The Times - Intimidated, Or Incompetent?

The NY Times actually puts on its front page an article about baseball, steroids, and pitching that is laughable in its omissions:

Baseball's conventional wisdom holds that anabolic steroids are used by beefy sluggers and avoided by pitchers, who rely on flexibility and long, lean muscles instead of constricting bulk.

But this stereotype has been challenged by the latest regimen of steroid testing.

Two of the five players suspended from major league rosters for steroid offenses this spring were pitchers, as were 29 of the 63 players who failed more stringent testing in the minor leagues.

"This stereotype"?  Dum de dum - I am straining to think of an older pitcher with a reputation as a workout fanatic who has bulked up over his career, been linked to steroids by Jose Canseco, and has admitted that anti-inflammatories are a key part of his fitness regimen.

My goodness - the Times had this story in February!  And although the pitcher is the not-exactly unheralded Roger Clemens, somehow he is not mentioned at all in their current front-pager.

Baffling.  The byline goes to Jere Longman, who seems to have been focusing on basketball and football.  Still, any caller to sports talk radio knows that Roger Clemens and steroids have been rumored for years.  Where were the editors?

Now, obviously I am not alleging anything about Clemens, who may simply be the fitness fool he appears.  But how could the Times have a featured, extra-length article that overlooks this?  How could they have a writer wondering whether baseball pitchers benefit from exercise?  Are they this incompetent, or did the lawyers advise them to back off?

Hmm.  I am leaning towards "incompetent".

Comments

[Crank]

I vote the latter; I haven't done a ton of libel work myself, but I can tell you that's what I'd advise them. Personally, I've argued for years that names should not be named in the steroid debate based solely on speculation.

[rudy]

Anabolic steroids are not anti-inflammatories ... you are thinking perhaps of corticosteroids, such as cortisone and prednisone.

[Tom Maguire]

you are thinking perhaps of corticosteroids...

Don't give me too much credit for thinking. Don't anabolic steroids aid in recovery after a workout (even if they are not anti-inflammatories)?

[Joe Mealyus]

"Now, obviously I am not alleging anything about Clemens, who may simply be the fitness fool he appears."

Is it just my imagination, or is there still some lingering bitterness over Clemens' abandonment of the sinking Yankee ship?

When I read the bit about pitchers "rely[ing] on flexibility and long, lean muscles instead of constricting bulk," the name that popped into my head wasn't Roger Clemens, it was David Wells.

[dsquared]

I know chuff-all about baseball, but what I do know about cricket is that hitting the ball hard and for long distances has far more to do with timing and accuracy than the speed at which you swing the bat. A "slogger" is someone who doesn't play a proper stroke and tries to get distance by sheer power, and there are none of them at the highest level.

[Joe Mealyus]

"A "slogger" is someone who doesn't play a proper stroke and tries to get distance by sheer power, and there are none of them at the highest level."

Not true, of course, because some bowlers (batting at the bottom of the order) adopt this strategy, so anyone watching a test match will get to some real slogging every now and then. And whereas in cricket most of the time the top batsman are trying to hit with control (though generating some pretty good bat speed on pulls and cuts) and trying not to hit (most) shots in the air, you do occasionally see a world-class batsman go for a slog - sometimes even moving towards the bowler as he delivers. Especially in the one-day game. There is no real baseball equivalent, since even the guys with the most visibly effortful swings never move their feet....