On Monday, the New York Times' Harvey Araton said this:
Monday, I was told by a Major League Baseball source, who requested anonymity because he was unauthorized to speak on the subject, that Selig was taking the book allegations "very seriously" and would act "without question" if corroborating information were unearthed.
There will be no sacred culprits anymore, the person said. Of course, good luck in getting A-Rod's teammates or former teammates to divulge anything more than their names, social security numbers and on-base percentages.
Well, one former A-Rod teammate is offering something more than that, at least with respect to pitch-tipping. Indeed, he's offering some larger and useful insight. And what's more, he's doing it in the very pages of Araton's New York Times. Take it away Doug Glanville:
Although I have never heard such a rumor about Alex, this may be one of the most egregious charges one can make against a player, and a rare one at that. Should a player know that someone in his own dugout is helping the opposing team, I would venture to say that all-out Armageddon would ensue. Imagine if a pitcher knew that his pitches were being given away to the opposing hitter by his own teammate no less. This spy would have to watch his back.
How would this scheme have been missed for Alex's entire career? We all know that every time he plays, the camera zooms in on him. Opposing teams watch him obsessively, studying film endlessly. The "A-Rod cam" is on full tilt all the time. So, over a period of years, did the best in the business, the brightest analysts and teammates, miss that he was doing this for his roommate from the year before, or maybe for his cousin's favorite player? Or did they know it but were afraid to come forward? Is it possible that all of these experts had their heads in the sand?
Having read Glanville's Op-Ed pieces over the past year, all of which come off thoughtful, mannered and polite, my gut tells me that Glanville is playing a tad coy, and that these are rhetorical questions, asked so that he does not have to come right out and say that both his current (Araton) and former (Roberts) New York Times colleagues are full of it.
Either way, I have obtained and am currently reading the Roberts book. The pitch tipping stuff shows up on pages 118-121. The allegations are less than compelling, and the sources, as so many others in the book, are unnamed, referred to only as "a former Ranger" or "former teammates." With Glanville on the record, that makes at least three former teammates who have come out by name to cast doubt on the tipping accusation. None of these guys proclaim to be friends of Alex Rodriguez. It's telling.
But not conclusive, of course, and as of now, I suppose this allegation has to remain in the realm of he-said/she-said. But, and pardon the phrase, if more and more Rangers come out casting doubt on these allegations, won't we reach a tipping point where Roberts' claim is transformed from the speculative to the fictitious?
Leave a Comment:
Saving...
It sounds to me like Glanville is just too polite to say Roberts is completely full of it.
Grant -- a commenter on my other blog says that the NYT has a policy against columnists directly contradicting other columnists, so that may very well be by design.
Good thing they don't have George Will on staff! Or Paul Krugman would be forced to write about "global cooling."
Thanks, Craig. I actuall saw it. I read this because of Shysterball.
I'm the same Grant you may have noticed over there. Or you may not have noticed me. I'm not particularly insightful.
I saw Selena Roberts on MLB network the other night, I was not impressed !! I am no fan of A-Rod and would like to see someone that is so full of themselves get exposed for being a fraud. From her answers to Bob Costas the other night, I think she is a bigger fraud than A-Rod.. Name names if you have that big of a story. Hearsay doesn't cut it for me and it shouldn't for anyone else.
Based on her interview with Costas, I wouldn't pay 1 cent for her book of allegations. She has NOTHING !
Alex was a Ranger for three seasons. The number of his Rangers teammates is finite. Someone with the bandwidth could track down all of them still breathing and ask for on-the-record statements. Just sayin'.
As I have noted in Craig's other blog (is there a rule against calling it by its given name?), the problem I have with the allegations, more than the fact that the sources are unnamed, is the fact that ARod is the only player fingered in the accusation.
Sure, the book is about ARod specifically, but the charge is that he had a deal with certain players to exchange pitch-tipping. Did the source tell Roberts who ARod's alleged accomplices were? Wouldn't a source really have to know that information if they "knew" ARod had a deal with other players? Did Roberts bother to find out if the source knew who the other players were? If the source didn't know, how could she believe him? If he did know, why doesn't Roberts name the other players involved?
Just don't buy the book. I can't stand A-Rod, the Prima Donna, but I can't stand people who are not man or woman enough to say something about someone to there face. This farce of a writer is even worse than her so called sources, she does not care about the truth see the Duke team. She should not be rewarded for writing fiction if she cannot prove it. I will not buy Sports Illustrated either as long as she is allowed to write for them. Don't buy her crap & if you don't like A-Rod, don't buy his crap either. Frauds are Frauds & its clear she is the bigger one of the 2.
This is the same reporter who fabricated lies about the Duke Lacrosse Players and ruined thier lives. WIth that said HOW CAN ANYTHING SHE SAYS BE TRUSTED especially from UNNAMED sources.
This whole "unnamed sources" is such baloney. The accused has to prove that he's innocent, while the accuser doesn't have to prove or reveal anything. If the accused sues, he'll lose money defending himself and won't get squat back since he's a "public figure". It's a lose-lose situation for him ,while the journalist can hide behind the tenet of not revealing one's sources.
The journalist can say whatever he or she wants to sell books or newspapers, while the accused can never every get their reputation back. The public will just say "where there's smoke, there's fire". Yet, it's not the first time that the Times has been caught fabricating stories. Ha, "All the news, that's fit to makeup (err print)".
The whole thing is just sleazy. From the unnamed sources to the pushing back of the release to coincide with A-Rod's return. From only the release of A-Rod's name and not the others, although releasing the names is such a double-standard for a reporter.
The reporter wants to protect the identify of their unnamed or "confidential source", yet has no problem in revealing "confidential" test results. That's the most laughable part of the whole thing.