Roger Clemens 'Defends' A-Rod in the Most Self-Serving Way Possible
Meanwhile, Roger Clemens, another former star suspected of abusing performance-enhancing drugs, steered his conversation with the Associated Press in a totally different direction (via Michael O'Keeffe, New York Daily News):
“A-Rod was my teammate in New York,” the poster boy for the Mitchell Report on baseball and steroids told The Associated Press on Tuesday. “I’m glad he was my teammate.
“I did things to make him feel comfortable. I did that for all of my teammates. I think I was a pretty solid teammate.”
Wait, what? How is any of that relevant?
For context, Roger Clemens was traded to the Yankees in February 1999 and remained there through the 2003 season. A-Rod didn't come to the Bronx until 2004, so these comments must be referring to 2007. Clemens re-signed with the organization that year for a prorated portion of a zillion dollars and watched as the prolific slugger ran away with another American League MVP award.
If the 50-year-old right-hander genuinely believes that Rodriguez isn't the scum of the earth, he could at least give us some examples. Clemens instead speaks from a first-person perspective the entire time.
Perhaps the Yankees clubhouse actually tolerated A-Rod a few years back.
However, the New York Daily News reports that at least one active player—speaking on behalf of the team—is tired of "the media circus" revolving around him:
“Guys are just tired of it,” the player said. “The media circus that’s revolving around Alex is insane — and we haven’t even seen him. It just keeps going. It’s like a carousel that just keeps going around and around and around. At some point, it has to stop.
“I would like his bat in the lineup. We could obviously use it because the potential for some home runs would help us a lot. But with the circus that’s surrounding him right now, I don’t think anybody wants that.
The coming years will be unbearable for A-Rod if he doesn't have anybody willing to defend him on the current roster.
What is the duplicate article?
Why is this article offensive?
Where is this article plagiarized from?
Why is this article poorly edited?