Sports Illustrated writer Selena Roberts' report on Alex Rodriguez's steroid use from 2001-2003 and Rodriguez's subsequent confession created a media firestorm this past February. If you scroll down long enough, you'll find my reactions to the whole saga, particularly ESPN's exclusive interview with the Yankees slugger.
The latest product of that firestorm is in the form of a (blatantly) unauthorized biography of Rodriguez as written by Roberts herself entitled A-Rod: The Many Lives of Alex Rodriguez. The release date was moved up to last Monday, May 12, after portions of the book were leaked to the media.
The book itself has created even more controversy based on allegations made by anonymous sources that Rodriguez was using steroids as early as high school and has used them since joining the Yankees in 2004. I decided to see what all the ruckus was about.
My first observation regarding the book is that it was very hastily written and published. A handful of grammatical errors, as well as missing words in some cases, should be something unbecoming of a senior writer like Roberts.
There were also many amateurish similes and metaphors peppering the pages: "flicking his wrist like a lion tamer", "Pitches looked as big and slow as soap bubbles", "like a cat pawing at yarn", etc. Closer to Mad Libs, if you ask me.
Roberts' research and interviews were quite extensive, and she devotes five whole pages to listing all of her sources (except those who who requested anonymity, of course). Because the research was so thorough and varied, I expected some in-text citations to clarify it all, but none appeared. The credibility of her research is not necessarily diminished, but I would have preferred seeing which quote came from which interview, particularly when Rodriguez himself was quoted.
With regards to the 19 anonymous interviewees, I understand the desire to make some concessions to get juicy information, but 19 times? Really? What do these sources have to lose by making themselves known? Is the clubhouse really that sacred that publicly violating it would bring more shame than what Rodriguez and others did to the game? Would other reporters have granted anonymity so many times to make such a damning argument?
My final verdict: A quick read which was quickly written to quickly smear someone who (by Roberts' language throughout the book) probably deserved it.
