Med Sports

Step 3: Sports-specific risk check

Beyond med-news-reporter's general ethics check, add:

1. 禁藥和紀律指控 (Doping/Discipline Allegations):

   • Until WADA/CAS adjudication or formal league charge is filed, use "涉嫌違規" (alleged to have violated) / "藥檢呈陽性" (tested positive, if announced) — NOT "使用禁藥" (uses banned drugs / is a drug cheat). The first is fact; the second presumes guilt.
   • Include investigation timeline: "pending CAS review" / "awaiting formal hearing" / "under independent investigation".
   • Distinguish between player suspension (league imposed) and medical suspension (injury/testing recovery) in headlines.

2. 傷停資訊與醫療揭露:

   • Official team statement vs. player-disclosed medical info have different legal weights. Team says "day-to-day" (PR-standard); player says "tore ACL" (medical info they volunteered).
   • Do not speculate on severity or recovery timeline beyond what is officially stated or player-disclosed.
   • Mental health / substance abuse disclosures: treated as medical information with high privacy expectation unless the athlete self-disclosed publicly.

3. 球員私生活邊界:

   • Athletes are public figures in on-field domain. Off-field: family details, medical conditions, relationship status, sexuality, religious beliefs — require newsworthiness threshold (public act, athlete's own disclosure, or legitimate performance impact).
   • Minors (family members under 18): special protection; do not identify or disclose information without explicit consent.

4. 賭盤相關敏感性 (Sports Betting Disclosure):

   • Do not cite sportsbook odds/lines as "neutral" context or data source. If the story is about betting, disclose the financial interest of betting companies.
   • Allegations of match-fixing / game-rigging: high burden of proof. Use "alleged" until adjudicated. Source must be law enforcement, formal investigation, or credible multi-party corroboration.
   • Player-betting-on-own-sport is a conflict; distinguish from coverage of legal sports betting market (which is news, but disclose its financial/reputational stake).

5. 국제경기 & 올림픽 규정:

   • Olympic eligibility, IOC sanction status, national federation approval — cite rule source and athlete's current eligibility status.
   • Host country / geopolitical tensions: report neutrally; do not conflate athlete's national identity with political conflict unless explicitly stated by athlete/federation.

Step 4: Stats Provenance Audit (sports-specific addition)

Before output, sweep the draft for:

1. "Greatest" / "first" / "only" / "unprecedented" superlatives: every such claim must cite:

   • The database/source searched (e.g., "according to Baseball-Reference", "per official Olympic records")
   • The scope (e.g., "in franchise history", "since league's 1990 founding", "in this tournament")
   • The era (e.g., "in the shot-clock era" [NBA since 1985], "post-three-point-line adoption" [MLB/baseball comparisons across eras need rule context])
   • Sample size / context (e.g., "in 50+ games", "over a full season, not mid-season pace")

2. Comparison audit:

   • Cross-era comparisons (1980s vs. 2026) require era-adjustment context: rule changes, league expansion, training medicine, analytics adoption, salary cap effects.
   • Cross-league comparisons (MLB vs. NPB, NBA vs. EuroLeague): note league size, competition level, sample differences.
   • ❌ "5 home runs in 10 games is unprecedented" (without era: in which league? which era? which level of play?)
   • ✅ "5 home runs in 10 games is the fastest-ever pace for a debut-season player in CPBL history (since 1990), though early-season pace often regresses over a full season".

3. Injury-timeline realism: medical claims should not exceed evidence:

   • ❌ "He'll return in 4 weeks" (without medical source; is this team speculation or team medical staff statement?)
   • ✅ "The team said the player would return in 4 weeks; he ruptured his ACL in the 2nd quarter" (distinguishes team timeline from confirmed injury fact).

4. Performance-vs.-Context:

   • A .350 batting average is a fact; saying it "proves he's the best hitter" requires comparison and era context.
   • If the narrative suggests off-field conclusions (maturity, leadership, mental toughness) from on-field stats, flag it: these are interpretations, not facts.

Output Format

Use the med-news-reporter base format, with these sports additions to the meta footer:

[Headline / sub-headline / body paragraphs per med-news-reporter]

---

**稿件類型**: 即時賽事 / 運動員專訪 / 轉隊消息 / 傷停更新 / 聯盟治理
**字數**: approx. XXX
**消息來源層級**: 官方記錄 N / 隊方 N / 運動員本人 N / 分析評論 N / 民間謠傳 N
**統計數據稽核**:
- 「最佳 / 首次 / 從未」superlatives: ✅ / ⚠️ (列出未限定範圍的)
- 跨時代比較: ✅ / N/A / ⚠️ (列出未加註 era 或規則背景的)
- 跨聯盟比較: ✅ / N/A / ⚠️ (列出未加註聯盟差異的)
**醫療 / 紀律敏感項目**:
- 禁藥指控: ✅ (使用「涉嫌」) / N/A / ⚠️ (列出標籤誤用)
- 傷停資訊來源: ✅ (官方) / ⚠️ (球隊 PR / 推測分開呈現)
- 球員私生活邊界: ✅ / ⚠️ (列出可能越界的細節)
- 賭盤相關: N/A / ⚠️ (若提及,是否揭露財務利益)
**待查證事項**: ...
**倫理 / 識讀檢核摘要**: 〔交給 med-news-reporter 的 Step 4-5 footer〕

Gotchas

• 禁藥指控前未等 WADA 決議就寫成定論: WADA/CAS 程序可能耗時 2-4 年。案件未審結前,一律用「涉嫌違反反禁藥規則」「藥檢呈陽性,待進一步檢驗」,不可寫「使用禁藥」或「是禁藥使用者」。這是誹謗線。
• 「跨時代最佳」沒有 era 背景就是誤導: NBA 三分線距離改過、MLB 球的彈性歷年不同、打擊率通膨與通縮週期不同。同樣的數字在不同 era 意義相差 20-30%。「歷史最佳打擊率」必須明確說:相對於該 era 的聯盟平均與同期水準。
• 球隊 PR 與教練氣話區分: 球隊發出的「球員狀態絕佳、已準備上場」是 PR。教練賽後 5 分鐘內的火氣發言(「對手犯規被吹漏掉,這判決糟糕透頂」)通常隔天被冷卻。用「賽後激動表示」而非「強烈抨擊」,並註記時間點。
• 球員私生活 / 家庭不是自動公眾人物素材: 即使球員是名星,未成年家族成員、离婚細節、精神健康狀況有合理隱私期待。除非球員自己公開或直接影響場上表現,否則不應成為報導。
• 跨聯盟「只有 X 曾在球隊 Y 時期做過」的說法需查證多數據庫: 有時一個數據庫漏掉某隊歷史(尤其小聯盟、海外聯賽)。用多數據庫交叉檢查。
• 未成年運動員的報導特殊保護: 高中青少棒選手需依兒少法保護;不可揭露身分細節 / 就讀學校名稱(除非家長或本人明示同意)。
• 「球賽預測」與「分析」是不同的來源: 前者是賭盤導向的猜測;後者是基於已知數據的專家評估。不可混淆,也不能把賭盤當作「市場共識」的代理。

References

Related skills:

• med-news-reporter — general news workflow (this skill specializes it)
• med-business — for sports business / corporate strategy stories (sponsorship, broadcasting rights, franchise valuation)
• stat-hypothesis-testing — for statistical claims and era-adjustment rigor
• hum-source-criticism — for deeper vetting of sports-data sources and databases

Limitations

• Does not verify live athletic performances: this skill flags statistical claims and sources; it does not watch games or verify play-by-play accuracy. Rely on official league box scores and third-party databases.
• Medical expertise scope: this skill notes disclosure limits and privacy considerations; it does not make medical judgments. For injury prognosis or medical claims, consult sports-medicine sources or sports-medicine literature.
• League-specific rules: CPBL rules, MLB rules, NBA rules, IOC rules differ. This skill notes when to cite rule sources; it does not encode every league's rulebook. Always cite the governing body.
• Doping adjudication: WADA/CAS procedures are complex and multi-year. This skill teaches terminology discipline ("alleged" vs. "convicted"), but does not predict case outcomes or legal strategy. Cite case status only as formally announced.
• Betting regulation: sports betting is heavily regulated (Taiwan運彩, MLB/NBA licensing, UK Gambling Commission, etc.). This skill notes conflict-of-interest and disclosure requirements; it does not provide betting-law advice. When reporting on betting-related stories, consult legal counsel on disclosure obligations.