ESPN is keeping ombudsman Robert Lipsyte busy these days. Last week, Lipsyte gave his assessment of the Dan Le Batard Hall of Fame vote controversy. Lipsyte thought the stunt was wrong on one level, but served a purpose in elevating the level of discourse.

Well, Lipsyte now has another story to examine, and this one is far more complicated.

Over the weekend, reaction to a story about the inventor of a putter by Caleb Hannan on Grantland blew up on the Internet. Hannan disclosed that the inventor, a woman scientist who went by the nickname of “Dr. V” with a highly questionable resume, was an individual previously known as Stephen Krol. You need to read the story.

The reaction was so intense, ESPN released a statement on Sunday:

“We understand and appreciate the wide range of thoughtful reaction this story has generated and to the family and friends of Essay Anne Vanderbilt, we express our deepest condolences. We will use the constructive feedback to continue our ongoing dialogue on these important and sensitive topics. Ours is a company that values the LGBT community internally and in our storytelling, and we will all learn from this.”

Hannan’s story outraged many who felt he had no business outing Dr. V. Cyd Ziegler of Outsports at SB Nation wrote:

Was this story worth driving someone known to be mentally unstable – with a history of suicide attempts – to take her own life? The pursuit of the story – let alone the publishing of it – shows a willful disregard for humanity and the struggles so many misunderstood minorities face in public – and in the mirror – every day.

Ziegler added:

Certainly there are pieces of history that warranted discussion with this story. Dr. V clearly did not have the professional history she claimed to the writer and potential customers. That’s important for the writer to pursue, and he was right to share the information publicly. But if a trans person asks you to not discuss their very private personal life, do as they ask. Don’t share that information with company investors and certainly do not share it with the public.

It’s their life, not yours.

Josh Levin of Slate wrote:

The fact that Dr. V once lived under a different name is not irrelevant to Hannan’s story—the name change complicated his quest to check up on our background, which I believe makes it fair game if handled sensitively. But presenting Dr. V’s gender identity as one in a series of lies and elisions was a careless editorial decision. Hannan makes no claim that her identity as a trans woman has any bearing on the golf club she invented or the scientific background she inflated. And yet it sent a chill up his spine. It’s this line that feels particularly inhumane. Dr. V is a con artist and a trans woman. Hannan, though, conflates those two facts, acting as though the latter has some relation to the former. It seems that, in his view, they both represent a form of deceit.

Melissa McEwan of Shakesville:

There are already legions of defenders, who are keen to make arguments that Dr. V’s lies about her background are newsworthy, which is debatable, although I tend to agree that lying about her educational and professional history, which were apparently a central part of the pitch to investors and potential buyers, was unethical and worth reporting.* But her being transgender is entirely irrelevant—and if Hannan’s research into the former was what led to his discovery of the latter, it doesn’t mean each piece is equally appropriate to report.

One was about her professional life, and stood to potentially damage her career. The other was about her personal life, and stood to put her at risk for both professional retribution and personal harm.

Which is why, in one of her last communications with Hannan, Dr. V warned him that he “was about to commit a hate crime.”

And there’s much more.

Obviously, there is no easy answer here. The big question in my mind: Did Hannan break an agreement with Dr. V?

When Hannan initially contacted Dr. V, she asked that he agree to make the story about the putter and not the inventor. When confronted about misrepresentations on her resume, she wrote in an email to Hannan:

“As I clearly stated at the onset of your unsolicited probing, your focus must be on the benefits of the Science for the Golfer not the scientist…”

Hannan never said he agreed to Dr. V’s initial demand. However, there appears to be an implied consent to gain the access. So she had reason to feel betrayed.

Hannan, though, did have ample reason to report about Dr. V fabricating items on her resume. She was receiving money from investors for the putter. They had a right to know who they were dealing with in Dr. V.

Actually, there’s a good journalism lesson here. In the wake of the Manti Te’o story, Hannan didn’t accept Dr. V at her word. He checked out her background, separating fact from fiction.

In the process, Hannan discovered Dr. V was a trans individual. Truthfully, I’m not sure what I would have done here. It doesn’t seem possible to do a long piece on an individual and not report that piece of information. Yet I understand what is at stake and the ethics involved.

I wouldn’t have made the decision unilaterally. I would have sought many opinions, from editors to people in the business, before writing the story.

At the end of the day, we all have to make choices. Hannan made his and now he is catching considerable flak.

It’s your turn, Mr. Lipsyte.