1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

'Updated' - SF Chron Guys and Ellerman's Plea: Damning Dates, Revisited-*Videos*

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by RokSki, Feb 21, 2007.

  1. RokSki

    RokSki New Member

    The following two posts will be a repost of my last two posts on the thread "So What Do We Think of the Chron Guys Now" thread in the SportsJournalists.com Journalism section. SF Express, thank you for starting that thread and getting me interested in looking up the relevant dates. I also must say thanks to Dave Kindred who posted dates and gave me the framework to come up with my theory at all, which is basically just an elaboration of his own. Thanks, guys. But this new information casts an even grimmer light on the Chron's Mark's and Lance's actions, and I thought it deserved it's own thread, at the moderators' discretion, of course. Here's the link to that thread:

    http://www.sportsjournalists.com/forum/threads/37832/
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Here are my two posts from the end of the other thread. The second repost is in the post that follows this one, after I have confirmed the dates:
    -------------------------------------------------------------------------


    I want to amend something I said earlier, after having read the two linked articles on the first page of the ('So what do we think') thread again.

    It doesn't make a difference, I think, if Ellerman leaked the Bonds stuff to Mark and Lance before he asked for dismissal. I say this in regard to Ellerman's goals, not any other aspect of the case (that is, Mark and Lance's motives). I want to correct myself for aligning with Dave Kindred's theory. I'm not saying Dave's theory isn't correct, by any stretch, but I think it is immaterial and perhaps even counter to what Ellerman may have been trying to achieve in seeking a mistrial.

    Here's two other possibilities:

    Ellerman wants to get the trial dismissed. To that end, he uses Mark and Lance and the Chron to get out the Tim Montgormery stuff, hoping that this information plus what he claims the government gave to the US anti-doping agency, etc. is enough to get things tossed. That's his initial gambit.

    It doesn't work.

    * Now the question becomes:
    What was the date that the dismissal motion was rejected? *

    Was it before the date he supposedly gave the Bonds testimony to the Chron.? If so, Ellerman's motive would seem to go towards trying to pressure the court to reconsider dismissing the case. Kind of, 'Ok, you don't think the government's polluted the public perception enough, then how about this' type of thinking.

    2nd possibility:

    Was it after the date he supposedly gave the Bonds testimony to the Chron.? If so, this would reinforce the motive of trying to sway the court to indeed dismiss the trial. Again, this is a lawyer who knows how long a judge's deliberations on a motion typically take. Was Ellerman trying to 'time' the Bonds story breaking so that it would affect the judge's ruling on the potential dismissal? Ellerman may have thought that if he gave such 'juicy' material to a local paper (i.e., one which he may have felt would be less likely to hold and/or thoroughly fact-check/vet a story about such an important hometown figure), their publishing of the material would coincide very well, timewise, with the judge's ruling on the dismissal.

    And if the above timeframe (giving the Bonds info before the ruling on the dismissal) is correct, perhaps this would explain why the Chron decided to wait to publish the info. In other words, if they - after Ellerman made his motion for dismissal - realized they had been used by Ellerman, they might have decided, intentionally, to not publish the Bonds info until the judge ruled on the motion, so as not to further 'abet' Ellerman and his goals. And then, after Ellerman's gambit failed, they decided: 'hey, we got fooled here, we might as well get something from the deal, so we're publishing the info.' That way, they would have screwed Ellerman and got something for their being used.

    I have to check the timeline again, on the dates of the dismissal motion being rejected. But if this 2nd timeline works, I think this all will make a lot more sense, motives-wise, all around.
     
  2. RokSki

    RokSki New Member

    Re: The Chron Guys and Balco: New Damning Dates and Thoughts

    Yes, I have confirmed the timing. It was exactly as I feared, and now Mark (especially Mark) Fainaru-Wada's and Lance Williams' reputations have been even furthered stained, as has the Chronicle's

    (for links corroborating these dates please see the end of this post for details):

    - Date Ellerman gave Mark F-W Tim Montgomery info.:
    approximately 6._.04

    - Date Chron. published Montgomery info: 6.24.04

    - Date Ellerman files motion for dismissal: 10.8.04

    - Date of Mark F-W going back to meet with Ellerman and get the
    Bonds, Sheffield, etc Grand Jury transcripts: approximately 11._.04

    - Date of hearing on the dismissal motion: 12.1.04

    Conclusion: Mark F-W (and the Chron, by extension) willingly and knowingly went back and aided and abetted Ellerman's scheme to obstruct justice by gathering more information to publish which would help Ellerman's ploy. This is after he/they (Mark/Chron) got 'played' for fools with the Montgomery information by Ellerman. This is not only unethical, it's legally questionable , and it crosses the line, IMO, when you take into account the following two dates:

    - Date Chron publishes the Bonds, et al info: 12.3.04

    - Date Judge denies Ellerman's motion to dismiss: 12.28.04

    In other words, the Chron published this material - which could only help Ellerman's case for dismissal - before the judge ruled on the motion! If this isn't aiding and abetting, I'm not sure what is. At best, it's enabling.

    This is totally unethical, and knowingly unethical. The Chron and Mark F-W knew what Ellerman was trying to do, and they still went along with it, and then Mark and Lance tried to profit from this unethical behavior. Completely unconscionable. Not only are these guys not first amendment heroes, they're trash. They got used like prostitues, tried to (and did) profit from it, and allowed themselves to be willing 'martyrs' for their journalist brothers who went to support them and who defended them in print.

    I'm disgusted, much more than I was before I knew this timeline. This is repulsive, and they and the Chron were probably betting Ellerman wouldn't cop a plea and give this up. In fact, I'm virtually certain of it. Not only did they get used once, they got used on the back end, too, by a lawyer both smarter and more familiar with the legal system than they were. Pathetic. Unethical and pathetic.

    You lost, guys. But real journalists won.

    Thanks for leaving the mess for us to clean up though, clowns.

    I have not had the opportunity to post the links to corroborate my dates, but will do so shortly.

    This story must be told, what these guys did. I'm incredibly upset about and embarrassed, as a journalist, by this More to come.

    links:

    1. Ellerman's plea agreement:

    http://www.nydailynews.com/images/graphics/BALCO3.pdf

    Dates referenced / page of the document it's on:

    - approx. 6.__.04 - page 6
    ----------- 6.24.04 - page 6
    ----------- 10.8.04 - page 7
    - approx. 11.__.04 - page 7
    ----------- 12.3.04 - page 8

    2. SF Chron. article:

    http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:evtTFn9iFRoJ:www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi%3Ffile%3D/chronicle/archive/2004/12/29/MNGFDAI8FU1.DTL+motion+to+dismiss+Judge+Illston+Balco&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us

    Dates referenced:

    - 12.1.04 - 4th paragraph
    - 12.28.04 - 1st paragraph
     
  3. John D. Villarreal

    John D. Villarreal New Member

    Re: The Chron Guys and Balco: New Damning Dates and Thoughts

    Hell yes,

    Want some evidence?

    Here it is:

    http://www.nydailynews.com/images/graphics/BALCO3.pdf

    http://72.14.253.104/search?q=cache:evtTFn9iFRoJ:www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi%3Ffile%3D/chronicle/archive/2004/12/29/MNGFDAI8FU1.DTL+motion+to+dismiss+Judge+Illston+Balco&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=2&gl=us

    These are court documents and contemporary articles about the case.

    The Villarreal brother's showing the strong research and journalism skills

    JDV
     
  4. Oz

    Oz Active Member

    Re: The Chron Guys and Balco: New Damning Dates and Thoughts

    Well, if JDV and his brother say so ...
     
  5. John D. Villarreal

    John D. Villarreal New Member

    Re: The Chron Guys and Balco: New Damning Dates and Thoughts

    How about court documents or Judge Illston's & the Department of Justice's time line?
     
  6. 21

    21 Well-Known Member

    Re: The Chron Guys and Balco: New Damning Dates and Thoughts

    Rokski, I'm all for Freedom of Posting, but why post the same thing in two places? Really makes it hard to hold together a serious discussion on a serious subject.
     
  7. Chris_Dankberg

    Chris_Dankberg New Member

    Re: The Chron Guys and Balco: New Damning Dates and Thoughts

    How come we haven't seen any further reaction from Jim Caple, among some other national writers, who expressed outrage when the SF Chron guys were facing jail time? At that time, didn't it seem fairly obvious that these guys were complicit, or as it was put earlier, played?
     
  8. John D. Villarreal

    John D. Villarreal New Member

    Re: The Chron Guys and Balco: New Damning Dates and Thoughts

    Hey 21,

    Rok already talked to the Mod and vetted it while I was researching this material (via a variety of sources) before we posted the timelines & links. This is different/new info and deserved its own thread so that people can discuss this aspect.

    JDV
     
  9. John D. Villarreal

    John D. Villarreal New Member

    Re: The Chron Guys and Balco: New Damning Dates and Thoughts

    ABSOLUTELY. Anyone who knows the courts/judges or the US Attorneys out here & the DOJ (like I do (I have stood in front of the 9th circuit for a case, had classes taught by US attorneys, and my former professor @ Boalt is now a sitting judge ON the 9th circuit!)) HAD to have known exactly what you said. Those guys don't leak & certainly NOWHERE near as bad/egregious as this case.

    This is exactly what Judge Illston more or less said hereself after the Dec 3 2004 SF Chron article broke! This whole thing REEKED from the start with Mark FW & Lance W.

    I had said more or less the same thing early in the McGwire thread and most did not want to hear it at the time. There is SOOOOO much "juice" here it is not even funny.

    They may have gotten off for comtempt but they could get charged for aiding and abetting, etc. This attacks the integrity of the court/grand jury system.

    There are so many angles here - lots to discuss.
     
  10. Almost_Famous

    Almost_Famous Active Member

    Re: The Chron Guys and Balco: New Damning Dates and Thoughts

    Can we boil this down to two sentences?

    Really sell me on it, Rok.

    I got no idea what you're saying.
     
  11. markvid

    markvid Guest

    Re: The Chron Guys and Balco: New Damning Dates and Thoughts

    Anything with Rok and JDV involved won't make sense.
     
  12. markvid

    markvid Guest

    Re: The Chron Guys and Balco: New Damning Dates and Thoughts

    '

    You may be the most arrogant fool ever on this board.
     
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page