Feb
08

The Selena Roberts question

By

Selena Roberts, former New York Times columnist and current Sports Illustrated writer, has a lot riding on her Alex Rodriguez story. Seemingly without seeing the list of players who failed the 2003 drug tests but corroborating her information with four sources, she has accused one of baseball’s biggest starts and its highest paid player of juicing.

She’s also two and a half months away from publishing an exposé on A-Rod called Hit & Run: The Many Lives of Alex Rodriguez. Baseball & The Boogie Down believes that this upcoming book raising some interesting questions:

From what I’ve gathered through several web searches, the book is described as “an expose of A-Rod’s controversial path to self-destruction.” Something tells me the purpose of this book is not intended to paint A-Rod in a positive light.

I’m sure Alex is aware of the book and I’m sure Alex knows who Selena Roberts is. Why would he give her the time of day and answer any questions she asks him? She should have known that he’d blow her off when she asked him about testing positive. His failure to say anything to her shouldn’t be read as an admission of guilt, which is kind of how it came across in her interview with Bob Costas. I may not have the quote 100% correct, but she basically said, “He could have said I don’t know who your sources are but their dead wrong.” Hence, she believes her sources even more.

Could this be just a ploy to sell a few extra books? If Alex comes out and says she’s wrong and that he never tested positive, then what? Then it turns into he said, she said and then how do we know who to really believe. What if someone trots out 4 anonymous and “reliable” sources that say he didn’t test positive and the SI article is a fabrication. It’s not out of the realm of possibility, especially when people say they have anonymous sources. There’s really no way for anyone, other than the person citing the sources, to verify it’s authenticity, right?

It’s certainly an interesting scenario, but the more time that passes without a statement from A-Rod, the less likely it is. If A-Rod wants to shed some doubt on this list, he first has to know for sure that he isn’t on it. At some point in the future during the Bonds perjury trial, the entire list will be made public, and if A-Rod has any doubt about his name’s appearing on it, he can’t do this.

RAB commenter Artist formerly known as “The” Steve summed it all up in an e-mail to me this morning:

For the sake of his legacy, denial is his only hope. I’ve heard HOF voters (Ken Davidoff) already say they won’t vote for him if this is true. But he can’t do that credibly if the Feds have the original list and samples and that eventually becomes public. According to the Bonds court case, they do. So everything will come out eventually.

I think he’s boxed into a corner. He HAS to fess up, and live with the consequences.

A 100 percent complete admission will be the first step in rehabbing an image, and as the silence continues from the A-Rod camp, the next few days will be quite telling.

Categories : STEROIDS!

167 Comments»

  1. 27 this year says:

    Maybe you should write the article saying according to TEN sources, Arod is innocent.

    That’ll show Roberts

  2. Zack says:

    so for all of those saying that she or her sources dont have motives, and it explains his response to her questions. save your judgement until Arod talks and we’ll find out

  3. Bryan V says:

    It’s really sad that in a court of law it’s “innocent until proven guilty”. But in the court of popular opinion it’s “guilty until proven innocent”.

  4. bill says:

    Her and Epstein are trying to make themselves.

    How come she doesnot have any other names.

    She should state her sources or the government should demand that she give up sources.

    There should not be separate laws for her and Anderson not informing on Bonds he went to jail.

    Why is there no more of outrage on information that was not suppose to be made public per the agreement between the owners and the players association at that time.

    There will never be a another reporter or sports writer ever admit that Roberts and Epstein went to far without naming the sources were that get the information from.

    It is easy to state that they four sources but they cant name one.

    See wants to make a name for herself. Now the book will sell more copies and also she gets her 5 minutes of fame.

    • Jay CT says:

      No reputable reporter EVER gives up their sources. IDEA FAIL (did I pull that off?)

    • Zack says:

      “government should demand that she give up ” thats illegal
      anderson is not a reporter, roberts is a reporter. they have shield laws all over the country and she has the right to the names private with prosecution

    • Matt says:

      “There should not be separate laws for her and Anderson not informing on Bonds he went to jail.”

      Anderson’s not a journalist, but Roberts is. There should be laws that keep sources confidential because it helps promote a free press which helps a democracy run better. I know this is sports journalism but it’s still serious business. Forcing reporters to give up their sources means less people will talk to reporters means less information gets to the public, etc.

      • donttradecano says:

        but what if those sources potentially commited a crime like these 4? the leak could be in violation of the 4th ammendment.

      • Artist formerly known as 'The' Steve says:

        From what I understand, Press shield laws depend on the jurisdiction. There was a highly publicized case in Washington DC recently involving the Scooter Libby trail and NYTimes scribe Judith Miller, who was imprisoned for refusing to give up her sources.

        http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/J.....ournalist)

        But given the locales involved (NY/SF) I’ll presume that journalists have sufficient protections to keep their sources secret without fear of getting caught up in any criminal case. SF has already been through this with “Game of Shadows” and NY is such a media capital I can’t see that happening here.

        • Macphisto says:

          The question I have is did these sources break the law by giving her this information. If they did and the government wants to prosecute she would be committing obstruction of justice if she doesn’t give up the sources. Right?

          • Artist formerly known as 'The' Steve says:

            I have no doubt whatsoever that they did break the law. But the only one who could give them up is Selena Roberts, and again I’m pretty sure she can’t be compelled to testify. So they have nothing to worry about.

    • A greenidge says:

      Last year in the ny times selena roberts wrote a hit piece acusing A-rod of being a slum landlord, among other things.The majority of the comments were harsh questioning her credibility.

  5. Cam says:

    I honestly think it is too early in this whole thing to say that he shouldn’t be in the Hall. It was different for McGwire and the others because the majority of their career was most likely played on steroids. However, with Alex, he still has at least another 10 years to play, and these will be played without steroids. It’s very likely that he’ll hit another 300 homeruns over the course of the next 10 years, and that he’ll win that Series. I’m not defending him at all, just saying all this hall talk is kind of ridiculous right now.

  6. Jay CT says:

    I said that in the previous post. He HAS to come forward and admit it. I think if he just acts as if he is distraught, and that maybe he was doing it for the sake of his teammates because he was stuck in a losing situation with an albatross of a contract and that he was desperate to win, perhaps it would make people accept it. The fact is, people love the underdog, and if he can play the part as the tragic figure, perhaps he can sway the public to forgive him. He could possibly get the, “Well at least he admitted it! None of these other guys did that. Look at Clemens! He is STILL lying!11!!!!!”

  7. Joe R says:

    What I dont understand is if 4 sources knew one of the best offensive players of the game tested positive for steroids, why wait to bring this out now? Its not the first time someone has asked if he did steroids. I think there should be legal action taken to try and find any of the 4 sources who have the information seeing that it was court ordered confidentiality. I know nothing will probably come of it seeing as reportes almost never give up sources, but still something needs to be done. I think those things need as much attention as the possibility A-Rod did it is getting. It may be leaning more towards the fact that it upset me that he could have tested positive but it’s just weird that more than one person supposedly has this information and waited 5 years to come out with it?

    • Zack says:

      1. you dont know when the sources saw the list
      2. dont know how long ago they contacted roberts
      3. its illegal to find out who the 4 sources are

      • Chris says:

        “3. its illegal to find out who the 4 sources are”

        That makes no sense. There may not be a way (or reason) to find out the sources, but there’s certainly nothing illegal with finding out the sources, just like there was nothing illegal about her finding the sources in the first place. In theory, a reporter could start digging into phone records, visitor logs, etc to find out who saw the list and then find out who talked to Roberts.

        • Zack says:

          i meant there was no way to force her to tell her sources. like putting her in jail until she talked would be illegal

          • asdf says:

            Not necessarily. Like another poster said before, if there is a criminal investigation brought up and she refuses to disclose her sources, she could be jailed for obstruction of justice for some amount of time (i’m not sure of the actual length) or until she gives up the names.

            • Zack says:

              it depends on the state. but since the list was in california, i believe, id assume the case would be in california, and since the authors of the game of shadow have not been forced to reveal their sources im assuming that same would go for selena roberts.

  8. Artist formerly known as 'The' Steve says:

    Thanks for the h/t Ben. Much appreciated.

  9. Bryan V says:

    When it comes to a person accusing another of a crime or breaking rules, their sources should have to be given up.

    In this day and age, rumors get a foothold on popular opinion too quickly and can lead to very bad circumstances. It’s not fair that somebody’s entire life/career can be dragged through the mud, and the person making the accusation doesn’t have to do anything to prove what they say.

    Total BS.

    • Zack says:

      And if that happened then nothing illegal would be uncovered. You think a mob informant or worker at a factory or something will give tips to a reporter about stuff if his name has to be released?

      • emac2@msn.com says:

        Do you think I sould be able to say I have sourses that say you prefer young boys and then hide behind privacy laws?

        How about if it also ruined your ability to walk down the street or get a job?

        • Zack says:

          It’s the law, overturn the law and you can make your argument.
          And you’re not a reporter so you cant just say whatever you want.
          Again, if this was beckett/ortiz would you care?

          • emac2@msn.com says:

            I see.

            So if I run out and get a temp job as a reporter I can say that about you and you would be OK with regardless of the truth?

            Anything that fills the sports pages with peoples drug problems instead of baseball information is something I care about. The fact that it is about Arod just means I have to read about it even more

            • Zack says:

              just admit you’re mad its Arod. if it was nomar, carlos beltran, pujols, etc you’d have no problem.
              you felt this angry when teh game of shaows erceived sealed grand jury testimony?

              • emac2@msn.com says:

                I should admit that because you are too stupid to realize that not everyone is as small minded as you are?

                • Zack says:

                  Again way to have a mature discussion. I’m not 12, try to have a respectful discussion or leave.

                • emac2@msn.com says:

                  Is a mature3 discussion on in which you dismiss all of my points and insist that the only reason I don’t like this is because I am a Yankee fan?

                  Mature does not mean 16 instead of 12. It’s about a respectful level of conversation where you try to understand the other person instead of ascribing your personal motivations to other people.

                  I’ll leave when I’m ready and you will read every one of my posts until you leave.

                • Joseph P. says:

                  “It’s about a respectful level of conversation where you try to understand the other person instead of ascribing your personal motivations to other people.”

                  You’re the one who called him stupid. Which, of course, is a violation of the commenting guidelines.

                • emac2@msn.com says:

                  Do you have a point or just a need to post?

                • Zack says:

                  I’ve showed you respect in your posts, so show respect to mine and others

      • Bryan V says:

        Hold on. I know what you’re saying, but comparing a mob worker and a factory worker is a bit extreme…don’t ya think?

        And if a person (no matter where he or she works) is telling the truth, and has evidence to back them up, then why would they be afraid of “coming out”? It’s not like ARod is going to have them killed, as if he’s a mob boss.

        • Zack says:

          I explained further below. If he had lagnuage in his contract he could be sued or sent to jail or breach of contract.

          Just because you tell the truth doesnt make it legal; those 4 sources face charges if their names are released.

          • Bryan V says:

            You must be part of the media.

            How can you defend “un-named sources”? It’s the biggest cop-out in journalism. It allows anybody that has a job at a paper, website, or magazine to say whatever they want. It’s pathetic. Say all you want about Freedom of Press and such. I believe in the rights passed forth by this country. But that doesn’t necessarily make it right that a person can cite “un-named sources” and ruin a guys life/career.

            • Zack says:

              actually im not part of the media, have no interest in being part of the emdia, but i respect what they do.

              ruin a guys life? blame the messenger huh? so its the game of shadows authors that bonds is a jerk, forced to retire, never be in HoF?

              • Bryan V says:

                I’m not blaming anybody. But Serena Roberts “sources” could turn out to be a total fabrication. And you know what? ARod will have suffered through all of this (and it will go on much longer than a few days), while Mrs. Roberts will still be writing articles and collecting paychecks.

                • Zack says:

                  that may be 100% true. but if its false why isnt arod talking? its easy, you took roids or you didnt. it doesnt take 3 days to remember if you put a needle in you

    • Zack says:

      we’re just mad its ARod, were you mad when the book of shadows came out? If it was Ortiz or Beckett you guys wouldnt be crying about the sources or whatever.

      • Joe R says:

        Except it is illegal. That information was sealed and not to be leaked. They broke a court order.

        • Zack says:

          And what if a company has language in a contract saying an employee cant tell company secrets, yet the company secrets are illegal?
          would the employee say something if he knew his company would sue him or he would face jail time because the reporter has to give up his name?

          You still didnt answer the question, what did u feel about the game of shadows? if this was beckett/ortiz would you feel as opposed to it?

          • donttradecano says:

            i beleive the company can sue you for reveling company secrects, if it is against company policy.

            • Zack says:

              so if the company had illegal practices why would the employee speak up if he knows the reporter has to give him up and he’ll be sued

              • donttradecano says:

                thats different than what these guys did….they violated the 4th amendment by revealing sealed document.

                if a company is doing something illegal the informant is protected, but if you just give away company secrets then your in trouble.

          • The Honorable Congressman Mondesi says:

            “And what if a company has language in a contract saying an employee cant tell company secrets, yet the company secrets are illegal?
            would the employee say something if he knew his company would sue him or he would face jail time because the reporter has to give up his name?”

            Inapplicable. This isn’t a “whistleblower” situation. The (alleged) illegal activity was not exposed to the authorities by this action. Noboy was asked to cover-up illegal activities. These people chose to release to the public confidential information that was already in the hands of the authorities.

            “You still didnt answer the question, what did u feel about the game of shadows? if this was beckett/ortiz would you feel as opposed to it?”

            Irrelevant. Actually, that’s not fair. It’s relevant if you care about whether people are upset just because a Yankee is involved. I just don’t see why this matters at all. It’s irrelevant to the larger questions like whether the information should have been leaked, A-Rod’s level of culpability, etc.

            • Zack says:

              How is his Yankee status irrelevant? How mad were we all when Game of Shadows came out? That’s the same situation, and what was everyone’s reaction to that.

              Legally the info shouldnt have been leaked, but was it right for the union and MLB to protect cheaters from the fans and owners?

              • The Honorable Congressman Mondesi says:

                Why does it matter whether anyone was mad when Game of Shadows came out? What difference does that make?

              • The Honorable Congressman Mondesi says:

                “How is his Yankee status irrelevant? How mad were we all when Game of Shadows came out? That’s the same situation, and what was everyone’s reaction to that.”

                Let me put it another way. If I tell you today that 2+2+5, and then someone teaches me some basic math and next week I tell you 2+2=4, does the fact that I originally said 2+2=5 change the fact that 2+2=4?

                • Zack says:

                  because everyone here is mad that she got unnamed sources and saying the govt should force her to give up her names; yet the game of shadows was based on leaked grand jury testimony.
                  Same situation, one is a Yankee, one wasnt. How many of us here are saying those authors should give up their names?

                  You’re math thing is stupid. I’m just talking about the home team bias; America killed SF for cheering for Bonds, yet we have no problem giving Pettite a standing ovation.

                • The Honorable Congressman Mondesi says:

                  “because everyone here is mad that she got unnamed sources and saying the govt should force her to give up her names; yet the game of shadows was based on leaked grand jury testimony.”

                  But the reason behind whether they cried about Game of Shadows or cry now that a Yankee is involved has absolutely no bearing on WHETHER THEY ARE RIGHT OR WRONG. That was the point of my stupid math thing. You want to try to discredit people by citing the emotional motivation for their opinions and what their opinions may have been about similar matters, with less emotional connection in the past. And I think that’s irrelevant when considering the real issue, which is whether or not they have reason to be upset. And therein lies the difference between you and I, sir. Good day.

                • Zack says:

                  people here are questioning Robert’s story and her sources. And i’m questioning their reaction. No one thought the Game of Shadows guys should be forced to tell their source, but because this is a Yankee everyone demands that Roberts releases their name.

                  So you’re saying its ok to question because its their team? I say thats crap. Be fair to all the steroid users. Bonds = Clemens = ARod = Pettite

                • The Honorable Congressman Mondesi says:

                  I said good day, sir!

                  (I never said people should treat these issues any differently when they involve players on teams other than their favorite team. How you’d get that from my comments, I don’t really know. Read my comments again, maybe a little more slowly and with a slightly more open mind, if you’d like. Or don’t, we’ve beaten this into the ground. I clearly have nothing new to add to this discussion at this point.)

      • emac2@msn.com says:

        I was mad about Bonds being made a scapegoat and I’ve never been a fan if his or any of his teams.

        I’m even white!

        I’m just disgusted we have another year of writers with noting to write about except steroids.

        • Zack says:

          I wasnt talkin about scapegoat.
          Were you mad at the book of shadows? wasnt that all based on sources?

          • emac2@msn.com says:

            Yes

            I’m disgusted with the witch hunt and have been since it took the stage away from the game and pretended it was about national security or whatever the heck level of importance the media has tried to create.

            I haven’t read any of those stupid books.

            • Zack says:

              witch hunt? how is it a witch hunt if the information is TRUE? giambi, bonds, sheff, pettite, palmeiro, juan gonzalez, mcgwire. are they victims?

              • emac2@msn.com says:

                Because the information doesn’t matter. Make a rule against steriods and move on. It’s a witch hunt when you want to ruin the game because this drug is somehow worse than the drugs used in baseball throughout it’;s history.

                It’s a with hunt when you pick select players to demonize.

              • TheLastClown says:

                They may not be victims, but it sure is remarkable that many of the folks I’ve seen go “down” with the steroid boat were pretty marquis names. The fact that Jason Grimsley was also popped gave me the idea that SO MANY players were doing it, that we were being paid lip-service to by MLB/MSM in that the biggest stars were trotted out & dragged down, while they were many of them in the same boat.

                I would like to see some sort of amnesty program set up, where guys who haven’t been outed but don’t want the scandal business can not have to worry about past mistakes coming to bite them in the ass.

                Also I think the time/money should be devoted to more efficient/stringent tests for the newer PED’s, rather than spend the time digging up the graveyards of players.

                I’m also not defending any use by A-Rod, this doesn’t really disappoint me too much on the whole, just brought A-Rod a bit back down to earth. Happens to *almost* everyone eventually. I’m still a fan of the guy wearing the interlocking NY. And forever shall be.

                • Zack says:

                  No one is being punished for prior steroid use, Clemens and Bonds are in truble for perjury. They basically have amnesty, without a failed test how can you punish a player? and those 2003 tests are unpunishable.

                  If it comes out a player’s reputation will still be tarnished and those players who are HoF worthy probably wont get elected, whether MLB gives them amnesty or not

      • RichYF says:

        I disagree. I’m not mad it’s A-Rod. I’m mad that the sport of baseball has evolved in to a trial by ordeal.

        I wasn’t necessarily upset when Bonds went through hell, but I really did get tired of reading about it every morning. The people whose jobs depend on athletes like A-Rod and Bonds are the first ones to turn their backs on them for a few dollars. It’s sickening to me. The same people that are questioning his morals and ethics are the ones that just a few weeks ago were interviewing him for their cover piece for their respective media outlet. So now, the guy that puts food on their table is a villain? He’s a liar? It’s not even about A-Rod, it’s just the media in general. It’s a hypocritical organization and the world loves it.

        Baseball used to be a sanctuary from the world. It’s not anymore.

        That’s why I’m mad.

        • Zack says:

          so you’re mad a reporter did her job? no reporter should do any investigation about steroids? book of shadows should have never been written?
          if this was beckett/ortiz we’d be praising her. shes a reporter, she reported a story she feels is the truth.

          • Bryan V says:

            Do a story on steroids or PEDs…sure. But how about facts? How about naming sources, and not hiding behind people with no face or name?

            • Zack says:

              again, game of shadows received leak grand jury testimony and what was everyones opinion?
              “good bonds is a jerk” but arod is a yankee so we want to stand up for him (just like pettite with his one time use of HGH) i get it, but just be fair

          • RichYF says:

            No, “we,” wouldn’t be praising her. How does learning that Ortiz/Beckett used make me feel any better? It gives the media something to talk about, not me. I’d rather let the steroids era be what the steroids era is and move forward.

            My real opinion on the state of “sports writing” isn’t really something that I’m going to make public, but needless to say I’m not enthralled with the media these days.

            • Zack says:

              come on, “steroids era be the steroids era” only because a lot of yankees were named. if giambi, sheff, clemens were on the sox we’d bring it up every game

              • RichYF says:

                Okay, stop referring to Yankees fans as “we.”

                I don’t know what you’re trying to say. I’m only upset because it’s A-Rod? I don’t even like A-Rod. He’s a big baby, but he sure can play baseball. So many people are jealous of someone like Alex that they’ll go to great lengths to tarnish his image. Same with Bonds. Especially since Bonds didn’t care what people thought of him. So if it were David Ortiz instead of A-Rod, this whole story would be interesting to me. I understand. As part of your generalization, I would be absolutely delighted to know that Ortiz is a cheater. It would justify my existence and Yankee fandom. Excellent.

                And if David Ortiz hits a game 7 homerun off of Mo in the ALCS, at least I can call him a cheater and sleep well while his team goes on to get another WS title. But he cheated so it’s totally awesome!!!!!

                • Zack says:

                  So 4 people made up stuff to just tarnish ARod’s name? You dont have to believe the report, thats your choice. Wait for ARod’s comments, its day 2 and nothing so far.

                • asdf says:

                  “So 4 people made up stuff to just tarnish ARod’s name? You dont have to believe the report, thats your choice. Wait for ARod’s comments, its day 2 and nothing so far.”

                  Or 1 person making up stuff AND 4 people…

                  Not that I’m defending anyone, I just think we need to keep our minds open to all the possibilities until we hear both sides of the story, and then come to a conclusion.

                • Zack says:

                  agreed, but 2 days and ARod has no comment, what does that tell you?

          • emac2@msn.com says:

            A reporter isn’t doing her job or any stupid higher good spreading information about 1 of 104 parties in a secret test.

            She is simply a slut who is trying to make money at someone elses expense.

            • Zack says:

              way to have a mature discussion.
              “shes a slut” great dude

              • UNION YES. says:

                Yeah, really. Lets not make RAB a vehicle for your misogyny.

              • emac2@msn.com says:

                I guess only certain realities are allowed to be posted on this subject.

                I would bet everything that she has slept with someone to further her career.

                • UNION YES. says:

                  She could be a porn star and still be correct in her reporting of the A-Rod story. I don’t see how her sex life has anything to do with this issue.

                • emac2@msn.com says:

                  She is a slut because she has no morals and ruins other people for profit.

                  If she was a porn star she would be earning an honest living based on her personal morality instead of climbing over others for profit.

                • Joseph P. says:

                  You’re going to have to tone it down, buddy. I see the point you tried to make, but there’s no reason to call the woman a slut.

                • emac2@msn.com says:

                  Is this a moral majority website where words like that are banned?

                  The words fit my point very well and I’d rather my posting access was blocked than to conform to your limitations. I promise not to come back with a new name.

                • Joseph P. says:

                  If you aren’t going to recognize the guidelines we have set forth, we would rather you not post here.

                • emac2@msn.com says:

                  No problem.

                  Block me and your problem with be solved.

                  Trying to talk me into following a ban on “stupid” and “slut” just wastes eveyones time.

              • emac2@msn.com says:

                I’m glad you approve.

                Have you been assigned as the blog police or just don’t have a life unless you monitor others?

                • UNION YES. says:

                  Settle down there Dr. Freud. Take a deep breath… grab a kleenex. Now, all I did was disagree with you on calling her a slut, along with obsessing over her sex life. She could very well be throwing out false information as part of her advertising blitz, but lets just wait until Alex says something.

                • emac2@msn.com says:

                  I’m not interested in what Arod has to say and the fact that he did or did not take steroids doesn’t matter to me.

                  The fact that a really exciting time in baseball is ruined by someone so greedy that she will do or say anything to make a buck is my problem. The fact that the media has decided that it nis worthy of 50% of the baseball stories just before spring training. Calling her a slut is a recognition of the type of person she is and is an observation of her working life instead of her sex life as she probably has sex for fun instead of just for profit.

                  Since the crime is SR selling her integrity for a dollar discussions of the type of person she is has relevance.

                  If you need Arod to say something before you have an opinion it would seem your points or commentary would be better served by waiting but that doesn’t apply to anyone who has a problem with SR and SI.

                • pete says:

                  I don’t blame Roberts for doing her job, I blame MLB and the government for the ridiculous way this situation has been handled, and of course the public for its interest, which of course is what allows stories like this to become absurdly overblown debacles. The thing that sucks about this is that A-Rod was already so controversial and widely despised that now he will probably just become another bonds-esque scapegoat. It’d have been for the better if someone universially adored, like Jeter or Ortiz had been outed just because it would have made people realize that we really need to just move on and let what happened in the past remain in the past. I personally don’t care at all about a player’s character, because I don’t care about drama that doesn’t specifically occur on the field, but for people who for some reason view professional athletes as role models, let me just say something: yes, A-Rod (along with hundreds of other players) likely took steroids. He has also worked out 6 hours a day all offseason every year of his career, he probably takes about 200 swings a day in the cages, and he has spent countless hours perfecting a swing that maximizes power without sacrificing quickness. Not to mention the countless hours he spends working on his defense, his arm strength, and his flexibility. So yes, in a game of cheaters, he cheated. But he also worked harder than anybody (except possibly Roger Clemens) towards maximizing his otherworldly talent. But is taking a chemical supplement that furthers those effort really such an unforgivable sin? Why does A-Rod have to be such a saint? At least he was doing something that helps his team, not throwing his talent away like the now-beloved Josh Hamilton. Personally, I couldn’t give a crap about who did and didn’t take steroids. I just really wish I didn’t have to read about this shit for the next 10 years.

                • Zack says:

                  “The fact that a really exciting time in baseball is ruined by someone so greedy that she will do or say anything to make a buck is my problem. ”

                  ARod and others CHEATED, but its the reporter’s fault?
                  “do anything anything to make a buck” – kind of like taking illegal drugs to make a buck huh?

  10. Matt says:

    Just some baseball news to clear the murky air:

    http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/.....agree.html

    Howard gets 3 years, 54 million.

    • Artist formerly known as 'The' Steve says:

      Thanks, that’s like a tall glass of water right now.

    • Chris says:

      There’s a good chance that contract will look really bad by the end. Howard’s got that body type that generally doesn’t age well (see Mo Vaughn, Travis Hafner, and others), and his OPS+ the last 3 years has steadily declined: 167 to 144 to 124.

    • Mike Pop says:

      I think it is a good deal. Next year Howard would of asked for 22 and then the next he would of asked for 25, lol. Dude was going wild, just get it out of the way now.

  11. Pedro (from Brazil) says:

    I´m going to wait until all the true comes out to say he is guilty or not. And if this list is really protect by the Florida Court who broke the law?????? What about the others names???? Who are thoses sources??? A lot of things has to be aswer before anything.

  12. emac2@msn.com says:

    How can no one be pointing out that the SI/Torre firestorm was quickly replaced by SI finding “someone” to list the one person who Torre not only hates but who could move him to the back page after he finished the book tour?

    As for the media losers begging for Arod to come clean about the results of secret test done to determine the state of drug use in the league…Well, you’re a bunch of self serving, self rightous hacks.

    Most fans are sick of this being a topic at all and the rest are either biased or too stupid to know drugs have been a part of baseball since risking your health became worth money.

    Baseball tried to ruin the game with the witch hunt and now the media is trying to ruin the game for a few sensational stories by people trying to make their media careers by ruining others.

    Who cares?

  13. Artist formerly known as 'The' Steve says:

    There’s another element to A-Rod attempting to deny any of this. His own credibility with the public and the media, or lack thereof. He already has a rep for being phony contrived, his interviews with 60 Minutes and Katie Couric, the nickname that stuck to him like glue (A-Fraud).

    About the only thing anyone will believe is a full fledged confession, offering more info and more details than we already know. Then, a pledge to work with anti-doping programs followed up by years of unfailing attendance.

    It’s a long, long road back for Alex. One that I’m not sure he will commit to heading down. Knowing what we already know about him, and the fact that steroids are in and of themselves a “short cut”, I have my doubts.

    • emac2@msn.com says:

      Who cares what anyone believes?

      An admission just confirms guilt and a denial leaves us where we are.

      Silence on his part is the only answer even though that doesn’t do much.

      • Artist formerly known as 'The' Steve says:

        A-Rod cares, and should. His perception in the public will determine whether or not he gets into the HOF, whether his records are viewed as credible, his entire legacy as a ballplayer depends on whether or not he can wiggle out of this.

        You may not care, but he’ll need to. If not, he turns into Barry Bonds part 2.

        • emac2@msn.com says:

          Of course Arod cares.

          But the idea that he has any control of public opinion at this point is mistaken.

          All he can do is keep this on the front page longer if he talks about it.

  14. J-Boogie says:

    I think before anybody takes Roberts’ word as gold, they should remember the LA Times article from October 2006, that said Andy Pettitte and Roger Clemens appeared on the affidavit given by Jason Grimsely as having used PEDs. In that case, the Times reported that an “unnamed source” with a copy of the affidavit let them see it. A year later, the affidavit was unsealed and lo and behold, their names didn’t appear in it. Not to say that her sources are wrong, but it’s happened before.

    I don’t doubt A-Rod appears among the 104 names that tested positive. But I need something a little more concrete than the word of Roberts and her 4 sources. A comment from Alex would be a good start.

    • donttradecano says:

      some pieces on roberts:

      Roberts slurs duke lacrosse players again
      http://www.timeswatch.org/arti.....14135.aspx

      http://newsbusters.org/node/11973

    • Artist formerly known as 'The' Steve says:

      Excellent point, but that’s where multiple sources lend added credibility. One “unnamed source” is one person’s word, the four sources Selena Roberts has are much more likely to be accurate. A publication like SI wouldn’t want to go with this and risk their credibility unless they felt they had it nailed down completely.

      • J-Boogie says:

        I agree that having 4 sources makes it more credible, but still, it’s being taken at their word, so far as we know. The LA Times though supposedly viewed the actual affidavit, which for me would carry more weight than reporting what someone said without presenting physical evidence. I’m sure at the time, the LA Times thought they had their ducks in a row otherwise they wouldn’t have run with the story. Mistakes happen and people often hear what they want if it furthers their agenda. Not saying that’s happening here, but it’s not outside the realm of possibility. Roberts has shown before that she’s not exactly trying to be friends with Alex, in fact she almost appears to be constantly trying to bring him down, hence her upcoming book.

      • emac2@msn.com says:

        How are 4 of Torres friends any more reliabe than one of them?

        Especially when they aren’t named and may not even exist?

        Just becuase this person is a reporter doesn’t mean she is honest.

        I guarantee you I can get 4 people to make any statement I pay them to make and it wouldn’t cost more than $100

        • Zack says:

          we never went to the moon either. the govt paid them all $50k to pretend we did.
          Next time a guy is found guilty in court ill just assume the defendent paid the jury members $10k each

          • emac2@msn.com says:

            Wow – you consider 4 unnamed sourses quoted by someone trying to sell a book on the subject to be the same as court?

            It does explain your position here.

    • Currambayankees says:

      I must agree with you. Did he use roids or didn’t he? It wouldn’t surprise me either way. The thing the annoys me the most is that she only gets one name out of 104. wtf, I could care less if she was doing the article on one guy the minute she heard there are 103 other names then she must include those other names. To me whether ARod roids or not Selena looses crediability.

      • Artist formerly known as 'The' Steve says:

        She was doing a story on Alex, she’s not going to ask about every player in Baseball to do a story on Alex.

        • J-Boogie says:

          You’d think though that she’d pass the info off to one of her colleagues if more names could be made available by her sources. The reporter that gets their hands on the 104 names pretty much just made their career. Reporting on A-Rod is huge on its own. Adding 103 names on top of A-Rod’s would be Earth-shattering. i find it hard to believe she didn’t press her sources for more names, or have someone else do it. According to her in her interview with Costas, A-Rod is the only name she got. I find it all odd.

  15. Cory says:

    People also have to keep in mind that Selena Roberts is a writer who on multiple occasions accused the Duke Lacrosse team of being guilty, long before they went to trial, in a country that believes in innocence before proving guilty. As it turns out they were innocent, and I hope the same is true in this case.

    • The Honorable Congressman Mondesi says:

      Cory – I don’t mean to single you out, many people have made the comment I’m about to respond to…

      But can we please stop with the “innocent until proven guilty” thing? Yes, we all know that applies… In a court of law. Nobody’s saying A-Rod should be put in jail for anything without a trial, and in that hypothetical trial he would be considered innocent until proven guilty. But this isn’t a court of law.

      • Cory says:

        The Duke Lacrosse team was on trial and they were found innocent. Before this trial she accused them on many occasions of being guilty for the crimes in which they did not commit. I never said anything about Alex going to trial, I was simply bringing up the fact that Roberts has a history of accusing people of things they did not do.

        • The Honorable Congressman Mondesi says:

          Well no, you weren’t simply bringing up the fact that Roberts “has a history of accusing people of things they did not do.” You said people should keep in mind the fact that Roberts “accused the Duke Lacrosse team of being guilty, long before they went to trial, in a country that believes in innocence before proving guilty.” Which, in my opinion, means that you think she shouldn’t pass judgment because of the concept of “innocent before proven guilty.” And that’s wrong. She’s not a judge or a jury. Innocent before proven guilty is a legal concept, it has nothing to do with personal opinion.

      • Artist formerly known as 'The' Steve says:

        Yep. This is the court of public opinion.

    • Artist formerly known as 'The' Steve says:

      She did, but how does that apply here? Does that mean she misquoted people intentionally? Does that make the evidence seized by the Feds any less credible?

  16. dexcente says:

    “At some point in the future during the Bonds perjury trial, the entire list will be made public, and if A-Rod has any doubt about his name’s appearing on it, he can’t do this.”

    I’m curious as to why Ben and others believe the list of players who failed will become public as a result of its use in the Bonds trial. I don’t think that’s necessarily the case unless I’ve missed something. From what I’ve read, Bonds passed the 2003 test and his name was not on the list, but the feds seized his urine sample in 2004 and re-tested it and the re-test came back positive for steroids. In light of that, I don’t see what evidentiary weight a list of names that doesn’t include Bonds would have in his trial. If the re-test scenario is true, it also points out that the 2003 test may have “exonerated” others like Bonds who knew how to beat the test that MLB employed, so that 104 number is too low.

    It seems to me that singling out ARod (and Bonds and McGwire and Clemens) is a way for people who don’t like these guys to feel a bit of schadenfreude while not having to really accept what I think any reasonable person already knows: there were a ton of people doping, including guys on the team that you root for and including guys who otherwise seemed like good guys. I think this same motive of maintaining deniability was part of the reason the MLB investigation into steroids in baseball was transformed into an investigation into steroid in baseball in New York (Radomski and McNamee being the only guys threatened with subpoenas). It would probably be best from a closure perspective to just release the other 103 names and then move on.

    • Artist formerly known as 'The' Steve says:

      You’re right, the judge can keep parts and throw out others, depending on the needs of the Bonds’ perjury case. From what I understand, the Judge has already approved 5 of the 104 names, so while all of the names may or may not be leaked at some point, we know at least 5 of them will be. ESPN has already been alluding to this, saying “more names will be coming out”. Some of which we may already know, like Sheffield and Giambi.

  17. cheddar says:

    Greetings… First time, long time. Love the quality of the posts here. Please forgive me if this has been addressed already.

    I used to be a reporter, and I’m very curious about how Roberts went about her research. I know she was doing a book on A-Rod, but if I could speak with anyone who had access to that list, I would want to know as many names as possible that are on it. That would be the biggest story.

    So are we to believe that she asked these four “independent” sources only about A-Rod, and no one else? Or are we to believe that each of these sources chose to finger him specifically, and no one else?

    • Currambayankees says:

      Thank you, someone with some commen sense. I am not nor have I ever been a reporter but to me the bigger news is all the names not just one superstar even if he is Arod. From my point of veiw someone has an agenda and is pointing the finger at only one guy for a reason. I am not a big ARod supporter but this time I’m willing to give him the benefit of doubt until and if more concrete evidence then soeone whispered in my ear that he’s on a list and I verified with 4 other sources. What sources? Names please.

  18. Robert Akers says:

    Everyone that says he has to come out and admitt it should be ashamed of themselves. This is America innocent until proven guilty. And there is no proof but hearsay. That is not admittable in the court of law. All we have is a woman selling a book about ARod with 4 unamed sources and her word. What is credible about them? She did work for the times and right now I would be very hesatant to trust any reporter or source reporters now a days just arent trust worthy. Before anyone makes a decision on who is guily or not see it with your own eyes first. This country has already got enough problems because we have believed our news sources and our politicians without verifying the so called problems. What is the rush to judgment? Will it make things diffrent no. So before telling someone they have to come out and admitt something.P ut yourself in thier shoes what would you do. I sure wouldnt rush out and say anything just because people want me to. Just maybe I might be thinking why would I want to justify someone that is already out to make money and a name for herself with my name. Show me the proof show me the offical form and all the names on it not just one you are wrighting a book on and then I will pass judment.

    • Artist formerly known as 'The' Steve says:

      This is the court of public opinion, not a court of law. His reputation, not his freedom, is at stake here.

      • mtt says:

        This drum has definitely not been beaten enough. “Innocent until proven guilty” is reserved for a court of law because that’s the only place that has an official standard for “proven guilty.”
        I agree that there have been some reasons to doubt the credibility of journalists recently, but in the end, shouldn’t you hold their case to the same standard you propose for A-Rod’s? It seems equally irresponsible to accuse them of fabricating stories, or rushing to proclaim someone’s guilt.
        Also, in this particular case, one might make an argument that Roberts lived up to your standard; assuming she believed the 4 sources were trustworthy, the statement that A-Rod’s name appeared amongst a list of names of people who failed a steroid test comes pretty close to “proven guilty.”

        • Robert Akers says:

          So does this standard apply to you as well? When you are accused of something at your work place than I assume you are guilty and therefore basic civil rights has nothing to do with it. Please get off your high horse it applies in real life as well if you choose to go along with the E entertainment trash so be it. If ones reputation is so easily at stake then you I and evryonelse are in big trouble. And as for the reporters lets not forget they can go out and wright what ever they darn well please and if they are wrong oh well lets move on. Mean while the story is still out there and no one will even remember who started the whole mess. Also your statement that his name appears amongst a list of names is not even close to being guilty no one has seen it first hand we are bassing it on unnamed sources. By your standards of proven guilty any reporter can write what they want when they want and state they heard it from a source it was on the list. Presto they are guilty no investigative reporting just throw it out there and hope it sticks to the wall no matter what the consequences are. Sure her credibility will be questioned for a little while but everyone will forget her name but the same thing will not happen for ARod or any other big name everyone knows. Also consider this you I or anyone else that follows baseball closely will know the truth eventually. But the casual fan heres arod used steroids and will not bother to check on the story again and if he is innocent those people will not notice all they will remember is ARod used steroids! I would also dare say if this was you you would not want this standard to apply to you. Anyone that says yes is just plain lying to them selves.

      • Currambayankees says:

        This is about his reputation and if turns out to be a lie. What are you going to says then? His rep still took a hit. I don’t care whta court we’re talking about, I just want concrete evidence.

  19. Artist formerly known as 'The' Steve says:

    Andruw Jones going to the Rangers

    http://www.mlbtraderumors.com/.....-sign.html

  20. LiveFromNewYork says:

    five o’clock news: Alex Rodriguez may have done something bad.

    Yankee fans: well screw him I never liked him anyway. Let’s kill him and bury him! Screw him. But the season is over! Over! who can root for anyone now!

    update: It wasn’t Alex Rodriguez. Sorry.

    Yankee fans: too late! We buried him yesterday.

  21. adeel says:

    what motives did the 4 unnamed sources have? They are the ones that broke A LOT of laws to “allegedly” release this information; without any fame or financial gain. We like to think of journalists as “hard-core investigative”; but more often than not they are “led” by people with a chip on their shoulder to the truth. These type of stories dont come out about people unless they deeply hurt the other one. Maybe it is a group of people who hate the yankees; and the signing of CC/TEX was the straw that breaks the camel’s back.

    Regardless, “anonymous sources” are usually bitter people who feel “wronged” at a person/group. Why else would they have broken so many laws to get this story out?

    • Tom Zig says:

      I think I’m going to start quoting people anonymously about breaking the law. When the feds come, I’ll just say “Hey I’m a journalist, sorry guys, can’t help ya”

    • mtt says:

      I agree that this would be very interesting information , and it’s a shame that we’ll probably never find out.
      One would like to think that if someone truly believed in the purity of baseball, he would leak the entire list of names, rather than just one. It seems like the reprisal would be roughly the same whether 1 name or 104 names were leaked because either way the MLBPA would feel obligated to pursue legal action.

  22. UNION YES. says:

    Sensationalism: “Profit-driven news organizations are under great pressure to boost ratings by sensationalizing the news: focusing attention on lurid, highly emotional stories, often featuring a bizarre cast of characters and a gripping plot but devoid of significance to most people’s lives. From Tonya Harding to O.J. Simpson to Elian Gonzalez, major news outlets have become more and more dependent on these kind of tabloid soap operas to keep profits high. (Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting).

  23. Rich D says:

    Conflict of interest at the NYT? Never would have suspected it

  24. Tom Zig says:

    Do blogs get protection under the Journalist shield?

    • UNION YES. says:

      “…Amendments to the Free Flow of Information Act would expand the definition of those eligible for protection against divulging confidential sources. The bill will drop references to specific media and define journalists by their practices rather than their outlets (CNET).”

  25. David says:

    This is the same woman that destroyed the lives of the Duke Lacrosse players. We shouldn’t just be taking her at her word.

    • UNION YES. says:

      That’s fine. I’m only concerned with the words coming out of Alex’s mouth. Until then, feel free to take these reports with a grain of salt.

  26. The Honorable Congressman Mondesi says:

    To all the legal and journalism experts around here (excepting the actual, trained lawyers and journalists out there in RAB-land, of course):

    http://simplisticart.blogspot......ading.html

    • Joseph P. says:

      “I don’t believe I have the right to an opinion about something I know nothing about—constitutional law, for example, or sailing — a notion that puts me sadly out of step with a growing majority of my countrymen, many of whom may be unable to tell you anything at all about Islam, say, or socialism, or climate change, except that they hate it, are against it, don’t believe in it.”

      Beautiful.

  27. Joey H says:

    If Alex opens his mouth he is wrong, if he doesn’t open his mouth he is wrong. The guy just can’t win. But the coming days are the time to apologize and come clean about it all. You can gain some minimal respect back.

  28. Joey H says:

    Now I understand that secrecy of sources is an issue but it is at all going to be taken into consideration that this should have been destroyed and it was a general survey? And what the hell, His last name is Rodriguez so you go through 18 letters and you didn’t uncover another big name? I find that hard to believe.

    • TheLastClown says:

      I’ve been thinking about this whole “there were 103 other names” issue. We all know that SR was doing the SI piece on A-Rod, obviously doing her muck-rakingly best job to unearth anything that smelled like yesterdays hypodermics.

      Now, she finds out who was present in/around the “confidential” testing and starts to press them on AROD, no one else. Furthermore, these people would probably feel that they would incriminate themselves if they leaked more names. So she/they may have made a joint decision that if four sources leak A-Rod’s name only, then it would be difficult for people who have 4th amendment concerns to clearly discern who said what.

      This makes more sense to me than a coven of Anti-Rods conspiring in a dank cave sipping gin & jealousy & eating strips of dried, salted, Duke LaCrosse jerky.

      • emac2@msn.com says:

        You think she had to press these “sources” for the info on Arod?
        and they were unrelated sources???

        Unlikely.

  29. Rob S. says:

    The fact that this reporter has a book about A-Rod coming out completely changes this situation for me. It could be that she came upon this evidence (which apparently hasn’t been seen by anyone willing to be named) while researching for her book (by the way when did this supposed self destruction take place?). It could also be that this information has been fabricated in an attempt to sell books basically making no more credible than Jose Canseco. I have decided that until someone shows me an actual paper trail or is willing to confirm this information un-anonymously or A-Rod cops to it I am taking it with a heavy grain of salt.

  30. UNION YES. says:

    Pisses me off that A-Rod gets all this harrassment. The guy can’t catch a break. If there’s any way he can make himself look like the victim here and get a little pity, that would be some Grade A damage control.

  31. Dave says:

    I find it strange that milton bradley signed a 3 year 30 million deal and he is NEVER healthy and abreu who is consistently healthy is being forced to sign a 1 year and 3 million dollar deal. Abreu could very well be the better and more healthy player next year if history repeats itself. I am shocked that he is being forced to settle for that little money.

  32. thisisthedavid says:

    PPl are still talking about this?

  33. Januz says:

    I am sick of Rodriguez and his clown act.Drama after Drama, incident after incident, he is like TO. This case is NOT like Libby or Bonds, because Rodriguez’s liberty is not being threatened. If he does not end up in the Hall Of Fame so be it. there is no Constitutional Right to be in the Hall Of Fame. If he used steroids he is far worse than Michael Phillips, and he would never be elected if I had my way.

    • donttradecano says:

      another one of you?

    • UNION YES. says:

      Incident after incident? What else is there? Madonna, strip club, the divorce? That’s bs (the Boris thing was his fault though). Media sensationalism is to blame (I’m looking at you Post & Daily News especially). I don’t think you can blame him for being under the spotlight 24/7. It’s not like he goes out looking for trouble. Whatever he does, no matter how small, it’s magnified x1000000000. Plus, A-Rod is an easy target. He’s arrogant and somewhat insecure. He lacks some pretty important social skills, especially in his dealings with the media and his image. However, he’s not like TO. Not by a long shot.

      • skeleton coat says:

        This is the worst type of yellow journalism since the sinking of the USS Maine.

        Is this the only thing these hacks can muster? A book about A-Rod’s self-destruction? Seriously?

        One would think there would be more important aspects of baseball in which attention should be brought — namely Bud Selig’s overpriced salary, the economic crises affecting good players on the free agent market, or even high school and college players wondering whether or not they should relent from a potential career in the MLB.

        I mean, honestly: the world is falling apart at the seams because of the economic recession and this is the only thing these people can muster? More character assassination? More back-page gossip that should be relegated to stupid spineless shows like TMZ?

        It’s amazing how pathetic our lives must be if this is what writers use to drudge up readership and income. Is it that important if A-Rod did steroids or not anymore? Do we even care, or are we that hard up for a distraction from the real world that we attach ourselves to other people’s lives being destroyed?

  34. donttradecano says:

    espn sportsnation has a great question:

    if it guaranteed you a $250 million contract, like ARod, would you take performance enhancing drugs?

    63% say yes

  35. Babe's Ghost says:

    Personally, I’ve always disliked Selena Roberts. Mostly I couldn’t stand her tone, condescension mixed with moral superiority and a lack of, for want of a better word, charity toward other people, particularly anyone who is successful. Basically, she’s a hater and loves taking people down. I was thrilled when she left the NYT even though she got much more money to go to SI.com.

    Apart from her obnoxiousness, I thought she was waaay out of line in the Duke rape case. She was one the leaders of the media lynch mob. She was calling for those boys’ heads from the get go. She never let up, not when the stripper’s story started smelling fishy, not even after the prosecutor resigned, the case dropped and the boys exonerated. She basically made up her mind that they were white male athletes and hence, had to be guilty. In her crusade, she grossly overstated the strength of the prosecution’s evidence and uncritically parroted their arguments. Not to mention made several factual errors, i.e., said the team didn’t cooperate, when the overwhelming majority submitted DNA samples.

    Years later she still hasn’t admitted that she was wrong. Instead she says, “I think the intense response came from Duke-player supporters who felt threatened when someone, whether it was me or another columnist, started poking at the culture of affluence and entitlement… some segments of the Duke lacrosse crowd did not enjoy the scrutiny of their world.”

    After the Duke lacrosse fiasco I’ve pretty much turned to hating her. Arod, may well be guilty. But I’m not going to take her word for it.

  36. LB says:

    This whole thing just blows.

  37. [...] ARod-Gammons Interview .. Alex Rodriguez Admits Steroid Use (Video) » Celebrity Gossip Guide The Selena Roberts question | River Avenue Blues VIDEO: Alex Rodriguez admits steroid use | Daily Contributor With ARod, Nothing Is Ever Simple [...]

  38. Dave Ryan says:

    Selena Roberts wins!

Leave a Reply

You may use <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong> in your comment.

If this is your first time commenting on River Ave. Blues, please review the RAB Commenter Guidelines. Login for commenting features. Register for RAB.