Any of my long time readers would know that I think all the commotion over the steroids issue is silly. I’m not going to comment on the A-Rod situation because we don’t know the extent to which he took steroids, the effect on his game that they had, or much else about this whole situation.
There is no reason to release only the most famous and controversial name on a list of 104 players except for personal advancement. She’ll make a small portion of her career on this story. She is no better than your average paparazzi. There are 103 other professional baseball players that tested positive during a round of tests that were always intended to be kept private. Whomever disclosed the results of those tests to Roberts probably committed a crime.
Steroids made a major impact on baseball. They changed the game for a substantial period of time. Many players – logically more than the 104 who tested positive at this one particular instance in this one particular set of tests – used them. It is unfair for one player to bear the full burden of the witch hunt.
Related posts:
It is unfair, but I do not encourage the release of more names at this point. Why mess with even more people’s rights and liberties? (Although I’m just dying for one damn Red Sox name on the list). I agree that Roberts was doing A-Rod a major disservice by releasing only his name. She said she warned him and asked for a response, but what exactly could he have done. If he had denied it, would she have not run the story? I think not. As a reporter, I understand the obligation to your employer. But doesn’t she also have a human obligation to Rodriguez, to avoid having him bear the entire brunt of this?
This whole story stinks. I have a post ready to go about how this basically will end the Jeter-ARod debate among fans. How can I ever make a case for Alex again? The case for him was always that he was the more skilled player, but now that will always get brushed aside with the “He was juicing” thing. Aaaarggghhhh!!!
(Quote)
[Reply To This Comment]
Rob Abruzzese Reply:
February 8th, 2009 at 10:45 am
I feel like it’s unfair to say the things you said about the reporter. She was doing her job, that’s the bottom line. If she gets information like this and doesn’t report it then she is not doing her job. You were right, she does have an obligation to A-Rod and she fulfilled it by going to him first. She did the right thing. Obviously she isn’t going to not run the story based on what A-Rod says, but she gave him a chance to come out with his side first and he failed to do that.
She doesn’t have to protect Arod from himself, if he didn’t want this kind of heat he shouldn’t have taken steroids. He knew he was going to be tested in 2003 and he took steroids anyways.
Although people are right to question the legality of those people who leaked this information to a reporter. It is perfectly legal, and the right thing to do, for her to go public with the information once she has it though.
(Quote)
[Reply To This Comment]
Moshe Mandel Reply:
February 8th, 2009 at 12:49 pm
She does not have to protect A-Rod, but I think she was being unfair by releasing one name off the list. How is that not preposterous? She knows of a list of 104 names, but could only get one of them? Seriously? I bet she comes out with more names after the A-Rod angle has been sucked dry. If she does, that will make what she did here irresponsible.
(Quote)
[Reply To This Comment]
“Update: Roberts just said there are no other names of players in the upcoming magazine story. She said she uncovered this information while working on a profile/feature on Rodriguez. She noted, correctly, that depending on how the California court case works out, the other 103 names very well might be made public in the future anyway.”
http://yankees.lhblogs.com/2009/02/07/two-days-of-silence/
EJ, I guess you haven’t read LoHud today. She has no other names.
(Quote)
[Reply To This Comment]
If A-Rod were given a guarantee of avoiding all of this grief by going back in time and signing a smaller contract instead of that first mega-deal with Texas do you think he takes it? I don’t. A-Rod gets an inordinate amount of attention because he is the highest paid player in the game.I don’t think it’s fair, but it is what it is.
In the words of Biggie Smalls “More money more problems” and in the words of Uncle Ben “With great power comes great responsibility.”.
(Quote)
[Reply To This Comment]
Steve, then she shouldn’t publish information leaked illegally.
(Quote)
[Reply To This Comment]
Chris H. Reply:
February 8th, 2009 at 4:35 am
I disagree, EJ. Who cares if people blew the whistle? That doesn’t matter, does it? I agree that all the names should be made public, but what can be said about those who offer information for news reports? I know it’s wrong because the survey data should have been anonymous and should have never been released, but that’s the union’s fault for not destroying the data when it was collected back in 2003. I don’t think this would have been a story if that stuff was taken care of appropriately. I don’t know if I would blame those who told the story, especially if someone they spoke of was in the wrong. At the end of the day, A-Rod probably cheated and it was worthy of exposure.
(Quote)
[Reply To This Comment]
Jesse B Reply:
February 8th, 2009 at 10:35 am
I agree with EJ completely on this. The deliberate leaking of confidential information to target one particular person is partial and biased journalism (exactly what news shouldn’t be). Her sources had intimate knowledge of the list, including specific compounds, so having already violated their employers trust, why didn’t Ms. Roberts demand full disclosure? Yes, this news is shocking, but as EJ said, reporting on only the most “famous and controversial” name is essentially telling us readers that public scrutiny and culpability should be reserved for only those players that sell the most newspapers, whereas the other 99.04% of the list gets to remain anonymous. And I would have this same argument regardless of whose name or team was leaked. If you want to retrospectively punish players for actions 7+ years ago, you need to either target them all or none, but don’t selectively witch hunt.
(Quote)
[Reply To This Comment]
Chris,
The union may not be allowed to destroy the information, because of the BALCO investigation. The union members consented to a voluntary drug test with the assumption of strict privacy for those who took it. People have a right to privacy, and this was a major concession. Now some lab worker who thought it would be cool to leak an individual’s confidential and then hide behind a journalist has violated a single person’s privacy only because he is bigger than the other names.
If I were Rodriguez, I would immediately sue the lab, or whomever controls the results. Saying that this is the union’s fault is akin to saying that it is the bank’s fault that a teller steals from the bank.
(Quote)
[Reply To This Comment]
Chris H. Reply:
February 8th, 2009 at 2:45 pm
Hm, that may be the case with the BALCO investigation, but I’m not sure. I thought that the test results were supposed to be destroyed by the union after the findings were analyzed, years ago. Either way, I think it’s pretty lame, too and that the information should not have been “selectively” leaked, but even if all the names were leaked at once, A-Rod would end up in a similar position, unless a ton of greats are on there.
(Quote)
[Reply To This Comment]
Apparently she only tryed to get one name because she only cared about one name- she is writing a book about A-Rod.
(Quote)
[Reply To This Comment]
Jon Heyman writes about the situation with the Union, here.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/jon_heyman/02/08/rodriguez.union/index.html?eref=writers
It’s pretty interesting.
(Quote)
[Reply To This Comment]