A-Rod's a liar. Tell me something I don't know.

With the news coming today that Alex Rodriguez failed 2 tests for illegal substances in 2003, I'm left asking myself, where's the news? What is the surprising portion of this program? It would seem to me that any person with a functioning set of peepers should have made this rather safe assumption anyway. I mean, look at him. He looks like a robot engineered to play the game of baseball. And for those of you who are finding yourself surprised by this news, here's another news flash...Bruce Springsteen colors his hair.

Predictably, A-Rod has refused to comment on this situation, and has directed all questions to the players union, while he waits to for his directive from his boss, Madonna. Oh wait, she's moved on, never mind. A-Rod now faces the challenge that so many professional athletes have faced in the past, how to tell the public that he's an idiot and a liar, all while appearing genuinely remorseful for the err of his ways.

Personally, I can't wait to see how this turns out. He stated in an interview with Katie Couric that he's "never felt over matched on the baseball field". Well, how about in the interview chair? Who will be the first to nail him down? To get him to admit that he took steroids. Who will become the new age Frost to our generation's Nixon. Alright, I've officially over-dramatized this situation enough. Moving on...

Alex Rodriguez took steroids, so what? What does it really mean? Do steroids increase your hand/eye coordination, and allow you to hit .300 consistently on a major league level? No. Do they decrease the amount of errors you make on the field? No. Do they make you smarter? Apparently, no.

Cynics will say that steroids helped A-Rod hit more home runs. Well, if we're making the assumption that A-Rod isn't taking performance-enhancing drugs anymore, I would humbly make the following observation. In 2003, A-Rod hit 47 home runs. In the years following, he hit 36, 48, 35, 54 and 35. See what I'm getting at here? If you're saying that his MVP year of 2003 is due to steroids, then how is it that he produced better numbers in every offensive category in 2007? Of course, that's assuming he stopped taking performance-enhancing drugs.

Who's the real issue with here? A-Rod, or Major League Baseball. After all, it's 2009, and these tests are from 2003. That's like, a bunch of years ago. Somebody had to keep this secret under wraps. Are people still seriously hung up on this? For real? Or does everyone just hate smug, ego-maniacal, baseball players? I beg you to allow me to pitch the following idea. From this point forward, we live our lives under the assumption that between the years of 1985 and 2005, the majority of players were on steroids. Yes, that includes Barry Bonds(and yes, I specifically pointed that out for those of you who were surprised with the Springsteen's hair thing...cause sometimes you don't pick up on stuff quickly). Baseball failed to self-regulate, and most of them were stronger than they should have been. Anyone who played during that time period and resembled the strapping physique of John Kruk or David Wells is off the hook. Miller Lite does not count as a performance-enhancing drug. To say that the statistics from that time period do not count is ridiculous. They count. They're in the books and they're not going away, and we're not going to put a stupid asterisk by every one of them.

Yes, A-Rod denied ever using performance enhancing drugs in the aforementioned interview with Katie Couric. That makes him a liar, but that was before the news of his positive test was revealed. Now I don't know about you, but if the police show up at my door and ask me if I was speeding last week when I was on the freeway, I would undoubtedly answer "no". When they then showed video of me speeding and them with a radar gun on me, I'd probably direct all further questions to the union.