Spring Break
1 of 104
Adam Loghides
Issue date: 2/11/09 Section: Sports
The bombshell that Alex Rodriguez dropped on Monday truly should not have surprised anyone. If you are as cynical as the average baseball fan, you say that every player from the 1990s was on steroids.
I'm sad, though. But not because A-Rod decided to come clean about his performance-enhancing drug use at the beginning of this decade. It's the way this was handled that's the injustice.
The test that Rodriguez failed was supposed to be anonymous, given for the purpose of research by MLB on whether or not mandatory testing was necessary. There were 104 players who failed it.
That means 103 players besides Rodriguez who failed the test. Where are those names? Why would MLB only leak Rodriguez's name? Curt Schilling, who says a lot of things, said on Monday that he wants the other 103 called out so the clean players can have their names cleared. Amen. Until that happens, though, every single player on an MLB roster in 2003 will be under suspicion of steroid use.
There so many failures in this case that it's hard to know where to start. Rodriguez came out almost immediately with an apology on ESPN. He gave an exclusive interview to Peter Gammons and told the world that he used performance-enhancing drugs from 2001-2003 because he felt pressure to live up to his new 10-year, $252 million contract in Texas.
Texas is more pressure-packed than New York? I suppose we're to believe that he stopped feeling the pressure, and therefore stopped using steroids, when he became a Yankee in 2004. He claims to be "steroid-free since 2003." We can all only hope so.
Society shouldn't judge A-Rod, though. If the test that he failed really was anonymous, then how does MLB know it was Rodriguez's sample that failed? A true anonymous test would have no names attached to the bottles.
I don't believe that Rodriguez should be given a free pass here. However, the court of public opinion shouldn't publicly indemnify a man on evidence that shouldn't be allowed in court to start with.
I'm sad, though. But not because A-Rod decided to come clean about his performance-enhancing drug use at the beginning of this decade. It's the way this was handled that's the injustice.
The test that Rodriguez failed was supposed to be anonymous, given for the purpose of research by MLB on whether or not mandatory testing was necessary. There were 104 players who failed it.
That means 103 players besides Rodriguez who failed the test. Where are those names? Why would MLB only leak Rodriguez's name? Curt Schilling, who says a lot of things, said on Monday that he wants the other 103 called out so the clean players can have their names cleared. Amen. Until that happens, though, every single player on an MLB roster in 2003 will be under suspicion of steroid use.
There so many failures in this case that it's hard to know where to start. Rodriguez came out almost immediately with an apology on ESPN. He gave an exclusive interview to Peter Gammons and told the world that he used performance-enhancing drugs from 2001-2003 because he felt pressure to live up to his new 10-year, $252 million contract in Texas.
Texas is more pressure-packed than New York? I suppose we're to believe that he stopped feeling the pressure, and therefore stopped using steroids, when he became a Yankee in 2004. He claims to be "steroid-free since 2003." We can all only hope so.
Society shouldn't judge A-Rod, though. If the test that he failed really was anonymous, then how does MLB know it was Rodriguez's sample that failed? A true anonymous test would have no names attached to the bottles.
I don't believe that Rodriguez should be given a free pass here. However, the court of public opinion shouldn't publicly indemnify a man on evidence that shouldn't be allowed in court to start with.
Note: writers will not reply to comments.
Be the first to comment on this story
Comments by registered users are approved by default.