Why don't you go ahead and find the last piece of news that CHB "broke". I haven't read him in years before this article, so maybe he's turned himself around during that time. I doubt it, but if it's there, I would love to see it. I'm not sure what "pseudo Journalism 101 bullshit" is supposed to imply exactly (I've never taken a journalism class in my life), but I
Why does the frequency of him breaking news matter? This is not a division of labor thing where Dan Shaughnessy writes his take and Peter Abraham is only allowed to break news. CHB has been in the Boston media for 30 years, he has sources. Sources tell him things that they may not say to Cafardo, Abraham, etc. (and this works the other way too). If Shank gets a piece of news, what's he supposed to do, not write anything? That's insane. And he broke one of the biggest Red Sox stories in the last ten years: the last days of Theo Epstein, where he left Fenway Park in a gorilla suit.
If he had some kind of tangible evidence that would provoke him to ask those questions, I would have no problem with him doing it. If he has that, then come forward with it. He didn't even confront Ortiz with anything other than citing that fans in Toronto chanted "steroids" at him. Is that what we are calling a good source these days?
Yes, I agree that the Toronto fans are jerks (especially the Toronto Stronger guy). But do you really think that's all he is going on? Seriously. There is no circumstancial evidence that made these questions even remotely apt? If you honestly don't believe this, then we're just wasting bandwidth at this point. I don't know what to tell you. Most times people don't hand you a story on a silver platter and tell you everything you need to know. You have to look and make reasonable assumptions. That's what Shank did here.
Whether you agree with that or not, is up to you.
First, he wasn't in the Mitchell Report (as you've acknowledged). There were vague leaks about him being on the BALCO list as an inconclusive test, which is far from damning evidence of anything, let alone specific use of any PED. Second, I have no idea what you're talking about with the trainer - link? third, he had an Achilles injury, not knee surgery. He had two or three seasons of slow starts and has otherwise not shown that in his career. I don't see how any of that
leads one to confidently arrive at the conclusion that he must be on PEDs.
Mea culpa on the knee/achilles thing. My bad. But the point stands. He was out for the last three months of the season, presumably didn't do any real works out in the off-season (probably upper body, but as we all know you need your legs to hit a baseball correctly) and completely missed Spring Training. He had, what? 10 days at Pawtucket?
And here is a link to Ortiz'
trainer. His name is Angel Presinal and he has been banned from Major League Clubhouses. Again, another piece of circumstantial evidence.
I also have no idea why you brought Jeter into the conversation...the guy just had his best offensive year in 4 or 5 years at age 38 and I must have missed it when Joel Sherman or some other hack confronted him about PED use and wrote an article about his denials.
Skip Bayless did and it was a pretty big deal
last year. So yeah, you did miss it.
If Shank had an actual source, you're absolutely right it would be the right thing to confront him and ask him directly. He did not. He confronted him with bullshit, David denied it with a solid counter argument about being tested repeatedly and Shank ran the column off of nothing anyway. He didn't check if he had been tested, didn't express his lack of faith in the testing MLB does, didn't do any kind of work to support his theory; he just sat down and typed some crap that would get
him clicks.
I can more than guarantee you that Dan Shaughnessy doesn't give a shit about clicks. Even if every single person in Massachusetts decided not to read any story written by him, there is no way in hell he's losing his job. He's pretty much close to being unfirable at the Boston Globe.
And here's the thing that you're missing, HE DID CONFRONT HIM. Dan Shaughnessy asked David Ortiz, face-to-face, if he was on PEDs. Ortiz said no and provided a bunch of evidence to support his statement. End of story. I simply don't get why this is a big deal.
Either you think David Ortiz is on PEDs or you don't or you simply don't care. I fall in the latter category, I really don't care. In fact, I kind of hope that he's on them because the Red Sox will do better.
His "proof" was Toronto fans chanting at him; David is Dominican and Dominicans have been "known" to use PEDs; and that what he is doing seems too good to be true. He did no work to find out about his testing or locate a source that suggested his angle was correct. I don't have a problem with him asking Ortiz the question, no matter his motivations. I have a problem with him writing the article when he has nothing but his own speculation to go on. I don't doubt that someone in the press booth has thrown out a "Hey, David looks to be back on the juice, amiright?!?!?" But that doesn't mean you go write an article about it without some friggin facts behind you. That is not the "definition of good journalism". That;s the definition of muckraking.
No. That is not the definition of muck-raking. Muck-raking is making a claim against someone and not allowing that person a chance to defend himself. If Shank wrote, "David Ortiz kicks the shit out of his wife and that is why he's getting a divorce." and doesn't allow Ortiz to counter that statement, then that is muck-raking. To write, "I think David Ortiz might not be clean" and then go to Ortiz, tell him what you think and allow him to speak about it. That happens literally every single day in the newspaper world. I'm sorry that you find this unfair or even jarring, but it's true. And to be honest with you, it's only going to get worse.
What this all boils down to is that you can either believe David Ortiz or Dan Shaughnessy and you're angry that people might believe Dan Shaughnessy.