med-sports
寫體育新聞，數據要註明時代和來源，禁藥指控只能寫涉嫌
中文翻譯
---
name: "med-sports"
description: "使用者想根據提供的素材（比賽數據表、訪談、官方聲明、統計、醫療更新）寫體育新聞時使用，包含賽事戰報、運動員人物報導、聯盟／規則變動、傷情報告、交易公告、禁藥／紀律事件報導。這是 med-news-reporter 的體育線特化版：重點有跨時代校正後的統計、體育數據的來源審查、醫療／傷情揭露的限度、運動員作為公眾人物的準則、禁藥指控 vs. 指控的用詞、運動賭博的敏感性，以及場上表現 ≠ 場外權威。觸發語句例如 'write up this game'、'turn into a sports feature'、'cover this athlete trade'、'draft a piece on this injury'、'寫一篇 MLB 賽季報導'、'整理 NBA 交易消息'、'寫一篇選手專訪'、'draft an Olympic piece'、'報導棒球禁賽風波'。不要用在：夢幻運動（fantasy sports）貼士（用 fin-*）、賭博建議、球隊行銷／新聞稿（用 pr-*），或球員經紀人的公關稿（用 pr-press-release）。"
metadata:
category: "WP-50 大眾傳播"
tags: ["news", "journalism", "sports-news", "athletics", "media-ethics", "sports-governance"]
---
# 體育新聞報導
> **這個 skill 是 med-news-reporter 的體育線特化版。** 先讀 med-news-reporter，了解通用的 6 步工作流程（類型選擇、素材盤點、事實查核、平衡、倫理、識讀）。這份檔案是在那之上再加**體育線專屬的紀律**。
## 概述
內容提煉自 Ohio University Scripps、Northwestern Medill、University of Missouri、Arizona State Cronkite、University of Florida 的體育新聞教材，以及運動治理相關課程（CPBL、NBA、IOC、WADA CAS 程序）。涵蓋五種主要的體育新聞子類型：**賽事報導／運動員人物報導／聯盟治理／傷情與紀律／交易與異動**。
```
IRON LAW: On-Field Performance ≠ Off-Field Authority
A player's elite on-court statistics are news; the same player's political
opinions, business endorsements, or social claims receive the same source-
vetting and attribution standards as any quoted figure. Do not treat
athletic celebrity as a free pass for unverified off-field claims, and do
not smuggle off-field judgments via on-field framing ("the controversial
striker scored twice" conflates sports fact with off-field stance). Separate
the performance data (verifiable, time-stamped, era-adjusted) from the claim
about what they meant or who they are off the field (requires the same rigor
as any other quoted figure's statement). When stats are accurate but used
to make a character claim, flag it.
Default LLM behavior is to assume athletic fame carries credibility across
domains. Override that assumption explicitly per subject.
```
為什麼這件事不直覺：體育讀者早就習慣八卦媒體把運動員和名人混為一談。專業的體育新聞必須把統計事實和詮釋性宣稱分開，尤其是當運動員的行為（單膝下跪、代言、政治表態）和他的比賽表現被寫在一起的時候。「行動派球星反手回擊批評者並攻下兩分」這種框架，把場上的統治力當成場外觀點的權威。這就是鐵律要抓的失敗模式。
**合理化對照表：以下這些說法都「不能」推翻鐵律：**
| Claude 可能會想… | 為什麼這樣還是違規 |
|---|---|
| 「這個球員很有名，所以他場外的意見有新聞價值」 | 在一個領域（體育）的名氣，不代表在另一個領域（政治、醫療、社會政策）有權威。要把他當作「剛好發表看法的運動員」來引述，不是專家。獨立查證他的宣稱。 |
| 「教練說的，所以是執教智慧，不是意見」 | 賽後的金句還是有出處的發言，不是事實。「教練說 X 勝過 Y」≠「X 勝過 Y」。 |
| 「這些數據證明這位運動員是『史上最強』」，接著還稱讚他的人品 | 沒有跨時代校正、也沒有可比較樣本數的數據可能誤導。「史上最強」需要證據，不只是在單一賽季或單一聯盟的統治力。一定要註明時代和樣本。 |
| 「傷情報告是球隊發的，所以是官方的」 | 球隊的傷情報告經過公關過濾。正式的醫療揭露跟「球員狀況良好、準備好上場」不一樣。如果是重大宣稱，要對照聯盟的醫療規範交叉查證。 |
| 「禁藥指控在社群媒體上很熱／有知名人物發了推文」 | 沒有根據的禁藥指控是誹謗。要用「指控」、「據稱」、「被指違規」（不要寫「是藥罐子」）。等 WADA/CAS 裁決或有佐證再說。 |
| 「這個球員有爭議的私生活是他公眾故事的一部分」 | 運動員對家庭、心理健康、醫療資訊有合理的隱私期待。要區分公開行為（場上、鏡頭前、賽事中）和私生活（除非跟工作表現直接相關，或本人自己揭露）。 |
| 「盤口顯示這場比賽勢均力敵，我引用賠率當作脈絡」 | 不要把運動彩券的盤口當作新聞來源或「中立」指標。博彩公司在敘事和盤口變動上有財務利益。如果報導是關於賭博，要揭露財務關係。 |
---
## 何時使用
**觸發條件：**
- 使用者提供體育素材（比賽數據表、比賽逐字稿、訪談片段、傷情更新、規則變動、交易公告、運動員聲明），並要求寫成新聞稿。
- 使用者要求「game recap」、「sports feature」、「athlete profile」、「league news」、「injury report」、「trade coverage」、「Olympic coverage」或類似的東西。
- 使用者換句話說：「寫一篇 MLB 賽季報導」、「整理 NBA 交易消息」、「把這場球寫成新聞稿」、「cover this Olympic moment」、「draft a piece on this coach's hiring」、「寫一篇選手專訪」。
**輸入訊號：**
- 有具名的運動員、教練、球隊、聯盟、比賽、賽事、統計、醫療／傷情聲明。
- 有球員、教練、官員或聯盟代表的直接引述。
- 有比賽數據表、戰績、統計、排名、時代脈絡。
**何時不要用：**
- 賭博／夢幻運動貼士（用 fin-*；運動賭博屬於另一個法規領域）。
- 球隊或聯盟的行銷素材、官方宣傳內容 → 用 `pr-press-release` 或 `mkt-sports-content`。
- 球員經紀人的公關稿 → 用 `pr-press-release`。
- 運動教學／執教教學 → 用 tech-* 或領域專屬的 skill。
- 純運動商業／企業策略（併購、贊助合約）→ 用 `biz-*` 或 `fin-*`（除非報導的是「聯盟管理機構做了 X」）。
---
## 方法
### Step 0：通用流程交給 med-news-reporter
讀過或已載入 `med-news-reporter`，裡面有：素材盤點、事實查核、消息來源強度標記、平衡原則、媒體倫理檢核、媒體識讀自我檢查。**這裡不要重做那些步驟。** 這份檔案特化的是 Step 1、2、3，並新增體育線專屬的 Step 7（統計來源與表現—權威稽核）。
### Step 1：判斷體育新聞的子類型
| 子類型 | 訊號 | 子範本重點 |
|----------|---------|--------------------|
| **賽事報導** | 比賽數據表、逐球／逐分紀錄、結果、球員／球隊表現 | 統計的準確度；時代脈絡；不加限定就別寫「史上最強」 |
| **運動員人物報導** | 生平故事、職業生涯弧線、個性、場外興趣 | 區分場上事實和場外意見；隱私界線；個人細節要取得同意 |
| **聯盟治理** | 規則變動、擴編、勞資／CBA、紀律案件、季後賽賽制 | 官方決定的來源；利害關係人的立場（球員工會、老闆、運動員）；實施時程 |
| **傷情／醫療** | 球員健康狀況、復出時程、手術、心理健康揭露 | 醫療隱私法；球隊 vs. 公開資訊；揭露的適當程度；球員同意 |
| **交易／異動** | 球員簽約、交易、釋出、選秀、退休 | 合約／交易條件的來源；競標（若有報導）；球員聲明；球隊官方聲明 |
如果素材橫跨多種子類型（例如「明星球員因傷被交易」），就依**主要新聞驅動力**來分類。
### Step 2：來源審查與體育數據專屬的紀律
**每一項統計數字或「自 X 以來首次」的宣稱，都必須附上來源出處：**
- ❌ 「球團史上最佳的投籃賽季」
- ✅ 「根據 Basketball-Reference 和球隊官方紀錄，截至 2026 年，這是球團 25 年歷史上最佳的三分球命中率（.485）」
- ✅ 時代有影響時：「0.310 的打擊率低於他生涯的 .320，但高於 2026 年聯盟平均的 .268」（明確的時代脈絡）
**來源層級標記**（延伸自 med-news-reporter 的分層，加上體育專屬的層級）：
| 層級 | 例子 | 處理方式 |
|------|----------|-----------|
| **官方聯盟紀錄** | 比賽數據表（NBA.com、MLB.com、CPBL、聯盟官方統計）、規則書、官方排名 | 直接引用；註明來源單位 |
| **第三方查證過的資料庫** | Baseball-Reference、Basketball-Reference、Sports-Reference、ESPN Stats、PFF（NFL 用） | 引用來源；有影響的話註明版本／更新日期 |
| **球隊官方聲明** | 教練發言、球隊新聞稿、官方傷情報告 | 直接引述；標示為球隊來源；註明有無公關過濾 |
| **運動員公開發言** | 賽後訪問、記者會、官方聲明 | 依 med-news-reporter 的直接引述；和隨口評論或社群媒體區分 |
| **分析師／評論員意見** | 退役球員的分析、體育記者的預測、教練的臆測 | 標示為分析／意見；不要當事實 |
| **社群媒體／球迷／傳言** | 運動員的推文、經紀人洩漏、跑線記者的臆測 | 沒有佐證前不能用；或者若是新消息且有新聞價值，就明確標為「未經證實的報導」 |
### Step 3：體育專屬的風險檢查
在 med-news-reporter 的通用倫理檢核之外，再加上：
1. **禁藥和紀律指控（Doping/Discipline Allegations）**：
- 在 WADA/CAS 裁決或聯盟正式提出指控之前，用「涉嫌違規」（alleged to have violated）／「藥檢呈陽性」（tested positive，若已公布），不要用「使用禁藥」（uses banned drugs／是藥罐子）。前者是事實，後者預設了有罪。
- 附上調查時程：「等待 CAS 審理」／「等待正式聽證」／「獨立調查中」。
- 在標題裡，要區分球員停賽（聯盟處分）和醫療停賽（傷病／檢測後的恢復）。
2. **傷停資訊與醫療揭露**：
- 球隊官方聲明和球員自己揭露的醫療資訊，法律分量不同。球隊說「day-to-day」（公關標準說法）；球員說「前十字韌帶撕裂」（他們主動提供的醫療資訊）。
- 除了官方說的或球員自己揭露的，不要臆測嚴重程度或復原時程。
- 心理健康／藥物濫用的揭露：視為隱私期待很高的醫療資訊，除非運動員自己公開說過。
3. **球員私生活邊界**：
- 運動員在場上領域是公眾人物。場外：家庭細節、病況、感情狀態、性傾向、宗教信仰，都需要達到新聞價值的門檻（公開行為、運動員自己的揭露，或確實影響表現）。
- 未成年人（18 歲以下的家庭成員）：要特別保護；沒有明確同意就不要指認或揭露資訊。
4. **賭盤相關敏感性（Sports Betting Disclosure）**：
- 不要把運動彩券的賠率／盤口當作「中立」的脈絡或數據來源。如果報導是關於賭博，要揭露博彩公司的財務利益。
- 對於假球／操縱比賽的指控：舉證責任很高。在裁決之前用「據稱」。來源必須是執法機關、正式調查，或可信的多方佐證。
- 球員賭自己的運動項目是利益衝突；要和合法運動賭博市場的報導（那是新聞，但要揭露它的財務／聲譽利害）區分開。
5. **國際賽事與奧運規定**：
- 奧運資格、IOC 制裁狀態、國家協會的核准：要引用規則來源，以及運動員目前的資格狀態。
- 主辦國／地緣政治緊張：中立報導；除非運動員／協會明確表示，否則不要把運動員的國籍認同和政治衝突混為一談。
### Step 4：統計來源稽核（體育專屬新增）
輸出前，掃過稿子檢查：
1. **「最強」／「首次」／「唯一」／「史無前例」這類最高級用語**：每一個這樣的宣稱都必須註明：
- 查過的資料庫／來源（例如「根據 Baseball-Reference」、「依據奧運官方紀錄」）
- 範圍（例如「在球團歷史上」、「自聯盟 1990 年成立以來」、「在這項賽事中」）
- 時代（例如「在 shot-clock 時代」［NBA 自 1985 年起］、「三分線採用之後」［MLB／棒球跨時代比較需要規則脈絡］）
- 樣本數／脈絡（例如「50 場以上」、「整個賽季，不是賽季中的速度」）
2. **比較稽核**：
- 跨時代的比較（1980 年代 vs. 2026 年）需要時代校正的脈絡：規則變動、聯盟擴編、訓練醫學、數據分析的採用、薪資上限的影響。
- 跨聯盟的比較（MLB vs. NPB、NBA vs. 歐洲籃球聯賽）：註明聯盟規模、競爭水準、樣本差異。
- ❌ 「10 場比賽 5 支全壘打是史無前例的」（沒有時代：哪個聯盟？哪個時代？哪個水準的比賽？）
- ✅ 「10 場比賽 5 支全壘打，是中華職棒史上（自 1990 年起）新人球季最快的速度，不過賽季初期的速度整季下來常常會回落」。
3. **傷情時程的現實性**：醫療宣稱不能超過證據：
- ❌ 「他 4 週後會復出」（沒有醫療來源；這是球隊的臆測，還是球隊醫療人員的聲明？）
- ✅ 「球隊表示該球員 4 週後復出；他在第 2 節撕裂了前十字韌帶」（區分球隊的時程和已確認的傷情事實）。
4. **表現 vs. 脈絡**：
- .350 的打擊率是事實；說它「證明他是最強的打者」需要比較和時代脈絡。
- 如果敘事從場上數據暗示場外的結論（成熟、領導力、心理韌性），要標出來：這些是詮釋，不是事實。
---
## 輸出格式
用 med-news-reporter 的基本格式，再在結尾的 meta footer 加上這些體育線專屬的項目：
```markdown
[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〕
```
---
## 注意事項
- **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**：即使球員是明星，未成年家族成員、離婚細節、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。
---
## 參考資料
| 檔案 | 用途 | 何時讀 |
|------|---------|--------------|
| `references/sources_and_beats.md` | 體育新聞消息來源、國際聯盟與數據庫、台灣體育治理機構 | Step 2 來源審查 |
| `references/glossary.md` | 體育統計術語、計算公式、跨聯盟術語對照 (ERA/WHIP、TS%/PER、打擊率/上壘率) | 遇到不熟的體育術語時 |
| `references/ethics_and_law.md` | 球員隱私 / 醫療揭露、禁藥程序、兒少法保護、賭盤敏感性、未成年運動員 | Step 3 風險檢查 |
| `references/sports_data_reading.md` | 進階數據 vs. 傳統數據、sample size、era-adjusted 比較、樣本不足陷阱 | Step 4 統計來源稽核 |
| `references/sports_governance.md` | 各聯盟治理結構 (CPBL, MLB, NBA, IOC)、勞資協議、選秀規則、轉隊規則 | 報導聯盟／治理新聞時 |
相關 skill：
- `med-news-reporter`：通用新聞工作流程（這個 skill 是它的特化版）
- `med-business`：運動商業／企業策略的報導（贊助、轉播權、球團估值）
- `stat-hypothesis-testing`：統計宣稱與時代校正的嚴謹度
- `hum-source-criticism`：更深入審查體育數據來源與資料庫
---
## 限制
- **不會查證即時的運動表現**：這個 skill 只會標出統計宣稱和來源；它不會看比賽，也不會驗證逐球紀錄的準確度。要依賴聯盟官方的比賽數據表和第三方資料庫。
- **醫療專業的範圍**：這個 skill 只會註明揭露的限度和隱私考量；它不做醫療判斷。要看傷情預後或醫療宣稱，請查運動醫學的來源或文獻。
- **各聯盟專屬的規則**：CPBL、MLB、NBA、IOC 的規則各不相同。這個 skill 會提醒何時要引用規則來源，但沒有把每個聯盟的規則書都編進去。一定要引用管轄的機構。
- **禁藥裁決**：WADA/CAS 程序複雜，而且動輒好幾年。這個 skill 教的是用詞的紀律（「據稱」vs.「已定罪」），不預測案件結果或法律策略。案件狀態只能引用正式公布的內容。
- **賭博法規**：運動賭博受到嚴格管制（台灣運彩、MLB/NBA 授權、英國賭博委員會等）。這個 skill 會註明利益衝突和揭露的要求，但不提供賭博法的建議。報導賭博相關新聞時，揭露義務要請教法律顧問。英文原文
---
name: "med-sports"
description: "Use when the user wants to write a sports news piece — game recaps, athlete profiles, league/rule changes, injury reports, trade announcements, doping/discipline coverage — from supplied material (box scores, interviews, official statements, stats, medical updates). Specializes med-news-reporter for the sports beat: era-adjusted stats, source vetting for sports data, medical/injury disclosure limits, athlete-as-public-figure doctrine, doping allegations vs. allegations, sports-betting sensitivity, and on-field performance ≠ off-field authority. Triggers on phrases like 'write up this game', 'turn into a sports feature', 'cover this athlete trade', 'draft a piece on this injury', '寫一篇 MLB 賽季報導', '整理 NBA 交易消息', '寫一篇選手專訪', 'draft an Olympic piece', '報導棒球禁賽風波'. Do NOT use for fantasy sports tips (use fin-*), gambling advice, team marketing/press releases (use pr-*), or player agents' PR (use pr-press-release)."
metadata:
category: "WP-50 大眾傳播"
tags: ["news", "journalism", "sports-news", "athletics", "media-ethics", "sports-governance"]
---
# Sports News Reporting
> **This skill specializes med-news-reporter for the sports beat.** Read med-news-reporter first for the general 6-step workflow (type selection, material audit, fact-check, balance, ethics, literacy). This file adds **sports-beat-specific** discipline on top.
## Overview
Distilled from sports-journalism curricula at Ohio University Scripps, Northwestern Medill, University of Missouri, Arizona State Cronkite, University of Florida, and curricula in athletic governance (CPBL, NBA, IOC, WADA CAS procedures). Covers five main sports-news sub-types: **game/event coverage / athlete profile / league governance / injury/discipline / trade/transaction**.
```
IRON LAW: On-Field Performance ≠ Off-Field Authority
A player's elite on-court statistics are news; the same player's political
opinions, business endorsements, or social claims receive the same source-
vetting and attribution standards as any quoted figure. Do not treat
athletic celebrity as a free pass for unverified off-field claims, and do
not smuggle off-field judgments via on-field framing ("the controversial
striker scored twice" conflates sports fact with off-field stance). Separate
the performance data (verifiable, time-stamped, era-adjusted) from the claim
about what they meant or who they are off the field (requires the same rigor
as any other quoted figure's statement). When stats are accurate but used
to make a character claim, flag it.
Default LLM behavior is to assume athletic fame carries credibility across
domains. Override that assumption explicitly per subject.
```
Why this is non-obvious: sports readers are accustomed to athlete-celebrity conflation in tabloid press. Professional sports journalism must separate statistical fact from interpretive claim — especially when an athlete's behavior (kneeling, endorsement, political statement) is described alongside their game performance. The framing "activist star backhands a critic and scores twice" treats on-field dominance as authority for off-field views. This is the failure mode the Iron Law exists to catch.
**Rationalization Table — these justifications DO NOT override the Iron Law:**
| Claude might think... | Why it's still a violation |
|---|---|
| "The player is famous, so their off-field opinion is newsworthy" | Fame in one domain (athletics) does not confer authority in another (politics, medicine, social policy). Quote them as an athlete-who-happens-to-comment, not as an expert. Verify claims independently. |
| "The coach said it, so it's coaching wisdom, not opinion" | Post-game soundbites are still attributed utterances, not facts. "Coach said X beats Y" ≠ "X beats Y". |
| "These stats prove the athlete is the 'best ever'" — followed by character praise | Stats without era-adjustment and comparable sample size can mislead. "Best ever" requires evidence, not just dominance in a single season or league. Always cite the era and sample. |
| "The injury report is from the team, so it's official" | Team injury reports are PR-filtered. Formal medical disclosures differ from "player is healthy and ready". Cross-check with league medical protocols if significant claim. |
| "The doping allegation is trending on social media / a prominent figure tweeted it" | Unsubstantiated doping allegations are defamatory. Use "allegation", "alleged", "claimed to have violated" (not "is a drug cheat"). Wait for WADA/CAS adjudication or corroboration. |
| "This player's controversial personal life is part of their public story" | Athletes have reasonable privacy expectation for family, mental health, medical info. Distinguish between public acts (on-field, on-camera, tournament) and private life (unless directly relevant to job performance or self-disclosed). |
| "The betting line shows this game is close, so I'll cite it as odds context" | Don't cite sports-betting lines as news sources or "neutral" metrics. Betting companies have financial interest in narrative and line movement. If the story is about betting, disclose the financial relationship. |
---
## When to Use
**Trigger conditions:**
- User supplies sports material — box scores, game transcripts, interview clips, injury updates, rule changes, trade announcements, athlete statements — and asks for a news piece.
- User asks for "game recap", "sports feature", "athlete profile", "league news", "injury report", "trade coverage", "Olympic coverage", or similar.
- User paraphrases: "寫一篇 MLB 賽季報導", "整理 NBA 交易消息", "把這場球寫成新聞稿", "cover this Olympic moment", "draft a piece on this coach's hiring", "寫一篇選手專訪".
**Input signals:**
- Named athletes, coaches, teams, leagues, games, events, statistics, medical/injury statements.
- Direct quotes from players, coaches, officials, or league representatives.
- Box scores, records, stats, rankings, era context.
**When NOT to use:**
- Gambling/fantasy sports tips (use fin-*; sports betting is a different regulatory domain).
- Team or league marketing material, official promotional content → use `pr-press-release` or `mkt-sports-content`.
- Player agent PR release → use `pr-press-release`.
- Athletic instruction / coaching how-to → use tech-* or domain-specific skill.
- Pure sports business / corporate strategy (M&A, sponsorship deals) → use `biz-*` or `fin-*` (unless the story is "league governing body did X").
---
## Methodology
### Step 0: Defer general workflow to med-news-reporter
Read or have already loaded `med-news-reporter` for: material audit, fact-checking, source-strength tagging, balance principle, media-ethics check, media-literacy self-check. **Do not re-implement those steps here.** This file specializes Steps 1, 2, 3, and adds sports-specific Step 7 (Stats Provenance & Performance-Authority Audit).
### Step 1: Classify the sports-story sub-type
| Sub-type | Signals | Sub-template focus |
|----------|---------|--------------------|
| **Game/event coverage** | Box score, play-by-play, result, player/team performance | Accuracy of stats; era context; avoiding "greatest ever" without qualification |
| **Athlete profile** | Life story, career arc, personality, off-field interests | Distinction between on-field fact and off-field opinion; privacy boundary; consent for personal details |
| **League governance** | Rule change, expansion, labor/CBA, discipline case, playoff format | Official decision source; stakeholder positions (players union, owners, athletes); implementation timeline |
| **Injury/medical** | Player health status, return timeline, surgery, mental health disclosure | Medical privacy law; team vs. public info; degree of disclosure propriety; player consent |
| **Trade/transaction** | Player signed, traded, released, drafted, retired | Contract/deal terms source; bidding competition (if reported); player statement; team official statement |
If the material spans sub-types (e.g. "star player traded due to injury"), classify by the **primary news driver**.
### Step 2: Source vetting & sports-data-specific discipline
**Every statistic or "first time since X" claim must carry provenance:**
- ❌ "The best shooting season in franchise history"
- ✅ "The best 3-point percentage (.485) in the franchise's 25-year history, according to Basketball-Reference and the team's official records, as of 2026"
- ✅ When era matters: "The 0.310 batting average is below his career .320 mark but above the league average of .268 in 2026" (explicit era context)
**Source tier tagging** (extends med-news-reporter's tiering with sports-specific tiers):
| Tier | Examples | Treatment |
|------|----------|-----------|
| **Official league record** | Box scores (NBA.com, MLB.com, CPBL, official league stats), rule book, official standings | Direct citation; note source entity |
| **Third-party verified database** | Baseball-Reference, Basketball-Reference, Sports-Reference, ESPN Stats, PFF (for NFL) | Cite source; note version/update date if material |
| **Team official statement** | Coach quote, team press release, official injury report | Quote directly; label as team-sourced; note any PR filtering |
| **Athlete on-record quote** | Post-game interview, press conference, official statement | Direct quote per med-news-reporter; distinguish from off-hand comment or social media |
| **Analyst / commentator opinion** | Ex-player analysis, sports journalist prediction, coach speculation | Label as analysis/opinion; do not treat as fact |
| **Social media / fan / rumor** | Athlete tweet, player agent leak, beat reporter speculation | Unusable until corroborated; or explicitly flagged as "unconfirmed report" if novel and newsworthy |
### 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:
```markdown
[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
| File | Purpose | When to read |
|------|---------|--------------|
| `references/sources_and_beats.md` | 體育新聞消息來源、國際聯盟與數據庫、台灣體育治理機構 | Step 2 source vetting |
| `references/glossary.md` | 體育統計術語、計算公式、跨聯盟術語對照 (ERA/WHIP、TS%/PER、打擊率/上壘率) | When unfamiliar sports terminology appears |
| `references/ethics_and_law.md` | 球員隱私 / 醫療揭露、禁藥程序、兒少法保護、賭盤敏感性、未成年運動員 | Step 3 risk check |
| `references/sports_data_reading.md` | 進階數據 vs. 傳統數據、sample size、era-adjusted 比較、樣本不足陷阱 | Step 4 Stats Provenance Audit |
| `references/sports_governance.md` | 各聯盟治理結構 (CPBL, MLB, NBA, IOC)、勞資協議、選秀規則、轉隊規則 | When covering league/governance stories |
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.