In today's SN column, I lead with a review of a valuable lesson in journalism -- or any sort of reporting/commentary/opinion-spouting/punditry:
If you imply or question that a particular person might be using PEDs -- say, Raul Ibanez -- you are going to get crushed for it.
If you announce outright that "everyone" was using PEDs -- say, in 2003 (when we all know that everyone was using steroids) -- you are perfectly safe in your generalization.
Because the fact is this: Back in 2003? Everyone WAS cheating with PEDs. Maybe not all were using steroids. But all WERE using amphetamines -- now banned for being... ta-da... PEDs.
That's just a little context as you consider why the reaction to "Sammy Sosa tested positive for PEDs back in 2003!!!!!!!!!" just doesn't move the needle.
(1) We already figured he was using them.
(2) 2003? Cripes: Who WASN'T using PEDs?
That's two straight days of non-story: Yesterday, the Lange-Buck fake drama. Today, the Sosa unshocker.
Can't we focus on more interesting things? Like:
*Here come the Rays...
*Epiphanny Prince tells the WNBA/NCAA restraint-of-trade to eff off.
*Who will end up trading for Brandon Marshall?
*Kevin Love breaking news on Twitter
It's all in today's SN column. Check it out here. More later. If you were tracking yesterday, you see I'm ramping it up a bit.