here, sox ownership presumably would have intervened if his performance was affected by prescription drugs or "personal matters" and yet they did nothing. So what value does that information have other than to sully Francona's name? Had I been writing the article I would have looked at it the same way. -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Red Sox Citizens" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/redsoxcitizens?hl=en.
