As the steroid story continues, it seems we're losing track of important details. Could it be all the shoddy reporting? One of my favorites, Can't Stop The Bleeding, takes a critical look at Michael S. Schmidt's recent coverage of the David Ortiz revelations:
Did Ortiz juice hardcore, needles and all, a la Mrs. Roger Clemens? These days it wouldn’t surprise me if he did. Still, I can’t say “yes” based on anything Michael S. Schmidt wrote – nor can Schmidt. Since it appeared in the Times, however, Ortiz has been vilified over Schmidt’s inconclusive half-story. Boston’s Ortiz had the guts to hold his press conference in Yankee Stadium. I hope Schmidt has the nerve to hold his at Fenway.
Worth the read.
4 replies on “Fuzzy Reporting”
That’s a really good read, Nick. The part of me that wants to believe Ortiz is being 100% honest (it’s a small part) sees this and thinks that Papi is Example A of how the Union completely screwed up this situation. And the other part of me still thinks he lied.
Regardless, it’s a good deconstruction of the looseness of the data that we have been presented regarding the “103”.
I have kind of let this story slide, partly because I was out of town during the big Ortiz press conference, and partly because I’ve largely stopped caring, but the fact that the 103 might really just be the 75 is a much bigger deal than I’ve seen reported. That’s 28 people who might be on a list who did not actually do anything wrong.
Doesn’t that really strip all credibility from reports of someone being on a list?
What I hate is that the names are getting leaked without any repercussions for those who were privileged enough to see the list, while the details (what they specifically tested positive for) is not available. What a clusterf*ck this is.
As we move along, my skepticism grows.
(Anyone else note the lack of a Yankee-esque ovation for Papi on Monday night?
Sometimes, all you need a time.