• What Will Bud Do (Regarding The Chance A-Rod Lied To Baseball Investigators)?

    Posted by on May 1st, 2009 · Comments (4)

    From the gang at the New York Times -

    “A-Rod, The Many Lives of Alex Rodriguez” (HarperCollins), by Selena Roberts, asserts that Rodriguez used steroids in high school, took them as a major leaguer under the supervision of the now-banned trainer Angel Presinal, had human growth hormone in his possession in 2004 and was suspected by Yankee teammates of using steroids in 2005, according to a copy of the book obtained by The New York Times. The book is to be released Monday.

    The problem for Selig is that the assertions in the book and an account that Rodriguez previously provided to officials for Major League Baseball about his use of performance enhancers may not be consistent. Under Selig’s broad powers as commissioner, he can discipline a player if he believes the player was not truthful or forthcoming in an interview with baseball investigators.

    Rodriguez met with investigators in February after Roberts, a columnist for Sports Illustrated and a former reporter and columnist for The Times, reported on the magazine’s Web site that he tested positive for steroids in 2003, when baseball was conducting anonymous testing.

    In the interview with investigators, Rodriguez reiterated what he had said publicly after his positive test was revealed. He told them that he used a performance-enhancing substance from 2001 to 2003 and that his cousin had obtained it in the Dominican Republic. Specifically, Rodriguez said that he never received substances from Presinal.

    While the book does not state that Presinal either gave Rodriguez drugs or injected him with them, it says that Presinal had direct involvement in Rodriguez’s drug use. The anecdotes about 2004 and 2005, meanwhile, suggest Rodriguez was using drugs in a wider time frame than he described to investigators.

    What Selig will do in response to the book remains to be seen. Some of the accusations in the book are based on anonymous sources, and others are simply presented as knowledge the author has without an explanation of how the information was obtained. If Selig decides to pursue the matter, and possibly discipline Rodriguez, he would presumably need to have baseball’s investigators verify the accusations on their own.

    …If Selig decides to pursue the matter, and possibly discipline Rodriguez, he would presumably need to have baseball’s investigators verify the accusations on their own…

    That last line says it all. An investigation could be done in an amount of time as quickly as three months or it could take nearly two years to be completed. Betcha if Bud decides to take action on this one, he’ll want to make it a quick investigation…at least he should, if he’s smart…

    Comments on What Will Bud Do (Regarding The Chance A-Rod Lied To Baseball Investigators)?

    1. MJ
      May 1st, 2009 | 8:39 am

      if Bud decides to take action on this one, he’ll want to make it a quick investigation…at least he should, if he’s smart…
      ——-
      Actually, if he’s smart, he leaves the whole subject alone. Considering the fact that A-Rod was only exposed due to manifest negligence on the part of MLB and the union, it would be pretty horrible of Bud to slam the book on someone who never should’ve been identified in the first place.

      That impropriety occured is obvious at this point. But there has to be a common-sense approach here and disciplining someone for allegedly using PED’s in high school or even while on the Yankees WITHOUT A POSITIVE TEST RESULT would be a hard thing to pull off. You can’t punish someone on the 2003 survey result and A-Rod hasn’t tested positive (as far as we know) since that time. Selig better stay the hell away from this one if he has any brains whatsoever.

    2. Corey
      May 1st, 2009 | 9:18 am

      ——-
      Actually, if he’s smart, he leaves the whole subject alone.
      —-
      beat me to it lol, thats what i wanted to say when i hit the comment button

    3. deadrody
      May 1st, 2009 | 9:46 am

      Anecdotes ? He should be suspended based on third hand story telling of anecdotes ?

      Whatever.

    4. lisaswan
      May 1st, 2009 | 10:02 am

      Here’s why I think neither this, nor the tipping pitchings investigation, will go anywhere. You can’t punish somebody based on anonymous anecdotes. The players’ union will demand that Roberts reveal her sources, she won’t do so, and the investigation will be over.

    Leave a reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.