Baseball Musings
Baseball Musings
August 22, 2005
Strength Coach

I find this article disturbing.

Jason Giambi has learned to live without having his personal trainer, Bobby Alejo, at the ballpark. Now he has to get by without him altogether.

Alejo, who left his job as the Athletics' strength coach to join Giambi in New York after the 2001 season, is taking a job as the head strength coach for all 18 sports at the University of California, Santa Barbara. He ended his final trip with the Yankees on Sunday, and he starts his new job Sept. 1.

Now, if I were a parent, would I want someone who was involved so closely with steroid using players (McGwire, Giambi) to be responsible for my 18-year-old's conditioning? Alejo was strength coach for the Athletics from 1993 until Giambi left for New York, then followed Jason east. Did he really not know what was going on under his nose? If steroid abuse happens at UC Santa Barbara, is he going to ignore it?

One of the big reasons sited for being tough on steroid abuse is to protect young people. I suppose Alejo has plausible deniability when it comes to the players he coached, but I would not want Bobby Alejo in charge of my child's conditioning, and I would write a letter to the UCSB athletic department telling them so.


Posted by David Pinto at 09:01 AM | Cheating | TrackBack (1)
Comments

Unless there's something more than guilt-by-association "evidence" against Alejo, I can't understand penalizing him. The obvious solution is to test UCSB athletes regularly for steroids. If his athletes test positive, THEN investigate any possible involvement by Alejo and penalize as appropriate.

But don't convict the man on nothing more than his past association with Jason Giambi.

Posted by: Casey Abell at August 22, 2005 09:15 AM

He's not asking to convict him, just to subject him to extra scrutiny.

Posted by: Adam Villani at August 22, 2005 10:18 AM

Actually, he is "convicting" him, in the sense that he thinks Alejo shouldn't get the job.

Posted by: Todd at August 22, 2005 10:20 AM

Exactly. Alejo shouldn't be denied a job just because of his past association with Giambi. As for "extra scrutiny," I think there should always be careful scrutiny of college athletes for steroid use. If the tests turn up steroids at UCSB, investigate Alejo and everybody else connected with the program.

Seems like the fairest approach to me.

Posted by: Casey Abell at August 22, 2005 11:03 AM

I commented on this elsewhere, but it's hard to concentrate on steroids - or much of anything else - when I'm typing this message next to that photo of a glistening Rachel Wacholder.

I doubt Rachel is on steroids, but she definitely looks like she has the full complement of female hormones.

Posted by: Casey Abell at August 22, 2005 11:07 AM

I have no power to convict anyone. If I were the athletic director of UCSB, my first question to Alejo would be, "Did you know McGwire and the Giambis were using steroids?" If he said no, I'd then ask if he was suspicious of their use by these players. If he said no again, I'd figure he was a fraud.

If he said yes to either of those questions, I'd want to know what he did or tried to do about it. I'd want to know if he went to Oakland management or Yankees management about the problem. If not, I wouldn't hire him. If he did and management told him to keep it quiet, I'd want to know why he didn't quit in protest.

Maybe Alejo has satisfactory answers to all those questions. I just find it difficult to believe he was so close to Giambi and didn't know what was going on. Once he is in his new job, not working within MLB, maybe a reporter should ask him these questions and get another insider's view of what was going on during that time.

Remember, we're supposed to be very concerned about steroids and our children. If he can't recognize steroid use in major leaguers, what makes me think he'll recognize it in my child and put a stop to it?

Posted by: David Pinto at August 22, 2005 11:40 AM

So you'd be willing to deny Alejo the job even though you have no evidence of his involvement with steroids. In fact, if he denies involvement with steroids, you would treat that denial as evidence of his involvement. Sorry, but that's exactly convicting somebody with no evidence.

In fact, you'd better have some real evidence (far more significant than the mere fact of his association with Giambi) against the guy before you even start down this line of questioning. Otherwise, you're asking for lawsuits about your hiring practices...especially if you deny him the job based on nothing more than his denial of steroid involvement.

To my knowledge there's no evidence linking Alejo to steroids at all, beyond your completely unsupported belief that he "must have known" something about them. If you have evidence of his involvement with steroids, present it here so we can assess it.

Posted by: Casey Abell at August 22, 2005 01:36 PM

Past associations is a perfectly legitimate reason for denying someone a job. It happens all the time, especially for positions of authority (ask former Enron employees how easy it is to get hired again). Hiring someone and "convicting" them are entirely separate matters. Remember, the athletic director has an existing responsibility to the UCSB trustees and students, he has no obligation to job applicants (besides the usual of not disctriminating on the basis of gender, race, handicaps or age).

I see no problem with being tough (and careful) with hiring.

Posted by: DCPI at August 22, 2005 01:49 PM

Actually, I would never have given Alejo an interview. And I don't think he would have a leg to stand on if I didn't hire him. I certainly couldn't fire him over the issue, but all I need to say when I don't hire the person is I found a better candidate.

In baseball, of course, associating with known gamblers gets you in trouble. I don't see why an association with known steroid users should enter in to hiring in this type of job. This wasn't just a casual relationship with Giambi; Jason was paying his salary.

Posted by: David Pinto at August 22, 2005 01:55 PM

Ran some Google searches on Alejo and various steroid-related issues. Found some similar comments to David's that Alejo "must have known" aboit Giambi's steroid use, but with no more evidence than David provides. One humorous rant went on to denounce Alajo's whole training regimen for Giambi, regardless of whether steroids were involved.

The one bit of new "evidence" I did find against Alejo was a quoted admission that BALCO people approached him about Giambi. This is again guilt-by-association and doesn't clarify whether Alejo actually knew if Giambi was using steroids. I don't know if Alejo testified before the grand jury.

All this seems a very slender reed for a human relations person to risk a lawsuit over. If Alejo did testify before the grand jury and admitted knowledge of steroid use by Giambi and/or others, that h.r person could feel a lot more assured about investigating steroid involvement. But I'd want a lot more than "he must have known" guilt-by-association stuff before I started down that road.

Posted by: Casey Abell at August 22, 2005 01:55 PM

Denying the guy a job interview in the first place seems the safest bet, though it rankles aginst my sense of justice. It looks like, and is, a blacklist.

But if you DO give the guy an interview and start grilling him on steroids with no evidence against him beyond guilt-by-association, you're really asking for trouble. So the easy way out is to enforce a blacklist by now giving him an interview in the first place. Not nice, but safe.

Anyway, UCSB should test their athletes regularly, regadless of what has happened with Alejo or anybody else they hire.

Posted by: Casey Abell at August 22, 2005 02:03 PM

Why is everyone so accepting of testing UCSB athletes for steroids as a solution to the hiring of Alejo. Isn't that the same "guilt by association" that we are worried about?

Also, by what right does UCSB (or the NCAA, for it is that body that governs their sports) have for testing for steroids?

I participated in NCAA athletics from 1987-1990 and was urine tested for drug use of the pot kind. But we had to sign a waiver and agree to the test. There was no blood testing at that time. Has this changed?

Posted by: DCPI at August 22, 2005 02:09 PM

UCSB has the power to test athletes in its athletic programs. Helpful Google came up with this nugget from FindLaw:

"Mandatory Drug Testing
Applies only to student interscholastic athletes and is legal by U.S. Supreme Court ruling of Vernonia School District 47J vs. Acton (6/26/95). Programs usually consist of team testing at beginning of each season, then weekly random testing of up to 10% of in-season athletes. School usually pays for total program."

This seems to apply specifically to public high schools, but I can't see how it wouldn't also be applicable to UCSB.

Personal disclaimer: I had to submit to a drug test as part of one employer's routine hiring practices. Believe it or not, I passed. I'm doing this on my own recognizance, as Sparky Anderson once said.

Posted by: Casey Abell at August 22, 2005 02:23 PM

It's definitely an interesting question...I wonder if steroids came up as part of the interview process. It's actually possible that Alejo was asked about his understanding of steroids, and that he was candid, not only about his past experience (with himself/clients like Giambi), but also about how he would implement policy regarding steroids. In a strange way, familiarity with steroids might actually better qualify Alejo in that he may be more effective in recognizing/identifying their use in students. What's Alejo going to do with Giambi? Give up his high-paying job because Giambi's on steroids? I don't think that's reasonable...Alejo wasn't working for MLB, or the government. I'm not saying he's the best qualified candidate...I just don't think that familiarity with steroids should automatically disqualify him. Steroids are regularly used for all sorts of medical reasons...a friend of mine is a personal trainer who is also qualified to execute the rehabilitation regimens set by physical therapists, and many of the people he works with are prescribed steroids. If I was hoping to curb steroid use, I would want someone familiar with its effects working for me.

Posted by: Dave S. at August 22, 2005 02:39 PM

Casey: Whatever UCSB would do would have to comply with what the rest of the NCAA is doing with their athletes. NCAA programs must follow the NCAA rules. That means that UCSB would be on shaky ground singling out their student athletes in ways that other NCAA schools are not.

The NCAA does ban anabolic steroids, but it turns out that it has not changed its testing program since I graduated in 1990 after all. It still conducts only urine tests. (See NCAA Testing Program here (pdf).

Posted by: DCPI at August 22, 2005 02:40 PM

By the way, I don't think the main constraint on drug testing by schools in their athleic programs is legal. The issue already seems to have been litigated to the Supremes, with schools given broad power to test.

I think the main bottleneck is financial. Testing is awfully expensive. But if schools are serious about keeping steroids out of their athletic programs, madatory and frequent testing looks essential. Relying on the hiring process to weed out possible corrupters of innocent youth (irony intended) seems pretty weak.

Posted by: Casey Abell at August 22, 2005 02:46 PM

The problems with the testing are not legal in the sense of state & federal law, they are legal questions under contract law since the NCAA procedures are a contract between the student athletes, schools and NCAA governing body.

I would not want to be the AD at a school who creates a program outside of the NCAA authority since I would likely lose my job for doing so.

And, as I said earlier, personal character -- including who one chooses to associate with (past employers) is a part of every responsible employer's hiring practices. Or I hope it is. If Alejo did not want this taint he should have resigned from working for Giambi when all this came to light (or perhaps stopped him from using steroids if he knew of such use).

Posted by: DCPI at August 22, 2005 02:54 PM

I read through the NCAA's entire set of guidelines, and they prescribe a pretty rigorous program. So I don't see any problems with UCSB testing their athletes for steroids. In fact, they better test pretty thoroughly to live up to the NCAA's standards.

It's true that the NCAA doesn't mandate blood testing, but its current program goes far beyond testing pee for pot (couldn't resist). There are nearly a hundred banned substances, including just about every steroid ever heard of.

So UCSB not only has legal sanction to test rigorously, but is actually required to test for steroids (and a whole bunch of other things). There is a consent form invoved, but you have to sign it to maintain eligibilty.

Again, this all looks a lot more convincing than relying on an interview to toss out bad apples. I'm sure violators occasionally scrape by. No testing program is perfect. But UCSB has the power - and is actually mandated - to test pretty thoroughly.

Posted by: Casey Abell at August 22, 2005 03:10 PM

My first thought regarding this timing--Giambi had a
great July, but a poor August. This Alejo guy was very
important to him. Just wondering about this timing of
Alejo's departure.

Posted by: susan at August 22, 2005 03:16 PM

An interesting observation, Susan.

Posted by: David Pinto at August 22, 2005 03:24 PM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?