Oct 23, 2013, 9:13 AM EDT
Personally: I’d limit my defense of A-Rod to one centering on the disproportionate suspension he received rather than argue that he didn’t take any PEDs at all. Partially because of what the Biogenesis documents are reported to contain, partially because no one else associated with Biogenesis has claimed that they didn’t do it and partially because I don’t feel like I’d trust A-Rod enough to take his word for it.
Oh, also: I don’t feel like a lot of other people would buy it either. Better to err on the side of plausibility, yes?
Well, I’m not Joe Tacopina. And Mr. Tacopina is known to take bold stances. He’s doing so again:
Tacopina told CNN that Rodriguez had “absolutely not” taken illegal PEDs recently and challenged the notion that MLB possesses any evidence to the contrary.
As we’ve seen in the past, it’s possible to parse the term “illegal” in the phrase “illegal PEDs.” MLB bans lots of things, after all, that you, I or anyone else can go purchase at GNC or get from a physician. There’s also that whole bit about how stuff that is illegal here is not illegal in other countries. There’s also the fact that a lawyer saying something to CNN is different than actually arguing such a thing in an arbitration and that Tacopina has been all about the P.R. aspects of this case for some time.
Still, pretty interesting tack to take. As is some of the stuff in the linked article describing how this case is turning into a battle between MLB and A-Rod to portray the other as being sleazier in its efforts to obtain evidence.
- Albert Pujols was insulted when someone asked him if he can put up Mike Trout numbers (103)
- Manny Machado calls $519K salary for 2014 “disappointing” (88)
- Is Barry Bonds really getting a “fair hearing?” (88)
- Ryan Braun calls himself an “artist,” doesn’t care what fans on the road will shout at him (80)
- Giants players love having Barry Bonds at spring training (75)