Fair and balanced reporting by Lance Williams?

Check out the recent work of Lance Williams.

He apparently has had accesss to the Jason Giambi grand jury transcript and wrote the following in the Chronicle on Saturday:

In his testimony, Jason Giambi ducked questions about Bonds, saying only "I assumed because he's Barry's trainer" that Bonds was using the same drugs.

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2009/01/31/SP3D15KCGQ.DTL&hw=barry+bonds&sn=001&sc=1000



The following provides the context of the Giambi testimony which also contains the excerpt used by Williams:

Giambi: “So I started to ask him: ‘Hey, what are the things you’re doing with Barry? He’s an incredible player. I want to still be able to work out at that age and keep playing. … [But Anderson] didn’t ever talk about who he was dealing with, or what Barry was taking. He never explained anything.

“You know I assumed because he’s Barry’s trainer – you know, Barry – but he never said one time, ‘This is what Barry’s taking, this is what Barry’s doing.’ He never gave up another name that he was dealing with or doing anything with.”

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news;_ylt=AhOVnEid2a0XhG2z6OL7i345nYcB?slug=li-giambi020209&prov=yhoo&type=lgns

Is this fair and balanced reporting by Williams?

Comments? Just curious what others think.

 

What would have made it more fair and balanced? Seems pretty clear (cream?) in both quotes that Giambi isn't claiming direct knowledge of anything.

 

I was actually going to guess that speedbuff is creamora's new ID.

But this guy/gal didn't post from a phone and didn't break the snark meter.

 

Williams report says "I assumed that because he was Barry's trainer" that he was using the same drugs

How does Giambi's actual testimony including the following
statements equate to what Williams reported?

1.[But Anderson] didn’t ever talk about who he was dealing with, or what Barry was taking. He never explained anything.

2. But he never said one time, ‘This is what Barry’s taking, this is what Barry’s doing.’ He never gave up another name that he was dealing with or doing anything with.”

These two statements seem not add up to the conclusion Williams
asserts. Is Williams paid to provide his opinion or the facts? Why
was this additional information in the same sentence as the Williams "selected" excerpt not included? The Williams narrative
seems to be a bit of a stretch to me.

 

You posted Giambi's answers, but what were the questions?

Seems to me that if the questions were about steroids -- and/or the idea of Greg Anderson possibly giving steroids to Bonds -- then Giambi's answer might lead to exactly the conclusion that Williams wrote.

But we don't know the questions. Williams has seen the testimony, I presume. Perhaps it provides the context you don't have.

 

Where is Williams giving his opinion? He's just quoting Giambi, and it seems fairly obvious in either story that Giambi isn't claiming to have any knowledge of Bonds' activities.

 

Welcome, Lance ... er ... creamora!

 

Williams basically reported that Giambi told the grand jury that he assumed that because Anderson was Barry's trainer that Bonds was using the same drugs. In short, that is not what Giambi told the grand jury. It seems to me that Williams has simply provided an inaccurate description of what Giambi actually told the grand jury.
What concerns me is that the Williams narrative and the context surrounding the excerpt he used do not match.

 

So again, what were the questions asked to Giambi? Did they mention steroids or not?

If so, there's your context.

Post the questions first, then we can decide on whether that's what Giambi was saying when he said "I assumed that because he was Barry's trainer ..."