11/17/24
February 07, 2009
Alex Rodriguez tested positive for testosterone and and Primobolan in 2003. : The same year, Rodriguez won the AL MVP and the home run title.
posted by jerseygirl to baseball at 12:59 PM - 73 comments
I'm not sure why the union doesn't just release all 104 player names and get it over with.
This is even more damning:
According to the 2007 Mitchell Report on steroid use in baseball, in September 2004, Gene Orza, the chief operating officer of the players' union, violated an agreement with MLB by tipping off a player (not named in the report) about an upcoming, supposedly unannounced drug test. Three major league players who spoke to SI said that Rodriguez was also tipped by Orza in early September 2004 that he would be tested later that month. Rodriguez declined to respond on Thursday when asked about the warning Orza provided him.
The whole idea was that the home run record was tarnished because it belonged to Bonds. But that was ok because A-Rod would eventually break the record and all would be right again. So much for those plans.
posted by justgary at 01:51 PM on February 07, 2009
What's ridiculous about this witch hunt is that the players making the biggest news were already the best of the best. Only a complete imbecile thinks that Bonds or A-Rod weren't HoF caliber already without some help- and I'm not convinced the help was ever much more than "fast healing after working out".
The sidebar of that article has A-Rod "through the years" as well, and the thing I'm most struck by is that he basically doesn't look much different. Obviously he's aged from that 19-year-old wunderkind that played with the Mariners, and has put on some muscle- but most everyone looks more muscular as they go from being 20 to being 30.
justgary: The whole idea was that the home run record was tarnished because it belonged to Bonds. But that was ok because A-Rod would eventually break the record and all would be right again. So much for those plans.Too true, jg. I think the sports writers were hanging their hopes on someone "clean" breaking Bonds' record so that
Will we ever reach a point of agreeing that science may make some performance enhancing drugs that are safe if used with a doctor's supervision? We're not in 1970's Lyle Alzado/ABC Afterschool Special territory at this point; people aren't just syringing horse testosterone right out of a Kentucky Derby winner's balls and shooting it into their neck these days.
posted by hincandenza at 03:16 PM on February 07, 2009
The whole idea was that the home run record was tarnished because it belonged to Bonds. But that was ok because A-Rod would eventually break the record and all would be right again. So much for those plans.
Ken Griffey, Jr., where are you?
The round of testing in 2003 showed that roughly 9% tested positive. Given how some of the newer drugs like Primobolan make it easier to avoid detection, one would have to believe that real % of users is actually higher.
While the performance-enhancing drug thing is like an arms race between testers and those trying to make and/or take undetectable drugs, the recent disclosure in the Bonds case that they tested an old sample to detect drugs that were not detectable at the time the test was administered hopefully will have a deterrent effect. Interesting article here by Will Carroll at Baseball Prospectus regarding the next generation undetectable drugs.
I predict this whole thing is going to lead to some heated discussions and negotiations, if not outright hostility (more than usual) and/or a work stoppage, when the next collective bargaining negotiations take place, primarily because (a) the 2003 testing results were supposed to be anonymized, so that MLB could get a sense of the scope of the problem but not have positive results actually associated with individual's names, and those test results were supposed to be very well safeguarded, (b) the Orza thing that justgary references above, and (c) the fact that owners may look to get a "steroid out" written into the standard player contract or otherwise work into the CBA a provision that player contracts will be voidable on positive tests.
posted by holden at 03:16 PM on February 07, 2009
This news shames the entire sport of cycling.
Oh wait.
posted by 86 at 04:06 PM on February 07, 2009
All I know about Harvey Milk is what the recent movie told me about him. In the movie he presses the belief that all homosexuals must "come out" because if everyone knows how many homosexuals there are and learns that they too have friends who are homeosexuals than they will be more likely to accept them.
In that vein I wish that EVERY professional athlete would be honest about whether or not they took performance enhancing supplements. My guess is that an enormous percentage would be in this category (and that, in fact, many players who had awful seasons were also using PEDs). Maybe then people would realize the fact that the entire sport was using these drugs and what made the superstars great is what always makes superstars great: the fact that they're just plain better than everyone else.
posted by DudeDykstra at 04:34 PM on February 07, 2009
But no matter who he blames, Rodriguez will no longer be looked at as the guy who is going to save the home run record from Bonds, who, year by year, is increasingly surrounded by context and doesn't look quite so bad. link
posted by justgary at 04:47 PM on February 07, 2009
You know, I'm as far from an A-Rod fan as a person can be, but this makes me really sad. For all his strange behavior, one thing that I have admired about him was that he seemed to be the poster boy for "look kids, you can be a great athlete and be clean." I know, I know, I shouldn't be surprised, and it was naive of me to think any major player is completely clean, but its still a let down.
posted by Joey Michaels at 05:43 PM on February 07, 2009
....poster boy for "look kids, you can be a great athlete and be clean."
I hope that tag will then be adopted by this guy.
posted by BoKnows at 05:59 PM on February 07, 2009
I'm not sure why the union doesn't just release all 104 player names and get it over with.
Because the union is put in place to prevent such things?
posted by bdaddy at 06:51 PM on February 07, 2009
Too true, jg. I think the sports writers were hanging their hopes on someone "clean" breaking Bonds' record so that nig gifted but tarnished athlete would be ignorable.
It's unfortunate that you feel the need to bring race into it. The reputation of Roger Clemens is just as tarnished as Bonds (maybe more so) and McGwire is not winning any popularity contests either.
Meanwhile, the "someone clean", A-Rod, that MLB hoped would break Bonds record is Hispanic himself.
posted by cjets at 08:31 PM on February 07, 2009
Amen, Bo. There is still at least one slugger out there who can break that record and who I firmly believe didn't hit the juice, and that's the man.
posted by boredom_08 at 08:54 PM on February 07, 2009
Given the number of players that tested positive, and the fact that Pujols played along side them, I see no reason to be so sure he's any cleaner than the rest of them. His production went up at about the same time as A-Rod's, and given the wide spread existence of the juice, I find it hard to believe any of them. Thinking back to the Ranger's team of 2003, with both A-rod and Palmeiro on the squad it makes me wonder about some other guys on the team. Hank Blalock, Laynce Nix, Mark Teixeira, Juan Gonzalez, all likely suspects to me. Perhaps I should give them the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps not.
posted by dviking at 11:05 PM on February 07, 2009
His production went up at about the same time as A-Rod's
Huh? His production has been almost identical from year to year. You may have something with the peer pressure angle but Pujols' numbers have been nothing but consistent.
posted by BoKnows at 12:09 AM on February 08, 2009
A-Rod, Pujols, whoever. Don't start creating a list of the next "clean" player to hang your hopes on, because major league baseball has proven that pinning your hopes of an honest, upstanding game in lieu of all the findings of the past couple years in futile. Whether you love baseball or hate it, it's obvious many of the records, wins/losses, etc. have been complete shams for the past few decades, and that baseball itself chose to do nothing about it. The witch hunt that continues, though, with the focus only being on the biggest-name players, has to come to an end. Nothing can be done about what has happened in the past. I heard talk last week about wanting to take the home run crown away from Barry Bonds. Go ahead, take it away. What has this done to address all the actual games that were impacted, the won/loss records, the playoff races and ultimate championships. Everyone's so worried about the gaudy records of the sport, when the competition that has taken place on the field has been altered beyond repair. At this point, baseball has to move on, improve it's testing and rule-enforcement, and quit trying to hold guys accountable for stuff that took place years ago. This has been the steroid-era in the game, period. There's no getting around that point. It has involved everyone from the stars down to the unknown players. Even though there are media outlets who only exist to pile on Bonds and A-Rod on a daily basis, it's time to move on. The game is still popular with the fans, and it's just not possible to change the past. Learn from it and forge ahead.
posted by dyams at 09:23 AM on February 08, 2009
Huh? His production has been almost identical from year to year
While his production may not have swung from 4 HR's to 50, it did go from the low 30's to the upper 40's, and then back down to the low 30's once the heat was put on players suspected of using steroids. I have absolutely no evidence that Pujols did the juice, my point is only that no player is above suspicion, especially one that did show pretty solid improvement from one year to the next. I totally understand that a player could easily go from 34 HR's to 49 within a couple of years without being juiced (a 49% improvement), it's just that he also went down dramatically once attention was placed on this issue. (49 to 32 in one year, a 35% decrease). Keep in mind that as with Bonds, A-Rod, and others, a great player might take the juice just to ensure he has that extra edge, and/or to recover from minor injuries more quickly. I don't think one has to see large swings in production, nor drastic body changes in order to wonder if a player is on the juice. At this point, I find most of them suspect.
posted by dviking at 11:06 AM on February 08, 2009
In regard to my post about the 2003 Texas Ranger team, and my wondering how many were juiced, it seems the Dallas Morning News was on this as well. Here's their All Juiced team.
Correction...in my prior post, I have the math slightly off, Pujols had a 44% improvement in 2 years, not 49%...just didn't want that to be the source of addtional posts.
posted by dviking at 11:12 AM on February 08, 2009
Like I said, dviking, your peer pressure angle may have merit, but to bring stats into the conversation, especially Pujols', you'll probably find little that is conclusive. I'll continue to believe Pujols is clean until I hear otherwise from something credible. But to know that he has not been named thus far, even after all the scrutiny baseball players face, absolutely gives me confidence in his approach to the game as a "clean" player. If he is named in the future, I will eat my words.
posted by BoKnows at 02:13 PM on February 08, 2009
I totally understand that a player could easily go from 34 HR's to 49 within a couple of years without being juiced (a 49% improvement), it's just that he also went down dramatically once attention was placed on this issue. (49 to 32 in one year, a 35% decrease).
I have no idea whether Pujols has taken PEDs (although as a Cardinal fan, I hope he has not), but this is just specious. Did Mickey Mantle go on the juice when he went from 27 homers in 1954 to 52 in homers in 1956 (an almost 100% increase!) but then go back off the juice when he went back down to 34 homers in 1957? Was DiMaggio on and then off the juice when he went from 29 homers in 1936 to 46 homers in 1937 but then back down to 32 in 1938? What about Hank Aaron bouncing from 26 homers in 1956 to 44 in 1957 but then back down to 30 in 1958?
Even for the most consistent hitters, power numbers are going to fluctuate (and I'm not sure homers are even the best way to measure that in the first instance). Although his 37 homers tied for 5th in his 8-year career, Pujols just put together in 2008 the most impressive season of his career, in a time where MLB has the most comprehensive testing policy of the major North American sports. Perhaps boknows oversold Pujols' consistency a bit, but the guy has basically been otherworldly, a top 5 hitter, in each season of his career.
(PS -- How cool is it that Firefox's spell checker notes "Dimaggio" as a misspelling/unkown word but "DiMaggio" is all good?)
posted by holden at 12:19 AM on February 09, 2009
Given the number of players that tested positive, and the fact that Pujols played along side them, I see no reason to be so sure he's any cleaner than the rest of them. His production went up at about the same time as A-Rod's, and given the wide spread existence of the juice, I find it hard to believe any of them.
Agreed. I don't think it's terribly productive to pin ones hopes on the next currently undiagnosed slugger. As fans, we should try to get away from using the currently disgraced to prop up those that haven't failed tests (publically anyway). It's becoming more and more clear that a lot of guys were using.
i don't really have a huge problem with it. I don't think it takes away from Pujols accomplishments too greatly if he too is eventually discovered. After all, with the amount of steroid users being divulged as the years go by, we may be looking at an even playing field from a peer to peer perspective (as perhaps troubling as that seems to some) from that era.
Besides, where do we draw the line as to when the "steroid era" even began? I can't figure on an appropriate cut-off. Canseco's rookie year? Really - who has a good grasp on this?
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 08:27 AM on February 09, 2009
I thought this data was supposed to be collected and then destroyed.
posted by jerseygirl at 12:41 PM on February 09, 2009
I thought this data was supposed to be collected and then destroyed.
Not just that, but no identifying information was supposed to be collected that could be used to tie a sample to a specific player.
posted by holden at 01:06 PM on February 09, 2009
I don't think one has to see large swings in production, nor drastic body changes in order to wonder if a player is on the juice Wait a minute! Once the whole BALCO situation transipired, suddenly everyone became suspicious of Bonds and kept mentioning the size of his body and head. Now that this came out about A-Rod, it's no longer about the size of the player? The steriod testing back in 2003 was supposed to be kept anonymous and they weren't. Any test that was positive were supposed to be destroyed and now these things are coming back to haunt these players and it's sad that the player's union let these players down. The only thing that I can think of is that all the names that tested positive should all come out and not try to make A-Rod the poster child for steroids. Just because A-Rod is arguably the most recognizable baseball player does not mean that he should take the brunt of all this unfortunate situation.
There is still at least one slugger out there who can break that record and who I firmly believe didn't hit the juice, and that's the man.
You sure about that? I mean, Pujols is only 29 but didn't he start losing his hair about 4-5 years ago at an alarming rate? Just saying, don't put all your eggs in one basket.
posted by BornIcon at 01:23 PM on February 09, 2009
But then again... he did come out and tell the media he absolutely has never done steroids.
posted by jerseygirl at 01:29 PM on February 09, 2009
I'm pretty sure that this situation was inevitable given baseball's approach to the steroid problem. MLB decided to have this Mitchell report focus on players only. As a result, when a steroid issue came up, it was that one player did steroids. Then, another player, then another player. The Mitchell Report should have focused on teams and how widespread it was throughout MLB. Then, we wouldn't have serial "shocking" revelations.
As to this specific allegation, it seems like one that can never be proven or disproven. That sucks for ARod because there is really nothing he can do if this story or the test itself are wrong.
posted by bperk at 01:45 PM on February 09, 2009
This just in: A-Rod admits in an interview with ESPN's Peter Gammons to his steriod use while with the Texas Rangers in order to show that he was in fact, and I'm semi-quoting, "among one of the greatest players ever and that the contract was worth him signing" in Texas.
posted by BornIcon at 02:40 PM on February 09, 2009
BornIcon -- thanks to the pointer on the admissions to Gammons. Just to clarify, as I think the sentence you typed is potentially prone to different interpretations (and I misinterpreted it at first), A-Rod admitted he used steroids during his time with the Rangers because he felt pressure to show he was one of the greatest players ever and to live up to his then-record contract.
posted by holden at 02:50 PM on February 09, 2009
I got more of Holden's interpretation out of it, too.
posted by jerseygirl at 02:51 PM on February 09, 2009
Thanks, A-Rod, for making your time with the Rangers even more of a disaster than I thought it was. My hometown team is now the franchise best known in baseball for both (a) cheating and (b) failing to benefit from cheating. Woo hoo!
posted by rcade at 03:01 PM on February 09, 2009
Wow. He admitted to taking it over 3 years. If steroid use is a bar to the HOF, I don't think the HOF will mean anything for my generation.
posted by bperk at 03:01 PM on February 09, 2009
Spot on holden. A-Rod has a great opportunity here. Ever since his arrival in NY, there has been many stories about how insincere or insecure he is but this could be his out. He could say that because of his past use of steriods, he felt and played as if the cat would be let out of the bag eventually and now that it has been, he can sleep better at night and play better ball.
This can be a reason as to why he was so aloof, because he was just so afraid of his past. Let's just see what happens now.
posted by BornIcon at 03:07 PM on February 09, 2009
Joe Sheehan at Baseball Prospectus has an interesting "outsider media" take on this whole thing (free content).
posted by holden at 03:31 PM on February 09, 2009
That's a good link, holden. My favorite line:
Take your pick: they missed the story, or they were too chicken-shit to report it. In either case, the piling-on now is disgusting.
posted by bperk at 04:07 PM on February 09, 2009
Oh yea, that's one of the better articles I've read in a while, Holden. Thanks.
Very interesting points about those reporters- who are supposed to be closest to the sport and know everything that is going on- ignored the issue themselves for so long for whatever reason.
posted by jmd82 at 04:09 PM on February 09, 2009
Curt Schilling has also chimed in on this, and while I know a lot of people here don't always care for what he has to say, I have to agree with him on this one. Getting all the names out there would help end much of the speculation about who was and wasn't cheating, and then maybe we can all get on with our lives.
Also, I must admit that I find it refreshing that someone finally decided to be a man about it and admit it. The question now is whether or not he will be treated more or less harshly because of it. I'm inclined to treat him less harshly, but your mileage may vary. I doubt his life will turn into the circus that Bonds's and Clemens's lives have, though ARod does have his own problems.
posted by TheQatarian at 04:57 PM on February 09, 2009
104 players tested positive in "anonymous" testing in 2003. Makes you wonder how many players were taking before 2003 but quit because of the anonymous testing.
Personally, I think they should release the names of all 104 players. Not so they can be villianized. But because it will probably show that it was fairly common among players, both top players and mediocre players. A-Rod seems to say as much in his apology; it was the culture of the sport of the time.
Then maybe everyone can get off their high horses and just say "screw it, how did they perform" and ignore whether their performance was enhanced or not. Judge them on what they did on the field. I think there has probably been as many busts found to have taken PEDs as star athletes. In fact, probably more busts have been caught than stars who have been caught or admitted it.
posted by graymatters at 05:06 PM on February 09, 2009
TheQatarian -- Andy Pettitte and others have "manned up" and admitted to use of PEDs in the past, although certainly no one of A-Rod's stature. What I find refreshing about A-Rod's admission is that he basically admitted to using PEDs over a three-year period when he just could have easily have said it was a one time thing and he never did it before or since. Getting the entire truth out there means he can set to work rehabilitating his image (to the extent possible) without worrying about future "gotchas" down the road. posted by holden at 05:09 PM on February 09, 2009
Please keep in mind that the 104 are only those that tested positive during that round of testing. One would have to be very naive to believe they were the only players on the juice.
So, releasing the list now would not only villianize those on the list, but would also exonerate those not on the list...many of which may have been on the juice.
posted by dviking at 07:40 PM on February 09, 2009
Because the union is put in place to prevent such things? posted by bdaddy
And they're doing a great job, aren't they? Perhaps the union should move onto plan B.
So, releasing the list now would not only villianize those on the list, but would also exonerate those not on the list...many of which may have been on the juice.
So having A-Rod or whoever comes next swinging in the breeze and answering questions for all 104 is better? Isn't that allowing A-Rod to play the villain alone? Doesn't seem fair.
The players on the list are there because of their own doing. They're not victims. A rational person would realize the list isn't conclusive. Getting the list out there and moving on as soon as possible is preferable to names being leaked.
TheQatarian -- Andy Pettitte and others have "manned up" and admitted to use of PEDs in the past, although certainly no one of A-Rod's stature.
Pettitte denied all PED use. The mitchell report came out and he admitted using it once. He got called in front of congress and admitted yet another time. Pettitte lied again and again.
Pettitte tells lies and hears cheers
I guess we all have our definitions of 'manned up', but I'd say you have to water it down to use it with pettitte. Giambi also got credit for manning up, even though during his apology he admitted only to making mistakes.
We're talking about players that admitted to as little as possible after repeated denials and only when out of options. Again, manned-up seems a stretch.
With A-Rod, again I see very little commendable about his apology. He flat out denied PED use until the failed test came out. He's not an idiot. He's seen what's happened to players that denied PED use against all evidence (Clemens, Bonds), and those that gave the smallest of apologies (Pettitte, Giambi). One group is still playing and making money. The other group is trying to stay out of prison.
Not really much of a choice.
posted by justgary at 08:56 PM on February 09, 2009
I guess we all have our definitions of 'manned up', but I'd say you have to water it down to use it with pettitte. Giambi also got credit for manning up, even though during his apology he admitted only to making mistakes.
Fair point on Pettitte; just goes to show how much one's perception can be influenced by the approved media story. I actually did not use Giambi as an example because his apology did not count. Pettitte as an example of "manning up" hereby withdrawn.
I do stand by the assertion that A-Rod admitting to three years of steroid use was, if nothing else, a shrewd move -- and more than the minimum required by the situation.
posted by holden at 11:10 PM on February 09, 2009
So having A-Rod or whoever comes next swinging in the breeze and answering questions for all 104 is better? Isn't that allowing A-Rod to play the villain alone? Doesn't seem fair
I do agree that it doesn't seem fair that A-Rod is the only one mentioned, I just don't want players that were not on that list getting a free ride on this.
posted by dviking at 03:10 AM on February 10, 2009
I do agree that it doesn't seem fair that A-Rod is the only one mentioned, I just don't want players that were not on that list getting a free ride on this
True indeed but the simple fact of the matter is, the names on this list should have NEVER come out in the 1st place since it was supposed to remain anonymous. Why is that the hardest part for people to understand? These players were dealt a bad hand although they caused this to happen all by themselves by using performance enhancing drugs but they were told that if anyone's test would show a positive that those tests would therefore be destroyed after 30 days. It's 6-7 years later and those tests were made availiable along with the names of the actual blood samples?
From what I've read so far, the blood samples and the names of who belongs to which blood samples were in seperate testing facilities. The blood samples contained a bar code that were then matched up with the correct name from the other lab. Someone within knew all of this and decided to take it upon themselves to match the samples with the names and leak this information to the media.
Why is the persons identity that leaked this information more important to keep anonymous than the actual players whose identity were supposed to remain a secret? The union should have to pay out the ass for this if I was a player who took their word at face value but that's just me.
My question is: Who is the DeepThroat in this scenerio because there sure as hell seems to be one lurking in the shadows.
IMO, Michael Phelps must be one giddy fucker now that his name isn't the headliner anymore.
posted by BornIcon at 08:35 AM on February 10, 2009
The players on the list are there because of their own doing. They're not victims. A rational person would realize the list isn't conclusive. Getting the list out there and moving on as soon as possible is preferable to names being leaked.
I disagree with this. The players on the list are victims because there shouldn't be a list at all. The players were all betrayed by their union and MLB. They are caught in some insane witch hunt by federal prosecutors. This is awful. MLB agreed to do anonymous testing just to see if they had a steroid problem. They discovered they did, and took appropriate action. The players, as a result, modified their behavior to conform with the new rules. That should be the end of it. The list should never have been created, and definitely should never be leaked. And, the government needs to do a much better job of stopping these ridiculous leaks.
posted by bperk at 09:15 AM on February 10, 2009
And, the government needs to do a much better job of stopping these ridiculous leaks.
That is, unless someone in the government is the source for the leak in the 1st place.
posted by BornIcon at 09:56 AM on February 10, 2009
I disagree with this. The players on the list are victims because there shouldn't be a list at all.
These players may have been wronged, but they had a hand in their situation. A-Rod himself called his decision to take PEDs stupid.
Now those players are being excused by many because 'everyone was doping'. Of course, not everyone was doping, but it's going to be assumed that everyone was. Every player will now have to carry that sentence no matter if they were clean or not. Those are the victims.
posted by justgary at 06:13 PM on February 10, 2009
While I appreciate his "honesty", whatever that means, I just don't feel he really answered anything. Every question was dodged in one way or another. You can "come clean" or you can do what A-rod did, which to me was complete dishonesty and bullshit. And to rub our faces in it, he used the words "to be quite honest" without actually doing so.
I hate how these players get coached to not answer questions.
posted by BoKnows at 10:34 PM on February 10, 2009
Why do people act as if they were put in that situation, they would be so upfront and totally honest about everything in their lives? Not everyone wants a stranger to be all up in their business. You would tell the truth on certain things but in other subjects, I'm sure that most of us wouldn't want to discuss it.
Just about everyone has skeletons in their closet, what if we were probed to tell what those skeltons were about? How comfortable would you be then? Then again, I'm not some professional athlete getting paid millions of dollars but still, I'm just saying.
posted by BornIcon at 09:44 AM on February 11, 2009
In a different thread BI, you questioned a story's news worthy-ness about honesty because, as you say, that is what is expected of golf.
If only you felt the same about baseball.
posted by BoKnows at 10:36 AM on February 11, 2009
The sport of golf has a rule where the player's are supposed to be honest. Where's that rule in baseball? And what does a rule in golf have to do with this subject?
I didn't twist what I said, I would expect people to be honest with themselves. As far as telling halve-truths or the entire truth about your personal business, that's totally up to the person in question and not the media or fans to make that decision for them.
posted by BornIcon at 11:33 AM on February 11, 2009
So instead of MLB enforcing any type of rule banning steroids, HGH, PEDs, etc...they should just write in a "honesty rule", then it would be okay for the media and fans to expect truth?
Golf itself has nothing to do with it, BI, you know that. My correlation was with the honesty angle, not the sport. It would be nice to know that every sport had morals and ethics though.
And at what point does a person - who is the highest paid player in baseball, is idolized by kids and adults (man-love) all over the world and has been the poster boy for MLB's "clean" list - lose some of his personal life? He knew when he signed that contract that he would be one of the most scrutinized players in the league. Now that this has come out, why shouldn't the fans and media expect the truth? Why is the truth so hard? It's not like he's in a position where he has to "get" his, he's got it already. This is the behavior I would expect from a child who got caught in bed with cookie crumbs, not a professional baseball player making $30 mil/year.
posted by BoKnows at 12:04 PM on February 11, 2009
I don't think this is ARod's personal business, and obviously neither does he. This is ARod's professional business. And, I would much rather him either be truly honest, do the McGwire-I'm-not-here-to-talk-about-the-past thing, or the no-comment thing.
posted by bperk at 12:07 PM on February 11, 2009
It would be nice to know that every sport had morals and ethics though.
No doubt, I totally agree with that point. The point that I do disagree with you is that you feel as if I even remotely think that some "honesty rule" being enforced by the players themselves in other sports besides golf would make any type of performing enhancing drug just go away. Not gonna happen.
And at what point does a person - who is the highest paid player in baseball, is idolized by kids and adults (man-love) all over the world and has been the poster boy for MLB's "clean" list - lose some of his personal life?
The moment he became a professional athelete. All pro athletes know what's in stored for them as soon as they sign on the dotted line of a sports contract.
No one told the media or fans that A-Rod was 'the poster boy for MLB's "clean" list', people just assumed that A-Rod was clean. Why would anyone think any differently considering his stats in his 1st full season? Even though most sport fans know about steriods in sports, we all want to believe that all athletes play by the rules and won't cheat themselves or the sports but it is what it is.
Sports are fast becoming the new version of a gossip column in the National Enquirer.
posted by BornIcon at 01:29 PM on February 11, 2009
So instead of MLB enforcing any type of rule banning steroids, HGH, PEDs, etc...they should just write in a "honesty rule", then it would be okay for the media and fans to expect truth?
So if a golfer violates a rule in a tournament, and he fails to report it, he is disqualified. In a like manner, if a high school or college team uses an ineligible player during a game, the team can be required to forfeit the game. How about this rule, then? If a Major League Baseball player fails a test for performance enhancing drugs, and close analysis reveals that the tests are indeed accurate, his team will then be required to forfeit all games in which the player has participated between the time of his last drug test and the test that proved positive. If this were to be the case, you can bet the owners would be all over their players to ensure drug-free performance. I would bet that the players themselves would be really looking closely at their mates in the locker room. Of course, something like this will never happen, but it's still an intriguing idea.
posted by Howard_T at 01:43 PM on February 11, 2009
No one told the media or fans that A-Rod was 'the poster boy for MLB's "clean" list', people just assumed that A-Rod was clean.
A-Rod put himself there. He told Katie Couric in 2007 that he had never used steroids.
Read his quotes in that link. Anyone who could lie so brazenly on a national news program should never be given the benefit of the doubt on anything again.
posted by rcade at 02:07 PM on February 11, 2009
The point that I do disagree with you is that you feel as if I even remotely think that some "honesty rule" being enforced by the players themselves in other sports besides golf would make any type of performing enhancing drug just go away.
I never said it would make the PEDs go away. My point was that you seem to defend the idea that we are invading his privacy since there isn't such a rule, like there is in golf, and that the fans and/or media have no merit in questioning a players integrity.
posted by BoKnows at 02:30 PM on February 11, 2009
Thanks rcade, but I've already seen that interview a million times already but why is anyone surprised that he lied to Katie Couric? There was nothing at the time to prove that he done anything wrong and since the test he tested positive on was supposed to be kept anonymous, he probably felt that he was free & clear of being proven wrong.
Anyone who could lie so brazenly on a national news program should never be given the benefit of the doubt on anything again.
It might of been a national news program but so what that he lied to Katie Couric? She's not Congress where he'll get locked up in the forseeable future for telling her lies. I probably would've lied to her too, I don't know since I'm not in his position.
He took steriods, someone leaked his name out of 104 people on a list that tested positive when those names were never supposed to see the light of day and now he has to reinvent himself and his image but we move on.
What about the person that leaked his name out of 104 names? Why isn't that person being sought after since they did something illegal as well?
My point was that you seem to defend the idea that we are invading his privacy since there isn't such a rule, like there is in golf, and that the fans and/or media have no merit in questioning a players integrity
Considering that his privacy was in fact invaded, why wouldn't I defend a persons privacy regardless who that person may be? So basically, it doesn't matter that someone leaked information that is still sealed by the government? That it's ok for someone to pick his name out of 104 names even though all blood samples were supposed to remain anonymous?
Where does it stop?
Now, I don't condone any pro athlete taking performance enhancing drugs in their respective sport, I just think that there's a fine line being crossed in order to recieve the information to uncover the truth and no one seems to care how this information is being found.
posted by BornIcon at 02:36 PM on February 11, 2009
I'm in this weird position where I think A-Rod was wronged by the release of the test, but he is still a jerk for this interview and the Couric interview. I understand the motivations to do steroids if your goal is to be the best player you can possibly be, and you think steroids will help. I don't understand lying about it. Why do an interview at all that is going to force you to lie about it? Just duck and dodge, avoid, there are a million different strategies besides the one A-Rod took. And, I'm with rcade that I don't understand why anyone would believe what he says to Gammons. There is no perjury penalty for lying to Gammons either.
posted by bperk at 02:53 PM on February 11, 2009
He didn't lie to just Katie Couric. He lied to everyone watching. And I don't think that the interviewer is a measure of if you should tell the truth or not. He lied then, he's still lying now.
Why isn't that person being sought after since they did something illegal as well?
How do you know that that person isn't being sought after?
I have no problem respecting someone's privacy. If A-Rod liked to wear women's clothes and pour molasses all over his body after every game, fine. Not my business. But this isn't his private life we're discussing here. We're talking about his professional life, which just so happens to be viewed by millions of people around the country and world. He is in the spotlight and how he acts and represents himself affects a lot of people.
It stops at the truth.
I care how the information was found, but I won't ignore the guilty parties here just because we don't know who leaked it. Why not put Selena Roberts and Peter Gammons together and we'll see how much truth she tells. Other than A-Rods comments on her, she's getting the free pass here.
posted by BoKnows at 03:03 PM on February 11, 2009
People, I think we are all forgetting that this was such a loosey goosey era. How could one be expected to follow the rules to a T when things were so loosey goosey?
posted by holden at 03:03 PM on February 11, 2009
It might of been a national news program but so what that he lied to Katie Couric? She's not Congress where he'll get locked up in the forseeable future for telling her lies. I probably would've lied to her too, I don't know since I'm not in his position.
He chose to give that interview, knowing that he had done steroids for years. He knew he'd be asked about steroids and made the decision not only to lie, but to embellish his own reputation with comments such as "I've never felt overmatched on the baseball field." While reports of steroid abuse were tarnishing some of the game's greatest players, A-Rod was giving national TV interviews celebrating himself as a clean player.
I don't think we have to be in his position to know how wrong that is. A-Rod is everything his critics have said he was all of these years -- a repulsive and compulsively dishonest self-obsessed douchebag.
No matter how many numbers he puts up, I feel sorry for the Yankees and their fans to be stuck with the guy. One of the cornerstones of their franchise has no character, and it's hard to win with that in the clubhouse.
posted by rcade at 03:29 PM on February 11, 2009
Why not put Selena Roberts and Peter Gammons together and we'll see how much truth she tells. Other than A-Rods comments on her, she's getting the free pass here.
She's getting a free pass because ARod is full of shit. Gammons didn't ask one follow up question, which he admits was a mistake. ARod is lashing out to find someone else to blame when there is no one. It just so happens that one of the reporters who wrote this story happens to be stalking him. Proof, ARod. He doesn't get the benefit of the doubt here, and she completely denies his foolish accusations.
posted by bperk at 04:52 PM on February 11, 2009
She's getting a free pass because ARod is full of shit.
Bingo.
posted by jerseygirl at 05:11 PM on February 11, 2009
I'm only suggesting that she could provide the details regarding the leak, not because I believe in A-Rods story or his accusations regarding her.
posted by BoKnows at 05:15 PM on February 11, 2009
She's getting a free pass because ARod is full of shit. She's getting a free pass because she's been vindicated. A-Rod tries to block her every move because he and his people knew what she was looking for, and her integrity is quesioned? No way. I think some people who complain about this most likely don't want the story to be true. Didn't want to hear it. But it is the truth.
And I agree that the problem really isn't that he did the steroids - but that he did the Couric interview. The vehement denial is what people believed. A-Rod was clean and the records could be made whole again. Even if you didn't see that interview, the way it influenced coverage, etc. meant you felt the impact. A-Rod was a douchebag, but he was clean. Nope.
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 05:44 PM on February 11, 2009
No matter how many numbers he puts up, I feel sorry for the Yankees and their fans to be stuck with the guy.
I guess I'm alone in wanting to be stuck with a guy that no matter whether he was taking performing enhancing drugs or not, can AND will still put up some monster numbers. Sure, he probably won't come thru for you in the clutch but hey, I guess you can't have it all.
So, not to hijack this thread but let's see who can come up with the best All-Steriods team.
1st: Mark McGwire 2nd: Brian Roberts SS: Miguel Tejada 3rd: Alex Rodriguez
LF: Barry Bonds CF: Jose Canseco (Bash Brother days though...he was a beast) RF: Rafael Palmeiro
SP: Roger Clemens/Andy Pettitte Closer: Eric Gagne
posted by BornIcon at 10:09 AM on February 13, 2009
C: Pudge Rodriguez
Maybe Sheffield gets consideration in RF, or Slammin' Sammy as well.
posted by BoKnows at 11:08 AM on February 13, 2009
There you go..forgot about Pudge. Sammy and Sheffield are great choices as well.
posted by BornIcon at 11:21 AM on February 13, 2009
Not to nitpick, but Canseco was not a center fielder, playing all of 3 innings there in his career. For CF, I nominate 1996 Brady Anderson. Of course, assuming he was on something that year that helped him exceed his career high of 21 homers with 50 (subsequent high 24).
posted by holden at 12:55 PM on February 13, 2009
And Jose has to wear this tattoo suit all the time. (To hide the tracks?)
posted by BoKnows at 01:09 PM on February 13, 2009
I don't think we have to be in his position to know how wrong that is. A-Rod is everything his critics have said he was all of these years -- a repulsive and compulsively dishonest self-obsessed douchebag.
Amen to that. I think most people are realizing that the steroids era was much bigger than a handful of players, and sure, most people aren't going to start confessing before they have to. But that interview, with what we know now, just... wow. I'm not sure how A-Rod could look any worse.
Maybe if he kicked puppies. Has he kicked puppies?
posted by justgary at 03:34 PM on February 13, 2009
Has he kicked puppies?
Is anyone going to believe him even if he says he didn't?
posted by jerseygirl at 03:45 PM on February 13, 2009
Is anyone going to believe him even if he says he didn't?
So you're saying there's a chance...
posted by justgary at 08:39 PM on February 13, 2009
Not to nitpick, but Canseco was not a center fielder, playing all of 3 innings there in his career
Well personally, I just want to see if the ball will bounce off his head and go over the centerfield wall for a homerun....again! Lightning can strike twice...I think!
posted by BornIcon at 03:01 PM on February 16, 2009
The evidence just keeps piling up. IMHO, anyone that still believes that any of these sluggers are/were not on the juice is just not accepting reality.
The round of testing in 2003 showed that roughly 9% tested positive. Given how some of the newer drugs like Primobolan make it easier to avoid detection, one would have to believe that real % of users is actually higher.