I agree 100%. I understand the need for anonymity in some cases, but I have a hard time buying that for a book of this nature most sources need it.

Should A-Rod file a defamation or libel lawsuit if the stuff about him using in high school is untrue? Would it even be worth it? Since there is already a drug test that he failed would that start the suit on shaky ground? I just feel like nobody should have to put up with a person continually bashing them in print for no good reason.

Finally an article on Alex Rodriguez that makes sense. I neither defend Arod's past,present,or probable future. However I do defend anyones right to have a past, a present and a future. Like any human being we all have things that we did wrong or were ashamed of in our past, therefore who are we to judge, that is for god. Lies,inuendos and vauge references should not determin the extent of anyones body of work. Proof is in the seeing, I choose to believe that principle expecially in todays world of reality shows and sensationalism. It has always been easier to believe all the negitive than any prositive. I think we all would be better for believing in what we see, not what we hear. I for one let know one person determin my belief in someones character especially someone that I havent even meet. Thankyou

I find it very responsible of you not taking Roberts for her word. Her coverage of the Duke Lacrosse scandal was horrible and she deserves to be forced to defend her accusations.

Also - wanted to point out the typo in the last sentence - it should be "...the two OF them" not "...the two OR them"

It's ridiculous to talk about these things, I cannot believe MLB could not put in a proper drug testing process instaed just wasting the time investigatinga cheater and his past. Baseball and its governing body should be ashamed of them self that they cannot make the "great American past time" drug free.

It's obvious why she can't name her sources. They don't exist or they won't admit they actually said anything (that could start all kinds of trouble in the locker rooms). She should be forced to name them to give an credibility to the book. What A-Rod needs to do is stay clean, hit good and just prove them all wrong. It's up to him to make it all go away but no matter what, you will always have the Cansecos and the Roberts out there trying to bring you down. Jeter better watch out, he may be next. Also, Baseball does need to clean up the players. Do more tests and make all the players know that going forward they can't cheat.

at last somebody is finally stepping up and saying what has needed to be said from the very beginning. arods problems began the day he signed that contract that no living person could live up to and created jealousy and animosity among his baseball playing brothers. as for selena roberts, remember the duke lacrosse players. she still cannot bring herself to admit she was dead wrong about that story. she ruined the lives of those boys...period. while i cannot abide barry bonds, alex needs to follow his example and keep his mouth shut. permanently shut.

Thanks Craig. That's what I thought you would say (since you've been saying it about the Clemens case). I was just curious, since the circumstances are a bit different than the Clemens case.

We are helping this woman sell books. Not only should Alex remain above the fray, we as fans should ignore this cancer of an author. Anyone that makes a living off of other peoples problems is a societal parasite not worth paying attention to. How about them Dodgers!!

Maybe more writers should start doing this to there counterparts & questioning there ethics. I could care less about A-Rod, but writing stories, or accounts of another person should be done correctly, not half ass. This is a woman who has not said she was sorry for getting it wrong. She should have been sued for her lies. Why not just write fiction soap operas, how about someone writing a book about her life, if she lied about other stories, maybe she really has something to hide about her own life. I hope her book is a failure.

Some of the very same skeptism that Jose had about his book- interesting.......

Jose Canseco was himself an eyewitness to the allegations he made.

Selena Roberts? Nope.

Interesting.

EdH- 1074192- Comparing this to Conseco's book is apples and oranges. Conseco was using first hand accounts of things that he saw happen. Roberts is using unnamed sources, not at all the same thing.

The problem with the book isn't so much the truth of her accusations, but more so the way the evidence is presented (not much in the way of people going on the record, so their claims can be vetted). She has a couple of unnamed high school teammates that say Alex took steroids; how do we know these people just don't like him and want to see him fall from grace? Who's to say they aren't just jealous that he was better than them? Also her history of slamming A-Rod at every chance needs to taken into account. Not to mention the way she screwed the pooch with the Duke lacross story, and refused to admit wrong doing.

EdH, the difference between Roberts and Canseco is that Jose is the source for his book. He wrote about things that he saw and heard first-hand. He named names. People were skeptical because they didn't trust Jose. Roberts, on the other hand, is not naming names. We don't know if we can trust her sources because we don't know who they are.

Did anyone actually read the Billy Beane article? I didn't see anything that indicated she intended to slam Beane or James or sabermetrics. In fact, she seemed much more critical of the traditional baseball establishment. (Also, I would have preferred Tony Clark over Giambi in 2004.) Her prose feels overwrought and purposefully embellished, which may lead some to see her as attacking when I think she's simply trying to establish a banter and be colorful. Was James not a fringe writer for a long time? He occupied baseball's margins for quite some time, as I recall. I'm not trying to defend her credibility as a reporter, because I don't know where it stands myself. But let's not dismiss her assertions based on a perception that she doesn't "know baseball" and is therefore unfit to report on it. I wonder if we would even be asking questions about her opinions of Beane or sabermetrics or Clark if she were a man. In point of fact, her ability to comprehend advanced baseball statistics have little bearing on her reporting.

I've read some of Ms. Roberts articles in the NYT from time to time over the years and they often raised an eyebrow. Another commenter described her prose as "overwrought and purposefully embellished" which I view as very understated (and don't quite understand with whom a "banter" is being established)! Her terrible writing (we keep being reminded that she was writing "opinion" pieces, not reporting, as that somehow removes the need for there to be at least a shred of truthfulness or a factual basis) in the Duke Lacrosse case was a real eye opener. Now we are expected (in fact scolded by the MSM for even daring to raise any questions) to take her word for what she writes in her book without any named sources to validate her statements. She was on various outlets throughout the weekend telling everyone that things "were validated through her reporting" and that "her litmus tests" validating things as being irrefutable. OK, she has a right to make these statements, but we also have the right to question them. I have seen nothing from her that would make me accept the "process of her reporting" as lending any credence or reliability to her "irrefutable" claims. Sure, many of the fools backing her credibility state "well she was 100% right on the steroids." So I presume that being handed (or sold?) an excerpt or listing of names that were supposed to be completely confidential from the point of their origin, and had since been placed under a court seal for protection, and reporting the existence of a name on the list now constitutes being "right" about something, so be it. If I had some valid reasons (perhaps even one, depending on its scope or weight) to accept the validity of her "process of reporting" I may be more willing to accept some of her claims as being truthful. But since I have absolutely no reason to extend her that level of trust and confidence, I simply will not.

I do believe that we live in a world controlled and ruled by idiots. Why is A-Rod such a target to this woman? Did he give her the brush and now she seeks vengeance? Let's all grow up; the man is a great baseball player and as one of your previous notes makes reference to, we do not know this person; have not met this person, therefore, why are we so judgmental specifically where he is concerned? Let A-Rod get back to work, break new records and make us all happy that he is able to achieve this. After all, sports are very competitive as it were, and we truly need to give him a break. Thank you.

Is this book the best example of the lack of standards that have come to permeate "sports journalism"? In political or other stories, the use of anonymous sources is pretty restricted, is it not? Hadn't some of Roberts' NY Times colleagues spent time in jail over their refusal to reveal their anonymous sources? There seems to be gap as wide as the Pacific Ocean in terms of the standards applied to sports stories and news. Sportswriters generally stick to and keep publishing their opinions even if they are flat out wrong. Is their justification, "it's only sports, we're not making policy"? If so, why do they try to step into the glow of real journalists and columnists who base their stories and columns on actual, verifiable facts?
Roberts may have zero credibility, but I'm wondering whether "sports journalism" as exemplified by ESPN or SI has already done the job in lowering the bar so low that her book was not only possible, but hyped uncritically every hour?

I've got to agree with JONNYLAM about the Beane story above. There doesn't seem to be any malice toward the use of sabermetrics. In fact, the article is quite the opposite. Referring to James as a fringe writer is fairly accurate in that when his work was originally done, it was kind of a cult thing. It didn't grow until fairly recently (with the advent of Moneyball). She embellishes a little with her wordy writing. It's kind of like trying to read a news story through the writing of a Pat Conroy wannabe. I don't like Selena Roberts one bit...but I don't understand the reference to the Beane/James story.

While Roberts has the right to write anything she wants, if she can't substantiate her allegations with credible proveable sources, then the book deserves to put in the garbage can. Apparently, her credibility has been challenged in other pieces, and so, this makes it all the more incumbant upon her and her publisher to "get it right"(which apparently they can't do, and either prove the allegations or just shut up and rip up her book

Curious to read what you described as "Roberts' i", I clicked on your link. Imagine my surprise to see what Roberts actually said:

"...the negativity has hurt Beane because arrows do have points. But what the swipes reveal is how threatening an alternate view is to baseball's theology. It's a threat to inept owners -- and/or a certain baseball commissioner -- who have used their small-market woes as habitual excuses for futility. It's a threat to Yankeesque teams who spend millions to assemble constellations only to be increasingly grounded by teams of cohesive humans. It's a threat to romanticized scouts whose legends are built on a 5 percent success rate."

That's what you call "dismissive"? If you're going to misrepresent something, don't provide a link! And if you're going to call someone ignorantly dismissive, it doesn't help your credibility to act ignorantly dismissive yourself.

I'm with you that we should maybe not automatically believe everything Roberts says without any evidence. But I must say you've lost some of your own "presumption of truthfulness and relevance" with me.

Wow finally responsible journalism.

Roberts is trash. Thankfully as a resident of Georgia, I don't have to deal with her or A-Rod much. Because, really, I don't buy a thing either of them says.

Referring to James as a fringe writer is fairly accurate in that when his work was originally done, it was kind of a cult thing. It didn't grow until fairly recently (with the advent of Moneyball).

Finally we have confirmation that the claim on the cover of The 1985 Bill James Baseball Abstract that it was "The New York Times bestseller!" was specious and that in fact only fringe cultists read his work until after Moneyball was published 18 years later.