In light of the Raul Ibanez vs. Blogger firestorm, one would think we’re talking about a supreme court hearing, not simple speculation (that is warranted)

SCOTT JACOBS

Talk about crying over spilt milk.

The media has been in a tizzy the last couple days after an every day blogger decided to write an article questioning whether the Phillies’ Raul Ibanez might be on steroids after a blisteringly hot start in which he is second in the majors in home runs.

Ibanez is 37.  Baseball players are in a ring of fire nowadays because media darlings, A-Rod and Manny (amongst others) have tested positive for drugs.  Specualation is running rampant faster than Usain Bolt on which big name will fall (and fall hard) next, and because of a stupid question from a well known Philadelphia Inquirer columnist, the sports world is abuzz about how dirty and sickening us sports blogging folks are.

You know what?  This whole thing is one big joke.

Did anyone stop to even read the blogger’s story before they trashed it as being some stupid unwarranted opinion?  Probably not.  Did the Inquirer columnist give Ibanez a chance to even read the article before he spit out his ignorant remark about the “sports bloggers writing in their mother’s basement” remark?  Again, probably not.

Did the mainstream media give this relatively unknown blogger (until now) a fair chance in this whole mess?  Doubtful.

Sports bloggers are so easy to pick on.  We’re unregulated (for the most part) and through word of mouth and nifty social networking we can make great strides in getting our voice out into the open.  Most of us are assumed to be angry, grouchy, beer-belly carrying jerks who just want to stir up problems.  Since it’s so easy to stereotype, many in the mainstream media probably look at us as gnats, people who can’t accomplish anything, but can create unnecessary issues.

We’re an easy target.  When one blogger says something controversial or even out of line, we all take the rap for it.  No one gives us credibility, at least not mainstream.  Bloggers basically are guilty until proven… even more guilty.

We’re the fall guys.  Even when we’re probably right, mainstream media will find a way to point us out as being wrong. Why do they do it?  I could name a number of reasons:

* They assume that we’re not qualified because we’re not a card carrying sports writer.
* They assume that we’re just bitter, and have no intention of laying out facts in our arguments.
* They don’t want to face the reality that some sports bloggers are damn good writers, and that they are as good, if not better than your daily columnist at the local paper.
* Or maybe that they’re afraid that we have a voice (a small one albeit, but one that has the ability to be heard if the right person gets ahold of our work).
* They probably think that we don’t do any research, just use our blogging as a platform for our own unfiltered opinions, and have no intention of validating it with logic.

Whatever the reason (it’s irrelevent) sports bloggers are the scape goat of the media.  The media is the scapegoat of the players (sense a trend here?)  We’re seen as the lowest rung of the sports food chain, nerds with a computer and an ability to vent.

But that is beyond unfair.

And for an innocent sports blogger to get bashed the way he has over a very innocent story that simply puts out into the open the possibility that Ibanez’s unusually torrid start has something to do with PED’s, well I think that’s unfair.  And wrong.  And just another example of how easy it is to bully a sports blogger even when they may be onto something.

“[Sports bloggers] are an easy target.  When one blogger says something controversial or even out of line, we all take the rap for it.  No one gives us credibility, at least not mainstream.  Bloggers basically are guilty until proven… even more guilty.”

Sports bloggers are fans, and fans have eyes, which mean that even though they’re not living in clubhouses and decorated with fancy media passes to press conferences, we still can see abnormalites when they happen.  Ibanez’s unusually hot start ater signing a nice little free agent contract in the offseason (with the defending champs nonetheless) does breed grounds for suspicion.  Suspicion.  I’m not saying he’s using them, just like the blogger wasn’t either.

I am saying that you are totally naive if you don’t get suspicious at this point.

It’s the sickening statement of the century in my opinion, but it’s damn well true.  When enough bad apples fall out of a tree, it’s not hard to ponder how many more bad apples there might be.

Baseball especially is ripe for this crap.  And it’s crap indeed, because if they had instituted a drug testing program years ago we’re probably not having this discussion.  But they didn’t, and it took them years to come up with something somewhat efficient, so long in fact, that the newest national past-time nowadays is retracing players careers back in the day and trying to figure out who might be one of those bad apples.  It’s sick, and it makes me nauseaus to think that this is where baseball finds itself, in quicksand, with little leverage to climb out.  Until a few years go by without a big name getting rattled out, baseball’s cloud of supicion will continue to hover.

A sports blogger getting attacked for contemplating aloud the obvious questions is completely absurd.  The obvious isn’t Raul Ibanez either.  it’s that anyone who blazes to a hot start or an abnormal season is bound to get that finger waved in their face (the finger of not admiration, but of fear).

The story became so big that the blogger got a chance (sort of) to go on Outside the Lines to defend himself, in what became a debate more about sports bloggers, than Ibanez.  Ken Rosenthal, who I previously respected, ripped the blogger a new you know what, attacking the blogger from every angle in an effort to make his article look like a sham.

I don’t think what the blogger did was wrong.  First of all, and it’s terrible that I have to relegate to this, but writing an article that claims to disprove the notion that an aging 37 year old baseball player is on steroids is not a crime.  It should be commended if nothing else.  After thorough research of ball park dimensions, the pitchers he got his homers off of, and other factors, he came to the conclusion that it was a possibility (not a probability, not a damn near certainty) that Ibanez may have been juicing.

The media is so quick to come to conclusions.  But when you’ve got idiots like Rafael Palmeiro wagging his finger at Congress, claiming to never have taken steroids, and then he fails a test, who can you believe?  When we were fully convinced that Manny Ramirez was just a once in a generation hitter who could make contact on any pitch, and then he fails a drug test, well, why should we believe in him?  When A-Rod, the greatest thing since sliced bread (cough, cough, sarcasm) has remarkable seasons, one in which he wins the AL MVP, and then we find out he too was juicing, that just stirs the pot for further suspicion.

The fact of the matter is, sports bloggers and fans alike have a right to be skeptical.  They have a right to do thorough research, and then leave wondering if so and so might be juicing.

This blogger never said “Raul Ibanez did steroids, I know it!”

All he said was it was a possibility, as unfortunate that it would be.

If anything, this blogger simply did what not enough in the sports blogging world do: took the time to tread through all the numbers and the facts, and came to a finality that steroid use was a possibility.

If what he did was “out of line,” then what Rosenthal did in his baseless bashing of the blogger was flat out gross.

As for the rest of the media, well, let’s just say they seem to like to drive things way out of proportion.  But they’ve got credentials, we don’t.  So I guess we’re supposed to just grin and bear it?

No!  Not going to happen.

The times they are a changing, and the media might want to accept that.

Sports bloggers, contrary to what some may think, actually may be able to contribute a thing or two to the conversation.  But shhh… don’t tell anyone.

Photo: AP

Popularity: 4% [?]