Talk:University of South Carolina steroid scandal

Afd nomination

Nominated for deletion because CobraGeek is an avowed Clemson fan and hater of all things USC-related. Simple proof can be found on his userpage which clearly exposes his agenda on Wiki, one more suited for a sports message board. This article was written simply as backlash for a fact pointed out in another article. This user has used up any "good faith" they might have enjoyed due to their constant trolling of USC articles and POV edits.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.188.38.31 (talk)

First of all you have not nominated this article for deletion because you have not made this page: Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/University of South Carolina steroid scandal. This probably did not work because you were not logged in.

Second, this article looks well-sourced and notable. Your nomination is based entirely on an assumption of bad faith, which will be dismissed. You should withdraw this nomination.

Also, please sign your Discussion page comments with ~~~~. / edg ☺ ☭ 09:14, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Anyone with a pair of eyes and a half a brain can skim over the userpage of the creator of this article and see why it was written and also why no assumption of good faith should be tendered this user. They have made their agenda on Wiki QUITE clear. I could write my own attack piece on Clemson and make it well-sourced, but I have no desire to do so, because that's not what Wiki is here for...last I heard. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.188.38.31 (talk) 09:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, well-sourced, notable information is exactly what Wikipedia is for.

I'm guessing from your comment you might benefit from taking a cooling off period before posting further, but please consider WP:CIVIL. And when you come back, please feel free to contribute. / edg ☺ ☭ 09:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, what I think I'll do is this. I'll register and write my own article with well-sourced, notable information and title it Clemson University Football cheating scandal. Is that really what you want here? Because that's the only fair way to go. Is that seriously what you're saying this site should degenerate into?— Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.188.38.31 (talk)

Why is that phrased as a threat? If this is a notable and documented scandal you wish to write about, please contribute. Thanks in advance.

I'm posting the standard intro stuff with instructions on registering an account on your Talk page. / edg ☺ ☭ 09:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

What happened to Assumption of Good Faith? How did you get "threat" from what was a legitimate question? I'm simply asking if you think allowing articles like this one to remain on Wiki is a good thing knowing that they will draw backlash articles. But as long as all these articles are well-sourced and "notable" I guess you're saying there's no problem with that. I would think better to simply delete irrelevant articles like this one generated simply to inflame and nip the whole cycle in the bud, but that's just me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.188.38.31 (talk) 09:48, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I'm sorry to repeat myself, but you really need to cool off a little. Your comment resembled a threat to me because of the implication you made that such contributions would cause Wikipedia to "denigrate".

Some helpful type has fixed your AFD. You might want to comment. I suggest you log in because anonymous comments are usually discounted in AFD discussion. / edg ☺ ☭ 10:18, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Clemson steroid scandal

A quick Google search reveals that Clemson University had their own steroid scandal in 1985 which led to coaches being convicted and several University administrators (including the school's President!) to resign. I'll get to work on that article alongside the Clemson football recruiting scandal that led to their probation in 1982. Or we can just stop all this silliness right now, delete this obvious attack piece and move forward. Someone let me know which direction we are going to move this thing... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.188.38.31 (talk) 10:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Possible re-title

Does anyone agree that a better title for this article might be The Nightmare of Steroids? The so-titled Sports Illustrated article seems to be the central topic, and the current title might could be confused with other such news (if such occurs). Just a thought. / edg ☺ ☭ 14:30, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

User:Edgarde I think you should hold on. There is something strange going on here. Please come to my talk page and have a look at the issue of 65.188.38.31 Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 14:35, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• • No, this title is fine, as it was a national scandal, not just a Sports Illustrated thing. Secret ^account 15:52, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Scandal

I remembered studying this scandal for a paper, it was one of the first major steroid scandals in the nation, I'm willing to expand later, it does need to be rewritten in a way that isn't violating WP:BLP though. Thanks Secret ^account 15:51, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, this scandal (along with the Ben Johnson Olympic steroid scandal) was the most significant steroid scandal of its era (up through the current MLB scandal and Mitchell report). It was a huge national scandal, on ESPN regularly for months, and it was a precursor to many of the problems that we are having today in major league sports (and it's ashamed so many people have forgotten about it already). In South Carolina specifically, it was the biggest sports story in the news for several years. I did put a considerable amount of thought to the point of whether the article should include the names of those still living, and read through WP:BLP a couple of times. It isn't as clear as it might seem, and my final position was that it would include only the most defensible and verifiable pieces of data widely available, but that it would include the names, and I am pretty sure it is in full compliance with WP:BLP (and certainly taken within the context of improving Wikipedia as in Ignore all rules). The article compares nicely with University of Michigan basketball scandal and several of the other sporting scandals. I appreciate the amount of energy that has gone into discussing this article today, certainly didn't expect this amount of activity. --CobraGeek (talk) 01:57, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

• • I got most of the {{Fact}} tags resolved. Seemed like a little overkill putting them for every statement, especially when the statements are supported from the same reference. I will try to get the rest soon.
    • For such a contentious topic with potential BLP problems, references for every statement are absolutely necessary. J Milburn (talk) 11:40, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
      • J, yeah you're right, it wasn't that hard to take care of, really. It does tend to clutter things up a little. Thanks.--CobraGeek (talk) 14:01, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Recommendation to CobraGeek WP:BLP

User:CobraGeek with there is a problem for all parties conserned to understand the inner workings of WP:BLP, why not bring the BLP to WP:ANI instead of arguing your point here in the dark. Let's shed some light on this issue to avoid the repetition of what has transpired the other day. Thank you, Igor Berger (talk) 02:31, 8 January 2008 (UTC)

There does not seem to be any BLP problem now- just a well referenced article on a notable scandal. For future reference, however, the BLP noticeboard would be the best bet, or just the biography section of the requests for comment if the problem is more of a simple content dispute. J Milburn (talk) 16:45, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Kansas City Star reference

The reference for the Kansas City Star was worded in a rather 'un-encyclopedic' fashion. To quote the author, the scandal was:

the mother of all steroids exposes, the piece that should have alarmed America and told us where all of this steroid mess was headed long ago. It ran in late October 1988. It caused quite a stir in my college locker room, and I ve never forgotten the story. I m not sure anyone else in America read it. It was hidden in an obscure sports magazine called Sports Illustrated; maybe you ve heard of it. The piece might have been 8,000 words, and it foreshadowed absolutely everything that is going on today.

--CobraGeek (talk) 01:56, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Due to the slightly dubious nature of the source wording, I have added 'according to...' in the article. J Milburn (talk) 16:34, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

Context

To provide context, the first words of the article should be "The University of South Carolina steroid scandal was..." I have tried adding this in, but when I did it, the new wording was misleading. As such, I agree with its removal, but request that the opening line is changed as appropriate. J Milburn (talk) 16:37, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

• I actually liked the concept of having the article start like that, but it didn't fit well as an add-on to the existing sentence. Probably need to think about rearranging the beginning a little.--CobraGeek (talk) 00:12, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

Substantiation

<sarcasm>Since the 9000 word Sports Illustrated article by a 4 year defensive letterman on the USC football team, 4 indicted coaches, 1 indicted steroid provider, 4 plea bargains, Congressional hearings, an act of Congress, and a partridge in a pear tree were apparently not "substantiation" enough, I found and added a reference to the February 20, 1990 NY Times article "Steroid Use Reported", detailing, in the University of South Carolina's own words, "widespread experimentation." They are confirming in 1990 what the rest of the world had already known for 18 months. And no (I know the revert is imminent) we shouldn't change the wording to "experimentation" because that is not what the Sports Illustrated article said. If a request is made for a rusty needle with [insert former USC player name here]'s DNA on it, that will be a little harder, but we may be able to oblige (that would be WP:SARCASM - sometimes it really does help :)).</sarcasm> --CobraGeek (talk) 13:32, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

Be nice it is not about rubbing it in! Igor Berger (talk) 13:50, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

It's all about rubbing it in for this jerk. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.56.149.230 (talk) 01:14, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Involvement of coach Joe Morrison

This edit deletes a sourced statement with the following edit summary:

POV. This statement does nothing but imply facts not in evidence. The fact that no indictment was brought against Morrison is evidence enough that he was not involved.

In fact, prosecution is seldom persued against deceased persons, so the absence of an indictment against Morrison does not demonstrate lack of involvement. (Famous example: in the case of Kenneth Lay, a conviction of guilt was actually abated only because the defendant died before sentencing.) If anything, the fact that Joe Morrison was a head coach during this period raises the question of the level of his involvement in the distribution of steroids to his players, which he would have to be dodderingly incompetent to not know about. A New York Times writer (and presumably one of their editors) seemed to think it worth mentioning that the prosecutor in this case was refused to comment on coach Morrison's involvement in steroid usage. senile

The deleted (and sourced) statement should be restored. The editor who deleted this has provided no reason on this Discussion page, despite being invited. / edg ☺ ☭ 04:40, 21 January 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this was a POV content delete of a well sourced, verifiable, and notable statement that was an important point and needs to be restored. It was deleted by the warring socks just before the page was protected. CobraGeek (talk) 12:47, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

{{editprotected}} Restore this diff per the two comments immediately preceding this {{editprotected}} tag: [[1]] CobraGeek (talk) 13:03, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Endorsed. / edg ☺ ☭ 17:06, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Directly from Chaikin's "article":

About his time Dr. Akers asked me if I was on steroids. I told him I was but asked him not to tell anybody. He turned right around and told Morrison, who called me in to find out who else was taking them. I told him I wouldn't talk about anybody else. Morrison looked at me and said, "Don't do it anymore." That was it.

I think that pretty well sums up Coach Morrison's attitude towards his players taking steroids. Straight from the horse's mouth, so to speak. The comment removed from this article is clearly there to give the opposite impression, while adding no facts. It is essentially the reporting of a "no comment" statement. Is that really encyclopedic-level information? Telling a reporter "no comment" can generally be taken as a negative or affirmative, but that's the problem, it is neither. It certainly doesn't qualify as an "important point." The statement is leading and POV, thus it was removed. ViperNerd (talk) 18:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

That seems like it would be worth adding too. / edg ☺ ☭ 19:13, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

That would be acceptable. ViperNerd (talk) 19:15, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

• • Good to see the debate back over here! This suggested change does one of two things: 1) It gets it into the legal realm because it all but proves Morrison knew there were players taking steroids, or 2) The "no comment" leaves it up to the reader. If I was Joe Morrison, I would have stuck with the "no comment." I can support either as "acceptable", just "be careful what you ask for." Thör ^hammer 19:24, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

"Take it to talk and figure it out. No more edit warring."

Hmm.

• Restore the deleted edit,
• add the Chaikin quote defending Morrison,
• ignore my "dodderingly incompetent" comment,
• lift the article protection,
• edit friendly.

Are we in agreement? / edg ☺ ☭ 19:22, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Agreed. Thör ^hammer 19:26, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

That's a start, but ViperNerd & CobraGeek are the opinions that matter most here. / edg ☺ ☭ 23:44, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Edgarde, I'm not sure what my involvement is in this one (other than being the article creator). I reviewed the history and, actually it looks like you and ViperNerd were edit warring each other(?) over several individual words and the statement about Morrison's involvement. Then one of the puppets comes in and joins the fun. Thör submitted the RPP, so I think among the three of you, if you agree that is okay with me. My question here is, why does VN want a statement confirming Joe Morrison's knowledge of steroid use by member(s) of the team (all the prosecutor needs is one) in the article, because I got the impression from the Chaikin article in SI that the significance (from a legal point of view) was that this was the smoking gun that would take down Morrison (if he hadn't died about five months later). That statement essentially removed any claims of denego nocens that Morrison could have used in court(?). Less discriminating readers will not pick up on that, but that is the significance. If the article is expanded later, and the "no comment" statement gets added back in, you have essentially added both knowledge and denial by Morrison, which either equates to a coverup (in the press) or pleading the fifth (in court). Sounds good to me. CobraGeek (talk) 02:40, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

denego nocens? / edg ☺ ☭ 02:46, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Culpable deniability - a claim of no knowledge. CobraGeek (talk) 02:49, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. / edg ☺ ☭ 02:54, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

The "no comment" statement was not made by Morrison, but by the US Attorney with respect to Morrison's knowledge of steroid use, so there wasn't a denial and admission by Morrison on this issue. Chaikin's statement about Morrison was hardly a "smoking gun" that could be used to prosecute him, as any decent defense attorney could claim that the first Morrison had ever heard about steroid usage on his team was when the doctor informed him, and he could claim he told Chaikin to stop using them and considered the matter closed, since Chaikin was not forthcoming about any other players using. In fact, it is interesting to note (and this article mostly glosses over) that the only indicted coach who insisted on having his day in court was found not guilty, so it's doubtful that the government had any additional evidence on the head coach that they didn't have on the defensive coordinator; with the death of Morrison, Gadd was the "big fish" they wanted to "take down," so it's unlikely they held anything back during their prosecution of him. It's widely known that most college football head coaches are much more limited in their day-to-day contact with players than their coordinators and position coaches, so if they didn't have enough evidence to convince a jury of Gadd's guilt, it's highly unlikely they would have been able to convict Morrison. Also, with respect to Gadd, why is it necessary to this article to mention what punishment he COULD have received IF he had been found guilty? He wasn't, so I fail to see the relevance of this statement in the article. It's just another piece of inflammatory information that really serves no purpose in the overall scheme of things. I'd also like the Kansas City Star comment about "largest scandal involving steroid use by college athletes in American collegiate sports history" removed as it is certainly not verifiable, and the excerpt from the source provided on this talk page makes no such bold proclamation. It reads as one reporters OPINION, that in his mind this was the "mother of all steroids exposes." I fail to see how one can go from that off-the-cuff remark to the superlative statement of fact in the intro to this article. Just another POV addition to an article full of them. ViperNerd (talk) 06:25, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Actually, it took a little digging, but I managed to locate Jason Whitlock's column, "Steroid users victims of system" and he makes NO SUCH CLAIM as the one attributed to him in the intro to this article. I will be removing that unverifiable statement as soon as protection is lifted on this article. ViperNerd (talk) 06:50, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in getting to the editprotected (apparently the other admins who do it are also busy). I'm glad to see what looks like productive discussion here. I'm going to go ahead and lift the protection, so that everyone can work on the article. Please try to avoid resuming the edit war. — Carl (CBM · talk) 19:26, 27 January 2008 (UTC)

Use of opinion pieces per WP:RSOpinion

Regarding the statement about this scandal being one of college football's biggest: I don't really think the referenced article is purely Op-ed, it is a moot point because WP:RS clearly states that the use of opinion is fine under the section titled "Statements of opinion". Here is the text directly out of the referenced article that you provided:

Statements of opinion

Some sources may be considered reliable for statements as to their author's opinion, but not for statements asserted as fact without an inline qualifier like "(Author) says...". A prime example of this is Op-ed columns in mainstream newspapers. When using them, it is better to explicitly attribute such material in the text to the author to make it clear to the reader that they are reading an opinion.

Note that otherwise reliable news sources—for example, the website of a major news organization—that publish in a "blog" style format for some or all of its content may be as reliable as if published in a more "traditional" 20th-century format.

There is an important exception to sourcing statements of fact or opinion: Never use self-published books, zines, websites, webforums, blogs and tweets as a source for material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the biographical material. "Self-published blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs; see WP:BLP#Reliable sources and WP:BLP#Using the subject as a self-published source.

Clearly, USA Today is a mainstream newspaper, right? I have added the mentioned "inline qualifier" for the author to University of South Carolina steroid scandal, which was easy and reasonable enough, right? Hope that helps and satisfies your inquiry. Cheers! --PeeCocks (talk) 01:37, 25 August 2011 (UTC)

Tom Weir

Tom Weir is not solely a "blogger". He is a reporter who has been employed by USA Today since the early-1980's (before "blogging" existed). He has written over 5000 factual news articles for USA Today since it went online in the mid-1990s. Like many reporters, he also writes a blog. The "Game On" blog is written directly for USA Today. It is inaccurate to label him solely as a blogger. Several other facts to consider that are easily available on the web:

• Tom Weir's article listing for USA Today is here: [2]. Note that there are over 5000 and these are not "blogs".
• The "Game On" article referenced in the citation is written directly for USA Today. That information can be found here: [3].
• Wikipedia clearly encourages the use of information written in articles that are in the form of blogs at major newspapers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PeeCocks (talk • contribs) 01:18, 27 August 2011 (UTC)