Players' Lawyer: NFL Should Deny Access to SI Over Drug Test Reports

David Cornwell, a lawyer who has represented several NFL players and was a finalist for the job as head of the players' union, is urging the NFL to withhold credentials from the Sports Illustrated web site over its reporting on confidential drug test results.

Cornwell's comments are the latest criticism of Sports Illustrated and a report by Tony Pauline that appeared on SI.com on April 2, claiming that former Boston College defensive tackle BJ Raji failed a drug test and attributing that information to unnamed "team sources." Raji denies that he tested positive, and NFL drug tests are supposed to be confidential, so any leaking of information is a violation of league rules.

Cornwell said the following in a statement to Pro Football Talk:

"The NFL should withhold access to all NFL-controlled events from Tony Pauline and SI.com until Pauline's source is revealed. The public has no right to know information that NFL has an obligation to keep confidential. No legitimate interest overrides a player's fundamental right to confidentiality. If I am wrong, then the public certainly has the right to know the names of the cowards who repeatedly breach confidentiality - only after receiving a reporter's guarantee of anonymity. It is preposterous to look the other way when players' rights to confidentiality are breached, then wave the flag for journalistic integrity to protect the people who violate those rights."

Pauline's report has since been pulled from the web site, but it can still be read here. Sports Illustrated initially offered no explanation at all for pulling the story. A magazine spokesperson later said that editors decided to take it down while continuing to report. Raji and his agents say the story is false, but SI.com has not published a correction or retraction.

I disagree with Cornwell that the NFL should pull SI.com's credentials. I'm a proponent of more media access, not less. But Cornwell is absolutely right that Sports Illustrated is in the wrong here, and it's long past time for Pauline and his editors to explain themselves.

Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)

4-13-2009 @ 9:38AM

pauln286 said...

Why pick on Tony Pauline? If Sports Illistrated wants to have the ethics of the National Inquirer that is their choice. Tony is doing his job and that is finding and reporting a story.

From there it is entirely up to the editors and management of the magazine as to whether it will go to print. SI is the rumor monger here.

BTW I have never heard of Tony Pauline before all this.

Now after that every other carrier of the article must decide if this is factual without proof. Well please consider the source, because if you reported this you too are the same rumor mongers as Sports Illistrated.

So please get off Tony's back and look in the mirror instead

4-13-2009 @ 4:14PM

Tom said...

They should ban SI completely until they give up their source. Everyone reporter tries to outdo the other, and the person on the other side of the story pays the price when the wrong information comes out. What happens when the press is wrong? Nothing, a slap on the wrist.

Enough of this "we have a right to know" BS. I would love to meet Bob Costas and ask him what position he and his wife like (if he even has one). My point is the press takes everything WAY, WAY too far. They say we have a right to know. No, it's none of your business.