Dec 10, 2010, 6:57 AM EST
It seems that Sandy Alderson was asked by reporters yesterday if signing catcher Ronny Paulino was an “ethical and public relations” problem in light of Paulino’s suspension for taking a banned stimulant last year. Not surprisingly, Alderson said no, it was not.
People can ask what they want to ask of course, but I don’t recall this being an issue with other players who have been linked to PEDs. It is in keeping, however, with the curious scrutiny that some have given Alderson when it comes to PEDs and which is not given to other GMs who ran teams during the height of the steroid era. As if Alderson cooked up ‘roids in an old Winnebago in the desert with Jose Canseco or something. Which would be totally cool, of course, but it didn’t happen that way.
My view: there are rules in place governing PEDs now. The suspensions are part of those rules, as is the reinstatement of suspended players. Paulino did his time. There are no “ethical considerations” involved unless one does not respect the current rules in place. And if that’s the case, the questions are not for Sandy Alderson. They’re for Bud Selig.
- MLB declares Hector Olivera a free agent 0
- Video: Watch Matt Harvey’s return to action against the Tigers 3
- Matt Harvey makes his return. And he was really impressive. 23
- Hector Olivera’s camp denies any damage to ulnar collateral ligament 3
- UPDATE: Hunter Pence out 6-8 weeks with fracture in left forearm 28
- MLBPA: leaks are from people “who want to see Josh Hamilton hurt personally and professionally” 36
- Suspending Josh Hamilton for a year would be obscene 147
- Report: MLB panel split on rehab for Josh Hamilton; one-year suspension is in play 45
- Daniel Murphy on Billy Bean: “I do disagree with the fact that Billy is a homosexual” (380)
- Suspending Josh Hamilton for a year would be obscene (147)
- Curt Schilling lowers the boom on some men tweeting threats against his daughter (137)
- That facts of Josh Hamilton’s case should not be a matter of public record (94)
- Billy Bean responds to Daniel Murphy’s comments (90)