Let me be the first to say that I'm not an A-Rod fan. He's obviously a very talented baseball player, and has/had the potential to go down as one of the greats, before all the events of the past three months or so.
However, I feel like I've got to defend him just a little for some of the new allegations that are coming up. Selena Roberts, the reporter who broke the story that Rodriguez failed a PED test while with the Rangers, has now come out with accusations that he may have begun using steroids while in high school, as well as tipping off opposing players in hopes of getting a return tip later in games.
Obviously, if these allegations are proven to be true, anything ARod does for the rest of his career-and everything he's already done, for that matter-cannot be taken seriously, and all of his accomplishments will be looked upon as not being legitimate. The problem I have with all of this, quite honestly, is the fact that, after making these allegations and putting them in her book, Selena Roberts has decided that she will not testify in court against ARod. I clearly don't know a lot about the way the law is set up in these circumstances, but since approximately 60% of the readership of this blog is a recent graduate or almost graduate of law school (congrats on that, by the way guys) I was hoping I could get some help with this situation.
Maybe I'm missing something here, but it doesn't seem right to me that Roberts can make allegations, namely that he used in high school and tipped off opponents during games, and not back them up in court, which I assume will happen, as Rodriguez would/should file a defamation suite.
From what I understand, Roberts claimed that Rodriguez may have used in high school. That's pretty serious stuff, in my opinion, to claim that a 17 year old may have used illegal substances, and then not be willing to back it up with clear evidence. Also, from what I understand, the test that Rodriguez failed in 2003 was supposed to be confidential, and there are apparently 103 other players who failed, but who's names have not been released.
Basically, none of that seems kosher to me. I know ARod has been a target for criticism ever since signing for a gazillion dollars with Texas in 2001, but that shouldn't give people the right to come out with (possibly) unfounded allegations against him, or rat him out for doing something that over 100 other ballplayers did, making him a poster-boy for everything that is wrong with baseball, a modern-day Barry Bonds now that he's been chased out of the game.
Again, I'm no expert, but help me out here. Is it alright to make these accusations and not testify in court? Why is it fine to talk about ARod's PED use when he's clearly not the only one to use, just the wealthiest? Please, throw me a bone, I'm confused.
2 comments:
Lance,
I haven't really read enough on the topic, but if Roberts is saying that she won't testify against A-Rod, she's almost certainly talking about testifying for the government in some type of criminal prosecution against A-Rod.
As far as a possible defamation suit by A-Rod against Roberts regarding the high-school PED allegations, A-Rod obviously has a tougher road to hoe in the defamation area than you or me because he's a public figure, so he would need to prove that Roberts made/wrote those statements regarding his high school PED use with "actual malice", meaning that the statements are false and Roberts made/wrote the statements either with knowledge of their falsity or a reckless disregard for the potential falsity of the statements. That's a pretty tough mountain to climb, and even more so because she's hedging the statement by the use of the word "may".
Just some thoughts.
Hmmmmmm
Post a Comment