Strange NYT Retraction on NFL HGH Testing Story

A lot of red faces at NYT Sports desk today:

In Saturday's Times this story by Juliet Macur appeared:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/06/sports/football/nfls-progress-on-a-drug-test-falls-short-of-leaps-and-bounds.html?ref=football

"N.F.L. Falls Short of a Leap on H.G.H.
By JULIET MACUR


"So on Thursday the N.F.L. celebrated what it called a huge step forward in the league’s drug-testing regimen: the inclusion of blood testing for human growth hormone in its substance-abuse program, which is part of the new collective bargaining agreement. No other sports league in the United States has tested for H.G.H. at that league’s highest level. But some antidoping experts say the true effectiveness and legitimacy of the program will be known only when the league and the players union reveal the details of the plan.

Already, the first known facet of the protocol, that the H.G.H. test will be administered annually, has left antidoping experts less than impressed.

“The N.F.L. got their headlines saying they would test for H.G.H., and the public thinks they’ve solved the problem, but it’s really the theater of the absurd,” said Dr. Gary Wadler, the immediate past chairman of the World Anti-Doping Agency’s prohibited list and methods committee. “I’ve always said the devil is in the details in these antidoping protocols, and these details are blatantly ridiculous.”

And today this retraction appeared with no by line:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/08/07/sports/football/nfl-says-drug-testing-will-be-rigorous-and-frequent.html?ref=football&pagewanted=print

N.F.L. Says Drug Testing Will Be Rigorous and Frequent
By THE NEW YORK TIMES


In an article in Saturday’s editions of The New York Times, the testing plan for H.G.H. was inaccurately described as requiring only one test a year. The article included criticism from antidoping experts that such a plan was grossly inadequate.

One reporter for The Times had the additional details, but the reporter who wrote the article with experts assessing the details did not.

 

Good thing they're in the communications business.

 

"Even though we printed an inaccurate story, we actually did know the truth. Honest."

 

That's not what it says on their site now:

If multiple reporters worked on the story, why is their not either a shared byline -- which the Times loves -- or a note at the end crediting the additional reporting?

 

The famed one hand does not know what the other hand is doing defense"

"One reporter for The Times had the additional details, but the reporter who wrote the article with experts assessing the details did not."

Sounds like Juliet Macur did not do enough research for her Saturday story. Seems like she did not speak directly to any NFL personal. She only spoke to the famed "anti-doping experts"

 

I'm willing to bet Judy Battista knew the details.
Greg Aiello, the NFL PR guy, reacted to this right away on Twitter, blasting the story, very unusual for a league that has had a solid relationship with the Times.
I think we have to infer the reporter who wrote the story didn't ask the NFL for details of its program, was going by some sort of media account, or as was mentioned earlier, a misperception by an "anti-doping expert."

 

Or the reporter had pre conceived narrative.

 

Another example of why you have NFL writers write a story like this.

I've known Juliet for years, and I think she's brilliant, but no way does she have the right sources to write a story like this.

 

It's reminiscent of when Karen Crouse was assigned The Jet beat.

 

For pure reporting skill --- not to mention writing --- Macur is at a whole 'nother level. Although it appears she messed up this one.

 

If the other reporter had all the right details, then what was he or she planning to do with them? I mean, getting those details take some active reporting, so why stop there? Write it; send it in.

 

The NYT should reveal who Macur's source of info was.