Thursday, April 30, 2009

The Hall of Fame Question

The term “performance enhancer” is one of the most reviled terms in today’s culture. To be connected with the term is to be singled out as a cheater and a felon. The outrage has brought about countless “60 Minutes” specials, ESPN special reports, and even Congressional meetings. Although the term has also been applied to football, the outrage has been much more present in baseball, which has long been considered America’s “pure” game. Just being mentioned as a possible user is enough to demonize a player. Fans and media alike scream for lifetime bans for users, but is all that outrage justified?

Several different reports have surfaced concerning users of these “performance enhancers” in recent years. None of these reports have been too reliable. The most reliable “report” has been a book whose author is, by all accounts, a scumbag. That book is ¬“Juiced: Wild Times, Rampant ‘Roids, Smash Hits, and How Baseball Got Big” written by former big league outfielder Jose Canseco. In this book and the sequel, Canseco discloses several names. At first, reviewers discredited Canseco, but so far, he has been more successful at exposing players than anything else. The other reports have all relied on even seedier sources and questionable circumstances. Who did or did not use performance enhancers is a question for which an answer does not seem possible. In addition, some evidence suggests that steroids, the performance enhancer most commonly associated with the term, actually do not help a player as much as people believe. For these two main reasons, players associated with performance enhancers should still be considered for the Hall of Fame.

To understand the extent of the witch hunt put on by Major League Baseball, one must first look at the definitive rehashing of steroid rumors – the Mitchell Report. The 409 page document officially titled the “Report to the Commissioner of Baseball of an Independent Investigation into the Illegal Use of Steroids and other Performance Enhancing Substances by Players in Major League Baseball” is anything but independent. George Mitchell was hired by Commissioner of Baseball Alan “Bud” Selig to investigate players suspected of steroids. In total, 89 names were revealed, including some huge stars, some retired but still well-known names, and, most of all, insignificant role players. For this, Mitchell needed sources. He found two of them in Kirk Radomski and Jason Grimsley.

Kirk Radomski’s contributions only happened under a very specific plea agreement that came about from his home being raided. Federal agents found receipts and an address book relating to sales of steroids and human growth hormone (HGH) and arrested him. After that happened, he gave them more supposed evidence (Mitchell 138-140). However, very little of it actually says anything other than a dollar amount. None of it is exactly the proverbial smoking gun when the truth is many ball players give clubhouse attendants checks for all sorts of services, and the dollar amounts are hardly consistent. A check from one player is for $200. Another player’s check is for $2000. The only evidence against catcher Paul Lo Duca is two handwritten notes that say, “Thanks, call if you need anything!” and “Sorry! But for some reason they sent the check back to me. I haven’t been able to call you back because my phone is toast! I have a new # [sic] it is [number not available]. Please leave your # again because I lost my all of my phone book with the other phone. Thanks.” Both notes are just signed “Paul” (Mitchell D-25). That does not reference steroids in any way, yet it is used as the only evidence against the catcher.

Jason Grimsley’s participation was also a result of government pressure. He was to receive a package of HGH, but the government was watching the delivery. He chose to participate with federal agents as opposed to jail time, since sale of HGH without a prescription is illegal, as is sale and possession of most steroids (Mitchell 106-108). The third means of information used by George Mitchell was information from the grand jury investigation of the Bay Area Laboratory Cooperative in Burlingame, California, also known as BALCO. However, The BALCO investigation is hardly complete because one of the main trainers, Greg Anderson, has refused to testify and has been in jail as a result. To this day, he still refuses to testify. Not only that, but the federal investigation has failed to produce enough evidence to convict anyone connected to BALCO.

The question still remains – what do steroids do? Most people believe that steroids increase home run production. The effects on pitchers are vastly unknown, but essentially, the consensus layman’s belief is that it causes a person to gain velocity, although several baseball experts have found that there is no effect on pitcher’s performance (Walker). This happens because testosterone enhances muscle growth, which makes a person stronger. Put simply, “A great hitter can build extraordinary muscle mass, increase his endurance, and prolong his dominance” (Socher 55). If this is true, then there should be statistical evidence supporting the claim. However there is not. R.G. Tobin uses a mathematical and physics-supported model to show that steroids should increase individual home run production by 50% (16). That number is eye-opening and would completely demolish any argument that steroids do not enhance performance if found true. The problem is it’s not true. In fact, no player ever connected with steroids has ever achieved such a jump (Walker).

There are several examples of players connected with steroids that have never benefited from any sort of statistical anomoly. Alex Rodriguez did have an increase of home runs between 2001 and 2003 when he has admitted taking steroids, but using numbers adjusted for home field, the increase is actually not an increase (Sports Reference LLC). Eliminating home field statistics, which are skewed depending on the ballpark, the numbers actually show no increase at any point. Roger Clemens has been accused of beginning to take steroids in 1998. However, a study by Jonathan Cole and Stephen Stigler points out, “When we compared Clemens's E.R.A. through 1997 with his E.R.A. from 1998 on, it was worse by 0.32 in the later period” (qtd. in Walker). Even Barry Bonds, who allegedly took steroids for a long period of time and is the poster boy for steroid use, shows a fairly consistent line (Walker). He had one spike in his record breaking season in 2001, but steroids do not affect a player one year and not any others. The statistical evidence simply does not back up steroids having any effect on individual production.

However, individual production may not be noticeable at small doses, so surely, with steroid use as rampant as most believe, there will be a definitive jump in overall power production, right? Not quite. There has been five distinct jumps in power since 1900. Four of them directly resulted from changes in the manufacturing of balls used. Only two of the jumps even occurred in the so-called “Steroid Era,” which is from 1980 to the present. One of the jumps, from 1986-1987, is unexplained. The other, from 1993-1994, came from “a change made then in the ball-manufacturing process” (Walker). Taking those ball changes out of the equation, the steroid era – save for that unexplainable 1986-1987 jump – has actually seen a slight decrease in total power production. Steroid use affects the upper body more than the lower body. Conversely, in baseball, power comes mostly from the lower body and the torso. Bulked up biceps and shoulders do not actually help a batter hit the ball any better. In fact, research has shown that steroid use actually only helps a player hit the ball about two to four feet farther, which is only about one more home run a year, and that is assuming all muscle gain is directly related to steroids, which is preposterous considering the amount of time baseball players spend in fierce workout regimens (Walker). In addition, “there is some evidence that steroids decrease reflex reaction time, although there do not appear to be indications of a significant effect on such factors as hand-eye coordination” (Tobin 17). With that information in hand, it is difficult to argue that steroids cause as much of an effect as most people believe.

The question remains though: why take steroids if they do not actually benefit? Well, there are several answers. First, not everybody knows the truth. Several noted steroid users who have admitted to use have claimed in retrospect that they do not think it helped at all, but they did not know until they tried. This reason is probably the most important and most prominent. A lot of players think bulking up will help them become better players. There are at least two problems with this. First, as Tobin states, “Studies directly investigating effects on athletic performance … do not exist. … In a 1991 meta-analysis of 16 prior studies, Elashoff et al found no clear evidence for steroid-induced strength enhancement” (17). The truth that there has never been a statistical connection between steroids and production is echoed all over. Professor Arthur DeVany puts it best: “There is no evidence that steroid use has altered home run hitting and those who argue otherwise are profoundly ignorant of the statistics of home runs, the physics of baseball, and of the physiological effects of steroids” (qtd. in Walker). It is worth mentioning that most of the players mentioned in the Mitchell Report were either role players or minor leaguers – not everyday players, not superstars. Not only that, but there has been no pitching benefits. In Cole and Stigler’s calculations, they looked at 23 pitchers from the Mitchell Report and compared their ERA before and after alleged steroid use. They found that the ERAs actually rose 0.5 points after steroid use (qtd. in Walker). That is truly eye-catching.
Another main reason why players take steroids is medical benefits. Although there are many known defects caused by steroids (and even those are greatly exaggerated), there is also the consensus belief that steroids can heal injuries faster than simple rest and rehabilitation. That is simply untrue in all ways. Several doctors and biologists have said there has been no link. In fact, that rumor may have originated through athletes who believed steroids (or HGH, which is more commonly connected to this) helped them in this way. Dr. Mary Lee Vance states, “The key word is perception because there’s no evidence at all that it helps anyone recover from injuries” (qtd. in Walker). Although it is true that HGH and certain steroids are valuable in healing skin particularly with burn victims, as Dr. Gary Gaffney summarizes, “Any physician using HGH for healing (unless it would be related to burn injuries, AIDS, and children with short stature) is practicing myth, heresy, chicanery, or quackery” (qtd. in Walker). Skin injuries, or flesh wounds, are not the type of injuries that occur often in baseball, and when they do, they are not serious enough to make a player miss any time.

The fact that steroids and HGH are illegal is hardly relevant to the Hall of Fame. Crimes are off-the-field incidents that have little to no bearing on on-the-field production. The Hall of Fame is not just for nice people. The Hall of Fame is for players that excel in their era. With all the evidence that goes against the general consensus about steroids, it is hard to classify use of so-called “performance enhancers” as anything but a misled crime. Did the users intend to enhance their performance by taking the drugs? Maybe, but intent does not always generate results. “With or without steroids, it requires extraordinary skill, judgment, and coordination” (Tobin 15). Several alleged steroid users, and some admitted ones, have Hall of Fame numbers, and the evidence does not justify a sense of impurity in those numbers. Most of the players connected to steroids have not failed a drug test. Convictions cannot be allowed on hearsay. It is simply not known who actually used steroids and who did not. 104 players failed drug tests in 2003, the first year of testing. Only one of those players has been identified. Since it is a crime, players guilty of using “performance enhancers” should be suspended, but with careful consideration of the evidence, a failed drug test is just that – a failed drug test, not a black mark on the game of baseball.

Mitchell, George J. Report to the Commissioner of Baseball of an Independent Investigation into the Illegal Use of Steroids and other Performance Enhancing Substances by Players in Major League Baseball. DLA Pipers USA LLP. 13 December 2007.
Socher, Abraham. "No Game for Old Men. (Cover story)." Commentary 125.3 (Mar. 2008): 55-58.
Sports Reference LLC. Baseball-Reference.com - Major League Statistics and Information. http://www.baseball-reference.com/.
Tobin, R. G. "On the potential of a chemical Bonds: Possible effects of steroids on home run production in baseball." American Journal of Physics 76.1 (Jan. 2008): 15-20.
Walker, Eric. Steroids, Other "Drugs", and Baseball. The Owlcroft Company. .

For more information, visit Walker's site. It has the most in-depth analysis of all the claims of what steroids do.

Wednesday, April 15, 2009

Nick "The Man" Swisher

The signing of Mark Teixeira by the Yankees had created a situation in which there was an “odd man out,” well perhaps two (with Melky). Nick Swisher and Xavier Nady were the two that many knew would be fighting for a job, and ultimately Nady won. From the start, I viewed this as a mistake. Nick Swisher was and is the superior player. He brings much more to the table than Nady does. After getting off to a torrid start, Swisher finally seems to have made his point. He has come out of the gate hitting nearly .500 with 4 HR, 11 RBI, and 10 runs. Xavier Nady was injured in last night’s game and appears to be headed for the disabled list, perhaps for the season, opening a world of opportunity for Swisher.

You’ve got to love the guy, he’s very energetic and plays hard every second he’s out on the field. I haven’t been this impressed with an incoming player since, well, never. The White Sox may be kicking themselves right now and for the rest of the season, as their return centerpiece was Wilson Betemit, want to bet who has the better year? Now many people probably want to know what exactly is so special about Nick Swisher, and the reasoning for his supposed superiority over Nady. Firstly, Swish has a great eye at the plate, which leads to many walks, he’s reached the 100 BB plateau or come close in three of the four full seasons he’s played. No matter where you put a guy in the lineup, walks usually mean runs, and he will most likely be batting ahead of the run producing Matsui and Posada. In that case Nady, who walks only about 30-40% as much, will not score as many runs making him the worse choice. Another aspect of Swisher’s game that is far superior to Nady’s is his power. Swisher hit 35 HR’s when he was with Oakland in 2006, and that’s some big time power. He hasn’t hit that many since, but you’ve got to think the potential is lurking within. The protection and depth of the Bombers lineup could help this power resurface as he may see better pitches. Nady has the ability to hit between 15 and 20 homers, topping out at 25. Still excellent, but I’d rather have a guy that can start at 25 rather than end there. In addition to his other skills, he is also a switch hitter, which makes him a weapon of sorts. This ability to hit from both sides could allow the Yankees four potential switch hitters in the lineup at once, imagine that. A lineup with that much flexibility and depth could reek havoc on any pitching staff, even the Red Sox so called “best staff in baseball.” The final and perhaps most likeable skill of Swisher is his attitude. He is little strange and crazy, but his deviant style and leadership skills are probably advantageous to the team. He likes to go out there and play baseball the way it’s supposed to be played, for fun and sport, not for business. Some players can learn something from him, even Posada, who was not amused by Swisher’s relief appearance. From what I can tell so far, Nick Swisher is a guy that will give anything for his team, he’s gonna give you 150% everyday (the extra 50% comes from Redbull), he plays how every fan wants a player to play, and he has fun doing it.

Swisher is and will continue to be a huge addition to this team. Even as he cools from the scorching streak, which he surely will, Swisher will remain a threat. So far there are only positives from him, he’s done everything right. This is a guy who could help this team win a championship, not A-Rod, not Teixeira, not Sabathia, Nick Swisher! I’ve created some stat prediction formulas, and though I wouldn’t rely on it here are the numbers I came up with for a full season:

The Order (BA, OBP, SLG, H, HR, R, RBI, BB, SO, SB)
Swisher: .250, .366, .463, 133, 29, 95, 84, 94, 142, 3
Nady: .291, .345, .487, 145, 22, 65, 80, 32, 97, 4

This Is Beyond Stupid

In the academic world there are only a few simple rules to follow when writing some form of thesis. Do not, under any circumstance plagiarise. If your institution is of any quality you will likely find that if you do, then you will be swiftly shoved out the door before the ink of the "F" on your paper is dry. The next rule is that if you intend to make a point you must justify it with either proof or at the very least some rationale to back up your assertions.

Unfortunately the second rule of the academic world does not extend to journalism. If it did then I wouldn't have spent yesterday pulling my hair out over the depressing obituaries that the New York press, fans and sports media community are dishing out to Chien-Ming Wang. Simply put...if you think he is finished as a major league pitcher you are an idiot.

You may flip that argument on me and point out his statistics that are some of the worst any pitcher has put up in two starts that you or I have ever seen. I am not suggesting that he hasn't been awful. He surely has and he is the primary reason this team is at .500 rather than possibly 2 games over. However if you are to believe that he is finished or that the league has figured him out then you are doing so at the wrong time.

I believe that the issue with CMW is part mental, part mechanical. He has in the past run into mechanical issues that were in the end resolved and I believe that they will be resolved again. If I am to believe Posada, they were resolved up until he stepped on the mound in the first inning against Tampa. For whatever reason, potentially mental he can't get it all together just now. Is that cause for concern, yes! Is it cause to state his ultimate demise as a major league pitcher, no!

I believe that he will eventually get it together again because statistics and history tell me that for the most pat this guy has been a very good pitcher. More statistics and history back up that belief than the current hypothesis/tripe being perpetuated by the media, but even more embarrassingly by fans (some 44% say via a YES pole that he is done, loving the loyallty there!). When he gets it back together, then you will find out if this 3 year ride he has been on is coming to an end.

The fact that Tampa and Baltimore are crushing bad pitches as a function of bad mechanics tells me only that they can do what every team should to bad pitching. It tells me very little about Wang other than when he pitches bad he will get hit hard, which is true of any pitcher. If Tampa and Baltimore (or any other team) were getting to Wang when he has his good sinker and when his mechanics are in line to provide an effective slider and change, then I will be worried because that will tell me that when he is at his best he can't get it done anymore. You may say that you don't think he can get back to having his effective stuff but all information available suggests that is not the case based on what is going on in between starts.

If you are worried I urge you to be patient. What is going on with Wang bugs me just as much as the next person because he's been my favorite guy the last few years. Based on that don't take this article as a sign of bias. I am simply suggesting that any suggestion that he is done, on a downward spiral or regressing is far too early and lacking in strong evidence or rationale to carry any real weight.

Friday, April 10, 2009

Exhale and Mechanics

Breathe Easy

Fear not Yankees fans. It turns out this team wont go 0-162. The Yankees managed to get their first win of the season yesterday against the O's 11-2. Burnett provided a showing on the mound that compared to the outings of Wang and Sabathia probably felt like a perfect game in the minds of Yankees. In reality though it was an effort that didn't even last as long as 6 innings. Now given the first two games it is probably not right to complain about the composition of a win, but in general greater efficiency will hopefully be a trend as the season progresses.

I would imagine that most Yankees fans didn't want a 1-2 start. Most Yankees fans would probably still be upset with a 2-1 start. Reality is that you don't always get what you want and we will have to make do with the results of the first series. On the upside the pen looked better after the opener, Tex got over the shock of boos and started to hit and Robinson Cano, at least for the moment has managed to avoid his traditional early season slump.

Hopefully the Yankees can pick up where the left off with a strong showing in KC...maybe even a sweep...though that's what we probably thought at the start of the Baltimore series.

Don't Worry...We Fixed Their Mechanics

I'm not a pitcher. I'm not a hitter. Truth be told I've never played a game of organised baseball in my life. My hands on baseball experience is limited to the occasional game of catch. Taking that into account please excuse my possible ignorance with my following query.

I keep reading after bad starts that pitchers (Sabathia and Wang in this case) review tape and can see right away what is wrong, and assure everyone that it is a simple adjustment that will be resolved with a trip to the pen, with everything back to normal by the time the next start comes around.

How come the adjustment, cited as a slow arm for Wang and an inability to get his front foot down fast enough for Sabathia, could not be resolved during the game? Could they not review what is wrong during the game and fix it on the fly? Just a thought. I'll settle for the issues being resolved by their next start.

Parting Shots

Commentators come out with some dumb statements, but on Wednesday night Rick Sutcliffe took stupidity to new levels in his assessment of CMW. The highlight of CMW getting bombed by the Orioles had passed and ESPN had returned to their coverage of the Rays-Red Sox game. Sutcliffe then comes out with this gem, "I'm not worried about Sabathia. I'm not worried about Teixeira, but I am worried about Wang, because he got injured running...and he has to run again this year."

I decided to give up and turn the TV off at that point for fear that listening to anymore earth-shattering statements may make me dumber. Seriously of all the things you could think to say you said that? Give me a break. Be worried if his arm is always injured. Be worried if he can't throw his sinker for 3 or 4 starts in a row, but please don't cite your fear based on a freak injury and his future use of that injured body part.

Wednesday, April 8, 2009

CMW & The Media


The Return Of CMW

Welcome back CMW. Tonight marks the return of the best product of the Yankees farm system since the Jeter, Mo, Pettitte and Posada era. On top of that he has been about the only consistent pitcher with the Yankees since he made his debut in early 2005.

Wang finds himself in somewhat of a familiar situation in that he starts a game following a loss. Wang has been very reliable in the past few years in terms of winning such games and given how bad opening day was it is fairly important that this team puts in a solid effort and a win centered around some good pitching, hopefully deep into the game. Will that be the case though...I'm not too sure.

Roberts and Jones proved too much for Sabathia and if Wang starts up in the zone then the first inning maybe uncomfortable viewing. It is imperative that Wang by-passes the first inning adjustment experienced by most sinkerball pitchers, and shifts straight to the strike throwing, groundball getting machine that we all know he can be. I accept that there must be the 2nd dimension to his game involving his improved off-speed stuff, but make no mistake about it, CMW must have that sinker low but in the zone, because as we saw on Monday the O's wont swing if pitches aren't consistently close.

It also wouldn't hurt if the Yankees jump on Koji Uehara early and often. Myself and other Yankee fans will not be satisfied with the, "It's the first time we have seen this guy" excuse. Other teams hadn't see Kei Igawa but they seemed to get the job done.

In short pitch well, defend well and score early...it's that easy right??

They Finally Caught Up

It only took the media about 3 months to catch up to my train of thought. George King writes today about the realisation of pressure and expectations for the newest Yankees. I wrote about this in late January. Way to bring about original thought there George. I'm not saying that you stole my article, I very much doubt that would be the case. Simply that it is innovative to think ahead and write about this when they had just signed, while it is fairly easy to write about what is staring you right in the face. Originality George!! Get with the program.

Parting Shots

A disgraceful article in the post today by Joel Sherman on Joba Chamberlain and a video of his DUI arrest. I am not condoning what Chamberlain did. It was irresponsible and dangerous. However to paint this as the start of a downward spiral for Chamberlain on a personal and professional level is ridiculous speculation based on very little other than attempting to make vague connections between his childhood and his actions today.

As I said a few months ago the newest Yankees better have prepared themselves for over the top media and fan reaction. It only took one start and a heatpad to set off a frenzy regarding Sabathia. As ridiculous as it seems this will set off a chain reaction of events over the next week.
  • Questions to Sabathia about the start and the heating pad
  • Articles before his next start about his last start and the heat pad
  • A camera on Sabathia in between innings on his next start
  • More hysteria if the next start isn't good
  • Crazy hysteria if they see the heat pad again

How to stop this train...win. Win early, win often and win looking good. Welcome to New York C.C.


Monday, April 6, 2009

Depth and Defense

Depth Misconception

In the last week every baseball site from the humble blog to the modern day media powerhouse has shot out its season predictions and projections, boldly stating who they think will be left standing come October. Some do so with rationale, while others appear to have closed their eyes and ran their finger down a list of teams to arrive at the Mets as Sports Illustrated did.

As misguided as I believe that projection is, it is not the one that perplexes me the most. It will probably not come as a surprise that I disagree with any prediction that has the Red Sox as the division or wild card winners. Now I don't fundamentally disagree with the idea that the Red Sox can win the division or wild card. What I have an issue with the is the thinking behind their decision, primarily with the point that the Red Sox will win due to pitching depth.

The common phrase nowadays is that you can never have enough pitching. Fair enough pitchers will get injured and it is nice to have someone to step in. However when the players you have to step in are old and injured (Smoltz), completely unproven (Tazawa) and an anomaly (Buchholz) then I hardly see it as a distinct advantage. If the Red Sox end up using any of the 3 for an extended period of time then it is because something has gone very wrong with the starting 5 they have in place just now.

Same goes with the bullpen, where there are only so many innings to go around and where more often that not you don't get a whole pen chipping in during key late and close game situations. It always ends up coming down to 3 guys max, so spare me the list of names after Papelbon, Masterson and Okajima. Anyone outside of that trio likely wont see time unless injury occurs, and if and when it does then granted they have someone to step in but don't try and sell me that the Red Sox would feel good about losing Papelbon because Ramon Ramirez or Daniel Bard is there with his zero major league experience and recent history of wildness.

Designated Defense

If Chien-Ming Wang is inducing groundball after groundball but losing games then look for my finger of blame to be pointed squarely at Derek Jeter. Everyone else in the infield are perfectly competent defenders so it would seem right to view Jeter as the weak link, especially with a groundball pitcher like Wang on the mound. Every 5th day will be a test for Jeter and if he isn't up to the task then just as Wakefield has a designated catcher then so should Wang have a designated SS with Pena taking over in the field and Jeter playing DH.

Parting Shots

You would think Selena Roberts, with her extensive Arod research would know his age, or be able to add correctly. She recently discussed the future of Jeter with the Yankees on the show The Sports Reporters. To paraphrase Roberts, "Two years from now Jeter will be out of contract and will look at Arod who is 40 and signed on for 7 more years." Arod is 33, and is younger than Jeter who is 35. Your sources with the steroid test results may be right, but your math skills are lacking.

To those who site the age of some Yankees as a weakness then it is fair enough to do so when comparing them with the Rays. However if you must use such a comparison with the Red Sox then you do have to acknowledge that they aren't all spring chickens either. Drew, Varitek, Ortiz and Lowell are all fairly old themselves and are arguably showing greater signs of comparative decline to some of the Yankees, i.e. when healthy who is showing greater decline Posada or Varitek? Also youth is only advantageous if the younger player is equal or better than the older guy. Jed Lowrie over Jeter...I don't think so!

Enjoy Opening Day!

Sunday, February 15, 2009

Put Up, Or Shut Up

When Alex Rodriguez arrives at camp the press will get their chance. Every journalist, press blogger or general media smart ass who has picked at every detail major or minor of that interview will have their opportunity to have their issues answered when Arod arrives for his version of a state of the union address...that is presuming they will actually ask the questions they have been demanding to hear in their columns over the last week.

The press have a habit of talking tough in their columns then either not asking the questions they demand to hear, or not even bothering to show up in the case of the likes of modern brand of tv journalists who report from their living room and back up their assertions with that unnamed source guy.

Simply put:

If you don't buy the GNC story, ask about it

If you want to know why he took seemingly fabricated shots at Selena Roberts, ask about it

If you question his revelation to stop using, ask about it

If you want to know who supplied him with the stuff, ask about it

Every single issue you can possibly have with the interview, the tests, everything, you should ask about it and if you don't like the answer, if you think the answer is bull shit then say so then and there. Don't wait till the next day to write an article about how x, y and z wasn't answered and how there are still so many questions you have.

Anyone with a legit media outlet will get their shot when he arrives and they best make the most of it.

Put up or shut up guys.