A-Rod: The Unpointed Finger

You're all, by now, aware of the A-Rod story. Even if you don't follow baseball, you're aware of the A-Rod story, because there's a rule in the print industry that A-Rod has to be featured in your magazine/newspaper at least twice a month, whether it's baseball season or not.

Let me preface this by saying: I am not a Yankees fan. In fact, I hate the Yankees. Alex Rodriguez, however, just happens to be one of my favorite players to ever don a Major League uniform. The fact that he's a Yankee is incidental.

That doesn't excuse his actions. If the report is true, and A-Rod is a steroids user, he's just as much a cheater as Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens, Raphael Palmeiro and all the rest.

In the article below this one (Note to Bleacher Report readers: this refers to www.sixtyftsixin.com, not The Bleacher Report), one of my colleagues posted the front page of the New York Post that denounces A-Rod. Another of my colleagues posted the following Twitter update shortly after the story broke:

"Just remember A-Rod, taking roids can make you strong, but there's no supplement you can take to make you clutch."

This is all a perfectly fair reaction to this big news.

And yet, there seems to be another story here that's going unreported. It's never a headline, and at most it's an afterthought in the article. Never have I seen this question publicly asked.

Is it ethical, in a journalistic sense, for SI to print this article?

Really think about that for a second. There are a few points I want to address here.

• The report that SI cited was sealed and not available for public view under court order. According to the Players' Union, SI may face legal actions.
• SI never says they actually SAW the document, they are only reporting what "sources" are telling them about it.
• The test results cited were from an anonymous survey. Players weren't supposed to be identified, and it was simply for informational purposes about the prevalence of steroid usage in Major League Baseball.
• What if the sources are wrong? What if A-Rod's name isn't on that list? Because of this article alone, A-Rod's legacy is forever called into question. In this case, SI would of course print a retraction article, but that doesn't really fix it. Once the idea is in someone's head, they're guilty in the eyes of the public.
• There were 104 players on that list. Why is A-Rod's name cherry-picked as the only one to be leaked?

To illustrate my point about the ethics of this story, I want to consider a hypothetical.

What if it wasn't Sports Illustrated that broke this story? What if a sports blog broke this story? What if Deadspin reported it first?

I use Deadspin as an example because, frankly, it's plausible. Not only are they the biggest sports blog on the web, but they've scooped the major media before. When there are drunk athletes, Deadspin usually gets the photos before the sports magazines, celeb gossip magazines, or even the tabloids get them.

When Santonio Holmes' nude pics leaked, Deadspin reported it first.

Deadspin isn't the only blog to scoop the major media, of course. ESPN has been criticized for stealing material from the blogosphere multiple times.

However, Deadspin remains the best example. So, if Deadspin broke the story, what do you think would happen?

Of course, the story would still be the big news. Something like this is big news no matter what, but would there be a secondary story? Would there be some attacks on Deadspin? Would they be criticized for "going too far?"

Would Deadspin be questioned because they've only heard from "sources" without seeing the actual document? Would they be belittled for reporting a story that could ruin a player's reputation without hard evidence?

Would they be confronted about the fact that this was a court-ordered classified document, not meant for public access? Would they be questioned about how they can draw conclusions and name a specific player from an anonymous survey?

Would there be doubts about the fact that A-Rod's name is the only one on the list to be leaked?

Would it give Buzz Bissinger another excuse to rant about the evils of blogs and how ignoble they are compared to the high journalistic standards of print media, taking things out of context and quoting user comments as if they were written by the blog author in the process?

Is there a double-standard here? I think that's the question for a Sixty Feet, Six Inches poll. Consider this the discussion thread. (Note to Bleacher Report readers: go to our home page, linked below, to vote in the poll and participate in the discussion!)

My answer? Without a doubt. If this story was broken by Deadspin, there would be plenty of articles questioning whether it was right to make the story public. Since it was introduced by the timeless classic Sports Illustrated, however, it's just good old fashioned, hard-hitting journalism.

I'll defend SI the same way I defend sports blogs that publish line-blurring content: is it ethical? Probably not. But should it be reported anyway if you've got the chance? Absolutely. The public needs to know these things. I just wish that there would be a universal standard of finger-pointing on whistleblowers.