Baseball Musings: Will Carroll Interview

October 29, 2005

Will Carroll Interview

Will Carroll offered me a chance to interview him about the steroid rumors, and I was more than happy to oblige. I submitted questions to Will by e-mail, and here are his replies.

Baseball Musings: You've helped confirm a rumor about an AL playoff outfielder testing positive for steroids. How did you come to have this information?

Will Carroll: This is false. I was involved in an appeals process, very tangentially. I don't know a name but have heard rumors, much as many journalists have. When Jamie asked the question, I confirmed that I had heard this rumor and due to my involvement with an appeal, I couldn't comment further. I didn't mean for this to be any confirmation.

As to my involvement, I was asked to comment on the nature of the substance, its use by players, and if I'd heard anything about the use of a certain "cocktail" of substances. There was nothing specific and I had no bearing that I know of on any hearings that may or may not have occurred. I'm certainly not an arbitrator or expert witness as some have speculated.

BM: I have heard from two sources that the player is not on the White Sox. Is this true?

WC: I don't know.

BM: When asked, "Is this a name we're actually going to care about?" by Jamie Monttram, you answered yes. Why do we care about this player?

WC: I think as baseball fans, we should care about any athlete. My perspective as someone that's followed this story as closely as anyone might be skewed a bit. If it is true that it's a playoff player, then it calls the integrity of the testing program into question and will be a media firestorm.

BM: Are we going to be surprised by the name? In other words, is it someone for whom the allegations are new?

WC: I don't know.

BM: Do you know if the drug detected is easily found in contaminated supplements?

WC: I can't comment on the actual substance, but cross-contamination of the substances that players have tested positive for this year is nearly impossible. Drugs like winstrol and the metabolites that are detected in drug tests are very specific.

BM: In your opinion, does the player have a good defense for why he tested positive?

WC: I do not know if he has any defense or what it is.

BM: When do you expect the decision to be made?

WC: I don't know. I still have a poor handle on how the process works. It appears to be much like the suspension appeals for a fight or hit batsmen - takes a while to get everyone together. The steps that the new policy calls for extends that period. It's too bad that this can't be enough of a priority to make everyone - agent, league, union - get together at the first possible opportunity.

BM: If the player is suspended, when does the suspension begin? Is it the first day of the 2006 regular season?

WC: That's consistent with the Heredia suspension, handed down recently.

Thanks, Will.

Posted by David Pinto at 06:59 PM | Cheating | TrackBack (0)

Comments

If you listen closely, you can almost hear the sound of back-peddling.

Posted by: Joe at October 29, 2005 07:48 PM

There are words and there are words. He starts out by
saying it's false that he helped confirm a rumor. I can
see why anyone wouldn't want to go on record as having
done so. But, by the end, he's not denying that there is a player currently involved in an appeal.

Posted by: susan mullen at October 29, 2005 08:08 PM

Joe - it's not backpedaling (check your spelling). It's clarification. My original comments were made on-the-spot and were not as precisely worded as I would have wished. I want to thank David for allowing me to clarify.

Posted by: Will at October 29, 2005 09:04 PM

I agree, Susan. He is defining/redefining his role, but the story is the same.

Posted by: dan meyer at October 29, 2005 09:09 PM

You're right, it wasn't backpedaling, it was moonwalking. You cerdibility will take a big hit here

Posted by: sverlyn at October 29, 2005 10:00 PM

Will, if you don't mind one additional question, why did you say, "It should be coming out within the next two weeks?"

Posted by: Jason at October 30, 2005 07:04 AM

In addition to the above question, I'd like to ask Will how he can be involved in the appeals process if this steroids fiasco is simply a rumor? Hey buddy, it's simple to infer a positive steroid testing if you're involved in ANY part (tangetially or not) of an appeal. Don't continue the typical condenscending tone most Baseball Prospectus contributers employ. I'd find it hard to believe you're involved in something without knowing all it's angles. Such as who's involved, why the need your expertise, etc.

I'd expect spin from Sheehan, when he attempts to explain the White Sox success without exploding, but it's clear either Will had MLB pressure him into providing spin--or this rumor is simply a rumor. I'd be more willing to believe Will had someone breath down his neck following his interview several days ago.

Posted by: K-Man at October 30, 2005 06:04 PM

Wow, talk about back pedaling (did i spell that right, will?). He goes from saying that he couldn't discuss whether it was a whitesox player, but that we'd learn about it in two weeks to saying he didn't know whether or not it was a whitesox player and that he didn't know when a decision would be made.

How can we be expected to ever believe anything he says again when it's obvious how quickly he will fold under the pressure? it's "clarification" because he was "on the spot"??? it was a mad-house of chaos, and he didn't know what he was saying? puh-lease.

Posted by: KF at October 30, 2005 10:29 PM

The only thing for sure...

IT AIN'T ME!!!

Seriously, this sounds like no more and no less than the many rumors we heard over the summer.

Posted by: Casey Abell at October 31, 2005 10:16 AM

Nice to know that even though Carroll has utterly compromised himself as a journalist, (if he ever deserved the term), his career as a blog comment proof-reader is getting off to a great start.

Posted by: broms at October 31, 2005 11:40 AM

Wow, you guys gotta take a chill. Carroll is probably the foremost authority on this issue right now and either misspoke or was misquoted. Given the chance to clarify he did just that.

Posted by: Joe at October 31, 2005 01:45 PM

Well, he didn't claim he was misquoted. He does claim he "misspoke", but that's not plausible. It wasn't a heat of the moment type of exchange. He was asked a question, and gave a rational answer. Then, he says he wants to clarify, and gives answers that 1) are more vague and 2) contradict things he said earlier. Plus, there is an easy motive to explain why he'd change. Last i checked, if you want to "clarify" something, you give more info, not less. And, i have never given a clear response to something and then realized "oh no, i mispoke". Does that even happen in real life? These weren't opinions that he was expressing, and then had more time to reflect on his true feelings. They were cold hard facts....that he later changed.

Posted by: kf at October 31, 2005 04:38 PM

According to this: http://deadspin.com/sports/baseball/sources-lawton-has-tested-positive-134775.php

Matt Lawton may have tested positive

Posted by: calig23 at November 2, 2005 03:27 PM