The crux of the article, if it’s not already obvious, is that public statements – of which there have been many – insinuating that Jose Bautista’s unexpected mid-career power explosion could be due to PED use are both unfair and indecent.

And Ken is right. It is unfair, just as it was unfair when I linked the terms “Raul Ibanez” and “steroids” together in a headline many, many months ago.

It is unfair because, as Ken says, Bautista has done nothing to arouse steroid suspicion other than be really, really, ridiculous good at hitting over the past year and a half. And while there have been stories about swing changes he made that seem to explain his newfound power, there have been no mysterious prescriptions or failed tests or anything else of the kind to provide any sort of nefarious counter argument.

So it’s unfair to lump Jose Bautista in with proven cheaters like Manny Ramirez and Rafael Palmeiro. We know they used PEDs because they failed tests. It’s also unfair to lump Bautista in with guys like Roger Clemens whose 100% guilt may be in question, but who most reasonable people suspect was a steroid user. There are smoking guns with Clemens. There aren’t with Bautista.

Yes, it’s definitely unfair to lump Bautista in with those guys. As Ken says:

“…at this moment, there is no reason to believe that Bautista isn’t legit, other than the fact that he’s putting up big numbers. And sorry, that’s hardly reason enough to cast doubt upon a man’s integrity.”

The one thing I felt bad about after the Ibanez story was that my article forced a good and decent man (this is how everyone describes Ibanez) to have to deal with questions about the legitimacy of his numbers. If I was writing that article today with the knowledge and perspective that I have now, I would still write it. BUT, I would explain it and position much differently, with the main difference being a different title and a focus more on the sport as a whole rather than one name.

That said, I fully stand by the overall conclusion that I came to in the article: that because of the previous 15 years, baseball fans were and are well within reason to suspect any player of PED use. MLB created the culture where such use was damn near encouraged, and one of the consequences was a complete erosion of fan trust. Sometimes you get what you deserve, and MLB has deserved the fan frustration and doubt the PED story has created.

But even with that said, singling out an individual player remains unfair, and a huge part of the problem is that oftentimes people do not actually read articles before drawing conclusions from them. Hence, my regret at using Ibanez’s name and the word “steroids” in the title of the article. Most people only saw that, and then let their speculations and assumptions run wild (even though, ironically, my goal was to disprove the already-in-discussion notion that Ibanez was on a juice-fueled hitting binge).

So this is where I agree with Ken Rosenthal, and it’s why you have not seen any other stories on MSF like the Ibanez article. If I am going to discuss steroids in sports, it will be a general conversation as opposed to a specific one. Personally, I think that’s how the issue should be handled by everyone.

The fact is, I increasingly think I agree with the sentiments of Joe Posnanski’s article entitled “Why I Think Steroids Are Out of Baseball.” I think it’s quite possible that with very few and isolated exceptions, steroids exited stage left when Manny Ramirez left the game. The departure of Manny, to me, signaled the end of an era. The stats certainly back this up – and if we’re going to let bloated stats galvanize our suspicions, as I have, then we certainly have to be fair when the bloating subsides.

And furthermore, when there is not any kind of smoking gun, any player-specific doubts you or I have really should be kept general in terms of the sport, especially if you write or speak in any forum with any ounce of authority. And yes, even no-name bloggers like me who bought their domain name for $9.99 can have some small amount of reader-determined authority – especially when so many people make judgments off of headlines rather than the actual article as a whole. I was forced into learning that lesson, with Ken reiterated today, and it was a good one to learn.

Yes, because I’m sure Major League Baseball is just itching for its young players to learn the art of lying yourself into delusion and then telling the truth only when it’s financially opportunistic to do so.

Like you probably are, I’m sick and tired of the endless Pete Rose debate. I did, however, get a bit of a chuckle when I thought about Bud Selig reading about Rose’s comments, and that chuckle led to me imagining a conversation between the two, which led to (finally!) a new photo story.

Enjoy – especially the reference to The Sandlot and the cameo by friend of MSF Ken Rosenthal,. (And Pete: shut up already.)

If for some reason the image below does not load properly, view it here.

**********

It has now been a full seven days since Quiz 1 went live, and after receiving a ridiculously high number of submissions considering this is our first time doing anything like this, I am excited to announce the first winner of the $20 Chili’s gift certificates that are perfect for a two-person lunch break: Jeff Wallack.

As soon as I get done posting this, I will contacting Jeff via email and making arrangements to send him his gift certificate.

There were actually five people in all who answered all of the questions correctly: Jeff, Dan Greenham, Art Fahrner, Kathryn, and MSF’s own Brian Dilsheimer (who is ineligible for prizes, but whose participating we appreciate!). Jeff was chosen at random from the eligible group of perfect scores on Quiz 1.

To those of you who did not win a prize this week, do not despair. Not only will there be another Chili’s gift card on the line next week, but everyone is in the running the the iPad and MLB.tv subscription that will be given to the season-long winner, determined based on cumulative scoring.

This means that if you did not complete Quiz 1 yet, go do so now! You won’t be eligible for the Chili’s certificate, but it will get your point total count started for the grand prize.

And to everyone: make sure that next week, and in all weeks after, that you use the same User ID each week. It’s how we will keep track of your cumulative scores.

Also, a quick word about some of the formatting difficulty.

As I mentioned in the first post, because of the online quiz program we are using, we have to require specific formatting of answers. To alleviate the confusion this caused for Quiz 1, we are going to change how we develop our questions to ensure that the vast majority have simple answers that you will just have to spell correctly. This should simplify things greatly.

I appreciate everyone’s patience while we worked things out for Quiz 1, and we decided to be very lenient in terms of what we’d allow to pass for a correct answer or not with respect to commas and misspellings and the like. In the future, we will have to take a bit harder line in requiring more acute attention to detail, but we’re balancing that by trying to make it easier. (Also, for the record, Quiz 1 winner Jeff nailed everything and formatted it correctly; so he was truly the winner!)

Finally, to also makes things easier on everyone, I bought the domain http://mlbtriviachallenge.com. You can enter that into your web browser and it will take you directly to the category page for the trivia challenge podcast so you don’t have to hunt through MSF for the latest post. Just go right there.

We’ll be back next Thursday with podcast #2 and quiz #2. Our guest will be the great Will Carroll (aka The Injury Expert), formerly of Baseball Prospectus and currently writing for SI.com. Should be fun. See you then!

First off, we love baseball here at MSF, and this podcast, which was inspired by Jayson Stark’s weekly appearances on ESPN Radio, is going to be a great biweekly feature on the site for all of the fellow baseball lovers out there.

Secondly, there are prizes! We are going to be able to reward one weekly winner with a $20 gift certificate to Chili’s each week, and at the end of the season we are going to be giving one grand prize winner an iPad and a subscription to MLB.tv for 2012.

And thirdly, specific to this week, one of the most well known and controversial moments in MSF history (a result of this article) will come full circle as Ken Rosenthal joins me and Ari on the first MLB Trivia Challenge Podcast.

This will be fun.

Before you listen to the podcast or jump to the quiz below, I implore you to read the MLB Trivia Challenge Rules and Information page. Only your first quiz submission is counted, so you want to make sure you know what’s going on.

Use the player below to listen to the MLB Trivia Challenge Podcast sponsored by Generational Equity.

In addition to tackling some deliciously difficult trivia questions from Ari, Ken and I look back at our appearance together on Outside the Lines, look forward at the future of sports media, discuss the topsy-turvy AL Central, and so much more. Enjoy.

Click here to take MLB Trivia Challenge Podcast Quiz #1

Link above skips you to the bottom of this page where quiz is embedded. Podcast will continue playing.

A few quick notes:

• The MLB Trivia Challenge is available on iTunes. Listen and subscribe here.
• Be sure to follow the MSF Trivia Challenge Podcast on Twitter: @MLBTriviaMSF. We’ll provide links to the latest episodes as well as periodic trivia questions that don’t make the final cut for the show. Why? It’s a long summer…you can never have enough MLB trivia.
• If you like the intro and outro music, and I know you will, it was provided to us by the Twin Cats out of Indianapolis. We encourage you to like them on Facebook or check out their music here.

On behalf of everyone at MSF and our sponsor Generational Equity, I extend my sincere thanks to Ken Rosenthal for taking the time to join us. I encourage you to follow him on Twitter, where he is often found tweeting out juicy nuggets of baseball information.

Quick Reaction to Rosenthal Conversation

I promise we’ll get to the first quiz in a moment, but I do think at least a couple of final thoughts on the entire MSF-Raul Ibanez-Ken Rosenthal-Outside the Lines situation are in order.

A lot of people have seem surprised that Ken and I have “patched things up” and have a solid relationship now, but I’m not. Ultimately he was just responding to his interpretation of words written by someone he didn’t know, and he has apologized both privately and now publicly for going a bit overboard with his indignant tone. I appreciate that and, of course, accept.

I will say that, based on listening to the podcast while editing, I’m still not completely sure he realizes that I never actually accused Raul Ibanez of using steroids and that I did try to seek out alternative explanations. (I probably should have asked a follow-up question about this.) But I also understand his larger point that you have to tread very carefully when “naming names” in association with steroids and PEDs when all you have to go on are numbers, and he’s right.

Overall, I learned a lot that week, as I detailed in this post. In particular, I learned about the potential for massive amplification that even an unassuming post on a small site can have. I also learned that with that potential comes a lot of responsibility. While I certainly felt that Ken’s public rebuke of me and my work was unfair, the constructive and informed parts of his message did not go unheard nor unheeded, and it made me a better blogger and MSF a better (and certainly more well-known) site. For that, and for his graciousness in helping us kick off the trivia challenge, I thank Ken.

Your Turn to Compete and Win Prizes

Now onto the fun stuff: your chance to match wits with the “experts” (which certainly was not me or Ken, but rather Ari and his fun but challenging questions) and win prizes.

As explained on the rules and information page, we will be rewarding one winner each time a new MLB Trivia Challenge Podcast and quiz are posted. This winner will be awarded as follows:

• Each correct answer nets you one point. Most points wins.
• In the event of a tie, we will choose from the top group at random.
• The winner receives a $20 gift certificate to Chili’s*, which is perfect for a Chili’s Lunch Break.

• Weekly winners can go bold with the new six-dollar lunch break combo at Chili’s. Choose a house made soup or salad and then pick a half Texas Toast sandwich like the Southwestern BLT smothered in cilantro lime mayo.
• See all the great Lunch Break combos at Chilis.com.
• Note: You have ONE WEEK from the day the podcast is posted to submit yours answers and be eligible for the weekly prize. The next Thursday at 11:59 pm CT, entries are closed and we award a winner.

In addition to the weekly prizes, a grand prize winner will be chosen at the end of the season. Simply put, the grand prize winner will be the person who tallies up the most points throughout the season, regardless of when the quiz is taken.

A few final notes you need to know before we let you have at it with the first quiz:

• LISTEN to the podcast; each week we will be including one bonus question taken directly from our discussion.
• ONLY your first entry counts, for the weekly prize and grand prize.
• MAKE SURE you use the same UserID throughout the season. This is how we will keep track of your scores.
• PAY CLOSE ATTENTION to the instructions after each question. Due to the parameters of the quiz program we are using, and our inability to hand-grade thousands of quizzes each week, we must request that you very specific and particular in how you answer the questions. Thus, you MUST spell names correctly, you MUST separate multiple response answers with commas, and oftentimes we request that you list responses in alphabetical order. Think of it this way: attention to detail is paramount in baseball, so shouldn’t it be part of the challenge? Absolutely.

And now, drumroll the please, we give you your chance to answer. There are only six questions this week whereas there will usually be 10 or 11. Have fun!

**********

Obviously we cannot post the answers because this is an ongoing trivia challenge.

Check back in two weeks when we’ll post the second MLB Trivia Challenge sponsored by Generational Equity. Remember: someone is winning an iPad and a subscription to MLB.tv when this is all said and done…it might as well be you.

* – Chili’s gift certificate good in U.S. only.

And, of course, it will all likely come down to money and contracts. What doesn’t?

Here is an excerpt from Rosenthal’s article:

A week ago, I wrote about talk of Ozzie Guillen leaving the White Sox to manage the Marlins, citing buzz among scouts.

As it turns out, the talk is more than just idle speculation.

Guillen wants assurances that the White Sox would like him to remain manager long-term, according to a source with knowledge of his thinking.

The source even outlined a scenario that could lead to Guillen’s departure from the club:

Read the entire article: Extension for Ozzie or off to the Marlins?

Rosenthal goes on to discuss the infamously volatile relationship between Guillen and White Sox GM Ken Williams, and goes through a few scenarios for how owner Jerry Reinsdorf might deal with it. He also mentions a few names – Tony LaRussa, Dusty Baker, and Joey Cora among them – that the White Sox would have intest in should Guillen leave.

I like Ozzie Guillen. A lot. Always have. He’s been with the White Sox organization for a long time as a player and manager and overall has done a good job in Chicago. He hasn’t been perfect, and the White Sox have had some disastrous time periods under his watch (2007 comes to mind, as does September of this year), but he’s won more than he’s lost and did what no other manager could do in 200 seasons of baseball in the city of Chicago before 2005: deliver a World Series title.

Still, something has seemed off this year watching from afar, and perhaps a lot of that has to do with the souring of Ozzie’s relationship with Williams. Certainly if Ozzie stays those two need to mend some fences and get back on the same page for the White Sox to move forward.

Despite this season’s September collapse, the White Sox should have an Opening Day rotation of Mark Buehrle, Jake Peavy, Gavin Floyd, John Danks, and Edwin Jackson next year. That is outstanding. Assuming some positive tweaks can be made to the bullpen and lineup during the offseason, there is no reason White Sox shouldn’t be competing for an AL Central title next year. (By the way, anyone in Chicago up for revisiting those Twins contraction talks from a decade ago? Anyone?)

I hope Ozzie is still the skipper, and I expect he will be, though it is clearly far from a foregone conclusion. And I do have to admit that Ozzie seems like a great fit for the Marlins. At some point I expect him to manage there. With the team opening up a new stadium, and Ozzie’s popularity with the massive Latin fan base in Miami, the timing could no be more perfect from the Marlins’ perspective to swoop in and grab Guillen. And I think he’d be happy there. Will Reinsdorf left it happen? We’ll see.

As Kenny Williams said on The Club, “We [the White Sox] are a lot of things around here, but we are never boring.” That’s for sure. And it sounds like unless Ozzie’s contract desires are mollified, a 2010 season that is ending with a whimper may simply be a precursor to yet another event-filled offseason on the South Side.

But this morning a couple of thoughts occurred to me.

First, my good buddy @WorldofIsaac sent me a link to the following tweet from Greg Wyshynski (aka Puck Daddy):

Has Jerod Morris opined on Damien Cox not getting same “Outside The Lines” treatment he got for steroid speculation? Would love to hear it.

As Isaac reminded me, few individuals in the sports blogosphere are as revered as Greg Wyshynski. I’m not even a hockey fan and I know that. Thus, I immediately thought that it would be wise for me to pay attention to such a call for opinion.

The second thought that occurred to me was, what exactly is so wrong with being recognized for the Raul Ibanez story from last year? Sure, if I was ashamed of the story I’d hide in the shadows and hope it faded from memory. But I’m not ashamed of it, not by a longshot.

I was neither malicious nor cunning, I held firm where I felt I should and admitted fault where I felt I should, I learned a tremendous amount, and was able to be a part of volcanic debate about bloggers and the mainstream media that was influential and a long time coming. It was an unlikely series of events that brought the debate to my doorstep, but as the great philosopher Rashed Wallace once said during a post game interview: it is what it is and it do what it do.

So, for those interested, I will now weigh in on this season’s steroid speculation story, which involves the red hot Jose Bautista, a hockey blogger named Damien Cox, and a pretty obvious double standard in how it’s being covered.

First, the background (quickly), in case you missed the story.

As any fantasy baseball player knows, Jose Bautista is hitting out of his mind this year. We are not even in September yet and Bautista has 40 HRs, 95 RBIs, and an OPS of .973. His previous full season career highs for these three stats are: 16, 63, and .757 (all of which occurred in different seasons).

To say that Bautista’s power surge has come out of nowhere this year would be a tremendous understatement.

Well, this past Sunday Damien Cox, a hockey columnist and associate sports editor for The Toronto Star, decided to put his spin on the story. Cox is described on his blog as someone who “takes turns stirring up trouble and chuckling at the foibles of the sporting world.” Thus, he decided to stir up some trouble:

For the following unpopular question, blame Major League baseball and all the nonsense it has spewed over the past decade.

Don’t blame me.

When it comes to Jose Bautista, how is it exactly that at the age of 29 he’s suddenly become the most dangerous power hitter in baseball?

Chance? Healthy living? Diet? New contact lenses? Comfortable batting gloves?

Anyone reading about the Roger Clemens perjury case this week, which of course brings up all of baseball’s tawdry steroid history, should at least be willing to wonder about Bautista’s sudden transformation into the dinger king.

He continues on for another half page or so, essentially reiterating these thoughts in different words.

For comparison’s sake, here is what I said about Raul Ibanez last year:

Thirdly, it’s time for me to begrudgingly acknowledge the elephant in the room: any aging hitter who puts up numbers this much better than his career averages is going to immediately generate suspicion that the numbers are not natural, that perhaps he is under the influence of some sort of performance enhancer. And since I was not able to draw any absolute parallels between his prodigously improved HR rate and his new ballpark’s hitter-friendliness, it would be foolish to dismiss the possibility that “other” performance enhancers could be part of the equation.

Sorry Raul Ibanez and Major League Baseball, that’s just the era that we are in — testing or no testing.

If you just read that excerpt from my post and compare it to what Cox says about Bautista, you might conclude that we essentially said the exact same thing; and, at least in part, we did.

• Cox’s main idea: Jose Bautista is performing well above his established norms; he’s a baseball player; we have been conditioned to wonder if he is using a PED and it’s reasonable to pose the thought.
• My main idea: Raul Ibanez is performing well above his established norms; he’s a baseball player; we have been conditioned to wonder if he is using a PED and it’s reasonable to post the thought.

The difference, of course, which is obvious if you just glace at the two articles, is that I spent 85-90% of the time actively trying to disprove the then-commonly discussed notion that Ibanez might be juicing. The genesis of the post was another manager in one of my fantasy leagues posing the question. I wrote the article to find objective reasons to disprove it, finally concluding that I couldn’t, which led to me making a blanket statement about all baseball players while using Raul Ibanez as the microcosm.

Cox, on the other hand, simply tosses out the question that he’s “gotta” ask, includes names like Roger Clemens, Troy Glaus, and Brady Anderson for good measure, and leaves it at that.

A recent post at Drunk Jays Fans summed it up best:

Fortunately for my conscience, Jerod’s piece proved to be mostly an analysis of possible reasons for Ibanez’s incredibly hot start (park factors, competition) that concluded with a lament about the inevitable PED speculation that would come. Cox, on the other hand, offered up counter-theories only in the most sarcastic, piece-of-shit-like way. So, while there may be a tinge of hypocrisy in my defending Morris and not Cox, I really do think that, if you actually read what Jerod wrote—which, if I recall correctly, was kind of the major fucking problem with how the media treated the Ibanez in the first place—he’s hardly being accusatory, if at all. Cox totally is.

I agree, and continue to wish that more people had actually read my piece before passing judgment last year. But alas, this is the Internet we’re talking about here. I used a title that was far more provocative than I intended it to be, and most people never read any further. Actually, I’m not sure most people even read the entire title. They saw “The Curious Case of Raul Ibanez: Steroid Speculation…” and then dropped everything to email John Gonzalez that some Midwest blogger was accusing Ibanez of using steroids…even though I didn’t.

But this column isn’t so much about reliving last year’s news as it is about gauging how the coverage and overall landscape have changed now that a similar story has popped up this year. The most obvious aspect of how the Cox-Bautista story has been covered differently as last year’s Ibanez story is the striking double standard that has been applied to Cox’s comments.

We have established, and I’m not really sure it’s debatable, that Cox’s comments about Bautista are far more flippant and accusatory than mine were. Yet, where is Ken Rosenthal decrying Cox’s disrespect for the written word? Where is the Outside the Lines special analyzing the giant schism between bloggers and the mainstream media and — oh, that’s right; Cox isn’t technically a blogger. He wrote his comments on a blog, but he’s a sports editor for The Star, meaning he’s part of the in-crowd.

Yes, I think that has a lot to do with it. Part of the reason no one is out to tar and feather Damien Cox on national TV, as good ‘ol Ken was clearly attempting to do to me, is because of his position. There simply is no other reasonable explanation. And plenty of bloggers, as well as commenters and tweeters, are taking up the fight and pointing out this clear example of mainstream media hypocrisy, of an obvious double standard being applied.

But to simplify the issue down just to that would be foolhardy.

I think another contributing factor is that things are different now as compared to last year at this time. The landscape is different, the tone and amplification of the blogger/MSM debate is different, the steroids issue in baseball is different.

And, honestly, I think people may just be tired of it all.

I know that I’m sick of talking about steroids, as evidenced by the fact that you’ve heard nary a peep about the subject from me on this blog since last season. And as the lines continue to blur between what a “blogger” is and what a “mainstream media member” is, what’s the point in continuing to shout at eachother about varying shades of gray?

Because of the daily grind of the 24-hour sports news cycle, and moments like last year’s Ibanez story and the Leitch-Bissinger debate before that, the sports media and sports blogging community have slowly but surely reached an uneasy alliance that, for the most part, benefits everyone involved. The online landscape is still quite Darwinian in that survival of the fittest necessitates a constant race for pageviews, but people are also coming to the correct understanding that pageviews are not a zero sum game. Working together can in fact be beneficial and all boats really can rise together.

Mix all of it in – Cox’s job title, steroids fatigue, less blogger/MSM sensitivity – and it creates the much more muted response to Damien Cox’s post than what mine received last year.

I’m certainly not bitter about it or upset in any way. I didn’t ask him too, and I certainly didn’t think it would be the case at the time, but Ken Rosenthal did more for the credibility and exposure of Midwest Sports Fans than anyone has in the 2+ years of this site’s existence. Sure, I had to sit there on national TV trying to get a word in edgewise while looking like a recluse who’d never seen the sun, but it was a tremendous experience that I’ll never forget nor would I ever trade. Damien Cox should be so lucky so have such righteous indignation heaped upon him.

And as for Cox’s words, no I do not think he is inherently wrong to raise the question he raised.

My brother has Jose Bautista on a couple of fantasy teams and we’ve randomly joked a few times about whether his numbers are legit or not. I haven’t looked, but I would assume that there have even been other blog posts or message board forums that have mentioned and discussed this. (Last year, people overlooked the fact that I was actually the third blogger to mention Raul Ibanez and the possibility that he could be on steroids. I just happened to win the Lottery of Internet Exposure Serendipity when John Gonzalez mentioned my post.) When a guy goes from a career high of 16 HR to 40 before September, steroids will be brought up. It’s inevitable, despite baseball’s history of outliers that Keith Law astutely brought up recently.

Here is where I diverge from Damien Cox, however: I would have raised the Bautista question differently, with what I consider to be more tact and fairness; and I can say that because I did. As mentioned above, even though Cox and I essentially concluded the same general point about baseball, I spent far more time trying to disprove my hypothesis about the individual than prove it. That matters, I believe, and manifests intent.

Which is a perfect segue to my concluding topic.

Of all the articles I read yesterday dealing either directly or tangentially with this topic, I actually appreciated Geoff Baker’s the most. Baker, you may recall, was one of my harshest critics last year, but also the person from whom I learned the most when looking at what I’d written through the prism of his criticism.

Here is what Baker wrote yesterday:

You’ll remember how we engaged in one of our typically healthy debates back then about Jerod Morris, a blogger who seemed to suggest in a headline and the text of his post that Raul Ibanez was taking steroids.

That spurred all type of arguing back and forth, but the more depressing upshot I took away from it was that there are thousands, if not millions of people out there who believe that blogs are not held to as high a standard as traditional media when it comes to truth and libel law and that just about anything can be written on the internet.

Not true. And the story I’ve linked to spells that out.

Let’s not get into the technicalities of what was written in the whole Morris thing again. I know some of you don’t feel that he intended to accuse Ibanez, while some of us think he tried to soft-pedal his way in there and did so sloppily. That’s ancient history and only the reminder I’m using to bring up the greater issue here.

That even though the public at large now has the power of the written word in its hands like never before, it’s a power that must be used wisely.

What was most interesting to me about reading Baker’s piece yesterday is that it doesn’t mention Cox or Bautista at all. His post was written as a commentary on this article, which details the increasing liability risk faced by people who write blogs and even comments.

Baker and I disagree on what my intention with the Ibanez piece was, but his article, my email exchange with him afterwards, and the entirety of the Ibanez story taught me a valuable lesson about considering the potential impact of hitting the PUBLISH button and putting a piece of content out there on the Internet. I may not write for ESPN or FanHouse or even the Toronto Star, but that doesn’t mean that people don’t take the words written on Midwest Sports Fans seriously, especially the subject of them.

And for all bloggers, Baker’s point is a good one. Too often, we disrespect ourselves by thinking that our words don’t carry the weight that they do, both in terms of influence and, increasingly, potential liability. A normal post on MSF may only get a few hundred pageviews, but it only takes one link from a big site or one mention from a ballplayer to turn a few hundred into 50,000; and you never know what post it will be, so you might as well just assume that it could be any one of them. Hence, it’s a good idea to consider the probable reaction of the masses, of any individuals explicitly named, and to be prepared to defend your words and point of view should you get called on to do so.

I have to imagine that Damien Cox had a pretty good idea that the question about Jose Bautista that he had to ask publicly would create a strong reaction. He’s been in the business too long not to understand what will create a firestorm and what won’t. Steroids + Player Name x Source is a good equation for figuring out how great the firestorm will be, but there will undoubtedly be a loud and swift reaction to any such story.

In Cox’s case, the reaction just happened to be far more swift and vociferous from commenters and bloggers, rather than his mainstream media peers. The reaction to my story was different, for all of the reasons I’ve addressed in this post. In both cases, the players were able to address the issue publicly; in Ibanez’s case, everyone moved on; and in Bautista’s case, everyone will too.

The ubiquitous reality is that there is always another sports news cycle just around the corner, ready to chew up and spit out the latest hot story. Honestly, I’m just glad I got to be a part of one, double standards and all.

**********

* – Jose Bautista photo credit: Jamie Squire/Getty Images North America via Zimbio.com

Here’s a quick teaser. The analysis of and story behind the White Sox trade for Jake Peavy involves the following elements:

• Chicago
• “The biggest balls in the game.”
• The number 23
• Ken Rosenthal
• Potentially the best pitching rotation in the AL over the next three years, and one that makes my favorite team a darkhorse candidate to make some real noise in October should they find a way to squeeze into the playoffs.

Okay, time to tie all of these parts together.

First off, kudos to MLB Trade Rumors for absolutely hitting another grand slam the past few weeks with their coverage of the trade deadline. No one, and I mean no one, brings together all of the lightning-fast stories from every corner of the country like Tim and the good folks at MLBTR. If you are a baseball fan and don’t have them bookmarked, shame on you.

When I logged on today and decided to check out what the reaction was to the White Sox dealing four solid pitching prospects for a former Cy Young Award winner who is currently on the DL and has been criticized (even by me) for having pitcher-friendly-home-park-inflated numbers, MLBTR is the first place I went. And sure enough, they had found two great articles that told the remarkable story about how Kenny Williams made the Peavy trade happen at the 11:59th hour.

Before we go any further, here are links to those stories, along with compelling excerpts from each:

ChiSox pull off last-second gamble with Peavy deal — (Ken Rosenthal, FoxSports)

If it’s not my all-time favorite trade, it’s close.

It might not be a good trade, though I suspect it is. But for sheer audacity and shock value, how can anyone not like what White Sox general manager Ken Williams pulled off Friday?

“Unreal,” one general manager said of the Jake Peavy trade. “No question, it’s a very high-risk move. You’ve got to have great intestinal fortitude to do it.”

Another exec was even more blunt in describing his admiration for Williams.

“Biggest balls in the game,” he said.

…

“Literally with two minutes left, I’m on the phone with Axelrod and I’m on the phone with Kevin Towers and Rick Hahn is on the phone with Major League Baseball because it had to be in,” Williams said.

“I really didn’t think it was going to all come together in the end. I was prepared for it to not meet the deadline. It all came together with 23 seconds on the clock.”

How times change: Peavy trade comes out of nowhere — (Scott Miller, CBSSports.com)

Instead, there was ultra-aggressive, ultra-stealth White Sox GM Kenny Williams ringing Towers late Friday morning San Diego time asking about the chances of reprising that deal the two men put in place back in May before Peavy used his no-trade clause to scotch it.

That phone call led to, by far the wildest, craziest, most interesting trade of the summer.

…

Peavy was sound asleep napping with his middle son, Wyatt, 5, when he said he was awakened with a phone call just 40 minutes before the trade deadline, proposing the same thing he shot down in May.

I know that I excerpted a decent chunk out of each story, but don’t be fooled that the excerpts alone capture the whirlwind fury of the story behind the most surprising trade of the 2009 trade deadline. Go read both stories. Each provides an insightful, behind-the-scenes look at the how these trades came to fruition. 

Yes, that’s right…despite our past differences, I am strongly recommending that you go read Ken Rosenthal. He may consider me ridiculous and unprofessional, and I may have had some choice words for him privately to friends and co-workers (though I think I’ve kept it pretty clean and respectful publicly), but Rosenthal is unquestionably one of the best baseball writers out there. His account of the Peavy trade, in my opinion, is a quintessential example of why.

And now, let’s deconstruct the details.

Ken Williams, who has emerged over the past few years as one of the most proactive, respected, and forward-thinking GMs in the game, targeted Peavy long ago as a guy he wanted in Chicago. To Williams’ credit, he kept persevering until it got done. He also reportedly made a deal happen in 90 minutes when everyone, including me, had finally been lulled into thinking that the White Sox would not be major players this year at the deadline.

I think I speak for all White Sox fans and baseball observers when I say that I’ll never fall asleep on Kenny again until 4:00 has officially struck on deadline day.

Amazingly, there were four significant hurdles that had to be overcome in the 90 minutes left from when Kenny first contacted the Padres yesterday or the trade never could have come to fruition:

1. Kenny had to get Jerry Riensdorf’s approval to take on the rest of Peavy’s $8 million salary this season, and the $52 million that is owed to him to through 2012. Despite the statements we’ve heard about attendance at U.S. Cellular Field being down and the team potentially needing to hold steady or even cut payroll, Reinsdorf signed off on the deal. (Not sure what this means for a potential Jermaine Dye extension, the John Danks contract talks, and even a potential renegotiation for Mark Buehrle, but that is all to be dealt with later.)
2. Jake Peavy had to waive his no-trade clause, which he had refused to do when the trade was originally consummated between the two teams back in May. Peavy waived it, in large part I would assume, because the White Sox are contenders and built to remain contenders for the foreseeable future, while the Padres are not.
3. Just to talk to Peavy about waiving his no-trade clause, they had to get ahold of him. And as you read above in the excerpt from the Miller article, Peavy was napping with his son when they called him 40 minutes before the deadline. What if his ringer had been off? If Peavy doesn’t return the phone call, the trade does not get done and Clayton Richard starts against the Yankees last night. Crazy.
4. Not only did the White Sox, the Padres, and Peavy have to get all of the details ironed out between them, the two teams had to officially call in the trade to the MLB office. According to Ken Rosenthal’s story, they got the call in with 23 seconds to spare. Again…crazy. Can you imagine if the line was busy or Ken Williams’ cell phone was momentarily out of service? (And, on a side note, how ironic that would have been considering the name of the White Sox ballpark!?)

All of these details and many more combined to make the White Sox acquisition of Jake Peavy one of the more unlikely and exciting trades in the history of the MLB trade deadline. From the details, it appears as if karma and fate was on the side of the White Sox in getting this done. Not since Michael Jordan was roaming the Windy City have Chicago, a city icon (and that is what Ken Williams is becoming) being described as having “the biggest balls in the game”, the number 23, and last-second heroics come together in such exciting fashion. 

Now for some analysis. 

Part of the reason I wanted 24 hours to digest the trade before posting anything about it is that my opinions have been all over the map since talk of the trade originated in May. Initially, I was pumped and went so far as to create a petition for White Sox fans to sign in an effort to show Jake Peavy some South Side love. But after the trade didn’t happen, Peavy got hurt and I took a more thorough look as his career stats and splits. In so doing, I became convinced that the trade not happening was a blessing in disguise for the White Sox. So when word of the trade broke yesterday, my reservations won out and I was not as excited as a lot of other Sox fans seemed to be.

With 24 hours of perspective, reflection, and more information, I still have some reservations…but overall I am very happy with the trade and think the positives outweigh the risks and potential negatives. Furthermore, I love the fact that Ken Williams didn’t just make a deal simply to make one. He has a very specific plan for how Jake Peavy fits into the team’s plans for success this year and over the next three seasons.

Unlike many GMs, Ken Williams always thinks big and thinks in terms of championships. With the Tigers bolstering their pitching staff by adding Washburn, and the Red Sox, Yankees, and Angels also having excellent front-end starters and solid depth, Williams knew the Sox needed one more really good arm to add to the trio of Mark Buehrle-Gavin Floyd-John Danks. If the White Sox can hang in the race, Peavy is saying that he will be back by the end of August; and because his injury is an ankle problem, not anything to do with his arm, there is no reason to think he won’t be his usual nasty self pretty quickly upon returning. He’ll also be fresh, which could be a huge boost not only to help the White Sox get into the playoffs, but to be better positioned to make some legit noise once there.

Additionally, if the White Sox can get something done with John Danks, they could very well have a four-man rotation of Mark Buehrle, Jake Peavy, Gavin Floyd, and John Danks signed through 2011. In an era in which starting pitching depth is usually one of the most important factors for success, you would be hard-pressed to find another organization that would not trade their rotation straight up for the rotation that the White Sox could have locked in together through 2011 (when Buehrle’s current contract ends).

Considering the young offensive talent we have in Carlos Quentin, Gordon Beckham, Chris Getz, and Alexei Ramirez, plus hopefully another couple of productive seasons from JD and Paulie, the White Sox appear poised to compete for AL Central crowns and AL pennants for at least the next 2-3 years, while also giving themselves a more realistic chance at doing serious October damage this year…if they can make it.

So, while I’m concerned that Jake Peavy’s overall numbers will drop by coming to the tougher league and pitching in a tougher park, and while I wonder what the ripple effect will be of his hefty contract, and while I think that we dealt at least two guys — Poreda and Richard — who are going to be at least solid big league starters…I throw my full support and endorsement behind this deal.

When you have a GM that you absolutely would not trade for any other GM in the game, it would be foolish not to trust him. 

Well done Kenny. Time will tell if your vision of the future effect of the Peavy deal ultimately comes to fruition, but you have certainly earned the benefit of the doubt and the benefit of fan confidence in your moves. A lot of fans would kill to have a GM who swings for a double every now and then; White Sox fans should feel pretty lucky and excited that our guy never hesitates to swing for the fences.

As my KVB so aptly put in his text message after the deal was announced yesterday: “You can put it on the board…PEAVY!”

**********

Here are some other reactions from out friends in the South Side blogosphere:

• Peavy (question mark, exclamation point) — (Tremendous Upside Potential)
• White Sox acquire Peavy — (Sox Machine)
• Peavy deal makes White Sox contenders in 2009 and beyond — (South Side Sox)
• Not a joke: Peavy to the White Sox — (White Sox Mix)

Enjoy your weekend everyone.

* – Ken Williams photo credit: Upper Deck Blog

From a recent article by Jerry Crowe of the Los Angeles Times:

Thanks to Ramirez, Alex Rodriguez, Barry Bonds, Mark McGwire, Sammy Sosa, etc., fans outside St. Louis must wonder, ‘Do we celebrate Albert Pujols or suspect him?’ . . .

Pujols has batted four times with the bases loaded this season and three times has hit grand slams. . . .

In his only other at-bat with the bases loaded, the St. Louis Cardinals slugger delivered only a two-run single. . . .

Sadly, it makes you wonder. . . .

Now, being from the Midwest and never having lived in LA, I was unfamiliar with Jerry Crowe’s work before seeing this article. However, I have to assume that he has proper journalistic training and some level of understanding for the “professional ethics” and “standards of decency” that were trotted out time and again over the past couple of weeks since I wrote about Raul Ibanez.

Geoff Baker and Ken Rosenthal know what I’m talking about.

I honestly don’t even know what to say. It’s not like this article by Crowe is an isolated example of some mainstream sportswriter going rogue and speculating about specific players using steroids. As was chronicled in the myriad posts written about the Raul Ibanez “controversy”, there are countless examples of media members making claims very similar to what Crowe has written above and similar to the article I wrote that touched off such a fire storm.

And I am not highlighting Crowe’s article because I disagree with him or think he is wrong to speculate. Albert Pujols is in my own personal group of players (along with Raul Ibanez, Derek Jeter, and a few others) that I believe in the most, but no one would truly surprise me anymore. I don’t think that Albert Pujols is on steroids, and his statistical consistency as well as what I’ve read about his high level character are two reasons why; yet, I certainly can understand why people would speculate, and the thought has definitely crossed my mind that it’s a reasonable possibility.

So I have no problem with what Crowe wrote. That’s not the point.

What I just find to be hilariously ironic, especially after another viewing of the Outside the Lines video a couple of nights ago, is how righteous and arrogant Ken Rosenthal was and how many of his peers came across the same way in their responses to what I wrote. Believe me, I’m glad they did because it helped to drive traffic to our site and give us a brief little brush with “fame” and exposure, but their larger points about how the blogosphere is ruining sports writing just seem more and more laughable with each post I read like Crowe’s above.

For some reason, bloggers took a tremendous amount of external criticism in the aftermath of Raul Ibanez’s comments about my post. And, come to think of it, I wonder if Albert Pujols is going to publicly scream at Jerry Crowe for his “pathetic” speculation. Perhaps not, since I assume Crowe wrote it from the LA Times offices and not from the dark nether regions of his mother’s basement.

But the truth of it all is this:

1. Bloggers didn’t create the steroid problem in baseball, baseball did. So getting angry at me or anyone else who writes about it honestly and genuinely is terribly misguided. That’s like having a water pipe burst or break at your house because the plumbers did a shoddy installation job and getting mad at the cable guy for talking about how wet your floor is.
2. Bloggers certainly didn’t create steroid speculation on our own. Journalists have done it for years (it just came far too late, I’m afraid). As I said above, I don’t have a problem with it. I just have a problem with people accusing the honest, hard-working, passionate sports fans who blog of being “unprofessional” and “unethical” and “attention whores” and “lacking standards of decency” and the multitudes of other trite criticisms we hear, when the “journalistic standards” (whatever that term even means) to which we are ostensibly being held (although most of us never claimed to be setting out to uphold them) are not even being upheld by their own peers.

There are fair criticisms and critiques from professional writers that we should listen to because they can make our content better, but I just hope that if Ken Rosenthal or Geoff Baker reads Jerry Crowe’s column that they roll their eyes, think it’s ridiculous, and write 5,000 word articles lambasting Crowe for his lack of integrity. (And I wonder if Crowe reached out to Pujols before “hitting publish.” He has “access.” Sadly, it makes you wonder…)

It just makes the last couple of weeks look like a disingenuous charade from a group of people who feel threatened by bloggers and the uncertain future of their industry. And it makes all of the righteous indignation seem like nothing more than a bunch of verbose and ironic nonsense.

Tom Fornelli, the author of FoulBalls.net and a writer for FanHouse, said it best as you can read in the excerpt below. And since his article is the one that alerted me to this story, and is the reason I am writing about it, I will both mention him by name and link to his article. (You see, journalists, in the blogosphere we have our own code of ethics and integrity and *gasp* actually follow it!).

It does make me wonder. It makes me wonder what exactly the difference is between what Jerod Morris did on a blog and Jerry Crowe did in the Los Angeles Times. Frankly the only difference I see — aside from the fact Morris did actual statistical analysis and Crowe just threw his opinion out there — is that Crowe speculated about a specific player’s steroid use in a major newspaper that I’m sure has a far greater reach than MidwestSportsFans.com, yet for some reason I doubt there will be as much of a reaction to it.

I guess responsibility only applies to those without press passes.

I have nothing else to say about this story.

By the way, for a funny little anecdote about Sammy Sosa and his obsession with the Sammy Sosa Gun Show, here is another great post by Fornelli at FanHouse. Has a player ever fallen from beloved and respected to resented and laughed at more precipitously than Sammy Sosa? It would be sad if every problem Sosa has faced was not brought on by his own selfishness, personal choices, and the ineptitude of the union and league that he was a part of.

And if you still want more MLB content to read, the good folks over at Sparty and Friends put together a nice piece regarding MLB contraction.

**********

My apologies again for the lack of activity this week. Work has been extremely busy and my two best friends from college are in town so my time at night to write has been limited, but it sure has been great catching up. We ate dinner at Fogo de Chao last night. Ridiculously expensive and ridiculously worth it. See if they have one in your city and go right now. It’s amazing.

And on the very bright side, my previously ill dog is almost fully recovered from surgery and will be completely back bouncing around like his old self in about a week. Thanks again to everyone who sent emails and tweets with kind and supportive words. They were all very much appreciated.

Have a great day everyone.

Blogs have taken off, and now we’ve got a problem. The lines have blurred.

What happens when bloggers get together and create a site like Midwest Sports Fans, updating it with news, and making it look and feel like a news site? Are they now journalists with the same standards?

With mainstream media being consumed on the web more and more each day, it’s tougher to discern what’s journalism and what’s “just some guy writing.”

If you go on a newspapers’ website to get the news, it looks like a website, has a banner on top, and some columns and news items. If you go to a blog site, like Midwest Sports Fans, it may look pretty darn similar, with the basic web design, sponsor links, and columns. The difference is that the columns on this site don’t have the same journalistic standards.

This has become a pretty slippery slope.

As sites like Midwest Sports Fans explode in popularity, they become more legitimate-looking. Therefore, such sites’ readers treat then more as “news” as opposed to “wanderings of the mind.” Does this mean higher ethics and journalistic standards need to be exercised?

In the case of Raul Ibanez I think it does.

When you have Raul Ibanez reacting to it, and Jerod Morris (JRod) appearing on ESPN, you know your site has arrived. There is a responsibility to balance your right to blog with journalistic principles of fairness.

Here’s an analogy: If you tell a group of four friends that you suspect Mr. Smith is gay (and why), you’d feel okay, because you’re just telling a few people. But would you stand in a crowded opera house of 1,000 people and announce that with a megaphone? Probably not. You’d have to feel a little funny about that.

That’s the difference between writing something in a chat room or e-mail, versus placing it on a huge blog site like MWSF.

When talking about journalistic standards, the lines are blurry of course. Newspaper writers who blog for their own papers’ websites have let their standards slip. A decade ago, you would never print rumors or hunches unless you could confirm them. Nowadays, for some reason, the same legitimate journalists will post just about everything, thinking its okay because it’s “just on their blog.”

They put something on the web and then say…“but I haven’t been able to confirm it.” Then can you really say it at all?

However, I still know they would not go as far as to drag a stand-up guy like Ibanez into the steroid discussion, out of the blue. I’m a journalist, and I wouldn’t have. Mainstream media members have their reputations and relationships to maintain.

The subject of who has to stick to journalistic ethics and standards boils down to how you present yourself. If Jerod wondered about Ibanez’s possible steroid use in a chat room, it wouldn’t matter. But since MWSF has a huge following, Jerod (JRod) has turned himself into a quasi-journalist and needs to be careful. He told me on Friday that he doesn’t regret writing about his Ibanez-steroid theory (and naming him), he only regrets he wasn’t more careful with the tone and the title of the story. In other words, bloggers should have the right to say what’s on their mind, but he does sense that there is a level of responsibility that comes with it.

Remember bloggers, you’re not just talking to your friends anymore. You’re sharing this stuff with 50,000 people or more, larger than some newspapers’ entire circulation.

Jerod wrote a piece, basically saying it’s sad that in this day and age we have to suspect aging sluggers of steroid use. He speculated that Ibanez could very well be using.

If a member of the mainstream media wrote that piece, the author would not be ethically able to name Ibanez as an example, unless he was getting Ibanez’s reaction on the topic of “the blanket of suspicion.” There was an SI article on the same topic, using Albert Pujols as the focus. The reason that article was okay was that Pujols was discussing how sad it is that there are doubts. Plus the article wasn’t done in a way to ignite speculation.

JRod said he would have asked Ibanez about the topic, but bloggers don’t have the same access to the players as regular media. I believe that makes it not okay to name names.

When JRod was on Outside the Lines (picture courtesy of Awful Announcing), Ken Rosenthal blasted him for not showing any decency and writing whatever he wanted. John Gonzalez of the Philly Inquirer took more of a middle ground, saying bloggers are the “wild west of journalism,” and they have to be careful. I agree with John to a point. People can blog about whatever, but when blog sites start to look like news organizations, there have to be some standards.

JRod did not come out and say Ibanez is using…he just said there is reason to doubt him in this day and age. That doesn’t sound terrible, but because JRod’s following is so huge, it certainly created a huge backlash, including from Ibanez himself.

MWSF has the burden of popularity. It has become legitimate. It has become a place people come to for insight and information. It is very easy for someone who is reading online material to forget they are on a blog site as opposed to mainstream media website.

At the end of the day, it’s up to each blogger to realize they have a level of responsibility to fact-check and not spread rumor. JRod found out the hard way that your tone and the way you present facts can do a lot of damage. While he says he doesn’t regret naming Ibanez, he says it has made him think about being careful. I also credit Jrod for reaching out to Ibanez after the story broke in Philadelphia and trying to explain himself.

That’s the type of responsibility, accountability, and decency that needs to be on everyone’s mind next time they blog.

———-

Scott Reister is a featured contributor to Midwest Sports Fans, as well as Dallas Sports Fans.

He is a Sports Anchor for the NBC affiliate in the Tri-Cities and Spokane, WA. To learn more about Scott, visit the Scott Reister bio page on Midwest Sports Fans or check out the Local Sports page on KNDU.com.

To contact Scott: sreister@hotmail.com

As the 24-48 hour sports news cycle chews up and spits out the Raul Ibanez story that I’ve unexpectly found myself at the center of this week, the debate is now shifting to far more important topics that whether speculating about individual players being on steroids is valid or how bloggers and the mainstream media will ever co-exist.

And the most important question was recently posed by a commenter over at Awful Announcing in their take on the current steroids speculation debate, in reference to the picture above (courtesy of Awful Announcing):

shacky316 said…
Who is the freaky one on the left???

I’m going to assume that I was in the process of talking at the point where that screenshot was taken, because I don’t remember hawking a loogie at the camera at any point during the interview.

Either way, I’d like to extend my heartfelt gratitude to Daulerio over Deadspin for shining a bright light on my most sensitive of insecurities: that rather then being your garden variety white guy from the Midwest, I appear to be bordering on a skin pigmentation of clear during the OTL interview. While making many relevant and important points about the OTL interview, Daulerio makes perhaps his most relevant when he says:

Jerod Morris has to go outside. Seriously, son, you’re making us all look bad if you don’t spray tan yourself before you go on national television to get yelled at.

I also have to say that I personally found their screenshot of the OTL interview to be far more amusing, for a number of reasons. Poor John Gonzalez does not appear to be as intense as me or in quite the state of ecstacy as our dear friend Ken Rosenthal.

I would like to personally thank my friends over at Cleveland Frowns for chalking up my “freaky” appearance to the obvious lack of makeup that was offered to me before the interview in their post earlier today. However, the truth is that I probably wouldn’t have worn any anyway, and would have been better served by getting a haircut sometime in the last three months and, as Daulerio suggests, emerging from beneath my laptop to behold the glory of the sun every once in a while.

I guess if I’d known that I’d end up on ESPN I would have been more proactive about these issues. But the truth is that I probably would have procrastinated about doing anything about them to analyze a White Sox draft pick or have some unnecessary fun with Photoshop.

And I mean really, when you’re just a blogger who is living in the glorious age of the MLB Network, Gamecast, and Hot Clicks, who needs the sun?

Jerod was thrown into the lion’s den and asked to defend his own while being assaulted by Gonzalez and Rosenthal. First of all, the entire interview was one-sided as they only scolded Jerod and his actions.

In the most considerate way imaginable, Jerod did what he does quite well; He searched through facts, made careful and well-assimilated conclusions, and wrote to the general sports fan public about an arguable statement.

Did Jerod ever say “Ibanez is on steroids”? No. He handled everything in the most respectful and non-subjective way possible.

Scroll down in the comments section of the article Jerod posted today and you will find this comment:

Philly Fan said:

I am a Philadelphia Phillies fan. I thank you for your articulation and class in handling this whole situation.

Let me preface this by saying I have no suspicions of Raul Ibanez. I have watched him play all season, and he’s just a flat-out fantastic hitter. One of the best I’ve seen in a few years, and it’s a shame I didn’t get to see more of him before this year.

You have had the unfortunate displeasure of being the first guy to tackle this issue that everyone’s had in the back of their mind. Everyone around the Philly area’s been saying, “He’s clean, I’m sure, but everyone’s gonna bring it up since he’s doing so well.” We knew it was coming. You were just the first.

I am not a fan of Gonzalez’s work at the Inquirer. He seems like the Howard Eskin of the Philadelphia print industry: for lack of a better term, a “shit-stirrer.” His attempt is to be tongue-in-cheek, but he rather seems to just come off more like someone saying something to get a rise out of people most of the time.

My guess is that Ibanez got the spin-doctored version of this story from Gonzo or someone who read Gonzo, which is unfortunate. He doesn’t have the time to check back and read your specific article and understand the context, and I think that is the fault of the Philly media.

I had heard everything about this article of yours, and felt the need to read it myself. It was actually a much better article than I anticipated based on the reports, and your conclusion, to me, seemed to be more in line with, “There’s a lot of good explanations aside from PEDs” than with “he’s probably doing them.”

I don’t know how much this matters to you, but I just wanted to say that I find no fault with you or Ibanez, simply fault with the middlemen in the Philly media who poorly reported on this.

Wow. Gonzalez what is your response to that? One of your own called you out as being a “shit-stirrer”. The man that should be attacked wasn’t. He just sat there like the ignorant, ill-informed writer he is. Rosenthal attacked based on the fact he has nothing to say except constant questions about his sources. IT’S A BLOG no one has a source when they talk about speculation and thoughts from one fan’s perspective.

Have anything to say? Post it here. I will gladly refute any of your simple, barbaric, and tacky comments. This is because 80% of you idiots haven’t even fully read the article you’re leaving comments in, let alone the articles written in response to Ibanez by Jerod and John Gonzalez. Foolish. Ignorance is the stepping stone of too many naïve accusations and scoldings, just like the fools who are attacking JRod on this website.

It became easier to understand once I realized that Rosenthal had not even read the post before appearing on television to discuss its significance (now that’s what I call journalistic integrity).

Rosenthal admits and agrees that, “all players today must face this kind of scrutiny because of all that has happened in the past.” Apparently, he meant all players except for Raul Ibanez.

The fact of the matter is, ALL players; even players who are NOT performing unusually or particularly well; should be scrutinized for two reasons:

1) Several of them have already been caught cheating.

2) The Collective Bargaining Agreement protects players from being blood-tested.

So Ken Rosenthal feels that JRod’s post (which I believe he neglected to take the time to read) was “wrong” and “unfair”. He went on to illogically back up this point by saying that this never would have happened 10 years ago. Nice logic, Kenny.

Next, Rosenthal interrupts Jerod with some more of his brilliant logic. While JRod is explaining that his article carefully separates accusation and speculation, Ken chimes in with, “then how did we get here? How is Raul Ibanez responding to this yesterday?”

Those questions are so stupid and illogical, that I dont know where to begin. It is my estimation, that “we got here” because mainstream media is forced to sensationalize stories to stay afloat. That, and the fact that neither Ibanez NOR Rosenthal took the time to read and digest Jerod’s post. Gonzalez may or may not have misunderstood Jerod’s article; but he mis-characterized it nonetheless. Ibanez was NOT responding to Jerod’s blog, as Ken Rosenthal mistakenly points out. Ibanez was responding to the SPIN that Gonzalez put on JRod’s blog. Spinning things to suit one’s argument is very easy. Check this shit out:

JOHN GONZALEZ ACCUSES RAUL IBANEZ OF BEING “PAINFULLY OUT OF TOUCH”

(Ibanez referred to the blogger as a 42 year old living in his mom’s basement —> Gonzalez said on TV that “people who think bloggers are irrelevant and living in their parent’s basement are painfully out of touch” —> Gonzales thinks Ibanez is out of touch.)

When prompted to explain the “simple standard of decency” that Ken Rosenthal thinks all bloggers & journalists should adhere to, he spews out the following rule of thumb: “Would you want this written about yourself?”

Brilliant. Apparently, journalists are only supposed to report good news and present positive opinions and editorials. Put that in your pipe and smoke it, Bob Woodward.

I think i figured out why these guys were so pissed. Newspapers are dying. Bloggers and blog sites are growing exponentially. It is ten times harder for John Gonzalez to get people to read his column than it would have been say… 10 years ago?

Here’s an example. Television used to be monopolized by ABC, NBC, and CBS. If you were on TV, you had a HUGE audience, no matter what. Now that TV viewers have the option of hundreds of channels, dish networks, and the Internet, it has become increasingly difficult to grab the attention of a large market share.

Similarly, the emergence of the blogosphere has quickly taken away the audience and influence of old-world “journalists” like Ken Rosenthal. The Internet has slowly turned sports journalism into a meritocracy, where information is sought out by the people, and not force-fed to them by the few. People now have options when it comes to where they will get their sports news and info, and that scares the shit out of the “boys club” that is old-school mainstream media. Ken Rosenthal is a whiny bitch who needs to spend more time honing his craft, and less time trying to eliminate the competition that can only make him better. I can call him a bitch for two reasons:

1) The 1st Amendment of the United States Constitution

2) I’m pretty sure he doesent read articles all the way to the end.