ESPN = Drama

[warrior_jr]

I understand its a big deal, and it deserves coverage.  The guy has had 35+ HRs and 100+ RBIs for 11 seasons straight.  I get it, I do.  But I saw A-Rod's face on ESPN for 30 min straight this morning.  I mean, really??

And in December, it was TO, TO, TO.  They did an interview with him about the drama behind the scenes in Dallas (now this I couldn't care less about), which is fine I guess, but they hyped it up and released it over a period of 3 days.  They couldn't just show the thing all at once.

I just don't like the drama and the fact that I feel like I'm watching a soap opera when I flip on ESPN.

Thoughts?

[🏀]

I think there is no bigger story right now, and there hasn't been all year.

A-Rod admitting to doing steroids is possibly one of the largest stories in baseball history. The MLBPA has created a monster, the MLB has allowed it and it should be covered accordingly.

[Hards Alumni]

I can't wait for the salary cap.

[🏀]

I can't wait for the salary cap.

Well, you're going to have to keep waiting for a long time.

[nyg]

There's another 103 positive hit names on that list, which will be released some time.  Others will be coming "clean" soon, prior to the list's publication.  

No drama with this story, A-Rod one of best players ever, but now it he is a tarnished characterization forever.  After this,I don't believe any words coming out of a baseball players mouth.  

Didn't know what steroids he was taking?  Won't you at least ask what's that stuff you are about to inject me with?  Three years of it and never knew what it was called, either medical term or clubhouse terminology?  Sorry, off topic, but come on....

[Hards Alumni]

Well, you're going to have to keep waiting for a long time.

maybe, maybe not.

with the economy in the tank, and teams cutting back massively on spending, the Players Union is going to have a growing number of unemployed players.  Eventually push will have to come to shove when teams start going under.

that or salaries will come down.

[StillAWarrior]

There were a lot of things in that interview that were completely unbelievable and/or evasive.  I really wish Gammons would have pushed him a little bit more.  Here are a few Q/A that really bugged me:

PETER GAMMONS: You're saying that the time period was 2001, '2 and '3?
ALEX RODRIGUEZ: That's pretty accurate, yes.

That's "pretty accurate?"  A follow up would have been nice to explain why it is only "pretty accurate" and not 100% accurate.  This is his chance to clear the air, might as well do it right.

PETER GAMMONS: What kind of substances were you taking?
ALEX RODRIGUEZ: Peter, that's the thing. Again, it was such a loosey-goosey era. I'm guilty for a lot of things. I'm guilty for being negligent, naive, not asking all the right questions. And to be quite honest, I don't know exactly what substance I was guilty of using.

I call BS.  I don't buy that for a second, and I wish Gammons would have called him on it.

PETER GAMMONS: Where did you originally get the substance?
ALEX RODRIGUEZ: Again, at the time, you know, you have nutritionists, you have doctors, you have trainers. That's the right question today: Where did you get it? We're in the era of BALCO ... Back then, it was just about what.  There's many things that you can take that are banned substances. I mean, there's things that have been removed from GNC today that would trigger a positive test.  I'm not sure exactly what substance I used. But whatever it is, I feel terribly about it.

PETER GAMMONS: Let's go back. How were you introduced to these substances? Was it at the gym? Was it from other players?

ALEX RODRIGUEZ: The culture, it was pretty prevalent. There were a lot of people doing a lot of things. There was a lot of gray area, too. You know, back then you could walk in GNC and get four or five different products that today would probably trigger a positive test.

It wasn't a real dramatic day once I arrived in Texas that something monumental happened in my life. The point of the matter was that I started experimenting with things that today are not legal or today are not accepted and today you would get in a lot of trouble for. [/font]

Totally evasive answers.  I'll credit Gammons for at least asking a follow-up, but I wish he would have pressed the issue.  A-Rod knows where he got whatever he was taking but he didn't answer the question.  I'm not suggesting he should name names, but he mentioned GNC at least three times in the interview (transcript:  http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3895281), and apparently wants to create the impression that he was just taking some over the counter stuff he got at a health food store.  I'd be willing to bet quite a lot that this isn't true.  If more information comes out later, this could hurt A-Rod.

I also think his statement that when he was in high school he "had never even seen or even heard of the idea of taking any substance" is total BS.  Hell, I was only an average (and that's probably charitable) athlete in high school and I had "heard" of people taking steroids.  I think it simply defies belief that a players like A-Rod hadn't even heard of of concept of performance enhancing drugs when he was in high school.  I think A-Rod did the right thing in trying to come clean, and I think he will ultimately be treated kindly in history for having done so, but I think some of stuff he said was just silly.

[reinko]

There were a lot of things in that interview that were completely unbelievable and/or evasive.  I really wish Gammons would have pushed him a little bit more.  Here are a few Q/A that really bugged me:

PETER GAMMONS: You're saying that the time period was 2001, '2 and '3?
ALEX RODRIGUEZ: That's pretty accurate, yes.

That's "pretty accurate?"  A follow up would have been nice to explain why it is only "pretty accurate" and not 100% accurate.  This is his chance to clear the air, might as well do it right.

PETER GAMMONS: What kind of substances were you taking?
ALEX RODRIGUEZ: Peter, that's the thing. Again, it was such a loosey-goosey era. I'm guilty for a lot of things. I'm guilty for being negligent, naive, not asking all the right questions. And to be quite honest, I don't know exactly what substance I was guilty of using.

I call BS.  I don't buy that for a second, and I wish Gammons would have called him on it.

PETER GAMMONS: Where did you originally get the substance?
ALEX RODRIGUEZ: Again, at the time, you know, you have nutritionists, you have doctors, you have trainers. That's the right question today: Where did you get it? We're in the era of BALCO ... Back then, it was just about what.  There's many things that you can take that are banned substances. I mean, there's things that have been removed from GNC today that would trigger a positive test.  I'm not sure exactly what substance I used. But whatever it is, I feel terribly about it.

PETER GAMMONS: Let's go back. How were you introduced to these substances? Was it at the gym? Was it from other players?

ALEX RODRIGUEZ: The culture, it was pretty prevalent. There were a lot of people doing a lot of things. There was a lot of gray area, too. You know, back then you could walk in GNC and get four or five different products that today would probably trigger a positive test.

It wasn't a real dramatic day once I arrived in Texas that something monumental happened in my life. The point of the matter was that I started experimenting with things that today are not legal or today are not accepted and today you would get in a lot of trouble for. [/font]

Totally evasive answers.  I'll credit Gammons for at least asking a follow-up, but I wish he would have pressed the issue.  A-Rod knows where he got whatever he was taking but he didn't answer the question.  I'm not suggesting he should name names, but he mentioned GNC at least three times in the interview (transcript:  http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3895281), and apparently wants to create the impression that he was just taking some over the counter stuff he got at a health food store.  I'd be willing to bet quite a lot that this isn't true.  If more information comes out later, this could hurt A-Rod.

I also think his statement that when he was in high school he "had never even seen or even heard of the idea of taking any substance" is total BS.  Hell, I was only an average (and that's probably charitable) athlete in high school and I had "heard" of people taking steroids.  I think it simply defies belief that a players like A-Rod hadn't even heard of of concept of performance enhancing drugs when he was in high school.  I think A-Rod did the right thing in trying to come clean, and I think he will ultimately be treated kindly in history for having done so, but I think some of stuff he said was just silly.

Why are curious where he got it from?  Why do you want to know exactly what he took, where he pricked hismelf, and how many times?

I am not trying to be a smart ass, I am just curious.  Do I care that he took steriods?  Barely.  Do I care about every last detail?  Not a chance.  How will our lives be any different if we know the kind of steroids A-Rod took?

This is what bugs me about this issue.  Everybody was complacent and let it happen.  Major League Baseball, the Union, the media, the fans, and of course the players.  The final responsibility has to be on them, but for everyone now to claim that in now way could they could have envisioned Barry Bonds who hit 95 HR's in one season at the age of 42 that something fishy was going on.  Everyone just nodded there heads, smiled, and accepted it.

Can't wait for Congress to get involved. 

[StillAWarrior]

Why are curious where he got it from?  Why do you want to know exactly what he took, where he pricked hismelf, and how many times?

I am not trying to be a smart ass, I am just curious.  Do I care that he took steriods?  Barely.  Do I care about every last detail?  Not a chance.  How will our lives be any different if we know the kind of steroids A-Rod took?

This is what bugs me about this issue.  Everybody was complacent and let it happen.  Major League Baseball, the Union, the media, the fans, and of course the players.  The final responsibility has to be on them, but for everyone now to claim that in now way could they could have envisioned Barry Bonds who hit 95 HR's in one season at the age of 42 that something fishy was going on.  Everyone just nodded there heads, smiled, and accepted it.

Can't wait for Congress to get involved. 

Those are all fair questions.  Honestly, I don't care all that much, and I also don't really care about the details.  But, I'm sick and tired of these celebrities and their photo op apologies once they're backed into a corner.  If the sports media is going to treat this as the biggest story on earth -- and they clearly are -- then go for it.  But if they're going to act like it's serious, then they shouldn't let him sit there and offer his contrived apology, attack the people who broke the story, and then lie or evade to make himself look better.  If he gives a BS answer, I think a good journalist should call him on it.

I truly would not have a problem with A-Rod if he told Gammons, "look, I'm not here to talk about where I got it or what I used...I'm here to address the fact that I did use the PEDS, and for that I'm sorry."  I could respect that answer.  In fact, that is the way he answered questions about the union's involvement in the entire thing and that is the subject that I -- a labor lawyer -- find most interesting.  I can respect a direct refusal to answer a question.  I don't respect evasive and untruthful responses and the lawyer in me always wants the deposition-style follow-up.  I'm perfectly willing to admit that my issues here are probably more a function of what I do for a living and how it annoys me when people don't answer the question than anything to do with A-Rod.

I think highly of Peter Gammons as a baseball reporter, and I just can't see why he'd let himself be used by A-Rod like this.  He commented this morning on Mike and Mike that A-Rod seemed "fragile" (he used the word several times)...maybe that's why he went easy on him.

Overall, I think the issue of steroids in baseball is overblown.  I certainly hope Congress stays out, but know that they probably will.  I think we all should assume that the vast majority of players during the so-called "steriod era" were on PEDs, and we need to accept that historical fact, get over it and move on.

[reinko]

Those are all fair questions.  Honestly, I don't care all that much, and I also don't really care about the details.  But, I'm sick and tired of these celebrities and their photo op apologies once they're backed into a corner.  If the sports media is going to treat this as the biggest story on earth -- and they clearly are -- then go for it.  But if they're going to act like it's serious, then they shouldn't let him sit there and offer his contrived apology, attack the people who broke the story, and then lie or evade to make himself look better.  If he gives a BS answer, I think a good journalist should call him on it.

I truly would not have a problem with A-Rod if he told Gammons, "look, I'm not here to talk about where I got it or what I used...I'm here to address the fact that I did use the PEDS, and for that I'm sorry."  I could respect that answer.  In fact, that is the way he answered questions about the union's involvement in the entire thing and that is the subject that I -- a labor lawyer -- find most interesting.  I can respect a direct refusal to answer a question.  I don't respect evasive and untruthful responses and the lawyer in me always wants the deposition-style follow-up.  I'm perfectly willing to admit that my issues here are probably more a function of what I do for a living and how it annoys me when people don't answer the question than anything to do with A-Rod.

I think highly of Peter Gammons as a baseball reporter, and I just can't see why he'd let himself be used by A-Rod like this.  He commented this morning on Mike and Mike that A-Rod seemed "fragile" (he used the word several times)...maybe that's why he went easy on him.

Overall, I think the issue of steroids in baseball is overblown.  I certainly hope Congress stays out, but know that they probably will.  I think we all should assume that the vast majority of players during the so-called "steriod era" were on PEDs, and we need to accept that historical fact, get over it and move on.

Well said!

[Murphysguy]

There's one reason why this story is getting as much publicity as it is, and that is because a-rod plays for the yankees and espn is in love with the yankees. If a-rod was still in seattle or texas this story would get about half the publicity that it is.

[Hards Alumni]

no, its getting the press because he is the best player in baseball, and has been since 2001 or earlier.

we all know of the yankees / sawks bias etc, but this would be a huge story even if he was a Brewer.

[chapman]

I'm with you.  It's news that 30 seconds of coverage would suffice for me.  If I cared about what famous people were doing in their free time or who they were dating I would watch Entertainment Tonight.

[reinko]

The whole steroid drug thing is weird...not a whole lot of other jobs exist where you can actually take something (legal or illegal) and perform better at your job.

I work in education, if some kind of pill existed to make me a better educator, regardless of it's legality, would I be tempted to take it?  I don't know, maybe.  Would the kids a teach be better off if I did this?  If so, then maybe I would.  But it's an interesting question that none of us will never need to ask ourselves.

Call me naive, but these are athletes, playing a sport to amuse fans.  The only issue I have with it is the impact it has on high school and college kids who might be tempted to take this crap and eff up their own lives or careers.

[Marquette Gyros]

if some kind of pill existed to make me a better educator, regardless of it's legality, would I be tempted to take it?  I don't know, maybe.

Adderall?   

[jmayer1]

no, its getting the press because he is the second best player in baseball, and has been since 2001 or earlier.

we all know of the yankees / sawks bias etc, but this would be a huge story even if he was a Brewer.

fixed that for you, i'll take pujols any day of the week

[Hards Alumni]

except that Pujols plays a lazy 1B, and A-Rod plays actual defense.

and I won't even get into AL versus NL pitching.

[jmayer1]

except that Pujols plays a lazy 1B, and A-Rod plays actual defense.

and I won't even get into AL versus NL pitching.

Arod obviously plays a more demanding defensive position but he is only average at best there while Pujols is considred by many to be the best defensive first baseman in the game.  At best it's a wash defensively for Arod.  Pujols is much better offensively since he came into the league.  The difference between the AL and the NL is generally thought to be the strength of the lineups rather than the strength of the pitching

Seasonal averages since 2001:

Pujols
155 games
191 hits
43 doubles
40 home runs
122 rbis
63 ks
.335 ba
.425 obp
.625 slg
357 tb
Combined mvp finishes - 24 (average finish = 3rd)

ARoid

157 games
180 hits
29 doubles
46 home runs
126 rbis
128 ks
.304 ba
.399 obp
.589 slg
349 tb
Combined mvp finishes - 46 (average finish = 5.75)

Pujols is also 4 1/2 years younger.

[IAmMarquette]

fixed that for you, i'll take pujols any day of the week

couldn't be because you're a Cards fan could it?

That said, it's certainly debatable. "Any day of the week" might be a bit of a stretch, though, as your numbers seem to indicate.

[jmayer1]

couldn't be because you're a Cards fan could it?

That could be part of it 

[CAINMUTINY]

I'm not doubting that steroids helped him in some way (The ones he took are designed for muscle repair rather than muscle mass growth); but you can take all the steroids in the world and its not going to help you hit a curve ball any better.   People should examine why these steroids are used and the overall consensus is that they are not used to hit balls further, throw faster or etc., it is the drugs ability to allow their muscles to recover over the course of 160 games, so it could be argued that it doesn't make them a better player just a healthier player.  Needless to say that steroids are illegal and should be treated as any controlled substance and the appropriate penalties.

[StillAWarrior]

I'm not doubting that steroids helped him in some way (The ones he took are designed for muscle repair rather than muscle mass growth); but you can take all the steroids in the world and its not going to help you hit a curve ball any better.   People should examine why these steroids are used and the overall consensus is that they are not used to hit balls further, throw faster or etc., it is the drugs ability to allow their muscles to recover over the course of 160 games, so it could be argued that it doesn't make them a better player just a healthier player.  Needless to say that steroids are illegal and should be treated as any controlled substance and the appropriate penalties.

And this probably is one of the reasons that we have seen more pitchers test positive for steriods than hitters (at least in my recollection).  For years I've argued with people who say, "pitchers wouldn't use steriods because they don't want to bulk up."  But they do use steriods because it helps their muscles recover more quickly.  This is extremely valuable for pitchers.  I have no love for Barry Bonds (or A-Rod for that matter), but whenever I hear people complain about how Bonds' records (and all the other offensive records) are illegitimate, I always ask how many HRs Aaron hit off pitchers who were juicing.

As I said earlier, everybody was using them.  Let's move on.

Edited to add:  absolutely no disrespect for Aaron intended.

[Hards Alumni]

That could be part of it 

I guess that is why you omitted the golden gloves Arod has, too?

[jmayer1]

I guess that is why you omitted the golden gloves Arod has, too?

Yep, cuz gold gloves are a joke.  Arod has 2, Pujols has 1 but might have more by the time he is Arod's age.  However, half the time guys are picked based on name, reputation, or worse yet offense rather than who is the best defender at that position.  Arod's range factor has been average to below average his entire career while Pujols has had a great range factor for his position once he got settled in at first, although he was not a great career defender when he was always switching positions early in his career.

[Hards Alumni]

homer.

[jmayer1]

homer.

I won't deny that!