Skip to content

MLB to question Alex Rodriguez tomorrow

Nov 14, 2013, 11:39 AM EDT

Alex Rodriguez

It’s not under oath — the hearing doesn’t resume until next week — but per the Collective Bargaining Agreement, Major League Baseball has a right to question Alex Rodriguez and they’re doing it tomorrow, reports Newsday:

Rodriguez will not be required to give sworn testimony, sources said his answers could bolster MLB’s case against him if it is determined he is not being truthful. Rodriguez previously has been interviewed by MLB in connection with the Biogenesis probe but did not answer questions, sources said.

When I was a lawyer I always liked to start depositions with something kinda off the wall instead of the usual hour’s worth of name/background/education questions. First question — “So, what do YOU think caused the crash?” They’re never ready for that. They haven’t even sipped their coffee yet. They expect a build-up. Bah. Just ask something like that and they’re off balance and you might get something close to the actual truth rather than the prepared answer they’ve practiced over and over. Doesn’t work all the time. Probably not even most of the time. But once in a while it does and it’s fun.

So, if I was questioning A-Rod? I ask him about the toilet sex. Absolutely the first thing I ask him about is the toilet sex.

Oh, you didn’t hear about that? And you say you didn’t think your opinion of either Alex Rodriguez or the New York tabloids could get any lower? Well, you’re welcome then!

  1. lawnovel - Nov 14, 2013 at 12:03 PM

    I once got to start a deposition with “Tell me, Ma’am – was your ex-husband impotent before the shooting?”

    Pretty much downhill from there, career-wise.

    • historiophiliac - Nov 14, 2013 at 12:34 PM

      A couple of times I got to start with: “Are you afraid I’m going to bite you?”

  2. ilovegspot - Nov 14, 2013 at 12:29 PM

    Ask him why he kisses mirrors in photos and where the centaurs painting of him is now.

  3. cur68 - Nov 14, 2013 at 12:40 PM

    Oy. Vey.

    The man has no sense of “Laying Low”, does he? Or…maybe he does…depends on your interpretation of “Laying Low”….but that’s neither here nor there. He’s almost certainly been cautioned by his legal team, in probably some pretty strong language, to keep out of trouble, keep out of the news, and avoid stuff like this.

    Proving, once again, that Alex Rodriguez is a Silly Schmuck.

    • beachnbaseball - Nov 14, 2013 at 3:39 PM

      He’ll be rehearsed over and over by his attorneys and his canned and prepared answers will be locked in his memory. He’s a pathological liar so being quizzed by MLB should be easy for him unless any answers he gives conflict with prior statements he has made. Maybe a satellite falling from orbit will fall on him.

  4. joestemme - Nov 14, 2013 at 12:49 PM

    A-Roid can go Fu#K himself

    • sabathiawouldbegoodattheeighthtoo - Nov 14, 2013 at 4:20 PM

      You spelled “BUD” wrong.

      • joestemme - Nov 14, 2013 at 5:34 PM

        they can circle jerk for all I care. :)

  5. peterjohnjoseph - Nov 14, 2013 at 12:59 PM

    Wow, Torrie Wilson is really starting to show her age. I feel like it was yesterday she was wearing ridiculous outfits while wrestling in public against well known villains in the WWE..

    Wait… Besides being gone from the WWE, I guess nothing’s really changed for her.

    She even got tagged out on Sunday night, so the villain could wrestle another blonde in public..

  6. historiophiliac - Nov 14, 2013 at 1:25 PM

    Hrmmm, wearing white pants to a ballgame? Bad idea. I’m going to call a baseball fashion faux pas on that.

  7. chip56 - Nov 14, 2013 at 4:01 PM

    Between your take on how collectively bargained negotiations work, your blather about the Braves ballpark situation showing you have no clue how lease agreements work and your general stupidity on all matters pertaining to any sort of contracts I’m starting to understand why you’re not a lawyer anymore.

    What I can’t quite fathom is how you ended up as a mildly successful blogger…oh, it’s NBC…never mind.

    • historiophiliac - Nov 14, 2013 at 4:18 PM

      I want to seriously ask you: what’s the payoff here for you? You come to a site and bash on the author…for what? I seriously don’t understand the motive to go online just to be a jerk to someone. I get arguing with them about their opinions and I understand insulting others who troll or make hateful/sexist/homophobic/etc comments — because it’s about the comments. I just don’t get coming to a site — and one you seem to dislike anyway — in order to insult the author personally. What do you get out of that? Does it make you feel smart or something? I don’t understand the reward.

      • chip56 - Nov 14, 2013 at 4:27 PM

        Ever boo a player at a ball game? Same thing except saying “booooooooooooooooo” is really lost in type.

        Seriously though – you can’t tell me that you don’t get bored of Craig harping on the same dumb things in post after post after post…go look, how many times in the last four days has he written about how the politicians of Cobb County and the Braves are sticking it to the people…15 times? How many times in the last few months has he written about how MLB is out to screw Alex Rodriguez…1 billion?

        He’s trying to win an argument not by making a compelling argument; but by fatiguing anyone who disagrees into finally saying “fine, whatever” and just hoping he changes the effing station.

        If that kind of trolling…not writing…trolling…doesn’t deserve a hearty boo as much as an 0-35 with 20k streak does, then I don’t know what would.

      • historiophiliac - Nov 14, 2013 at 4:34 PM

        First of all, anyone on here will tell you I “booo” and throw food stuffs all the time, so I don’t agree about that being lost in the medium. Secondly, yeah, I just don’t read the posts he writes that I find tiresome. I don’t attack him personally. Disagreeing with his argument does not justify belittling a person. And, again, if you hate Craig’s work and NBC, I really don’t understand the point of coming here just to say that. There are other sites you can read.

      • chip56 - Nov 14, 2013 at 5:21 PM

        I read his stuff because I think he’s moderately talented and somewhat amusing from time to time.

        That said, I don’t see anything wrong with being critical when he launches into a mundane diatribe about this sort of thing. More than that though, my question about his ability as a lawyer was directed at the fact that most lawyers have a basic understanding of contracts and agreements that Craig’s posts on these subjects seem to lack.

      • righthandofjustice - Nov 14, 2013 at 4:31 PM

        May I ask what does this thread has to do with the Braves and their proposed new ballpark?

        If you want to criticize some blogger, do it in the article(s) pertaining to your criticism please!

    • cur68 - Nov 14, 2013 at 8:24 PM

      Ok Chip, here’s the damn gauntlet: YOU tell us.

      What’s wrong/right with the Cobb County Stadium Proposal? Where is Craig getting it wrong. Specifics, please. All you’ve provided so far is; “Craig’s WRONG, dammit! He’s wrong and I HATE him!!! Waaaaaaaaaaah! . . . .oops. I peed myself again…”

      Lets see if you have shred of integrity. Back up your talk with some evidence.

      • cur68 - Nov 14, 2013 at 8:29 PM

        Oh, and I’ll also accept a reasonable argument for why ARod should acquiesce to that ridiculous suspension handed out. You’ll need to provide some precedence as support for that one as well as some allowance in the CBA for it.

      • chip56 - Nov 15, 2013 at 11:04 AM

        There’s nothing wrong with the Cobb County proposal. If the county wants to use their funds to build a ball park because they believe the benefit will outweigh the cost then bully for them.

        Nor is there anything wrong with the Braves accepting their offer to have a new stadium, nor are the people who funded Turner Field being screwed.

        When public funding was made available to transform the Olympic Stadium into Turner Field the Braves signed a lease for a period of time. The city of Atlanta knew how long that lease was and knew that the Braves were entitled to leave when it expired.

        So to say people are getting screwed, to imply that the people were swindled, all is incorrect from both a factual and emotional standpoint.

        Any other questions?

      • cur68 - Nov 15, 2013 at 4:17 PM

        Fail. You didn’t account for a single thing Craig mentioned. Its not a matter of rights. No one is questioning rights. Its a matter of politicians DECIDING that they are going ahead with a plan which could leave taxpayers on the hook for well over half the cost and none of the profits. Its a matter of unilateral decision making re-allocating funds FROM thinks like education, healthcare, infrastructure to pay for some rich guys stadium.

        These are things you’d know if you’d read the post and engaged in some critical thinking instead of mindlessly slamming Craig. So yeah, ALL of the questions remain. What’s wrong with what Craig wrote?

      • chip56 - Nov 15, 2013 at 4:29 PM

        A) you have no idea that the money being spent on the stadium is being taken away from any of those things.

        B) Politicians are elected to represent the interests of the people who put them in office. Not every issue that faces a region is voted on; some issues are decided by representatives – such as this one. Hence my comment that if the people representing Cobb County think that this is a good idea and aren’t receiving any bribes or kick backs to fund this stadium, then no one is being screwed.

        C) none of this has to do with the core of my statement which is that arguments should be won or lost on merit, not by fatiguing your opponent.

      • cur68 - Nov 15, 2013 at 4:33 PM

        A) See Marlins Stadium
        B) See Marlins Stadium
        C) You’re still wrong.
        D) You haven’t answered ANY of Craig’s questions about how the shortfall is being met, WHY taxpayers should foot the damn bill or why you’re a loon.

      • chip56 - Nov 15, 2013 at 4:16 PM

        And as for Alex. I never said that he should accept the punishment handed down by MLB. What I said is that there’s a difference between writing a compelling article with well founded and reasoned arguments that stops and makes people evaluate or re-evaluate their stance on something vs. just writing the same stuff over and over and over and over and over again and fatiguing those who oppose you into submission.

        On the ballpark issue and the PED issue Craig has taken the latter approach. Now, you sycophant little fan boy, here’s your gauntlet…I believe you know where you can stick it.

      • cur68 - Nov 15, 2013 at 4:23 PM

        You mad bro?

      • chip56 - Nov 18, 2013 at 9:37 AM

        No, I don’t get mad at people who post on blogs.

      • cur68 - Nov 18, 2013 at 9:43 AM

        Ah. So you’re just an asshole then.

      • chip56 - Nov 18, 2013 at 9:44 AM

        Oh, I’m much more than just an asshole…asshole is only one of the many many ways to describe me.

  8. righthandofjustice - Nov 14, 2013 at 4:21 PM

    According to AP:

    “MLB has been expected to assert that Rodriguez should not be allowed to testify at his grievance if he first refused to answer MLB’s questions at the investigatory interview.

    The person said MLB has threatened A-Rod with additional discipline if he answers questions at an interview and denies using PEDs during the period in question. It is not clear if additional discipline could be combined with the current grievance.”

    Seemingly that AP source doesn’t think there will be anything other than “toilet sex” kind of questions asked. He also think that meeting may be cancelled.

    Note that the actual arbitration hearing will resume just one business day later, this meeting doesn’t seem to serve any purpose other than to (1) stop A-Rod from testifying in the hearing if he refuses to answer some questions tomorrow or (2) threaten A-Rod to give testimony against his will and/or in favor of MLB, or else risk getting more disciplinary actions (which is doubtful to be legitimate or legal given we are already deep into the arbitration hearing process).

    MLB is really becoming a joke! Didn’t they push A-Rod to talk for months? Now, A-Rod wanted to talk and they tried all kinds of tricks to stop him from telling his story the legitimate way. First, they blocked the conference A-Rod tried to hold in mid-town pertaining to gross misconducts of MLB officials. Then, they refused to open the door for the hearing as a response to Manfred’s surprised letter in the “Today” show to review A-Rod’s information to the public. Now, they even tried to find a way to either stop A-Rod from speaking in the hearing or threaten him with illegal additional disciplinary actions.

    The secrets MLB is trying with all cost to hide must be an astonishing one!

  9. Old Gator - Nov 14, 2013 at 7:25 PM

    Uh-oh, I’m out of microwave popcorn.

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. G. Stanton (2373)
  2. B. Crawford (2309)
  3. Y. Puig (2283)
  4. G. Springer (2055)
  5. D. Wright (2009)
  1. J. Hamilton (1992)
  2. J. Fernandez (1971)
  3. D. Span (1913)
  4. H. Ramirez (1878)
  5. C. Correa (1847)