Chipper: steroid cloud will follow A-Rod

Fenian and Cranberry - Home runs, and not the 'barely-got-out, scraped the back edge of the fence' variety.


Outofplace, agree about A-Rod being a story, strongly disagree about how information is gathered - ethics matter. It is not appropriate - period - for journalists to be making arbitrary decisions about what laws and ethics are 'ok' to break when and how they choose. I cannot emphasize this strongly enough. MFW's alleged abetting of Ellerman's felony taints everything we have learned, IMO. And the origins of the investigation into Bonds appear, purportedly, to have started with a vengeful fellow gym member of Bonds' - Jeff Nowitzky.

The Bonds 'investigation' smelled from the very beginning, and the stench has gone precisely nowhere. That's why some of us were not prepared to blindly join in on operations such as markandlance.org. Some here yesterday attempted to impugn my and others' integrity by suggesting if I questioned the tactics employed by, allegedly, MFW, that I didn't understand journalism and/or investigative reporting. Nonsense. It's called knowing right from wrong.

A soldier is not required to unquestionably support a comrade when that comrade commits a morally repugnant act. In fact, he is ethically obligated not to support such an act, lest all soldiers be branded with a lack of standards and lest his own sense of decency be rendered meaningless.

I do lockstep for no one. If you act properly, you'll be feted. If you don't, you'll be called to account. Period. It's almost - almost - humorous how in his column today Lupica swings and misses on his attempt to berate what he deems 'amateur' journalists (as well as "Bonds flacks") who aren't on board the Railroad Bonds express. Somebody want to take a guess who he's (incorrectly) referring to? But here's the real problem with what he's trying to say: What happens to the profession (and its standing in the public - who it is supposedly serving) when the 'amateurs' are more 'professional' than the 'professionals?' I'm supposed to have faith in the people who have given up using terms like 'suspected' as they deem appropriate, or trust persons pulling out quotes from thin air? Or someone who's paper runs the type of garbage seen on the tabloids' front pages pertaining to Bonds just a day or two ago?

No, I don't think so. If those are the 'standards,' then it only gives credence to what many think about journalists and journalism in general -- there's a reason why you don't need any specific schooling or training to practice it; hacks and shams not only exist but are welcome.

I care too much for the truth - and the truth arrived at by the proper means - to be cowed by those who are making, interestingly, "Bonds-defenders" type arguments for Nowitsky, MFW, ... To wit: "Who cares if they got their info unethically? It's the truth, right? Don't you want the truth?"

Yes, I - we - want the truth, but we want it in a way such that the 'truth' doesn't become disqualified by how it was obtained. If you want to convict a man, your evidence better not be able to be tossed out or even raise a serious and legitimate eyebrow of suspicion as to how it was obtained. Ask Marcia Clark and Christopher Darden. Because if you go down that path, the shadowy path of journalistic 'discovery,' you'll find you often lose the right to be taken seriously, despite your and your defenders' best protestations.

And you'll also hurt your comrades' standing in the eyes of others. Which is likely to really, really tick them off.

And then you - and they, thanks to you - become what you all supposedly most despise. You end up treated with as much suspicion as he who you would seek to place all the suspicion on.

That is, the guy with the record. The record you didn't prevent from happening. Tell me again how much the public interest was served, and what great results followed the illegal leaking of the grand jury testimony...
- - - - -

In physics, there is something known as the "Heisenberg Uncertainty Principle." This refers to the inability to look at an electron through a microscope without affecting either the position or the speed of the particle. In other words, a person's decision to observe the electron changes what he ends up seeing, and what he ends up communicating to others as to what he witnessed about the electron.

I think that a similar process is at play here, with the Bonds investigation and the reporting of the investigation. From existent reports on the subject, I believe that Nowitzky's decision to obsessively - yes, I believe 'obsessively,' as opposed to, say, 'doggedly' - pursue his investigation as well as MFW's potential abettance (at best, there are worse interpretations) of a felony have possibly irrevocably altered how this case will be viewed by the public, irrespective of Bonds' actual guilt or innocence. As a lawyer, it would be relatively straightforward to make such a case to a judge or jury. Again, I reference the OJ Simpson case as an example.

All of this remains to be seen, how the public will ultimately end up judging the merits of this case, the investigation of it and the reporting on it. One thing I think which could possibly help clear up matters is if MFW/...(?) would provide some kind of detailed accounting of what allegedly occurred between himself and Ellerman. To this point, to the best of my knowledge, such an accounting has not yet occurred. Such an interview might help to provide the public more confidence in the work and motives which went into the production of GOS. And as all we presently have are allegedly verbatim copied grand jury transcripts and the word of someone who allegedly overheard portions of the grand jury testimony of Barry Bonds as our 'facts,' any such shedding of light on the supposed interactions between Ellerman and MFW could, IMO, only help to serve the public's ability to make a proper decision for themselves concerning these matters.

Because from people whom I talk to, I hear much of the uncertainty I alluded to above regarding Bonds' case. Which brings me back to the beginnings of the post - the importance of ethical journalism: If you can't trust the process, it makes it harder to trust the product. And it makes it harder for others to trust any other products from others in your profession. Even if a person feels he has the right to act unethically in pursuit of a story/investigation, sometimes that choice can unfairly affect others around him. So, it's not merely a personal choice.

These and similar reasons are why I never hopped on the GOS bandwagon in the first place.

So where are we now? The facts on the ground (faits accompli, as Bob Ryan might hope to say) tell us that Bonds remains unindicted after three years of investigation and that he is the new all-time HR king. We have a well-timed report that Bonds will be indicted, but it is just a report for now, like similar reports in the past that Bonds was facing yet another round of 'impending indictments.' Today I know that Bonds is the HR king; I do not know if he will or will not be indicted, regardless of how I might 'root' one way or the other, and also regardless of how conveniently-timed I might report the information that he likely will be indicted to try to steal the thunder from an accomplishment I sought - unsuccessfully - to prevent.

I have said this before, and I will say it again: I am of the belief that if - IF - Bonds is indicted, it will be ONLY on tax evasion charges. That is, I do not believe - at least not from what I know today - that he will be indicted on charges of perjury. That is, perjury about knowingly taking steroids.

If Bonds walks on the perjury charges, all steroid allegations (pending the Mitchell investigation) are legally gone - *poof.* Then Nowitzky, MFW, LW, Lupica, Quinn, ... will have been formally 'Dardened.' If anyone thinks that such potential, lasting embarrassments will be handled gracefully, think again. And that's why LW was on Sportscenter right after the historic HR; why Costas was on a seeming nationwide tour after he made the 'suspected' foux pax; why Lupica has written two back-to-back columns in successive days about Bonds; etc.: There is a lot on the line here, which is why it is so important to get it right, to make good choices. Ethical choices. If not, the 'taint' which some seek to ascribe Bonds becomes, instead, their own taint.

This is where I'm coming from. Where I've always been coming from the whole time on this subject. The qualified statements I make (e.g., "alleged felony abettance") are all gleamed from publicly available sources and a few of my own sources, none of which, to be quite honest, are so incredibly special. I don't make things up, and when I'm speculating I am quite clear that I am but speculating. I was the first one - anywhere, and I've checked - to report that MFW obtained, and the Chron published, information allegedly leaked from Ellerman while Ellerman's motion to dismiss was still pending. I was not the first to report the supposed dates of the leaking, but the first to make the connection that those dates coincided with the motion's still being waited to be decided on by the overseeing judge.

That fact - the one I reported - smacked me right in the face. If that is true, and it seems to be the case it is true, I'm not sure how much more evidence anyone needs of grave ethical violations by those involved in the gathering, reporting and publishing of that information. And that's not even taking into account the possible legal ramifications if the timeline is correct.

So anyone who seeks to impugn my professionalism or cast me as 'near libelous,' think again. I am not Don Quixote tilting at windmills here. This information exists; it is out there. That I have been able to piece it together and form a coherent narrative out of it is to my credit, regardless of whether what I have found fits what other 'professionals' want the narrative to be, hope it to be. That is immaterial. I stand by what I have said pursuant to the materials I have examined AND I stand by how I came by that material. If you have a well-researched counterargument, by all means bring it to the table. If you seek to run me through the mud for merely doing my job, save your breath. I do, and always have done, my homework.

Gingerbread - Thanks for starting this thread. It seems that the person who has demonstrated the most credibility on the topic of steroids and other PED's in MLB, Jose Canseco, has found himself a new pinata to flail about the head. I guess we'll see what Canseco has to say concerning A-Rod. Although I must say, I'm not holding my breath.

 

Holy hell. If you're going to write that long, at least make it enjoyable. I've read more compelling stuff in the NEJM.

 

What up Cran!

Sorry I didn't call you for the last JDV vid on Bond's but it was unexpected you know (well exact time anyway). How about Bonds! Great stuff!

Awesome article. For those that "want to know what I think" in general without having the work ethic or courtesy to watch my vids - Sally gives a decent summary. Perhaps she has perused some of JDV's work, hmm? I do get an awful lot of hits from the DC area, but given my background/connections that is to be expected.

No matter, JDV only cares about the result & she is a better writer than JDV.

GREAT article. As I said the fog is lifting and it seems as if the public is ready for the truth.

Good stuff!

John

 

I hear you, but it is his style & that is kind of insulting in a way even though I know you are not trying to be BW.

Look, per Gingerbread & other's - it is clear that Rok & I should probably do something formal on this or team up with someone to get something published.

The problem I have is that for me this is WAY down on the list of priorities unless there is significant $$$ attached to it. As I like to say "if it doesn't make dollars....it doesn't make sense."

On that note, I am on VERY limited time today as I have several deadlines & meetings looming but this was a good thread.

JDV

 

Huge!

& bingo!

Nice FB!

 

Sorry, it is still, "Are you now and have you ever been?" and I simply won't do that. Arrest his doctor. Have some documents filed in a legal proceeding. I need more than someone's say-so to accuse someone of breaking the law. How much he earns and his high profile are utterly irrelevant. Just as Costas is not justified in bragging that he's not using "alleged" even though, if they caught a stick-up kid with the gun in his hand, the rules I learned say the crime is "alleged" until adjudication. The rules don't change because a guy is rich and famous. Or they ought not to.
Sorry I made such a hash out of that first post.

 

Actually, John, I'm sure you're aware that in any type of written communication, it is not the responsibility of the reader to try to connect with the writer. It is the responsibility of the writer to adapt his "style" in order to connect with the reader -- at least, if the writer is interested in getting his point across effectively.

If the writer is only interested in making his point, however ... then who gives a shit about the reader, right?

 

Correct.

Cran is on fiyah!

It is funny, per yesterday when some said they wouldn't talk to me to develop the biggest story of the year (decade?) because they didn't like me or I didn't "sell" (you HAVE to be kidding) it right.

Of course I responded that this was totally self-defeating, illogical, and unprofessional.

Now, I am not trying to diss anyone or get into any stuff today. I don't care nor do I have time.

But, ponder this (per Cran's good post) - what if athletes did that to you?

How do you feel about the ones that freeze you out? In the end does that help them or their team? How fair is that? Aren't many people mad at Bonds for that?

All I am saying is people should look in the mirror and think sometimes before throwing stones - ALL of us.

JDV

 

Anyone else bothered by the first graf of this story? Seems wildly overstated misleading:

What do they have in common, other than hitting a lot of home runs? One is under suspicion because of confessions and investigations and evidence...the other is under suspicion because one former doper wants to sell a book.

I think spnited addressed it best--overblown tabloid reporting.

 

Jesus.
Why A-Rod and not, oh, Melky Cabrera or Philip Hughes?
If it's "because he's famous," or "because he's successful," or, worst of all, "because Jose Canseco and Chipper Jones ran their mouths," then we are into the dynamic through which Joe McCarthy played the tabloid press, and that was a blight.

 

Rok ... interesting stuff but Buckweaver is right. You make Ragu's posts look concise.

JDV ... I haven't been coming around much lately. And by the time I get to your threads, they're already locked.

Anyway, now that you're here I'm sure the kids on the night crew will feel some need to post about anything but the thread subject.

Oh well. It was a good thread while it lasted.