Reporting on the Mitchell Report . . .

Key word there BillyT is "rumors."
There was no way for any writer to get proof of anything.

 

I am not sure if I am expressing myself in the right way.

And I will admit I am out of my depth a bit on this having never really worked a professional beat.

But aren't there guys out there who have the kind of sources who would talk about backchannel conversations?

Let's say you get a solid source or two that the Red Sox are not going to sign Eric Gagne because they think he's using steroids.

Are you saying you don't report it because the accusation is a rumor?

I would think that reporters at least had an idea that people were using them and could have pursued it with sources.

I am trying to remember what I was thinking as a fan in 1998. I know now that I should have had suspicions. Yet, the following year there were books about how McGwire and Sosa "saved baseball."

Should I just write this off to hindsight?

 

Seriously Billy, unless you have those sources on the record that they wonlt pursue X player because he is (not they think) using steroids, you can not possibly write it.

 

Exactly. Key phrase being "on the record."

If you can quote Theo Epstein as saying he's concerned about Gagne's rumored steroid use, more power to ya. If it's people rumor-mongering and trying to hide behind "off the record," I don't think you can write it.