Whose credibility takes more of a hit: A-Rod or Gammons?

Joe Klein?

 

Peter Gammons back in the day before TV was a tough sumbitch who asked tough questions. His exclusive with A-Rod was a made for TV event with scripted easy questions. I think back on how tough he was before ESPN and I am deeply saddened.

 

Listening to Imus this morning (yeah, sue me), it's clear Warner Wolf reads this board.
Many of his A-Rod jibes were lifted, virtually verbatim.

 

Are you related to Gammons or something? Jeebus. This is the journalism board. It's going to be talked about. Get over it.

 

My thoughts precisely. Just a very uncomfortable experience. Some of those questions were way too elaborate for A-Rod to respond, without hesitation, with precise answers and coherent examples. He knew what was coming. To that end, PG looked almost disinterested and didn't have his usual gusto. He didn't seem at all happy to be there. As to the credibility question, I simply don't find A-Rod to be even remotely sincere. Ever. Too polished. A few times, it appeared Peter tried to do some digging but was met with the usual talking in circles.

Also, A-Rod says he felt enormous pressure to produce in Texas. But when he joined the pinstripes, the 27 World Series titles, baseball's mecca, the chance to put the "can't produce in the clutch" whispers to rest, he didn't feel any pressure? Really? What a tool. And get a new makeup person. The pink cheeks were distracting.

One more thing: he said Gene Orza called him in 2004 (?) to tell him he might have failed a test and he might not have. Don't believe it for a second. Who makes that kind of call? That's like an employer calling an applicant and saying you might have got the job and you might not have. I'm bitter.

That is all.

 

That part doesn't bother me. By that time, steroid testing was underway. And he had already failed a test. I don't think that he's saying he wasn't feeling pressure in New York. The two things aren't mutually exclusive.

If we're going to rip him - and there's plenty of reason to - let's get our logic ducks in a row. He received the big $250 million contract in Texas. For those of you too young to recall, it was a huge, huge, huge deal at the time. I was on desk that night, I remember, and the headline was a banner one - at a local paper - "$250 MILLION."

It's not disingenuous for him to say that he was feeling a ton of pressure at that point. And it doesn't mean that he wasn't feeling any in New York. Though he was a few years older by that time, and those years can make an enormous difference. And, again, I doubt he was going to risk another positive test, particularly since the results were public at that point.

 

You never know for sure until you're in the situation, of course. But, I'm pretty sure I would never have agreed to the interview under scripted circumstances, or with a stipulation that you can't ask about the only thing that anyone cares about.

I'm of a mind that, 'You can always ask,' even if you do it unexpectedly, and by surprise.

It's up to the interviewee how they would then handle the question/situation. If they decline to address it and say, 'No comment,' then so be it. If they want to make a scene, or get up and walk off the set, well, that's on them.

We're reporters. The people we deal with know it, and nobody should be determining what we can and cannot at least ask someone.

If A-Rod truly trusted Gammons and truly was up for the interview, he would have found a way to answer whatever questions he had to face. And that would have been "a get."

Whether the responses would have been satisfactory or not is another matter. But, he would have dealt with the situation.

 

Gammons sure lobbed some softballs up there to A-Rod.

 

The idea that Gammons failed is laughable. Let's be honest. ESPN wanted an exclusive interview. ARod and his people wanted to make sure that the Yankees third baseman could have his mea culpa moment. So the network agreed to terms about the questions that were going to be asked.

It does not make it right. It does not make it wrong. It makes it what it was.

 

I don't think there will be any ESPN/MLB themed commercials with Van Pelt anytime soon.

http://deadspin.com/5148743/espn-is-giving-scott-van-pelt-some-quiet-time-update?skyline=true&s=x

 

Well, yeah, that's kind of what this is about.

Must agree with those who say as long as you got the admission, it was worth the fawning bullshit. As journalists, we might have found the tone of the interview distasteful ... but he got the one thing he needed out of it.

 

Agreed, but A-Rod should not be given a free pass to not have a difficult interview about this. I doubt the Yankees or his PR people will allow a hard-nosed interview, but something far more in-depth and less scripted.