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

I'd have to wonder what proof of citations he has. He called it "the paper." Do we know for sure whether he means a citation, or, maybe, a newspaper, which might've reported on it? (See excerpt from A-Rod below).

“What makes me upset is Sports Illustrated pays this lady Selena Roberts to stalk me. This lady has been thrown out of my apartment in New York City. This lady has, five days ago she was thrown out of the University of Miami police for tresspassing. And four days ago she tried to break into my house while my girls are up there sleeping, and got cited by the Miami Beach Police. I have the paper here. And this lady’s coming out with all these allegations, all these lies, because she’s writing an article for Sports Illustrated. And she’s coming out with a book in May. And really respectable journalists are following this lady off the cliff, and following her lead. And that to me is unfortunate.”

SI pays Roberts to be a reporter. Sometimes, that seems like stalking, especially to those being pursued. But seriously, do you really think Roberts was "breaking into" Rodriguez's house? Or ever actually was in it, without Rodriguez or somebody else letting her in? And I doubt simply being in the apartment complex building can be considered breaking into someone's apartment.

But, assuming she was in the building, and trying to get to Rodriguez, she probably knocked on his door, or, if she was being really persistent and a pain in the neck, maybe a window, in an effort to get Rodriguez to answer/respond.

In that case, maybe Roberts felt she had to do that, given Rodriguez's status, the seriousness of the allegations of steroid use, and the need for reporters to give subjects a chance for a response. Maybe she believed that making that effort was worth the possibility of being cited.

But it was still reporting, not stalking, and Rodriguez's words, particularly with regard to his sleeping daughters, smack of drama on his part.

Sure, whatever information/response Roberts might have gotten (or failed to get) out of Rodriguez might, indeed, have gone into, and helped sell, her book.

But it was still reporting, and Roberts still broke the story. She won't go down in an epic ball of fire, although Rodriguez still might.

 

According to Roberts, the so-called police report came when she went out to see A-Rod in Miami. At the guard gate at the island entrance where he lives, the guard didn't think the island was open to the public. Roberts asked to call someone to make sure because she thought it was open to the public. They called the police, and the officer who came out said Roberts was right. That was the report -- it said no incident.

If Roberts is right to all the responses (I heard her talk on Dan Patrick's show) A-Rod comes out looking even worse.

And Gammons did say that he should have defended Roberts. That's always a tough call because that interview could have easily gone off the subject of steroids and turned into one one media reporting.

 

I've liked Gammons for a long, long, LONG time.

But it has to be said:

"Easy to say . . . now that the barn door is locked."

 

I'm feeling a bit differently now that I've read this:
http://www.connpost.com/sports/ci_11667830
"There were no conditions, no terms," Doria said. "Obviously, we didn't offer any, and we would not have agreed to any."
If that is true, Gammons certainly should have asked tougher questions and follow-ups. But I think it's still pretty obvious this was scripted on some level.

Also, heard on one of the ESPN shows that A-Rod's ex-wife was there to support him, so she could have been the person he kept looking to for reassurance during the interview.

 

Sorry, but Doria is full of shit.

I have a hard time believing that a few days after one of your top SportsCenter anchors is suspended for criticizing Bud Selig, you suddenly have no restrictions on grilling the biggest baseball player in the world.

Nope. No chance.

 

I have a hard time believing it, too.

 

No conditions, no terms, but of course you can choose your interviewer.

 

What is ESPN's relevance when it comes to news coverage? Hard news. Obviously they own the world when it comes to player and coach transactions. But SI, Yahoo and Sportsline seem to rule the roost when it comes to stories like this.

 

I hate to say it because I respect the people involved, but the E:60 show has been a pretty big letdown.

 

E:60's still on? Haven't heard anything about it since just after it debuted. I thought it was letdown too and stopped watching after a couple of them.

 

Your job out the gate is to get your interview subject to talk, to get his or her lips moving, and then keep them moving. Without that, you have zilch and have just wasted a plane ticket, a cameraman and probably a producer. Not a lot of genius involved there.

All you folks griping about Gammons did this or didn't do that, or what you would coulda done better are just like the palookas sitting at home on the sofa watching March Madness screaming at the coach that you could do a better job.

49% of Gammons' job was getting the interview, 49% was getting A-Rod to some form or fashion admit using steroids, and the other 2% the average joe or jane at home doesn't give a crap about. So why risk deep-sixing the interveiw by playing hard ball with the questions?

 

ESPN was approached with the interview by ARod's folks, they wanted Gammons and they had the ESPN crew fly down to Florida at a location of ARod's choosing to get it. And clearly this it was ARod's intention to "come clean" with the interview, ARod admitted it. So I'm still trying to figure out what Gammons did that was so impressive.
Granted, developing relationships is 90 percent of a reporter's job, to be there when somebody is looking for someone to spill to. But if ESPN and Gammons are going to allow themselves to be used as the conduit for the admission, I think it is fair for the reporter to expect to get something more out of it, than simply what the interview subject has prepared to say. He got the admission with the first question, why not probe a little deeper and see how far ARod will go? What's he going to do - walk off after admitting he used PEDS?
Granted, Gammons had limited time and a lot of ground to cover and shouldn't have gotten bogged down in minutiae, but he could have dropped a follow-up question or asked ARod to clarify a response, which might have ended up helping ARod more.