I have written about this topic a number of times, so I am just going to pull out what I wrote when A-Rod came clean and give it a bit of an update:
YesterdayToday we learned that A-Rod tested positive for anabolic steroids in 2003 Mark McGwire took steroids for the bulk of his career. Today Tonight, the media vultures are out, picking at the bones of the player that they had previously trumpeted as the great clean hope. Buster Olney Jon Heyman believes Alex McGwire to be tarnished forever, and luminaries such as John Kruk, Tom Verducci, and Bill Madden feel that he should never be allowed into the Hall of Fame. Once again, the sanctimonious media is telling the masses that we should be livid, shouting their righteous indignation from the rooftops over the fact that they were, gasp, lied to by another superstar.
The hand wringing in the media is designed to distract us from one simple fact that the Olney’s and Verducci’s of the world desperately want us to ignore. Those guys were in the Yankee clubhouse in the late 90’s all the time. They criticize GM’s for not knowing what was going on in terms of baseball’s drug culture, yet they spent more time around these players than anyone but the managers and trainers. How did they miss what was going on?
The answer is quite simple, and is so damning as to pretty much disqualify any moral haranguing that you read from any reporter who worked during that era. They did not miss it, they just chose to ignore it. Home runs were good for the game that they cover and love, and they did not want to be whistle blowers. Whistle blowers are left on the outside looking in at all the fun, and the media members loved being insiders, loved being in on the grand party that was major league baseball at the turn of the century. Why turn Mark McGwire in when it will cost you his trust and your access to other players? So they just turned the other way while the players flaunted their use. In 1998, when someone asked McGwire about the andro in his locker, the writers skewered him for digging into someone else’s business. Now those same writers applaud when one of their colleagues procures sealed evidence of a supposedly anonymous drug test. The double standard and disingenuous nature of their actions make their moral proclamations “in the defense of the game” seem ridiculous. Suddenly you find it vitally important to defend the game? Where was that moral imperative as the players were bulking up around you?
Hypocrisy is the name of the game when it comes to the steroid story. It has become difficult to read anything on the issue with a straight face, as writers have the audacity to suddenly decide that they are the protectors of the moral fabric of baseball after letting the issue stay untouched for many years. Ultimately, the writers are just as culpable in creating the steroids morass that has engulfed the sport as anyone else. They only took heed once players like Canseco and Caminiti forced the issue out into the open. They want McGwire to apologize their way, according to their script, for “duping” them for years, yet they were never actually duped at all. They closed their eyes, put their fingers in their ears, and cheered McGwire, while vilifying the writer who wrote the initial story about “andro.” Spare me the moral indignation from the sports writers. They are bemoaning the very situation that they helped create.
From Bruce Jenkins:
At the height of Barry Bonds’ pursuit of the home-run records, Duane Kuiper and Mike Krukow made lively, enthusiastic calls on the Giants’ network. They always loved Bonds as a ballplayer. They knew that whatever the extent of his plunge into steroids, it didn’t tarnish his reputation as one of the greatest and most entertaining hitters of all time. Most of the Giants’ fans knew this, as well, and they cheered their hearts out whenever he went deep. Kuiper’s home-run calls, in particular, go down with the most inspiring of modern-day broadcasting.
It seems this didn’t go over too well in other cities. Kay, who anchors the Yankees’ telecasts, ripped Krukow and Kuiper in a public forum for getting so excited over a steroid guy. Steiner, part of the Dodgers’ radio team, made some equally rude comments (off the air), establishing himself as a real high-and-mighty beacon of integrity.
Except it doesn’t work that way. Alex Rodriguez opened the season in disgrace after the steroid-related embarrassment of spring training, but that didn’t stop Kay from going nuts when A-Rod slugged his first home run. Presto — instant hypocrite!
I am throughly unsurprised that a member of the media would be hypocritical regarding this issue. Many writers and other media types have done this dance before, ripping players when it was convenient while lionizing them when that was the more profitable course of action. Here is what I wrote on the issue in February:
The hand wringing in the media is designed to distract us from one simple fact that the Olney’s and Verducci’s of the world desperately want us to ignore. Those guys were in the Yankee clubhouse in the late 90’s all the time. They criticize GM’s for not knowing what was going on in terms of baseball’s drug culture, yet they spent more time around these players than anyone but the managers and trainers. How did they miss what was going on?
The answer is quite simple, and is so damning as to pretty much disqualify any moral haranguing that you read from any reporter who worked during that era. They did not miss it, they just chose to ignore it. Home runs were good for the game that they cover and love, and they did not want to be whistle blowers. Whistle blowers are left on the outside looking in at all the fun, and the media members loved being insiders, loved being in on the grand party that was major league baseball at the turn of the century. Why turn Mark McGwire in when it will cost you his trust and your access to other players? So they just turned the other way while the players flaunted their use. In 1998, when someone asked McGwire about the andro in his locker, the writers skewered him for digging into someone else’s business. Now those same writers applaud when one of their colleagues procures sealed evidence of a supposedly anonymous drug test. The double standard and disingenuous nature of their actions make their moral proclamations “in the defense of the game” seem ridiculous. Suddenly you find it vitally important to defend the game? Where was that moral imperative as the players were bulking up around you?
Ultimately, the writers are just as culpable in creating the steroids morass that has engulfed the sport as anyone else. They only took heed once players like Canseco and Caminiti forced the issue out into the open. So spare me the moral indignation from the sports writers, as they are bemoaning the very situation that they helped create.
Hypocrisy is the name of the game when it comes to the steroid story. It has become difficult to read anything on the issue with a straight face, as writers have the audacity to suddenly decide that they are the protectors of the moral fabric of baseball after letting the issue stay untouched for many years. Michael Kay should be making dramatic home run calls when Alex hits one out, as that is his job. However, he needs to realize that he cannot separate announcer Kay from talk show host Kay, and needs to be consistent from one role to the next. Otherwise, he is no better than those that he criticizes.
Late last week, I brought up Buster Olney’s article on A-Rod’s struggles and the possible link to steroids. In the comments, I noted the following:
There is no reason to assume Alex just went off steroids. Either he went off in 2003, or he is still on some undetectable stuff. Why not treat a slump like a slump? They had no such questions when he started off with three hot weeks. Did he go off steroids 3 weeks ago?
In his chat earlier today, Buster was called out on his story and tried to defend himself:
Alfredo (New York City): You wrote a recent article citing scouts that claimed A-Rod was declining rapidly. Shortly afterward, he got two days of rest and has been on a tear ever since. Perhaps reports of his long-term decline are premature?
Buster Olney: Alfredo: I did not write that he was declining rapidly. What I wrote was that as A-Rod struggled, a question that was being asked increasingly was whether he is going to be a lesser player since he presumably doesn’t use steroids any more. As I wrote in the piece, his struggles might have been based on his hip surgery, or it might be a combination of all of the above; nobody can know the answer to that. He has looked much better over the last five days, no question about it — but that doesn’t change the fact that the question of how much steroids aided him as a player is not going to go away during the last 8 1/2 years of his contract.
All I wanted to note here is the classic media deflection technique that Buster uses. Instead of asking the question himself, he pushes these doubts and thoughts onto nameless scouts and sources, so as not to besmirch his own reputation should his story prove groundless. Writers do this all the time, so as to maintain distance from any sort of critical opinion. They do so because they need deniability when the player accuses them of a hatchet job and is loathe to work with them on a subsequent story. A perfect example was the Raul Ibanez situation that blew up a few weeks ago. A blogger mentioned that you cannot rule out steroids as the source of a surge in performance in this era. A newspaper writer picked up on the story, and used the blogger’s words to bring the issue into the limelight. Predictably, the blogger received the brunt of the criticism while the writer escaped with only minimal damage. The writer was able to bring up steroids regarding Ibanez without actually voicing that opinion, leaving his relationship with Raul intact. It is a dirty trick, and hopefully most readers can see right through it.
Another interesting issue brought up in Buster’s chat:
Anthony (NYC): Larry Lucchino at a apperance in a baseball musuem commented that all the yankee gear on display was from so long ago obviously taking a shot at the yanks not winning it all since 2000 and couple that with John Henry twitter updates taking shot at tex and co are the red sox getting a little too confident in your opinion? i guess they have confidence now that Big Stein is out of commision.
Buster Olney: Anthony — personally, I think all that stuff was cheesy and classless. I thought it was when Steinbrenner was doing it, and I think it is now when the Red Sox are doing it.
I totally agree. I wonder what the reaction would be like if Hank did the kind of stuff Henry has been doing lately?
Prior to a Yankees-Red Sox series, I typically click through the Boston tabloids to read what they are saying about the Yankees and the upcoming series. Gerry Callahan’s article caught my eye this morning, and I think that it is indicative of a huge difference between the media in New York and the writers in Boston:
There was nothing particularly savvy or skillful about it, of course. They were dealing with Scott Boras, so they knew that honor and integrity would play no part in the process.
Just money. Lots and lots of money.
In other words, it was a New York Yankees kind of deal right from the start, a chance for them to buy the biggest house on the block and act like they built it with their bare hands.
Yankees general manager Brian Cashman didn’t even have to travel to Mark Teixiera’s home to grovel. All he had to do was sit back, checkbook in hand, and let Boras do his thing. In the end, the slimy superagent did not let him down.
Boras used the Orioles and Nationals and Angels until he used them up, as Bill Withers would say, and then he played your Boston Red Sox like they were his new Guitar Hero game. The Sox desperately wanted to bring Teixeira to Boston, and for a while, actually thought they had a shot at the switch-hitting first baseman. Even though they already had a pretty good first baseman and third baseman, the Sox didn’t try to hide their affection for the best free agent on the market. They pounced on Teixeira like Brian Williams on Barack Obama. They made a bold offer of about $170 million over eight years.
Well, at least, Theo Epstein thought it was an offer. In truth, it was a signal from Boras to Cashman, who might as well have been sitting outside in a white van. Their scheme was coming together. Those rubes up in Boston played their part and drove up the price. Now it was time for the Yanks to pony up and close the deal.
Cashman did as he was told. He topped the Sox by a sizable margin. Final number: $180 million over eight years with a full no-trade clause.
To be quite honest, this piece of drivel really deserves to be torn apart FJM style, but I think its idiocy is plain and needs little explanation on my part. This idea that the Yankees and Boras had an evil plan to screw over the Sox is laughable. Boras and Cashman were never working together, a suggestion so ridiculous considering everything we know about the superagent. Cashman outmaneuvered Theo, staying out of the limelight while asking Boras to inform him of Boston’s final offer. This is no different than any free agent signing in the history of baseball, where the team that offered the most money got their man, and the team that offered a lesser amount went home to cry about evil agents. The fact is, Boston valued Teixeira at 170 million, and the Yankees valued him higher and therefore was willing to pay more. This is not rocket science, nor is it the product of some diabolical scheme. It is free agency.
So what does this have to do with the media? Callahan is parroting the company line out in Boston, as his article could have been penned by Larry Lucchino or Theo Epstein. The Boston media generally serves as a propaganda arm of the Red Sox front office, hyping players when the team wants their value to go up, and ripping players that the club wants public opinion to turn against. When the team decided not to pay for Pedro Martinez and Derek Lowe following the club’s first championship in 86 years, the Boston media took the angle that the players were being greedy, were too injury prone, and were not good teammates. When the front office decided that it was time for Manny to go, we saw the Manny being Manny articles turn into “Manny is a destructive force” type articles. The media in New York is not nearly as forgiving, and is less prone to swallowing the company line and then regurgitating it for a column. While this may make for a more depressing morning paper, at least it is honest.
When reading through Bob Klapisch’s article on yesterday’s stinker in Baltimore, I noticed one passage that made me consider the role of the media in creating an atmosphere of pressure for players in NY:
Sabathia is no dummy: He knows that with $163 million in his pocket, the old way of doing business no longer applies. From now on, Sabathia’s every performance will be consumed by greater New York’s collective consciousness — analyzed down to the pitch. Chances are, the new Yankee ace will end up with 18 or so wins, and everyone will forget his bleak opening performance. But for the next four days, Sabathia’s image bank will be filled by memories of an old-fashioned stomping at the hands of the lowly Orioles.
The pressure of playing in NY does not come directly through the fans. It comes from the media, who over-analyze things like the first start in a season and try to import meaning where there is none. Essentially, the media creates the greater pressure and then references it as if it was something other than a media construct.
Like it or not, the local media has a major impact on the thoughts of the casual fan. If Klapisch’s article was written in the tone of “it is only one game,” and Francesa opened with that on the radio today, the fans would be a lot tamer than they would be otherwise. However, that is not the job of a columnist or a shock jock. They are supposed to foment anger, as it results in more readers and more listeners. So they create pressure, which may actually lead to weaker performances, at which point they detach themselves from the situation that they have created and write about it as if New York had some sort of natural pressure that causes players to freeze. The writers are just doing their jobs, but it would be nice if one of them ever noted that they contribute mightily to the “Playing in NY is different” mentality.
At some point yesterday, Alex Rodriguez made comments about the excitement that Jose Reyes brings to the playing field. Depending on which blog or newspaper you get your news from, you might have been treated to one of two fairly different stories.
Peter Abraham, Lohud Yankees Blog:
Alex Rodriguez told reporters in Jupiter today that he wished Jose Reyes played for the Yankees. Uh-oh.
He later then sent word through a team PR man that his comments shouldn’t be taken as a shot at Derek Jeter. But of course it’ll still be seen that way.
It’s truly amazing the fixes this guys gets himself into. It really is.
UPDATE, 5:31 p.m: Here is what A-Rod said: “I wish (Reyes) was leading off on our team or playing on our team. That’s fun to watch.”
Jose Reyes is a terrific player and it may have been an innocent comment. But given Alex’s history with Jeter, he should have found a different way to say something nice about Reyes. It just doesn’t make sense.
Whoa, seems like a controversy. Well, not so fast, says Jack Curry of the NY Times:
After Alex Rodriguez watched his Dominican Republic teammate José Reyes make two smart base-running plays in Tuesday’s exhibition game against the Marlins, he gushed: “I wish he was leading off on our team or playing on our team. That’s fun to watch.”
The remark seemed harmless, a throwaway line, the third baseman for the Yankees complimenting the shortstop for the Mets. But apparently fearing a headline like, “A-Rod Tells Yankees to Acquire Reyes,” Rodriguez later said, through a spokesman, that his remarks were not intended as criticism of Derek Jeter, the Yankees’ shortstop and captain.
Rodriguez and Jeter have played alongside each other in the Yankees’ infield for the last five seasons. The two players were close friends early in their careers, but that relationship has cooled.
Still, on Tuesday, Rodriguez seemed guilty of nothing more than trying to be gracious toward Reyes.
These are similar reports that have entirely different tones. One is reporting what happened and dismissing it as a non issue, while the other looks at it as another example of “that stupid A-Rod.” I guarantee that people who got the story from Pete first have an entirely different perception of Alex’s comments than those who read about it elsewhere. Reporters help shape our perceptions of players and the sport, and they should try to be a bit more responsible in conveying information to their readers. Otherwise, total throwaway lines that hold absolutely no meaning can be turned into hours and hours of debate and mindless talk radio drivel.
This is an issue that I have been harping upon for a while, and now I find out that Curt Schilling agrees with me. I feel a bit nauseous:
During the 2001 season, in the clubhouse, Pedro [Gomez] and I got into a shouting match about players and steroids. In the middle of the discussion he uttered this statement:
“I personally know of at least three, and more likely four guys on this team that are using steroids.”
Whoa… What?
I asked him how the hell he could “know” that. He said he knew, “people” had told him. I asked him what “people.” He said, “People.” I pushed and asked, “Players?” He said, “Let’s just leave it at people.”
I often times thought of sharing this story with someone from the media just to call Pedro out and see if he denied ever saying what he said to me. In the end it wasn’t worth the time or the effort.
But now this man is going to act as if he was a ‘victim’ of the same thing we all were? Worse yet, so many of these writers and media members are standing on the tallest mountain shouting to anyone who will listen how wrong all of this is, how bad all of it is, and how dare we players sat by idly and did nothing.
These men were privy to the same scenes we were on a daily basis. They saw us dress, and undress, they rolled their eyes the very same way many players did at the guy who ‘worked his ass off’ when he’d really ‘worked his ass on’ and put on astronomical muscle mass in 4 short months.
They saw hitters go from 18 to 40 home runs, pitchers go from 88 to 90mph, to 95-97mph yet we’re the ones who put our heads in the sand? Weren’t these the men and women with the power of the pen?
But please spare me the daily media insistence on lambasting anyone and everyone in the game for this PED nightmare, while at the same time giving a free pass to journalists. It’s as if they are standing on the sideline looking out on the field and saying, “Wow, I can’t believe what you guys have done to the game.”
There are some who bear every bit as much accountability in this as the innocent players who ‘didn’t speak out’ and ‘turn over’ on their teammates and fellow players.
Curt frames the issue perfectly. The media is just as much at fault as the clean players who kept their teammates’ secrets, and they should either ‘fess up or keep quiet.
Yesterday we learned that A-Rod tested positive for anabolic steroids in 2003. Today, the media vultures are out, picking at the bones of the player that they had previously trumpeted as the great clean hope. Buster Olney believes Alex to be tarnished forever, and luminaries such as John Kruk, Tom Verducci, and Bill Madden feel that he should never be allowed into the Hall of Fame. Once again, the sanctimonious media is telling the masses that we should be livid, shouting their righteous indignation from the rooftops over the fact that they were, gasp, lied to by another superstar.
The hand wringing in the media is designed to distract us from one simple fact that the Olney’s and Verducci’s of the world desperately want us to ignore. Those guys were in the Yankee clubhouse in the late 90’s all the time. They criticize GM’s for not knowing what was going on in terms of baseball’s drug culture, yet they spent more time around these players than anyone but the managers and trainers. How did they miss what was going on?
The answer is quite simple, and is so damning as to pretty much disqualify any moral haranguing that you read from any reporter who worked during that era. They did not miss it, they just chose to ignore it. Home runs were good for the game that they cover and love, and they did not want to be whistle blowers. Whistle blowers are left on the outside looking in at all the fun, and the media members loved being insiders, loved being in on the grand party that was major league baseball at the turn of the century. Why turn Mark McGwire in when it will cost you his trust and your access to other players? So they just turned the other way while the players flaunted their use. In 1998, when someone asked McGwire about the andro in his locker, the writers skewered him for digging into someone else’s business. Now those same writers applaud when one of their colleagues procures sealed evidence of a supposedly anonymous drug test. The double standard and disingenuous nature of their actions make their moral proclamations “in the defense of the game” seem ridiculous. Suddenly you find it vitally important to defend the game? Where was that moral imperative as the players were bulking up around you?
Ultimately, the writers are just as culpable in creating the steroids morass that has engulfed the sport as anyone else. They only took heed once players like Canseco and Caminiti forced the issue out into the open. So spare me the moral indignation from the sports writers, as they are bemoaning the very situation that they helped create.
