A-Something (Part II)

Posted: February 10th, 2009 | Filed under: Baseball | 175 Comments »

I’ll admit, right up front, that I’ve never felt on solid footing when it comes to baseball and steroids/HGH/performance enhancers (to be known as simply STEROIDS for the rest of this post). Never. I’ve never known how outraged I was supposed to be about players using steroids in order to get stronger so that, presumably, they could play better. I’ve never known how much better they could play. I’ve never had a good guess how many players actually used. I’ve never known why ballplayers taking steroids were more morally corrupt than ballplayers taking amphetamines. I’ve never grasped why baseball players taking steroids were in some way different from football players taking steroids. I’ve never understood how big a role steroids played in the obvious offensive surge of the 1990s. I’ve never known quite what to think of the bloated offensive numbers compiled by players who, by our best guess, took steroids. I’ve never fully grasped why certain players became pariahs for using while others were treated with something closer to kindness. I’ve never had a good feel for how we are supposed to carve up our anger among Bud Selig, baseball management, the players union, players, the media, steroid designers and, of course, Michael Bolton. I’ve never even known if we were really supposed to be all that angry in the first place.

So, all that said, I predictably have felt out of step on this Alex Rodriguez story from the start. When Sports Illustrated first broke the story that A-Rod failed a drug test back in 2003, my initial reaction was that it was unfortunate, a bit sad, a black eye for baseball, all that. But I was not quite ready for the level of moralizing that would follow. Of course, you can find pretty much every opinion you want these days — and there were numerous measured and interesting thoughts about the A-Rod story — but it sure seemed like most places I turned I found stories about A-Rod as Judas, the man who betrayed a nation, the man who had lost his place in the Hall of Fame, the man who deserved to be released by the venerable New York Yankees,* the man who had made all the children in all of America lose their innocence and faith in the great American pastime. It seemed a bit much.

*I will say: I’ve never been entirely sure when the Yankees became the bastion of purity. That seemed to be at least one of the themes of the early A-Rod coverage — that somehow he had besmirched the impeccable history of the New York Yankees. As far as I can tell, the Yankees tradition began with Babe Ruth, who would get chased on trains by naked women wielding knives. Mickey Mantle was an alcoholic; Whitey Ford was his carousing partner. George Steinbrenner pled guilty to obstruction of justice and later paid a gambler for dirt on Dave Winfield. Billy Martin was a five-tool rogue. Even just talking steroids: Brian McNamee was the Yankees strength coach, Roger Clemens was a Yankees pitcher, and we know at least one of them is lying. And so on. Not a knock — every team has its past. Just saying I’m not sure that A-Rod betrayed some sort of saintly Yankees code.

I guess at the end of the day, my own views about some of the more heated reaction to A-Rod more or less mirrored that of Bill James, who sent me an email summing up. He wrote:

In 36 words:

1) Baseball allowed a situation to develop in which it was in the self-interest of players to use steroids.

2) Now we are very angry with people because they did what the system rewarded them for doing.

That seems about right to me. I don’t discount what A-Rod did, or dismiss it as some youthful indiscretion — I suspect he knew exactly what he was doing and knew it was wrong and knew that there was almost no chance he would get caught. I suspect he and many others were driven by the same insecurity, ambition, greed or petty jealousy that drive lots of people to push limits on any level (to cheat on taxes, speed on highways, drive home after drinking too much, smoke pot, cut in line, whatever). And I do believe that Baseball was complicit — I’m blown away by the insincerity of baseball executives who say now that there was some sort of vague anti-drug rule on the books going back years. Irrelevant. Having a drug rule without any enforcement is pointless; it’s like the law in North Carolina that says that bingo games cannot last longer than five hours unless held at a state fair. It seems clear to me that while using steroids without the use of a prescription is technically against the law, in my personal view it was not against the rules of Major League Baseball until they began full testing in 2004.

So, I guess, when it came to Alex Rodriguez and steroid use, I was probably well to the left of the norm. I wish he hadn’t done it, and I think it’s a mark on his permanent record, but I still think he was and is a great baseball player, one of the greatest of all time. And I don’t think he should go to jail or be deported or be forced to write ”I will not do steroids“ 10,000 times on a chalkboard. He’ll get booed at ballparks, people will bring ”Druggie“ signs to his games, reporters will mention the positive test in countless stories from here on in, it surely will cost him some Hall of Fame votes too. He’ll pay a hard price in his own way. And I don’t think he did much different from many other players, including some who would no doubt shock us even more.

So that’s how I felt. Then Alex Rodriguez spoke. He admitted (sort of) using steroids. He said he was sorry. He said he let fans down. And so on. And again, while I think there were many different views of the A-Rod apology, most of the stories I read early on (there does seem to be a shift in some of the articles I’ve seen Tuesday night) gave him some credit for coming clean and suggested that maybe he could now be a leader in baseball’s war on steroids.

And once again, I find myself on the opposite end of what I’m reading. I thought Alex Rodriguez’s ”apology“ was one of the most absurd shams of recent memory. I thought it was so pathetic that, for the first time, that ”A-Fraud“ moniker finally made some sense to me. As a baseball fan, I wasn’t mad at A-Rod when the steroid story broke. As a baseball fan, I was furious at A-Rod when he and his handlers put together this infomercial apology.* I hope the children weren’t watching THAT.

*And I say this with all respect to interviewer Peter Gammons, who I actually thought handled the interview about as well as he could. Sure, like everyone, you want him to follow up here or question there, and I’m sure Peter has his regrets. But let’s not kid anybody: A-Rod came into this thing as prepped as a presidential candidate, and he was going to say precisely what he was going to say, and I don’t think follow ups would have made much of a difference.

Why did the ”admission“ enrage me so much? Because, first off, it was not an admission at all. It was what I have come to call the ”Pete Rose Gambit” — never admitting more than they have. You might recall Pete Rose’s series of admissions. He admitted that he gambled but never on baseball. Then, when the truth closed in, he admitted that, yes, he bet on baseball but never on his own team. Then, when that didn’t take, he admitted that, yes, he bet on his own team, but never to lose. And that’s where we are with Pete. The truth is elastic. Never give ‘em more than they already have.

Now, think about A-Rod. We KNOW, thanks to the thorough reporting of Selena Roberts (more on Selena in a minute) that A-Rod failed the anonymous drug test in 2003. We knew that before Alex Rodriguez ever spoke. Then he did speak, he spoke emotionally, he wore a sad look and a Mr. Rogers blue sweater, he spilled his guts. And after that was over we knew what? That A-Rod failed the anonymous drug test in 2003. No more. No less.

Think about this. Let’s play a simulation game. Put yourself in the Alex Rodriguez war room. The steroid story breaks. You’ve got to minimize the damage on this. How would you do it? You could deny … but it’s true. And denying the truth — especially truth that is out there — is bad, bad PR.

You could tell him to come clean, and reveal all sorts of facts that are not already out there.

OR … you could come up with a theme. A campaign. Something for people to believe in. I’m going to sound exceedingly cynical here — and I’m not a cynical person — but I honestly don’t see how anyone could have watched that absurd A-Rod performance without having all sorts of cynical feelings. Imagine the three guys in the war room batting it out:

So, what’s the pitch? Do we say that this was a one-time thing?

No. Won’t fly. It worked for Pettitte, but not this time.

So what do we have?

How about A-Rod as victim?

Hmm. Has promise.

But how do you make a victim out of the man with the biggest contract in baseball history?

Tough one. Tough, tough one.

Unless …

Maybe it was the CONTRACT that made him the victim.

You mean?

Yes. He was trapped by the contract. He felt this deep sense of pressure, expectation, he had so much he had to live up to. That’s why he turned to steroids.

So he started in 2001.

Exactly. He started right after the contract.

Not bad. Nobody cares about his Texas time anyway.

Think about this. It’s hot in Texas. He had a lot to live up to. He wanted to be thought of as one of the greatest ever. Yadda yadda yadda.

Plus it was a steroid circus back then.

And he was young and naive?

Absolutely. Young and naive and under immense pressure.

OK, so when did he stop?

Well, he had to stop in 2003. We can’t have this leaking over to the Yankees.

Why would he stop in 2003?

Good question. He had an awakening.

How?

He hurt his neck. Remember? Had to miss a couple of weeks of spring training.

The neck thing scared him straight?

Exactly. He was lying in bed during spring training and had this moment of inspiration.

Yes. That could play.

Also have him mention GNC a couple of times to confuse people.

And there you have the story that Alex Rodriguez shared with the world. There are, best I can tell, two possibilities: (1) That this story is the whole truth — that Alex Rodriguez used steroids from 2001-2003 (conveniently making him clean in Seattle and New York), that he stopped because of his bedtime epiphany, that he has no recollection of what drugs he used or how he got them, that he’s telling the truth NOW rather than the lies he told two years ago on 60 Minutes, that it feels good to come out and be completely honest days after the story broke against his will, that he now wants to influence children. (2) That this is a PR campaign ordered up by a very rich man who got caught and the only goal was to admit as little as humanly possible and make excuses for the little he does admit.

Look, I never blame anyone for doing what they have to do to minimize damage. But that doesn’t mean anyone should buy it. Do I think Alex Rodriguez is lying? You bet I do. The guy talks about being completely honest and he cannot remember what drugs he used? He doesn’t really know where he got them? He stopped because of some St. Paul like conversion he had with a neck injury in an Arizona bed? That story is so prepackaged it should come with your pack of Ho Hos. And look: I’m a sucker for prepackaged stories, melodramatic movies, sad songs and diamond commercials. I bought the TurboCooker. But I didn’t buy one word of it.

Even all that would have been OK with me. Hey, it’s like Sinatra said: “I’m for anything that gets you through the night.” If this ludicrous story tested well with the target audience, well, that’s fine by me. But then, he went after Selena Roberts, who broke the story. And that’s where the dam broke for me. I should say that I am an acquaintance of Selena’s and a co-worker at Sports Illustrated … I don’t know her very well, but I like her. I think she’s an outstanding journalist.

That has little to do with my anger here. No, Selena broke this story, and it was impeccably reported, thoroughly sourced, and it was quite obviously true. That story — and ONLY that story — was why Alex Rodriguez was giving this heartfelt mea culpa to the nation, why he was able to, as he said, finally come out and be ”completely honest.“

And then he attacked her. He said ”This lady“ was paid to stalk him. He said she was thrown out of his apartment. Rodriguez said she tried to break in his house ”where my girls are up there sleeping.“* She denied every word, said it was all made up. I guess you can decide who you want to believe. But then he said that she was coming out with ”all these allegations“ and ”all these lies,“ even though he was sitting right there emotionally and reluctantly confirming those allegations and admitting those lies. And, remember, he felt good to do it.

*In my HOME. In the same room where my wife was sleeping, where my children come in their pajamas and play with their toys.**

**This quote did not sound precisely right to me but I copied it directly from the Godfather II script on IMSDb. Brilliant reader JC brings up the point again, so I went and listened to it, and he is right. The correct line is: ”In my home! In my bedroom, where my wife sleeps. Where my children come and play with their toys.“ No pajamas.

It was shameful. Pathetic. I’ll add this: I know that Selena has a history with A-Rod. And I know that she has a book coming out that, based on the cheery title (Hit and Run: The Many Lives of Alex Rodriguez) does not sound especially uplifting. But I’m not trying to defend Selena: She’ll defend herself fine. No, I’m talking about what this says to me about Alex Rodriguez.

I know Peter Gammons regrets allowing A-Rod to go on with that tripe — I guess he’s already apologized for that — but I don’t blame him. In many ways that was the most important part of the interview, the one true look into the man. Even in this moment of revelation, he could look at the camera and, I believe, lie viciously about the reporter who pulled back the curtain. It’s like I said: I never thought it was fair for people to call this gifted and brilliant baseball player A-Fraud for hitting into double plays in the playoffs or using the same drugs so many were using before baseball tested. But this guy attacking the reporter for reporting the truth, yes, that was A-Fraud.

Look, I get it. I understand the strategy. The media is not popular in America today, and there are very good reasons for that. Shoot, I’m in a member of the media, and I don’t like us much of the time. I know that it’s a pretty savvy maneuver to lob grenades at the media; most people will cheer you on.

But the way I saw it: This was a moment of character testing for Alex Rodriguez. He had been exposed. A shadow was cast over his baseball brilliance. This wasn’t Selena Roberts fault. It was his own. Now, the question is: How will you react when you are tested? Will you stand up? Even now, I don’t have those same strong feelings that others have about A-Rod using steroids, no, but I can tell you I’m way to the right on this spectrum. I don’t like liars. I don’t like bullies. More than anything, I think the A-Rod interview was a test of the man’s character. And I think he failed that test miserably.

175 Comments on “A-Something (Part II)”

1: Curtis said at 10:58 pm on February 10th, 2009:
Circle me, Bert
2: 55 said at 11:03 pm on February 10th, 2009:
I thought the Roberts stuff was very clearly a preemptive strike because she has a book about him coming out very soon. I’m betting she claims he’s been juicing since high school. If she has evidence, so be it, but if not, he has the right to be livid (though not the right to lie). We’ll see.

I also wonder how you feel about her role in the Duke lacrosse scandal:

http://durhamwonderland.blogspot.com/2008/03/selena-roberts-still-misleading.html

or, as Craig Calcaterra put it, this hatchet job:

http://shysterball.blogspot.com/2007/12/new-york-times-rod-hatchet-job.html

I don’t know her, I’m not trying to defend Alex, but I think it’s clear that she doesn’t exactly have a normal history. Alex probably exaggerated and/or lied, but I would not be surprised if there’s some questionable behavior from her side as well.
3: Spud said at 11:03 pm on February 10th, 2009:
Of course, Alex wasn’t home either, being out on the town …
4: Preston said at 11:11 pm on February 10th, 2009:
Joe, I love your writing and respect your point of view, but I have to withhold judgement on this one. You say that ARod is lying about Serena Roberts, and while his credibility is not exactly very high right now, I’m not going to toss out his claims unless there is concrete proof proving otherwise (nor, of course, will I believe what he’s saying without proof). I think this is particularly important given that Serena Roberts is not exactly unbiased in her opinion of ARod – see Shysterball’s dissection of a ridiculous 2007 article she wrote about ARod: http://shysterball.blogspot.com/2007/12/new-york-times-rod-hatchet-job.html. Plus, she’s got an upcoming book on ARod (http://tinyurl.com/bvqywf) – I’m guessing it doesn’t involve too many exclusive interviews. And finally, I can’t say that I know the circumstances under which she came up with this information, but considering that she got it from 4 sources, I’m guessing that at some point she was searching someone out and asking him/her to break the law by revealing or confirming legally confidential information. Depending on a court decision on the legality of the initial seizure of the whole group of records, she may be complicit in exacerbating a serious violation of ARod’s constitutional rights. To me, that’s unethical – and if that’s a part of being an outstanding journalist, then it’s a profession I would want nothing to do with.
5: Jeremy said at 11:15 pm on February 10th, 2009:
Selena Roberts is not an outstanding journalist. Regardless of how one feels about A-Rod or the merits of this particular story, she has a demonstrated history of bias A-Rod and a demonstrated history of presenting half-truths and falisities as journalism. She may be likeable but she’s not a journalist let alone an outstanding one.
6: Erik said at 11:21 pm on February 10th, 2009:
I’m not an Arod fan but how do we know he is lying about this woman?
It sure seems like she had some vendetta against him.
I mean, 104 players tested positive and she decided to report about one of them?
I’m not exactly sure of the legal issues but I hope she is forced to reveal her sources or else face jail because I thought this information was supposed to be protected.
I think it is much more of a shame that our protections are so continuosly ignored by evil reporters with an axe to grind than than I am upset the professional athletes used steroids.
Its certainly never been proven that they help but on the chance that they do, then if you didn’t do whatever was necessary to make yourself better than you weren’t trying.
And as consumers, all it really does is make the product better.
I, for one, never turn down the big flat screen television if its the same price as the old black and white.
7: Curtis said at 11:24 pm on February 10th, 2009:
I agree with this basically completely. I thought the interview proved every negative stereotype ever given about him. Everyone knows that he would have been happier had this story never broken, that he would have continued in his lies for the rest of his life if he could have, so spare me the contrition. He isn’t sorry he did steroids; he is sorry he got caught.

I have always liked him as a player. Maybe it is a dumb couple of reasons, but he is the first player to make the majors younger than me, and he has the same birthday as my brother. So I liked the guy, and I have defended his numbers against those who have called him unclutch. How do you drive in 120 irrelevant runs per year? I don’t think you can.

But this interview was bad, bad, bad.
8: wcw said at 11:45 pm on February 10th, 2009:
Now, I love me some A-Rod, because hot damn that kid can hit and if not for Saint Freaking Jeter he could play a little defense, too. And I hate me some A-Rod, because holy poop, he actually is better than that. I mean, he’s that good — he doesn’t need drugs.

But I will say that if he goes after a reporter, no matter how biased (and here let’s just assume she is Leni Riefenstahl, but in reverse), fuck him. The Barry has had the freaking government after him — after all, my local US attorney has nothing better to do, and yes, now that you ask, a local hoodlum did in fact kick down my front door last weekend to rifle through my garage last weekend *while I and wife and baby were home* so maybe just maybe I am oversensitive. The Alex has no persecutor with subpoena power. He can shut his well-fed face up on the subject.

Rants aside, I have to agree: drug use, meh. Rich men going after underpaid reporters, boo.
9: Mark LaFlamme said at 11:50 pm on February 10th, 2009:
I don’t know why we’re all getting our nighties into knots over this A-Rod,Serena Roberts business when Mr. Posnanski nailed it way, way, way back in the first graph. It’s that bastard Michael Bolton causing all of our problems. If we can all agree on that, everything else seems insignifcant.
10: Stringer Bell said at 11:51 pm on February 10th, 2009:
Well worth the wait Joe. As a Red Sox fan, I can smile in seeing a Yankee go down. However, I had always respected A-Rod as a player and as a talent. He was/is one of the best players I’ve ever seen. And, to be honest, I don’t blame him for denying steroid use all this time. If he thought he would get away with it (and, according to the union, the tests were anonymous) than why would he ever admit it?

The part that is turning me away from him, like you Joe, is the way he came after Roberts. I find it hard to believe that he didn’t know what he was taking, but whatever. I find it it hard to believe that he didn’t know he had failed a test, but whatever. I find it EXTREMELY hard to believe that Selena Roberts tried to break into his house four days ago. This woman works for SI, is about to break the biggest baseball story in years and is writing a book about the focus of said story, and she decides to commit a felony the day before the story is published? Are you kidding me?

The one part of this article I don’t agree with is your treatment of Peter Gammons. I studied journalism in college and am one of the lucky few who still get to write and edit for a living. I grew up reading Gammons, both in the Boston Globe and then later on ESPN. Truth be told, I’m not surprised about the way Gammons handled the situation because his whole career has been based on access (plus he had his head in the sand on the steroid issue for years).

But just because I’m not surprised doesn’t make it right. Gammons should be embarrassed on how he handled the interview. This man is a Hall of Famer and supposed to be a “journalist.” No follow-up questions? No questions on the garbage A-Rod spewed at the end about a fellow reporter? Not asking him, even once, if he ever injected himself with steroids? Or saying how its difficult to believe that a once-in-a-lifetime player might not know what he’s putting into his body?

I lost a lot of respect for A-Rod after yesterday, and much of it has nothing to do with steroids. The sad thing is, I probably lost just as much for Peter Gammons.
11: Don said at 11:56 pm on February 10th, 2009:
Erik,

Obviously, she picked on A-Rod because he is/was the BEST player on the list. I can easily say he is the best player because he is the best player in baseball. The fact that she just picked his name is clearly what anyone would do.

She might have a problem with A-Rod, but the fact that she only put the BEST player out there is not a reason to say she is only going after A-Rod.

You sound like the people that used to defend Pete Rose.
12: Damon Rutherford said at 11:57 pm on February 10th, 2009:
I just hope this does not hurt ARod’s 2009 season and my keeper league roto team!
13: Dave said at 11:58 pm on February 10th, 2009:
While I agree with everything you wrote, I actually came away from the interview sort of impressed. Why? Because I expected much worse. The man has always been an insecure phony that only gives over-thought scripted answers, and as overthought and scripted answers go, his delivery was a lot better on this one than in other interviews he has given.

It’s a shame that he felt the need to be so careful. One of these days someone is going to get caught and be truly honest, and it’s going to be great. I’d love to learn more about what makes a good player decide to start using, when and how often they use (ie, a cycle in the offseason and another late in the season as the wear and tear increases), and what immediate benefits they see when on. I’d also love to know whether we can point at some mid-season slumps and know that that’s when they came off a cycle and had to wait for their body to start producing testosterone again… or if some players just stayed on all year. So far, of the admitted users, Canseco was admittedly irresponsible about that stuff, Giambi didn’t say much (but Canseco said he was irresponsible as well), Caminiti is dead, and ARod and Pettitte are liars (I’m a big Pettitte fan, but come on… nobody uses HGH just once, then decides later to try again, but again only just once. It’s not something you take once and get better – you take it daily for months and months). I’d pay good money to have a candid, relaxed, agenda-free honest conversation with a user about all that stuff. Since he has already been outed, I thought maybe ARod would give a bit of detail and save some face. Being truly honest would score him some real points with a nation full of people who know he’s full of shit. Instead, we got the same old BS they all give.

Thanks for printing Bill James’ comments, though. That’s a wonderfully concise way to put it and I agree with the sentiment. It’s ridiculous to get angry with these people for doing something when there were no consequences and only rewards. They’d have been stupid not to. As a Yankee fan I don’t mind for one second that Giambi, ARod, Sheff, Clemens, Pettitte, and everyone else did steroids. I would’ve too. But it annoys the hell out of me when they lie about it. Can someone please just be honest?
14: Ryan said at 12:03 am on February 11th, 2009:
Joe, I believe those “allegations” and “lies” A-Rod was referring to was that Roberts said he experimented with steroids in high school and with the Mariners, which he denies. So I don’t think he was “confirming those allegations and admitting those lies” as you put it.

And I don’t understand why people are getting on A-Rod for seemingly scripted answers during the interview. I mean isn’t that called being prepared? Maybe people should get on Barack Obama and John McCain for their contrived answers during the presidential debates.

Anyways, I’m still waiting for an active, prominent superstar to admit using steroids BEFORE they are linked to PED’s and backed into a corner.
15: B.E. Earl said at 12:20 am on February 11th, 2009:
I thought the interview was mostly a sham as well.

But I don’t know how you can say that he is absolutely lying about Selena Roberts. How could you possibly know that? I listened to her on the radio today and I can’t tell which of them is lying. You know why? Because I’m not a mind reader.
16: Snuckles said at 12:43 am on February 11th, 2009:
This is somewhat reminiscent of the profession’s kneejerk support for Fainaru-Wada and Williams. Who would’ve gone to jail, if their source hadn’t confessed to his crime.

Let’s hope it plays out much the same for Selena Roberts and her receipt of illegally leaked material.

Outstanding work, Ms. Roberts. The Pentagon Papers, internal big tobacco documents, A-Rod’s results… yeah, it’s pretty much a moral continuum.
17: Pope said at 12:52 am on February 11th, 2009:
Awesome entry Joe.
18: Dave in SLO said at 12:59 am on February 11th, 2009:
If we are to believe that a $250-million contract is enough to make a supremely talented player cheat to perform at a higher level…okay, fine. But why would we believe that playing for that same contract FOR THE NEW YORK YANKEES would make the same player stop taking the same performance enhancing drugs? Are we to believe there’s no added pressure for ARod to perform in Gotham?

The “sick-bed epiphany” or whatever we want to call it is shaky at best and it’s the reason that I believe there is another smoking syringe out there to further impugn Rodriguez. That’s when he, and his ridiculous coming-clean party will lose all credibility. For A-Rod that may be punishment enough, because all he ever seems to want is the public’s acceptance/adoration.
19: Aaron M. said at 1:02 am on February 11th, 2009:
I can sum it up in 1 word:

So?

Those of you that are shocked, must be easily shocked. The safe bet is to assume everyone did it. The only player that would shock me is Frank Thomas. Well him, and Tony Pena Jr.
20: chris said at 1:03 am on February 11th, 2009:
Joe-
agree totally on A-Rod.
I didn’t hate him before this, now I do.
the unjustified rip on the reporter showed his true colors.
and Gammons, though I know he’s a baseball legend, did a HORRIBLE job…. he didn’t follow up on anything, and yes, he could have, on many things… and yes it would’ve mattered, cause it would’ve exposed A-Rod as the liar that he is.
21: nick said at 1:04 am on February 11th, 2009:
It will surprise no one to read that I’m a personal friend of neither of the individuals involved….when reporters speak up for the integrity of their fellow reporters, I always start to feel vaguely nauseous. I like my friends, too–so what? That and 2.95 will get you a latte…..

I’m not gonna bleed for poor Selena Roberts, given that her work in the NYT always struck me as dreadful: glib, reductive, uninformed. Ultimately, if the temptation of steroids brought out the worst in human nature, it did so for players and reporters alike: for everybody who could make $ out of roids. That’s what A-Rod did, that’s what Selena Roberts is doing. Entertainment culture–gotta love it…….
22: Bill C said at 1:17 am on February 11th, 2009:
Haven’t even finished the post, but had to skip down hear to make a comment. I must take issue with the comparison to Pete Rose in “never giving them more than they already have.”

Per the article, what we had was that ARod failed a drug test in 2003. If ARod was strictly playing the Pete Rose game he would have said he was experimenting with steroids in 2003 and that was that. He did not do that. He came out and said he was using in 2001 and 2002 as well.

There are many reasons why it might be legit to take issue with ARod’s “apology” but I don’t think it’s accurate to say he only admitted to what we already knew.
23: nick said at 1:18 am on February 11th, 2009:
I guess I’m not done….

Pete Abraham also went out of his way to tell us what a good reporter Selena Roberts was. You tell us that “Selena broke this story, and it was impeccably reported, thoroughly sourced, and it was quite obviously true.” Four anonymous sources; 1 of 104 names; and somebody who’d been writing hostile pieces on A-Rod for years. Can you blame A-Rod for maybe not seeing things the way you did?

Look, I don’t even like the A-Rod image; it’s a weird mixture of arrogance, blandness and awkwardness. Not likeable. (OK, the weirdness of getting involved with Madonna is kinda likeable.)

But I also think that the media’s collective grade on the steroid issue in baseball, since it has emerged, is EPIC FAIL. They’ve turned it into Kiddie Morality Theatre. And so I’m increasingly reluctant to believe anything the media tells me about the character of particular athletes.

Love the blog, all the same, Joe.
24: Bill C said at 1:42 am on February 11th, 2009:
You know, one thing about the epiphany in bed. If he really stopped in 2003, isn’t the much more logical answer that he stopped simply because full scale testing was coming in 2004? And wouldn’t it have gone over perfectly well for ARod to have said that he was never happy with himself for using anyway, so with steroid testing coming he knew it was time to get off the roids.

Wouldn’t the following have played well in the press:

“I started using because of the pressure of the contract and because Texas was roid heaven. I stopped because full-scale testing was about to be implemented and I’d always felt guilty about taking them anyway so I didn’t need much incentive to quit.”

Wouldn’t that have been a perfectly acceptable story (whether true or not)? Wouldn’t people have wanted to believe that? And isn’t it so obvious a story to tell that ARod’s people must have thought of it also? And if they could think of that story, and yet ARod went ahead with that epiphany in bed in Arizona nonsense…
25: BIP said at 2:11 am on February 11th, 2009:
Selena Roberts should be fired–she aided and abetted four criminals in disseminating government-sealed confidential information. I understand and support freedom of the press and all that, but this is where I think it crosses the line. If she had any personal integrity, she would have outed these criminals rather than report the story–or at the very least declined to involve herself in such despicable activity.

So A-Rod took steroids. As a sports fan, I’m disappointed in him, sure, but in the big picture of life, it’s pretty much irrelevant. What isn’t irrelevant is four people violating a man’s rights while a reporter gleefully enables them. Come on, Joe. Suppose I had access to your medical information and gave it to a reporter who publicized it in a story. Would you commend that reporter on a story that was “impeccably reported, thoroughly sourced, and quite obviously true”? I uh, don’t think so.

The other thing I don’t get is the idea that he should have admitted his steroid use before he was caught. Um, no. I’m pretty sure we all have a skeleton or two in our closet and have only confessed to certain things after being caught. Sure, if he’d admitted before being caught, it would have been commendable, but only because it would have been extremely uncommon.

Last thing: revealing the other 103 names would be utterly stupid. You don’t compensate one man for having his rights violated by violating those of 103 other people.
26: Baseball Guy said at 4:26 am on February 11th, 2009:
As a 41 year old baseball fan, specifically of the NY Yankees, since 1977, the A-Rod situation over the past few days has been very depressing.

This seemed, to me, to be the final blow in my naive belief that there were sports heroes. A-Rod was never a hero in the true sense, there were too many character flaws reported, but he was supposedly “clean.” (A little sarcasm to come – He had to be clean, the media told us he was.)

He, on the field at least, was supposed to be all about natural talent, ability, hard work, drive, etc…

I have so many thoughts on this it’s hard to distinguish between anger, upset, sadness, pity, frustration…

But let me try.

1. There are 103 names out there of other players who failed the 2003 test. There had to be many others who used and just didn’t fail that test. In addition, there has to be plenty of players who are using “steriods/HGH, etc” that is not tested or is undetectable. As such, because no one comes clean, I think they’re all, or at least the majority of the payers, are using.

2. We’ve seen the superstars that used. The Mitchell Report (for what it’s worth) lists plenty of average and below average players who used. As such, the competition was filled with chemically enhanced players. It seems the only way to compete was to cheat. I can’t understand how to logically think otherwise.

3. In this I don’t think baseball is any different than football or any major sport. Baseball was held to a different standard.

4. I don’t like the way we’ve singled out one steroid guy at a time to be outraged at until the next guy comes along. McGwire – Bonds – Giambi – Clemens – A-Rod. I don’t think that’s being intellectually honest or fair.

5. Talking about who the next “clean superstar” is, is stupid. We’re just setting ourselves up to be fooled again.

6. Calling the reporters “great” or “wonderful” or “noble” also isn’t fair. There is a great deal of hypocricy here. The baseball players used steroids for fame and riches. The reporters are now using the steriod stories for the same purposes. In a sense, the reporters are using steriods (the steroid story) to sell books, magazines, tv air time, newspapers, etc… There has also been very selective journalism, and outrage.

While we’re upset that the players cheated, and that steroids made them rich, we’re now giving money to the media because of those same steroids.

7. I would like to see one reporter admit and call himself or herself out for using “performance enhancers” (amphetamines, for example)to make a deadline, stay up for the second game, fly coast-to-coast for a breaking story, etc… For the reporters to decry one industry (players) for cheating while they or their colleagues cheat in the way of their own business is hypocritical.

8. Steroids have been around a long long time. We will never know who was clean. As I mentioned in the original A-Rod post, since removed from this site, they talk about steroids in the original The Longest Yard movie which came out in 1974. Ivan Drago was injected with steroids in Rocky IV in 1984. Steroids were and are a part of sports. To believe that it only hit baseball in the 1990’s is kidding ourselves. Some of our “clean” superstars of the 1970’s and 1980’s were dirty. They had to be. Steroids were out there.

9. The whole thing is just a crying shame.

10. The thrill of sports used to be being amazed by what individual people could accomplish. “Wow, look at that! What a catch! What a hit.” Most fans thought, “I wish I could do that…” Today, with what we know, it is no longer like that. The games may be real, but we’re not watching real people. We’re watching chemically enhanced people doing things most people can never dream of doing – and can’t do now unless they chemically enhance themselves.

11. Again, just a shame. Just a shame.
27: Mike in Hawaii said at 4:41 am on February 11th, 2009:
I think everyone should just back up off of A-Rod, if the man says it was loosey-goosey times, IT WAS LOOSEY GOOSEY TIMES.
28: Bryan in Brighton said at 4:49 am on February 11th, 2009:
What kind of despicable character is Tom Hicks in all of this?

He presided over steroids central, and now he is offended?

This whole episode has a lot of bad characters, Mr. Rodriguez, Ms. Roberts, Bud Selig, Don Fehr, etc., etc., etc.

In my book, Tom Hicks is at or near the top of that list.
29: buckweaver said at 5:36 am on February 11th, 2009:
BIP, on what exactly are you basing your accusation that the reporter was “gleefully” enabling the persons who leaked the information?

The reporter did not commit a crime, did not aid or abet a crime and, frankly, it’s insulting to suggest that the reporter should be fired. Roberts’ job was to find the information and report the truth; she did her job.

It’s the union’s problem that those tests were revealed, not Roberts’. She’s not bound by baseball’s CBA; they are. It’s A-Rod’s problem that he did steroids, not Roberts’. And it’s the source’s problem if those leaks were illegal, because that source is probably facing jail time. Like, for instance, Troy Ellerman. But that’s not Roberts’ problem. Her job is to seek and to report the truth. She did that, as far as we know.

Should Bob Woodward have been fired for reporting leaked information during Watergate? Of course not. It’s laughable to suggest otherwise.
30: buckweaver said at 5:42 am on February 11th, 2009:
>>>7. I would like to see one reporter admit and call himself or herself out for using â€œperformance enhancersâ€ (amphetamines, for example)to make a deadline, stay up for the second game, fly coast-to-coast for a breaking story, etcâ€¦ For the reporters to decry one industry (players) for cheating while they or their colleagues cheat in the way of their own business is hypocritical.
>>>

That’s the dumbest thing I’ve ever read.

What rule or law is a reporter or accountant or lawyer or anybody else in the workplace breaking by drinking massive amounts of coffee or Red Bull to make a deadline?

Point me to the collective bargaining agreement between newspapers and reporters that bans amphetamines or caffeine or any other such “performance enhancer.” Tell me what the punishments are and how they are enforced.

I can’t wait to find out.
31: Avon Barksdale said at 6:51 am on February 11th, 2009:
STRINGER, I thought you were an Oriolies fan?

Watch out for Omar.
32: Juancho said at 6:55 am on February 11th, 2009:
1) I think Bill James is right, as usual.
2) In five years’ time, probably most of the major stars of the 1985-2005 era will have been proven to have done roids. That means that the Hall of Fame voters will eventually have to decide whether to blackball most of the era’s greatest players (McGwire, Sosa, A-Rod, Clemens, Bonds, Palmeiro, Sheffield) for taking drugs that baseball hadn’t banned yet.
3) At this point, instead of asking who’s juiced, we ought to be asking who’s clean. The star players who I’m pretty sure are clean are Griffey, Thomas, Maddux, Pujols, Schilling, Biggio. I have no evidence, and could well be wrong. What do you all think?
33: Matt Brown said at 7:08 am on February 11th, 2009:
I think you’re often against public consensus because the public is a bunch of morons, and you are not.
34: 3rd Period Points said at 7:22 am on February 11th, 2009:
Joe, I agree completely with your view of steroid users as a whole. Initially I was livid, but as years passed and I grew older I realized that self-righteousness is often a sign of moral weakness. I too have made mistakes. I have regrets. My motivations haven’t always been pure.

One thing I don’t understand is the players’ attempts at spin and damage control. These players are getting some horrendous advice. Perhaps it’s because my father is a pastor, but I learned at a young age that the best response when you’ve been caught is to take full responsibility for what you’ve done. Throw yourself at the mercy of the court. There is sublime relief in at long last telling the truth. I’m no longer particularly religious, so fear of divine retribution doesn’t factor into the equation, but I still believe that people want to forgive. The act of forgiveness reveals the beauty of mankind.
35: Rich said at 7:23 am on February 11th, 2009:
I don’t feel the need to pick a side, Roberts or A-Rod, they both can be bums. Kind of like Conseco, just because he’s right doesn’t make him a good guy. From what I’ve read about S-Rob (which is the same amount I’ve read about A-Rod’s ‘roid use) I don’t respect either.
36: Buchholz Surfer said at 7:27 am on February 11th, 2009:
I wish Joe had left the whole Selena Roberts thing out of this post, because I agree with every word of it up until that point and was going to forward it to a bunch of my friends who are all worked up about steroids in baseball.

But I don’t care about Selena Roberts and don’t want to get into all that.
37: Paul White said at 7:58 am on February 11th, 2009:
I detest A-Rod, and have for quite some time. As a baseball fan that’s kind of sad, because he’s been the best player on the planet for most of his career, and it’s just sad for a real baseball fan to detest the game’s best player. But detest him I did, and do, solely because of his demeanor. I’ve always seen him as a guy who wanted to be a bland PR machine but somehow always failed to do so by ramming his foot in his mouth, being TOO polished, etc., and this ingterview is now Exhibit 1 for why I’ve felt that way about him. So, on that score, I couldn’t agree with you more, Joe.

But I’m not on board with the Roberts thing. I think she’s proven herself to be a bad reporter, a person who will twist facts to fit a personal agenda and then lie about twisting them. I think she is absolutely pursuing another personal agenda by timing her investigation and article about A-Rod with the upcoming release of her book about him. Whether A-Rod’s facts are straight about her in this case is irrelevent to me. She has a recorded history of unfair reporting, sometimes with A-Rod as the subject of it, and I really don’t blame him for ripping her. In some ways, it was the most human, understandable act I’ve ever witnessed from him.
38: Joao said at 8:03 am on February 11th, 2009:
I must join the part of the chorus that questions why we should have any reason to believe Roberts more than A-Rod on this. Roberts is a demonstrably shabby reporter.
39: 3rd Period Points said at 8:12 am on February 11th, 2009:
There is one thing that bothers me. The numbers. I love the numbers. In my youth, I spent hours on end reading the back of tens of thousands of baseball cards. I didn’t care so much about mint or near mint; I opened my box sets and pored over the cards. I sorted them by team. I sorted them by position. I wanted to know how many GWRBI Mike Lavalierre(sp?)had. I wanted to know who had more stolen bases–Gary Redus or Devon White. I had to compare Derek Bell with Derek Bell.

It’s not just that the numbers are inflated or that some hallowed records were broken. It’s the fact that some guys were using and some guys weren’t. As a previous commenter pointed out, even the 1980’s are suspect. I can’t even put the numbers in context within a player’s OWN era. If Jack Armstrong, for example, was clean, and a third of the hitters he faced used PED’s, then I’m not sure what their stats are telling me. How do I compare him to Frank Tanana? Neither, both, or one of them could have been dirty. That’s the tragedy, IMHO.

I still buy packs of cards sometimes–usually when I happen to be in that checkout lane at Target or Wal-Mart, but I’ve lost some of the anticipation, the childish curiosity. Sure I’m older and more jaded, but I’m jaded because the stats aren’t as informative. They aren’t real. Steroids and the resultant cloud of suspicion have spoiled the back of my baseball cards.
40: While We’re Waiting… More A-Rod, an MLB Salary Cap and Limiting Anderson Varejao | WaitingForNextYear said at 8:18 am on February 11th, 2009:
[...] “So, I guess, when it came to Alex Rodriguez and steroid use, I was probably well to the left of the norm. I wish he hadnâ€™t done it, and I think itâ€™s a mark on his permanent record, but I still think he was and is a great baseball player, one of the greatest of all time. And I donâ€™t think he should go to jail or be deported or be forced to write â€I will not do steroidsâ€œ 10,000 times on a chalkboard. Heâ€™ll get booed at ballparks, people will bring â€Druggieâ€œ signs to his games, reporters will mention the positive test in countless stories from here on in, it surely will cost him some Hall of Fame votes too. Heâ€™ll pay a hard price in his own way. And I donâ€™t think he did much different from many other players, including some who would no doubt shock us even more.” [Joe Posnanski] [...]
41: drewfuss said at 8:21 am on February 11th, 2009:
nice one, joe… was there a soft filter lens on the camera for the interview? the whole thing was creepy.
42: Bellweather Johnson said at 8:40 am on February 11th, 2009:
Honestly, what else is the guy supposed to do?? Nobody will ever be completely honest about this steroid stuff, so why should we expect A-Rod to be?? I have no less opinion about the guy. The story doesn’t surprise, depress, or sway my opinion of the baseball in any way.

And sure, the story was fabricated in the A-Rod war room, and sure his outfit was PRECICELY picked, and sure the interview was pre-fabricated, but how else is he going to distance himself from this if he doesn’t tell THAT exact story?? From a PR standpoint, it was brilliant. I have much more respect for his publicist than I ever did for A-Rod…even before this story broke.

Maybe he took the victim thing a bit too far by attacking Selena Roberts, but I don’t really care about that either. It might say something bad about his character, but when did that ever effect what I thought about a ballplayer’s performance?? It never has, and never will.

Sorry…I tried to fit a Willie Mays Hayes joke in here, but it didn’t work. This whole A-Rod saga gets a big fat “meh,” and shrug of the shoulders from me…
43: Kevin said at 8:45 am on February 11th, 2009:
A-Rod took steroids? Oh my goodness, what’s next… media members defending other media members?

A-Rod took steroids, an illegal substance, to make sure he earned his money, right? And then you are saying you doubt some journalist would trespass and try to break in a house, all illegally, so she can write a book and make money?

Why, Joe, why? what’s the difference except that the girl is in your field and journalists defend other journalists..
44: Timmmaaayyyy said at 8:46 am on February 11th, 2009:
A few things –

It’s weird how sometimes you read something and say – that is EXACTLY where my head is at.

At first – I did kind of feel bad for ARod; but after seeing that interview and his dancing around and not answering questions and throwing out the same scripted terms over and over:
*sorry (14 times)
*negligent (2)
*naive (6)
*banned substance (instead of anabolic steroid) (7)
*different culture (5)
*loose (2)
I was thinking that the whole interview was laughable and insulting. So scripted – “ok ARod – just stick to the party line – you were young and naive; you are sorry; NEVER say steroid and you will be fine, don’t give ANY specifics, the whole thing will blow over – just like it did for Pettite”

ARod claims that at the time there was no legal or illegal as far as steroids and that is just not true. Agreed that MLB was weak in policing, but that is not a question of legal or illegal.

Further, I feel let down by Gammons; love his work – but he blew this one. I kept waiting for the end of the interview, when Peter would ask, “Alex – earlier I asked you when you started and how you got the steroids, and you did not give a clear answer – so I’ll ask again – when and where did you get them? And what were you taking?” I kind of understand not badgering ARod at the beginning – but he should have gone back to the questions that were danced around and not answered.

Also – for Ryan [#14] “And I donâ€™t understand why people are getting on A-Rod for seemingly scripted answers during the interview. I mean isnâ€™t that called being prepared?”

Ryan – scripted answers are one thing, when they do not in any way answer the question asked, it’s another.

For Bill C [#22] – “If ARod was strictly playing the Pete Rose game he would have said he was experimenting with steroids in 2003 and that was that. He did not do that. He came out and said he was using in 2001 and 2002 as well.”

Bill – he never came out and said anything regarding when … Gammons asked him if it was in 2001, 2 & 3 and he responded “That’s pretty accurate”. That answer is a joke. Does that mean maybe he did take some banned substance (i.e., anabolic steroid) in late 2000? early 2004? last week?

There are so many other key points – why don’t football players get lambasted like this? What about the players union? How can anyone in MLB management be given a pass?

It just boggles the mind and leave a very bad taste in my mouth …
45: DTRO said at 8:46 am on February 11th, 2009:
I usually agree with your point of view, Joe, but I have to join the others who question why you’re so mad that A-Rod ripped Selena Roberts. I know she’s your co-worker and all, but the woman doesn’t seem to be that great of a reporter (from the limited things I’ve read by and about her) and she clearly has had an agenda against A-Rod for quite a while. If I’m A-Rod then I would probably rip Roberts too.
46: Timmmaaayyyy said at 8:50 am on February 11th, 2009:
For Bellweather – “From a PR perspective it was brilliant”

Actually a sports PR exec was on ESPN last night and gave ARod’s performance an “F” for exactly the reasons the Joe mentioned.

A little truth would go a long way and we wouldn’t be debating this nearly as much. ARod was pathetic and did more harm than good.

Also – agree with most people posting about the defense of Roberts. Not needed and seems self serving for journalists in general.
47: Buchholz Surfer said at 8:57 am on February 11th, 2009:
“If Jack Armstrong, for example, was clean, and a third of the hitters he faced used PEDâ€™s, then Iâ€™m not sure what their stats are telling me. How do I compare him to Frank Tanana? Neither, both, or one of them could have been dirty. Thatâ€™s the tragedy, IMHO.”

The thing is, we can never know who is “clean” and most importantly, we never DID know. Which players in the 70’s and 80’s were coked up when they played? Which ones used amphetamines, which are a huge performance enhancer for major league baseball players? There has always been stuff going on behind the scenes, and the real tragedy is the myth that was created years ago that so many baseball fans were raised on, that these players were special heroes who are above the rest of us and not flawed human beings who were just trying to make a living at a game they were really talented at.

My way of looking at it is that the numbers are still what they’ve always been. The players on the field produced those numbers with their play. Yes, some had some illegal advantages, but that’s ALWAYS been the case. Players have been using corked bats and scuffing the ball and throwing spitters for generations. Teams in the 50s even used complex systems to steal signs. All you can do is hope that the cheating is as controlled as it reasonably can be, and now that there’s testing, it’s as reasonably controlled as it can be. Of course players are still taking illegal PEDs, just like they are in every other sport. We’re all better off not knowing the details and just accepting that, just like you had to know some of these guys are corking their bats and throwing spitters. If you can catch them, then you punish them. Otherwise, you move on. This is how the NFL has always handled it, and hardly any fans have a problem with that. Defensive player of the year fails a steroid test? Oh well, he sits four games and then we all move on. Fans have no problem with that, and neither does the media.

I think part of the reason some baseball fans have such a problem with steroids is that they think that they’re these pills that you take that just automatically give you muscles. You pop some pills and magically muscles appear. That’s not how most of them work. You get the muscles because they allow you to lift weights for hours and hours a day, without taking days off to let your muscles recover like a normal person. So the muscle and bulk comes from lifting weights longer and more often than other people. That is the advantage. It’s not automatic, the muscle still has to be added through hard work. And it’s illegal and it’s not fair, and though adding muscle in baseball will help add some distance to hard hit balls and therefore increase home runs, the bulk isn’t going to help you in other aspects of the game and might actually hurt you defensively and on the bases.

Steroids help pitchers a lot too, because pitchers need to recover, that’s true. And they can help players have more energy in the long season– just like amphetamines which have been in the game since the 1960s at least, and which were ignored by the sports media AND FANS even after Jim Bouton blew the cover in his book.

I’ll get more worked up about steroids the minute Gaylord Perry– the admitted, celebrated cheater– is thrown from the Hall of Fame in disgrace and when the hundreds of 350-pound NFL players are despised and ridiculed by sports fans and the sports media for their obvious PED use. Until those things happen, I have little patience for self-righteous rants about the dirty steroid cheaters of baseball.
48: ceolaf said at 8:58 am on February 11th, 2009:
Joe,

I love your work, but this one looks to me like a “media v. athlete” reaction, and I would not have expected it of you.

1) A-Rod did something that no other respected athlete has done, I don’t think, in this PED mess. He said that he used for years and that it was his own fault. Sure, he tried to explain some of the pressure he was under, but he didn’t weasel around responsibility. He said it quite plainly. That is more than anyone else.

2) At the same time, did did what everyone else has done. He refused to help people understand what was really going on. He didn’t say where he got the stuff, which of his teammates were using, how he learned about it or anything. He repeated spoke of “the culture,” as though there weren’t individuals. This makes his like everyone else. Heck, Torre was just interviewed on ATC or something and was asked about PEDs; he just weaseled his way out of the question. No one has told us what they knew.

3) Gammons is supposed to be a journalist, right? And the first question is never the hard one to asnwer. The first one can be ducked or talking pointed. It’s the follow up that makes someone a journalist. WIth A-Rod talking about the culture, and Texas admitting doing PEDs for years Gammons had a professional obligation to following up repeatedly on the following issues:
* How many of your teammates in Texas were using?
* Did you see Palmeiro use?
* Did you see Pudge use?
* Did you see Juan Gonzalez use?
* Who gave you or sold you the stuff you used?
* How did you pay for it?
* Did any non-player employees on the team know about anyone’s use?
* Did the coaches, managers or front office have any knowledge?
* DId you see any Yankees use?
* Did you ever discuss PEDs with any player in MLB? Whom?
* etc. etc.

4) You are letting Gammons off the hook for everything. Is he just a guy who reports what his great sources want to tell him from the start? Or does he actually push them at all? I read Gammons going way back, long before I saw him on ESPN. I know how much info he has access to. But that might just make him the mouthpiece for MLB and the teams. What about journalism?

5) You don’t even consider whether or not Roberts might have done anything questionable, ever. You don’t even consider the ethics of her methods, or what A-Rod might actually have a problem with. This is not simply a he said/she said. Either she was arrested or not. Either she was in his building or not. This is not a “you decide whom you want to believe” situation.

6) You don’t mention at all the possibliity that Ms. Roberts has some financial incentive to make A-Rod look as bad as possible. She’s got book sales to gin up. Why doesn’t that impact her credibility at all?

**************************

I think that the interview was a big sham. A-Rod said what he wanted to say, and Gammons enabled that. And the, ESPN broadcasted it.

You only blame A-Rod.

Who is responsible for the PED stuff in MLB? The players, the management of each team and MLB itself, right? They each played their role. Well, what about this interview? Who is repsonsible?
49: Ray Jay said at 8:59 am on February 11th, 2009:
Say what you will about Canseco, but he is the only player who has been truthful. Not only about his own steriod use, but every player he outed apparently used too.
50: Brent C said at 9:05 am on February 11th, 2009:
Is it possible that this news of A-Rod’s steroid use will have a positive influence on HoF voters. With more and more of the great players of that era being exposed, maybe people will start to appreciate their numbers in the context. Meaning players like McGwire, Bonds, and Palmero will get in the hall; which I feel they deserve. In addition it should/will enhance the resumes of Frank Thomas, Griffey Jr., and Maddox. Just a thought.

It would be a shame to leave an entire era of baseball out of the Hall, for all its warts, that was the baseball culture at the time and should be appreciated for what it was.

ps: I like pie.
51: G said at 9:05 am on February 11th, 2009:
Can someone please explain the Selena Roberts hate that is expressed in these comments? Concrete examples of incorrect (false) reporting, not examples of overzealous editorializing of the facts. I’ve looked at the blog sites mentioned, and there is nothing in these sites to make doubt her reporting abilities. There seems to be a feeling that she is quick to report on touchstone issues such as perceived mysogyny without factual basis, but this may be understandable considering the depths of the attacks on her character. For example, there’s a regualr poster on sosh who has referred to her as a “vindictive c**t”, which seems to be the implicit feeling behind many of these comments. I assume this is based on her Duke reporting. As it stands, from the comments on this and other similar threads, it appears as if A-Rod’s personal attacks were effective in creating doubt and sympathy.
52: Eric said at 9:07 am on February 11th, 2009:
I suppose the part that bothers me is what the fallout is. One of my coworkers (a huge Yankees fan) was actually kind of down about this whole thing, and when I asked why he was questioning Derek Jeter and Bernie Williams and Mariano Rivera…and that left me to question players on my team (Mets) – I thought, “well, Johan Santana just kind of came out of nowhere – rule 5 draft pick”…or Mike Piazza (drafted in the 40,129 round of the MLB draft, or so)…or David Wright…

As a fan, this kind of sucks, that’s all. It goes beyond “you’re a Phillies fan and I am a Mets fan”. If a list broke with big names from both teams, I could see fans from all teams putting their differences aside.

Oddly enough, however, I still have no problem with Dock Ellis allegedly pitching a no-hitter on LSD.
53: AK said at 9:10 am on February 11th, 2009:
Where’s Part 1??
54: Tampa Mike said at 9:12 am on February 11th, 2009:
That interview was horrible! I completly agree with pretty much everything Joe said. A couple of other things really bothered me as well.

1- He mentioned several times that he was glad the truth came out and now he doesn’t have to live the lie with a monkey on his back. He also said he didn’t know about the failed test until a week ago and he wasn’t sure until then if what he had taken was illegal or not. Was this a preemptive monkey?

2- When asked about his legacy he said he only used for 3 years, so you can’t discount the rest of his career. What? I only cheated for a little bit, so it’s all good. It’s strange that it all started and ended with Texas. Sounds too convenient. And to blame it all on the rediculous contract that HE DEMANDED…. i’m not going there.

3- First he says he isn’t mad and respects the reporter then says “the lady” was stalking him and attacking him. I don’t know anything about who this is, never heard of her. I will give her the benefit of the doubt, but the book gives it a hint of shady. There is no excusing a breaking and entering if that is true. It’s hard to believe A-Rod with that rant.

I could go on and on, but that interview was horrid and I hope people see him now for what he has always been, arrogant, narcissistic, and a horrible teammate.
55: paul said at 9:17 am on February 11th, 2009:
I agree with much of this column but will add my voice to those who question why Roberts and Gammons get a pass. I’m sure being a journalist is hard and I wouldn’t be very good at it. But it looks to me like Roberts went way outside the bounds of ethics and Gammons simply let A-Rod say his piece. Sure, A-Rod probably wouldn’t have answered those questions anyway, but he’d at least have had to dodge and dissemble and, who knows? maybe he would’ve answered.

But I’ll also say this in defense of Joe, it’s not easy to rag on friends or even acquaitences. A-Rod looks terrible, in my opinion, on the interview and general demeanor for all the reasons Joe cites. It would be very easy at that point to conclude he’s wrong on issues involving a friend and co-worker.

Roberts could go a long way in my esteem if she released the other names in a side-story. Either the names were legally obtained and she has accurate info and it’s ethical to release them and it’s newsworthy or it isn’t. It seems she wants it both ways: it’s ethical to release A-Rod’s name but not the others. I’m not sure how that makes sense. I’d probably still disagree with her that she should have obtained and released these names, but at least she’d be being consistent in her views.
56: David Dubbert said at 9:20 am on February 11th, 2009:
I’m afraid I can’t agree with what everybody is saying about the fact that people used steroids. It’s not that what Bill James says is incorrect, because it’s not. I just don’t think that it’s a good enough excuse. I don’t see how you can say that using steroids wasn’t cheating, and if you’re cheating and you know it, that’s wrong. Maybe I’m being naive, or just self-righteous as 3rd Period says, but I don’t really think so. I’ll admit right now that if I had been a pro ball player in the 90s, I probably would have used as well, but that doesn’t make it right, and it doesn’t mean that anybody who did use should get a free pass. Certainly, baseball can’t really do anything about it, because they don’t have the moral high ground either, but it doesn’t mean that fans have to act like it didn’t happen, or that it was just one of those things that we have to laugh off and deal with. It is only human, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that it should be accepted.
57: Chris said at 9:21 am on February 11th, 2009:
A couple of things…

1. How can anyone be surprised at the phony apology and obvious prepared statements and responses he gave in his interview? He has spent his entire career never stepping outside of what seem to be coached opinions.

2. Not surprised he used. Not surprised anyone used. There was a tangible incentive to do so, but no consequences to not to.

3. I have a real issue with journalists blindly sticking up for journalists. As much as I love your work, Selena Roberts clearly comes to the table with an agenda.

She dislikes A-Rod, and seems out to get him. Also, as pointed out earlier in previous comments, she does not have a very good track record as a writer or journalist, and her integrity should also be questioned. How do some journalists justify slamming players for blindly supporting other players, when you (journalists) often do the same thing for another journalist who does not deserve your support?

4. I am sick of steroids. Don’t care who used, what they used, how long they used. Never have. Never will.

5. I hate that pitchers and catchers report in 3 days, and it will be hard to enjoy because players on every team will have to spend time answering A-Rod questions.
58: SoxfaninKC said at 9:24 am on February 11th, 2009:
I’m a little disappointed that Rodriguez used steroids because I want to believe that at least some of the great performances I’ve seen in my brief time as a baseball fan were performed by clean players. Beyond my mild disapointment though I’m still pretty indifferent to the Rodriguez story. I won’t even waste my time to watch his interview with Gammons. I do feel sorry for the clean players. They aren’t allowed to reveal to us who the cheaters are/were because they would be calling out their own teammates and/or their “brethren” MLB players but yet they are constantly measured against them when it comes to awards and contracts. Here’s hoping that the testing has leveled the playing field recently. I can’t wait for the season to start so we can start talking about actual baseball again.
59: Glanzer said at 9:24 am on February 11th, 2009:
Wow, the conversation is totally plausible. Too bad we’ll never know if you were right.
60: Matt S said at 9:24 am on February 11th, 2009:
Joe,

I am an avid reader of this site, full disclosure I feel are the best sports writer in the country. I respect your point of view, and agree with you entirely on the first part of your post. The use of Anabolic Androgenic Steriods (AAS) and other Performance Enhancing Drugs (PEDs) has been demonized beyond belief. The hyperbole spewing from Jayson Stark and others is comical. I also agree that A-rod most likely concocted half truths, only revealing what was already known. I have no faith in his integrity (especially after his 60 minutes interview in which he denied using AAS and other PEDs). He can no longer be taken at face value, he has lost that right…

BUT, so has Selena Roberts. As many posters have noted her coverage of the Duke Lacrosse case lacked any semblance of integrity. In my mind, her integrity is in the same place as A-rod’s– the dumps. If she broke the law in anyway I hope she is punished… and believe me she is going to be hauled in front of Judge Illston (presiding over the BALCO case).

With that in mind, your statement “I think sheâ€™s [Selena Roberts] an outstanding journalist” needs to be addressed by you. After reading the many comments I think your reader’s disagree with you completely on your opinion of Selena Roberts.

Thanks for taking the time to read our posts, it is appreciated more than you know.
61: Mikey said at 9:34 am on February 11th, 2009:
Joe, thanks for being one of the few people to admit that there’s so much we simply don’t know about steroids. The whole issue has always been marked by an inflated sense of outrage used, in my opinion, as a cover for a lack of real understading of the facts. The whole discussion would benefit from a dose of humility.

I don’t think Selena Roberts deserves to have you and Tom Verducci rushing to her defense. She played a lead role in the shoddiest piece of sports coverage in many years. Her objectivity, if not her credibility, is in doubt.

What do we really know about A-Rod’s charges? We know that Roberts went to A-Rod’s home, that she had an interaction with a guard, that the police were called, and that she then left. Beyond that all we have is what he said and what she said. Yes, A-Rod’s version seems hyperbolic, but why is Roberts version so eagerly accepted?

Note her answer to the charge that she was ejected from A-Rod’s building in Manhattan: “I’ve never set foot in the lobby” of the building. Isn’t that a rather specific answer? Did she ever GO to the building? If a prominent person lives in a doorman building, you can certainly be asked to leave the grounds without actually setting foot in the building. Again, Roberts version of the story was accepted without follow-up by Verducci on MLB Network.

Look, I find Alex Rodriguez unctuous, but I don’t think his annoyance with Roberts says anything revealing about him. If a reporter shows up at your apartment building (may have happened), your gym (definitely happened), and your home resulting in a police visit (definitely happened), you’re going to be annoyed.
62: daltonic said at 9:39 am on February 11th, 2009:
media vs. athlete?

the athlete was using the media to spread a message he wanted to get out in the public domain.
he was cleaning up a mess before it got worse.
by turning to the media.

the reporter in question may have some dodgey past stuff, but the fact of the matter is SHE WAS RIGHT.

he was there to admit she was RIGHT.

she was not aiding and abetting anything, she was breaking news, that one of the best players in baseball history AND the highest paid pro athlete.
she got him. attacking her doesn’t make it not fact.

if she were lying then it would be a different ballgame all together. but he backed her up!

maybe his “confession” will open the door to some real truth coming out about his use of steroids and hgh – and the other 103 names should come out, too.

the gov’t has the names, and to think that they won’t come out in some kind of testimony is absurd. just release them and get it over with.
63: bryan said at 9:42 am on February 11th, 2009:
Joe, great post, but could you elaborate more on the tools involved in becoming a “five-tool rogue?”
64: sean lahman said at 9:42 am on February 11th, 2009:
“Iâ€™ve never grasped why baseball players taking steroids were in some way different from football players taking steroids.”

I think because football players didn’t rewrite their record book as a result. It bothers folks that at least five of the top 12 names on the career home run list are steroids users, and that more guys hit 50 homers in a 10-year stretch than in the 120 years that came before. Steroid users changed the fundamental nature of the game.

When running backs start cranking out 3000 yard seasons like it was nothing, then the NFL will get the same level of grief that baseball has. Until then, it’s apples and oranges.
65: frank said at 9:46 am on February 11th, 2009:
I am surprised with the harsh reaction to Roberts on this board. Is it the fact that she is not in fact a good journalist that people are mad about, or is it just her status as a journalist. It seems to me, and I can’t peer into any hearts, that people are mad about her style of writing, and in particular her role in the duke scandal and possibly her being a woman or something (is she black?), she seems like a mad black woman (having never read a single article written by her).

It is obvious from the comments that A-Rod’s plan to blame a journalist was well played, it took the focus away from the real issue of how much and how long has he juiced and put the issue on a much more sensitive topic of this Roberts writer.

Joe’s point then is simply that this was part of a plan to deceive, and it is childish and it hurts a professional. It’s not me it is this other person that happens to be standing here. I think the response to roberts is that view of blame a victim, she put herself next to A-Rod, she has to take the heat. She gets paid for it.

Personally, I don’t care anymore. At first it was when the Royals couldn’t hold on to players like Damon and Beltran, now the players that I like cheat. Can’t I have one player that I can like for 20 years without something tarnishing? Ah, reminds me of Brett and his pine tar, that was some good tarnish.
66: Michael (in NYC) said at 9:49 am on February 11th, 2009:
Paul White at 37 said, “But Iâ€™m not on board with the Roberts thing. I think sheâ€™s proven herself to be a bad reporter, a person who will twist facts to fit a personal agenda and then lie about twisting them.”

I think it’s important to remember that the “agenda” here is money, just like it is for the players. Roberts has a book coming out about all this, so she stands to make a pretty penny. There’s your vested interest.

A-Rod’s “interview” was cringe-worthy, as was Gammons’s handling of it. I wonder how fast the negative attention on him would go away if he gave a year’s salary to an anti-steroids charity. Pretty fast, I’d think.

Anyway, two days to pitchers and catchers!
67: Mikey said at 9:49 am on February 11th, 2009:
To follow up on Roberts and A-Rod’s apartment, Roberts did tell ESPN Radio that she went to A-Rod’s building but that she only waited outside the building.

This would seem to make her indignant assertion that she “never set foot in the lobby” appear lawyerly at best.

Was she asked to leave the grounds? We don’t know, but if she wasn’t confronted by a building employee how would Rodriguez ever have known she was there?
68: Mikey said at 9:53 am on February 11th, 2009:
“(is she black?), she seems like a mad black woman”

Come on, man. There are only five billion pictures of Selena Roberts on the interwebs. Use the google!

I can’t speak for anyone else of course but for me it has nothing to do with her being a woman. It has to do with her botching an extremely high-profile story and then failing to accept any responsibility. She’s tainted as far as I’m concerned.
69: Paul White said at 9:59 am on February 11th, 2009:
Can any lawyers who are reading this provide a quick synopsis of any legal hot water Roberts may be in? I’m not a lawyer, and I don’t know the legal status of the information that was revealed to her, so I’d just like some basic clarifications:

1. Was/is the information she reported (A-Rod’s positive test) protected or sealed?

If that answer is “No”, then she’s pretty well clear, I would think. If that answer is “Yes”, then I have a couple of other questions:

2. Presuming she got it from a person who knew it was protected or sealed, did she break the law by publishing it? Or would she have to have personal knowledge that it was protected information AND that it was illegally leaked before she would have a legal problem in publishing it?

3. Even if it was legal for her to publish it, if her source obtained/leaked it illegally, can she be compelled to either reveal the source or face jail time for obstruction of justice(ala Fainaru-Wada and Williams)?
70: B.E. Earl said at 10:08 am on February 11th, 2009:
Weird. I just re-read the article, specifically the parts about Selena Roberts. I thought that Joe originally said that A-Rod’s claims about Roberts were definitely lies, but now the language seems softer. “he could look at the camera and, I believe, lie viciously about the reporter who pulled back the curtain.”

I don’t remember that “I believe” in there originally. Did Joe, after reading some of these comments, make a small editorial change? Maybe I just mis-read the piece initially. I dunno.

Either way, I don’t know who I believe yet. The disgraced athlete looking to cover his ass or the reporter with a history.
71: Andrew said at 10:10 am on February 11th, 2009:
Joe,

I find it curious that when A-Rod responds to the allegations of a reporter, you assumed that he and his people got together to formulate the best strategy to spin the allegations. You even went to the length of suggesting a hypothetical conversation they may have had. But, when the journalist responds to the very public allegations of A-Rod, you seem to assume, due presumably to a loose personal/working relationship and a sense of journalistic camaraderie, that she quickly responded truthfully and without agenda. Maybe that was the case, but maybe it was something like this:

Selena: Hey person I seek advice from, how should I respond to these allegations?
Advice Person: If you say anything other than, “I deny everything, he made it all up,” your book will lose an awful lot of credibility.
Selena: Thanks. Complete denial it is.

Thanks for the post, Joe.
72: Geoffrey said at 10:10 am on February 11th, 2009:
Surely reporting information that you know to have been obtained illegally is as questionnable morally as taking performance enhancing drugs when they are not banned by the sport.

Look at it this way

Person A obtains information that has been obtained illegally but decides to go ahead and publish said information.
Person B obtains drugs that have been obtained illegally but decides to go ahead and use them anyway.

Can you gues who persons A and B are?

Peter Gammons – don’t like him, never have, probably never will.
What bugged me most was when he asked A-Rod WHERE he obtained the “stuff” from and then A-Rod repeated his “I don’t know what they were” answer only for Gammons to move on. Obviously Gammons would have been told he couldn’t ask about certain things but seriously what would A-Rod have done if he had really been pushed? Walk out? I don’t think so, not when he it would only tarnish his reputation more.
Ultimately I think Gammons gets away with his poor performance. Watch the actual Frost/Nixon interviews and compare it to the film. I can see a similar rose tinted view on Gammons getting the admission of guilt from A-Rod in 20-30years.

Lastly, any thoughts on Fulham Joe? Have you been following their excellent progress this season? Any thoughts on the mercenary Jimmy Bullard leaving for higher wages after Fulham stuck by him (and paid him) while he was injured for over a year? Would love to hear any of your thoughts on this.
73: Buchholz Surfer said at 10:10 am on February 11th, 2009:
“I think because football players didnâ€™t rewrite their record book as a result.”

How on earth do you know that? Every quarterback and running back is playing behind juiced up linemen. They can’t set records without the help of their linemen. Maybe– maybe– not that many quarterback take PEDs. I’m not even sure of that. But every other non-kicking position in the game is suspect. Hell, even a punter got busted for PEDs in football. If a punter is busted, why would a QB not be suspect? How would you know?

“It bothers folks that at least five of the top 12 names on the career home run list are steroids users”

How do you know the others were “clean?” Babe Ruth was caught using a corked bat. Willie Mays supposedly talked about some special “red juice” he would take to get energy. http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/print?id=2289509&type=story

Hank Aaron played in the amphetamine era. Did he take them? No one’s ever accused him of it and maybe he didn’t. I don’t care if he did. But since a really high percentage of players were using speed, why would he get a free pass? More importantly, why would you want to know now?

“and that more guys hit 50 homers in a 10-year stretch than in the 120 years that came before. Steroid users changed the fundamental nature of the game.”

That increase in home runs had a lot more causing it than only steroids. Livelier ball, smaller parks, harder bats, smaller strike zone, more expansion, every hitter in the game lifting weights– none of that mattered, it’s all steroids? I’m not buying that for one second. It’s ridiculous to just ignore every other factor and change in the game and blame it all on steroids.

The NFL record book has been rewritten in the steroid era, which goes back to the 1970s. Are people demanding that the Steel Curtain Steelers give back their four Super Bowl trophies because some of the players on those teams admitted they were taking steroids? Where’s the outrage for the hallowed history of football? Cheaters taking steroids, illegally gaining an advantage and rewriting the Super Bowl record book!

There is no outrage. Football fans don’t want to think about it, which is fine by me. The NFL has a testing system in place, which most players can easily beat. The ones who don’t beat it get suspended four games and everyone moves on. That’s the way it should be in baseball too.
74: River Otter said at 10:16 am on February 11th, 2009:
Great post, Joe, although I liked Part I even better.

For me, I was struck by how Arod’s attack on Roberts was out of character with the rest of the interview. My initial reaction was that it undermined the credibility for the whole “apology.” It seems to me that his attack on her would have been better saved for another time, or instead made by one of his handlers. However, I was glad to see him confess, and go beyond just admitting he used in 2003, even though it was staged and was obviously not a full mea culpa.

I was also struck by how only Arod’s name was leaked. I’m torn, however, about wanting to know the rest of the names of the list. I’d be crushed if Griffey’s name appeared. Besides, all it will tell us is whether the players were using at that point in time.

One musical picks suggestion with pitchers and catchers reporting soon: How about “Harvey Haddix” or another song from the Baseball Project?
75: Mikey said at 10:20 am on February 11th, 2009:
Buchholz, great post.

Favre, Emmitt, Rice, and Strahan most certainly DID re-write the NFL record book during the same years now considered tainted in baseball. We have absolutely no idea if they were clean, or if they benefited from playing with teammates who juiced.

And as a football fan I don’t care if they did or didn’t. Just saying it’s naive to make false distinctions between MLB and the NFL.
76: Frank James said at 10:20 am on February 11th, 2009:
I could see AC/DC playing the 2010 Super Bowl.
77: Mike said at 10:29 am on February 11th, 2009:
Joe, your credibility as a journalist suffers when you are so un-objective about you coworker. She’s a terrible reporter and a terrible writer. About the best thing I can say about her is that she’s persistent, which is about the only good thing I can say about the paparazzi too.
78: somebody said at 10:30 am on February 11th, 2009:
i look at his interview as clinical. like you im not sure if i even care. but from a PR stand point. it was a fast response(learned from other peoples prior mistakes) and it didnt take weird avoidance of the topic Giambi style.

as for the yankees, i almost think they get what they deserved. he spurned them opting out of that contract. and then when it became clear nobody else was going to pay him within millions of his old contract, they brought him back…for more or less the same amount. good business
79: Tampa Mike said at 10:34 am on February 11th, 2009:
ohhh, I forgot the best part of the A-Roid interview. He kept talking about how “back then” it was such a “loosygoosy” (loosygoosy, really, thats the word you want to use) era and people don’t understand what it was like “back then”. It was 6 years ago! We remember! He sounds like a hippie talking about pot and LSD use in the 60’s. Is anyone buying the “I didn’t know what I was taking” excuse? A professional athelete workout fiend with the biggest contract in baseball history didn’t know what he was putting in his body? Rrrrriiiighttttt.

I think what is upsetting people most is they were looking to A-Rod to break Bonds HR record so it would be clean again and now that is gone. Personally, I think a lot of people fooled themseleves into believing there was no possible way A-Rod was taking anything.
80: Kevin said at 10:38 am on February 11th, 2009:
Yes, but why is A Rod orange?
81: Bill C. said at 10:43 am on February 11th, 2009:
Look, I think Roberts is kind of scummy. Is she a reporter or a columnist? Because if she’s a reporter reporting facts, then her editorializing in the ARod case and in the Duke case are highly inappropriate and almost as bad as reporting falsehoods as facts. To add “think booby traps around a precious jewel” to her description of multiple attempts to reach Arod being unsuccssful…disgusting.

So she deserves to be called out for a variety of things.

That said, one of them is not that she helped people break the law by leaking Arod’s name from the list. She was not bound by any agreement to keep the list confidential.

Also, people are calling her out for not releasing the whole list. Are we sure she has the whole list? Or did her four sources just confirm that ARod is on it and she’s never actually seen or had the list herself? If she’s has the list and has sourced its accuracy, she should release it, but it’s not clear to me if all she has is that ARod’s name appears on the list.

To Timmmaaayyy…yeah you could take issue with the wording of it, but the fact remains that there exists one positive test on ARod from 2003 and he copped to using in 2001 and 2002. Sure, you could say he only did it because he knew nobody would believe that he got caught the one and only time he used, but he nevertheless copped to two full years of using steroids that there were no positive tests on him for. So he really did not just admit what was already out there.

I’m not saying you should believe him, or even that I believe him, just that it’s not accurate to say he only admitted what was already known.
82: Mark said at 10:57 am on February 11th, 2009:
Joe, I love your blog, but I donâ€™t think this was one of your best posts. Random responses:

1. Iâ€™m not a moralist and have no desire to see A-Rod flogged, placed in the stocks or banned from the HOF. But steroids were always thought of as cheatingâ€”-testing or no testing. In college in the 80s, I knew several athletes who added significant bulk and strength in a short period of time using steroids. They were ridiculed by others, who knew what they were doing and saw the unnatural results. Steroids were for pro-wrestlers and body builders. Not for athletes. This was commonly understood well before the 90s.

2. I know we canâ€™t know with any scientific certainty the precise effect of steroids on the numbers. But are you really that agnostic about whether 70 and 73 had a lot to do with steroids? (i.e., “I’ve never known how much better they could play”). Really?

3. Despite no. 1 above, steroid use has never shocked me (or caused me to call my congressman). When this level of money is there for the taking, there will always be some who seek whatever edge they can find, legal or not. I agree with you that this temptation was heightened by a culture which looked the other wayâ€”-although Iâ€™ve always blamed the players association the most. The owners may not have pushed hard enough, but at least they proposed testing. The players resisted testing to the bitter end. So I think Bill James is partly right. We shouldn’t be surprised by something the system allowed to continue and rewarded. But the players knew how this would be perceived once it came out. They knew we’d be disgusted. And the fact that the system “rewarded” it doesn’t make it right. It just makes it understandable.

4. I agree with other commenters that prudence suggests we hold our opinions on the Selena Roberts matter (as she seemed unable to hold her opinion in the Duke lacrosse story). And while I understand that this is your profession, the notion that his reaction to Selena was a true test of his character is a little much. Sheâ€™s been chasing him down and no doubt is under his skin. Frankly, the interview was better than I expected. Some of his answers were silly. But I never expected him to provide a full audit of his steroid use. Has anyone ever done that? At least he came out quickly and admitted his usage. And while you make fun of his 2001-03 story, couldnâ€™t he have easily confined his story to 2003: â€œI used it for a year (or a year and a half), and then quit when I saw that the league would be banning it and conducting testing.â€

Bottom line for me: steroids were cheating; the era encouraged it; the media reaction is way, way over the top; please, letâ€™s move on and judge the era for what it was.
83: Steve B said at 10:58 am on February 11th, 2009:
I don’t really care anymore that A-Rod used steroids. This is, after all, the steroid era. Baseball has a bunch of eras that led to inflated numbers. Why do we look down our noses at A-Rod’s numbers when Babe Ruth put up his numbers in an era when many of the best ballplayers weren’t allowed to play because they were black? What about speed later? Too often with baseball, we romanticize the game. Things were more pure when the records were set than they are now when they’re being broken. That’s just garbage.

I thought A-Rod did fine in his interview. Do we really expect anyone to come completely clean? As someone else mentioned earlier, look at the presidential debates. Did Obama and McCain always answer every question completely and fully and exactly as it was asked? Of course not! Why would we hold Rodriguez, an athlete, to a higher standard than the two men who were trying to become President? It’s ridiculous for us to judge him like that.

I do understand why people are being harsh with Peter Gammons. He is in the hall of fame for being a journalist. He certainly wasn’t even a minor league journalist in that interview, let-alone a hall of famer. He came across more like a puppet that was more interested in maintaining a relationship with A-Rod than doing his job.

As for Selena Roberts, I’ll hold off on judging her. It isn’t fair for me to read about only two of her previous pieces, and the hype surrounding this, and pass judgement on her entire career and character.

I don’t know about anyone else, but personally, I’m not going to let this hoopla take away from my enjoyment of pitchers and catchers reporting and the WBC.
84: Mark W. said at 11:04 am on February 11th, 2009:
Steroids = Short-cuts = Our current way of life, accepted by the VAST majority, even celebrated by a few.

What about the other 103 names?
Let’s put everything out on the table, shine a big, bright light on the facts and then try to move on; Donald Fehr and the MLBPA Union plus Bud Selig and the owners be damned….

We had the “dead-ball era”, the “war years”, MLB before integration, etc. I am okay with the ’steroids era” as long as I can now put an end date on that time period.
85: shawn said at 11:09 am on February 11th, 2009:
I’ll just echo the doubt expressed by others about Roberts credibility. She was on the radio with Dan Patrick yesterday. He told her that ESPN had seen a police report from Miami involving her. She then told this convoluted tale about trying to get onto the private island that ARod apparently lives on in Miami. She claims that she had a confrontation with a security guard at the entrance to the island. She claims the island is open to the public. I don’t know if that’s true or not, but why/how would an island open to the public have a security guard? She claims that when the guard refused to call her supervisor to find out if Roberts was allowed on the island she told her to call the police instead. She claims the report ESPN saw was merely an incident report filled out by the officer responding to the call. Up until this point the story sounds plausible. However she originally stated that she wanted to go to ARod’s house to talk to him about the article. After detailing the police incident however she stated that the police let her on the island yet she never visited ARod’s home. So why was she trying to get on the island in the first place if she didn’t want to go to his home?

Given her past negative reporting on ARod, the fact that she has a book coming out of which he is the subject and from which she stands to profit, her past lack of objectivity in reporting, and the fact that she didn’t bother to obtain and/or publish any of the other 103 players who tested positive her credibility is in doubt in my opinion.
86: rodg12 said at 11:29 am on February 11th, 2009:
You’re off base here Joe. No baseball player who has been caught using has ever said as much as ARod said in his interview. No one. Yet, it’s not enough. No way he’s going to say specifically what he used and who gave it to him. That would put him right in the government’s crosshairs on this.

And then, you throw in with Selena Roberts on top of that? Come on. How can it be called ‘impeccable’ journalism when her ’source’ had to break the law to give her the information. I don’t consider that impeccable at all. Why just print ARod’s name instead of demanding the other 103. Oh, that’s right, she’s coming out with a book on ARod. Conflict of interest. Yeah, I’d say so. Not to mention the trash job she did on the Duke Lacrosse players that she has never apologized for.
87: Juancho said at 11:30 am on February 11th, 2009:
I spent an hour or so looking up links about Selena Roberts, and her performance during the Duke non-rape scandal was disgraceful and unethical. She should have been fired for that.
88: A-Something (Part II) Â» Joe Posnanski | ozkt.com said at 11:37 am on February 11th, 2009:
[...] A-Something (Part II) Â» Joe Posnanski [...]
89: Josh said at 11:42 am on February 11th, 2009:
As long as we’re pointing out that the Yankees aren’t actually the bastion of morality that the media seems to be portraying them to be, we should also mention Steve Howe.
90: JC said at 11:46 am on February 11th, 2009:
Very good post. Only quibble? You didn’t get the Godfather II quote precisely right. I think it’s “In my home! In my bedroom! Where my wife sleeps! Where my children come and play with their toys.”
91: Chris in Dallas said at 11:49 am on February 11th, 2009:
Say what you will about Selena Roberts, but she broke the story on A-Rod. She may or may not have a personal axe to grind with the man, but she got to the truth. To be an investigative journalist, sometimes you’ve got to get your hands dirty.
92: Richard Aronson said at 12:03 pm on February 11th, 2009:
Joe, you cited two issues (and I agree strongly with you on both) when there are probably at least four issues going on. And issues three and four do pertain heavily to issue two.

Issue 1) ARod used steroids. Was it a big deal? I tend to think not; lots of folks were using steroids. And his numbers after mandatory testing was instituted do not indicate enough of a dropoff in performance to tell me that he *needed* to use steroids. I mean, he’s still young; it’s not like Barry Bonds discovering the fountain of youth in his late thirties.

Issue 2) ARod attacked the journalist who broke the story in his “apology”. I hate folks who go after the folks who blow the whistles. Shame on you, Alex Rodriguez. Shame on you.

But now we get into issue three: were crimes committed against ARod that led to the breaking of the story? The jury remains out on this one. ARod cited some specifics which I (not being a journalist) cannot verify easily. Was Roberts actually found on ARod’s property when ARod’s girls were home asleep? Was she actually kicked off the U of M campus? Was the drug test supposed to be constitutionally confidential, and a crime was committed in the leak? Just because ARod may be a criminal abuser of steroids does not mean that he can’t also be a victim of a crime.

And question four: how legitimate is Selena Roberts? By virtue of writing a book about ARod, all her columns about ARod become suspect: is she clouding the facts in order to drive book sales (and thus profits)? She certainly leapt onto the Duke lacrosse team bandwagon in ways that seem to indicate that she should be working for Fox News instead of Sports Illustrated. Since she has had gainful employment at the New York Times (okay, maybe that’s not the best example of journalistic integrity any more) and SI, I’ll give her the benefit of the doubt. But I think the doubt deserves examination.

My historiography class taught me that when sources (of information) disagree, it is important to see what corroborative evidence exists in deciding who was being truthful. For example, there *seems* to be some indications that Roberts will contend that ARod has been using steroids his entire career, for example. Since the book isn’t out yet, and since I haven’t read her columns, I don’t know the basis for this. But lets assume that this is so. There also seems to be evidence against it. If ARod had been using steroids since high school, why did he need Jose Canseco to tell him how to get and use PEDs when they were both on the Rangers?

So I’m going to agree with you that on a scale of 1 to 10 of scumminess, where 1 is completely clean and 10 is banned from baseball for life, ARod probably is about a three. He hasn’t tested positive for PEDs on any test after they were made clearly illegal with some teeth behind that ruling. He won two MVPs with the two highest OPS+ of his career AFTER baseball put in real testing with teeth in it. So unless baseball’s testing program is a sham, it appears that ARod hasn’t changed much if at all when using PEDs.

Point 2, how scummy is it for ARod to turn on the person who broke the story of his PED use? In general, I think it’s about an 8. But I also read the Gammons interview. ARod cites some pretty specific accusations against Roberts. Are they true or false? Is there a police report with Miami PD? What about the University of Miami? How scummy would it be to turn on somebody who had been stalking me, writing lies about me (where is Roberts’ apology to the Duke lacrosse team, for example?), attempting to break into my home, stealing my confidential information and publishing it in violation of my rights, intending to make money from a book that will further destroy my reputation? I can’t answer those questions because I don’t know the truth of the allegations on both sides, and may not know more until the book comes out.

But I can see that Roberts likes to publish stories implying that charges are true before the trial. I do see indications that the scummier ARod is the more money she’ll make. I don’t see any indication that she is as concerned with making somebody innocent look guilty as she is with making herself sell stories. That’s capitalism. If it turns out that everything ARod said about Roberts in the Gammon interview was true, then I have to substantially reduce his scummy rating for attacking her. She *may* have a vendetta against him. She clearly has not chosen to write a book that really needs writing, such as one about the Big Red Machine, and instead if writing about somebody she has to cover. Do you think ARod is giving her any more interviews? Do you think she might feel a bit of resentment?

So I must withhold my judgment as to how scummy ARod is in attacking Roberts. I *may* even have to withhold my judgment until, say, ten years from now, after the libel suit about that forthcoming book is finally resolved. Right now I think ARod is about an eight on the scummy factor, but I can see mitigating factors that could reduce it to a much lower number. I, too, have a daughter, and if I caught somebody attempting to break into my house where my daughter was sleeping, you can be sure that I’d be extremely unhappy.

Similarly, I must wait before deciding how scummy Roberts is. But based on what I’ve seen on MSNBC recently, I am sure that the truth will out. If she’s scummy (note the hypothetical if) somebody will see the profit potential in publishing her misdeeds. Capitalism works that way.

Finally, a disclaimer. I am not a Yankee fan. If anything, I am a Yankee foe. I believe that ARod may be the best baseball player of all time, once his career finally winds up. I hate that he used steroids. I hate that baseball ignored drug use. I hate ARod’s apology. Hell, I hate that baseball kept Satchel and Buck and Josh out of the game for all those years. But if Roberts was scummy in fingering ARod, she deserves to be punished as well, and he is at least somewhat vindicated in his attacks.
93: Tom said at 12:13 pm on February 11th, 2009:
ARod didn’t simply call Selena Roberts annoying, he didn’t say she wasn’t credible based on her past reporting, all that might be understandable. He said she was trespassing, stalking, and tried to *break into his house.* He said she was cited by the police for the attempted break in…well, that’s not true, and ARod was once again lying.

Of course this reporter bugs him, she’s writing a book about him that I assume has some dirt, and she uncovered the steroids story that tarnishes his legacy. But to make outrageous claims about stalking and attempted felonies, in order to discredit the reporter who, oh yes, has been telling the truth about him, is ridiculous.

I agree with Joe, it was a very revealing look at ARod’s character.
94: jamie said at 12:18 pm on February 11th, 2009:
There was an ESPN poll question on Saturday that asked something like:
If you were guaranteed a $250 milliion dollar contract, would you use performance-enhancing drugs?

36% of America said no.

Hard to believe that 36% of Americans are that well off that they’d turn that down, morals be damned.
95: Gate said at 12:29 pm on February 11th, 2009:
Great post and a lot of great comments. A few thoughts:
1. As Mike from Hawaii pointed out: I think we’re really not taking into account the loosey-goosiness of the times. From all I have read, the times that A-Rod references were VERY loosey goosey.
2. Anyone who expected Peter Gammons to aggressively press A-Rod has never seen Peter Gammons before. Peter Gammons is many things, hard-hitting journalistic skeptic ain’t one of them. I’m sure this is why they wanted him to be the interviewer.
3. Didn’t really know anything about Selena Roberts before this story (I had probably read the Shysterball post at the time, but her name didn’t register), but given some of her history I wouldnt be shocked if she has crossed some lines in going after him. That said, just as a PR strategy slamming the reporter who broke a story that you are in the process of admitting is true doesn’t seem like a good idea.
4. Joe’s thoughts on how they came up with the timeline are spot on. I don’t really care that A-Rod did steroids, but the fact that he thinks ANYONE would believe his tale as to why he stopped taking steroids is insane. He should have said his doctor told him to stop b/c they were messing up his health THEN he could have transitioned into, “…and that’s why I so regret this has come out, because I don’t want any kids out there to jeopardize there health in the same way.”
96: somebody said at 12:36 pm on February 11th, 2009:
I have a problem with the whole, release the other 103 names thing. Agreed, it sounds nice, but it doesnt pass any kind of common sense test. it was agreed to be an unknown survey. 1 wrong doesnt make 103 rights. The players, rightfully, wouldnt agree to have their names release. so why is anybody suggesting it?
97: Shawn said at 12:37 pm on February 11th, 2009:
Buccholz,

Hank Aaron himself admitted using amphetamines, once.

“Actually, the 1968 season wasnâ€™t the best time to present my case. It was the first time since my rookie year that I didnâ€™t drive in or score 100 runs. I was so frustrated that at one point I tried using a pep pillâ€”a greenieâ€”that one of my teammates gave me. When that thing took hold, I thought I was having a heart attack. It was a stupid thing to doâ€¦â€
(â€œI Had a Hammer: The Hank Aaron Storyâ€)

But if people disbelieve ARod’s story that he only used from 2001-2003, then by the transitive property, they shouldn’t believe that Hank Aaron only used uppers once. Face it, folks. There’s never been a “clean” period of baseball history. Clear/cream, steroids, cocaine, amps, dead ball, live ball, cavernous outfields, bandboxes, LSD, high mound, low mound, booze, tobacco, sheep testes extract, closers, DH, balls must stay fair for a home run, what’s an error today was a hit 90 years ago… as they say, they only constant is change. You want consistency? Build yourself a robot league.

And what did happen to Part I? It was a good read.
98: Kyle Litke said at 12:54 pm on February 11th, 2009:
Two quick things.

1. Not to defend A-Rod, but when he said that Roberts was makingup lies, he qualified it right off the bat by saying “Supposedly she’s claiming I was using in high school…”. So no, I don’t think he was saying she lied and then contradicting himself right after by admitting it, because according to him, he didn’t use in high school. Believe him or not, just saying I don’t think he was contradicting himself at all when he said she was lying about him.

2. I don’t know,something just bothers me about the whole Roberts thing. I’ll read the story in SI, but from what I heard it also had a lot to do with his divorce and stuff like that, his personal life. The steroids stuff is fair game, but you know what? Is it really too much to ask that Sports Illustrated just write about SPORTS, and not about the divorce of some baseball player? When did this become Star magazine? I’ll give the article a chance and maybe it won’t talk about the personal stuff at all, in which case I retract that, but considering she supposedly found out about the steroid thing by surprise while researching her article, I’m assuming that’s not what it was originally about.
99: Will said at 12:56 pm on February 11th, 2009:
Itâ€™s pretty sad to see all of Robertsâ€™ friends and colleagues close ranks around her in spite of the facts. Not only does she have a history of shady journalism, but her actions in this story were reprehensible. If she is an example of good reporter, then the profession has in deed gone down the drain.

Basically, JoePoâ€™s outrage stems from the fact that he doesnâ€™t like that Arod criticized his friend and colleague. I guess itâ€™s ok for â€œreportersâ€ to attack players, but when the shoe is on the other foot, they develop think skin.

Roberts behavior was shamefulâ€¦and SIâ€™s community reaction has been equally despicable. When will their apology be forthcoming?
100: DJ said at 12:58 pm on February 11th, 2009:
You know, I’ll leave the main A-Rod stuff aside for now, but I have to say something about the steroids era.

I really want to agree with you that a lot of this is overblown, and with Bill James that we’re punishing the wrong people. As we keep seeing, steroids were so prevalent in the sport among players of both types (pitcher and position-player) and all levels of talent that we should probably think seriously of making this just another era, like the live-ball era of the ’20s or the pitchers’ era of the ’60s.

However, I keep coming back to one main problem that I can’t get past. No matter what the rules were in Organized Baseball at the time, an awful lot of what is being thrown in as performance-enhancing drugs was still considered illegal in this country. As in get caught, go to jail.

An equivalent from this situation (though I don’t think it is true at all) would be Selena Roberts breaking into Rodriguez’s house to get information for the story. It might be important information, but it is still a crime.

Until I can get past that point, I will be bothered by steroids.
101: Kevin said at 12:59 pm on February 11th, 2009:
Maybe it’s because the same hammer of disillusionment hit us in Northern California in 2004, but I’m having difficulty with modest retrenchments, forsaking Bonds for A-Rod, abandoning A-Rod for Junior. If your instinct is to fall back, then fall back: the news about A-Rod does not make Griffey “look better”. Instead it makes it clearer that by the end of the 1990s the pressure to use PEDs was great, and it also makes it clearer that among the players their use was typically not a moral issue. A continued focus on dividing the players of that era into known users and presumed non-users is to miss the point about the state of the game that Bill James made so succinctly.
102: Kyle Litke said at 1:02 pm on February 11th, 2009:
One more thing, because I keep seeing this. I’m not so sure A-Rod was saying “She was cited for trying to break into my house” as people keep claiming. In fact, while watching the interview, it didn’t even occur to me that he was saying that until I saw people claiming it online. He mentioned the citation in the context of listing things about Roberts (kicked off a campus, tried to break into his house), he never said “She was cited for breaking into my house” as far as I’m aware. Now he was wrong and she was not cited by Miami police, but he may have gotten mixed up about the incident report.

Just wanted to say that because I keep seeing people say he claimed she was cited for breaking into his house. I don’t know if that’s what he was trying to say in the interview, but he did not flat out say that’s what she was allegedly cited for.
103: Kyle Litke said at 1:06 pm on February 11th, 2009:
“Say what you will about Selena Roberts, but she broke the story on A-Rod. She may or may not have a personal axe to grind with the man, but she got to the truth. To be an investigative journalist, sometimes youâ€™ve got to get your hands dirty.”

Which is all well and good, but I find it more than a little strange that she essentially said on MLB Network that she had access to the other 103 names but wasn’t going to report them. Yes, she did get to the truth. But where are those other 103 names? Hey, I don’t care, I don’t think any of them should have been released, but if she’s going to claim to be an investigative journalist just researching a story, well, here’s a way better story than the crappy “A-Rod’s divorce!” story she was looking into. So where is it? Why focus solely on Alex?

Alex was wrong, I hate to feel like I’m defending him, I just have a bad feeling about Roberts. She may have been right here but I don’t trust her motives.
104: Shawn said at 1:09 pm on February 11th, 2009:
“No matter what the rules were in Organized Baseball at the time, an awful lot of what is being thrown in as performance-enhancing drugs was still considered illegal in this country. As in get caught, go to jail.”

DJ, not to snark, but, anabolic steroids were not added to the Controlled Substances Act until 1991. Do you feel better or worse about their use by players before then? HGH is currently not on the CSA, though it is against baseball’s drug policy.
105: Posnanski on A-Rod « MoreÂ NewsÂ andÂ LesÂ Nessman said at 1:10 pm on February 11th, 2009:
[...] on A-Rod Joe Posnanski makes some good points on the A-Rod story. Iâ€™ll admit, right up front, that Iâ€™ve never felt on [...]
106: Bellweather Johnson said at 1:11 pm on February 11th, 2009:
I keep picturing this situation:

You are in your AP Calc course in High School. It is by far the toughest HS class that you have ever taken. You have to maintain a cretain GPA in order to stay in National Honor Society, pad you resume, and ultimately make it into the college of your choosing. In your TI-81 Calculator, you have several programs that help you work more quickly and more effectively thru your derivatives and anti-derivatives. Problem is, Mr. Koheler, your ghastly-pale teacher always comes around and erases these programs prior to test time.

Here’s the situation:

Koheler is out getting his skin bleeched or some such thing, and you have a sub who will serv as proxy on test day. This proxy, the lovely and talented (and I mean TALENTED) Ms. Novikoff has not taught the class, and does not know Mr. Koehler’s penchant for calculator-clearing, and therefore does not clear the calculators prior to test time.

Will you then use these calculator programs? The quadratic equation mocks you…do you continue to jot out in full “opposite of B, plus or minus the square root of B squared minus 4AC all over 2A”?? NO!! Of course you don’t!! You take the shortcut…How the hell is Koehler going to know??

And if there IS a whistleblower in the class (That jackass Jose Canseco), Koehler can go on accusing individuals in the class of enhancing their test performance by using said calculator programs, but it’s all heresay. He can single out the top performers (your buddies Roger Clemens and Mark McGwire, and even that A-Hole Barry Bonds, who’s palm you SWEAR you saw writing on), accuse them without any concrete proof, and not write them sparkling recomendations, and hurt their chances of gaining entrance to the eliete college they want to get in.

But this doesn’t happen to you. You continue to perform, and ultimately, on Koehler’s recomendation, make it to Drake University, and are progressing along swimmingly until, one day, a security tape (which was supposed to be destroyed) surfaces, and shows you using your calculator on the exam which led you to pass the class. What do you do? Sure, you confess (though you can’t remember PRECICELY which programs you used), but they can’t kick you out of the University or erase any of the records, classes, and credits you have already accumulated. They can’t take away your scholarships because, who’s to say you would have done any worse without the calculator??

So, here’s the thing…sure the calculator programs enhanced your performance on the test, but you could have easity done just as well without the boost…it just might have taken a little more time and effort. I mean, you still displayed the comprehension of the main concepts, and passed the test. Plus, because of the lax testing environment, everybody could have used the programs consequence-free too. You don’t know how many did, of course, but you’re pretty sure there were others.

–I was trying to come up with a comparable situation, and this is the best that I could do…and I would “cheat” 200% of the time (unless the test was on percentages. I don’t get those things)…
107: John said at 1:11 pm on February 11th, 2009:
Interesting comments and pretty tame (which is a good thing and a compliment to the commenters) from what I expected.

But I think people on both sides of this argument should lower themselves on their horses a bit, basically reporters are going to do whatever they need to when breaking stories and selling books, much like players are going to do what they need to do to be successful. I don’t find it surprising that players in all levels of MLB baseball used since it takes a great amount of desire to even make it close to the major leagues, and most great players are great because of a immense amount of inner drive to be the best, regardless of how they get there. Bill James had it right and we can easily apply that logic across all of america and its industries.

And from the comment 94 around the 36% of Americans that wouldn’t take steroids, that’s a pretty good indictment that many people are not realistic around what their actions would be in certain situations.
108: Sheldon said at 1:12 pm on February 11th, 2009:
Yep, absolutely Joe, right on. But in the end, who cares? A-Rod is a ballplayer. Why do expect him to be more?
109: RP said at 1:13 pm on February 11th, 2009:
I think there’s about 100 different ways to legitimnately view this on-going mess. I agree with Joe on some of his points, disagree a little on others, and disagree strongly on the Gammons and Roberts points, probably because I don’t understand how tough the job is. A few thoughts, off-the-cuff:

1. Bill James is 100% right.

2. Michael Bolton is indeed evil.

3. A-Rod’s apology was scripted, all right, but that shouldn’t surprise anyone. We have crisis management professionals nowadays who specialize not in dealing with the actual crisis, but the PR fallout from the crisis. In so many walks of life (not just baseball or entertainment), the story consists of the same thing — spin rather than unvarnished truth. It’s probably been that way for decades, only now, we apply several more coats of varnish.

4. I don’t know why I should care that A-Rod used steroids. On some level, the oft-mocked “won’t somebody please think of the children” statement is true, but thinking of the children doesn’t mean merely moralizing against rich athletes because we hold them up as role models. It means spending time with your kids to teach them the difference between right and wrong. That’s not easy now (probably never has been) and society certainly makes it tough. But the outrage over A-Rod and others using PEDs that comes from people mouthing this line (that includes you, Mr. President) is hollow. None of us will be perfect parents, but it won’t be A-Rod’s fault if your kids get screwed up.

5. A-Rod’s not a very likeable guy, despite an intense desire to be liked. I think there’s some serious self-esteem issues for him — I actually felt sorry for him during the interview. It didn’t make me like him — I think he’s clearly a phony — but beneath the phoniness, I kept seeing somebody who just wants validation from someone that “You’re a good guy.” I kept watching the interview and kept thinking that Bonds is not likeable and doesn’t make an effort to be liked. A-Rod is not likeable, but tries intensely to get adoration. There’s something sad about that.

6. I expected better from Gammons, but maybe I’m expecting too much of him in the investigatory journalist mode? Gammons is (was?) a terrific unearther (needed to make up a word for Joe) of nuggets in his baseball columns and in his reporting. I got the impression that this was simply because Peter was one of those people who truly loved the sport and hence his job, and therefore spent countless hours tracking down information (for example) on the hot prospects each team had coming up, at a time when the Interweb didn’t make that easy. I think that might be a different skill from the great interviewer skill — the ability to ask the right questions and followup is almost a different subspecialty among journalists. So maybe I’m being too hard on Gammons… except that if he landed the interview, he’s responsible for doing the work. There was a lot that he missed asking, although Joe is almost certainly correct that the questions would have gone unanswered.

7. As to the promotion of the interview by ESPN… dear Lord. About the only person whom I didn’t see speak about it was Dick Vitale.

8. Speaking of hype… Selena Roberts. I understand that she’s a colleague of Joe’s, and that he knows her personally. The fact he likes her does hold some weight with me, because I tend to hold Joe’s opinion in high regard, even though I only know Joe through his writing (for all I know, Joe in his real life hates apple pie and puppies). But Joe strikes me as a good guy, so I lend credence to his personal opinion on Roberts, and also to his professional evaluation of her a journalist.

But…. that doesn’t mean I agree with him. I think Roberts’ writing is subpar (I find her columns boring and not very insightful), but that’s a matter of taste. More important, I considered her work on the Duke lacrosse case to be slipshod and the result of a lack of critical thought on her part. Similarly, I see elements of a desire for sensationalizing the story here — the “confrontation in the weight room” part of the story struck me as a staged attempt as melodrama. Although I’m reasonably certain Roberts would not have been able to get an interview with A-Rod, this struck me as over-the-top and more than a little intrusive. Even if I wasn’t a phony, I’d be put-off by someone approaching me while I’m working out to ask a question about steroid use in 2003. A-Rod is at best exaggerating Roberts’ supposed stalking of him, but I’m sure it’s annoying when a journalist goes so far as to track you at every turn to aim for a “gotcha!” moment.

I’ve seen polls where Americans hold journalists in low repute, and I’d guess part of the reason is that they tend to sensationalize and self-promote their work like this.

9. As to the other 103 names on the list, I don’t think they should be released as an ethical matter. As a practical matter, that probably means nothing. If one name leaked, the others probably will. And if it’s a leak by someone with a legal obligation not to leak the information, they should be prosecuted, because that is behavior we should see discouraged since it undermines our judicial system.

10. I’m curious as to whether Roberts and SI have the other names or not, because A-Rod would be the big story. More importantly, did SI disclose that Roberts has a book coming out about A-Rod? That strikes me as the sort of full disclosure that would be responsible.
110: Oddibe Kerfeld said at 1:15 pm on February 11th, 2009:
Forgot A-Roid, what’s the straight dope on Robbie Alomar? Does he really have full blown AIDS and insist of having unprotected sex with his girlfriend? This story is crazy!
111: Shawn said at 1:18 pm on February 11th, 2009:
RP, sadly, you were mistaken on #7:

http://blogs.usatoday.com/gameon/2009/02/vitale-rant-on.html
112: Steve B said at 1:18 pm on February 11th, 2009:
Bellweather Johnson: That’s actually a decent example.
113: RP said at 1:19 pm on February 11th, 2009:
Shawn, I knew I missed something. And for once, I’m glad I did.
114: Kevin said at 1:22 pm on February 11th, 2009:
I would be interested to know whether the illegal leak from the sources, could be turned into a criminal conspiracy against the leaker and Roberts. It is highly unlikely that someone just called her up to give her the info about A-Rod. She probably bugged and annoyed those in the know to find out confidential information. If she did so, regardless of whether it is considered criminal activity, it is unethical. I found the Dan Patrick interview interesting because she would not talk about the process regarding how she got only A-Rod’s name. Likely, it is because she was working on an A-Rod story and she only cared about A-rod. I don’t know whether she did anything wrong in the present situation, but based upon her history, she does not have alot of credibility as a journalist, let alone impeccable credibility. I suspect that as a casual acquaintance, Joe does not know much of her history regarding the Duke Lacrosse and previous a-rod stories.
115: Josh said at 1:34 pm on February 11th, 2009:
“Why don’t you just go by ‘Mike’ instead of ‘Michael’?”
“No way. Why should I change? He’s the one who sucks!”
116: Matt said at 1:38 pm on February 11th, 2009:
Joe,

I have to say I agreed with you on almost everything you said here. I was kind of non-plussed by the initial A-Rod story, but then became offended by his “apology” for all the reasons you mentioned. It was frankly an insult to our intelligence, and I was shocked that the ESPN baseball talking heads would parrot his line that he was “coming clean.”

However, I think you’re letting Gammons off the hook too easily. Your argument is that A-Rod was just going to dodge any follow-ups, regardless of what they were, so, in essence, “the juice wasn’t worth the squeeze.” But in this case, the squeeze is the juice. I wanted Gammons to ask him, knowing that A-Rod would dodge, because I wanted the dodge on the record. A prosecutor doesn’t decide, “I’m not going to ask this question, because the guy isn’t going to confess.” He asks the question so that the guy will dodge, and look uncomfortable, shifty, unsure of himself. In so doing, he would reveal the truth, in spite of himself.

Say what you want about the larger steroids issue; there are good points to be made all around. But in this case, A-Rod just confirmed what we already knew and is still lying about a lot of stuff we don’t. And Gammons gave the guy an infomercial to do it. No excuses for A-Rod. None for Gammons, either.
117: Gate said at 1:39 pm on February 11th, 2009:
The Roberto Alomar story is one of the craziest things I have ever read. Certainly hope it’s not true.
118: Arod steroids - Page 12 - SportsGraphing.com - It's Not A Hobby, It's An Addiction! said at 1:46 pm on February 11th, 2009:
[...] really like this blog post about the past few days: A-Something (Part II) Joe Posnanski __________________ I make custom McFarlane sports figures… photos here -> [...]
119: G Young said at 2:12 pm on February 11th, 2009:
If a person named Stephen Roberts had reported and then written this story, A Rod wouldn’t have even mentioned it.

If he had, it would be about 20% the story it is now.

This is an important consideration and one I’m sure Joe is uncomfortable mentioning. Frankly, it is the whole girls in the locker room argument still festering.

Also, to those comments expressing similar feelings about the reporter, I say to you that you’re comments would be much different had the story been reported and written by Stephen Roberts.
120: Vin said at 2:13 pm on February 11th, 2009:
I generally agree with your take, Joe. His “apology” was none-too-convincing (though the “I wanted to live up to my contract” excuse is in keeping with his character, so I wouldn’t be surprised if there was some truth to it) and exposed him for the phony that he is. I’m not particularly outraged by his steroid use, but you bring up a great point about his apology, and I agree with you.

But Selena Roberts comes out of this looking almost as bad as A-Rod. I’m not saying his claims about her are true – I’m sure they are exaggerations, if not outright lies. Nevertheless, as others have pointed out, her work on the Duke lacrosse story does not speak well of her journalistic acumen. If you’ve read any of her work for the NYT, you’d know that she clearly has some kind of bias against A-Rod – and the title of her upcoming book would bear this out. All that notwithstanding, though, her behavior in this particular instance is, at best, highly questionable. Why? It seems very likely that she a) obtained this information illegally, or at least unethically, and b) pressured her sources into giving her the information. A-Rod, through the MLBPA, submitted to that drug test under the assumption of anonymity, backed up by a legally binding agreement. Roberts broke this story in violation of that agreement, and A-Rod’s very reasonable expectation of privacy. I’m not saying her behavior is illegal, but I happen to think it is unethical for a journalist to break a story in violation such an agreement unless there’s a clear public interest at stake (we’re talking Watergate, Pentagon Papers, official corruption). And, I’m sorry, there is NO public interest at stake in knowing that A-Rod used steroids. NONE. It’s a big story, sure, but it’s got nothing to do with the public anything, regardless of what the sanctimonious baseball moralists say about “role models” and other such nonsense.

Selena Roberts broke this story, under dubious legal circumstances, in violation of her subject’s reasonable expectation of privacy in the matter, for sensationalistic purposes ONLY. As a journalist myself, I believe that is clearly a violation of professional ethics. I’m sorry, but her and people like her – playing up bad stories, writing vindictive books, shoving microphones in people’s faces for no good reason – are the reason journalists have a bad name in this society.
121: Shawn said at 2:19 pm on February 11th, 2009:
Whoops, add “segregation” to my rant about baseball’s shifting landscape. Embarrassed for forgetting that. Damn my eyes.
122: Steve B said at 2:28 pm on February 11th, 2009:
G Young: I’m sure there is some element of sexism in the discussion of Selena Roberts. But it is a big jump to say: “Also, to those comments expressing similar feelings about the reporter, I say to you that youâ€™re comments would be much different had the story been reported and written by Stephen Roberts.”

I don’t think it’s appropriate for anyone on this blog to tell others what their opinion would be if the gender of the reporter would be different. It’s a big jump to call everyone sexist if they don’t like how she did her job. It may be true in certain cases, but simply calling everyone sexist like that doesn’t lead anywhere, it just makes people mad, defensive and leads to a breakdown in civility.
123: Paul White said at 2:47 pm on February 11th, 2009:
I feel the need to echo everything just posted by Steve B. Accusing all blog commenters of being sexist, in this instance and in general, is uncalled for. Roberts’ behavior in this instance is at the very least questionable, particularly in light of her previous journalistic transgressions. If some dude named Stephen Roberts butchered the Duke lacrosse story, failed to apologize for it, regularly hatcheted A-Rod in the NY Times, and then “stumbled” across his steroid history (and no one else’s) while investigating his messy divorce proceedings for an upcoming book, yeah, I’d question his behavior and professionalism just as much.
124: Jason said at 3:00 pm on February 11th, 2009:
I’m a little late to the discussion, but just wanted to make a quick comment in response to buckweaver’s assertion that Roberts was just doing her job. (Comments 29 & 30)

“Hey calling it your job ol hoss sure don’t make it right…”
125: Kyle Litke said at 3:04 pm on February 11th, 2009:
I hate when someone does something wrong (or potentially does something wrong) and defenders decide to scream racism or sexism.

I assure you if “Stephen Roberts” did every single thing Selena did, I’d be saying the exact same thing. If you’d like to defend Selena, by all means go for it, but please don’t waste our time if the best you can come up with is “You have to be sexist if you don’t agree with what she did”. It’s insulting.
126: Tom said at 3:11 pm on February 11th, 2009:
I have no problem with people criticizing Roberts for the Duke stuff, questioning her credibility, etc. But ARod didn’t say “you know Peter, she’s gotten some stories wrong in the past, so I wouldn’t believe everything you’ll read about me in her book.”

That’s not what he said. When he accuses her in such an over the top and ridiculous fashion, and his statements aren’t true, at best it makes him look silly. At worst it’s shooting the messenger, and weakens credibility in an interview where you’re not supposed to be lying.

So for someone who has so much money, and so many PR people, ARod still tends to shoot himself in the foot when it comes this stuff.
127: paul said at 3:31 pm on February 11th, 2009:
Somebody in 96, I don’t think it is right that any of the names are released and I don’t think the right thing to do, now, is to release all the names. But basically, Roberts must view it differently. She must believe that obtaining and releasing a name is good journalism, legal and on solid moral and ethical ground. Or she intentionally did something shady. So she must lose the argument to keep the other names quiet. I’m not hoping she releases them now, but I’d feel a lot better about her role in this if the report was: “Here are the guys who failed.” rather than “Ah-ha! We got A-Rod.”
128: James said at 4:01 pm on February 11th, 2009:
I think we’re all in agreement that Rodriguez got some heavy PR coaching going into the interview with Gammons. Given that, I think it’s silly to imagine that Rodriguez wasn’t given the heads-up on Roberts’ past, along with the encouragement to take a shot at her as a defense mechanism.

And for what it’s worth, MLB needs to just come out and admit that every performance, good or bad, from the last 15-20 years is questionable due to the availability and use of steroids, HGH, etc. Let the statistics remain, with the acknowledgement that they were all affected by players who used. The nature of the game’s history (stories being passed down from father to son, our memories, etc.) will keep the questions about this era alive. I don’t think a kid who grows up 20 years from now is not going to know that players used steroids back in the 1990s and 2000s.
129: Baseball Guy said at 4:16 pm on February 11th, 2009:
Buckweaver,

Correct me if I’m wrong, please, but are not anphetamines (speed) illegal?

My point was simple – I am sure there are writers who are expressing moral outrage on the steriods in baseball that cheat in ways that help them in their own profession.

If a writer takes an illegal drug, speed for example, to stay awake to issue a story, or to get an exclusive interview, or whatever, isn’t he doing, for his profession, just what these baseball players do?
130: somebody said at 4:23 pm on February 11th, 2009:
Paul, agreed. you’re right it’s weird roberts didnt release more. more to that story perhaps.
131: CTBAAF said at 4:28 pm on February 11th, 2009:
Awesome, awesome post. Thanks for inspiring a generation of writers.
132: Devon Young said at 4:30 pm on February 11th, 2009:
I’d still like to hear A-Rod explain…

1. Why did he feel guilty and stop taking the “banned substances” if he didn’t know he ever failed a test and therefore still had no idea he was taking anything illegal?

2. Why did he fail a test in late ‘03 if his eyes were opened in spring ‘03?

3. At this point, why shouldn’t we believe Jose Canseco when he claims he introduced A-Rod to steroid suppliers in the late 90’s?

As time goes on, I’m starting to feel Jose Canseco’s the most honest player of them all. Whatever his motives, he’s been breaking stories and coming clean before them all, without anyone forcing him to.
133: Perry said at 4:32 pm on February 11th, 2009:
Shawn @85:

A public island where a lot of very wealthy people live could have a guard because they want to ID who is going in and out.

And when I heard her interviewed on the MLB Network, she didn’t say that she “never went to his home.” She said after the cop told her she was free to go onto the island, she went to his house, saw that his car wasn’t there, so she left. She said she then went to the U of Miami weight room, apparently a regular haunt of his, where she found him.
134: Adrian said at 4:34 pm on February 11th, 2009:
I enjoyed his follow-up interview on Conan O’Brien. He said he was sorry for getting caught and if he had it to do over again, he would go back in time and not get caught.

He also shot Tupac.
135: Mike Williams said at 4:49 pm on February 11th, 2009:
Couldn’t agree with Paul (#127) more. Either publish ALL the names, or don’t publish any. Why is A-Rod anymore of a story than, for example, if somebody like Willie Bloomquist tested positive? IT’S NOT, or at least, IT SHOUDN’T BE.

That being said, knowing that the tests were supposed to be confidential, one could argue that is an ETHICAL BREACH to report them, even if you know them as a reporter. I don’t know what the code of ethics is for journalists – but if this isn’t true, then maybe those ethics NEED REVISION.
136: Chris said at 5:17 pm on February 11th, 2009:
In response to Mike [#135], Paul [#127] and Joe, I think the question that needs to be asked with respect to the ethics of the situation is who are the four people who leaked sealed court documents (or at least their knowledge) of the documents? And what was their motivation? Could it be that the Bonds perjury prosecution trial is coming up and they have an interest in increasing the spotlight on that trial by getting steroids and baseball back in the news? I’m more bothered by the failure of the confidentiality of our justice system than A-Rod’s use or apology.
137: Perry said at 5:26 pm on February 11th, 2009:
Mike and Paul,

Who says she has the whole list? She’s never claimed that. Maybe she’s just talked to federal agents (and/or others) who have it. They’re not willing to give up the whole list but were willing to talk about A-rod (her primary, maybe only, interest).

Roberts: Can I see the list?
Agent: No, I can’t do that.
Roberts: Is A-rod on it?
Agent: Yes. But that’s all I’ll tell you, so don’t ask me any more.
138: 3rd Period Points said at 5:41 pm on February 11th, 2009:
Bucholz Surfer- You are right. I agree with nearly everything you wrote. Cheating has always been part of the game.

I certainly don’t believe I went on a “self-righteous rant”, however. I stated in my first comment that I am not fit to judge these men. My second comment wasn’t judgmental, or at least I didn’t intend it to be. I didn’t demonize anyone. I was trying to point out the only significant way that PED’s have directly affected my life. I hope you’ll reread my comments.

The cheating of previous generations is morally no different than steroid use, but this isn’t a zero sum game. I was simply stating my opinion that steroids have muddied the waters of baseball’s statistical history more than those other forms of cheating. As you said, and I agree with you again, greenies, corked bats, and the like undoubtedly had an affect on the record books. It’s just that none of those things jump off the backs of my baseball cards quite the way steroids do. IMHO, Brady Anderson could not have hit 50 home runs by using amphetamines. These statistical anomalies seemed to disappear when random drug testing began. Greenies, corked bats, and cocaine didn’t cause ridiculously great seasons in the twilight of a player’s career. Now spitters, sandpaper, and vaseline did have that affect. These are beliefs not facts.

As I said before, I understand your viewpoint and I agree with you. I can’t prove that what I believe regarding the unique statistical impact of steroids is correct. I just wanted to unburden my benign, insignificant grief about this. I wish I didn’t feel this way, but I do.
139: CA said at 5:49 pm on February 11th, 2009:
Here’s another name-the-player game (all-Yankee PED version).

Player A: After being linked to PEDs, holds a carefully-worded press conference in which he repeatedly apologizes for some vague indiscretion, but never actually uses the word “steroids” at all. (Aftermath: years later, makes slightly more explicit statement: “I was wrong for using that stuff,” but refuses to elaborate on details.)

Player B: After the Mitchell Report includes testimony that he was injected with HGH by a trainer 2-4 times, admits that he used HGH exactly twice. (Aftermath: A year later, admits additional instances of usage.)

Player C: After being linked to steroid use in 2003, admits and apologizes for use between 2001 and 2003 in softball interview. Doesn’t elaborate on the specifics. (Aftermath: ??)

Of course A is Giambi, B is Pettitte, and C is A-Rod. Can any one of their responses in the immediate wake of PED revelations be considered worse than the others? Admissions like these are now the standard playbook for athletes in their situations. The alternatives are a.) deny everything, which can obviously become problematic (see Clemens, Roger) or b.) admit everything, which risks legal issues, potentially millions of dollars in income lost, becoming a pariah amongst your peers, and being perceived as a rat or liar if you aren’t very careful (see Canseco, Jose). The Gammons interview, while farcical, was pretty much what I expected. Of course that’s what he would say.

Roberts’ behavior is a separate issue from this entire saga. She has been out of line in the past, but apparently nobody, even A-Rod, is disputing her facts on this particular point.
140: Joe said at 5:59 pm on February 11th, 2009:
Joe, you think your take on what happened in the war room was cynical? How about what a buddy of mine came up with for what A-Rod should have said?

“Yes, I took steroids. I did it on purpose. If enough players tested positive in 03 MLB would institute tougher testing and penalities. I did steroids so that I would test positive to make sure we hit that threshold because I wanted to see the game cleaned up. I did it for the good of the game.”

My buddy’s idea? If you’re going to lie, lie big. And although no one would believe him, Rodriguez would immediately become a hero to every other player in the league. Because then those players could raise their hands and yell, “Me too! That’s why I did it! For the good of the game!”
141: Matt said at 6:01 pm on February 11th, 2009:
@Vin (#120)

COMPLETELY disagree with your take on Selena Roberts. A couple points:

1) There is no evidence that she did anything illegal or unethical in procuring her information, or that she “pressured” her sources into giving her information (pressured them with what? we don’t even know who the sources are. If they are from federal law enforcement, why would they be afraid of or pressured by a sportswriter? If it was MLB or the union, same question: how could she “pressure” them to give up the biggest player in their game? None of these guys will quake before the awesome power of Selena Roberts. It’s more likely that she got her info the way most reporters do: from dogged work and finding people with an axe to grind or some other personal interest at heart.)

2) You wrote that Roberts broke her story in violation of a “legally binding agreement.” But Roberts wasn’t bound by that agreement, nor is any journalist. Would you rather have journalists print only what private industries (like MLB) and unions want them to print, whenever it relates to a “legally binding agreement”? You make an acknowledgment for cases “in the public interest,” but baseball is a billion-dollar industry that often takes hundreds of millions of dollars in municipal subsidies (stadium deals), and players are the engine of that industry. Who decides whether news about those players is in the public interest? Do you want, in this case, an SI editor and reporter to decide what is in your interest to know and not to know? Or would you rather they work to get information out to the public and then let the public decide what is and is not important? I’ll take the latter.

Roberts blew the Duke lacrosse story. Blew it bad. And she’s not alone among journalists there. But give her credit. She did a great job on this one.
142: EdB said at 6:29 pm on February 11th, 2009:
Selena Roberts wouldn’t be the first reporter, or first sportswriter, to have a negative agenda. And I believe she does have a negative take on A-Rod, and it helps her image. But that’s not the point here (unless this is turning into one of those “let’s talk about the status of journalism” blogs).

If we’re still talking about baseball, Selena Roberts aside, then let’s just remind ourselves that Alex Rodriguez cheated, and chose to do so. Regardless of what you think about admission to the HOF, that is a damning admission for anyone.

And Peter Gammons — I still think you’re terrific, and you’ve given me countless hours of enjoyment and provocative viewpoints on a great sport. But you are allowed to ask a follow-up question now and again.
143: Owen said at 8:06 pm on February 11th, 2009:
Just two things:
1) I don’t buy the hospital epiphany because that sort of thing basically only happens on TV. Maybe he did in fact do some serious thinking then and there, but it’s just way too much of a story. Can’t he just have mulled this over time like a normal human? Do we have to have an epiphanal moment?
2) Do A-Rod’s lips really look like that? I understand he did whatever he thought (or his handlers thought) was necessary to look good, but… honest question, is that their natural look and color?

Obviously he’s still a massive talent, but he’s been stuck in an image catch-22 forever. The better he tries to look, the less likable he gets. If only he’d signed with the wholesome boys of Queens…
144: Brett said at 8:11 pm on February 11th, 2009:
The thing about people saying, “ARod did what other users haven’t done, he admitted to using!” are missing the point. Sure other players denied it, but not the ones that have actually failed a test. Players who are connected to steroids by he-said, she-said type rumors, or just speculation, have denied it, but those that have been nailed to the wall by failing a test have no choice but to admit it. It isn’t noble.
145: johnny b said at 8:42 pm on February 11th, 2009:
I know this has nothing to do with the recent post, but I finished ” The Soul of Baseball” today at the gym and found myself crying on the eliptical machine. The story you brought to me was so moving. I envy your time with Buck, but really felt like I spent a year with that wonderful man. Thank you for writing that book. I thought I loved the game my father taught me, and I feel closer to it today after feeling buck’s love. ” the greateat thing in all my life is loving you”. Thanks Joe
146: mike from D.C. said at 8:47 pm on February 11th, 2009:
Joe,as us non writers and non athletes have learned over the years, is too not have role models that are not in your family.When your mom or dad let you down you forgive them,what else can you do?Alex is a gifted ballplayer amongst gifted ballplayers.They are ALL cheating.Personally I wish steroids were mandatory.Would you not like to see a pitcher throw an 123 mph fastball,only to have the hitter knock it 7 or 800 ft?All right,a little sarcasm,but it’s all perception any way.I loved Sosa&Mac in 98.It brought me back to the game for the minutia and I started to check out other stats than the Red Sox.I now know all kinds of acronyms for how well a player hits,fields,throws,etc.All be cause of a bunch of juicers made me forget how pissed I was in 94.I am now harboring ill will for the journalists who have a vendetta for being too stupid to see what we all saw.Now these sanctamonius asshats are saying they will never vote for so&so because they did what every one else was doing.Just vote for your player who cheated the best for the era and leave the moralizing to another generation.If you want to leave your ballot empty as protest,just quit and shut the f*** up,and let the guys at Hardball Times take your vote.Great column Joe, as usual,I bet the comments really pile up
147: chaco said at 9:04 pm on February 11th, 2009:
It should have been 38 words ” …it was in the self-interest of players AND BASEBALL to use steroids”. The fact remains that management and the media allowed, indulged, promoted and/or turned a blind eye to PED use to improve attendance and sell newspapers i.e. to make money. (The process is remarkably similar to the economic cycle we are now completing and someday a writer will address the similarities.) The truly unfortunate aspect of Rodriguez’s outing is that it is now obvious that doing steroids does not turn all users into melon-heads. It is not obvious who has used them, therefore the only reasonable conclusion is that most players were using. The difference between this era and the speed era is obvious in the stats. Unheard of numbers of home runs and players excelling into their 40s.Baseball has become a fraud and until management takes responsibility rather than shifting the blame downstream to the moron athlete the game is devalued and should be ignored.
148: Brian239 said at 10:44 pm on February 11th, 2009:
Great piece, Joe. You’re absolutely right about A-Rod’s character, as evidenced by the other choices he has made. Here’s what I think about steroids in baseball: I’m disappointed in the players for putting themselves in front of the integrity of the game. Baseball players live by certain codes: they wear belts on their uniforms, they dress a certain way on trips, they treat clubhouse attendants with some respect. Why? Because at some point, one of the veterans makes it clear to the rookies, “This is the way we do things up here.” Not that their choir boys. There are no particular moral standards for players sleeping around or hanging out in bars. But they choose to do certain things out of respect for the game.
There is certainly plenty of blame to go around, management, fans and media turning a blind eye (hell, we were dreaming up excuses for all the homeruns–It’s the ball! It’s the smaller ballparks! It’s bats with thinner handles!) But, I would have hoped enough players were willing to step in and say, “They may do that crap in the NFL, but we don’t do that here.” Instead, it appears they chose one of two paths: 1) elect not to take them personally but say nothing to stop others from using or 2)ask where they could get some themselves.
I don’t expect athletes to be morally strong, but I do expect them to respect the integrity of their sport.
149: Kyle Litke said at 11:25 pm on February 11th, 2009:
To Devon Young (#132): Maybe I’m wrong but I thought the 03 testing was done in Spring Training, not late 03. Even if it was late however, I believe some steroids can show up upwards of 6 months after.

To Perry (#137): I missed her appearance on MLB Network, but I was told by multiple people that she flat out said she had access to the list but “it wouldn’t be right to release the other names” and tried to justify A-Rod based on her doing a story about him. It’s possible I’m mistaken as I didn’t see it myself, but that was my understanding of what she said.
150: Erik said at 11:51 pm on February 11th, 2009:
If she had access to the whole list then this is a clear case of unethical journalism and an obvious vendetta against Alex Rodriguez with the ulterior motive to promote her own book sales.
I hope she gets run over by a bus.
I don’t know how her colleagues such as Joe Posnanski, Tom Verducci, Peter King, etc. defend her.
Basically, she reported a partial story in order to make one person look as bad as possible.
She sounds like a horrendous, evil person.
151: Preston said at 12:03 am on February 12th, 2009:
Matt (#141):

Everyone has slightly different conceptions of what is ethical. It is clear to me that Selena Roberts sought out information that would require her sources to break the law in revealing it. Whether or not she pressured them to reveal it, the very act of seeking it out is unethical, in my mind. This is particularly true, in my mind, when it is possible she is exacerbating the violation of ARod’s constitutional rights (since it may be decided that the Justice Department had no right to seize ARod’s results).

In terms of her “stalking” ARod, etc., it’s not a huge deal to me, but it does seem a little bush league. I don’t really know all that much about common journalistic protocol, but I find it very hard to imagine Joe, for example, trying to surprise someone in their gym. I have little doubt that if he were breaking a story of this type, it wouldn’t be too difficult to reach ARod (or rather, his agents) on the phone, which would elicit the same ultimate answer. I think this is why ARod is lashing out at her – he undoubtedly deals with many sports reporters and with many paparazzi, but it’s got to be annoying when you have one of the former acting more like the latter – it makes it seem much more like that person is trying to make a career off of your failings and misfortune.

This brings up a separate point; for me, the truly outstanding journalists, at least in the sports world, are the ones who are able to write great pieces by capitalizing on and expressing the positive, not the negative (without, of course, ignoring or painting over the negative when it happens). That is why I love Joe’s writing, and it’s why I also love Peter Gammons’ writing (plus he went to my high school); Gammons’ main fault is probably ignoring the negative a bit too much. It’s Gammons’ constant focus on the positive that kept him from trying to nail ARod to the wall in that interview, and while I would have liked to have seen some harder hitting questions, I don’t think I would want Gammons to have to ask them, because it’s so clearly not who he is.
152: Chris Justice said at 7:58 am on February 12th, 2009:
You got the Turbocooker?
153: Nitpicker said at 8:03 am on February 12th, 2009:
I know he’s a member of the hallowed fraternity and all, but I’m not sure how you can defend how Gammons handled this interview, or the entire steroid era as a whole.

The guy is a suckup to players and had his head buried in the sand while all this stuff was going on around him. Other media too obviously, but Gammons is out at the front of the list for biggest frauds in all of this – including players.

He has zero journalistic integrity (hasn’t for years actually) and that interview showed it clearly to anyone in the world who may have had doubts about that.
154: astorian said at 8:08 am on February 12th, 2009:
Nice of Bill James to take time out from defending Pete Rose and trashing John Dowd to weigh in on the steroid situation.

Has he ever apologized to John Dowd, by the way? Has he ever admitted what an idiot he was to defend Pete Rose for so long? Of course not. Being Bill James means you’re NEVER wrong about ANYTHING.

James’ argument amounts to, “It pays to cheat, so it’s not really wrong.” The stupidity and immorality of that approach should be obvious.
155: Lovemyteam said at 8:43 am on February 12th, 2009:
This may have been said, but I wanted to add to thoughts to this great post.

You are right about the Selena Roberts thing. She is a talented journalist.. hardly a “stalker” and that is the thing that should show that whoever coached him wasn’t a pro at this. No publicist or media coach would try to make Selena look like a newbie off the street who has some sort of “single white female” obsession with Rodriguez. If they didn’t know her rep, they would have at least googled her, which would have showed that she has very reputable to say the least. And that’s when he showed just how desperate he was. Perhaps that was a liberty he took from the script, an idea he got as he was going along. It was when it all went down the tubes.

The second thought that I had though, is that he doesn’t know what he took, because he took so many things. From the GNC stuff that would blow the tests today (before that stuff was all regulated by the FDA) to the serious stuff that you can’t even get legally prescribed. His cocktail may have changed a few times in those two years, and to expect anyone to remember that names for everything he took 6+ years ago is unrealistic. He took stuff. That’s really all that matters.

To go along with Bill James- MLB lowered the pitchers mound to create more offense. They created a DH to create more offense. It’s silly to think they wanted to stop steroids, until young people started dying because they were emulating the players they saw.
156: TA said at 11:05 am on February 12th, 2009:
From what I can gather the summation of your solution is to allow people to cheat their way into the Hall of Fame. If you cannot catch everyone, least you look like de Torquemada, just let them all in. By your reasoning, since half of all homicides go unsolved, we should not investigate those, either, or bank robberies, since so many of them get away with it (and let the offenders carry on their way in whatever career they have endeavored).

Joe, have you ever considered that these players, other than setting a terrible example and sending themselves into an early grave, are violating the law? How many inmates do we have in our prisons for similar drug offense, people who did not get the chance to have someone like you to write apologias about them because they could not proficiently hit a ball with a bat or make millions of dollars a year while doing it? You are right to say that the Hall of Fame is not perfect. So, what? I can tell you this: I will never, ever go back to Cooperstown if any of the players we know who were on steroids are ever admitted and allowed to defile the presence of those imperfect souls that played the game as legitimate athletes. If you cannot differentiate between the use of steroids to degenerate the value and context of those once hallowed statistics, and someone taking greenies (which does not add 20-30 pounds of muscle mass and correlatively to home run totals and offensive output), then I have to wonder whether or not sports writers should even be entrusted with deciding who goes into the Hall of Fame. I am certain Barry Bonds wishes you were on his jury.

When I wonder why baseball has become the laughing stock it is today, all I have to do is read what people like you, Bill James, and so many of the posters in here think. This is what disappoints me much as the players–the convoluted moral compromises that so many of you willfully sink yourself to to rationalize your continued love for this contemporary version of the WWE. It is the intellectual dishonesty of the excuse makers and oblique supporters of these players by pretending to be defense lawyers that culturally enables and makes acceptable the abuse, but none of you have to worry since you only have to watch people like Ken Caminiti play the game, not experience the consequences of what he did to himself for that money and your adulation (or tell his surviving family members how scientifically superstitious and prosecutorial he was to claim that his ‘96 NL MVP was a product of PEDs). Thus it is why I have not watched a baseball game for the last six years. I truly hope the worst for your sport. It deserves it, right alongside the rest of the unconvicted felons who populate professional cycling.
157: sean lahman said at 11:14 am on February 12th, 2009:
I wrote… â€œfootball players didnâ€™t rewrite their record book as a result.â€ and Buchholz Surfer replied “How on earth do you know that?” Because I look at the record book and don’t see a category that is completely comprised of players from the last decade.

Look, I’m not an NFL apologist an, and certainly the use of PEDs in football has been rampant… that’s well documented. But Joe raised the question of why people react so strongly to steroids in baseball but not in football. It’s because baseball is a numbers game, and the numbers matter, and some/many people don’t like the fact that guys used steroids to break the homerun records, to cast aside Maris and Aaron. Fans know the numbers. They know 714 and 755 and 61. Nobody knows how many yards Unitas threw for, or how many rebounds Kareem had, or how many points Gretzky scored.

Not saying that I even necessarily agree with that view, but let’s not just say its because football fans don’t care. That’s just not accurate.
158: astorian said at 11:42 am on February 12th, 2009:
To the question of “Why don’t people get as excited about steroids in footbal las they do about steroids in baseball,” I have an opinion.

It’s because, even though NFL players are much, much bigger now than they were in the Seventies and early Eighties, there was NEVER a time when an average person could look at offensive tackles or defensive ends and think, “That could be ME out there.”

Bob Lilly was a lot smaller than Tony Siragusa, and the Redskins’ old “Hawgs” were a lot smaller than Leonard Davis, but Lilly and the Hawgs were still mighty big guys! MUCH bigger than the average fan.

It was different in baseball, not so long ago. When I was a kid, each major league team had one or two big muscular guys, tops. Otherwise, there were skinny guys (Mark Belanger), fat guys (Terry Forster), tiny guys (Fredie Patek), even guys smoking cigarettes in the dugout. An ordinary, average fan looked out on the field and saw a lot of guys who didn’t look so different from himself.

Remember when John Kruk scoffed, “I ain’t an athlete, I’m a baseball player?”

Today, it’s different. Today, even utility infielders have six-packs and even third-string catchers have bulging biceps! And the difference is VERY noticeable because it came about so fast.

To use a crude (and embarrassing) analogy, my 5 year old son and I have both gained 20 pounds in the past two years. But the growth is FAR more noticeable in my son, because I was 6′4″ and over 200 pounds already.

Between 1980 and 2009, football players went from huge to ENORMOUS. Baseball players went from scrawny to huge. The latter was BOUND to stand out more.
159: Shawn said at 11:53 am on February 12th, 2009:
TA,
There is no demonstrated correlative effect between steroids and home run totals. Far more pitchers than position players have been reported to have violated the drug policy; shouldn’t offensive production actually have *decreased* in this time? And steroids do not magically add 20-30 pounds of muscle. What they *do* allow you to do is to work out longer, harder and recover quicker. I am not condoning steroid use. It is against the law since 1991 to use without a prescription, and is now against the rules of baseball as well.

I also find it amusing that you dismiss the use of amphetamines by ballplayers when such use is and was considered a felony, and long before that of steroid use. Yet you call others “apologists”.

Save your vitriol for the people who ran baseball and were totally complicit in creating the situation we find ourselves in today. Their cries of “but if only we had known” are hollow, and Selig’s recent ruminations on punishing Rodriguez post-facto and rewriting the record books (whatever that means) are intellectually dishonest.

Sean Lahman:
Most Touchdowns, Season
31 LaDainian Tomlinson, San Diego, 2006
28 Shaun Alexander, Seattle, 2005 (27-r, 1-p)
27 Priest Holmes, Kansas City, 2003 (27-r)

Most Touchdowns, Rookie, Season
22 Gale Sayers, Chicago, 1965 (14-r, 6-p, 2-ret)
20 Eric Dickerson, L.A. Rams, 1983 (18-r, 2-p)
17 Randy Moss, Minnesota, 1998 (17-p)
Fred Taylor, Jacksonville, 1998 (14-r, 3-p)
Edgerrin James, Indianapolis, 1999 (13-r, 4-p)
Clinton Portis, Denver, 2002 (15-r, 2-p)

Most Yards Gained, Season
5,084 Dan Marino, Miami, 1984
4,830 Kurt Warner, St. Louis, 2001
4,806 Tom Brady, New England, 2007

Most Yards Gained, Season
2,105 Eric Dickerson, L.A. Rams, 1984
2,066 Jamal Lewis, Baltimore, 2003
2,053 Barry Sanders, Detroit, 1997

Not saying anything about those players, just pointing out that many of the offensive records are held by players from quite recently.

I agree with most of the rest of your post, however. But I would imagine that plenty of NBA and NHL fans could answer your questions.
160: astorian said at 11:56 am on February 12th, 2009:
Shawn- bear in mind that NFL seasons were 12 games long in Jim Brown’s day, and 16 games now. MANY of the big records are dominated by modern players solely because they play a lot more games.
161: Shawn said at 12:39 pm on February 12th, 2009:
astorian – perfectly true. Likewise, many of the parks that have been built since the mid-80s have been smaller than before.

There’s oh-so-many factors that contribute to increased offense. Steroids are undoubtedly part of it. Baseball historians in the future will note this. Baseball has been addressing it. We move on.
162: luke said at 1:57 pm on February 12th, 2009:
Gotta say, Joe, not one of your best posts. I agree, A-Rod fails this character test. His interview was terrible. But to act like Selena Roberts doesn’t have an agenda, and to accuse A-Rod of only admitting to exactly what the public already knows seems disingenuous at best. Selena Roberts picked one name out of 104 to smear. Why only release his name if she is such an objective journalist? Isn’t it her duty as a reporter to give us as much information as possible? She comes off as pretty slimy so far, especially after reading her earlier shots at A-Rod in the Times (not that I would expect anything less from that rag).
163: Graphite said at 7:03 pm on February 12th, 2009:
Sorry Joe. With your support of Selena Roberts, you have, as the Brits would say, kicked an own goal.
164: JB said at 11:24 pm on February 12th, 2009:
Excellent commentary Joe. I have no idea where I stand on this, ’specially as far as the Hall of Fame. I hate it but it wouldn’t surprise me if everyone’s dirty. A-Rod is who he is. (And everyman perhaps.) Hands in the cookie jar, he’s gonna give the answers that he has to. And a dude with that much money is getting the best legal advice. He ain’t sayin’ nothing ‘under oath’ or even anything with the word ’steroids.’ It’s the Giambi apology. “Best interests of baseball” would be Selig’s last resort if baseball really wanted to make a statement about this.

Love the Bill James, he’s my hero, and if he tests positive I’m taking my own life….

(1) Baseball allowed a situation to develop in which it was in the self-interest of players to use steroids.

(2) Now we are very angry with people because they did what the system rewarded them for doing.

Selena, a questionable “journalist” at best, was right on this one. A-Rod couldn’t deny that. A-Rod came ‘clean’ because of this. Maybe the answer is legalize this stuff. We the public get to watch uber-athletes doing amazing things, and the uber-athletes know their life-span is 20% lower.
165: TA said at 12:14 am on February 13th, 2009:
Shawn,

You are kidding yourself when you assert that steroids do not add muscle mass. I played football with someone who used steroids, and he went from 185 to 210 pounds in one offseason (or as Danny Neagle once entitled his 20 pound offseason muscle explosion, â€œworking outâ€). Everyone on the team knew, he did not have to say anything, and it angered me that he was doping his way into a starting position with the complicity of the coaching staff who conspicuously overlooked it. The neck and veins do not lie. You can count on one hand the number of non-steroid using people who are 6′3, weigh 235-plus pounds, and with less than 7% body fat (similar to the measurements of the Governor of California back when he was winning his Mr. Olympias and doping). We know who these players are, but no one wants to face up to it, much in the same way Bonds fans used to get upset at me before 2003 when I reminded them how disfigured his body looked since he was a rookie back in ‘86. Just read some of the Giants blogs today. They are still rationalizing it, or using the all-too-familiar everyone-else-is-involved-too justification to explain why he is a victim.

As for increasing home run totals, I will take the word of someone like a Ken Caminiti over any recent convert to the scientific method (and Caminiti made it abundantly clear that it did increase his home run total and made it possible for him to win his MVP award). Plus, if you look at the home runs and offensive output after 1993 (when everyone could see that half of the players on the Phillies were juicing) they increased drastically, along with the size of the players. I am sure if Brady Anderson was honest, he would attest that it was not Mountain Dew giving him his boost to hit 50 home runs (never having hit more than 24 before or since). Just watch a MLB game before 1993 and one after the mid to late ’90s. If you cannot tell the difference, you are ignoring reality.

As for the pitchers, yes, it can help them too, at least temporarily (in the long run, I think it actually hurts them, but that is a subject for another post and day), but just because they are abusing PEDs does not obfuscate the multiple corollary effects that usage can enhance for other types of players. If it was just about hitting home runs, you would not see the problems of steroid abuse in other sports.

Think about it. The only baseball insider in this entire affair who has been honest about steroids is Jose Canseco, a doper and woman beater. When he “wrote” his first book, one of his harshest critics was Roger Clemens, and I am sure you all remember the savaging the ex-bash bro. received in the press after he dared to posit A-Rod as taking PEDs (shooting the messenger with the ulterior motive, as so many posters in here are doing to Roberts, interjecting her motivation as a cover for what A-Rod and so many of their favorite players have done). That you have to depend on someone like Canseco to expose the extent of the abuse of PEDs in baseball, while most of its duped fans refuse to confront it, exemplifies the dreadful state of this game. Whether people like it or not the market responds to the consumer, and you have spoken loud and clear for the last fourteen years. You do not care. Well, do not be surprised when those of who do care say we have had enough.

I do agree with one point you made, however, and that is the culpability of the leadership of the game, starting with commish Selig, along with the medieval guild that masquerades as a player’s union. I could tell back in the ’90s what was going on, and it angered to me no end that the commissioner disregarded the matter, even once delivering the tired and oft-used testament that the increased size was primarily the product of good training (I will always remember the manner in which Bonds fans used to try that one on me in the early 2000s). People oftentimes forget that McGwire was openly using andro when he hit 70 homers back in ‘98. Those same cheering fans and fawners deliberately ignored it (I recall at least two not so pleasant conversations with McGwire fans towards the end of his career over this, with one demurring that andro was not a steroid [even though it clearly is and was banned by most every sport by the time he was using it]). This willful ignorance, along with the abuse of these drugs, is why I lost my respect for the game (from the players, teams, down to the fans who excuse the conduct). If I cannot trust the legitimacy of the product, it is not worth my time.
166: TA said at 12:29 am on February 13th, 2009:
By the way, excuse makers and critics of Roberts as a means of shielding the players, notice the similar shoot-the-messenger reasoning that A-Rod used before his name was publicly revealed as one of the players who failed the steroids test in 2003.

“This lady is coming out with all these allegations, all these lies, because sheâ€™s writing an article for Sports Illustrated and sheâ€™s coming out with a book in May. And really respectable journalists are following this lady off the cliff. And following her lead. And that to me is unfortunate.”

Famous last words, A-Rod. Famous last words.

http://www.observer.com/2009/media/who-s-lady-meet-selena-roberts-rod-s-worst-nightmare
167: Nico said at 10:29 am on February 13th, 2009:
Dude, fix your quotes. They are backwards throughout this article.

It’s not â€admissionâ€œ

It’s â€œadmissionâ€

Or use regular ones like “this.”
168: G Young said at 11:11 am on February 13th, 2009:
To Steve B and Paul – I tried to be careful in limiting my take to those comments expressing similar opinions as those expressed by A Rod.

When you use terms like “this lady” and “stalker,” it if obvious you are creating a separate point of reference for a female reporter than you would for her male colleague.

Several comments express similar criticisms, criticisms not of the work but of the b*tch, etc.

I apologize if you felt I was grouping all criticisms into that mix. I was not, I was merely pointing out the absurdity of A Rod’s comments and the equal absurdity of comments that continue on his line of thought.
169: Lost Time Is Not Found Again: Feb. 13, 2009 | MOUTHPIECE Blog // A Chicago-Addled Sports Blog said at 12:32 pm on February 13th, 2009:
[...] “Baseball allowed a situation to develop in which it was in the self-interest of players to use steroids. Now we are very angry with people because they did what the system rewarded them for doing.” – Bill James [...]
170: shawn said at 1:15 pm on February 13th, 2009:
shocking, serena roberts book release is being pushed up http://us.rd.yahoo.com/sports/rss/mlb/SIG=12an98vf1/*http%3A//sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=ap-books-a-rod&prov=ap&type=lgns
171: Shawn said at 6:14 pm on February 13th, 2009:
TA,
If I sat on my ass and injected steroids every day, I wouldn’t be Hulked-out in three months. Yes, testosterone levels are increased, and this *will* lead to increased muscle mass *if* I work out. They’re not a magic little vial. Again, the advantage of the steroids is that it allows the muscle to repair faster, allowing someone to work out longer and harder, and with less rest in between sessions for the muscle to repair/grow.

I’m going to dispute your characterization of andro as an anabolic steroid. There is little evidence that it acts as such, and its inclusion in the Anabolic Steroids Control Act has probably as much to do with the hysteria over McGwire and the home run record as its actual effects. It is a steroid precursor, and it was not against the law, or the rules of baseball, to use at the time.

Lastly, just because Serena Roberts got this right, doesn’t preclude her from having an agenda behind it all. I don’t think anyone is accusing her of lying. But to pretend that this is some sort of All The President’s Men-level expose of the commission of high crimes… come on. I’m all for journalistic shield laws, but come on. Whomever the “four sources” are should all do jail time for leaking this information. I’ve read her pieces on the Duke LAX case, and I’ve read her non-apology and rationalizations for still declaring that the team members are terrible human beings. I’ve read and watched the stories surrounding the Rodriguez case, and I don’t think she has a lot of scruples or journalistic ethics.

I certainly respect your opinion with regard to your baseball fandom, but I can’t share it. There’s never been a “pure” era of baseball that you can point to and say, “see, this is what we’ve lost”. So yes, I will continue to go to games, I will continue to cheer for my team, but I certainly won’t be surprised by anyone else being revealed as a juicer.

Well, maybe Craig Counsell.
172: nick said at 12:03 am on February 15th, 2009:
I don’t understand all the hoopla about Rodriguez using steroids for two reasons.
1. We as fans are frequently livid that baseball players receive 25 million dollars annually for playing baseball; shouldn’t we commend him for doing all he can to improve his performance, instead of loafing and getting out of shape because his $250 million is guaranteed?

2. There is not now, nor has there ever been any rule in MLB against the use of “banned substances.” The rules as originally written were merely guidelines. With today’s testing; they are merely a hoop to be jumped through by any steroid user. The penalties are minor and the testing is laughable. When was the last time a player who could afford undetectable designer steroids and the state-of-the-art in masking agents got penalized by MLB? Never.

The shame in this episode belongs to Selena Roberts. Using the New York Times to promote her own book certainly does not qualify as journalism. The Times should fire her for it; even if the accusations she makes are true, it is the equivalent of a business columnist writing glowing stories about a company he owns stock in.

Furthermore, while Ms Roberts did not commit an illegal act by publishing this information, she caused four other people to commit the illegal act of sharing legally sealed information. Her wanton solicitation does not absolve these four of any blame, but it certainly casts her in an unflattering light.
173: KHAZAD said at 7:51 am on February 16th, 2009:
Late to the party, but….
I am so tired of the puffed up moral outrage when it is found that someone has done steroids 6 YEARS AGO! Really!? The bigger the star the more we love to see them fall. Steroids were not banned in baseball in 2003. We should worry more about now. Baseball players have been doing whatever it took to get an edge long before the steroid era-which happens to coincide with the ‘millions’ era. “if you ain’t cheatin’ you ain’t tryin’” is a saying that began in sports and is quoted still, in professional clubhouses and locker rooms throughout sports.

Instead of wasting resources trying to say “gotcha” to people in the past, those resources should be spent trying to stay ahead of the curve to catch those that are getting around the testing now, or using new and different enhancers.

The NFL has had an aggressive testing program for years, and yet another (quieter) story last week was Dana Stubblefield’s admission (also after being caught) and plea bargain to give up other information about steroid use in the NFL during this time. The cheaters are 2 moves or more ahead of those who are trying to catch them.

That being said, I have always blamed the ineffectual and hypocritical Bud Selig for the size of the problem in Baseball. There has been talk about steroids in baseball since at least 1987, and by 1994 it was quite simply accepted that there was a problem.
(In 1993 I saw Kevin Appier pitch the best game I have ever seen in person-and I saw Saberhagen’s no hitter- but he lost 1-0 when Palmeiro pulled a pitch no human being could pull down the left field line for a home run. I turned to my friend and said “He has to be juicing”. As it turned out, he was.)
Yet, even with the strike and a new labor agreement, there was no attention paid to this then. By 1996, (Brady Anderson, Ken Caminiti) everyone who followed baseball knew, but Bud kept his head in the sand as the Home Runs brought people through the turnstiles. Facilitator Bud nodded and winked in 1998, taking in all that money, and helping to sweep the “Andro” scandal under the rug.

Then the best player in baseball took the best steroids in the world and became Superman, Canseco’s book came out (also all about the money), the 1996 MVP died tragically after a downward spiral that started with amphetamines and steroids in baseball. (I remember when Cami was a slim young third baseman who I thought had a chance to be the best fielder at 3rd in a couple of decades) When it all hit the fan, Bud turned holier than though, claimed he had no idea, put in token testing program and went after Bonds as a scapegoat.

I truly believe that for many reasons, Bud Selig has done more to harm the game than any other single person in baseball history.

As far as Selena Roberts goes, this is also all about the money. She circumvented the law to find out sealed results about a player she clearly has a vested interest in dragging through the mud. This story will make her millions and will make what would have been a pedestrian book a #1 seller.

A-Rod? It seems funny that I am just getting to him. There has never been a claim that he was a great person, just a great player. Like MANY others, he took PEDS in the steroid era. Ho-hum. I wish he had not, but I pulled my head out of the sand 20 years ago.
174: astorian said at 11:39 am on February 17th, 2009:
One thing I’ve learned over the years: whenever someone uses the word “besides” in a sentence, it means that EVERYTHING before the word “besides” is a load of crap, and the speaker/writers knows it.

Remember that whenever you read arguments like:

“Pete Rose never bet on baseball, and besides, Ty Cobb was a racist, which is much worse than gambling.”

“There is NO proof that Barry Bonds ever used steroids, and besides, he was already a Hall of Famer before he started using them.”

“Shoeless Joe Jackson did NOT help throw the World Series, and besides, that miserable cheapskate Charlie Comiskey DROVE him to it.”

“Mark McGwire never used steroids, and besides, steroids weren’t illegal when he took them.”

“Only a tiny percentage of players ever used steroids, and besides, it’s really Bud Selig’s fault everybody was using them anyway.”
175: Joe Posnanski on the use of Steroids said at 7:40 pm on April 2nd, 2009:
[...] here, one of my favorite writers, Joe Posnanski posted a great post about the ambiguousness about how he feels about this whole steroid mess.Â He [...]

Joe Posnanski

Curiously Long Posts

A-Something (Part II)

175 Comments on “A-Something (Part II)”

Leave a Reply

Sincerity

The Machine

Categories

Accessibility Widget

Email Me