February 20, 2009

A-Rod: More Steroid Links

The Daily News uncovers more steroid links to Alex Rodriguez, reporting that "four independent sources" have said that A-Rod "has had a long relationship with a steroid-linked trainer who's been banned from major league clubhouses".

Angel Presinal, who was banned from private areas of every MLB ballpark after an October 2001 incident involving an unmarked gym bag full of steroids, has been tight with the Yankee slugger dating back to his time with the Texas Rangers, several sources said.

A former New York-area scout says Presinal, whose named surfaced in the Mitchell Report, was with Rodriguez in New York and Miami as recently as this past fall. ...

Another source said Presinal accompanied A-Rod for the entire 2007 season, staying in the same hotel as the A.L. MVP ... The source said Rodriguez avoided being seen in public with Presinal. ...

In addition to A-Rod, Presinal has worked with some of the game's biggest stars: Juan Gonzalez, Pedro Martinez, David Ortiz, Vladimir Guerrero, Bartolo Colon, Miguel Tejada, Adrian Beltre, Moises Alou, Jose Guillen, Ervin Santana, Ruben Sierra, Francisco Cordero, Jose Mesa and Juan Guzman, among others.

16 comments:

Benjamin said...

Any time I feel annoyed about having to suffer through yet another news report about A-Rod, I remember that he and his fellow MFYs have to suffer through them too. It's like an old song:

When A-Rod humps
When the boli stings
When I'm feeling sad
I simply remember that the MFYs might lose a few points of OPS or ERA+ because of it
And then I don't feel so bad

andy said...

Looks like all the islander players are under the gun now thanks to that super trainer who only worked with them and was banned for a goody bag. That is not good publicity. Ortiz being on that list is disturbing because how many others who later were proven to have used, lied about using and made a big deal about how they weren't. You all might recall last week papi made some strong statements about people using these drugs. His numbers also saw a dramatic rise around the same time as a lot of users who got caught. Ortiz' comments are even more ominous when you see he is really just trying to put it behind us. It's almost a cheating husband's confession where he really doesn't say he did it but justifies in his mind that he did come clean. That being said, if roids is what it takes for papzilla to hit 55 hr then so be it. I will shoot him up myself, in front of the senators and selig himself, live on ESPN and ESPNdeportes.

Pokerwolf said...

It's really unfortunate that Petey and Papi are on that list.

Ugh.

Rob said...

When did the term trainer replace drug dealer? I suppose if every drug dealer learns a little something about playing baseball and fitness we could get rid of all of them... then the crack down on
"trainers" would begin. It is a much more friendlier sounding term.

L-girl said...

The Drugs Are Evil crowd doesn't even see what a loaded word "dealer" is. Maybe we should buy beer and cigarettes from dealers and call it even.

Pokerwolf said...

The Drugs Are Evil crowd doesn't even see what a loaded word "dealer" is. Maybe we should buy beer and cigarettes from dealers and call it even.

That's the entire point, L-Girl. They won't call them anything else because it might not show how "bad and awful" these guys are.

L-girl said...

That's the entire point, L-Girl. They won't call them anything else because it might not show how "bad and awful" these guys are.

I understand that. I think Rob is saying the opposite - don't call them trainers, call them dealers.

My point is that maybe they are trainers, but some people don't approve of the training methods. It's only wrong because we say it is. It can also be seen as an informed choice by a consenting adult. If people want to take those risks in the quest of winning, let 'em. It's their bodies, not ours. We just enjoy the results.

Pokerwolf said...

My point is that maybe they are trainers, but some people don't approve of the training methods. It's only wrong because we say it is. It can also be seen as an informed choice by a consenting adult. If people want to take those risks in the quest of winning, let 'em. It's their bodies, not ours. We just enjoy the results.

Exactly. These drugs are illegal because a Senator needed a drum to beat in the late '90s. That's it.

L-girl said...

These drugs are illegal because a Senator needed a drum to beat in the late '90s.

Right! It's also an easy fit with the whole "war on drugs" mentality, the self-righteous, hypocritical attitude about substance use/abuse, and - don't forget - it gives the sports media and jealous fans another stick with which to beat the players. We can never have enough player bashing! Even though without them we'd have no game, we have to hate them, too - or only love the ones designated as loveable.

Argh! It makes me sick. I can't wait for Opening Day but I also dread it because this is all anyone will talk about.

Thanks, Pokerwolf. So many sane people around JoS.

Zenslinger said...

I understand that drug use is inevitable in human behavior, and that the discussions surrounding the issue (in which Laura takes no interest at all :) ) are full of hyposcrisy. But I don't think that there should be no rules about it. In ordinary life, people can do drugs and accept the cost as a matter between them and their own conscience. But in competition, it's true that PED's help performance. That makes it unfair for those to use them to have a competitive advantage over those who don't.

Doesn't it?

L-girl said...

(in which Laura takes no interest at all :) )

Ha ha, no, I'm not uninterested, I'm just not angry, disappointed, horrified, shocked or any of the other things fans are supposed to be over these revelations. And I do wish the whole thing would just go away. (Of course my list of things I want to go away is verrrrry long.)

But in competition, it's true that PED's help performance. That makes it unfair for those to use them to have a competitive advantage over those who don't.

It gives them an advantage, but why is it an unfair advantage?

Advantage also comes from training harder, knowing your body better, being smarter, being born into a well-off family so you have early training. Maybe also from talk therapy, yoga, herbal remedies, whatever else. And of course being born with more talent.

There's no such thing as a level playing field in sport. If there were, there would practically be no sports at all.

Pokerwolf said...

Doesn't it?

Indeed it does. I think that sports leagues should test for PEDs, but that they shouldn't be illegal.

andy said...

Laura you hit it on the head.

Zenslinger said...

It gives them an advantage, but why is it an unfair advantage?

Because it's a) something that can be controlled AND b) it doesn't require effort on the part of the athlete. Surely there's a difference between saying it's wrong to pop pills to get bigger muscles and putting some kind of hobbling device on an athlete because he/she has great natural talent or grew with financial advantages that bought them good coaching.

Indeed it does. I think that sports leagues should test for PEDs, but that they shouldn't be illegal.

Now that's interesting. I tend to agree.

Rob said...

I really could care less if they are all doping it up because it seems like a lot of them are and lets face it the game was a lot more interesting to watch when they were smacking them out of the yard in record numbers a few years back. As to why they do the steroids that is pretty much a no brainer, because we are willing to pay them millions of dollars to play with a ball all summer long but only if they can run faster, hit farther and jump higher then that other guy. With the number of players accused of doing steroids it isn't really an "advantage" because if everyone is juicing then the playing field becomes level again as far as strength goes and you have to rely on your athleticism again.

L-girl said...

Because it's a) something that can be controlled AND b) it doesn't require effort on the part of the athlete.

I don't understand the logic here, especially of (a). Why is controlling a factor?

Re (b), athletes benefit from a lot of things that require no effort. How much money their team has, their upbringing, their natural ability, their eyesight, to name a few.

Surely there's a difference between saying it's wrong to pop pills to get bigger muscles and putting some kind of hobbling device on an athlete because he/she has great natural talent or grew with financial advantages that bought them good coaching.

There is only if we say there is. I don't see why there's a difference.