syringe

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

9 Comments

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.

Report: Dexter Fowler will take a physical in St. Louis on Friday

CLEVELAND, OH - NOVEMBER 02:  Dexter Fowler #24 of the Chicago Cubs reacts after lining out during the third inning against the Cleveland Indians in Game Seven of the 2016 World Series at Progressive Field on November 2, 2016 in Cleveland, Ohio.  (Photo by Ezra Shaw/Getty Images)
Ezra Shaw/Getty Images
9 Comments

Update (8:51 PM EST): The deal is in place, according to Heyman.

*

Update (8:27 PM EST): Derrick Goold of the St. Louis Post-Dispatch reports that the Cardinals made an “over-the-top offer” to Fowler to ensure he’d sign.

*

Frank Cusumano of KSDK Sports reports that free agent outfielder will take a physical in St. Louis on Friday. Presumably, that means that Fowler and the Cardinals have gotten pretty far along in negotiations.

Jon Heyman of FanRag Sports recently reported that Fowler was looking for $18 million per year. The Blue Jays reportedly made an offer to Fowler in the four-year, $16 million range several days ago. The Cardinals’ offer to Fowler, if there is indeed one, is likely somewhere between the two figures.

Fowler, 30, is coming off of a fantastic year in which he helped the Cubs win their first World Series since 1908. During the regular season, he hit .276/.393/.447 with 13 home runs, 48 RBI, 84 runs scored, and 13 stolen bases in 551 plate appearances.

Fowler rejected the Cubs’ $17.2 million qualifying offer last month. While the QO compensation negatively affected Fowler’s experience in free agency last offseason — he didn’t sign until late February with the Cubs — his strong season is expected to make QO compensation much less of an issue.

Braves acquire Luke Jackson from the Rangers

ARLINGTON, TX - SEPTEMBER 16:  Relief pitcher Luke Jackson #53 of the Texas Rangers  throws during the ninth inning of a baseball game against the Houston Astros at Globe Life Park on September 16, 2015 in Arlington, Texas. Texas won 14-3. (Photo by Brandon Wade/Getty Images)
Brandon Wade/Getty Images
Leave a comment

Tommy Stokke of RanRag Sports reports that the Braves and Rangers agreed to a trade. According to ESPN’s Keith Law, the Braves will receive pitcher Luke Jackson from the Rangers in exchange for pitchers Tyrell Jenkins and Brady Feigl.

Jackson, 25, is under team control through 2022. He has logged only 18 innings in the majors, yielding 14 runs on 22 hits and eight walks with three strikeouts. While Jackson has struggled with control, the Braves likely see upside because his fastball sits in the mid- to high-90’s.

Jenkins, 24, is also under team control through 2022. The right-hander made eight starts and six relief appearances in his first major league season in 2016, putting up a 5.88 ERA with a 26/33 K/BB ratio over 52 innings.

Feigl, 25, was an undrafted free agent and was signed by the Braves in 2013. The lefty underwent Tommy John surgery in 2015 and briefly rehabbed in rookie ball this past season.