>> from our studios in new york, this is "charlie rose." >> i support all of my teammates. i love all the members unconditionally.

i do feel like i have great support. i have spoken to a lot of teammates. i plan to speak to jonny gomes. >> the yankees third baseman has been suspended for the 2000 14 season for using performance- enhancing drugs. the ruling was handed down over the weekend by the chief arbitrator. it is the longest suspension for doping in the history of baseball. he has filed claims against the mlb and the players union. 60 minutes had an interview with the man who supplied his drugs. >> what were the -- >> testosterone.

human growth hormone. some different forms of peptides. >> all of them banned? >> all of them banned. >> and he knew that? >> yes, he did. >> and you knew that. >> yes. >> was he injecting himself with these? >> at times he would ask me to inject. >> you injected him personally. >> tony bosch told us he became his client in 2010. he says he supplied athletes with drugs for 10 years. a corrupt sideline to his anti- aging clinic. >> he wanted to know. he would study the product. because he wanted to achieve his performance objectives, the most

important one was the 800 home run club. it was going to have only one member. alex rodriguez. >> i am pleased to have met the table. tell me where is this now? we have seen bosch on 60 minutes last night. he personally injected a-rod with drugs. where is the game? >> the arbitrator, clearly he believed the evidence that he presented in the hearing. alex rodriguez is challenging the suspension and the accusations. the interesting thing here is, he is entirely alone in the lawsuit.

the players association are not doing a better job of defending him. he is saying the ruling is not just wrong, but he wasn't impartial. >> what does this say about alex rodriguez? is it that he has nothing to lose? therefore he will go down fighting to the last moment? >> i think that certainly is a part of it. you have to remember the resources and he has to his advantage. he has the two bridges contracts in baseball history. this is not your ordinary player. this is someone who can withstand a long, legal process if that is what he chooses. >> a sea of any argument? >> not that i can see. if you read this arbitrator's

opinion, part of the lawsuit, it had to be part of the lawsuit because originally they try to get a tro. the judge, a temporary restraining order, stopping the suspension. the judge said you cannot do that and not unseal the arbitrator's opinion. they decided to go ahead and file the suit anyway. it opened at the door to unsealing this opinion. it was supposed to be kept secret for the rest of time. if you read the opinion, it is devastating. absolutely devastating. >> chapter and verse the charges they have against him. the interviews with bosch. everything that bosch said last night are tenfold. the purchases he'd made from them on these drugs. the fact they had collaborating

evidence. major league baseball had a solid case. it was irrefutable. >> what is the picture we get? a star athlete, the richest contract in baseball, doing everything he can to enhance his performance? >> yes. that is what these things are all about. as bosch pointed out, a rod came to him and said i want to be the 800 club. the only guy in history to hit 800 home runs. i thought it was interesting that they were showing on the report on days he got injected, he would have fabulous days where he was hitting a home run against somebody. this is the first i have ever

seen proof of how steroids work. >> he would play better. >> right. >> you are left with the question, of baseball and what damage this does to baseball. we had bud selig who was overwhelmed. >> and so was the arbitrator. in that ruling, the arbitrator said this length of suspension may be unprecedented, so was the misconduct he committed. that is saying a mouthful for a sport that has been rippled with the steroids problem for the better part of two decades or more. i think on the one hand, it helps major league baseball because it shows they're going after the player no matter how rich. if you violate the agreement, they will go after you. this is unusual.

whenever there has been change on these issues, gambling, cocaine, or steroids, it is always the federal government that has provided the outside agent of change for these issues. this is the first time to my knowledge that it came internally. no federal involvement. major league baseball department of investigations. it is forcing the longest suspension in baseball history when it comes to dep. >> i'm thinking of the comparison of lance armstrong. if he had not tried to make a comeback the last time, he might not have been discovered. is there a similar kind of pattern, or timeline for a rod? >> the problem that baseball has, and all these agencies

have, it is really impossible to stay ahead of the people coming up on these new designer drugs that can't be detected. that is the case here was with baseball. in one way, this biogenesis scandal was the best thing that ever happened. they were finally able to get people who were coming up with these designer drugs, enabling players to beat their drug tests. they have put in drug tests, there have been very few players testing positive in the last year or so. we all know now by this case there are still players that are doing a lot of drugs, beating the system. they didn't have any subpoena power. they had no help from the government. they did but they didn't, and what they did was they sued bosch.

by suing bosch, they were able to get him into court and then start mounting his own defense funds. >> what amazes me, it played out like a movie. there were threats saying they wanted bosch to go to colombia to get out of the limelight. it had all of the elements of a movie thriller. >> i regarded as a novel come to life. i also wanted to take your lance armstrong analogy and extend it further. when lance armstrong was asked when he stopped doping, he pointed to 2009, the cycling body implemented biological passport testing in which your te ratio is monitored from time to time.

up until last year, it was all about keeping your ratio below 4-1. most people is 1-1. they allow this window. that is what tony bosch is doing. manipulating ratios. laster it is a new ballgame. that is when you can take the ratio, and it it says spiked at all, once they do, that is a red flag. even if it is not above 4-1. you're going to get busted. that worked fine in 2012. it is not workaday. >> fascinating. thank you for joining us. great to see you again. the case continues. back in a moment. stay with us. >> in order to live together,

law and order should be kept. you have to keep employing order. justice should be made. >> ariel sharon died saturday in a hospital. he was 85 years old. he suffered a massive stroke. he will be remembered as one of the most influential leaders in history. one of the greatest warriors. he played roles in the six-day war as a commander of the israeli army. he was elected prime minister in 2001 after the outbreak of the second palestinian intifada. dignitaries from 20 countries attended his memorial in jerusalem. joe biden was among those whom eulogized him.

>> like all historic leaders, he was a complex man. about which you have already heard from his colleagues, who engendered strong opinions. like all historic leaders, all real leaders, he had a northstar that guided him. a northstar from which he never, in my observation, never deviated. >> joining me, jeffrey goldberg. and ethan bronner of the new york times. tell me what israel and the world has lost in the character and achievement of ariel sharon. >> israel lost eight years ago

when he fell into a coma. his stroke came at a moment of inflection for israel. he had just pulled out of gaza. reversing what he had done earlier in his career. he is the guy that put the settlers in place. the expectation he was going to pivot and do the same in the west bank. he, as israel's greatest warrior hero, was in a position politically to do such an evacuation. since he had that stroke, none of the leaders who followed him have been able to do the thing the majority of israelis say that should be done, to reverse the settlement project and free some accommodation with the palestinians.

his loss is as important in my mind as it has ever been. a key moment that derailed the peace process. i do not think you can overstate it. >> was he in your judgment with drawn from the west bank? >> there are theories about that. he did gaza to avoid dealing with the west bank. the second theory, this is where i lean, he was ruthlessly pragmatic. if he felt that the way to secure israel demographic future, as a jewish majority, was to lift up the settlers from the west bank. he would have done it. he had the power within society to try and execute that.

i think that they were heading in that direction. we will never know obviously. it is plausible. >> we will come back to that. as a zionist, you've written about that. >> him as a zionist. that is a great question. in a lot of ways, he didn't come from either real camp. he wasn't born into an ideology. he was ruthlessly pragmatic. what worked is what he believed in. he had no faith at all in arabs and palestinians negotiating with them, working with them. his view was in some ways the revisionist view of building a new iron wall. then, when it came time to make decisions about moving forward

because it was no longer possible to hold onto all of this territory and people, that is when he began to think about talking about occupation and switching. in some ways, his story is the story of this country. the story of zionism, both in its brutal form and its effort to come to terms with reality. >> would you consider him the greatest israeli military leader? more so than whoever? >> i should qualify that. he was the greatest reckless general israel had. you could argue. sharon had operations to his

name that were extraordinary. in the 1973 war, when israel was on its heels, he managed to cross the suez canal and came within striking distance of cairo. it was an achievement. it was one study by militaries around the world. where does the reckless park i'm in? he decided in that way he was going to remake lebanon, to expel the plo. you have to put that in his discredit column. he was the sort of tank commander that any prime minister would want to have in his corner at a stressful moment. >> george patton. >> you may not argue patton is the best general, but certainly the boldest.

and he is famous for not following orders. >> exactly. he began in the early 1950s. this was the first leak commander unit. the whole effort was no rules. we're above roles. they were lied about afterwards. that became the way these units, 19-year-old kids, very bright people, doing these daring acts. he set the tone for that throughout the entire military. >> what was his relationship with others? whether it was all the people who have been prime minister, netanyahu, --

>> the older guys, they admired him anyway for his nativeborn grit. they loved, they felt represented the outlook. his peers found it difficult to get along with him. throughout his career he got into incredible riffs with people. he and netanyahu never got along. he refused to follow any rules. he wanted it to do it entirely his way. >> this comes back to that point about, he was all energy. all the energy was forward. in lebanon, that energy was used for destructive purpose. in the 1973 war, he was such a man of action.

he was uncontainable. >> you said that he was courtly to his political rivals. and had a surprising sense of humor. >> he was a funny guy. like a lot of people in public life, they are far more approachable and appealing to talk to than you would expect. that is right. he had a kind of manner to him. he was brought up by snobbish russian parents he found a lot of that thing irritating. >> he was quite charming. he seemed to want to please. he wanted to make sure that you were comfortable and you were happy. it is not a well-known characteristic among is really prime ministers.

>> how did he feel about the idea of the jewish state? >> he was in favor of focusing on that. they have a talk about it for decades. he definitely felt, this was the core issue for him. when the arab world accepts the legitimacy of the jewish state, we can talk about making peace. until then, there is no point. whether he would make this demand, that seems reasonable to imagine he might have. he was not interested in negotiating. >> i spent a long time with them before he ran for prime minister. he had discouraging things to

say about palestinians, about the nature of arab hatred for jews. the rhetoric was toned down when he became prime minister. when i saw him several month before he had the stroke, the worldview had not changed at all. the plot from gaza was almost a response to the immutability of arab hatred. he was looking to engineer a divorce. >> then there is the thing about al-assad. the person he really feared was sharon. >> the interesting thing about that is when assad looked at sharon, especially his behavior, he saw himself. there are rules.

assad had a muslim brotherhood problem. he leveled a city. he saw an sharon the only israeli he feared could do the thing. ariel sharon was middle eastern. i don't mean that in an enlightened way. he absorbed the lessons of the behavior of people like al- assad. he thought israel had to be as brutal as those dictators. that is what got him into trouble in lebanon. >> there is this. the idea that we withdraw from gaza was a huge mistake. it led to hamas getting more power. and destroyed unity within the palestinians. >> there are two arguments. the right wing argument says we

should never have left. the left wing argument, by not negotiating, by just leaving, you're basically legitimizing leadership, and allow hamas to rise in gaza. that is the strong argument that has been made about why he is probably responsible for the rise of hamas. one of the things, we a pivot moment in 2006 when he had his stroke. we don't really know whether that is the reason hamas rose. we don't know many things. >> one of the ultimate ironies about his life is that his last significant act was interpreted by his foes as an active capitulation. he left gaza without getting anything in return.

that is a legitimate critique. his belief that the palestinians would not negotiate under any circumstances let him to take this unilateral step, which was interpreted by hamas as a victory for their brand of terrorism. whatever failures, the fact the matter remains today there are no israeli settlers in gaza. that is a good thing from a lot of people's perspective. >> as we talk about sharon, come to the question of where we are today, and what we know about the negotiations secretary kerry is trying to pull off. >> jeff may know more than i. they have been trying to get some kind of framework together they can agree on to move forward, to allow for more settlers to be moved possibly,

or to be a two state deal. in the four years that i was in jerusalem, there was no sense that this government had any taste for removal of anybody. except for outposts. certainly not most settlers by any means. nothing like the 80,000 that will be necessary to move forward. there is that issue. there is the issue of the jordan valley. will they permit military presence? and the right of return in jerusalem. all these issues one cannot imagine how they're finding a way through. on the other hand they are still working. >> are you surprised that it is still viable? >> both sides are just trying to figure out when is john kerry going to leave.

kerry is wearing them down. the problem is twofold. they are divided. half of palestine is controlled by hamas. that is a nonstarter. the palestinian leader is not as strong as arafat. on the israeli side, prime minister who has many suspicions of the arabs as sharon had, but not in the sense of action or confidence, but in his own ability to change reality around him. netanyahu is a man of inaction. it is hard to see him taking reckless steps ariel sharon would've taken in the circumstances. >> there are many hands here. in the interest of netanyahu, they share an interest in actually getting some kind of a

deal, creating that it would have some form of stability. that is why netanyahu does understand and does grasp there is a demographic problem. israel can't have control over the west bank. the key question is, when sharon did the withdraw, he knew the party was split. netanyahu understands the problems they see israel. if he leaves the party, no many people would follow him. this is a guy who is interested in maintaining his grip on the prime minister ship. i am not confident kerry can talk him into that boldness rate >> thank you. we will be back.

stay with us. ♪

>> the thing that every israeli, every jew, wants is peace.

generals are not expected to -- >> i have had several conversations with ariel sharon. we conclude with those moments. >> what you think of your friend? how do you feel about the way he is running the government? what you say in these private moments? the stories you remain friends and have conversations about the future of the country. >> i have known him for 43 years. i have appreciation for mr. rabin.

we discuss national problems. i think that in this case, by shaking hands with a war criminal, by signing the agreement with one palestinian terrorist organization, there is an assumption they will fight others. >> hamas. >> yes. they have an agreement. they will continue, and they're not going to fight each other. the assumption of one organization will defend the israelis from the other, that will not exist.

i think that in this case, mr. rabin made the mistake. there are good generals and bright generals that make mistakes. >> you made mistakes yourself. >> everyone in their career has made mistakes. >> tell me about the mistake, israel has nothing to fear from the plo. we have questions of assault on individuals. nothing that this great nation has to fear from the plo. >> completely. we can see that everything started from a palestinian. terror, murder.

we cannot live in israel because of terror. we had to defend ourselves. we started complaining to the united nations. >> then you created unit 101. you win out, you would retaliate exponentially stronger. >> that was the policy of the government then. i think it was the right policy. israel cannot survive that way. in order to live there, the government decided to take steps against terrorist. and arab countries hosting those organizations. they could not leave.

the chain of war started in the middle east. >> terrorist led to war. >> they lead to war. i can see the seeds of this feature war that all of us would like to prevent. >> you have said before that you wanted to assassinate arafat. you wanted to see him killed the cousin thought he was an enemy of the state. correct? >> through the years, tremendous effort to bring to a situation these murderers who go to have civilian blood on his hands, should be out of society. we made tremendous effort three >> to kill him. >> you use very hard words. >> why is that hard work?

>> we wanted to get rid of him. >> that is a euphemism for killing him. >> that is not the right word. to kill, to assassinate. we speak about a murderer. >> he wanted to murder him. >> no, no. >> why did you fail? >> it was complicated. >> he is always on the move and you can never get that close. >> many reasons. one of the reasons, we wanted all the governments, but we were aware of the fact that civilian

people do not have any concept of murder altogether, might be helped. that was maybe the main reason why it failed. maybe the best special units. >> to you want the prime minister? >> to be prime minister is not my dream. >> do you want to be? >> it will be necessary. if it is necessary, i will do it. it is not my dream. i believe if i become prime minister, some dreams may be accomplished. >> you do not believe that

netanyahu is the best -- >> this is not the best place to discuss israeli politicians. we have problems in our party. i believe these problems will be solved. >> how long can israel continue the way that it is? without some aspect for peace? some prospect for not expecting war any moment? how'd do you go about changing that? that is what peres says to you. what is your plan? >> first, the thing that every israeli, every jew, wants peace. not generally generals are expected to like war.

myself was branded as a general looking for war. i might tell you some personal. i've been participating in all of the wars of the state of israel. i started as a private first class. i saw all the horrors. i felt all the fears of the battles. we lost most of our friends. i was seriously wounded twice. i felt terrible pains of being in the hospital. i had to make the decisions of life-and-death of myself and of others. believe me, i understand the part of peace better than those politicians. how long can they live like

that? we will have to live like that as long as there is no change in the attitude of the arab world to jews in israel. we have to be very careful. i think it is important jews around the world, and friends of israel, should understand that if we are facing all the time and now dangers to our existence. the jews have to decide if the jews want to have an independent country of their own.

they have to be ready to hold a sword in one hand. that is not mean they do not take steps for peace. >> are you disappointed? >> nothing personal. >> how do you feel? >> he is making a terrible mistake. historic mistake. i am sorry for that. >> just sorry? >> i'm sorry. that is what i feel. i worry about it. the more i think that this government brought us into one of the most dangerous situations we have ever been in since the establishment of the state of israel. i have seen a difficult

situation. i never lost my self-confidence. in this case, it is going to be very complicated. i believe in the same thing. our rights to this country. maybe we will be able to overcome that. >> why aren't you more involved? i know you talk to a lot of people. you got in your car after the change of power in the gaza strip. you drove to gaza. to look. you want to be back in. do you think it will happen? are you prepared? are you ready?

>> i think the answer is yes. the first question is how to bring back responsibility for the future of israel, and the future into our hands. it is not in our hands now. how to bring it back in our hands. the second thing i believe, i can provide necessary answers. >> you have no concessions

anywhere in your answer. >> no, no. what i'm saying is, there will be concessions. >> here is the judgment on you so far. great soldier. terrible politician. >> one can use any kind of terms. i don't know what they mean, to be a great politician. to shake hands with a murderer is to be a great politician? to go around, to be a great politician. to create illusions that mean you become a great politician. i never involve myself.

i think the results, i member 31 years ago after i left the military, i came up the idea to bring together five parties, national jewish parties, into one place. everyone burst into laughter. the good soldier knows how to move divisions. he commands hundreds of tanks. what does he understand in politics? i will not -- >> you will not accept their judgment you are a bad politician. >> no. >> and you say to foreign

ministers you are both older than i am. >> i don't think it is important. i know young people who are very old. i know old people who are very young. the problem is can you value the situation, do you have the answers? i believe they do have the answers to the problems. i can provide the answers for the most coveted of problems. >> tom friedman wrote a book in which you were mentioned a number of times. it was said about you is, you were the one person assad veered in israel. he is now writing a column for the new york times.

he said there is increased since among the israeli public that you -- they're more inclined to see two accepted states, and to give up territory, and have a clean division between them. do you think that is a good idea? >> i'm afraid he doesn't fear the present government. maybe it would have been a different government, and we would reach much better piece on both sides. i don't see any possibility for any separation. what is the means of separation?

we have close to one million palestinians who are israeli citizens. what is going to happen. many support the hamas movement. are we going to separate then? what will happen to jerusalem? are we going to have to divide jerusalem? are going to prevent palestinians from gaza? or to jericho? are we going to build fences? hundreds of kilometers of fences. who will defend the fences? i think that is not the answer. >> what is the answer? >> the jews and arabs live together. they have been living together

for many years. first of all, law and order has to be kept. you have to employ order. justice should be made of its commitment. >> do you have a home in the party? benjamin netanyahu said you are a permanent subversive. >> many things have been said. [indiscernible] when i left in 1973, i brought five parties together.

that was the party i have been serving with. the party was a way to keep ideas. >> how is it that you, and military man, look at things so differently, and rabin look at the same way, and you differ? >> in the military [indiscernible] they see different. i think, i don't know what the

opinion of barack, but it does make a difference. there are differences about the situation, and i think there are things -- i believe peace means security. that is what we are looking for. >> you have said in today's climate peace has been the goal rather than a means. peace is a goal. what we need first is security. i don't think the desire we fear

[indiscernible] everything is in our hands. we could live peacefully. ♪

>> live from pier 3 in san francisco, welcome to the late edition of "bloomberg west," where we cover the global technology and media companies that are reshaping our world. i'm emily chang. our focus is on innovation, technology, and the future of business. we are here all week long in new york with sam grobart. today's top story, we have been talking about it for hours. google has been buying a company that makes digital thermostats. >> not bad for a little company. >> i don't know what is more