Future Shock: Arizona ... (02/23)
Preseason Value Picks:... (02/24)
23 comments have been left for this article. BP Comment Quick Links
| |
|
|
February 24, 2012 The BP First TakeFriday, February 24Ken Rosenthal called the reversal of Ryan Braun’s performance-enhancing drug suspension on Thursday “a triumph of due process.” Jeff Passan called it a “blow to Selig’s testing program.” It could be both, but what happened on December 12 made those two interpretations mutually exclusive. Whether Braun was exonerated only because of an error by the test collector, or his lawyers simply found the technicality an easier case to argue, is irrelevant. Whether Major League Baseball agrees or—as its response by executive vice president for labor relations Rob Manfred stated—“vehemently disagrees” with the arbitrator’s decision does not matter, either. Braun, by the letter of the law, is innocent. And yet many fans, colleagues, executives, and media members doubtless went to bed Thursday night feeling otherwise. That is the dichotomy Rosenthal and Passan described, and it is one we all will need to live with. We need to live with it because two sources anonymously and prematurely leaked word of Braun’s positive test to ESPN’s T.J. Quinn and Mark Fainaru-Wada. By doing so, the sources shocked the baseball world, cast doubt on Braun’s current and future legacy, and forced opinions to be rendered before all the facts were out. Quinn and Fainaru-Wada did nothing wrong—they were doing their jobs as investigative reporters, and doing them well. The sources were overzealous, and they likely underestimated the impact that releasing this confidential information could have. Now that the dust has settled, it may be instructive to play a little game of devil’s advocate. Suppose that Braun remains an elite player for many more years, and retires with sufficient credentials for a spot in the Hall of Fame. Suppose, also, that no further evidence of Braun using performance-enhancing drugs is released. Finally, suppose that “cleanliness” remains a prerequisite for induction into Cooperstown. Without qualifying or conditioning your answer in any way, would you vote to put Braun in the Hall of Fame? If your answer is “no,” then as Passan suggested, all is effectively lost. If your answer is “yes,” then as Rosenthal suggested, baseball should be proud that due process was allowed to run its course. And if the sweeping nature of the question seems excessive, it is—because ESPN’s sources opened it to the court of public opinion before all of the evidence was presented.
This Week in Sabermetrics 101 The remaining 90 minutes of class were a question-and-answer session, during which Crossley fielded questions on topics such as Jose Bautista’s power surge, Brett Lawrie’s makeup, and Sergio Santos’ return to Toronto as a reliever. Guest speakers who can see and explain the game from different perspectives have always been a hallmark of the class, and Crossley’s insights were extremely valuable. They may prove particularly useful next week, when students will be asked to defend their choices of the best defensive players in the league.
Daniel Rathman is an author of Baseball Prospectus. Follow @danielrathman
|
Mr. Rathman: You exonerate the ESPN reporters, OK; "just doing their jobs". Where have we heard that before? Then you exonerate the "source", by saying "the source" was "overzealous". Not OK. That person, whoever he, she or they may be, breached a duty owed to MLB and/or his/ her/ their employer. This is something for which, in the real world, there are penalties. MLB should find the leaker(s), and terminate him/ her/ them. MLB's lab has an incompetent technician who casually deviates from protocols-he should be gone too. Messrs. Quinn and Fainaru-Wada? They get to cash their checks and go home (and, by the way, keep their teeth sunk in the neck of the MLB PED problem- nice work.)
One last question: Where does Ryan Braun go to get his reputation back?
Well said, Peter. I too do not agree that because Quinn and Fainaru-Wada are within the bounds of what their profession considers ethical, that they should be absolved of the part they played in damaging Braun's reputation. Quinn and Fainaru-Wada could have chosen not to publish the information provided to them by sources not willing to go on record, who would not do so because they were breaking a confidentiality agreement. They chose otherwise, and that fact stands regardless of what ESPN's internal policies are.
They certainly owe Braun an apology. I'm not holding my breath that anyone in print media will share this view or take Quinn and Fainaru-Wada to task.
If that's the case, we need to reconsider entirely what is and is not within the scope of an investigative reporter. There is no question that any damage done to Braun's reputation -- whether you think it's fair or unfair -- cannot really be undone. But that's also the case in virtually any leak where the reporter is told of actions that are inappropriate, runs with the story, and the person accused is eventually found innocent by the law.
Should the scope of investigative reporting in sports be limited to what writers like Ken Rosenthal and Buster Olney do in breaking signings and trades? And if not, then where do we draw the line?
To me, the problem here is entirely with the breach of confidentiality itself, not the subsequent fallout from it. You could choose to view Quinn and Fainaru-Wada as enablers, but had they not run with the story, chances are it would have been leaked to someone else. If they do not report the story first, then from ESPN's perspective they are not doing their jobs as well as whoever does. So if you think there's something that has to be done about this beyond further ensuring that confidential information is not leaked, you'd have to (if you'll accept the analogy) hate the game of investigative reporting, not the players involved here.
That someone else will surely do what another person is presented with is not a compulsion to act and doesn't absolve them from a share of blame or credit from the consequences of their actions. Further, relying on ESPN as a moral compass seems a very bad idea. No one need pretend Quinn and Fainaru-Wada didn't come out on the wrong end of a choice they made simply because they're investigative reporters.
We'll have to agree to disagree on this one, but I want to point out one more thing. If Quinn and Fainaru-Wada don't do what they did, we're not having this debate right now. In the process of (fairly or unfairly) exposing Braun, they also exposed the fact that MLB's testing process has a confidentiality problem. If this now results in additional steps by MLB to ensure that leaks do not occur in the future, Quinn and Fainaru-Wada deserve credit for bring that problem to light.