Posts
I just want to remind those of you who are assuming that the SI.com report about A-Rod testing positive for steroids in 2003 is true, of one thing:
Back on October 1, 2006, the LA Times ran a story that Andy Pettitte and Roger Clemens were named in an affidavit given by Jason Grimsley as having used performance enhancing drugs. That story was based on a source with access to an unredacted affidavit. The story is no longer on their website but here's a link to the article written on ESPN.com that mentions it.
Back on December 21, 2007, the LA Times ran a correction to their story because as it turned out, neither Pettitte or Clemens were named in the affidavit. If you want to refresh your memory, here's a link to an article on ESPN.com that mentions that.
So, I don't think anyone can automatically say A-Rod is guilty of anything. The press, as evidenced by the example above, don't always get it right and sometimes their sources are wrong. It's not out of the realm of possibility. If it happened once, it can happen again. I've been thinking about this a lot today and I still can't get it to add up. I understand that no reporter would attach their name to a story if they didn't think their info was rock solid. But it doesn't make sense why someone looking to do a profile on Alex for SI, as Selena Roberts said she was doing in her Costas interview today, would find themselves getting leaked information about drug tests from 2003. What possibly led her to her sources in trying to find out if Alex was listed on the list? I also find it odd that she was only looking for 1 name and disregarded the other 103. Her sources must have knowledge of those names too, right? This could have been a much bigger story and she left it all on the table. That seems really odd to me.
I really can't wait to hear what Alex's response is. This will get a lot easier to digest once he releases what I'm sure will be an extremely calculated and well thought out response. Until I hear from A-Rod, or see some other kind of evidence that validates the SI story, I'm not sure what to think. I still think at the end of the day it's going to end up being true but right now the fan in me wants to, and will, give Alex the benefit of the doubt.
Peace, love and Pinstripes,
J-Boogie
Sunday, February 8, 2009
The LA Times Could Not Be Reached For Comment
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
10 comments:
You are right, but there are 4 sources that are supposed to be independent of each other. In the other case there was only 1.
You're still right, just this situation is a bit different.
n the case of the LA Times, from what I remember and read in the ESPN article, the source actually let the paper see the affidavit and thats what they based their article on. For me that would carry a lot more weight than the 4 word of 4 people, whether their independent from each other or not. The ESPN article also mentions a second source with knowledge of the document gave the LA Times additional details.
Either way, I'm just holding on to whatever I can as a little beacon of hope that it turns out to be false. I had the same reservations at first about The Mitchell Report and that of course all ended up being true and I fear the same here.
Good stuff, man. I've thrown you into my RSS reader and I'll be checking you out in the future.
I had my own take on this mess at http://www.feenwager.com
I don't know if he can come up with an ingenious enough response to wipe this all away but I sure hope he explains himself. Enough is enough with the steroid talk. I want this thing to end. Baseball can't get a worse rep right now.
V- I definitely hear what you're saying. Spring Training is a week away and rather than talking about how cool it'll be to CC, Mark, and AJ, we're treated to this.
the only way this all goes away is if the other 103 names on this report are made public. Get it over with once and for all. Unfortunately when that happens, and it will, whatever rep baseball has left is going to get torn to shreds. My main beef there is why doesn't anybody care this much about steroid use in the NFL?
I have a theory that A-Rod's ex-wife tipped off Selena Roberts. A woman scorned and all that.
She-fan - that's an interesting theory and certainly plausible, even if just a little bit. Hmmm.
Dawg,
Clemens and Pettitte were eventually outed and found to have used them..
How we all find out or who reports it is of little consequence to me as a fan..
Andy sat in front of everybody last year and "came clean" and said he used HGH before-
And Clemens is as guilty as can be...
The press and the media covering these athletes are also to blame- a little group of get alongs who wanted to be chummy with players-
Turned their eyes to journalism and investigative reporting.. And don't get me started with the owners and the union.
They are all to blame for the mess they find themselves in-
And if they are coming along after the fact trying to right wrongs or to dig up dirt- it's a little late, but no player should be given a pass...
Jose Canseco was blackballed and ridiculed by reporters, players, owners, union.
He's the only one who's been telling the truth..
I believe the steroids and HGH use was the rule, not the exception.
I hope you are right my man! http://www.fanzak.com/Cheater
i agree with dave about the media.....the only thing worse than political punditry and opiners is the sports punditry (TV, talk radio, Newspapers)....they feel like their job is the most important thing and always write and talk in terms as if they had a history of either playing, coaching or working in upper management, when in actuality they are 90 pound nerds with a degree in journalism.....the guys in highschool that wanted to be a athlete but couldnt...and wanted to hang out with the athletes, but couldnt.....that goes for you joel (i have to make the story about me somehow) sherman, especially you
Post a Comment