Baseball Musings
Baseball Musings
February 09, 2009
A Reporter's View

Kat O'Brien talks about how Alex Rodriguez changed since she first covered him in 2002. She also talked to a scout about Alex's alleged steroid use:

Even though Rodriguez has never been the best-liked player of his generation, for image problems both real and perceived, the taint of steroid use never hung over him. Now it does. One longtime American League scout who has known Rodriguez for years said he had never had cause to suspect Rodriguez of steroid use. That said, the scout said it would not surprise him if A-Rod did use steroids. No, the scout said, Rodriguez is just like Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens, all three of whom the scout believed would do absolutely anything to be at/remain at the top of their sport.

I talked about that competitive drive in this post on Saturday.

For those just coming to the scandal after a long weekend, ShysterBall rounds up the important elements, including Gene Orza's role in all this:

In any event, it is my view that long after the Alex Rodriguez-specific portion of this drama has played itself out with an apology, a press conference, and a .300/.400/.600 season, this episode will be remembered mostly for the first known instance of the MLBPA truly betraying the interests of its own players. That, my friends, will have longer legs than anything else that broke on Saturday.

We'll see how well Alex back tracks from his denial of using steroids on 60 Minutes. Recent history tells us the best thing to do is confess and apologize, Giambi and Pettitte did that and people were forgiving. Clemens and Bonds didn't and are being dragged through court, and McGwire is getting no support for the Hall of Fame.


Posted by David Pinto at 08:16 AM | Cheating | TrackBack (0)
Comments

I'd like to hear him say one of two things:

1. The tests were anonymous, so it' just hearsay that any failed test sample was mine. I didn't comment on this immediately, because I wanted to do some fact checking before talking to the press. How could you know its mine if there weren't any names attached to the samples? And if there were names attached to samples in an anonymous test, you have to wonder if someone made them up in order to fulfill their agenda because it doesn't make sense they'd keep names on the vials or cups or anything.

2. I tried it once, but I didn't inhale.

Posted by: Devon Young at February 9, 2009 10:11 AM

This test (if real) was around five or six years ago. He could with credibility claim ignorance of what may have caused him to pop positive. I'm n o expert on what he is alleged to have tested positive for using, but some some PED's are injected and some are in pill form. In the atmosphere of the time, I can see a player less discriminating about the pills than the needles. An established player gives a younger player a pill and says hey these vitamins help me get through the long season . . .

I have a problem with how some people are considering every case equally. In time we (or the HoF voters) will have to weigh the available info and consider whether we believe usage was a regular event or one time mistake, and whether the usage dramatically changed a players performance or not. These won't be easy calls. Some or most reporters will be lazy and just not vote for anyone remotely tainted. Others will deduct a percentage from the players career. McGwire may lose 40% since his career seemed over due to injuries before he started using. A-Rod may lose 5-10% credit. 90% of A-Rod is still going to look like a HoF'r.

Posted by: Largebill at February 9, 2009 11:06 AM

Again, the amazing thing is how the NFL gets a free pass in the "steroid scandal." Rodriguez isn't even that big -- he'd be too small to play in the NFL -- but he used steroids because they made him better. I wouldn't shock me if 99% of the NFL players used steroids yet no one cares at all. To me, that's the really interesting thing about this.

Posted by: Tom at February 9, 2009 01:02 PM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?