Whatever one thinks of A-Rod, nothing he's done as a baseball player comes close to the sliminess of creating a forum for people to anonymously savage someone's reputation. Selena Roberts needs to get a life.

You've read this tripe so we don't have to. History will not look kindly on the era of steroid hysteria.

I'm awaiting receipt of Barra's book on Yogi Berra, which I anticipate will be a refreshingly non-nostalgic look back at another exceptional baseball player, and at a historical moment that was no less complex than the one we're living in.

It's depressingly uncommon these days (or was it always like this?) for the press to question anyone's claims if it means the press has another stupid story to shove down our throats. I'm no fan of A-Rod, and I'd certainly rather that everyone in baseball were on an even playing field, but this article pretty well captures how mindless most of the PED discussion is. I think it's sad that Roberts used to be a New York Times reporter--aren't they supposed to be the best newspaper in the country--but it isn't surprising or atypical.

How do you go through the entire article without mentioning that Selena Roberts was the reporter who brought us the fabulously accurate and authentic Duke lacrosse rape story?

She has no credibility.

Anyone who would write this phrase:

"Regarding nearly all of them, including the Primobolan and testosterone that Rodriguez admitted to taking, it can be stated that there isn't evidence that they improve baseball performance at all."

Is a complete moron.

Steroids are responsible for the unprecendeted surge in power that we've seen across baseball for the last two decades. It's not speculation - it's fact. To ignore this is to close your eyes to reality.

A-Roid is an admitted user of anabolic steroids. And the use he talked about is a sophisticated cycling that indicates a lot more than he let on during his interview. To brush this away by noting that what he did wasn't against the rules at the time is both (1) false (Baseball bannd steroids in 1990, but had no testing program in place) and (2) irrelevent.

Your attitude about the subject marks you as either a willing dupe or simply a fool. Take you pick.

I believe Barra's point is that there hasn't been a study, peer reviewed, controlled and such as we would expect in other matters, to prove that these drugs improve specific baseball skills. And he's correct.

Anecdotally, it does seem to be the case that they do. But, anecdotally, it seemed pretty clear at one time that the earth was flat and Iraq had WMD.

And Barra never said PEDs weren't "against the rules at the time". He specifically said they hadn't instituted penalties. And he's correct.

In my ledger, there are two sets of Baseball statistics. Before dope and after. A Rod belongs in the later like a certain cyclist, who remains the greatest doped bike racer.

We must do away with them and send all their participants to the Gulag.

I am a Yankee-hater. I think A-Rod is a pompous, fantastically talented, arse. Given those two caveats, this book is the biggest bunch of 'sportswriting' tripe possibly ever foisted on the literate sports community.

As smileyy pointed out in his previous post, consider the source here - Selena Roberts, whose columns at the NYT gave away her raging antipathy toward athletes and their games and culture. Her career-making high profile 'scoop' prior to A-Rod was the Duke Lax case where her journalistic standards included single unnamed sources with clear agendas, reliance on tainted evidence, as well as making clearly defamatory innuendo that was later proven in court to be false.

Judy Miller and Selena Roberts, two of a kind. Sad that passed for reporting at the Times, I guess we can sleep easier knowing that both are former employees.

Roberts appears to have employed the same methods here, as Barra points out, using thinly sourced quotes, ignoring sources who might counter her pre-conceived notion of what a bad guy A-Rod has been. I think that A-Rod will actually get a bounce from this book, which is so clearly a screed that tells us nothing definitive or corroborated that could possibly turn an A-Rod fan against him.

I'm not ready to buy a 13 shirt yet, but Roberts' effort here makes me that much more inclined to give the guy a break.

Before dope and after

So when's your dividing line? What about the 70s when they "were all on speed"? What kind of a variable are you using to depreciate the improvements in medicine and diet? The improvements in training and travel? Vitamins? Rules changes? Equpiment improvements? Integration? Night games?

Just to elaborate on the topic of baseball rules changes, I would point out that raising or lowering the height of the pitcher's mound and the introduction of the designated hitter (at least on the Junior Circuit) both would have far more impact on the outcome of any given game of baseball than any amount of steroids ingested by players on either team could possibly have.

The really hard hitting question to ask at this juncture in history is why on earth was the Congress of the United States devoting countless more time and energy in hearing after hearing around baseball in the past 5 years than they were devoting to investigating the banks and mortgage industry implosion as it was developing?

Baseball has long been a decent reflection on American society, and the image I've seen in the mirror for the past few years has been a nanny-state sideshow where tabloid sensationalism takes precedence over science and critical thought.

What about all those utility guys who can now turn singles into doubles? What about juiced pitchers facing juiced batters?

.. what drug players use? As pointed out, drugs have been a part of the athletic landscape forever. One day you walk into your favorite brothel, and there's Marilyn Monroe. Hmmm... Steroids are just the best looking hooker in the ho house.

Besides, I'm willing to wager that Willis Reed had more drugs in him that famous night in May, 1970, than Barry Bonds had in him in May, 2000. Who their dealer was is the only difference.