December 6, 2013
Who is Shyster?
Or you can search by:
Most Recent Comments
Mike Hargrove Interview (13)
Can they be the California Angels again? (9)
Another great moment in mass transit? (7)
Just another ten-percenter (his mind is like an ocean) (7)
Great Moments in Half-Baked Populism (8)
Shyster's Daily Circuit
Joe Posnanski Blog
Cot's Baseball Contracts
It IS About the Money
Baseball Think Factory
MLB Trade Rumors
Way Back and Gone
Bats -- NYT Baseball Blog
The Biz of Baseball
The Daily Fungo
The Common Man
Jorge Says No!
Baseball Over Here
Monday, September 14, 2009
A-Rod won’t be disciplinedI missed this over the weekend:
The commissioner’s office has decided not to discipline Alex Rodriguez in light of its investigation into whether he lied about his use of performance-enhancing drugs in a meeting with baseball officials in March, according to people in baseball with knowledge of the matter.
In light of the fact that the only evidence of A-Rod's a-roiding came from illegally leaked test results at a time when baseball wasn't disciplining anyone for taking PEDs, this is not surprising. At most they had him on lying to the investigators about when he was using, but given how many players waltz into their disciplinary appeals claiming that they weren't really throwing at that guy, baseball wasn't ever going to do anything to Rodriguez over this. This was interesting:
The New York Times reported in May that members of baseball’s department of investigations had contacted Selena Roberts, the author of “A-Rod: The Many Lives of Alex Rodriguez,” and several of Rodriguez’s associates to determine whether Rodriguez had used performance-enhancing drugs for a longer period than he admitted . . .
I'm assuming that Roberts was willing to cooperate but that she simply lost the little notebook containing her sources' identities and all of her meticulous notes. She usually keeps it under her unicorn, but it may have fallen behind the perpetual motion machine she keeps in the back room of her summer home in Atlantis.
Posted by Craig Calcaterra at 2:28pm
Well, exactly and that is what she gets for disobeying rule #13:Leave ARod alone (for the 412th time!)
Posted 09/14 at 03:10 PM
Eric Solomon said...
“...she usually keeps it under her unicorn…”
Posted 09/14 at 03:19 PM
So Craig, would you have been happier if Selena Roberts had “cooperated” with MLB (I love stories that equate sports leagues with, say, the federal government, but I digress).
Let’s assume that someone actually told Roberts the stuff she wrote about in the book. Maybe an unreliable, lying someone, but a real, actual person or people. Should Roberts out her source to MLB? Wouldn’t that do exactly what you’re constantly accusing Roberts of doing - violating every jouralistic code of ethics in existance?
I’m assuming from the story’s referce to Roberts not “cooperat[ing]” with MLB’s investigation that, when MLB called to ask Roberts who her sources were, she told MLB to go to hell. Which is exactly what she should have done.
Posted 09/14 at 04:07 PM
Craig Calcaterra said...
Oh, I would have slammed her if she had. This slam wasn’t for her not cooperating in MLB’s investigation. This is a continuing slam over her shoddy reporting in her book. An oldie but a goody if you will. Cheap? Sure! But if she can dredge up questionable allegations from 15 years ago in order to sell books, I can replay criticisms of her work from a few months ago.
Posted 09/14 at 04:11 PM
“it may have fallen behind the perpetual motion machine”
I wonder if she would even understand this little nugget.
Posted 09/14 at 04:39 PM
Bob Tufts said...
Roberts (and Schmidt) used far too many unnamed sources in their work. The problem with this is that we don’t know the agendas of those sources, their veracity and in general what was left on the cutting room florr that did not fit the predetermined narrative.
I’ve always wanted to know if a source lies to a reporter, shouldn’t the reporter out said person?
Posted 09/14 at 04:40 PM
Wooden U. Lykteneau said...
Short answer: No.
Longer answer: What would that accomplish? The liar is exposed and then nobody will talk to you again off the record, diminishing your capacity to do your job.
This is not to defend Roberts, et al, mind you. As a reporter, it’s your job to verify what your sources tell you as best as you possibly can. If you can’t, then in most cases, you shouldn’t.
At least that’s what used to be taught in J-school. But these days, J-school degrees in a newsroom are about as common as Young Republicans without trust funds.
Posted 09/14 at 04:58 PM
Aaron Whitehead said...
I love the implication that Roberts’ cooperation would have made a difference in the case.
Roberts: “Yeah, this unnamed guy told A-Rod’s Uncle Joe that A-Rod told him that he might have been using something when it was banned.”
Selig: “By George, we’ve got him now!”
Posted 09/15 at 09:40 AM