Alex Rodriguez's image transformed in a three-day span, costing himself millions of dollars in future endorsements.
Marc Ganis, president of the consulting company Sports Corp. Ltd., said Rodriguez will be viewed differently by fans and sponsors as his home-run total climbs from 553 and nears Barry Bonds' mark of 762.
The A-Rod brand has been tainted.
"He is going to have a cloud over him, particularly as he approaches the home run record, where before this revelation, he was considered the anti-Bonds, the guy who was going to get the greatest record in all of sports back into the hands of a clean athlete," Ganis said Tuesday. "He will always have this postscript. Sponsors don't like postscripts."
Baseball's highest-paid and perhaps most-talented player, Rodriguez said Monday that he used banned drugs from 2001-2003 while playing for Texas. The admission came two days after Sports Illustrated reported that his name was among 104 players on a list seized by federal agents five years ago.
Rodriguez was at the University of Miami's campus Tuesday morning for a workout session, with several photographers staking out the gym he frequents and surrounding his vehicle. He did not comment.
Rodriguez is to be the headline attraction at the school's annual baseball banquet Friday night, when the Hurricanes' home park gets renamed in honor of the $3.9 million gift he gave Miami in 2003.
Manager Joe Girardi, speaking on WFAN radio, predicted his players will rally around the three-time MVP. He's spoken with Rodriguez and texted.
"He's been through so much already as a person, as a Yankee, as a baseball player, and I think it's just another challenge for him," Girardi said. "And the one thing that I think Alex loves is challenges."
Former AL MVP Jose Canseco, who in a pair of books revealed details on drug use in baseball, hopes to meet with commissioner Bud Selig and Fehr.
"I think I have the ear of the nation now," Canseco said. "I think everyone realizes I have not in any way, shape or form tried to create smoke and mirrors like Major League Baseball has and the players have. I have been excruciatingly honest about what's going on in baseball."
The list was a spreadsheet seized by federal agents from Comprehensive Drug Testing in Long Beach, Calif., in April 2004. The agents had a search warrant for the testing records of 10 players involved with BALCO. When they saw the spreadsheet, agents obtained additional search warrants, copied the entire computer directory and took the records of all the players.
Test samples and records were to remain anonymous and be destroyed, but MLB and the players' association couldn't arrange for the destruction with the test companies between Nov. 13, 2003 — when the results were finalized — and that Nov. 19, when the union became aware of the subpoena.
The players' association filed motions to get the records back and won in three U.S. District Courts. But a 9th circuit panel reversed in a 2-1 vote in December 2006, a decision the panel mostly reaffirmed in January 2008.
The full 9th Circuit then threw out that panel decision and decided to have 11 judges hear the matter. It included five judges appointed by Bill Clinton, four by George W. Bush and one each by Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush. Oral arguments were heard in December, and it's uncertain when a decision will be issued.
"I think it's too close to call. These are very hard issues and they're new issues. It's really hard to predict," said Orin S. Kerr, professor of law at The George Washington University Law School. "This is a lawyers' battle for people that can hire very good lawyers, and that's not true in most criminal cases."
Prosecutors want to ask the wider group of players where they obtained steroids, which might advance investigations. The players' association, citing privacy rights, claims the search violated the Fourth Amendment.
The case, which could wind up before the Supreme Court, might define what "plain view" means in the digital age. Or the 9th Circuit could decide it on procedural grounds.
"It really depends on how they write it. So this could be an extremely important case, and it could be a very narrow case," Kerr said. "It's an unusual case in that the information has value outside the criminal case, which is not normally the case."
