NYT Bolt article [Robles update]

[tandfman]

I agree it's silly when other sports aren't held to the same scrutiny, but to lash out against writers who voice what nearly everyone is thinking (including those bitching about the article, whether they admit it or not) seems disingenuous.

The point is that the reason everyone is thinking that is that that's all the media are covering, particularly, as gh points out, media like the NYT and writers like Longman.

The NYT casually mentioned a few weeks ago that in 2003, 104 major league baseball players tested positive for steroids. And the NYT keeps right on covering baseball as if doping is not a problem in that sport. When someone hits more home runs than he ever before had in his career, the NYT does not question whether that is due to steroids, nor do their writers suggest that this is what people are asking. And, in fact, people are probably not asking it because the writers aren't constantly mentioning that possibility every time they write about baseball even though the amount of doping abuse in baseball seems to be far greater than it is in track. (And why shouldn't it be--they make a lot of money and can take steroids without a risk of losing their livelihood for two years and their reputation forever the first time their are caught.)

As for your comment that people who are bitching about the article are thinking about the possibility that Bolt may be dirty, maybe some, but not this bitcher. I saw this kid run when he was 15. I had no reason to think he was taking steroids then--I was looking at just amazing raw talent. What I see this year is consistent with the natural evolution of this runner since then. It hasn't been a straight line because of periodic injuries, but the talent was always there. Could he possibly be dirty? Of course he could. But there's no reason for me to think he is and I absolutely refuse to buy into this thinking that nobody can break a WR in certain events without PED's.

[lagsun]

Sorry if I'm overprotective of our sport, but since the New York Times in general quit covering track (and Longman in particular started writing virtually nothing but drug pieces) I feel they lose some of their right to be critical.

If they want to do this, take it off the sports page (since they apparently no longer consider track a sport) and put it in the news.

Their coverage of the sport as nothing but freak show is very disheartening.

I don't read every US daily but I find the NY Times does a pretty decent job of covering track. Granted some of it is PED related but when you have the Trevor Graham trial and the Pettigrew revelations in the news the same week as the Reebok meet it's hard to not ask if someone is on drugs nor avoid it.

As for their track coverage, there were 15 articles since May with 6 of the 7 PED-related ones about the Graham trial. Also since March there have been articles about Bernard Lagat (twice), Liu Xiang, Chanelle Price, Jenn Stuczynski, Usain Bolt and Shalane Flanagan.

If the NY Times has quit covering track than which national paper is doing a good job? I live in the SF Bay area and other than local high school track coverage, I would say the NY Times does a better job than the Chronicle, Mercury News and others combined.

[Jacksf]

I mentioned this in the Bolt 9.92 thread before the Reebok meet:

"Article on Bolt in today's NY Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/31/sport ... ref=sports
"
No mention of PEDs in this article.

[gh]

...
If the NY Times has quit covering track than which national paper is doing a good job? I live in the SF Bay area and other than local high school track coverage, I would say the NY Times does a better job than the Chronicle, Mercury News and others combined.

Unfortunately, the answer is none are doing a good job. Gone are the days where the NCAA meet would see reporters (plus, in some cases, a second person to type the agate) from major dailies across the nation in attendance.

And this decline came in the days before the Net started killing the business, so that's no excuse.

Being the best of a bad lot isn't exactly a credential to hang your hat on.

[tandfman]

I mentioned this in the Bolt 9.92 thread before the Reebok meet:

"Article on Bolt in today's NY Times
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/05/31/sport ... ref=sports
"
No mention of PEDs in this article.

Oh, really? What do you call this:

Of course, with suspicions of doping constantly looming over the track world, Bolt’s meteoric rise has raised a few eyebrows. But he said that he had never used performance-enhancing drugs and that he had been tested five times in 2008.

[Marlow]

If they want to do this, take it off the sports page (since they apparently no longer consider track a sport) and put it in the news.

Better yet, put it on the Editorial page as an opinion piece. Of course there's the chance that ALL the top sprinters are dirty, but let's get some context and perspective. Talk about the ways T&F IS trying to clean itself up. Talk about the ways that the big pro sports are NOT trying to clean themselves up. Hatchet jobs on track do nothing to HELP, which is what a good journalist is supposed to be doing. Mudslingers end up getting a lot on themselves and the NYT is going to be the Brown Old Lady pretty soon.

[jazzcyclist]

I don't know if anyone's brought this up yet, but the big elephant in the room is that it has been primarily law enforcement agencies that have been exposing the drug cheats in recent years, both in the US and Europe. This applies to all sports, not just track. In the US and Europe, no sports star is too big to be taken down by an amibitious prosecutor, and it doesn't matter if your last name is Bonds, Clemens, Jones, Ullrich or Basso. If today, some young, hot shot FBI or DEA agent got wind of Tiger Woods using and/or trafficking in illegal PED's, does anyone doubt that he/she would go after him? Call it the Martha Stewart syndrome. But these types of prosections of celebrities doesn't take place in third world countries and banana republics. If for example, some Ethiopian policeman found out that some drug pusher/criminal was supplying Haile Gebrselassie with EPO, what are the chances that the Ethiopian government would ever go after Geb? Don't athletes who want to take PED's greatly diminish their chances of getting caught by living, training and doping in smaller third world countries?

[gh]

NYT had a piece on the Robles WR today. It wasn't the lead (what were theyh thinking?!) but story does include this paragraph:

<<In the clouded world of track and field, where doping has been rampant, Robles is sure to face some skepticism about his performance. He has not failed a drug test.>>

lAnybody want to guess who the author was?

[AthleticsInBritain]

I wouldn't mind, but Robles has a pretty fair pedigree himself, far more so than Bolt.

Why not write a strongly worded letter to the editor in true broadsheet style expressing your outrage and indignation?

It is becoming a vicious circle, but I'm actually finding it hard to argue against the cynicism of journalists like this. If people are sceptical, there are enough high profile sprint cases to justify such scepticism over the past 20 years. At least the 20th anniversary of the Ben Johnson case is due to take place after Beijing, although I have a feeling that case will be taken out of the closet, dusted down and given a good airing before August 16.

Scandals make good copy and scandals improve sales. All the print media profits are suffering as we get used to the internet so why run with an unprofitable, if not particularly ethical, way of writing? They're not going to change if this type of story sells newspapers.

[lagsun]

Enhanced Rice Husks?

Longman also wrote yesterday's front page article about Asic's master craftsman who is custom designing racing flats for marathoners. The shoes use rice husks in the soles for better traction:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/06/11/sport ... ref=slogin

His shoes were worn by the past two Olympic women's marathoner winners (Noguchi and Takahshi) as well as by Baldini in 2004.

No mention of PEDs in the article

[dcunited]

Since when was a journalist gossiping with other journalists about how suspicious they all are grounds for a news article about how suspicious it all is?

Alright, no making me LOL.

It's been some years since I thought highly of NYT.