Baseball Musings
Baseball Musings
February 17, 2009
Plausible Rodriguez

Having some time to consider Alex Rodriguez's statements today, he appears to have offered a plausible explanation for what happened. It strikes me that Alex wasn't adverse to using something to get a boost, but he didn't want to use something that might hurt him later on. When his cousin offered him something safe, Alex said why not.

In other words, he probably didn't want to take something that made his head or feet big, caused him to go bald, or his back to break out in acne. Here was something over the counter in the Domincan Republic, so he went for it.

Now it's up to the press to try to tear the story apart. I'm sure they'll find Alex's cousin, see when and where he traveled in the DR, maybe even find the pharmacy where the drugs were purchased. We'll see if the story holds up.

More interesting is Alex's admission that he used something in Seattle that wasn't banned at the time but is banned now. There are supposed to be more drug allegations in Selena Robert's book, and I wonder if that was said to counter those future charges?

By the way, in my original post on the Gammons interview, I believe I nailed the one sure lie in the conversation.


Posted by David Pinto at 04:59 PM | Cheating | TrackBack (0)
Comments

Yeah, if he failed the 2003 test he would have been flagged for additional future testing and informed of his positive result.

In fact, he would have been informed when the 1st test was conducted to stop any OTC supplements for the next 7 days so if a 2nd test passed he could get the 1st test nullified if he had tested positive, and if his OTC supplement excuse was verified (depending on what he tested positive for).

A-Rod likely figured what the heck, the results were supposed to be anonymous, so he made little effort to avoid a positive result on either test. The irony is Bonds and other known users may have tested negative in 2003 since the approximate time was known for the 1st test and the 2nd test done 7 days later gave them a huge opportunity by using diuretics which were not being screened at the time.

If 7 % still tested positive in 2003, then you can bet the actual number was far higher.

Posted by: Paul at February 17, 2009 07:41 PM
Post a comment









Remember personal info?