Was it unethical for the New York Times to report the leaked PED-users’ names?


It’s always fun to rip on The Blogger Murray Chass when he writes something ill-advised, bitter and ridiculous.  But sometimes he writes something bitter and thought-provoking (sorry: bitter is just part of the deal with him these days).

For example, over the weekend he noted how neither the New York Times nor the New York Daily News (UPDATE: Seen note below re: the Daily News) were quick to report the decision by the Justice Department to not appeal the court’s ruling that the PED-tests of the famous 104 were illegally seized.  While such editorial oversights are often innocuous, I agree with Chass that given how zealous both the Times and their PED-reporter Michael S. Schmidt and the Daily News with their Steroids “I-Team” have been in reporting even the tiniest PED-related story over the years, the fact that they were so slow to report what was truly big news in this regard was more than a little curious.  Almost everything those two outlets have written on PEDs over the past few years has been premised in some way on the list of anonymous PED tests from 2004. You tellin’ me that a final decision that the lists were illegal to begin with isn’t newsworthy? C’mon.

What interested me most, though, was that in the course of making that argument, Chass says this about Schmidt:

Michael S. Schmidt, the Times’ steroids specialist best known for inducing lawyers to violate a court seal and name protected names, did not respond to e-mail requests for comment, but Jay Schreiber, the Times’ baseball editor, did. Schmidt’s efforts incidentally in outing three players looks even worse now that the list of names can never be revealed. If there had been any good reason for the publication of those names or any names I might feel differently, but it served no purpose other than to serve some readers’ prurient interest and perhaps the reporter’s ego.

At the outset, let’s keep in mind that Chass has ripped every single New York Times baseball reporter repeatedly over the past few years because he himself was forced out of the New York Times and he just can’t stand it, thereby fueling his bile. But is Chass wrong to rip Schmidt for being the guy to report the names leaked as a result of the illegal search?

I wouldn’t rip Schmidt personally for it like Chass does but I think he and the Times made the wrong decision to name the names.

This is obviously a stance many would not agree with. Free press and free speech and all, both concepts of which I am a near-fanatical supporter.  Unlike some, I don’t think the Wikileaks guy should be assassinated. I believe that Nazis should be able to march in Skokie, Illinois.  I think the rule against yelling fire in a crowded movie house is a pretty good one, but I am skeptical of most other limits on information’s desire to be free.

But I was and continue to be troubled by the fact that the information in question here was taken in violation of the Fourth Amendment. And that the person leaking this information to Schmidt did so in violation of multiple court orders. And that, assuming the person is a lawyer, which I do assume, they did so in violation of their responsibilities as a member of the bar and officer of the court as well. Heck, because I happen to be a licensed attorney, I don’t believe I’d be acting ethically if someone gave me the names from that list and I reported on them.  Depending on the circumstances, I may very well be ethically-obligated to report the leaker to the bar.

Schmidt and most other reporters are not so limited. I realize that I’m probably in a very tiny minority on this issue, but I do think that reporting on those names is a less-than-clear-cut case from an ethical perspective, and I was and continue to be troubled by the New York Times’ reporting of the names.

UPDATE:  It has been brought to my attention that the Daily News did, in fact, report the government’s decision not to appeal the court’s ruling on December 12th.  Chass missed this and I committed an unforgivable journalistic sin in relying on Chass’ information. I mean, really, of all the people in the world to trust, why would I trust some lowly blogger?  So, apologies to the Daily News, who did get on this story earlier than Chass or I said they did.

Game 2 is going to be the poster child for pace of play arguments this winter

CLEVELAND, OH - OCTOBER 26:  Zach McAllister #34 of the Cleveland Indians is relieved by manager Terry Francona during the fifth inning against the Chicago Cubs in Game Two of the 2016 World Series at Progressive Field on October 26, 2016 in Cleveland, Ohio.  (Photo by Gregory Shamus/Getty Images)
Getty Images

In August, it was reported that Major League Baseball Commissioner Rob Manfred would like to implement pitch clocks, like those in use in the minor leagues for the past two seasons, to improve the pace-of-play at the major league level. You can bet that last night’s Game 2 will be the lead argument he uses against those who would oppose the move.

The game was moved up an hour in order to get it in before an impending storm. By the time the rain finally started falling the game had been going on for three hours and thirty-three minutes. It should’ve been over before the first drop fell, but in all it lasted four hours and four minutes. It ended in, thankfully, only a light rain. The longest nine-inning game in postseason history happened a mere two weeks ago, when the Dodgers and Nationals played for four hours and thirty two minutes. There thirteen pitchers were used. Last night ten pitchers were used. Either way, the postseason games are dragging on even for those of us who don’t mind devoting four+ hours of our night to baseball. It is likely putting off more casual fans just tuning in for the Fall Classic.

It’s not all just dawdling, however. Yes, the pitchers worked slowly and a lot of pitching changes took place, but strikeouts, walks and the lack of balls in play contribute to longer games as well. We saw this both last night and in Game 1, which was no brisk affair despite each starting pitcher looking sharp and not working terribly slowly. Twenty-four strikeouts on Tuesday night had a lot to do with that. Last night featured 20 strikeouts and thirteen — thirteen! — walks. It’s not just that the games are taking forever; the very thing causing them to drag feature baseball’s least-kinetic forms of excitement.

But no matter what the cause for the slower play was — and here it was a combination of laboring pitchers, the lack of balls in play and, of course, the longer commercial breaks in the World Series — Manfred is likely to hold Game 2 up as Exhibit A in his efforts to push through some rules changes to improve game pace and game time. So far, the centerpiece of those efforts is the pitch clock, which has proven to be successful and pretty non-controversial in the minor leagues. It would not surprise me one bit if, at this year’s Winter Meetings in Washington, a rule change in that regard is widely discussed.

Kyle Schwarber is the feel-good story of the 2016 postseason


Most baseball fans and even the Cubs had resigned themselves to most likely not seeing Kyle Schwarber in game action until spring training next year after he suffered a gruesome knee injury in a collision with teammate Dexter Fowler back in early April. Schwarber suffered a fully-torn ACL and LCL in his left leg.

To the surprise of everyone, including manager Joe Maddon, Schwarber was cleared by doctors to play if the Cubs wanted to put him on the World Series roster. So they did. And, boy, are they glad they did it. In preparation, Schwarber saw over 1,000 pitches from machines and pitchers in the Arizona Fall League.

Schwarber essentially crammed for the final exam and unlike most students who do it, it has panned out well thus far. No one was expecting him to look outstanding against Indians ace Corey Kluber in Game 1, but in his first at-bat — his first in the majors since suffering the injury in April — Schwarber worked a 3-1 count before eventually being retired on strikes. Schwarber came back up in the fourth and drilled a Kluber sinker to right field for a two-out double.

In the seventh inning, facing one of the American League’s two scariest left-handed relievers in Andrew Miller, Schwarber worked a full count before drawing a walk. During the regular season, Miller walked exactly one lefty batter. Schwarber made it two. Schwarber would face Miller again in the eighth, going ahead 2-1 before ultimately striking out. He finished 1-for-3 with a walk and a double in the Cubs’ 6-0 loss. Considering the circumstances, that’s amazing.

Schwarber continued his great approach in Game 2 in what turned out to be a 5-1 victory. He struck out against Trevor Bauer in the first inning, but returned to the batter’s box in the third inning and singled up the middle to knock in the Cubs’ second run. Schwarber made it 3-0 in the fifth when he singled up the middle again, this time off of Bryan Shaw, to make it 3-0. Facing Danny Salazar in the sixth, Schwarber drew a four-pitch walk to put runners on first and second base with two outs. Finally, he struck out against Dan Otero in his eighth-inning at-bat, finishing the evening 2-for-4 with a pair of RBI singles and a walk.

But now, as the Cubs return to Chicago for World Series Games 3, 4, and 5 at Wrigley Field, they have to contest with National League rules, a.k.a. no DH. Will Maddon risk Schwarber’s subpar defense to put his dangerous bat in the lineup? Even if Schwarber is not put in the starting lineup, he can at least serve as a dangerous bat off the bench late in the game when the Indians send out their trio of relievers in Shaw, Miller, and closer Cody Allen. At any rate, what Schwarber has done already in the first two games of the World Series is mighty impressive.