No, I’m not talking about Building 7 at the World Trade Center or the “Cuban Connection” to the JFK assassination. 

I’m talking about Selena Roberts’ salacious column yesterday in the New York Times titled “A Team of Destiny and Teflon.” 

In her “column,” Roberts hints that Major League Baseball’s intrepid steroid investigator, Senator George Mitchell, might be turning a blind eye toward potential connections between the Boston Red Sox and performance-enhancing drugs while also implying that Mitchell, a silent partner in the Sox ownership group, and the Red Sox themselves may have had something to do with the pre-game 7 report, which she describes as a “leak,” that Indians Game 4 starter Paul Byrd used HGH from 2002-2005. 

Let’s take this one step at a time. 

First, the irony of Roberts’ venue is palpable.  Roberts appears to complain about what she calls a “leak,” while her employer the New York Times (”All the news that fits, we print”), relies almost exclusively on illegal and life-threatening leaks from government employees who signed confidentiality agreements for their front and editorial pages.  Those leaks, in violation of federal law and signed agreements, put lives (like mine and yours) in danger and erode public confidence in our government.  Nonetheless, the Times defends these leaks as patriotic whistle-blowing, that is, unless it involves the wife of an administration critic.  Then it is criminal, until we discover that neither Dick Cheney nor Karl Rove had anything to do with the leak, at which point a 2-inch retraction appears fro one day on page D-23.  Much like the flip-flopping and inconsistency on the front and editorial pages of the Times, Roberts, who has relied on “leaks” and “inside reports” her entire career, impugns and vilifies the untimely reporting of Byrd’s transgressions. 

Second, let’s take a different look at the source of Roberts herself.  Just as her colleagues down the hall like Maureen Dowd are free to predict $5.00 gas prices and World War III without any evidence or authority, and then shirk any accountability when their fear-mongering, agenda-driven predictions invariably fail to materialize, Roberts supplies no real sources for her suppositions.  She provides no quotes, other than Byrd’s statement that the timing was unfortunate.  She does cite to the “Indians fan blogs,” because fan blogs (like this one) are always so reliable and reasonable.  Beyond her rampant supposition, she is consistently wrong.  On no less than three occasions over the past three years, Roberts appeared on the Sunday morning ESPN show, the Sports Reporters, and hinted or outright said that Coach Charlie Weis would be leaving Notre Dame to coach her hometown New York Giants (which begs the question, if he is as bad of a coach as she says he is, why does she desperately want him to coach her Giants?).  On one such occasion last February, she even went so far as to cryptically say, “The vibe out of South Bend is that Charlie Weis is leaving for the Giants.”  The “vibe“?  What, she couldn’t get Miss Cleo to go on record?  

Third and finally, let’s examine the actual nature of Roberts’ accusations.  Roberts claims that nearly every other team has had to deal with accusations of steroids or HGH while the Red Sox never had to.  In fact, aside from obscure minor-leaguers or back-of-the-bullpen relievers, no players from the Blue Jays, Devil Rays, White Sox, Indians, Twins, Royals, or Mariners have ever been implicated to my knowledge, and that is just the American League.  Furthermore, suspicion followed Red Sox shortstop Nomar Garciaparra shortly before and immediately after his trade from the Sox in July of 2004.  The worst part of these implications, however, is what Roberts ISN’T saying.  By pointing out that the Red Sox have suspiciously never been linked to steroids, she is back-handedly implying that the Sox most likely ARE using or HAVE used steroids.  She can’t come right out and say that, but her circuitous accusations illuminate her underlying theme. 

Next, Roberts implies that Mitchell and the Sox may have had something to do with the timing of the Byrd “leak.”  The implication of course is that it was a Belichik-esque tactic to distract the Indians, but it is also an attempt by Roberts, ever the New Yorker, to take away from the Red Sox improbable comeback victory.  But the information appeared in an article in the San Francisco Chronicle, by the same reporter who wrote “Game of Shadows,” the best-selling book which chronicles steroid abuse by Barry Bonds.  Why would anyone think that this author, who dug much deeper in his pursuit of Bonds than MLB would have ever wanted him to, would have to rely on George Mitchell for his information?  He published Game of Shadows when Barry Bonds was on the precipice of breaking Hank Aaron’s record because that sells books.  He wrote about Paul Byrd when the Indians were one win away from the World Series because that’s what sells newspapers:  the same motivation for Roberts to put her daydreams down on paper. 

The simple truth is that Roberts is a bitter, agenda-driven, New York-centrist columnist who is paid to make controversial and thought-invoking statements.  But just like her colleagues down the hall, she does a disservice to her profession and to the public discourse when she makes untrue and unsubstantiated accusations against a United States Senator and the premier franchise in the sport. 

When it is proven that Mitchell had nothing to do with the Byrd story and no one on the 2003-2007 Red Sox used steroids, Selena Roberts will undoubtedly be quiet as a church mouse, just as she has been every time Charlie Weis doesn’t resign from Notre Dame.  It’s a New York Times tradition, after all.  Just ask Maureen Dowd and her friends who convicted Karl Rove for something he never did and predicted $5.00 gas prices three summers in a row.