Gordon Edes, candidly admits that he failed in covering MLB’s Steroid Era.

he was too enamored of his CHB

Paging Tom Verducci.

Silly Edes, doesn't he know that Keith Olbermann absolved all reporters from responsibility because the reporters might have had to face the big, bad monster named Libel Suits?

Someone yesterday made a good comment about sports journalism being primarily about entertainment, and I think that really applies here.

Most sports reporters just aren't deep investigative journalists. Now, if anyone knew back then that players were doing steroids or illegal drugs and had evidence and didn't report it, that's wrong.

But if they just merely had suspicions but no proof to back it up, I can't really blame any of them for choosing not to report their suspicions.

Is that what Olbermann said? If he did, then he's wrong.

Time and time again, he crowed that reporters couldn't investigate suspicions of steroid use because they could end up in libel suit, so reporters shouldn't be blamed for not covering steroids.

Yes, certainly. Remember 1989, when Jose Canseco bankrupted Tom Boswell for writing that Canseco was "the most conspicuous example of a player who has made himself great with steroids"?

That precedent-setting libel case had a chilling effect on the subsequent coverage. The writers' hands were tied. There simply was nothing beat reporters could do, besides dub Mark McGwire "our Paul Bunyan."

Sure, you may have your cynics who note that the BBWAA is getting paid twice with their "I was for steroids, when steroids were cool" attitude. But it's unprofessional and wrong to report unproven suspicions, and the writers know it. And now, it's back to the "Manny purposely tanked/A-Rod's banging Madonna/Teams X, Y, Z are 'discussing' Bonds/McNamee's DNA needles/Minaya favors Latinos/Piazza likes boys/names who were, then weren't, in the Mitchell Report/CashmanTheoBeane is about to leave" coverage.

Um, that's different, Gonfalon!
(not really).

Steve Wilstein might disagree.

Mm hmm.

Edes, saying absolutely nothing about sources drying up:
A. I failed badly, out of naivete and ignorance more than anything else. I didn’t raise the issue enough, and certainly didn’t press it with my bosses. One of the biggest stories I missed was giving light treatment to the fact that the owners and players were willing to shelve drug testing as an issue in exchange for labor peace in the 2002 CBA.
How would I have done things differently? I don’t think beat reporters should have been acting as private detectives on a nightly basis—their primary responsibility was to tell the reader who won and lost and why—but in my On Ball role I certainly could have pounded away at the issue.

Anxiety over access was certainly a factor in the media's cheerleading, but it was one of many factors. And in light of the "chicks dig the long ball/the steroid fuss was about us, not them/When Homers Flew and Baseball Reclaimed America" wankfest, almost none of the factors were responsible or defensible even at the time, let alone in retrospect. Troll someone else.

failed badly, out of naivete and ignorance more than anything else. I didn’t raise the issue enough, and certainly didn’t press it with my bosses.

This is the key failure. The overwhelming majority of sports guys do not have the skills/training to handle the steroids story properly. But they surely could have raised the issue with their bosses, who could have put it in more capable hands.

Time Magazine's Daniel Okrent, December 1998, cheerleading the homers, not the steroids:

"The girth of Mark McGwire's forearm is greater than that of a large man's neck; his biceps look as if they've been inflated with a bicycle pump. Your hand could conceivably disappear in his; if he chose, it could certainly be crushed. Yet something other than his pure physicality strikes you about McGwire. Revealed in his deep green eyes is a self-knowledge as imposing as his size and strength: I am who I am, what you see is what you get, and if I'm going to hit 70 home runs, well, that's what I was meant to do....

When a reporter spotted androstenedione, a legal but controversial steroid, in McGwire's locker, the slugger explained that he used it to protect himself from the muscle tears that so often plague finely conditioned athletes, especially those few so well muscled as he, and he left it at that. Though he was criticized, McGwire marched ahead, not even pausing to rip off the head of the reporter who'd gone peeking into his locker. What kind of a modern athlete would fail to do that? As for "andro," whatever else it does, it can't help a player's timing, his hand-eye coordination, his ability to discern a slider from a splitter. But even if andro improved his power by an unlikely, oh, 5%, then instead of 70 home runs, McGwire this year would have hit... maybe 67. Take 5% off a 450-ft. missile, and you've got a 427.5-ft. missile--long enough to clear any fence save center field in Detroit's Tiger Stadium....

But don't you think the McGwire we watched during his moments across the national stage last summer would never surreptitiously tape conversations with a friend? Would never defend his behavior by retreating into the technical meaning of innocuous verbs? Couldn't possibly pursue his own fanatic agenda by rooting about in the private peccadilloes of another? Don't you think it's more likely that Mark McGwire would sit in front of his locker, stare intently ahead, think about what he needed to do, knowing that no one could help him, that the task was his alone?

Yes. And then he would slowly rise, pick up his bat and go to it."

The first quoted paragraph is almost steroid porn. It could have come straight out of WWF Magazine. The second paragraph compliments McGwire for not beating up the reporter who broke the andro story. The next-to-last paragraph, with the stuff about taped conversations and verbs and peccadilloes, is all about how McGwire's magnificently pure abilities helped America forget those nasty scandals. Another passage in the article, "A Mac For All Seasons," reads: "It was not enough for McGwire to be merely excellent. He had to be--he willed himself to be--a wonderful and beautiful beast who just happened to carry a nation on his back."

The article is completely typical of the 1998 coverage, much of which acknowledged PEDs for the explicit purpose of dismissing them. That's not just looking the other way. That's putting up scaffolding to block the view, and hanging a sign reading "NONE SHALL PASS."

Am I crazy? I'm watching the Olympics and, in every swimming event, there's a new world record established, often by a lot.

Now this is a mature sport. Going back at least as far as Mark Spitz, swimmers have been completely dedicated to training. As far as I know, there have been no major advances in technique or training methods. There are world championships every year, so it's not a case of a four year cap between intense competitions.

What's going on? Nobody's even hinted that PEDs might be an issue, but it doesn't make sense to me that records are getting smashed like this. In track and field, records grow incrementally at a very slow pace.

Is Michael Phelps clean?

The Speedo LZR, and an extremely fast pool.

The media need/desire to make McGwire and to a lesser extent, Sosa, into heroes was intense, as GF's Okrent quote shows--and it was typical. This was going on at the grassroots level as well--non/casual baseball fans were talking about McGwire and Sosa all the time that year. I keep thinking that there will be a high-profile book about the media that year/and or a book about McGwire/Sosa and PEDs. Even though it was ten years ago, I still think there would be a lot of interest.

What's going on? Nobody's even hinted that PEDs might be an issue, but it doesn't make sense to me that records are getting smashed like this. In track and field, records grow incrementally at a very slow pace.

Is Michael Phelps clean?

Personally, I think this one of the biggest reasons why I find the cheaters to be so detestable. In the long run, they inevitably serve to make us suspicious of anyone and everyone, even when it may be totally unwarranted. They only serve to deepen the doubt and the cynicism in something that really should be fun and entertaining.

The pools themselves keep getting better too. There's a lot of technology involved with swimming. And didn't they just come up with this new-fangled kick that is shaving time off every event?

I think that steroids would help a swimmer simply by reducing drag.

Best Regards

John

I think the fact that WRs are being set in every event and, often, by a lot, and often by the top 3 or 4 finishers, suggests it isn't doping. Doping has been around a long time. It isn't a magic pill and if every racer were on the juice, someone would have failed a test at this point.

If Phelps were the only one setting records, I'd be a lot more suspicious. I suspect this is just a case of a really, really fast pool and the new suit. The new suit is the maple bat of swimming.

EDIT: Well done, John. I wish I'd thought of that.

I think that steroids would help a swimmer simply by reducing drag.

Wouldn't the lower drag reduction be balanced out by the moobs?

The new suit is the maple bat of swimming.

I thought the research showed that maple bats don't really increase offense.

I think that steroids would help a swimmer simply by reducing drag.

You've obviously never sailed a boat without a keel.

Now this is a mature sport. Going back at least as far as Mark Spitz, swimmers have been completely dedicated to training. As far as I know, there have been no major advances in technique or training methods.

There have been incredible advances in technique/training/nutrition/understanding drag since Spitz. Just look at his massive porn-stache - no way a swimmer will ever have a 'stache like that - that itself could cause Spitz to be a few hundredthd of a second slower. Nutrition is huge as well. It's not like running isn't an old sport - think of the people who just knew that a sub 4 minute mile would never happen.

Let me get this straight:

The reporters who are assigned to cover teams are to be exonerated for not being investigative journalists because they might be sued for libel (as well as having their access to the elite denied, thus reducing them to blogging from the sidelines for an albeit higher-profile media source.

Okay Olberman, change "teams" to "white house" and explain why you bleat hysterically in hindsight over one and wash your hands on behalf of the others.

Okay Olberman, change "teams" to "white house" and explain why you bleat hysterically in hindsight over one and wash your hands on behalf of the others.

I think it's cos he doesn't like war, but he likes homeruns.

Okay Olberman, change "teams" to "white house" and explain why you bleat hysterically in hindsight over one and wash your hands on behalf of the others.

Cha-ching. It amazed me how fast he changed his position on wiretapping amnesty once Obama came out in favor of it (gag).

Is Michael Phelps clean?

Nobody cares, move along.

All sport is entertainment at this point and little else. Very few people even at this point care that McGwire did steroids, and nobody really wants to look all that closely into PEDs at this point -- it might spoil the illusion. Evil Barry is out of baseball, take me out to the ballgame.

Perhaps some care, but I don't even care enough to watch the Olympics. There's better entertainment and illusion out there to choose from if I want a mental holiday.

I think sports coverage has changed post-9/11. Dunno if it's to keep up with the other aspects of news coverage, but the sports page has become more like the op ed page: more opinion than data; the notion that the opinionators are somehow involved in the story; and less perspective and more moralizing.

All i want from sportswriters are data and perspective. Absolute moralism and literalist opinionating are bad enough on the political pages, keep them out of the sporting realm. I like Buster Olney and his blog, but his insistence on some sort of mea culpa regarding the steroid issue is so utterly wrongheaded as to be laughable. The media are *not* gatekeepers of the game, they are merely scribes, trying to play Jupiter when they are really no more than Mercury with a really annoying message.

But if they just merely had suspicions but no proof to back it up, I can't really blame any of them for choosing not to report their suspicions.

It's totally plausible that not one single sportswriter in the last three decades ever had enough proof to get the ball rolling on a real investigation.

There have been incredible advances in technique/training/nutrition/understanding drag since Spitz. Just look at his massive porn-stache - no way a swimmer will ever have a 'stache like that - that itself could cause Spitz to be a few hundredthd of a second slower.

The thing is, back in Spitz's day it was pretty much the same--few wore facial hair for fear of drag. Here's the 4 x 100 free relay team.

The main advantage Phelps has is that his ears are like another set of arms propelling him through the water.

if they just merely had suspicions but no proof to back it up, I can't really blame any of them for choosing not to report their suspicions.

This qualifies as a bit more than "merely having suspicion".

He's The Associated Press reporter who, during the fascinating/fraudulent Mark McGwire-Sammy Sosa home run chase of 1998, noticed a bottle of pills sitting openly in McGwire's locker.

The bottle was there for everybody to see, but Wilstein was the only one who dared to look. He wrote down the name of the substance_"a-n-d-r-o-s-t-e-n-e-d-i-o-n-e"_in his notebook, did a little research and discovered andro was a form of testosterone-producing steroid banned by virtually every other sport except Major League Baseball.

Wilstein asked the hulked-up, bulked-up McGwire about the substance, and McGwire not only admitted to taking it, he stated unabashedly, "Everybody I know in the game of baseball uses the same stuff I use."