Steroids' Shadow is AP sports story of the year
What I find most interesting about this story is that I firmly believe many sports writers knew full well about the use of PEDs in many sports but opted not to investigate it for fear of being blackballed from locker rooms and access to players. Those that cover athletes are as guilty as they are for allowing this to fester, imho.
http://sports.yahoo.com/top/news;_ylt=AmuHHlEuPBq13NvjTX7_djE5nYcB?slug…
December 23rd, 2009 at 1:35 PM ^
I don't know how true it is, but I've heard that in St. Louis, sports journalists won't discuss Albert Pujols and PEDs because he's such an awesome guy and is nice to them. He does seem to be a really good guy despite his cheating (if true), but this does show how reporters in all media will treat subjects based on how they feel about them.
Another example is Dick Cheney. Politics aside, he's supposedly kind of an asshole to the media, so this only fuels the media's negative portrayal of him. (Please refrain from discussing whether this is due to liberal/conservative bias.) I think that this actually ties directly to Lloyd Carr. Lloyd upheld Fort Schembechler and could be rather standoffish and unwelcoming to the media at times (not like those fuckers didn't deserve it!). This, in turn, fueled the media's dislike of Michigan that continues to this day, even though RR was a media darling when he was at WVU.
December 23rd, 2009 at 4:32 PM ^
Pujols and steroids? Can I get a link to that article? I am from Missouri and I have never heard it mentioned around these parts (multiple friends live in StL and I was just there last week - not to mention I'm back home for the holidays).
Until then, I will neg you for this comment.
[Edit - I just did a quick google search and could find nothing but speculation. And in that speculation it was pretty even on the "he probably has" and "there is no evidence to say he has". Please edit your post because it's a fucking sham.]
December 23rd, 2009 at 6:32 PM ^
I appreciate you taking the time to explain why you negged me. I won't be editing my post, but instead I'll point out how you screwed up:
1) You should actually read what I wrote before you oh-so-thoroughly tear it apart. I'll highlight the good parts, since you apparently only read "Albert Pujols and PEDs":
I don't know how true it is, but I've heard that in St. Louis, sports journalists won't discuss Albert Pujols and PEDs because he's such an awesome guy and is nice to them. He does seem to be a really good guy despite his cheating (if true), but this does show how reporters in all media will treat subjects based on how they feel about them.2) I can't edit my post if you reply to it. So it looks like my "fucking sham" of a post is here to stay. I didn't want to slander Pujols, so I didn't. I didn't state what I heard once as fact. I just used the little anecdote to illustrate a point regarding something else. I admit that using a rumor isn't the best way to build an argument, but it was to provide an example of a scenario rather than use it as proof, if that helps.
December 23rd, 2009 at 7:05 PM ^
There are plenty of big name athletes to mention in terms of steroid use, but you chose to name Pujols based on "well I've heard this thing about him" but have no proof to back your argument up (because there isn't any). And just because "StL reporters won't talk about it" doesn't mean nationwide sports reporters won't. And guess what? Based on my research they haven't! Sure there are always the "is he using?" or "if he were using, how much would this hurt baseball?" discussions, but there is no factual evidence.
But you could look at actual HOF candidates in baseball that HAVE tested positive (say, Manny Ramirez or David Ortiz). Unfortunately you didn't take this obvious road.
That's my beef.
December 23rd, 2009 at 7:46 PM ^
The author's point is that Pujols gets favorable treatment from the press for his ingratiating personality. Do you assert that Ortiz and Ramirez get off light because of favorable press relations and an ingratiating personality?
December 23rd, 2009 at 9:13 PM ^
I totally get what you're saying.
But here is why I think I'm 100% right in this situation.
1) The original reply by TW was quite logical in the respect that "StL writers won't discuss the possibility that Pujols could be taking steroids".
However,
2) There is no evidence of the fact (at least none that I could find, and nothing that TW could produce as material for his statement).
3) And this is the quote from TW that really got me: "He does seem to be a really good guy despite his cheating (if true)". This suggests there have been allegations of Pujols cheating by the main stream media. But guess what? There hasn't been! This is my point. Why include a clean guy's name when he has never been indicated for steroid use?
And to your point - absolutely YES - Manny and Ortiz were given a slap on the wrist by the media because they are loved. Manny got heat at the beginning of his suspension (b/c it was totally unexpected), but after he got back it was like nothing happened. Ortiz admitted to "being on the list" and took heat for approximately one week, but then all was forgiven as he turned on his game and began killing the ball again.
December 23rd, 2009 at 9:55 PM ^
Argh!! You're killing me, Smalls! You're missing my point. I know that there have been no reports of Pujols using PED's. That was never my main concern. It was one story that I heard from one guy, but it was just that: a story. We don't know if it's true or not. I personally don't believe it, and I'm sure the guy who told me it also doesn't believe it.
Did I drag Pujols' name through the mud just to prove a point? Guilty as charged, but I think he'll be more forgiving than you have been! I know I could have used another guy, but I went with an unsubstantiated rumor that I heard from someone in passing. But for the love of all that is good in this world, please understand that I have never asserted that this story is true!
December 23rd, 2009 at 8:27 PM ^
There, you got me. You're right. I'm racist against Missouri.
I didn't use "more obvious examples" like David Ortiz or Manny because they offer nothing to my MAIN POINT that the media tends to treat celebrities based on how they much they like them. But let's say that the media in LA won't expose Manny's use of PED's because they love him so much. QED...or shall I say, PED?
And you're one to talk about using "more obvious examples"! You could have used Mark McGuire, Jose Conseco, or Barry Bonds, but noooo. You had to use David Ortiz, whose case isn't closed yet, and Manny Ramirez, who took estrogen instead of HGH or horse testosterone.
December 23rd, 2009 at 8:57 PM ^
Jesus, Tim "All the Way" Wayman.
Couldn't you have used like Barry Bonds, Tiger Woods or Dennis Rodman? No, you had to go after a Roberto Clemente award winning, future HOFer like Alberto Pujols! Eres racista, my friend. Eres racista.
/sarcasmo
December 23rd, 2009 at 1:42 PM ^
The writers are not nearly as culpable as the athletes. It's not like the writers have a duty to investigate potential PED use, so you can't really blame them for "looking the other way."
If you wanna blame someone other than the athletes, then you ought to blame their leagues for not testing harder (which in turn goes back to the athlete's unions...)
December 23rd, 2009 at 2:24 PM ^
I agree. And, to add, you have to understand, journalists have to dig up and find hard evidence; otherwise, they risk a law suit, or even worse, a ruined reputation. These types of things take time and a lot of effort to unravel. Magazines such as the National Enquirer, they do their due diligence and get many confirmed sources before leaking a story; that's why they almost never lose a lawsuit.