Based on the tone of emails, radio interviews and yet another eruption of Mount Whitlock, we’ve noted a seismic shift in the coverage of A-Rod’s new book in the last few days and here’s the jist: A-Rod’s getting a pass on some of the fluffy allegations in the book, and author Selena Roberts is the one taking the heat – mostly because of a few columns she wrote about the infamous Duke lacrosse case from a few years ago.

Full disclosure: We haven’t read the book. And even though we once interviewed Roberts, and have mentioned many times on this site that we find her work to be among the most engaging and consistently well-written of any sports columnist today, we haven’t spoken to her since the A-Rod madness began anew in February.

First, the Duke Lacrosse stuff. Here’s a link with some good detail on who hit and missed with that disaster a few years ago. Roberts was one of many journalists (she wasn’t the only one at the NYT) who rushed to judgment based on the information that was available at the time. It seems that her never apologizing for her work on the subject got under the skin of some folks.

One of them is a radio host in New York named Craig Carton, who, along with Boomer Esiason, interviewed Roberts last week. We grew increasingly infuriated listening to Carton go into attack mode, and here are just a couple of laughable quotes: “You are crushing A-Rod and making a living going after him” and “the goal of this book, it appears, is to bring down A-Rod for your own benefit.” Carton then admits to never having read the book. So a book profiling the life of an athlete is now “going after” this person? So any book criticizing an athlete is wrong?

Carton brings the Duke case up in a clear attempt to smear her credibility; he doesn’t bring up the fact that her sources are the ones that broke open the A-Rod steroids story earlier this year. He sounds like a sad Yankee apologist.

Whitlock, claiming that the rest of the media is giving Roberts a pass – “At no point did ESPN’s TV anchors or radio broadcasters mention that Roberts was the same person who led the media charge against the Duke lacrosse players. I listened to Roberts’ interview on Dan Patrick’s radio show. Patrick never asked her about Duke lacrosse or why we should trust her reporting” – mostly chides his brethren for rarely being critical of one another.

Did Roberts and the publisher rush the book out to maximize the exposure and book sales? It is a likely and logical conclusion. The Yankees host the Red Sox for three starting today; A-Rod is due back within the week. Yankees, Red Sox, A-Rod, book release, heads explode.

But if she’s writing a book on the life of Alex Rodriguez, why are people surprised that – ZOMG! – some (more) unflattering stories are surfacing? Even if the stories are largely underwhelming, they all (presumably) weave together to give the reader a greater understanding of A-Rod off-the-field. Perhaps one of those skeletons in the closet will help us grasp why he’d gravitate to a 50-year-old pop star, why he has a habit of flopping in the postseason, or why he’d kiss a mirror in a magazine photo shoot. We won’t know that until we read it.

Is there still a large segment of the population that views athletes as heroic role models who stand for all that is good in society? Do people not want the athletes under the microscope? What is this, 1998?