Dan Shaughnessy: Taking a dump in your mouth one column at a time

[judyb]

How is it that every single discussion dissolves into bickering and insults?  This is getting ridiculous.

Some people always want to bicker and insult each other.

 

[Dummy Hoy]

Don't you see how he's driving us apart?!
 
I fail to see how he's really even worth discussing anymore. We know what he does, we know he's never going to be fired, so just ignore the prick.. 
 
I think Dan-o's problem has always been that he was shocked and hurt when he became a reporter and discovered that the idols of his naive childhood were actual people (and often dumb assholes) instead of the gods he had imagined. This embittered him over the years to the point where he essentially doesn't even like the game any more (numerous stories back this up), but merely enjoys the drama and discord that he can help create. We all need to stop letting him be the story.

 

[DJnVa]

Just so I'm clear, posters are pissed at Shaugnessy for actually asking Ortiz to his face whether or no the was on PEDs and repoting what he said rather than just writing his opinion? Do I have that right?

 
Apparently.  I don't care about that.
 
I think the way he asked him, by insinuating that because he's a Dominican he's under suspicion, was a little...ham-fisted.

 

[touchstone033]

Tom Werner responds: 
 

 "I fully acknowledge the right the media has to ask difficult questions and to express controversial opinions," wrote Werner, who then asserted that Ortiz has been tested five times for performance-enhancing drugs, and also submitted to a blood exam that tests for human growth hormone.
 
"Why then, should a writer publicly assert a presumption of guilt -- without any foundation, without any basis, and without any evidence?" Werner wrote. "Does this mean that whenever an athlete -- particularly a Dominican athlete -- does something exceptional, we have to assume he cheated?"

 
I think Werner nails it. Yes, it's great when journalists ask tough questions, etc & co. But it's not good journalistic practice to run a story on something without a shred of evidence. Simply by writing the piece, Shank has essentially created the buzz that Ortiz is on PEDs. As much as journalists should be aware they have the obligation to uncover stories, they also have the responsibility to report accurately.

 

[wutang112878]

I am glad Werner is sticking up for him, but there was 1 little bit of evidence, that Ortiz was on the steroid list which he admitted he was on. 

 

[Lose Remerswaal]

CHB is a no talent ass clown.  I wish we could all ignore the likes of CHB and Skip Bayless and then they'd be unemployed.

 
Other than the bolded part I agree.
 
That's what makes him sad. He can be an excellent writer when he choses to be.  But too often he choses to be this guy that we bitch about all the time.

 

[riboflav]

I am glad Werner is sticking up for him, but there was 1 little bit of evidence, that Ortiz was on the steroid list which he admitted he was on. 

 
This is disingenuous. My understanding of that "list" is one person saw it and reported it. MLB came out and said that the list also contained many players who did not test positive. So that one bit of evidence you cite is pretty flimsy and not really solid enough for a responsible journalist to base an entire interview on.

 

[RedOctober3829]

I am glad Werner is sticking up for him, but there was 1 little bit of evidence, that Ortiz was on the steroid list which he admitted he was on. 

If you even did a simple Google search you will find that the creator of The Clear says it is feasible that Ortiz unknowingly took a legal supplement that was laced with a steroid.
 

Patrick Arnold, who did prison time for his role in the BALCO
scandal, said it's possible Ortiz took 19-norandrostenedione, a
supplement that contained the hard-core steroid nandrolone and which
could be purchased legally in 2003.
"Yes, people back then did
test positive because of supplements, and occasionally it was for
nandrolone, which I think (Ortiz) is alluding to, but not verbatim,"
Arnold told the Daily News yesterday. "If he could say it was
nandrolone, I'd say, 'OK, you may have a case.' In lieu of the fact
there are no exact details (about what Ortiz took), the possibility of
having a false positive from supplement use in 2003 is definitely
plausible. We'll never learn if this is an excuse (for players) or a
legitimate defense until we know more details about the substances in
question."

Read more: http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/balco-chemist-david-ortiz-supplement-tale-feasible-article-1.395677#ixzz2Szbx6pPm

 

[bankshot1]

In earlier times, a hot-April was just that, a month subject to the swings of unpredictability and bad hops (pre BABIP) , it gave us .500 BA, or 14 home runs, but we all knew it was the essence of SSS, and that it was also subject to reversion to the mean. Most of us beyond the age of 10 or so, knew the guy was not going to hit .500 for May or for the season. Unfortunately,today a "hot April" by a post 35-year-old player is now subject to speculation that he must be doing PEDs, Its also unfortunate we understand the speculation. 
 
The worst part of CHB's piece was his opening, where he makes a case for guilt by association. If CHB believes Ortiz is cheating give us some proof. But there is none. If on the other hand, CHB feels Ortiz's answers to his uncomfortable questions ring true, say that, or he could say that Ortiz was having a hot-April, just like countless other players in April pasts. But rather, all we get is another guy shanked. 

 

[twibnotes]

The baseball show on Comcast sportsnet is interesting right now. Sean McAdam is asking Shank some tough questions...

- what is your end game?

Shank: to give him a chance to explain his position. To get him on the record

- why did you cite Achilles injuries?

Shank: I am not a doctor but I thought tendons/ligaments that don't heal quickly is an indicator

- haven't we used power as the red flag (ie, why did you cite his avg. over a few weeks as an indicator)

Shank: slugging pct and ops are indicators. He had almost no spring training

McAdam pushed him with a lot of follow up questions and seemed to get him to concede on a few fronts (Achilles thing, small sample size)

Edit: none of this is verbatim

 

[touchstone033]

I do think Shank's column breached journalistic ethics, and the Red Sox would have plenty of cause to yank his credentials over it. Unfortunately for literate Red Sox fans everywhere, it probably won't happen because it would convey the impression that the organization is trying to silence critics or cover up its team's PED use. But the Sox should have every right to protect its players and image from this kind of questionable slander.
 
Ironic, isn't it, that Shaughnessy regularly rants against bloggers and Internet commentators when his columns usually engage in the same kind of tactics and tone found in the ugliest parts of the Web. 

 

[twibnotes]

McAdam made a great point. Since the union destroyed test results, it made it very difficult for Ortiz to ascertain what triggered the positive test result. Ortiz talked about "getting to the bottom of it" and never really had a chance to do so.

Assuming Papi never stuck a needle in his arm, it's easy to understand how he could be very frustrated, assuming he unknowingly did something illegal (the scenario we'd all like to believe).

 

[touchstone033]

Here's the piece written by Tom Werner:
 

 I fully acknowledge the right the media has to ask difficult questions and to express controversial opinions. Freedom of the press is fundamental in our culture. 
They had the right, but was it right?
We're in a new media world, and fact-less accusations stick. 
Those who publicly ask questions must take responsibility for their words. 
David Ortiz estimates he has been tested five times this year -- plus a blood test.
Furthermore, it is well known that the World Anti-Doping Agency has called MLB's testing program the toughest in all of American sports.
Why then, should a writer publicly assert a presumption of guilt -- without any foundation, without any basis, and without any evidence? 
Does this mean that whenever an athlete -- particularly a Dominican athlete -- does something exceptional, we have to assume he cheated?
In today's media world, the question -- even if it's false, inflammatory and without real basis -- can become the story. 

 
And the lovely kicker:
 

 Baseball has done so much in recent years to improve its quality and defend its integrity. Should we not also speak out and insist upon solid journalistic standards and not stand by complacently and silently, lamenting their erosion?...
In the movie "42," which depicts Jackie Robinson's pioneering effort breaking the color barrier, we are reminded that baseball sets an example for society. Let's ask the media to also set an example.

 
Gosh, that would be swell. I wonder how the Globe will respond.

 

[Doctor G]

Danny's real problem is that he isn't Will McDonough.

 

[sfip]

Why are people here still talking about him and complaining about him when it's been obvious for many years that's exactly what he wants? Your life will be better if you ignore him. It's that simple.

 

[Sille Skrub]

It is not wrong to ask the Papi PED question. Hell, I thought it. However, bringing his race into it is dead wrong.
 
We will never shake the "Boston is racist" image while Shaughnessy continually pulls this nonsense. What makes me incredibly sad is that nothing will happen because of it and people at the Globe will continue to keep their heads in the sand. 
 
Ken Rosenthal nails it.

 

[touchstone033]

 Readers should understand that Shaughnessy’s job, as a sports columnist, is not to be a fan boy, player’s pal or owner’s suck-up. It is not to make sure he remains in good standing with the ever-vigilant Internet police.
 
No, his job is to provoke thought, and he is one of the best in the country at it. I say this as someone who once was a sports columnist for the Baltimore Sun — and wasn’t nearly as good.

 
G-d, it's so infuriating to see sportswriters stick up for each other like this. While Rosenthal's spot on, he uses up like 50% of his column praising Shaughnessy for being a "legendary" columnist, when he's clearly one of the industry's worst. Apparently there's a market for mindless provocation -- and certainly the Boston sports market eats it up -- but it doesn't mean real sportswriters have to defend it. 

 

[smastroyin]

And lest we forget, Shag is probably defending his own thought that David Ortiz was an overswinger who was never going to amount to anything and was basically a "Piece of Shit"
 
Obviously the only reason he could have been wrong with that in depth scouting observation (nevermind everything else he got wrong about the 2002-3 off-season, which he thought was a step backwards) is if Ortiz cheated.

 

[John Marzano Olympic Hero]

I do think Shank's column breached journalistic ethics, and the Red Sox would have plenty of cause to yank his credentials over it.

 
Which journalistic ethic did he break?

 

[URI]

By being mean, JMOH.

 

[John Marzano Olympic Hero]

By being mean, JMOH.

 
Damn it. I always forget that one. 

 

[Van Everyman]

The Dominican thing is unfortunate -- but in Shank's defense, there has been a lot of news on guys getting stuff in the DR -- how the controls down there are worse, etc. Hell, ARod was the biggest name after Bonds related to steroids -- and lest we forget, his cousin Yuri was procuring "boli" on trips to Santo Domingo.

And before we tar the guy as the Grand Wizard of the Boston Clan, there has has been more than a little talk here on SoSH about Dominicans and PEDs. Just take a look at some of the game threads when, say, Bartolo Colon has started against us.

Rosenthal et al are right to say that it's not fair to paint all Dominicans with the same brush but it's not like Shank is the first one to think it or suggest it.

 

[wutang112878]

This is disingenuous. My understanding of that "list" is one person saw it and reported it. MLB came out and said that the list also contained many players who did not test positive. So that one bit of evidence you cite is pretty flimsy and not really solid enough for a responsible journalist to base an entire interview on.

 
I honestly dont remember was Ortiz on the list of 'postives' or the 13 in question?  When they had the big hoopla press conference Ortiz never denied being on the list, but he was unable to get the information he would need to explain why he was on it. 
 
Regardless of what list he was on, he was unfortunately on one that was linked to steroids.  Its not proof that he did it, so maybe evidence is the wrong word, but maybe some circumstantial evidence?  It just seems like saying it was 'bases' when this list thing exists is a little excessive.
 
 

If you even did a simple Google search you will find that the creator of The Clear says it is feasible that Ortiz unknowingly took a legal supplement that was laced with a steroid.

 
I am sure Ray Lewis could explain that he was just hunting when his friends bullet hit a deer antler and tiny microscopic pieces got lodged into the skin of his elbow.  All I am suggesting is he was on a list.  Maybe A-Rod really was just at that clinic to try to combat aging, but did we defend him as vigorously or did we just at least acknowledge that he was on their client list. 

 

[soxhop411]

As David Ortiz prepared to leave the Red Sox clubhouse after the team’s 3-2 loss to the Blue Jays, he did a double-take. The sight of Dan Shaughnessy, the Boston Globe columnist who confronted the slugger directly with suspicions about the possibility of his use of steroids, standing with a group of reporters, caught Ortiz’s attention.
“Look who it is,” Ortiz said.
He paused for a moment, then noted — loudly enough that all in the clubhouse were party to his address — that on the very day on which Shaughnessy interviewed him, he took a test for PEDs. Ortiz said he would be sure to pass along results of that test to the columnist. Ortiz became slightly more animated as he noted that he’d taken 40 tests administered by Major League Baseball.
“I’ve never tested positive,” Ortiz told the columnist, who had referenced the fact that the New York Times discovered in 2009 that the slugger had tested positive for a performance-enhancer in 2003 (at a time when a) there were no penalties for positive tests and b) test results were supposed to be anonymous).
When the report surfaced four years ago, Ortiz disputed that he had ever knowingly used PEDs, something that he mentioned anew to Shaughnessy as he walked towards the clubhouse door.
“By the way,” Ortiz said, “let me know what I tested positive for in 2003

http://fullcount.weei.com/sports/boston/baseball/red-sox/2013/05/11/david-ortiz-to-dan-shaughnessy-look-who-it-is/

 

[ForKeeps]

When Ron Borges is questioning your integrity you know you've really hit rock bottom.

 

[TheoShmeo]

The discussion here has been very interesting about Shank.
 
But to me, the bottom line regarding the first Ortiz column and today's piece of shit is the CHB's incessant and consistent desire to make himself part of the story.  "Look at me!"  "I'm relevant!"
 
That underlies these Ortiz stories and much of his work over the years, in my view.
 
Sure, one can argue that he IS part of this story and had the right to follow up on it.  But the shot at Werner and making the last part of the story exclusively about him and Ortiz after starting off down the middle make his real agenda pretty clear.  And disingenuous.  "I'll suck them in to a Red Sox story and then give them my side of the story."  And that bit about him being relieved that Tiz finally got a hit?  Please.
 
Plain and simple, the guy is an attention whore and needs people to be talking to him.  And damn it, we are.

 

[touchstone033]

Which journalistic ethic did he break?

 
You shouldn't run a story around pure speculation. Shank ain't writing for a blog or on a baseball forum. He's writing for a newspaper with a lot of influence and a large circulation. It's his responsibility to make sure a piece he writes for it has some merit. I'm surprised the editors let it through. But, then, the Globe doesn't seem to value accuracy as much as titillation.when it comes to the Sox.  

 

[DeJesus Built My Hotrod]

Have the Sox ever revoked a Globe reporter's credentials?  I am struggling with whether its even justified or not in this case - asking any MLB player about PEDs is absolutely appropriate but the way CHB presented it was, at the very least, typically tasteless.  However I do wonder why athletes and organizations give him or shit-stirrers like him access at all these days.  
 
This isn't the 1940s where there was a small group of guys who controlled a story around a team.  If Shank's access was denied, would the Sox really suffer?  

 

[DJnVa]

Other reporters might think that's an unfair thing to do...

 

[Rovin Romine]

The Dominican thing is unfortunate -- but in Shank's defense, there has been a lot of news on guys getting stuff in the DR -- how the controls down there are worse, etc. Hell, ARod was the biggest name after Bonds related to steroids -- and lest we forget, his cousin Yuri was procuring "boli" on trips to Santo Domingo.

And before we tar the guy as the Grand Wizard of the Boston Clan, there has has been more than a little talk here on SoSH about Dominicans and PEDs. Just take a look at some of the game threads when, say, Bartolo Colon has started against us.

Rosenthal et al are right to say that it's not fair to paint all Dominicans with the same brush but it's not like Shank is the first one to think it or suggest it.

 
Seriously?  Shank created a story out of nothing but a hot start, and then when his "sleuthing" turned up nothing, he ran it anyway.  If he had run a story about an African-American player saying "most AA's are lazy, and I notice you haven't been playing all that well in the past X games - what do you do to make sure you're getting the most of your talent?" people would be up in arms, and rightly so. 
 
Like it or not, the Globe is one of the ways people form their opinion of Boston.  Shank's a petty hack who routinely goes after minority players.   He should have been canned long ago.

 

[DeJesus Built My Hotrod]

Other reporters might think that's an unfair thing to do...

 
So what?  Are they going to boycott covering the Sox?  Are they going to write mean things about the team or its FO?  If anything, CHB losing access would likely help one of his fellow sportswriters.  Again, I don't know why anyone talks to this guy.  He is a shitty writer and a muckraker.

 

[bankshot1]

The last thing anyone wants is to have the Sox make CHB a martyr, who's cause of freedom the press, is trumpeted by other writers. And they will.
Saint Shank was so wrong in this instance, of guilt by insinuation and by reason of nationality,that it there is no rational defense for his article. Don't give him a another platform to defend himself.

 

[Bleedred]

The last thing anyone wants is to have the Sox make CHB a martyr, who's cause of freedom the press, is trumpeted by other writers. And they will.
Saint Shank was so wrong in this instance, of guilt by insinuation and by reason of nationality,that it there is no rational defense for his article. Don't give him a another platform to defend himself.

At the suggestion of a # of members of this board, I stopped reading CHB more than 3 years ago, and I can tell you it makes for a much more pleasant journey over the sports pages.   

 

[joe dokes]

 

Facts, not opinions: According to Major League Baseball, there have been
636 professional players suspended for violating MLB’s drug policies
since 2005. Two hundred and thirty-four of those 636 are from the
Dominican Republic. That’s 37 percent. Players from the Dominican
Republic made up 10.4 percent (89 of 856) of Opening Day rosters in
2013. Of 38 positive tests involving major league players, 13 players
(34 percent) hailed from the DR. This doesn’t mean all Dominican players
use steroids. It means the steroid issue is significant in the DR.

 
 
Is he really trying to get by by comparing the number of professionsal suspensions with the number of major leaguers from the DR with positives? Is he that stupid? That sloppy? That biased? Does he think we're so stupid? Or am I the idiot and I've mised something. Check my work before I send him a nasty-gram (copied to Globe editors) please.
 
I'm not math-man, but if, as i supect, there are many timmes a higher %% of DR players in the minors than MLB, then he's totally fulloshit.

 

[Granite Sox]

He even crapped on Toronto for not being as full of crappy sports disappointments as crappy Boston has.  Crap on!  Crap off!  The Crapper.

 

[Wilco's Last Fan]

 
 
 
Is he really trying to get by by comparing the number of professionsal suspensions with the number of major leaguers from the DR with positives? Is he that stupid? That sloppy? That biased? Does he think we're so stupid? Or am I the idiot and I've mised something. Check my work before I send him a nasty-gram (copied to Globe editors) please.
 
I'm not math-man, but if, as i supect, there are many timmes a higher %% of DR players in the minors than MLB, then he's totally fulloshit.

I'm not sure I follow- isn't he comparing the number of Dominican professional suspensions to the number of overall professional suspensions, then doing the same for big-league suspensions?

What am I missing?

 

[John Marzano Olympic Hero]

I'm not sure I follow- isn't he comparing the number of Dominican professional suspensions to the number of overall professional suspensions, then doing the same for big-league suspensions?

What am I missing?

 
I think that's what he's doing. Basically he's saying: there are x amount (let's say 22%, I can't remember the number) of Dominicans in MLB. Of the amount MLB players who tested positive for PEDs, y amount were Dominican (again, let's just 47%). Because there is a higher amount of Dominicans suspended for PEDs in relation to total Dominicans in MLB, it is "okay" to say Dominicans use PEDs more than anyone else--much like it was "funny" to say the East German women were ripped on steroids back in the 1980s.
 
I understand his logic, I don't agree with it because if you used that type of logic any bigoted line of thought is possible, but I see what he's trying to do. And he's added the East German women thing, which every hack comedian used as short-hand for a manly woman in the 80s.
 
So basically, you're arguing semantics with fucking Carrot Top.

 

[joe dokes]

I'm not sure I follow- isn't he comparing the number of Dominican professional suspensions to the number of overall professional suspensions, then doing the same for big-league suspensions?

What am I missing?

 
I thought  -- and certainly could be wrong -- what's missing is basically how many minor leaguers (i.e. "professionals") there are from the DR. He says 636 professional players tested positive, which includes the minors (I assume).  37 percent of the "professional" suspensions have been from the DR. But he doesn't say how many professional players are from the DR (as opposed to the 10.4 percent in MLB).  I thought he was pointing out the disproportionateness of DR suspensions. In MLB, he says, its 38% of suspensions while 10% of the 'population' is from the DR. In professional ball overall, its 37% of the suspensions, but we don't have anything to compare it to. (If players from the DR represnted 35% of players overally, then it wouldnt be such a big deal, for example).
 
 
*(I'm ignoring the idiocy of a sample size of 38; where the percentage could change with a couple of non-DR suspendees. That's another issue)

 

[Smiling Joe Hesketh]

What he's really missing is that Ortiz has passed 40+ PED tests since testing began, in spite of his countrymen supposedly being the buggest set of users. If anything that only bolsters Ortiz' case of being clean.

 

[glennhoffmania]

Plus there's the whole issue that he's only looking at guys who got caught.  Maybe a bunch of white or black players were using HGH and never were suspended since they didn't test for it.  No matter how you look at it, he's being sloppy and he's making himself sound pretty fucking stupid.

 

[JimD]

Sports on Earth's Jonathan Bernhardt walks up to Shaughnessy http://www.sportsonearth.com/article/48047864/]and hits him over the head with a chair[/url]:
 

And then there's the steroid thing, which is stupid, but which we have to talk about because earlier this month the Boston Globe's Dan Shaughnessy wrote a column in which he skated inches from outright stating Ortiz was currently using PEDs (he didn't, because unlike the casual fans whose banter his column resembles, he can't get away with libel). The fact remains that the term "PED" covers a vast array of products used in a wide variety of combinations, and we are woefully unequipped to perform any kind of analysis of what a guy's stats might or might not look like if he were using any or all of these substances -- especially if a guy is testing clean like Ortiz is. When you walk down the road of "stats bad = clean, stats good = dirty" in 2013, you're doing so not because you have something interesting to say about steroid or HGH use in American professional sports; you're doing so because for some reason, you want to watch a guy burn. If you're a particularly loathsome beetle about it, you bring his race into it too in some sort of twisted mockery of law enforcement's racial profiling. And really there's just no reason to engage with the question of whether or not Ortiz is using and what it means until he fails a test out in the open regardless of what you think of the 2003 result, because there's nothing informative you could possibly have to say on the matter.

 
Awesome.

 

[joe dokes]

Sports on Earth's Jonathan Bernhardt walks up to Shaughnessy http://www.sportsonearth.com/article/48047864/]and hits him over the head with a chair[/url]:
 
 
Awesome.

 
yes it is.

Dan Shaughnessy wrote a column in which he skated inches from outright stating Ortiz was currently using PEDs

 
And *that* was my original point way back when. Even more journalistically despicable than an outright accusation is a thing that he can later say wasn't an accusation, even though it accomplished the same thing.

 

[GlenMorangie]

.

 

[axx]

Come on, you should know better. It's "He's back and he's back big!"

 

[Van Everyman]

Um:

Borges: Too many bad calls show Pats have lost their Way

http://bostonherald.com/news_opinion/columnists/2013/06/borges_too_many_bad_calls_show_pats_have_lost_their_way

Are these guys writing their pieces in the waiting room at the same anger management class?

 

[John Marzano Olympic Hero]

What I love the most is that everyone in the media knew that Hernandez was a bad guy, but no one said anything until this past week.
 
Now they're all coming out of the woodwork to proclaim that even though they didn't write or say anything, they all knew.

 

[Leather]

Seriously.  I heard the same thing on CBS sports radio.
 
"Well, you know, lots of teams didn't want him because of..."
 
Right.  Even if they could have a do-over draft, knowing that this would happen, I'd wager at least a handful of teams would draft Hernandez in the 5th round, if only for the 3 seasons of top-5 TE play he provided.  

 

[absintheofmalaise]

What I love the most is that everyone in the media knew that Hernandez was a bad guy, but no one said anything until this past week.
 
Now they're all coming out of the woodwork to proclaim that even though they didn't write or say anything, they all knew.

History does repeat it self it seems. 

 

[John Marzano Olympic Hero]

There was someone on Toucher and Rich either yesterday or Wednesday, I believe it was Greg Bedard, who was saying "The pot smoking wasn't the reason why he fell in the draft, it was because he hung around with the wrong type of people. Everyone knew this."
 
Really? Everyone knew this? Hernandez has been in the league for what, four years, and this is the first thing I'm hearing that he was a bad guy. Not even a throw-away line like, "Despite his recent troubles with marijuana, there are whispers around the league that Aaron Hernandez might have some unsavory ties."
 
The media always have to have the perception of being the smartest guys in the room and even when things are sprung upon them they can't just, "This is a surprise. We had no clue" they always have to say, "Yeah. We knew it, we just couldn't say it." Whether we're talking steroids, Hernandez, OJ Simpson, Tiger Woods, it doesn't matter; there's always some asshole saying he knew all the secrets, he just couldn't write or say anything about it.
 
They're insufferable.

 

[HillysLastWalk]

What I love the most is that everyone in the media knew that Hernandez was a bad guy, but no one said anything until this past week.
 
Now they're all coming out of the woodwork to proclaim that even though they didn't write or say anything, they all knew.

 
Out of curiosity, and you seem more media-savvy than me, what would be your expectation then?  How does a writer then slip that story in about him being bad or his "un-savory friends"?
 
At draft time, sure, you can mention it.  But once he's on the team, playing well, with a team that doesn't like to have their players talk, what do you do?  Slip it into a Notes section at the end of an article?  (Apropos of nothing - Hernandez's a dick and his friends just don't look or act right).  Do you give the OK for a whole article?  (I know that he's playing at an all-star level, and he hasn't been arrested, but damn that Hernandez.  Just the other day one of his 'thug' friends came in the locker room ...)
 
It just seems like info like this won't ever come out until an event like this happens.  But I know nothing ...