Dan Shaughnessy: Taking a dump in your mouth one column at a time

[John Marzano Olympic Hero]

I haven't read the piece yet, but are we angry that CHB asked Oritz if he was on PEDs? I thought that the media was (partly) to blame for looking the other way in the late 90s when it came to PED abuse and now we're pissed that Shank asked about it?
 
I don't see where the outrage is coming from. I guess you could say, "Sure, Dano can ask the question, but what is Papi going to say? Even if he was on PEDs, he'd never admit it, so this is just an exercise in futility." I could probably buy that, or at least see your perspective. But being a reporter or columnist isn't about assuming what your subject will say,that's why reporters ask the "stupid" question of "What are you feeling right now?" to a person whose house burnt to the ground. Writers aren't dumb, they know what their subjects are feeling, but they have to ask them.
 
From what I understand, Ortiz answered the questions and Shank wrote his piece. Not everything is a softball, Ortiz is a big boy and should be able to handle these questions. Especially given the circumstantial evidence that surrounds his career (and I love David Ortiz, he may be my fifth favorite Sox ever).

 

[lostjumper]

Ortiz was named as a PED user. Quibble about the circumstances of that fact all you'd like but you sound like a naive trolling douchebag when you complain about it. And when you suggest DS's job is to "innocently...marvel" or do a "nice piece". If Shaughnessey doesn't ask a 37 year old guy coming off a serious injury who's previously been named as a PED user about PEDs he's not doing his job. Not being an ostrich, the question occurred to me.

But Ortiz took much longer than most people thought it would to come back from the achilles strain. It was last July he strained it, and he still missed the first 2 weeks in April. That should be circumstantial evidence he wasn't taking PED's to get back quicker from injury.
 
Also, When Ortiz was interviewed be Pedro Gomez Ortiz said he had been tested 5 times so far this year.

 

[joe dokes]

I haven't read the piece yet, but are we angry that CHB asked Oritz if he was on PEDs? I thought that the media was (partly) to blame for looking the other way in the late 90s when it came to PED abuse and now we're pissed that Shank asked about it?
 
I don't see where the outrage is coming from. I guess you could say, "Sure, Dano can ask the question, but what is Papi going to say? Even if he was on PEDs, he'd never admit it, so this is just an exercise in futility." I could probably buy that, or at least see your perspective. But being a reporter or columnist isn't about assuming what your subject will say,that's why reporters ask the "stupid" question of "What are you feeling right now?" to a person whose house burnt to the ground. Writers aren't dumb, they know what their subjects are feeling, but they have to ask them.
 
From what I understand, Ortiz answered the questions and Shank wrote his piece. Not everything is a softball, Ortiz is a big boy and should be able to handle these questions. Especially given the circumstantial evidence that surrounds his career (and I love David Ortiz, he may be my fifth favorite Sox ever).

 
I'm angry because he did it just to be a dick. Shaughnessy rarely asks the subjects of his column anything. He just writes his column from his desk and gives his opinion. He didn't do that here. 

 

[Rovin Romine]

But Ortiz took much longer than most people thought it would to come back from the achilles strain. It was last July he strained it, and he still missed the first 2 weeks in April. That should be circumstantial evidence he wasn't taking PED's to get back quicker from injury.
 
Also, When Ortiz was interviewed be Pedro Gomez Ortiz said he had been tested 5 times so far this year.

 
Ting!   So why put it in the story at all?   (I didn't read the article, and won't add to the hits total.) 
 
But regardless, *after* a reporter gathers the information he has a choice in how he presents it.  Shag could have said, "To the rumor mongers who whisper PEDs, I've confirmed Ortiz was tested 5 times this year *and* it took him longer to heal than expected."  I'm betting he didn't though. 
 
***
 
I emailed Shag once, way back in the day, and got a very angry defensive "what the fuck do you know" response from him.

 

[JimD]

MLB has a testing program in place.  David Ortiz is a participant in the program, as all active players are.  Until one of his tests comes back positive and he is punished, I really don't give a crap what Dan Shaughnessy thinks Ortiz or any other player looks like.  

 

[JohntheBaptist]

What's pissing people off is that he obviously invented these "whispers" just so he could ask him.  That's kind of his entire "style" in a nutshell, when a line of questioning relating his past attachment to the subject, his recent late-career success, would have been perfectly fair.  Dan didn't want to say, "I think it looks like you could be doing this, so are you," so he went on about whispers or rumors or something, "hey sorry everybody, had to ask!"
 
That way its "not about him" and he can say the hue and cry is a symptom of rose colored basement dwelling glasses and not his involvment blah blah blah

 

[MyDaughterLovesTomGordon]

What's pissing people off is that he obviously invented these "whispers" just so he could ask him.  That's kind of his entire "style" in a nutshell, when a line of questioning relating his past attachment to the subject, his recent late-career success, would have been perfectly fair.  Dan didn't want to say, "I think it looks like you could be doing this, so are you," so he went on about whispers or rumors or something, "hey sorry everybody, had to ask!"
 
That way its "not about him" and he can say the hue and cry is a symptom of rose colored basement dwelling glasses and not his involvment blah blah blah

 
This is exactly right. And they teach it in J-school. You don't outright ask a potentially combative source the tough questions, you say, "people are saying..." or "I'm hearing..." and that defuses the confrontation, because you're just the poor slob doing his job and, hey, lending a sympathetic ear and letting the source vent, even. 
 
I think this is just fine when you're interviewing an embattled CEO or a state rep or somebody who just did some terrible thing and it's your job to write about it. But especially for a columnist it's pretty cowardly since Shank doesn't normally have a problem slagging people. But, then, the doesn't normally interview people either. And now he can stir up PED rumors about an incredibly likable player without having to look like the bad guy. 

 

[John Marzano Olympic Hero]

I don't think that he's creating this out of thin air, though. Like I said prior, I love David Ortiz and I am really happy that he's hitting the crap out of the ball but did his gaudy numbers combined with his age make me raise an eyebrow? Yes. Unfortunately it did. And I'm sorry, but that's not my fault and it's not Shaughnessy's fault, it's the player's faults. They're the ones who abused PEDs for years and lied to us about it. Unfortunately, they're going to be in the crosshairs for a long time.
 
And please, save me the pseudo Journalism101 bullshit about how CHB is not an "investigative journalist, he's a columnist!" bullshit. That means absolutely nothing. If you're a writer, you're digging for new information all the time and most times that takes investigating, whether you're talking to a source or doing a bit of research online. Otherwise you're just barfing up the party line and that's how we got into this mess to begin with.
 
Again, I'm not saying Shank is some sort of paragon of journalism because there is a crap-ton of evidence that proves the contrary. However, I'm not sure you can kill the guy one day for being a lazy jackass and then kill him the next day when he actually gets off his ass and asks some tough questions.
 

I'm angry because he did it just to be a dick. Shaughnessy rarely asks the subjects of his column anything. He just writes his column from his desk and gives his opinion. He didn't do that here.

 
Seriously? How old are you? Because that is something a 12-year-old would say. And furthermore, he doesn't just "write columns from his desk and gives his opinion" (whatever the hell that means, I assume he has access to a telephone and email, but I've never been to the Globe offices.). Like him or not, Shank is around. He's not around every day like a beat writer, but that's not his job. I've seen him at Fenway and the Garden and Foxboro.
 

If he heard "whispers", it's not good journalism to run straight to Ortiz to ask him and then write a story about it without any other diligence

 
No. Actually that is the definition of good journalism. You're giving the person you are reporting on the chance to speak out and tell his side of the story. And why are you so sure that no one, NO ONE, has whispered or wondered whether Ortiz is on steroids? Why is this so far from reality? The guy was in the Mitchell Report, his trainer was popped for being a big steroid guy and he's hitting over .400 the first month after he came back from knee surgery, no Spring Training at the age of 37 and with a history of having terribly poor first months. Are you kidding me? If this was Jeter or ARod, we'd have them strung up by now. *
 
Be somewhat objective, please.
 
* For the record, I don't give a crap about PEDs. The only thing that bums me out is that the numbers are more than a bit skewed now and it's hard to have an apples-to-apples comparison between players. However, due to the changing nature of the game no comparison was ever going to be true anyway. And if someone came up to me and offerred me a pill to be much better at my job, make more money, etc I would have a hard time saying no. These guys are good at chasing down round balls, they aren't super men.

 

[CR67dream]

I agree with most of what you say, Byron, but Ortiz was not in the Mitchell Report as far as I remember. He was on a list leaked during the BALCO fiasco, as an inconclusive test. This was a list meant to be confidential the year before the real, mandatory testing was to be introduced. I don't remember the story about the trainer. None of that matters as far as what he may or not be doing now, but his was a pretty unique case. 
 
And really, Shaughnessy being a douchebag is pretty common knowledge. This just didn't strike me as anything out of  the ordinary. Stirring the pot is what he's paid to do.

 

[twibnotes]

I wouldn't piss on him if he was on fire. Just a fucking joke.

You would think if a small spark got near that hair...

 

[John Marzano Olympic Hero]

 
 

 

I agree with most of what you say, Byron, but Ortiz was not in the Mitchell Report as far as I remember. He was on a list leaked during the BALCO fiasco, as an inconclusive test. This was a list meant to be confidential the year before the real, mandatory testing was to be introduced. I don't remember the story about the trainer. None of that matters as far as what he may or not be doing now, but his was a pretty unique case. 

 
 

 
You're 100% right, for some reason I thought that he was on the MR, and now that I think about no Red Sox were on that report. 

 

[JohntheBaptist]

I don't think that he's creating this out of thin air, though. Like I said prior, I love David Ortiz and I am really happy that he's hitting the crap out of the ball but did his gaudy numbers combined with his age make me raise an eyebrow? Yes. Unfortunately it did. And I'm sorry, but that's not my fault and it's not Shaughnessy's fault, it's the player's faults. They're the ones who abused PEDs for years and lied to us about it. Unfortunately, they're going to be in the crosshairs for a long time.

Sure, and that's fine, approaching Ortiz with his list of reasons for suspicion--that he's been named in the past, that he's Dominican, that he's hitting the ball well after injury, that he's hitting the ball well late in age and without a real Spring Training, and that PEDs are generally rampant anyway.  At least that's an honest dialogue.  It's the "hey David, people have been whispering about it since the start of the year, there are rumors so I just gotta ask," when really none have legitimately popped up and Shaughnessy is being particularly transparent in this pathetic little adolescent routine he does.  "Who me?!"
 
David Ortiz is a big boy and is in the public eye, so his sensibilities on the subject definitely don't require defending, I agree.  Still, he should just own up to it and admit he's asking because he thinks he's doing them.  But then he can't turn the reaction into a public attention gathering session, so I guess that's the way this dude rolls obviously.
 
Largely unrelated, one thing I'd like is to put a moratorium on the whole "I mean he's a great writer, he's just an asshole/ athlete hater/ whatever."  Its like that Jim Rice/ most intimidating AL hitter/ HoF argument that seemed to repeat on a loop, from everyone.  It's a minor point, but he's not a great writer.  He is a shitty writer.  There's more to it than turning a few clever phrases.

 

[Cellar-Door]

I enjoyed the bit where he basically slandered all Dominicans, that was adorable.

 

[Granite Sox]

If Shank had an actual source, you're absolutely right it would be the right thing to confront him and ask him directly. He did not. He confronted him with bullshit, David denied it with a solid counter argument about being tested repeatedly and Shank ran the column off of nothing anyway. He didn't check if he had been tested, didn't express his lack of faith in the testing MLB does, didn't do any kind of work to support his theory; he just sat down and typed some crap that would get him clicks.
 
His "proof" was Toronto fans chanting at him; David is Dominican and Dominicans have been "known" to use PEDs; and that what he is doing seems too good to be true. He did no work to find out about his testing or locate a source that suggested his angle was correct. I don't have a problem with him asking Ortiz the question, no matter his motivations. I have a problem with him writing the article when he has nothing but his own speculation to go on. I don't doubt that someone in the press booth has thrown out a "Hey, David looks to be back on the juice, amiright?!?!?" But that doesn't mean you go write an article about it without some friggin facts behind you. That is not the "definition of good journalism". That;s the definition of muckraking.

 
I'm not qualified to assess good vs. bad journalism, but indiscriminate stereotyping and accusations without evidence via the utilization of indirect and anonymous sources ("It's not me who is saying it, it's The Whisperers") doesn't sound like anything approaching acceptable methods.  As a columnist, he's offering his opinion (however execrable it may be), and didn't even stand behind it when questioning Ortiz, instead placing the source with "others".
 
I'm with PP on this one.  Complete lack of integrity.
 
Papi says it's discriminatory:  http://espn.go.com/boston/mlb/story/_/id/9260558/david-ortiz-boston-red-sox-says-ped-suggestions-discriminatory

 

[joe dokes]

 
Quote

 
 


 

I'm angry because he did it just to be a dick. Shaughnessy rarely asks the subjects of his column anything. He just writes his column from his desk and gives his opinion. He didn't do that here.

 


 

Seriously? How old are you? Because that is something a 12-year-old would say. And furthermore, he doesn't just "write columns from his desk and gives his opinion" (whatever the hell that means, I assume he has access to a telephone and email, but I've never been to the Globe offices.). Like him or not, Shank is around. He's not around every day like a beat writer, but that's not his job. I've seen him at Fenway and the Garden and Foxboro.

 
I'm 52 and have a BS in Journalism [insert joke here] (not gonna lie, though, actual journalism career was very short and very long ago).
 
First of all, the "sits at his desk" comment was "hyperbole," used to illustrate a larger point. I, too have "seen him around". He's hard to miss.
You go back and read Shaughnessy's colums for the last 5 years (or 10 or 20). 99% of them are his personal reactions to things that happen, (a/k/a "opinions"), and not the kind of pieces where interviews like the one he did with Ortiz are necessary or performed. He sees the game, maybe there are quotes, maybe there aren't. But then he gives his opinion on the matter.
 
He did not do that there. As others have pointed out, for a very rare time for him, the one thing missing from the whole piece was his opinion. Instead, he brought up the rarity of Ortiz's success and the whispers that "some people say." Even if you thought this was an acceptable way of going about it, Shaughnessy said more about his intent by his failure to give *his* opinion than by anything else. As for his methodology, the red flag for me is that Shaughnessy doesn't usually do "hey [player x], people are saying this stuff what do you think" pieces. He certainly didn't do one about Buchholz. he didn't ask carmelo anythiny what Carmelo Anthony thought about people thinking he was a "fraud." he just came right out and said it. "I think Carmelo is a fraud."
 
The change in his methodology is telling.  He *could* have written, "Incredible production for an old man. Has denied PED's. I dont believe it." But he didn't. Sometimes a cigar is just a cigar. And sometimes a dick is just a dick.

 

[John Marzano Olympic Hero]

Why don't you go ahead and find the last piece of news that CHB "broke". I haven't read him in years before this article, so maybe he's turned himself around during that time. I doubt it, but if it's there, I would love to see it. I'm not sure what "pseudo Journalism 101 bullshit" is supposed to imply exactly (I've never taken a journalism class in my life), but I

 
Why does the frequency of him breaking news matter? This is not a division of labor thing where Dan Shaughnessy writes his take and Peter Abraham is only allowed to break news. CHB has been in the Boston media for 30 years, he has sources. Sources tell him things that they may not say to Cafardo, Abraham, etc. (and this works the other way too). If Shank gets a piece of news, what's he supposed to do, not write anything? That's insane. And he broke one of the biggest Red Sox stories in the last ten years: the last days of Theo Epstein, where he left Fenway Park in a gorilla suit.
 

If he had some kind of tangible evidence that would provoke him to ask those questions, I would have no problem with him doing it. If he has that, then come forward with it. He didn't even confront Ortiz with anything other than citing that fans in Toronto chanted "steroids" at him. Is that what we are calling a good source these days?

 
Yes, I agree that the Toronto fans are jerks (especially the Toronto Stronger guy). But do you really think that's all he is going on? Seriously. There is no circumstancial evidence that made these questions even remotely apt? If you honestly don't believe this, then we're just wasting bandwidth at this point. I don't know what to tell you. Most times people don't hand you a story on a silver platter and tell you everything you need to know. You have to look and make reasonable assumptions. That's what Shank did here.
 
Whether you agree with that or not, is up to you.
 

First, he wasn't in the Mitchell Report (as you've acknowledged). There were vague leaks about him being on the BALCO list as an inconclusive test, which is far from damning evidence of anything, let alone specific use of any PED. Second, I have no idea what you're talking about with the trainer - link? third, he had an Achilles injury, not knee surgery. He had two or three seasons of slow starts and has otherwise not shown that in his career. I don't see how any of that
leads one to confidently arrive at the conclusion that he must be on PEDs.

 
Mea culpa on the knee/achilles thing. My bad. But the point stands. He was out for the last three months of the season, presumably didn't do any real works out in the off-season (probably upper body, but as we all know you need your legs to hit a baseball correctly) and completely missed Spring Training. He had, what? 10 days at Pawtucket?
 
And here is a link to Ortiz' trainer. His name is Angel Presinal and he has been banned from Major League Clubhouses. Again, another piece of circumstantial evidence.
 

 
I also have no idea why you brought Jeter into the conversation...the guy just had his best offensive year in 4 or 5 years at age 38 and I must have missed it when Joel Sherman or some other hack confronted him about PED use and wrote an article about his denials.

 
Skip Bayless did and it was a pretty big deal last year. So yeah, you did miss it.

If Shank had an actual source, you're absolutely right it would be the right thing to confront him and ask him directly. He did not. He confronted him with bullshit, David denied it with a solid counter argument about being tested repeatedly and Shank ran the column off of nothing anyway. He didn't check if he had been tested, didn't express his lack of faith in the testing MLB does, didn't do any kind of work to support his theory; he just sat down and typed some crap that would get
him clicks.

 
I can more than guarantee you that Dan Shaughnessy doesn't give a shit about clicks. Even if every single person in Massachusetts decided not to read any story written by him, there is no way in hell he's losing his job. He's pretty much close to being unfirable at the Boston Globe.
 
And here's the thing that you're missing, HE DID CONFRONT HIM. Dan Shaughnessy asked David Ortiz, face-to-face, if he was on PEDs. Ortiz said no and provided a bunch of evidence to support his statement. End of story. I simply don't get why this is a big deal.
 
Either you think David Ortiz is on PEDs or you don't or you simply don't care. I fall in the latter category, I really don't care. In fact, I kind of hope that he's on them because the Red Sox will do better.
 

His "proof" was Toronto fans chanting at him; David is Dominican and Dominicans have been "known" to use PEDs; and that what he is doing seems too good to be true. He did no work to find out about his testing or locate a source that suggested his angle was correct. I don't have a problem with him asking Ortiz the question, no matter his motivations. I have a problem with him writing the article when he has nothing but his own speculation to go on. I don't doubt that someone in the press booth has thrown out a "Hey, David looks to be back on the juice, amiright?!?!?" But that doesn't mean you go write an article about it without some friggin facts behind you. That is not the "definition of good journalism". That;s the definition of muckraking.

 
No. That is not the definition of muck-raking. Muck-raking is making a claim against someone and not allowing that person a chance to defend himself. If Shank wrote, "David Ortiz kicks the shit out of his wife and that is why he's getting a divorce." and doesn't allow Ortiz to counter that statement, then that is muck-raking. To write, "I think David Ortiz might not be clean" and then go to Ortiz, tell him what you think and allow him to speak about it. That happens literally every single day in the newspaper world. I'm sorry that you find this unfair or even jarring, but it's true. And to be honest with you, it's only going to get worse.
 
What this all boils down to is that you can either believe David Ortiz or Dan Shaughnessy and you're angry that people might believe Dan Shaughnessy.

 

[joe dokes]

.
 
 
 
 
 
.
 
 
. To write, "I think David Ortiz might not be clean" and then go to Ortiz, tell him what you think and allow him to speak about it. That happens literally every single day in the newspaper world. I'm sorry that you find this unfair or even jarring, but it's true. And to be honest with you, it's only going to get worse.
 
.

 
Except that Shaughnessy didn't say "I think Ortiz may not be clean."  And he didn't have anything new -- other than his 1st 40 at bats -- to even claim that "some people" are "saying things."  Really, if Shaughnessy had simply said, "I think he's dirty, so I'm going to ask him," I wouldn't really have a problem with it. But he's afraid to say that. (OTOH--He wouldn't be afraid to say, "I think he's done" if Ortiz had gone 0-40 instead of 20-40.")

 

[John Marzano Olympic Hero]

Except that Shaughnessy didn't say "I think Ortiz may not be clean."  And he didn't have anything new -- other than his 1st 40 at bats -- to even claim that "some people" are "saying things."  Really, if Shaughnessy had simply said, "I think he's dirty, so I'm going to ask him," I wouldn't really have a problem with it. But he's afraid to say that. (OTOH--He wouldn't be afraid to say, "I think he's done" if Ortiz had gone 0-40 instead of 20-40.")

 
So your basic problem is that Dan Shaughnessy is a pussy?
 
I think that's something we can all agree on.

 

[Investor 11]

CHB was just on the Jay Mohr show, which is horrible enough to listen to on its own. Mohr was basically fellating him for having the guts to "put his name on it" in regards to the article.

CHB seemed to me to be looking for sympathy. He sounded very sullen and kept saying that it comes with the territory and that he really likes Papi.

 

[joe dokes]

So your basic problem is that Dan Shaughnessy is a pussy?
 
I think that's something we can all agree on.

 
All right, now that we've got that settled . . . . .
 
 

 

[DJnVa]

I'll admit I never did the math--were Dominicans over-represented in the report a few years ago and do they have a higher than expect suspension rate now?

 

[Red(s)HawksFan]

I'll admit I never did the math--were Dominicans over-represented in the report a few years ago and do they have a higher than expect suspension rate now?

 
I think it's more that the Dominican is less regulated and players seem to be able to get "supplements" that would at the very least be questionable in nature were they in the US.

 

[Kenny F'ing Powers]

I'll admit I never did the math--were Dominicans over-represented in the report a few years ago and do they have a higher than expect suspension rate now?



"Dominicans are the only steroid users." - Ryan Braun/Jason Giambi/Roger Clemens/Andy Petitte/a million other people

 

[DJnVa]

"Dominicans are the only steroid users." - Ryan Braun/Jason Giambi/Roger Clemens/Andy Petitte/a million other people

 
I just looked at the list on wiki:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Major_League_Baseball_players_suspended_for_performance-enhancing_drugs
 
Quick and dirty, it came out to just less than 20% of those listed were born in the Dominican Republic, which is higher than the percentage appearing in major league games in 2012.
 
None of which means CHB should lump all Dominicans together.

 

[wutang112878]

I realize this gets into CHBs standards and he is really just trying to get attention but I have a question about the journalism standards here.  CHB is basically profiling by taking the one positive test Ortiz had plus age, injuries, ethnicity and results to deduce that he is still using.  Not that its a ridiculous assertion, but for those wiser than me, what are the journalistic standards here?  For example, its my understanding if you are going to report something significant as fact and dont have on the record sources the industry standard is to have 2 verified off the record sources.  Are there any real standards on conjecture?

 

[DJnVa]

To me, the bigger deal is that he had racial undertones to his comments.
 
Take the same style of writing and apply it elsewhere and there's an unending cascade of shit coming down on CHB.
 
"You're from the Middle East..."
"You're a female..."

 

[scotian1]

Check the careers of Ted Williams and Hank Aaron, they did pretty good after the age of 37. In fact atthe age of 37 he hit 47 homers, 34 at 38 and 40 at 39. Williams  at 39 yrs had 38 home runs. So the CHB's rule of thumb has very notable exceptions.

 

[NDame616]

I think it's more that the Dominican is less regulated and players seem to be able to get "supplements" that would at the very least be questionable in nature were they in the US.

These guys are professional athletes and probably about 90% of them have been working out most of their adult lives. In the US, you can buy a membership at Golds Gym, go there for a month and become friends with guys "in the know" and you can probably get your hands on any "supplement" you'd like. 
 
Maybe in the Dominican it's a bit easier, but anyone in the US, especially professional athletes, can very easily get their hands on anything they'd like.

 

[Snodgrass'Muff]

Bullshit. Shank is not an investigative journalist. He's a columnist. He has the choice to write stories about the local teams in a positive or negative light. He consistently chooses the negative side of every story.  I'm not suggesting it's his job to do puff pieces on the local players but it's also not his job to stir shit up when he has nothing to go on other than pure speculation. When Ortiz was taking so long to come back, no one "whispered" about PEDs, despite his history of being labeled a user. Because he has a few hot weeks when he gets back, all of sudden now there is proof enough to suggest he is using?

 
His job is to create content that draws page hits and sells newspapers.  He's done that successfully here.  He has no ethical or moral obligation to balance his stories between positive and negative.  He has no obligation to say anything positive about the teams in Boston or the city itself in the first place.  He is only concerned with drawing attention, and as long as he keeps doing that, the Globe will happily keep paying him for his services.  The outrage here is overblown.  This story is neither surprising nor is it the first of its kind from Shaughnessy.  This is what he does, and he does it well.
 
And honestly, would a single poster here be truly shocked to learn that David Ortiz tested positive for PEDs sometime later this season?  I have a hard time believing anyone could honestly say yes.  It sucks, but that's just the age we live in and there are certainly a few red flags in Papi's case.
 

To me, the bigger deal is that he had racial undertones to his comments.
 
Take the same style of writing and apply it elsewhere and there's an unending cascade of shit coming down on CHB.
 
"You're from the Middle East..."
"You're a female..."

 
This is the only part of the article that I think was beyond the pale.  And this has to do with a lot more than David Ortiz.

 

[bankshot1]

Check the careers of Ted Williams and Hank Aaron, they did pretty good after the age of 37. In fact atthe age of 37 he hit 47 homers, 34 at 38 and 40 at 39. Williams  at 39 yrs had 38 home runs. So the CHB's rule of thumb has very notable exceptions.

While he dodges CHB's Dominican bullet, If Captain Intangible makes it back this year, at 38, he better not get off to a torrid start, or his PEDigree might get challenged. 

 

[trekfan55]

Ryan Braun is still playing and commanding a salary from the Brewers because someone somewhere did not follow the custody procedures to the letter.  Let's not get into how that should never have been leaked or anything, just that from an Arbitration point of view the test never happened.  Ortiz's alleged result also comes from an untrustworthy source back in the day.
 
Ortiz gets tested regularly now, and has been tested 5 times already this year.
 
That should be enough.  Why would a journalist start speculating?  Just to piss people off?  Well, we know CHB loves doing that and I refuse to give him the pleasure.  I will not click on his link, nor will I give eyeballs to his columns.  Papi has every right to be pissed because not only is he assuming crap, he basically told him all Dominicans cheat. 

 

[JohntheBaptist]

The outrage here is overblown. This story is neither surprising nor is it the first of its kind from Shaughnessy.  This is what he does, and he does it well.

Replace "story" with "post,"  "Shaughnessy" with "Snodgrass' Muff" and read "this" to refer to offerings of mind-numbing uselessness stretched across a volume of text that would defy imagination, and you've got my self-response to every Snod post I happen to notice.
 
You spent ~200 words saying absolutely nothing and then don't even address the rare bit of substance you tossed off at the end.  What does this have to do with anything?
 
The reaction to this Shaughnessy bon mot has nothing to do with Sox fans' inability to be realistic about David Ortiz, although that might also be true.  It's that we can all tell exactly what he's doing--creating a story, attention and controversy out of nothing material and then doubling back and SMH'ing at everyone who is just too blinded by their infantile and contemptible love of the Boston Red Sox to just get real and face the facts about David Ortiz and those nefarious rumors we've all been hearing.
 

So your basic problem is that Dan Shaughnessy is a pussy?

Bingo.  And the whole trolling thing that accompanies it.  He can ask as many steroid questions as he wants--that's his job and the bed MLB made for itself.  The content of the controversy doesn't strike me as a big deal; it is, again, his approach.  Which, like you said--we can all agree sucks and stinks and sucks.
 
The Dominican stuff is par for the course with him but it was also a rare troll-misstep.  Gave Ortiz something to really hammer him on, which he's usually better at sidestepping.
 
edit--I should add, even as an avowed Ortiz lover, I've been wanting someone to ask him about this subject for a while now, to get his take/ reaction.

 

[natpastime162]

Dominican player have tested postive for steroids
Achilles Injuries are a sign of steroid use
David Ortiz must be a steroid user.
 
I've seen lurkers and members on this forum called out for less racists/discrimatory/misogynstic comments in game threads.
 
Shank is a skilled troll.  He knows which cultures he can get away with pissing off.

 

[HurstSoGood]

The bigger question in all this is whether the organization/MLB is even testing for the latest designer PEDs. CHB is a major league Delta Bravo. Everything else is just smoke and mirrors. If my source is correct, the league(s) are/have been 10 years behind in the chase.

 

[twothousandone]

Did CHB ask similar questions of Jacoby Ellsbury during his power surge? Wasn't there equal "reason" to ask him in those days? The surprising increase in power, following a season with an inordinate amount of time on the DL?  PED's make bones more brittle? I think that's as much "evidence" as CHB seems to offer up here (although I have not read the story). Such a story could have accused native American's of disproportionate substance abuse problems, or something. It would be right in line with this one. 

 

[Doctor G]

Check the careers of Ted Williams and Hank Aaron, they did pretty good after the age of 37. In fact atthe age of 37 he hit 47 homers, 34 at 38 and 40 at 39. Williams  at 39 yrs had 38 home runs. So the CHB's rule of thumb has very notable exceptions.

You can add in Willie  Stargell.

 

[The Gray Eagle]

I'm sure next time Mariano Rivera is in town CHB will ask him if he's on steroids too. He's OLD! And GOOD! And FOREIGN! And coming off an INJURY! Therefore he needs to be asked about it by this ace investigative journalist. Oh wait, that wouldn't irritate Red Sox fans one bit, so CHB has zero interest in doing that. His schtick is just to try to infuriate Boston fans any way he can.
 
If everyone agrees that the "job" of a sports columnist is just to generate attention for themselves by creating "controversy," then these columnists are basically just trolls, like jerks on the internet. And why should anyone read a sports columnist then? Do you enjoy being trolled? I don't.
 
Sports columnists used to have a purpose-- their opinions were more informed than those of almost all fans. Most games weren't televised, and there wasn't any other way for fans to get info, so the opinion of a person who saw every game and spoke to the players and was a trained professional was worth more than that of Johnny Burger King.
 
But now everyone can watch every game, and probably see more than you can from the press box. You can watch the postgame to see what the players and managers have to say, and read loads and loads of opinion and analysis on the internet. Sports columnists really don't offer anything at all if they take the "controversy" route. They become annoying and worse than useless, they become barriers to enjoying sports.
 
Thankfully there are some good columnists out there like Posnanski who offer way more than the troll types. But as far as I'm concerned if a writer has to be defended by the old "he's just doing his job, which is to create attention for himself and get web clicks etc." then I have zero interest in what they have to say. They are just trying to push buttons, they aren't trying to inform anyone about any truth about anything. So reading them or paying attention to them is a waste of time, and only encourages them to keep it up.
 
Go on and do your job then troll, just like pro wrestling villains have their jobs to do as well. They are on that very same level now. CHB is the Iron Sheik, but without any of the humor.

 

[Harry Hooper]

CHB is the Iron Sheik, but without any of the humor.

 
 

Can a dope make this the new title for this thread? Thank you.

 

[soxfan121]

The reaction to this Shaughnessy bon mot has nothing to do with Sox fans' inability to be realistic about David Ortiz, although that might also be true.  It's that we can all tell exactly what he's doing--creating a story, attention and controversy out of nothing material and then doubling back and SMH'ing at everyone who is just too blinded by their infantile and contemptible love of the Boston Red Sox to just get real and face the facts about David Ortiz and those nefarious rumors we've all been hearing.

 
THAT'S WHAT A COLUMNIST IS SUPPOSED TO DO. Create a story, get attention, milk controversy and then doubling back to "SMH" at everyone. Literally, what you have written might appear in the actual HR-approved job description for a media columnist. 
 
 

Researcher: The average radio listener listens for eighteen minutes a day. The average Howard Stern fan listens for - are you ready for this? - an hour and twenty minutes.
Kenny: How could this be?
Researcher: Answer most commonly given: "I want to see what he'll say next."
Kenny: : All right, fine. But what about the people who hate Stern?
Researcher: Good point. The average Stern hater listens for two and a half hours a day.
Kenny: : But... if they hate him, why do they listen?
Researcher: Most common answer: "I want to see what he'll say next."

 

[JohntheBaptist]

THAT'S WHAT A COLUMNIST IS SUPPOSED TO DO. Create a story, get attention, milk controversy and then doubling back to "SMH" at everyone. Literally, what you have written might appear in the actual HR-approved job description for a media columnist. 

It is one of many things they can do.  Please also note as well that I said "create out of nothing material."  Sort of the crux of my point.  I also reject this stupid argument that to be a newspaper columnist is to be definitionally transparently full of shit, even if many of them are, and that this somehow stops the conversation--even if it's what they're "supposed" to do, when it's done, the methods by which they employ the "HR-approved job description of a media columnist" are at least interesting enough to discuss.  Which is all I've been trying to do now for something like five posts.
 
Spare me all the "that's the reality, kid" stuff.  I know how this works, and I know what he does is effective.  We can have a discussion about what he's doing and how he's doing it without people poking their heads in here to scream YEAH BUT HE'S GOOD AT IT SO HE DOES IT AND THEY ALL DO.  Right?

 

[Van Everyman]

Where was this column last year when Papi had 324 ABs and one of the best seasons of his career until the steroids corroded his Achilles?

 

[InsideTheParker]

While he dodges CHB's Dominican bullet, If Captain Intangible makes it back this year, at 38, he better not get off to a torrid start, or his PEDigree might get challenged. 

If CI does "get off to a torrid start," I  am sure that no one on Sosh will even politely ask the question.
 
Some folks are posting in this thread after declaring that they haven't read the column b/c they don't want to give DS the traffic. Then, it ought to follow that you have nothing to say on this column. I almost never read him, but a reference in the game thread sent me looking. I'm glad I did, b/c I enjoyed reading Ortiz' eloquent and convincing responses. Now, if DS is dining out on this issue and not presenting it on TV the way he did in the Glob, then that's a different story.

 

[crystalline]

Shank is an idiot who makes the Red Sox less fun to follow because of all his negativity.

I loved Ortiz calling him out as a racist. Because historically he loved to slag Pedro/Manny and now Ortiz.

The depressing part is that CHB is going to get 2-4 more columns about Oritz's sensitivity and maybe one about how he called out Clemens too so he's not a racist. Blech. I'm not going to read them.

 

[Snodgrass'Muff]

Replace "story" with "post,"  "Shaughnessy" with "Snodgrass' Muff" and read "this" to refer to offerings of mind-numbing uselessness stretched across a volume of text that would defy imagination, and you've got my self-response to every Snod post I happen to notice.
 
You spent ~200 words saying absolutely nothing and then don't even address the rare bit of substance you tossed off at the end.  What does this have to do with anything?
 
The reaction to this Shaughnessy bon mot has nothing to do with Sox fans' inability to be realistic about David Ortiz, although that might also be true.  It's that we can all tell exactly what he's doing--creating a story, attention and controversy out of nothing material and then doubling back and SMH'ing at everyone who is just too blinded by their infantile and contemptible love of the Boston Red Sox to just get real and face the facts about David Ortiz and those nefarious rumors we've all been hearing.
 
Bingo.  And the whole trolling thing that accompanies it.  He can ask as many steroid questions as he wants--that's his job and the bed MLB made for itself.  The content of the controversy doesn't strike me as a big deal; it is, again, his approach.  Which, like you said--we can all agree sucks and stinks and sucks.
 
The Dominican stuff is par for the course with him but it was also a rare troll-misstep.  Gave Ortiz something to really hammer him on, which he's usually better at sidestepping.
 
edit--I should add, even as an avowed Ortiz lover, I've been wanting someone to ask him about this subject for a while now, to get his take/ reaction.

 
Start off by removing the majority of a paragraph to harp on one sentence out of context?  Check.  Attack the poster instead of the post?  Check.  Dismiss a differing viewpoint as invalid without actually responding to what was said?  Check.  Construct a straw man to beat down?  Check.
 
Thank you for this shining example of quality posting.  I've learned a lot.
 
I was responding very specifically to PP ranting about what Shaughnessy's job isn't while ignoring what his job is.  Pointing out that the outrage over Shaughnessy doing what he always does is not an attack on all of the posts in this thread.  It is about only the posts that are expressing, well, outrage.  I also did not claim that people cannot be realistic about Ortiz.  I pointed out that he's not immune from speculation about PED's.  That's it.
 
What's interesting to me is that you seem to agree with me that Shaughnessy is just doing what he always does and that the content of his column isn't really a big deal.  And yet when I post a similar thought it is devoid of value?  You went from dismissing my point to agreeing with it in the span of a single post.

 

[mt8thsw9th]

I just read it and I don't see it the way you guys do. He gave David a platform to answer the question, "Why are you, an old guy, doing so well?" and David gave great, very convincing answers which DS didn't quibble with.

I didn't catch it, but did he ask him when he stopped beating his wife?

 

[HomeBrew1901]

Just so I'm clear, posters are pissed at Shaugnessy for actually asking Ortiz to his face whether or no the was on PEDs and repoting what he said rather than just writing his opinion? Do I have that right?

 

[URI]

Start off by removing the majority of a paragraph to harp on one sentence out of context?  Check.  Attack the poster instead of the post?  Check.  Dismiss a differing viewpoint as invalid without actually responding to what was said?  Check.  Construct a straw man to beat down?  Check.
 
Thank you for this shining example of quality posting.  I've learned a lot.
 
I was responding very specifically to PP ranting about what Shaughnessy's job isn't while ignoring what his job is.  Pointing out that the outrage over Shaughnessy doing what he always does is not an attack on all of the posts in this thread.  It is about only the posts that are expressing, well, outrage.  I also did not claim that people cannot be realistic about Ortiz.  I pointed out that he's not immune from speculation about PED's.  That's it.
 
What's interesting to me is that you seem to agree with me that Shaughnessy is just doing what he always does and that the content of his column isn't really a big deal.  And yet when I post a similar thought it is devoid of value?  You went from dismissing my point to agreeing with it in the span of a single post.

Shut up.

 

[genivive]

How is it that every single discussion dissolves into bickering and insults?  This is getting ridiculous.

 

[502 to Right]

CHB is a no talent ass clown.  I wish we could all ignore the likes of CHB and Skip Bayless and then they'd be unemployed.

 

[mt8thsw9th]

How is it that every single discussion dissolves into bickering and insults?  This is getting ridiculous.

Shut up,