Apology Accepted?

We all have seen Arod's apology in his interview with Peter Gammons, now what do we make of it?

I'm glad that Arod took the route that Pettitte and Giambi took. Arod actually took a more detailed path than those two. Giambi never said what he was sorry for and Andy Pettitte said that he used twice to come back from an injury. Maybe that is the truth, but it's hard to believe that Clemens' best friend and long time teammate would have only tried it twice. I admire him for admitting he at least did use, but I can't completely believe he only used those times. He could easily have been telling the truth, and I don't entirely doubt it, it's just that it seems hard to fully believe him.

Arod on the other hand admitted using steroids for a 3 year period, at the very least. Now that's pretty hefty. It's hard to believe anyone totally in these situations, but admitting to using steroids for 3 years isn't trying to candy coat the issue. If Arod pulled a Giambi we would see though it, if he pulled a Pettitte and said he used steroids twice, we would see through it. Do we see though an admission of 3 years? I'll take Arod's words that he used steroids from 2001-2003 on Texas, his reasoning being that he was trying to live up to the contract. Arod was also on a team that was oozing with steroids. Pudge Rodriguez, Juan Gonzalez, Rafael Palmeiro, and 16 other Rangers named in the Mitchell report.

I am happy Arod did this, and I believe he only used during those years but I still wish he said more during the interview. He couldn't name the substance that he used? If Arod names precisely the steroid(s) he used would we think any less of him at this point? He admitted to it, so not saying what he used can't help his cause. This is just way too bizarre. Also, I don't know about you, but talking about a loosey goosey culture way back about say um5 years ago once again seems pretty odd. Loosey Goosey alone is a weird phrase to use in a serious interview and is probably even weirder as reasons to use an illegal substance. Eventhough I believe that Arod only used for those years, I was struck how he said "that's pretty accurate" when Gammons stated that he used in 2001, 2002, and 2003. If Arod is going to admit to this he should be very accurate. What does pretty accurate even mean? Is it 2000-2004 but 2001-2003 is close enough? Or are we dissecting each word too carefully?

Arod stopped using steroids only when there was testing, if we take him at his word. He couldn't even stop using when everyone knew there would be anonymous testing. So can we really believe his word that he stopped because he thought it was stupid? I don't think so. In Arod's defense it seems pretty clear that he didn't need steroids, which makes this even more disappointing. In his rookie year as a 20 year old shortstop Arod had his 2nd highest wOBA of his career. In 2005 and 2007 he had his other 2 top seasons according to wOBA. So Arod on steroids hitting in Texas didn't even help him produce his best years. But the point is, Arod would still be using, like any other person who used, if there was no testing. I can't believe that it's a mere coincidence that he decided enough is enough at the same time baseball introduced a testing policy.

Arod should have said steroids were readily available and he like many others decided to use it to get an edge, knowing for sure that he couldn't get caught. To my knowledge nobody has really said that yet. Arod admits to looking for an edge to help the pressures when he signed with Texas, why can't he admit the fact he knew he wouldn't get tested? Arod didn't have all that much time to settle this all out, so maybe there is more too come, but at this point although I'm happy he's taken a step in the right direction in dealing with all of this, I'm disappointed the step isn't quite as large as I wished.

P.S. Did anyone notice the frosted tips are gone, and that his lips failed to turn blue? That has to be a good sign.