Saturday, February 7, 2009

Selena Roberts Talks To Bob Costas

The MLB Network has been doing non-stop coverage of the A-Rod story since it broke this morning. I joined the party at about 12:45 and have been watching it ever since. Bob Costas just had about a 30-minute discussion with Selena Roberts, the journalist who co-authored the article that dropped a bomb on the baseball world this morning. Roberts didn't come off as the vindictive type. I thought she was very well versed and held her own on the subject, but something still seems a little off. I can't put my finger on it, but there's something there I'm not buying.

Costas had asked her if she dug up any other names. She didn't. The focal point of the story they were doing was Alex so they didn't pursue other names. I don't buy that. What article do you think would be a bigger story: A-Rod was busted, or these 104 people were busted? I would have to think it would be huge for any reporter to uncover more names. I find it hard to believe that they didn't push for more names. Costas also asked her about her sources, trying to get out of here who they were affiliated with? Were they players? Federal agents? She, of course, refused to mentioned who they were or who they were affiliated with. She said that she believed her sources and she wouldn't have run with the story if she hadn't, going as far as saying they did their due-diligence. So really, all she has, is the word of for 4 people. Now, I'm not calling the sources liars, but just because several people say something is true, doesn't necessarily mean that it is. Necessarily being the key word.

Roberts mentioned that she was the reporter who confronted Alex about the allegations in the University of Miami weight room. It came off that she was more inclined to believe her sources because A-Rod didn't come out and emphatically deny the allegations, instead referring her to the union. Isn't that what he's supposed to do? I would assume that would be the common response from anyone approached with this out of the blue. It came across to me that his refusal to answer was more an admission of guilt than anything else. I'm not feeling that.

It is important to note that she agreed that there is no evidence that suggests Alex did anything before or after 2003. That's not to say he didn't, but there's nothing there to support the belief that he did. Costas brought up a good point that there have been no major changes in Alex's stats from year to year. He's pretty much been consistent and has put up similar numbers year after year. Most of the other big names who have been linked to steroids in the past, namely Bonds, Sosa, and McGwire, all had pretty big changes in their statlines, which many feel is a link to steroid use. That's not the case with Alex.

Did anybody else catch the interview? I'm curious if I'm the only way drawing these conclusions. I'm not trying to make the case that the report is false and that Alex is clean. There are just a few, umm, oddities if you will, that make me think it's not 100% on the level. Curious to know others' thoughts.

Peace, love and Pinstripes,