Moises Alou: possibly a little on the crazy side
A few months ago it was reported that Moises Alou said he wouldn't have caught the Steve Bartman ball and therefor Bartman should be off the hook and not blamed anymore for Cubs loss in the 2003 NLCS.
The story was widely reported and the whole incident was dredged up all over again.
Yesterday, it was reported that Alou is claiming never to have said that it wasn't Bartman's fault.
Moises Alou wants to set the record straight -- again.
Months after being quoted as saying he would not have caught the foul ball that Chicago Cubs fan Steve Bartman reached for in the eighth inning of the 2003 National League Championship Series, Alou said he would have indeed caught the ball had it not been for fan interference, the Palm Beach Post reported on Tuesday.
In March, Alou was quoted by Associated Press columnist Jim Litke as saying that he would not have caught the foul ball that Cubs fan Steve Bartman reached for in the eighth inning of Game 6 of the NLCS. The Florida Marlins rallied for the lead in that inning and went on to win the game and the series.
"Everywhere I play, even now, people still yell, 'Bartman! Bartman!' I feel really bad," Litke quoted Alou as saying in March. "You know what the funny thing is? I wouldn't have caught it anyway."
Litke wrote that Alou, now with the New York Mets, told him this when he ran into him last summer at a department store. But Alou said last week that he did not recall telling Litke that.
"I don't remember that,'' he said, according to the Post. "If I said that, I was probably joking to make [Bartman] feel better. But I don't remember saying that.''
Another thing Alou wants to make clear is that Bartman -- whose life was turned upside down from that infamous moment -- should be forgiven and left alone.
"It's time to forgive the guy and move on. I said that the night it happened,'' Alou said, according to the Post.
So let's get this straight. A story broke 63 days ago that Alou said one thing. Now, 63 days later, he's finally "setting the record straight" because he thinks he was not quoted correctly and didn't say those things?
Plus, something just doesn't ring true about the whole thing. Alou wants everyone to forgive Bartman and move on, so he dredged the story back up again more than two months later? Wouldn't it be best to let sleeping dogs lie? If you really, honestly feel that Bartman should be exonerated, why would you bring the whole thing into the spotlight again, 5 years after in happened - twice?!