Steroids in Baseball The first example of unethical information that the author uses in this article is the absence of a good numerical estimate of the prevalence of steroid use. There was never any quantitative evidence derived from the interviews and qualitative information that was collected. The New York Times editorial just ran with this article without doing some research of their own and essentially threw gasoline on the fire. Still to this day, Sports Illustrated will not reveal its methods for the gathering of their information. The second example of unethical information that the author uses in this article is SI mentions two types of health risks associated with steroid use: injury and impaired body functions. The evidence of these risks comes primarily from either personal stories of specific players, interviews with doctors who specialize in sports medicine, informal references to research findings, and league statistics showing an increase in time and money spent on disability. With SI specifically choosing the players to interview, this could be considered as bias sampling. They chose the players that were already suspected of steroid use. SI cites about how damaging steroid use is, but most of the article is devoted to the informal information and doesn’t convey a good indication of how widespread these problems likely will be, given the usual dosages taken by ballplayers. The league statistics given is not very convincing since the information does not match what is known in scientific and medical literature. The third example of unethical information that the author uses in this article is that the evidence SI does mention is inconsistent due to many variables not under physical or statistical control. Only one comparison year is used for each mention of a percentage increase. Suspicion arose because of not seeing trend lines over