Questions For Selena Roberts

My head is still spinning over the bombshell that was dropped yesterday. I'm still having trouble getting it all to add up. I have way too many questions to buy this story 100%. Right now, even though I still believe that the story is likely true, I have my doubts. If I were on a jury and was asked to decide whether or not A-Rod is guilty of PED use based on the "evidence" I've been presented, I'd have to acquit him on all charges because I do have some doubts. The court of public opinion may have already convicted him, but I haven't. Not yet anyway. Perhaps when Alex releases his statement on the matter it'll clear things up, but I doubt it. I'm anticipating a non-committal response. He won't acknowledge use of PEDs or deny it. I'm expecting him to say something along the line of, "I am not aware of any positive test result from any time in my career. I do not have enough information to respond to the allegations and will issue a more detailed response when my attorneys and I have sufficient time to review things. Or something like that. He won't say he used. He won't say he didn't. Doing that will only make things worse for him. Hopefully, we hear something soon.

I went over to SI.com tonight just to see if maybe there was some news today I missed. I came across a Q&A that SI did with Selena Roberts, the journalist who broke the story. The Q&A did nothing to answer the questions that I have about this whole thing. Here is an excerpt from the Q&A:

SI.com: One hundred four players tested positive for steroids in the survey testing of 2003. Alex Rodriguez is now the only known name among those 104 players, leading to some speculation that he was somehow "singled out." Can you explain why we know only of his inclusion on the list?

Roberts: David Epstein and I were working on a profile of Alex -- he was a staple of the news this past year, whether because of Madonna or his broken marriage or the Yankees' dive in the '08 standings -- when we began hearing rumors about steroid use. You hear a lot of things in this business, so we went about our due diligence in nailing down the truth: Was this rumor or real? In a meticulous process, we verified and re-verified our information, because this is a human being here, so you absolutely do not want to be wrong. We made a decision to confront Alex with the evidence we had regarding his positive test, and give him a chance to explain. He chose not to.

I am going to break down that response and ask the questions I've been asking myself since I saw her interview yesterday with Bob Costas on the MLB Network.

• "David Epstein and I were working on a profile of Alex -- when we began hearing rumors about steroid use." What were the rumors and where did you hear them?
• "You hear a lot of things in this business, so we went about our due diligence in nailing down the truth: Was this rumor or real?" Define due diligence. What did you do exactly to determine the rumors were true?
• "In a meticulous process, we verified and re-verified our information." Can you please outline the process that you took to verify and re-verify the info? Being that it was "meticulous", I'm sure it would be extremely detailed and involved.
• "We made a decision to confront Alex with the evidence we had regarding his positive test." What evidence? All that's been mentioned so far is that your sources say he's on a list. Is that considered evidence? The term evidence implies something physical yet all I've seen mentioned is the word of your sources, which can be seen as hearsay. Hearsay by definition is unverified, unofficial information gained or acquired from another and not part of one's knowledge. In most cases, hearsay isn't admissible in a court of law. So if you're trying to convict Alex in the court of public opinion, what evidence do you have other than the word of 4 people?

Here is another part of the same Q&A:

SI.com: Your story presents facts regarding Rodriguez's drug use only in regards to a 2003 test. The 2003 season was the first season in which MLB had any kind of drug testing. What is the likelihood that Rodriguez suddenly decided to use steroids for the first time precisely when baseball started testing for them? And did you find any other evidence of PED use by Rodriguez?

Roberts: We have no hard evidence about any year other than 2003. Certainly, you wonder why Orza would tip a clean player about an upcoming test in 2004, but whether this was a one-time thing is probably best for Alex to answer if he chooses to clear the air.

"We have no hard evidence about any year other than 2003." So do you have hard evidence? Why haven't you mentioned what that is? 4 people telling you something is true isn't "hard evidence." Not in my book anyway. Hard evidence would be the list of the 104 players that tested positive. Do you have that? If so, where are the other 103 names? Do you have a failed drug test with Alex's name on it? What evidence do you have that hasn't been mentioned? Inquiring minds want to know. I'm just seeking the facts and you really haven't presented any.

Those are pretty legitimate questions, wouldn't you say? I find it odd that she hasn't presented her case in more detail. There was mention that an article was going to be in this week's Sports Illustrated and I wonder if there is going to be anything in there that hasn't been mentioned already. I looked around SI's site for her e-mail address so I could pose these questions to her directly, but my search came up empty. I'll spend a little more time looking for it tomorrow because I'd really like to know the answers to my questions. Perhaps we'll get a statement from A-Rod in the next day or so and that may clear some things up. But again, right now, I can't get this to add up and I'm just trying to understand how they can take the word of 4 people and present it as the truth. I understand that 4 sources in the reporting world is a lot, but she hasn't made me buy what she's selling with what she's presented to me. There has to be more to the story.

Peace, love and Pinstripes,

J-Boogie