Viva El Birdos: An SB Nation Community

Navigation: Jump to content areas:

Around SBN: Kevin Duckworth, Dead, at 44 Bar-right-arrows

say it ain't so

Birdos_avatar_tiny by lboros on in News

i was just telling alex belth of sports illustrated how the buzz surrounding ankiel dramatically altered the dynamic of the cardinals' season. talk about buzz kill . . . . let's assume for the moment that ankiel really did take HGH. i have my own reasons for assuming that it's true --- i know two of the writers bylined on the article containing the allegations, quinn and o'keeffe, and they're both excellent journalists and individuals of integrity. if they've signed their names to this, i take it very seriously. a third byline on that story belongs to bill madden, who --- while not my favorite crafter of prose --- has been in this business for 30 years and has a spotless reputation.

but set that aside and just look at the degree of specificity in the article. the daily news names the drugs, the company that shipped them, and the physician who signed the scrips. with that much detail, and that many names named, we're not merely talking about some wild and flimsy allegation. no successful news organization --- and the daily news, for all its sensationalizing, is definitely successful --- can afford to publish that amount of detail without being 100 percent sure of its facts. rupert murdoch didn't build his empire by exposing himself to libel suits for the sake of one splashy headline; that's not a profitable strategy. and murdoch publications are nothing if not profitable.Update [2007-9-7 9:46:44 by lboros]: my bad; this is not a murdoch publication (i never could keep all those nyc newspapers straight). the point stands anyway; the daily news has the 6th-largest circulation of any paper in the u.s.; it has won 10 pulitzer prizes and has been in continuous publication since 1919.[end update]

i'm pretty sure this is true.

the next question is --- so what? he had a prescription for the drugs, and they're legal with a prescription; and he received them in 2004, before mlb instituted its formal prohibition on steroids. therefore, ankiel didn't break any rules or do anything wrong --- right? i might be willing to accept that interpretation if i heard it straight from ankiel's mouth. if he truly did nothing untoward and has nothing to hide, nothing to be ashamed of, then he can kill this story in a single day. if i were his pr advisor, i'd get him out in front of the microphones immediately --- call a press conference and sit rick down to tell his side of the story. i'd have him lay out the facts --- explain why he needed the drugs, what the medical benefit was, and how he didn't break any laws or any mlb rules. i'd have him state publicly that when mlb instituted its formal steroid ban in 2005, he stopped using the drugs. that'd make this story go fizz in a new york minute.

he's got no legal obligation to do this, of course, but he has a selfish reason to do it --- he wants to avoid a swirl of controversy and suspicion. the "innocent-til-proven-guilty" standard doesn't apply here; we're not in a courtroom. we're in the court of public opinion, and in this venue the burden of proof tends to fall upon the accused rather than the accuser. fair? maybe not, but life often isn't. if ankiel just issues a "no comment" or a two-sentence statement written by a boras flunky, it will leave the impression that he's got something to hide, and many will judge him harshly. ankiel can create the opposite impression by facing the story openly and unabashedly.

failing that, suspicion is going to follow him around. blame the messenger if you want to; decry the sins of the evil media. but if ankiel really did this, and he isn't willing to talk about it, then ask yourself: why won't he talk about it? if it's truly no big deal and no code of conduct was breached --- why won't he talk about it? he can stick it to the media and make his accusers look like a bunch of hype-mongering fools simply by standing up to the accusations. yeah, it's true. [shrug] my doctor said hgh would help my rehab along; he said it had been helpful in some other cases that were similar to mine. and it wasn't on the list of banned substances; we checked that out in advance. it was all legal, all above-board.

end of story.

walt jocketty told the daily news: "If it's true, obviously it would be very tragic, along with everything else we've had happen to us this year." i agree wth walt. the steroid-abuse saga has a million hypocrites and scoundrels, from the commissioner down through the general managers, the coaches and on-field managers, the beat writers and broadcasters, the trainers, the agents . . . . . all those guys have their fingerprints on the syringes. and now they're all running away from what they did; nobody wants to talk about it. why won't they talk? if they didn't do anything wrong, why would they choose to give the impression that they did?

i hope ankiel will bat these allegations out of the park as effortlessly as he has been swatting big-league pitches over the wall.

0 recs | Comment 419 comments

Story-email Email | Print |

Comments

Display:

Thank you
For a measured, rational reply to this.  

by Valatan on Sep 7, 2007 9:05 AM EDT   0 recs

thanks V
has any baseball team ever had a season like this one ---- ever???

by lboros on Sep 7, 2007 9:12 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

A season like this one?
I hope not.  I wouldn't wish this season of turmoil and injury on my worst enemy, not even the Cubs.  Ok, maybe on the Cubs.  Interesting timing of the article by the NY Daily News though.  Rick hits two homers and has 7 RBIs in one game and boom, the article appears.  Hope Rick can clear his name and do so quickly.  The Cards have more important tasks in front of them - like getting ahead of the Cubs and Brewers in the standings.  

by cardsgirl95 on Sep 7, 2007 9:23 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

the timing is just a coincidence
the main factors a newspaper weighs when deciding when (not "if") to go with a story are
  1. have the lawyers signed off on it?
  2. is there a chance somebody might beat us on the story?
yesterday's box score and today's standings aren't major considerations.

by lboros on Sep 7, 2007 9:28 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

agreed
as i said in one of the diaries, it's unlikely the timing was motivated by, e.g., the playoff race - but if it was, that motivation was almost certainly not the daily news'; it was their source's.
The Cardinals are coming, tra la, tra la

by nycbirdo on Sep 7, 2007 9:39 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

not entirely true...
I talked to a friend who works for a well respected paper today about how coincidentally this story came out the night after Ankiels offensive explosion, and he said that they most likely were sitting on it. If Ankiel comes up, and fails miserably, there is no real story there. But if he comes up, and does great, well....obviously now there is a story.
- Y. Molina stole third

by TriplePlay on Sep 7, 2007 9:48 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

i disagree with that
if they were sitting on it until he had a 2-hr, 7-rbi day, they likely would have sat on it forever.

the longer the daily news sat on the story, the more likely it was that ankiel would go into a slump and the buzz surrounding him wears off. ankiel became a big story the day he returned to the big leagues, and he has remained a big story ever since.

if ankiel had come back and was hitting .210 with 1 homer and 6 rbi, then they might not have been in such a hurry to get this into print. but i can guarantee you that they didn't sit on this thing for long, if at all --- and to the extent they did sit on it, it was because the lawyers made them.

by lboros on Sep 7, 2007 9:55 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I'm with you Larry...
If they have had this story for a while, they have had many opportunities in the last week where Rick has been a big headline...albeit not like yesterday, but you can't assume that he would ever have a day like yesterday so it makes no sense to wait for it.  Here are his lines for the last week (formatted horribly):

DATE    OPP    RESULT    AB    R    H    2B    3B    HR    RBI
8/31    CIN    W 8-5    5    1    2    0    0    1    4
9/1    CIN    W 11-3    4    2    3    1    0    0    3
9/2    CIN    W 3-2    3    1    1    0    0    1    2
9/3    PIT    L 0-11    2    0    0    0    0    0    0
9/4    PIT    W 6-2    3    2    1    1    0    0    1
9/5    PIT    L 2-8    4    1    1    0    0    1    2
9/6    PIT    W 16-4    4    4    3    1    0    2    7

by cardzfanbub on Sep 7, 2007 11:51 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I agree...
In fact, a KSDK reporter this morning mentioned that up to 14 other players may have received HGH from this same source.  So where are their names?  Why wasn't the lead story "JO BLOW from the Florida Marlins linked to HGH"?  
"The two most important things in life: good friends and a strong bullpen." - Bob Gibson

by birds 4 life on Sep 7, 2007 10:24 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I worked as a reporter for several papers ...
...including the LA Times, and the idea that someone would sit on a story like this is ludicrous.  As soon as you've got a decent source, speaking on the record (or off if your editor will sign off on it), you run the story.  This is particularly true in a case like this, where it seems the evidence would be likely discovered by another news outlet.

Many nobodies and also-rans have been implicated for PHD use, and nobody was "sitting" on those.  As Cardinal fans and Ankiel boosters, it might feel like "the media" is out to get us, but that's a conspiracy theory that doesn't hold water.

by bgodar on Sep 7, 2007 10:30 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

It's a case of
"our players NEVER, EVER do anything wrong, and don't you dare say anything like that!" Blind loyalty is not always a pretty thing, ya know...

by cardsrul on Sep 7, 2007 11:16 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Actually the LA Times has a well documented . . .
. . of doing just that. One needs only to go back to before the Governator was elected. They held an old story about groping until right before the election to try to kill his chances.

by CheapSeats on Sep 7, 2007 12:10 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

True
but it worked out nicely for the Daily News.  Ankiel was already big news that day and they print a story about him.  So attention was focused on Rick to start with and that just increased the name recognition factor for their news story, especially among readers who don't follow baseball that closely.    

by cardsgirl95 on Sep 7, 2007 10:00 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

They are in the business of selling papers
It seems likely that they were sitting on the story until a time when they could get the most punch out of their headline.  Just look at the glaring headline and the formatting of the page--how can anyone doubt that sensationalism isn't part of how the story is framed?  (A picture of it is on the Rick Ankiel diary)  

It's a much better story when Ankiel has 2HR and 7 RBI day and when the Cards are 1 game back.  That gives them their splashy lines of questioning the comeback kid and the surging Card's who are now contenders (they couldn't have done it w/o Ankiel, so the story goes).

And if the reporters were just being professsional, then they should have put pertinent facts into the beginning of the story (like MLB did)--the legal prescription, the pre-ban 2004 date, etc.  Rather, they framed the story in terms of his current performance and bury the context in the middle of the sory.  It's a professional decision to present the story in a way that can easily mislead a reader who is skimming.

At least from my perspective--having to put up with the a lot of sensationalist BS from New York papers--I'm surprised by what seems like some people's naive sense of reporters motivations and choices about when and how to report a big story.

by nycardfan on Sep 7, 2007 10:42 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

since i've worked in a newsroom
and you haven't, nycard, i don't think i'm the naive one here. . . .

by lboros on Sep 7, 2007 10:47 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

well perhaps you haven't worked in all newsrooms
one of the areas I work in is politics and I know NY reporters who freely admit that big stories are often sat on until the right moment--either because it makes a better, splashier headline (thus a better seller) or for political reasons.

Looking at the page, how can one not think the story is presented in a sensatinalist way?  Just look at its presentation.

What I think is naive is if someone believes reporters are not driven by motivations, whether they commercial, or having the biggest story they can have, or with the intent to smear someone's reputation and gain an edge over an opponent (politics remember).  This is always a possibility.  It's not always a reality.  But it's a possibility.  

I wasn't directing the comment to you but to readers in general. I don't know what you think about that.  

To me it's naive to have ucritical faith in the purity of journalist's motives.  But maybe that comes from my line of work and stories I've heard from journalists I know.

by nycardfan on Sep 7, 2007 11:20 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

of course it's sensationalized
and yes, making a big splash with a story is a primary motive for reporters and editors.

but it's not the only motive ---- their motives are complex, and they are often at odds with the motives of the publishers, ad salesmen, circulation folks, branding consultants, legal consultants, and other professionals who make up the newspaper enterprise. it is a real tug of war with a lot of motivations, often cross-cutting ones.

there is a simplistic argument afoot that the ny daily news' editorial staff cooked up a little scheme to tear down rick ankiel just when his story reached the height of its feel-goodness. i'm saying that newspaper decisions are far more complex than that.

the motives are rarely "pure," but even if a story is driven by raw greed or by the publisher's personal animus against a powerful interest, it still doesn't discredit the story as long as it's properly reported and sourced.

by lboros on Sep 7, 2007 12:11 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Another thing
I've read this blog for several months now, and I don't think I've EVER seen lboros print something that wasn't intelligently thought out.  I worked in a newsroom for six years and saw stories that were "sat on" and others that were printed as soon as they had enough sourcing to cover their backsides.  You can't generalize.  That said, I hope Ankiel does exactly what lboros suggested.  
Personally, I think we got hosed on that call.

by cardsfanindenver on Sep 7, 2007 12:58 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I work
in a newsroom as well and second Larry's view. This was going to be a sensation story regardless whether Ankiel had three extra-base hits yesterday or went 0-for-4. The idea that they would hold it waiting for him to have a career game doesn't make much sense.

by DCGreg on Sep 7, 2007 11:04 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Just to throw my hat in the ring
As a young journalist myself, let me assure you that the absolute last thing the print media is good at is sitting on a story. If they have something they're going to try to get it out there first, because that's how the business works. I won't argue about the sensationalism of stories like these, but that's also part of the turf. Let's see where this goes before we start swinging bats at the reporters involved.
The Falcoholic
The SBNation's Atlanta Falcons Blog

by Dave the Falconer on Sep 7, 2007 11:15 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

And let's not forget,
it isn't the REPORTERS who are deciding on the photos, the splashy headline, or the placement.  Those are editors' decisions.  Let's not tar the guys who are doing the footwork on this story.  If it were up to the reporters the whole thing might very well have been addressed in a different way.
"We're sniffing the winning situation."

by MdRedbirdFreak on Sep 7, 2007 11:25 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Have people not watched elections?
stories get used all the time by all sorts of different parties for all sorts of different reasons.  And accusations fly back and forth often about why stories come out when they do.  There's lots of finger pointing because it's always a possibility.  Reporters work in different areas and in different cities.  

Many New York reporters run in rougher political circles than other parts of the country and some definitely use information in a messy sensationalist way according to their interests and timeline.

by nycardfan on Sep 7, 2007 11:32 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

It's a little naive
To assume reporters have that much control over when their articles come out and when they're commissioned to write them. Whether reporters have an agenda in digging up a particular story I can't say for certain, but timing has everything to do with editors and publishers, as sdesserman noted. Reporters report and write the copy, but an editor then can change around the story, tack a huge headline on it and choose when and where it appears in the paper.

So if the writing itself is sensationalized, take a look at the reporter. But if you have a quibble with the timing, either look at the editor or understand that it's always a race to the finish in the news business.

The Falcoholic
The SBNation's Atlanta Falcons Blog

by Dave the Falconer on Sep 7, 2007 1:41 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I take issue with how the information
was presented.  They give a distorted picture in the begining of the story and only later provide important facts concerning time and legality.  

Initially, HGH is mentioned in terms of Rick's recent comeback; then it links Rick to a company being investigated for illegal drug distribution.  They choose not to state early on that Rick had a prescription for this in 2004 before it was banned and that he was recovering from an injury.  Unless you read the whole story, someone could easily think he is taking the drug now and that his behavior is clearly illegal.

They wait until the middle of the story to give the pertinent facts.  That was clearly a choice, not an accident.  And it is a choice that differs from the MLB presentation.  The NY story is set up to draw readers in by being scintillating.  Only later do you realize that the story is not so sensationalist as it first seemed.

by nycardfan on Sep 7, 2007 2:56 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

i don't think it's distorted
it's presented this way to foreground the newsworthy part of the story --- he received the shipments from a pharmacy that is accused of running an illegal drug-distribution racket, nationwide.

don't you wonder why was he doing business with that sort of outfit? i do.

by lboros on Sep 7, 2007 3:22 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

they set it solely in the context of his recent
surge to pull readers in (silence can be an act you know).  When you leave out the details, seemingly intentionally, and the story sounds more sensational than it actually is, I think that's distorting.  And it is especially so if a reader skimming the piece can easily come away thinking that Ankiel is illegally using a drug now.  Writers know what they are doing in how they tell you the information they have.  The order of a story is always important.

If they had been upfront with all the information like MLB was, I would have no complaint.  There story was very good.  But they chose not to do that.

I'm sure our experience predisposes us to see news stories more or less skeptically.  If you worked in a newsroom with reporters and editors as colleagues and I've worked in the area of politics and public policy, with all the infighting that involves (and that includes journalists), it's natural that we would probably view the structuring of a story like this differently.  

We should just agree to disagree.  

by nycardfan on Sep 7, 2007 3:46 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

i've worked in politics / policy too
and i'm as critical of shoddy journalism as the next person. probably more so.

but this isn't shoddy journalism.

by lboros on Sep 7, 2007 4:00 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Shoddy vs Sensationalist?
I agree that with the apparent abundance of facts, this appears to be anything BUT shoddy journalism.

However, I also agree that it clearly appears to be intentionally sensationalized journalism, no doubt in part by the editors' "contributions" to the story, layout, headline, etc.

Both of those can be true.

There are 10 types of people in the world. Those who understand binary, and those who don't.

by Mr Clean on Sep 7, 2007 6:17 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Location
I doubt the list of HGH compounding pharmacies is very long. I don't know many of the facts, but it was my understanding that Signature Pharmacy ran a legit licensed pharmacy as a front to the illegal stuff. If that's true, not every customer receiving a prescription knew they were dealing with a nationwide illegal drug ring.

That's my story and I'm stickin' with it.

by kemime on Sep 7, 2007 3:51 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

i can assert
with absolute certainty that the authors of this story had nothing to do with any holding of the story.  there is nothing naive about my knowledge of the "reporters' motivations and choices."

i cannot however, do the same for the editor or publishers of the daily news...

by sdesserman on Sep 7, 2007 12:39 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I agree V
I agree with you and lboros, he has to come out or it will grow, as it stands we can assume all we want any way we want and until any response is given I will assume the best because it is best for my happiness but if he gives a small statement or no response then I will probably change my assumption pretty quickly and be more harsh to him until then I am one naive person.

by StLHugo on Sep 7, 2007 9:20 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Agree 100 percent.
He MUST face this head-on, and fast.  No dissembling, no "spokespersons," no bullshit.  Unfortunately those characteristics aren't hallmarks of the Cardinal organization.  I hope Boras is smart enough to push hard to make sure that happens.

My concern is that Ankiel is later going to pushed to take it a step further and rat out some other people.  How did he find out about this doctor and his clinic?  Probably was steered there by another player.  Let's hope he keeps his mouth shut in that respect (unless he really found this doctor by perusing the Yellow Pages).

"We're sniffing the winning situation."

by MdRedbirdFreak on Sep 7, 2007 9:06 AM EDT   0 recs

Yes.
he had a prescription for the drugs, and they're legal with a prescription; and he received them in 2004, before mlb instituted its formal prohibition on steroids. therefore, ankiel didn't break any rules or do anything wrong --- right?

Yes.  Simple as that.

Actually, have MLB and George Mitchell look into the matter if both parties are serious about investigating performance enhancing drug use in the sport.

by champion on Sep 7, 2007 9:07 AM EDT   0 recs

if i hear that straight from ankiel's mouth
i will give the interpretation a lot more credence. but until he states it himself, it's not a defense. it's an excuse.

by lboros on Sep 7, 2007 9:11 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

It isn't as simple as that
you 'assume' that this is an isolated incident and not just the tip of the iceberg.  We 'assume' Rick only got one scrip and it was from his doctor this one time.

Who is to say he didn't go doctor shopping once MLB banned the substance?

I'd like to give Rick the benefit of the doubt.  He'd brought me great joy over this last month and brought forth a great deal of emotion over what he was able to acheive.  But, as a fan of baseball who has lived through the last 15 years, you can't give ANY player the benefit of the doubt.

The Cardinals and Rick will go into 'bunker' mentality, again, like they do with every story.  This story won't go away.

Another fantastic turn in the season from hell.

Call up PJ Walters!

by Hardcore Legend on Sep 7, 2007 9:13 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Nope.
you 'assume' that this is an isolated incident and not just the tip of the iceberg.  We 'assume' Rick only got one scrip and it was from his doctor this one time.

I'm basing my opinion on what I know from several published reports including the NYDN article.  I'm not "assuming" anything.

by champion on Sep 7, 2007 9:26 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

That's a very
"If I don't see it, it isn't happening' approach.
Call up PJ Walters!

by Hardcore Legend on Sep 7, 2007 9:28 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Why do you assume this is Rick's only
foray into usage? Because of one sentence in the story?  That sentence only implies that Rick stopped getting HGH from Signature before 2005.
Call up PJ Walters!

by Hardcore Legend on Sep 7, 2007 9:31 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

but you're assuming
a guilty until proven innocent mentality.  the story is inconclusive, and without further investigation, no one knows how much farther it goes.
Rabid Redbird

by gthedamned on Sep 7, 2007 9:34 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

3rd hand knowlege
I have heard from several rumors that Ankiel has been involved in drug use ranging from performance-enhancing variety to the more, ummmm, recreational variety.  Would that not make it hard to deny illegal drug activity if he was involved in recreational drug use?
I'm a man, a manly, manly, man. Unknown

by Eckstreem on Sep 7, 2007 10:06 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

at least for now
they are just that: rumors.  3rd hand ones at that.  if we're going to start saying that players seem more likely to have been on PED's because of recreational drug use (can you say marijuana?) then we're really going to paint half the league with the big-head barry brush.
Rabid Redbird

by gthedamned on Sep 7, 2007 10:36 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Rabid.
I would not post the comment if I didn't completely trust my source. Marijuana is not what I was referring to (think Speezer).  However, I really don't care what Rick did (does) with his own time.  I was just pointing out that denying illegal drug activity may put him in a precarious position related to his other habits.
I'm a man, a manly, manly, man. Unknown

by Eckstreem on Sep 7, 2007 10:44 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

This team
and Cardinals teams from the past few years have had some issues. It's pretty much an open secret in town; but they're also rich 20-somethings, it isn't exactly surprising.
Hello, playoff mosey

by Alxfritz on Sep 7, 2007 10:47 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

you should not be spreading rumors
without evidence.  Period.

by nycardfan on Sep 7, 2007 1:39 PM EDT to parent up   0 recs

it is a
guilty until proven innocent world out there. i agree with that, we the people are not the law. we are not in court so we can assume whatever we want, isnt that how it works? these days, everyone in the people's eye is guilty until proven innocent.
2007 season: dedicated to Josh Hancock, RIP.

by cards4life on Sep 7, 2007 11:25 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

while true
this is a sad state we are in as a nation.  the lowest common denominator will always be the rabble crying for blood, but the trick is to keep the sources of information at least somewhat above that sort of witchhunting.  unfortunately, since you'll never lose money telling the people what they want to believe, there's little money in objective fact these days.  damned infotainment.  somehow, this is john tesh's fault.
Rabid Redbird

by gthedamned on Sep 7, 2007 11:39 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

I agree, stay with the known facts
this is beginning to sound like a feeding frenzy...

We can deal with future information if it comes out; it's unfair to saddle Ankiel with the worst when we have no evidence to base that on.  We should just stay with what we now.  And that's not being overprotective or being too much of a fan or sticking our head in the sand.  That's simply being fair and judicious.

by nycardfan on Sep 7, 2007 11:46 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Prove.
Can you prove, right now, that Ankiel used HGH after 2004?  I know, right now, for a fact that you cannot.  If it comes to light that he used HGH after it was banned from the sport then I hope he suffers the appropriate penalty and I will change my mind.  However, if anyone is jumping the gun at this moment and blowing this matter out of proportion it is you.

Not once in the article is it said that Ankiel broke a single MLB policy.   Not one.  Don't you think the writers of the piece would have mentioned that if they had a shred of proof that Ankiel was in violation of MLB rules?  I do.  Then again, that's just my assumption.

by champion on Sep 7, 2007 9:32 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

just because
slick rick stopped recieving hgh shipments in 2004 does not mean he stopped taking hgh. he could find a different dealer/company to get it from. remember, he could still be taking it because he knows there is no test for hgh currently. so this is a big story and could be a lot bigger if ank makes it/says anything vague/shady.
2007 season: dedicated to Josh Hancock, RIP.

by cards4life on Sep 7, 2007 11:23 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Thorny
The paradoxical bit of analysis-paralysis here is that if Rick does come out and clear the air as LB suggests, a cynical person--or just a critical person--might think:  well, sure.  That's the cagey thing to do.  That's the way to "stick it to the media" and make the story go away.  That's just what one would want to do if one did have something to hide.

What I mean is, why would the charitable interpretation seem more plausible coming from Ankiel's own mouth?  We all know that it's in his interest to spin this story as LB prescribes, so why wouldn't that story seem just as suspect?

Once we turn our attention from the facts of the case and their moral/legal implications to the question of how to best handle this from a PR standpoint, we very easily slip into this critical/cynical mindset: if his response seems canned, it's because he's hiding something.  If his response seems candid, it's canned candor--he's received some good advice.  And so on.  There's no way out; no way of really knowing what's true and what's mere calculation.

I'm not exempting myself from this way of thinking, and I'm absolutely not rushing to judge Ankiel.  I'm just saying that once we get into this discussion--the one about how to manage public perception--the bullshit can get very deep, very fast.  I'm not sure how to cut through it without invoking potentially cheesy words like Trust and Faith.  What a mess.

by Hummingbird on Sep 7, 2007 9:19 AM EDT   0 recs

those are fair points
if ankiel comes clean, some cynics will dismiss it as spin; some people still won't believe him. but that's still not a reason to remain silent, imho; at least he will have stood up for himself, and a lot of people who are on the fence (like me) will be more willing to give him the benefit of the doubt.

by lboros on Sep 7, 2007 9:24 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Understood
and I think I'm in the same boat as you.  But in 21st century America, it's hard to justify belief in why a statement to the press counts as really standing up for oneself.  To keep the discussion baseball-related and relatively recent, R. Palmeiro certainly "stood up for himself" in the strongest possible terms...and that turned out poorly.

I'm with you, I really am.  I'm not an especially cynical person; I think we're in cynical times.

by Hummingbird on Sep 7, 2007 9:30 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Yes, but
Palmerio stood before Congress and said he never took them, then pissed hot.

No integrity, no ethics.  He should be lambasted.

there is no secret weapon...there is only Oquendo.

by bukowski on Sep 7, 2007 9:44 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Right
but my point with Palmeiro is that cases like his (and there are plenty in and outside of sports) erode one's ability to put trust in anything public figures say when they're in a tight spot.  When even lowly bloggers (and commenters) are hip to the workings of spin and public perception management, how can we put trust or credence in something uttered by a person with an entourage of handlers?  Should we just "listen to our hearts"?  Or guts?  What does that even mean?  (These are honest questions.)

I want to trust Ankiel.  If he says what LB prescribes, I want to believe him.  I'm just saying that as a critically functional 21st-century human, it's hard to do.

by Hummingbird on Sep 7, 2007 9:51 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Understand and Agree.
And that, buddy, is a sad comment on where we are today.
there is no secret weapon...there is only Oquendo.

by bukowski on Sep 7, 2007 10:00 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

If there's a way out
it might have to do with LB's original post: last line, second word.

by Hummingbird on Sep 7, 2007 10:10 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Hummingbird is right
Plenty of people will be skeptical, no matter what Rick does or says.  Larry is also right, others will cut him some slack if he is straightforward about the whole matter.  The "court of public opinion" can be brutal.  

Also, Bernie made a good point in his blog entry on the subject.  The fact that there is no reliable test for HGH allows the cheaters to continue to cheat if they wish, but the lack of testing also denies a clean player the chance to clear his name.

What a mess indeed.  

by cardsgirl95 on Sep 7, 2007 9:42 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

The best approach
When scandels occur, the worst case scenario is the drip drip drip of bad information. Since I'm involved in this for a living (communication), I am quite cynical on the get out ahead of it response. Nonetheless, if I was advising him I would say come clean with everything now -- ESPECIALLY if it's the best case scenario where he ended in 2005.

In fact, if I really wanted to paint a sympathetic picture of him, I would have him talk about other past drug use as he hit rock bottom when trying to rebuild his pitching career -- too much too soon. He stopped using other drugs, he stopped HGH, and used this new opportunity to change his life. Now THAT is a made for TV movie at the least.

Of course, if he is still using, well, all bets are off...

by jimstllax on Sep 7, 2007 9:53 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Medical Reason
I can definately see a medical reason for him to be taking HGH at the time. He had recently had elbow surgery and I can see a doctor prescribing it to aid in his recovery.

That being said I agree with the post that he MUST come out and talk about this. This story only becomes a monkey on his back if he hides behind a "no comment". It was before the ban on substances and from what I've heard he did not receive another prescription after the ban.

This does not change my perception of him or what he has accomplished one bit.

by indakind on Sep 7, 2007 9:28 AM EDT   0 recs

Murdoch
larry, I at first also thought this paper was owned by news corp but that is actually the NY Post not the NY Daily News, this paper is actually owned by Mortimer Zuckerman

by StLHugo on Sep 7, 2007 9:29 AM EDT   0 recs

thanks for pointing that out
correction made above ----

by lboros on Sep 7, 2007 9:40 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Another quick thing
Sorry to keep doing this Larry but the wikipedia article (which we know not to trust unless sourced) has a broken link for the pulitzer source but I did a search on the pulitzer website and it has 10 listed so the fact still stands but isn't wikipedia a bitch some times?

by StLHugo on Sep 7, 2007 9:44 AM EDT to parent up   0 recs

Ankiel's not good with the media
He doesn't talk much to reporters. He's aloof. That's fine, and that's his right, but it doesn't exactly build up good will with the media about his credibility, when he's making a self-serving statement.

With that said, my view is similar to lboros' -- this happened more than two years ago, with a doctor's prescription. So what? It's a big stretch to use this story to claim that Ankiel's current success is attributable to drugs, especially since he's shown great promise as a hitter from high school onward.

BTW -- Rupert Murdoch doesn't own The Daily News. He owns the New York Post. Mort Zuckerman owns The Daily News.

All things are ready if our minds be so.

by Dexter Westbrook on Sep 7, 2007 9:29 AM EDT   0 recs