Another A-Rod article: some nice points

by rodinuk on Feb 10, 2009 10:04 AM CST

Here's another article by Glanville from the NY Times. I think he made some good points.

Here were the best quotes--

There is a lot of outrage out there about Alex. Not surprising. But what really surprises me is the lack of outrage about how a confidential and anonymous test could be made public.

So: if Alex tested positive then, but he hasn’t since (and Monday he stated that he’s played clean since joining the Yankees), maybe that program served its purpose as a deterrent. If we take the higher ground and talk about the greater good of the game, then why create trust issues between owners and players by allowing an agreement to be breached this way? It undermines any sense of cooperation.

I don’t see the good in selling our souls while claiming we want to chase the devil from our midst.

Tweet Comment 2 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

I don't think the players association "allowed" a breach of the agreement

The US attorney subpoenaed the records and MLBPA fought hard against that.

People have brought up why players’ names were associated with the samples. Not being a statistician, I’m guessing this was done to ensure that the random sampling was truly random. You couldn’t just sample three teams or sample those under 25. The only way to prove randomness is by knowing who was tested. If everyone was tested then you still need to know who was tested to make sure everyone was tested. I’m guessing the samples were random but there was a seperate list identifying who gave which sample but the list was never supposed to be connected to the samples until the Feds got involved.

I need to think something lasts forever, and it might as well be that state of being that is a game; it might as well be that, in a green field, in the sun.

by WyoRanger on Feb 10, 2009 11:12 AM CST reply actions