It’s been relatively quiet over the past year, as far as baseball and drug scandals go. The much-vaunted Mitchell Report, Roger Clemens and Barry Bonds not withstanding, there haven’t been too many doping stories related to baseball that have caught fire in the past 12 months. A few stories here and there. But on the whole nothing that’s jumped off the pages (or these days, the computer screen) and grabbed my eyeballs and demanded, “Read me!”
That is, until this morning, when during a break in a training class I was attending, I happened upon the A-Rod story. According to a Sports Illustrated report, the Yankees slugger tested positive for steroids during the 2003 season, when drug testing was being conducted to see if drug testing needed to be conducted.
Another big-league-er who doped? Here’s the beginning of SI’s story.
In 2003, when he won the American League home run title and the AL Most Valuable Player award as a shortstop for the Texas Rangers, Alex Rodriguez tested positive for two anabolic steroids, four sources have independently told Sports Illustrated.
Rodriguez’s name appears on a list of 104 players who tested positive for performance-enhancing drugs in Major League Baseball’s ’03 survey testing, SI’s sources say. As part of a joint agreement with the MLB Players Association, the testing was conducted to determine if it was necessary to impose mandatory random drug testing across the major leagues in 2004.
The deal was: If more than 5% of the players tested came up positive, regular testing with some form of penalties would begin in 2004. Well, guess what? More than 5% tested positive and the real testing — such as it is — began. But the test results from 2003 were supposed to remain confidential. A small matter called Balco threw a monkey wrench in that idea.
Seems that federal prosecutors investigating 10 players tied to the Balco scandal (including Barry Bonds) managed to get their hands on the records of the all the positive test results, and on information that could tie those test results to specific players. Somewhere along the way, someone who’s seen those records has leaked a bit of information to the press. And so, we have a story about yet another baseball player who (may have) juiced. Now, what do you think A-Rod’s reaction would be when questioned about whether or not he tested positive?
“You’ll have to talk to the union,” said Rodriguez, the Yankees’ third baseman since his trade to New York in February 2004. When asked if there was an explanation for his positive test, he said, “I’m not saying anything.”
That was pretty predictable. And, of course, the union pointed out that the information was supposed to be under lock and key.
The MLBPA issued a statement on Saturday, saying “Information and documents relating to the results of the 2003 MLB testing program are both confidential and under seal by court orders. We are prohibited from confirming or denying any allegation about the test results of any particular player[s] by the collective bargaining agreement and by court orders. Anyone with knowledge of such documents who discloses their contents may be in violation of those court orders.”
Could be. Could well be. So the question that comes to mind here is, “Did A-Rod really dope?” His response to the SI reporter is hardly one that does anything to deny that possibility. And the union’s response doesn’t do much to shoot down the notion that yet another star baseball player is/was using a little something to put a bit more pep in his step.
So how, exactly, did the information get out? Sports Illustrated claims to have four sources who tell the same story. A-Rod is among the 104 players in 2003 whose test results came up positive for one or more banned substances.
Rodriguez’s testing information was found, however, after federal agents, armed with search warrants, seized the ’03 test results from Comprehensive Drug Testing, Inc., of Long Beach, Calif., one of two labs used by MLB in connection with that year’s survey testing. The seizure took place in April 2004 as part of the government’s investigation into 10 major league players linked to the BALCO scandal — though Rodriguez himself has never been connected to BALCO.
The list of the 104 players whose urine samples tested positive is under seal in California. However, two sources familiar with the evidence that the government has gathered in its investigation of steroid use in baseball and two other sources with knowledge of the testing results have told Sports Illustrated that Rodriguez is one of the 104 players identified as having tested positive, in his case for testosterone and an anabolic steroid known by the brand name Primobolan. All four sources spoke on the condition of anonymity due to the sensitive nature of the evidence.
One question that comes to mind is, “Why now?” What’s in it for the people who’ve released this information? From all reports, Rodriguez isn’t and hasn’t been a part of the Balco investigation. Assuming, for the moment, that the story is true, could this be a way of putting pressure on A-Rod to spill what he knows about other players who juiced. Like, say, Barry Bonds? Bonds’ trial for perjury will be starting in just a few weeks’ time. Could prosecutors be angling for a way to get Rodriguez to testify against Bonds? And if so, what information might he have that would be of use?
The timing seems a bit odd to me. A-Rod’s results, if SI’s story is correct, were not covered by the original search warrant in 2004. The baseball union is currently arguing in court that the results of players whose names weren’t listed in the original warrant should not be released. And if the court winds up agreeing with the union, then the government will be barred from using that information against A-Rod and 93 other individuals.
There’s a story within the story here. And that has to do with the motivations of the people releasing the information as much as it does with who did what and when. On the surface, it’s a sensational headline for a day or so. It may stick around for a bit, but before long it will most likely fade from view.
Of course, for the Yankees third-baseman, news of his positive test results will not have quite the same negative impact as it might on other athletes in other sports. Rodriguez’s contract apparently doesn’t have any clauses dealing with steroids, which means that the Yankees are on the hook for at least $275 million in salary between now and the end of the 2017 season. And if he manages to do pretty well in the home runs department (he’s at 553 right now), he could surpass Barry Bonds’ 762 career homers by the end of his contract. All it would take is for A-Rod to average a bit over 23 home runs per season for the next nine years.
Maybe the persons leaking the story don’t want to see another record-holder tainted by allegations of doping. Maybe they have other motivations. For all we know, the story may or may not be true.
If A-Rod and the players’ union want to paint a picture of innocence, then their response leaves something to be desired. Makes you wonder if they even care what the fans think. I’m guessing not.
Interesting sidenote: Joe Torre, the Yankees manager, has a new book out. In his book, he supposedly relates that other players on the team nicknamed Rodriguez “A-Fraud.” Maybe the other Yankees know something we don’t. I’m just sayin’…
Hey Rant, it’s L’Equipe all over again huh? Glad that at least it’s NOT a cyclist.
Paula
Paula,
Doesn’t it sound that way? Some mysterious person is leaking A-Rod’s test results. Now, we don’t really know if the leak is true or false, as there’s not actual documentation available. It’s supposed to be confidential, after all. Really makes me wonder what the purpose of leaking this information at this particular time is.
I sure am glad this isn’t a case involving another cyclist. That’s the last thing the sport needs.
This is an example of where/when/how anti-doping puts its foot in the s%*t.
When a promise of confidentiality is made, it needs to be kept, no matter how inconvenient such a promise may become in the future.
When confidentiality agreements are broken, or allowed to be broken, then future agreements that may be to the benefit of anti-doping will not likely be forthcoming in the future. Anti-doping would be well advised if cautioned to be careful which bridges are chosen to be burned.
If I really cared much about MLB, this might be of interest. As it is, it is just merely humorous. MLB will likely continue to turn a blind eye. When Rodriguez came back to Seattle to play for the Yankees, people in the stands showed up with fishing rods dangling dollar bills to try to get his attention. The stadium owners threw them out. Along with the fans with the t-shirts that said “Yankees Suck.”
It’s the times. If somebody, especially somebody famous, does something, sooner or later it will come out.
Most never consider that once they’re on Top, what is in store, going back down. The only other certainty; people are lining up to demish what may have been accomplished.
But in this instance I agree with Rant’s comments. One certainty – $ 275,000,000 dollars to look forward to til 2017 is a lot to have put in danger.
I could give a rat’s rear end about baaseball in general and an overpaid player in particular. However, if anti-doping organizations, or leagues present riders/players/athletes with the proposition that their urine/blood/other samples are to be tested for research, or as some sort of litmus test to decide whether to test further, with the promise of confidentiality, then the riders/players/athletes are galactically naive if they believe the results of such sample taking will actually be kept confidential. The whole confidentialiaty thing is a bold faced lie. That’s the reality.
There are too many people who have motivation for money/fame/revenge that have knowledege of the tests. It doesn’t matter if you are refering to the Lance Armstrong/LNDD/UCI/TdF/ASO/L’Equipe fiasco, the prematurely leaked results of Floyd Landis/2006 TdF, you name it and they leaked it before its time results of countless other riders, or the MLB/SI/ARod fiasco now starting.
Confidentiality has proven to be a lie. The anti-dopers have serially not been abe to be trusted with confidential information. In the big picture, confidentiality should be a small and relatively easy thing to maintain/accomplish. To paraphrase Chris Campbell in his descenting opinion regarding the Floyd Landis Malibu hearing, if they connont be trusted with the small things, how can you trust them with the greater things?
There are many on the other side, but I’m sure I’m not alone in being sceptical of any announced AAF or sanction, unless accompanied with an admission. Anti-doping has been so cavalier with the small things and the greater things. The result is a lower trust in anti-doping even than with atheltes in certain sports with a high incidence of doping. FWIW.
People! What is going on here? Do you all assume that Rodriguez is guilty of doping?
Have you forgotten the lessons we learned in the Landis case?
Where are the results of the Rodriguez “B” test? Answer: there was no “B” testing. I thought that most of you believed that “B” testing was required in an anti-doping case.
What about an examination of the IRMS tests? Rest assured, there was no IRMS testing of the Rodriguez samples. The Rodriguez findings were most likely based solely on less reliable tests, like T/E tests. Someone is going to have to go through the testing methodology used in the Rodriguez tests, before I’ll give this testing any creedence.
Remember, the 2003 testing was designed not to catch individual dopers, but instead to determine the rough percentage of baseball players using performance-enhancing drugs. You can tolerate a much larger percentage of false positives and false negatives if your testing is designed to measure a general trend and not to catch individual dopers.
Back in 2006, when I heard the first announcement of the Landis test results, I thought he was guilty too. I won’t be so easily fooled a second time.
Larry,
You make a good point. We know nothing of what testing methods were used to determine whether those 104 players who “tested positive” in 2003 were doping. Very likely, it could be as you say, basic tests that have limited (or no) reliability.
In 2003, the testing was to determine the rough percentage. The thinking, apparently, was that if less than 5% of the tests came back positive, there wasn’t much of a problem to deal with. That’s arguable, depending on the methodology used to gather the samples (random/with advanced warning/etc.)
My biggest question is: Why is whoever has released this information doing so now? What is the agenda of the person(s) doing so?
Is A-Rod guilty of doping? Hard to say. We don’t really have enough evidence to evaluate — even if many of us have a “gut feeling.”
But clearly, putting this info into the media is intended to convict him in the court of public opinion. And to that end, I’d like to know why. But since the sources are anonymous, it’s going to be hard to answer that question definitively.
Rant –
You and I are now light-years ahead of the geniuses who have pronounced A-Rod guilty of doping. Because we’ve actually THOUGHT about this, and done some research.
A-Rod is accused of having doped with testosterone and methenolone (often referred to by the brand name Primobolan). After the Landis experience, many of us here know the issues surrounding testing for testosterone, so I won’t mention them here.
It appears that methenolone testing is performed by conventional GC/MS analysis that looks for ions characteristic of methenolone and its major metabolite. There are two ways to perform the test: a screening procedure and a confirmatory procedure using a full scan.
For those who like to read about such things, you can get a description of one lab’s methenolone test methodology at http://www.clinchem.org/cgi/reprint/40/11/2084.pdf. This article comes to the interesting conclusion that it is possible to fail a methenolone drug test by eating meat from animals that received methenolone as a growth hormone.
From my research, it appears entirely possible that only screening tests were performed on the Rodriguez sample. Why would the labs have gone to the extra expense of performing confirming tests? They were not trying to prove that any particular athlete had doped, they were only trying to generate some general statistics.
Try to imagine what we would have had to say if Landis had been convicted solely on the basis of a screening test on his “A” sample, without confirming tests, without “B” sample testing, without any review of the test results by the lab or an ADA committee. So far, it appears that this is the depth of the scientific analysis used by the “experts” to convict Alex Rodriguez.
As for the question of why this information was released? According to Selena Roberts, the Sports Illustrated reporter who broke this story, the reporter was working on a “profile” of Rodriguez and in the process heard rumors of his steroid use.
Makes it easier when they confess. This is now more like Millar than Landis:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/baseball/mlb/02/09/arod.admits/index.html
I expect the fishing rods (!) at his next appearance in Seattle to have hooks with syringes on them.
The AP is reporting an admission from A-Rod.
That doesn’t change much for me. I don’t care much about baseball. Care less for its statistics/records. They mean little. Different eras, different rules, different cultures, different admission to the league policy (re:Negro League).
I do care about the process and the process is broken.
Had A-rod been innocent, then his reputation could’t have been made whole because of broken promises and breaches of protocol. Some will claim no harm, no foul as A-Rod is admittedly guilty. There is still harm and there is still foul. Broken promises and breaches of protocol prejudice innocent athletes, sometimes to the point where one cannot actullay determine from the evidence if a particular accused athlete is/was innocent or not. When that happens, the athlete in question should be made whole, or as close as possible. We know that doesn’t happen.
eightzero,
It sure does make things easier when people `fess up. Jeff has a good point that any system that allows confidential information to leak out has some problems. That’s something which needs to be corrected. True, A-Rod is guilty, by his own admission. But somewhere down the road, similar revelations might hit the press and they might not be true. Then, some real damage can be done. In Rodriguez’s case, he’s brought it on himself. And in the SI story, he seems to accept responsibility for that. Good for him for doing so. Perhaps he should have done so sooner.
Larry,
Back in the summer of `79, I worked in a photo studio in Colorado, where the phrase “Never Ass-U-Me” was emblazoned on one of the walls in the darkroom. I can’t say that I never assume, but it is good advice. 🙂
Jeff, agreed.
Just so we’re clear on the differences here, MLB players are not subject to the sort of extensive discipline as compared to cycling. Yes, there are some rudimentary MLB disciplinary proceedings (a few games suspended; the equivalent of a slap on the wrist) but compare what will happen to Rodriquez compared to what happened to Landis: Landis has been almost wholly depreived of the benefits of his efforts based on loss of his title; a deprivation that was without due process. Rodriguez will likely still receive a monetary amount that rivals the GDP/GNP of some third world nations. His “records” and “statistics” will remain intact, and while that asterisk may follow him around, who will really care? Look at who is listed as the 2006 TdF champion in almost any source, and you will not see Lanids’ name, but Pereiro’s. Many may add an asterisk, but less than have one by Bonds or Rodriquez’ names. MLB was more imperiled by the betting by Pete Rose. The actions against him were far more draconican that what will likely be levied on Rodriguez.
Why is this? Is it because Baseball is so “storied?” Is it because Rodriguez is a union member? Is it simple economics – MLB has so much money involved, no one is willing to challenge it? Is it because cycling is an Olympic sport, and baseball is not?
Or is because chick dig the long ball? Humpf.
8-0, any comparison of Landis and Rodriguez is going to be difficult, as Rodriguez has confessed to doping, while a few of us die-hards are still not convinced that Landis doped.
But the primary difference you’re looking for is that there were no sanctions in place in baseball during Rodriguez’s confessed span of doping.
My own POV is that baseball’s anti-doping policy is better than cycling’s. A slap on the wrist is better than eternal damnation, particular when the testing is suspect and most dopers are going to get away with doping.
I’d love to get off baseball topics, but the material just keeps coming:
In a related story, Tejada is being accused of lying to Congress. It’s an old joke, but irony seems to be completely lost on many of our elected officials. If Tejada lied to Congress, or investigators representing Congress, then turn about is fair play. Congress is, afterall, a consumate liars club.
(Said with a a sincere, concerned, outraged straight face)
What a bunch of doping apologists. He got popped, he’s guilty as hell, and should be crucified along with every other one of the 103. There should never have been a promise of confidentiality. That was just more cover-up by MLB management and the Union. Anyway, those promises were empty, because our government rightly subpoenead and seized the records before they could be destroyed. Don’t bother me with details about names on the seizure order — all who were positive did something illegal. The guilty names will dribble out one or a few at a time and these guys will get the ignominy they so much deserve. It’ll be entertaining to watch these rich fat cat pampered athletes get brought down, and serve as instructional warnings to all the kids out there who might otherwise be tempted down the dark path. Hang ’em all and let God sort them out. The righteous recognize the possibility of immoral cheating, and will have none of it, if it is brought to our attention. Once noticed, no mercy, no qualification, no questioning of evidence, no “on the other hand”, and no qualms about whatever methods were used to find the Truth as we see it. This scourge must be stopped by whatever means are thought necessary, with no constraints. If you don’t like it, you are probably hiding something of your own, like minimizing your taxes (cheat!), habitual speeding, rolling through stop signs, and web surfing at work. None of you deserve to live in this great country, or the protections it promises, when we feel like they apply. And they don’t apply for these scum, or you.
Got it?
TBV
Yessir. I got it. Back to the salt mines for me.