While there obviously is greater willingness in sportswriting/sportscasting these days to take on controversial subjects, I see at least two areas that reporters are loath to touch.
One is the phenomenon of the skinny high school/college athlete who achieves success by “bulking up” during a relatively short time period. A case in point - the Fordham quarterback who hopes to be selected in the NFL draft. A story in USA Today mentions that this guy went from a 6’6 “lightly recruited rail-thin 185-pounder out of El Paso” (high school) to his current weight of 245 pounds. No mention of how he managed this.
Now, maybe he downed a heck of a lot of milkshakes and high-calorie foods or found some other way of adding all that weight (presumably, the great majority of it muscle). There could be unusual instances of athletes with ectomorphic body types who are able to beat the odds and add more than the usual limited amount of muscle through some extra diet and training. Still, even with the presumption that this particular gain was accomplished in a safe manner without the aid of, um, artificial additives, wouldn’t you think that the reporter would ask the athlete how he managed to “bulk up” to this extent? Beyond the immediate aspects there should be consideration of the impact this type of story has on other aspiring athletes, who get the message that “bulking up” is part of the pathway to success, but which can lead to problems.
And this isn’t the first time I’ve seen athletes and coaches get a pass in this situation from reporters.
Another area where reporters seem to fear to tread is in the case of athletes who are very outspoken about and proselytize for their religion. Tim Tebow is an example. His aggressive proselytizing rarely results in any aggressive questioning by reporters.
Tebow is viewed skeptically by a lot of pro scouts/executives - not for his religious beliefs, but due to the perception that he doesn’t have the ability/skills to succeed in pro ball. A story in today’s Washington Post cites the prevailing negative views on his potential, but then goes on to quote glowing praise from former coach Dan Reeves, who thinks Tebow is Super Bowl caliber and that his “intangibles” are a big help. Now I only follow pro football casually, but I’m aware that Reeves is widely known as an “outspoken Christian” and member of a “Christian Speaker Bureau”. Wouldn’t it be logical for the reporter to ask Reeves if being a high-power Christian has anything to do with his high opinion of Tebow, and if there are any potential negatives to that attribute?
Retain whatever access he has to Coach Reeves, the Broncos, and supporters thereof.
Not annoy his audience with bullshit. When you interview an athlete, I want to hear about his play on the field. I don’t care how he votes, what religion he follows, or who he fucks.
Touche. But still, I don’t expect whoever interviews him on the field to ask him about his zipper malfunction instead of about how he performed during the game.
On a related note, and I don’t a cite handy, but I heard on ESPN radio that the NCAA is instituting a “Tebow Rule” against having any messages in eyeblack from now on. I have no problem with the rule.
Sports reporter checking in: I will ask kids about their off-season workouts, but I’m not certain what answer you’re expecting to get from the kid who’s bulked up. “Yes, Mr. Reporter, I’ve been drinking HGH smoothies for breakfast and jabbing horse steroids into my neck.” They’ll just tell me they they’ve spent hours in the gym and it’s not like I have the ability to verify or contradict that. And sometimes, high school kids will have big old growth spurts. The reporter in question probably asked and got an uninteresting answer.
I went from 145 to 185 in my four years on college, approximately the same percentage increase as this guy, and that was being a theatre major, not trying to work out and get bigger and stronger.
The college years are a time when people get bigger.
Bigger yes - my question is how much muscle mass gets added through food intake and workouts. From one of the links above:
*"Just how much muscle a man can put on through training varies. “It really depends on the individual’s age, genetic profile, hormone levels, how hard and long a person might train, what kind of diet they consume and if they are taking any performance-enhancing drugs or supplements,” says Jeffrey Potteiger, chair of the department of physical education, health and sports studies at Miami University in Oxford, Ohio.
A young, healthy man who’s not taking steroids could still pack on several pounds of muscle in a couple of months if he’s training hard, he says…Most gains happen in the beginning of a strength program. Over time, (a professor of nutrition) says, the average muscle gain for men is about four or five pounds total."*
So it might be reasonable to ask a few questions of an athlete who’s put on 60 pounds of what looks like lean body mass in college.
Personally I’m not very interested in what athletes do off the field. When they demand attention through personal beliefs or activities they are promoting, reporters need to be more than passive vessels for p.r. purposes.
Perhaps it’s something in the water in the Bronx. I had a college roommate that came into the fall semester at about 185, and by graduation was like 230 or 240, and he definitely didn’t juice. Speaking as a Fordham grad, I hope that Skelton turns out to be the real deal - we haven’t had an NFLer since Kurt Sohn was playing TE for the Jets in the 80’s.
