Raissman: Writer Got Scoops with Dirty Tricks?

Kill the messenger.
What a bunch of bullshit.

Did they say it? No one denies that they did. The story says the union says no off the record confidences were violated.
So what's the problem?
There isn't one, except the players got in trouble for saying it and are now trying to pin the blame on someone else.

 

Yes, but hit the search button and read through 95 percent of what Rokski posts on here. According to him, reporters are, by nature, unethical people who are out to screw athletes--as if Jason Giambi and Gary Sheffield have always been controversy-free rubes without experience dealing with reporters. :

Only someone with an agenda would read an accusation made by the UNION over things the players aren't denying they said and post it the way he did.

Same old bullshit from him and it's old. There are no ethical problems with Game of Shadows. The book is the product of what investigative reporters do, including ferreting out grand jury testimony if they can somehow legally get their hands on it.

People are still waiting for anything that shows that what Game of Shadows reported is false.

*crickets*

Instead, people like this try to shoot the messengers, which is pretty funny, because the messengers have held up pretty spotlessly even under the smear and slander campaigns being run by people a lot more intelligent and artful about it than Rokski.

 

FB, I encourage you to hit the search button and read through Rokski's posts on here. If he simply made that point, I'd be quiet about it, as I mostly am with you. He has painted those reporters as criminal and relentlessly slandered them with false accusations. And it's infuriating, which is why I refuse to let it go. I strongly suspect he doesn't have a clue about the instincts, skills and hard work that go into an investigative reporting job like that. I strongly suspect you do.

I disagree with you about them being "complicit," but at worst, you are talking about one issue: the Ellerman thing--which ultimately was a side show between a lawyer, the bar association and a judge, to me. I know you disagree about this (so I agree, no need to rehash), but I also know you'd be the first to say that as troubling as that whole thing might be to you, it doesn't render what they reported false (only an idiot can't make those distinctions) and it doesn't make the reporters criminal in any aspect of their work, or unethical in EVERY aspect of their work.