Comments on: Thoughts on A-Rod

By: Donald A. Coffin

Donald A. Coffin — Tue, 10 Feb 2009 17:28:23 +0000

One commenter writes: “It’s not like an innocent person’s rights were trampled. ”

This is the same argument made against rules prohibiting unlawful seizures of evidence, unlawfully obtained confessions…they were guilty, they deserved it.

The protections of rights are there to protect all of us, and it is a serious mistake to think that only the rights of the guilty will be infringed.

By: Millsy

Millsy — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 20:37:41 +0000

I’m not usually one to read ESPN articles. But your link, JC, linked me to Jayson Stark’s article. I can’t describe it as anything less than shameful.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/story?columnist=stark_jayson&id=3892788

I’m absolutely tired of all of this. Epstein’s story is described as ‘impeccably reported’. Really? Because I would describe it as unethical…reporting confidential medical information. It’s all a sad tale of men holding onto a past that doesn’t exist. I find it pathetic that it’s acceptable to have partying with drinking and drugs (Mantle, Ruth, etc.), but not acceptable to take all the stops to improve oneself in the game. Whether it’s weight training, nutrition, surgical procedures, conditioning, practicing year round, or steroids, why is the line drawn here? Are we to believe that those players in the past weren’t looking for every edge they could find? Doubtful. It’s understood that different generations of baseball produce different types of performances. Whether or not someone took steroids doesn’t change the fact that they still acheived what they did. They did it. They stood there on the field, swung the bat, threw the ball, caught the ball. We all watched it with awe. I don’t understand it. I think it’s a generation of people outraged against issues they don’t fully understand. Maybe we should go ahead and put an asterisk on Roger Maris’ 61 home runs (and those that followed) since they all had 162 games, just like before.

Acting as if we all have higher morals is a waste of time. It’s quit unfair to those actually put in the situation. Can anyone honestly tell me that for $10 million a year, you wouldn’t take steroids? If you think you can, I won’t believe you anyway.

By: Jeremiah

Jeremiah — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 20:36:35 +0000

I’m tired of hearing all the “Poor A-rod, this should never have gotten out” BS. Sure, if the union was honest and competent, this never would have reached the public. But he could have avoided it all by not taking steroids in the first place. It’s not like an innocent person’s rights were trampled. The same goes for the 103 other people on the list. They cheated; I don’t think they deserve the right to privacy. I know the courts might say differently, but that’s my opinion.

By: Rick

Rick — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 19:37:14 +0000

Opening caveat. I do not like A-Rod.
That, being said. I’m pissed that he was named. I was really hoping that he was clean. It would be nice if the one person that could break the HR record was untarnished.
What is also of great interest here is that Orza is accused of notifying him of impending drug tests. You also have to wonder how many of the others on the list were also warned in advance. Big can of worms there.

By: Donald A. Coffin

Donald A. Coffin — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 19:22:30 +0000

I will note that when this story broke in the Chicago Tribune, two columnists–Phil Rogers and Rick Morrisey–rushed to say that Rodrigues had to apologize now. In addition to assuming that the leak contains accurate information, this is consistent with the way both writers have treated all the anonymously-provided stuff on drug use…if someone says it happened, it must be true, and all the player can do is confess.

And the Trib has a survey of its readers, in which the choices were frames to induce people to select option 3–the “I’m disgusted and we can never trust the performance records.”

By: JC

JC — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 16:34:16 +0000

Yes. Both groups have had their privacy violated.

By: 55

55 — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 16:27:26 +0000

“If one name leaked off a list of homosexual players who wished to remain in the closet, would it be fair to out the remaining names? ”

Are you really comparing deciding when your sexuality is outed to cheating and taking illegal substances?

Edit: Sorry, I didn’t see comment #2. But I agree with him.

By: Ken Houghton

Ken Houghton — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 16:06:24 +0000

Troy Patterson – Prove it. No one else ever has.

A-Rod, I note for the record, has never perjured himself about steroid use.

By: Troy Patterson

Troy Patterson — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 15:51:32 +0000

We can debate the other 103 names being given, but to use homosexuality as a comparison is not a fair one. Being gay doesn’t make them better baseball players, but steroids do.

By: Cliff

Cliff — Mon, 09 Feb 2009 15:25:15 +0000

Agreed that it is an embarassment to the government. Basically, it can’t keep sealed information sealed. Or at least, we think so. However, on an earlier round of released info regarding the “steroid / BALCO cases”, it was actually a defense attorney (supposedly representing the interests of an accused person) who leaked the information.

“Players didn’t have to agree to random testing”. No, they just could have continued with their obstinance in face of public opinion. I do think it is possible that they could have been more obstinate, but I don’t think it would have been productive for the players.

Do people have the right to obstruct justice and commit perjury when they disapprove of the government’s policies? Basically, most informed persons are 90% certain (and, accurately so, not biasedly so) that upon review of all credible evidence that Barry Bonds used steroids and lied under oath when given immunity. This is like Martha Stewart, Scooter Libby, Bill Clinton, and all sorts of other people. If law enforcement doesn’t get the truth from people, it MUST proceed forecefully against perjuryand obstruciton of justice.