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

The LA Times Could Not Be Reached For Comment

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

More On Selena Roberts

Just came across an interesting tidbit about SI's Selena Roberts. She's apparently the author of a soon-to-be released book called, "Hit And Run: The Many Lives of Alex Rodriguez." 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?

I don't know. I can't get it to add up in my head. I'm not sure what to believe and I really can't wait to hear what response comes from the Rodriguez camp. and here I though today would be a regular old Saturday.

Peace, love and Pinstripes,

J-Boogie

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,

J-Boogie

A-Rod Outed For Positive Roid Test

A bombshell was dropped on the world today. A-Rod apparently tested positive for steroids back in 2003. This report comes from Selena Roberts and David Epstein @ SI.com. According to the article, 4 sources, all of whom want to remain anonymous, allege that A-Rod's name appears on a list of 104 players who tested positive for steroid use back in 2003, when Alex was a member of the Texas Rangers. Boom.

The article also mentions that an SI reporter approached Alex in a Miami gym to discuss these allegations. A-Rod of course didn't answer their questions, saying, "You'll have to talk to the union. I'm not saying anything." I wonder what response the reporter thought he or she was going to get? Alex, as he should have, deflected the question and put it on the union. No athlete in their right mind would answer that question. Calls from SI to the MLB player's union director, Donald Fehr, were as you'd imagine, unreturned.

For starters, if true, it would be a little depressing that Alex used steroids. I always thought he was one of the clean ones. But, this doesn't make me like him any less. He hasn't tested positive as a member of the Yankees, and unfortunately, people are going to overlook that. He's been MVP twice since donning the Pinstripes, both campaigns done without the use of steroids, according to the random drug tests.

I also find it extremely odd that only 1 of the 104 names on the list was made public. I think the story would be much much huger had the crackerjack staff at SI uncovered all 104 names and made them public. This now just looks like a personal vendetta against A-Rod. As I was perusing through the comments at the blog post about this subject over at Pete Abraham's blog, I noticed some people started discussing one of the article's authors, Selena Roberts. They made mention that Roberts used to work for the NY Times and was pretty much there to stalk Rodriguez. This link is to an article of hers where she basically makes Alex out to be a slumlord. Roberts was also mentioned to be very outspoken when it came to the rape allegations that were made against the Duke lacrosse team. Sounds to me like Selena Roberts might not exactly be a reporter who is on the up-and-up and is looking more for the juicy story, which may or may not be written with all the facts. I don't know much about her or her work, but that's my first impression of her. And that's not to say I don't believer the A-Rod article. I just question the motives. Where are the other 103 names? This is definitely going to become a "Yankee" thing when in fact it's much bigger. 104 players represent a little less than 15% of the league. If anyone thinks their team is in the free-and-clear, they're sadly mistaken. It probably won't be long before other names start getting leaked.

According to this article written on MLB.com, back in April 2004, "agents seized data that could determine the identities of 104 Major League players who tested positive during the 2003 "survey testing" -- tests which were intended to remain strictly confidential, with names known only to the lab that conducted them. " The key words in that passage are "remain strictly confidential." It looks like that was thrown right out the window when these 4 sources opened up their yaps. I question what their motivation was for breaking the confidentiality agreement and why only one name was mentioned as being on the list. It's just a head scratcher and another reason why I question if all of this is on the up and up.

If you were to put me on the spot and ask me if I believe the article, I'd say yes. The game was definitely dirtier back then and I don't doubt that Alex was in fact mixed up in it. But, this has nothing to do with him being a Yankee. There are probably going to be hundreds of blog posts or news articles posted in the next few days/weeks that somehow spin an anti-Yankee yarn around this when in fact it's not. Sure, Alex plays for the Yankees now, but didn't back in 2003 and hasn't tested positive since joining the Yanks in 2004. I don't think anyone should jump all over him without mentioning that 103 others tested positive, several of which are probably high profile players, and coming from every roster in MLB. If the biggest name in the sport is on the list, odds are that many other big names are on there as well. 15% of the league is a lot of people. If you're a fan of another team and think your team is clean, I'd love to hear why.

I'm really curious to see what comes of this story in the coming weeks with Spring Training kicking off in less than a week. Between Joe Torre's book and this new A-Rod controversy, it's a pretty interesting time in the Yankee Universe. It'll get worse before it gets better.

Peace, love and Pinstripes,

J-Boogie

Moose With Mike Francesa

Hat tip to Sam Borden, who is holding down the fort at Pete Abraham's blog, for pointing out that Mike did a radio interview yesterday with WFAN's Mike Francesa. I didn't have time to check out the interview this morning but it's definitely on my list of things to do tonight. I'm sure the focal point of the interview will be about the comments Moose made about Mariano Rivera in Joe Torre and Tom Verducci's book, The Yankee Years. As I discussed a few entries ago, I don't think Moose was bashing Mo, which many people thought he was doing. It'll be interesting to hear what Moose has to say and I'll be back with my thoughts on the interview once I've given it a listen. If anyone has checked it out, I'd love to know your thoughts.

Peace, love and Pinstripes,

J-Boogie

The Boogie Down Book Club: The Yankee Years - Chapter 2 (Part 1)

I finally got to get back into Joe Torre and Tom Verducci's The Yankee Years, albeit not much more. I'm about halfway through chapter 2. Between catching up on TV shows, hanging out with my 17 month old, and trying to build my Diamond Mind Baseball team into a contender. I'm actually talking shop right now trying to trade Oliver Perez and a draft pick for either Matt Garza, Carlos Zambrano, or Dan Haren. Wish me luck. I mentioned in my last entry, I'm not a fan of long chapters and chapter 2 clocks in at about 44 pages, give or take (Jane- I'll definitely pick up your book at some point--I love me short chapters). I'm currently about halfway through chapter 2 and had to stop to talk trade. I'm not planning on picking it up again tonight so I'm splitting it up into 2 parts.

Chapter 2 focuses on what is arguably one of the best teams of all time, the 1998 Yankees. This is quickly becoming one of my favorite books and I haven't even gotten to the much-hyped "good stuff." One of my favorite books of all-time was Buster Olney's The Last Night Of The Yankee Dynasty. I love being able to read about the players and what goes on. The Yankee Years is taking it to a whole new level. I enjoyed reading about the meeting the team had in Seattle when they struggled out of the gate. I always knew David Cone was an integral part of the Yankees' success but I didn't know how much he was until I read the chapter. It's great getting such detailed insight from the guys that were involved with the team. I'm looking forward to reading more of the same as I get deeper into the book.

Perhaps my favorite part of the book so far was written on the last 2 pages I read, which were pages 59 and 60. Torre recounts his morning on the day of game 4 of the 1998 ALCS, when the Yankees were down 2 games to 1 to the Indians. He went to the hotel coffee shop for breakfast where he noticed a man with a shaved head busing tables and helping to serve the customers. He thought the man looked familiar and he was right. It was El Duque, who was scheduled to start that night's game! I read that and I couldn't help but laugh. I can't for the life of me picture walking into a hotel coffee shop and seeing a major league pitcher helping out, especially on the morning of his playoff start. Classic. You learn something new every day.

The trade talks have been tabled for the night and will resume tomorrow. I often drift off to sleep pondering deals that can be done. I wonder if big league GMs do the same??

Peace, love and Pinstripes,

J-Boogie

The Boogie Down Book Club: The Yankee Years - Chapter 1

I started reading Joe Torre and Tom Verducci's "The Yankee Years" tonight. I got thru the 1st chapter. Before I started, I looked at the table of contents to see how long the chapters were. The first chapter clocked in at 40 pages. Ugh. I prefer shorter chapters myself. I don't like putting down a book in the middle of a chapter. Something always comes up and it always seems to happen. Long chapters and I don't get along.

Some standouts of the chapter:

Pg. 11 - Torre is talking about honesty and how he won't lie to people, saying he's misled the media but has never knowingly lied to them. He's quoted as saying, "I may not have answered something directly or changed the subject and gone in a different direction, but I don't remember purposefully lying to somebody." As soon as I read that I immediately thought about the Larry King interview from the other day and thought to myself, "Joe's still go it." He's the master of the dodge.

Pg. 11 - By far my favorite quote of the book so far: "My one point to the players was they were never going to read something that they haven't heard from me, at least something significant. " I wonder if this book counts because from all the hype, it sounds like there's a lot of things in here the players will be reading that they didn't hear from him. I guess we'll find out.

The chapter then recaps the magical season that was 1996. I'll admit it. I got goosebumps reading the recaps of the World Series. Leyritz's HR. O'Neill running down Luis Polonia's gapper. The series-clinching foul out to Charlie Hayes. Awesome. Just awesome.

The rest of the chapter is pretty much a Derek Jeter love fest, which there isn't anything wrong with. He is the Captain and has been the face of the franchise since joining the Yankees.

So far it's a good read. Can't wait to get back into it tomorrow. But right now, it's time to watch me some Scrubs.

Peace, love and Pinstripes,

J-Boogie

The Yankee Years

If you got the book raise your hand. Or leave a comment, same thing. I went out and got my copy at lunch. Now if only I could figure out how to get out of work. I may "live blog" the book as I read it. Maybe like a chapter-by-chapter account of the book. Haven't decided yet.

Enjoy it. It sounds like a doozie.

Peace, love and Pinstripes,

J-Boogie

Joe Torre On Larry King

Just got done watching Joe Torre's interview on Larry King Live and all I have to say is man, Larry King looks a lot like a gargoyle. He's one creepy dude. As for the interview itself, I didn't get much out of it. I thought Joe did his best to answer the questions he was being asked without even answering them, specifically about breaking the clubhouse code. It also seemed like every question Larry asked was met with a somewhat contradicting response. Basically, not much came from the interview. Torre's main point was that we have to read the book to fully understand it and to get what he's trying to say. His goal in writing the book was to talk about his years with the Yankees, both the good and the bad. I can appreciate that and am still reserving judgement for when I actually read the book. I don't think this interview did anything to help Torre. If anything it hurt him a little bit but that's more the fault of CNN for not hammering him with tougher questions about people's perception of what's in the book. But that's Larry King for you. He may look like the thing from Tales From The Crypt, but he's far from scary.

Peace, love and Pinstripes,

J-Boogie