Eight days after Sports Illustrated reported that NFL draft prospect B.J. Raji had failed a drug test, the magazine says it has removed the story from its web site while it continues to investigate.The story, which is still available via the Google cache, said that Raji, a former Boston College defensive tackle, "had a positive drug test" at the league's scouting combine in February. The information was attributed to unnamed "NFL team sources." Raji's agent disputed the report, and Sports Illustrated removed the story from its web site.
But SI didn't post a correction or retraction. On Friday I asked an SI spokesman for an explanation, and I got this statement:
"We have investigated the claims of Mr. Raji's agent and although we have several credible sources for the report we have decided to take it down while we continue reporting the story."That statement is puzzling because media outlets aren't in the habit of withdrawing stories that have "several credible sources." I have attempted to contact Tony Pauline, the writer whose byline appeared on the story, and have not been able to get in touch with him. I have also left a message with Raji's agent.
The bottom line, though, is that if Sports Illustrated were completely confident that its sources were credible, it wouldn't have taken the report off the site. Both Raji and SI's readers deserve a more thorough explanation.



















Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
4-10-2009 @ 12:14PM
Adam said...
SI shouldn't have jumped the gun, but this does show the difference between a legitimate news source, and a hack news source. SI is doing the right thing in at least doing more investigation, while the website that likely lied about the other steroids claims is continuing to lie for their own personal gain.
Reply
4-10-2009 @ 4:20PM
Trogdor said...
How is this the right thing? Of all available options, this is the most cowardly. If the original report is right, stand behind it. If it's wrong, they need to make a retraction as public as the accusation.
Instead they just kill the URL, and when pressed about it claim to be investigating further? If that's true, leave the article up with a big ol' disclaimer at the top, or pull it and print a "we need to investigate this more fully" retraction. The choice they made reeks of pretending it didn't happen and hoping things would just blow over. It's the choice of weasels and cowards.
They need to stand behind the story, or publicly and loudly retract and apologize. Their response is simply pathetic.
Reply