In Jason Whitlock’s latest column for FOXSports.com, he writes that author Serena Roberts has credibility issues stemming from a column she wrote about the Duke lacrosse rape case and calls her new book about Alex Rodriguez a “celebrity-gossip book.”

During her interview with Jim Rome, she claimed she went into her investigation of Rodriguez believing he had never used steroids. She said that A-Rod’s interview on 60 Minutes convinced her of his innocence. “I didn’t think he was dirty,” Roberts said. “I thought he was clean.”
This is nearly impossible for me to believe. Roberts is a cynic, at least she is in her column writing. When she worked for The New York Times, she wrote numerous columns about A-Rod with the same theme: Rodriguez is a phony. Read this, this and this and then read this blog for examples of her A-Rod cynicism.

In those columns, does she come off like someone who would take Rodriguez at his word? She comes off like someone who doesn’t believe a word that comes out of A-Rod’s mouth.
What I’m about to write is pure speculation.

Selena Roberts believes America is a safe haven for sexism (I happen to agree, but that’s beside the point). She wanted the Duke lacrosse players to be shining examples of how deep-rooted and protected our sexism is, and she was more than willing to ignore their innocence to make her point (this repulses me).

Selena Roberts believes professional sports — the money, fame and power they primarily give young men — are corrosive of good values and a haven for sexism (I happen to agree, but that’s beside the point). She wants Alex Rodriguez to stand as a shining example of what’s wrong with American sports, and she just might be willing to ignore flattering truths about A-Rod and publish hearsay and gossip to make her point (and this is unfair).

She’s written a celebrity-gossip book, “A-Rod: Game of Innuendo.” Maybe you despise Rodriguez so much that you don’t care about her methods and whether the rest of the alleged mainstream media characterize her work properly.

Whitlock brings up a good point that we must question what an author’s motives are for writing a non-fiction book, especially when the content matter essentially attacks a person’s character as in this case. Is Roberts trying to uncover the truth behind A-Rod’s use of steroids or does she have a personal agenda as Whitlock suggests?