The Johnny Narron Contradiction
One curious inconsistency in the Josh Hamilton story raises some unanswered questions.Beyond the questionable timing involved with the Saturday publication of a lascivious series of photographs portraying Josh Hamilton in a less than favorable light, there is one more outstanding issue that, in my mind, still merits attention -- the Johnny Narron angle.
Less than 24 hours before the story erupted onto the national media scene and the Rangers hastily organized an early-afternoon press conference, Narron, the Texas Rangers' second-year special assignment coach and aptly described "baseball mentor, personal confidant and chaperone" to Hamilton, dismissed the photographs' validity while telling Deadspin.com that he "[didn't] put a lot of credence in someone saying they have photographs of Josh in a bar" and indicating that Hamilton had not, to his knowledge, suffered any sort of lapse in his sobriety:
"I'm sure, in the depths of his drug addiction, he was in a lot of bars," Narron goes on, suggesting that the photos predate Hamilton's recovery or perhaps were doctored. "He was in and out of bars, crackhouses, everything. There are probably photographs of him in all kinds of places."
Standing before a small regiment of reporters on Saturday afternoon, Hamilton stated that immediately after his January night of debauchery, he informed his "support system" of what transpired and purportedly asked for Narron's forgiveness, which is all well and good, but raises a vital question -- why did the man who plays such an integral role in Hamilton's support system evidently not know about the night in question if he was actually told about it back in January?
The logical rebuttal to this apparent inconsistency in the Hamilton narrative is that Narron might have told a bold-faced lie in order to protect his long-time friend, and I would be remiss in not acknowledging that possibility ... but, at the same time, Narron's remarks project such a strong air of conviction that one finds it moderately difficult to believe that they were entirely fabricated, and if Narron was truly unaware of the January incident, then that opens up the proverbial can of worms. It is, in essence, the one puzzle piece that doesn't quite seem to fit into the organization's account of the incident and constitutes reason for pause.
Whether that perceived sincerity in Narron's spirited defense of Hamilton equates to complete truthfulness isn't a question that we're likely to get a concrete answer to, but between Narron's apparent ignorance of Hamilton's January relapse, the contradictory nature of the duo's statements and the overall neatness of the P.R. package, one has to wonder -- even if only for a fleeting moment -- whether there's more to that lone non-conforming puzzle piece than what meets the eye.
31 Comments | in Analysis, The Season
Reader Comments (31)
I would be more than slightly surprised if the cover story the Rangers gave was true. It doesn't seem natural that Hamilton would immediately confess the day after to his "support system" about his late night exploits - it goes against the basic instincts of men to immediately atone for their actions - and coupled with, as you said, Narron's seemingly sincere belief that Hamilton was clean the day before the photos broke suggests that the Rangers, Hamilton, and his agent did some major spin to bend the curve of Hamilton's narrative back towards the redeemed hero from the depths of inebriated relapse.
Why do you "writers" ALWAYS try to dig up angles to argue about? It adds nothing to the story, are you just trying to make yourself look good?
I have news for you, we dont think you are all that smart, and really wonder how you got this job... I think you should be selling vacuums at Sears, not trying to dig into someones private life... so give us a little baseball talk...... did you pick up on the fact Holland pitched pretty good yesterday... would like to hear your take on that... sincerely. bp
Joey, the reporters asked Narron if these things had happened in March... they didnt. Im sure Narron wanted Josh to tell the story.
Hey Joey, why don't you go write for ESPN. That was very eloquently written. It was also the least important story written all year and you are falling into the typical journalist habit of blowing things out of proportion. Who cares what Josh did, leave it to him and his family. If he relapsed on drugs, then I want to hear about it.
Hey ya'll can say what you want, but I had the same question. Why did Narron lie? Or did he lie at all?
Billy: Making myself "look good" isn't really my motive here so much as it is open-forum musing about what on the surface appears to be a rather interesting discrepancy in the Hamilton narrative. Perhaps I'm the only person in the world who thinks that it's interesting and a procession of attacks similar to yours are about to rain down upon my head, and perhaps those will all be merited, but it's a shot I deemed worth taking and something I'm prepared to stand by until it's refuted. Also, a story on Holland's superb outing will be going up in a few short hours for those who despise my line of thinking, want this crap pushed down the page and are prepared to round up a mob to come after me.
Blalock: Regarding your second point, that's entirely possible and something I openly acknowledged in the piece, in which case it's Johnny lying to protect Josh. That's fine. That's not a big deal. The point is that he projects sincerity in his remarks to Deadspin to such a degree that he comes across as quite believable, so either (a) he's a terrific liar or (b) something else fishy is going on.
Additionally, throughout the quoted Deadspin piece Narron references Hamilton's sobriety in very broad terms and does not include a single-month qualifier -- sure, he might have been asked whether he knew of Hamilton getting busted in March and could have replied "no" in good conscience, knowing that it actually happened in January, but between his implication that the Hamilton photographs predated his recovery and his assertion that "he hasn't seen any evidence of a backslide," this transcends a reporter asking about a specific month or a specific locale. This was/is an all-encompassing defense of Josh.
Anthony: I don't think it becomes a "typical journalist habit" until I've done it repeatedly, which to my knowledge I have not. This is, in many ways, a very level-headed Rangers blog and I like to think I don't revert into hyper-speculative mode terribly often, and if this is my one instance of doing so for the entire year then I can sleep well at night. Also, please note that Josh's actions on that January night in Tempe aren't really the focal point here. This is more about highlighting a weird and somewhat notable inconsistency in the narrative than Josh himself. Hell, the entire story will probably be dead and buried by this time next Monday.
I agree with Andrew. Hamilton is human and will make mistakes. However, Narron dismissing this story prior to Hamilton admitting to it speaks volumes. Just because Hamilton talks about God does not mean he should not be questioned about whether or not this story is true.
You raise a good question, Joey. Are we sure it will never be answered? There are a few blog readers out there who are in a position to ask.
For what its worth, its also possible that Narron might have failed to connect the original questions about photos with what he knew about the night in January.
Josh Hamilton is a public figure. Speculating about his health and truthfulness is fair game. Hamilton, has chosen to share the story of his recovery with the public so that he might serve as an example to others. As such, Hamilton has been very forthcoming in answering questions about that night. I don't like what deadspin did, but what's done is done. Its fine to at least ask for the whole story. Its fine to listen with a skeptical ear.
Even if Narron were only responding to the March question, it makes him look like an enabler, a bit odd no doubt.
I don't get the anger in these comments. This is a big story that could directly affect the Rangers' playoff hopes if the attention distracts the team's most talented player or his mates. Every angle is worth looking at.
JM,
This has been a pretty level headed commentary site, and I appreciate that. My opinion on this item though, is that you've embraced a bit of the sensationalism aspects of the story. No biggie really, it's your blog and you can write what impassions you. But as a consumer of BBTiA, I have zero interest in the story behind the story behind the gossip behind the hype. That's just me.
I'll say this about the major story here and then no more. Unless someone is in recovery, and has been for some time, they do not have any idea what they are talking about regarding relapse, whether everybody "falls off the wagon", the act of promptly admitting mistakes, or what causes a cocaine/heroin addict to mistakenly believe one drink can't hurt.
As a Rangers player people on Ranger fan sites are going to have opinions about Josh. Rightly so. I'd only suggest they stick to facts regarding things beyond the diamond, because even though he's opened his life up to public inspection that doesn't give anyone the right to careless ill informed conjecture.
Thanks for allowing me the space for comment.
I don't see the implausibility of Jerry just lying to the press, Joey. People do it all the time. The fact that he was believable when he did it, doesn't make it any more implausible.
Ok,here is how i see it i guess. Narron was not gonna bust hamilton before Hamilton even had a chance to address this. There is just no way when they came to Narron before they went to Hamilton that he was gonna give him up before Josh had a chance to fess up to it. It takes away the leverage and honesty that Josh responded with. If Narron says, yea these photos are real, Josh being upfront about it when no one knew if they were real or not is not important and his credibility is completely cut out from under him.
Joey: Holland throws a complete game shutout vs the Angels and you come up with this. Just let it go. It is not that big of a deal.
I think this is an interesting angle, and I hope Narron still has a strong, supportive influence on Hamilton. And, likewise I hope Hamilton was honest with Narron on this issue.
Thanks for the thoughtful write-up. I agree with 't ball', this is a big issue with the Rangers when it involves your best player who has struggled all year, and many of these comments are way off base.
I can certainly see how Narron's comments add a bit of doubt to the authenticity of this being a one time event... But this was definitely not Narron's story to break, that would have been pretty low for Narron to spill all before Josh and the Rangers had a chance to handle the situation. Actually, Narron might not have known about the pictures, or at least the severity of the them, so it makes sense that he would question their validity. Especially if they asked Narron to comment on them before he had a chance to confer with Josh about them.
So regardless of what happened that night or since, I think Narron came at that from the right angle.
honestly, i dont care....lets win the West.
Photo's were taken in January. Narron was with Hamilton in March.
The story says "Narron hasn't seen any evidence of a backslide." Josh never went to a bar and drank when Narron was in AZ. He never lied when asked if he knew (directly) about Josh going to a bar and getting drunk.
Anything Josh tells Narron as a member of his support system is in confidence and would be protected under freedom of religion and protected just as an AA member.
So any knowledge of Josh's activities that Narron does not witness 1st hand he can not give information on, and Narron answered it the way he is suppose to.
"Anything Josh tells Narron as a member of his support system is in confidence and would be protected under freedom of religion and protected just as an AA member."
This is the funniest thing I've read in months. Thanks. Seriously, I havent laughed this hard in a long time.
I understand the desire to defend Hamilton against all attacks (although this certainly doesnt read like an attack), but to issue blanket bullshit like this is comical. You cant be serious, right?
The law recognizes certain parties whose communications will be considered confidential and protected, including spouses, doctor and patient, attorney and client, and priest and confessor.
If Josh and Narron belief their communications with each other is confidential, then it is. It would be supported by both a recovery program (like AA) and as a protection under religion.
You may disagree, but from what i've seen, this is there relationship, and as such Narron would not be allowed to discuss anything Josh told him directly and in private w/o Josh' permission.
And i'm glad you got a laugh about people who are in recovery programs needing someone to talk to confidentially.
Red3biggs: I wasnt laughing about people in recovery programs, I was laughing at your specific comments. They are very laughable. Nice try, though.
To be honest this doesn't really affect my opinions of Josh whether Jerry knew or didn't.
Judge not less ye be judged.
@red3biggs - freedom of religion!? Like Petra said, you can't be serious, right? I had to laugh at that comment, too. Josh and Narron's relationship has nothing to do with freedom of religion whatsoever. You need to let it go; you're just diggin' yourself into a deeper hole. Funny stuff, though; thanks for the laugh.
What does this story have to do with religion? The answer is nothing. Why do people feel the need to deflect this subject by throwing out common biblical bullshit? Why does it need to be deflected in the first place? It's a legit question to pose, is it not? I guess you cant question Hamilton or the story because judge not less ye be judged, right? I guess we shouldnt comment about the play on the field either, right? When Michael Young was getting called out before the season started where was all the religious fervor then? I dont recall the biblical verse being thrown out to defend him. Hypocrites.
Of course Narron lied. Jeez! I would lie and so would you in the same circumstance. It was not Narron's place to confirm anything. It was Hamilton's place to do it.
For all you dweebs who are bitching about the story or the content, go someplace else to get your FREE Rangers coverage if you don't like it.
The story isnt about religion, the story, or Joey's query, was did Narron lie.
I say he didn't because:
1) He never saw Josh drunk that night
2) He was never asked (that we know of) did Josh ever admit to falling off the wagon.
I dont feel Narron lied, and even if asked directly, is under no obligation to give a straight answer b/c he is Josh's confidant.
What does that mean?
AA sponsers "Promise to hold everything we say in strict confidence. Exception's: unreported crimes, [with] no legal confidentiality when questioned by police."
And from a religious standpoint, one of Josh's core believes is confession and asking for forgiveness.
My use of "freedom of religion" is probably wrong, but my theory about Josh’s expectations is not. If that's the confusion, then my apologies.
Narron is under no legal obligation to answer questions, or to answer them truthfully. However, asking if he did answer them truthfully, this is my answer of why he has.
From linked article, at least Narron is admitting he knew about it back then:
Nobody, in truth, can safeguard Hamilton but Hamilton. The Rangers hired Johnny Narron specifically to babysit him. The day after Hamilton’s relapse, Narron called Rangers general manager Jon Daniels. Narron’s voice trembled.
“I need to talk with you about Josh,” he said.
I guess i have to dismantle my Hamilton shrine now.
Fine, it is not religion, but it is a question of "testifying against ones self" in the form of a protected conversation/confession. It is protected and Narron is obligated to deflect anything that is an attempt to pry into that communication... Nice irony that someone who doesn't comprehend their own ignorance find someone else trying to explain it as funny.
The difference between Michael Young and Josh is that Young is A) not the raw talent that Josh is; B) not a recovering addict; C) Not likely to have a press-conference called if someone shoots a picture of him in a bar.
But hey if you are willing to have pictures sent to your employer when you get Shiite faced in a bar then you can call him and his advocates out... otherwise the pot is calling out the kettle - hypocrite!
I don't care and I think anyone who does care is dumb.
Joey give it a rest these are the same people who would forgive Hamilton if he bitched slap their wife or daughter as long as he keeps hitting baseballs they don't care they live through the guy.
I didn't read all of the comments, but in my opinion this is extremely simple...
Narron was protecting Josh, plain and simple.