Chipper: steroid cloud will follow A-Rod

The NYDN seems heavily invested in steroids hysterics because it did one solid investigative story a couple years ago and because one of its reporters apparently overheard some of Bonds' grand jury testimony. They also have a columnist who apparently feels foolish in retrospect for having written "Summer of '98: When Homers Flew, Records Fell, and Baseball Reclaimed America."

 

Cool, you to BW!

Also as an aside, if you want to help we would be more than happy to talk about collaborating. I have a lot of resources, connections, and some talent but the biggest thing I lack is time. So, I need to partner with good people in my different businesses/endeavors. You know baseball, so that is helpful.

Think about it.

 

Chipper tells tabs to "beat it":

http://www.ajc.com/sports/content/sports/braves/stories/2007/08/09/chipper_0809.html

 

Ha ha ha, yep!

That guy made a lot of money off of McGwire but I never did - hmm, credibility????

Who do you think could have written a more meaningful, contextual, and insightful book.

Not starting anything, but I'm just saying

ML is alright & has his place & all. He has skillz & passion, but he needs to chill out & be more concerned with the truth & context then his own rep or selling whatever. Also, the fact is his limited personal sports experience IS a limitation in some areas. There is no way around that. That is my take anyway.

Ok, have fun all - I'm out.

 

Good for Chipper.

 

Chipper said this a month ago, too. Just not in New York

From LA Times ...



Chipper Jones, the Atlanta Braves' third baseman and a five-time All-Star, said the stigma of the steroid era will not disappear if Rodriguez replaces Bonds atop the all-time home run list.

"There will be questions regarding steroids no matter who approaches the record," Jones said.

Not only steroids, but human growth hormone and designer drugs yet to be identified — or invented.

Baseball tests for steroids now, but not human growth hormone, with no urine test available and neither the commissioner's office nor the players' union embracing the blood test that scientists say could be widely available later this year.

"I don't know if this game will ever be completely clean," Jones said.

"There's so much stuff out there you can use to make yourself better than the next guy. It's just the world we live in. Guys are motivated by statistics and money. Whenever that happens, you'll have people who cheat."

 

Yeah, but it wasn't written and played as a slap at ARod like it was by both the News and the Post.

 

It takes quite a man to make Mike Lupica look modest and credible.

 

I can, and I will. But not in 3 grafs.

Jason Whitlock asked me something similar when I did the reporting on MFW's alleged obtaining of the information, and the Chron's decision to publish more information, from Ellerman while the motion to dismiss was still pending and AFTER (a fact which I omitted from my post above) he and the Chron knew - allegedly - that they were being used and duped for the purpose of attempting to obstruct justice.

At that time, I couldn't piece something 'short' together, because I was still in the process of ingesting too much information to be able to distill it.

Now I can, as there has been some remove, time-wise.
- - - - - -

Basically, it comes down to this:

People want to criticize Bonds for breaking the HR record, coming down on him for breaking the record by using allegedly - 'suspected'ly - unethical means. And also possibly illegal means.

Those same people base much of their opinion on a foundation of allegedly unethically-obtained (at least in many people's minds) and possibly illegal/against-judge's-orders (not counting the fact that the leakage of GJ testimony IS illegal) acquired material.

So, in essence, you're condoning your own alleged lack of ethics/illegality/participation in illegal activities so you can seek to show (for a profit) another man's alleged lack of ethics/illegality/participation in illegal activities.

And that doesn't wash, and won't wash. "Two wrongs don't make a right." Cases are thrown out of court all the time for just this reason. Which is why MFW is on the down-low (IMO). He is no longer an acceptable 'carrier' of the information, at least on a national level. Or has not been, anyway. In my opinion, that is the thinking of those aligned with MFW, LW, the Chron, etc. He's too 'hot' because of his alleged participation in Ellerman's activities, not to mention his dealings with other figures in the case. This is why I have referred to MFW as 'radioactive.'

The key word here is: hypocrisy.

And, legally, all of what has been gleamed into Bonds apparent PED usage is suspect to being thrown out in the courtroom. Because of Nowitzky's alleged investigative misconduct; because of a reporter allegedly aiding a rogue defense attorney's obstruction of justice attempt; because Bonds can argue he can't receive a fair trial based on the Chron's publication of such illegally-leaked material while the trial was still going on. That is, before a jury would be selected and a verdict rendered.

You know why we can't prove that MFW has a 'verbatim' transcript, and we can't prove that the NYDN reporter heard what he/she allegedly did at the grand jury proceedings?

Because the documents are still sealed, as the case is still continuing.

Grand jury testimony is unsealed all the time, but not while the case is going on, and someone's fate still hangs in the balance. This type of thing has a name: "Due process."

GOS could have happened, perfectly ethically, after the trial. But it, apparently, did not. Why did it not? $ and fame, that's why. Or that is my belief, anyways. The same reason a lot of things happen in life, despite the premature 'ennobling' of MFW + LW + etc. from many quarters. This is why I didn't join in in the homages, for just these reasons I have explained. I've been burnt in other instances over similar matters.

And now those who sought to profit from GOS as well as those who sought to bring Bonds down, legally, might be the ones to ultimately pay for their own over-exuberance and alleged malfeasance, ethical or legal. Again, see the OJ trial.

How you get the information you get is as important as what you get. Legally, it is more important. Because if you got it using improper methods, it basically 'doesn't exist.'

And if you hope to prove your case to an uncertain public, if your methods are flawed and you seek the added weight of a legal indictment and/or conviction, you will fail. As many others have failed, numerous among them with motives as pure if not purer than your own.

- - - - - - -


I hope that's concise enough, B-dub.

 

Three grafs or less is what he asked Rok.

I really don't have a problem with what you are saying except this: The info may have been leaked by unethical means, but is the rest of the world supposed to shut their ears and pretend its not out there? The more I hear about it, the more I feel that there was some shady business going on with that testimony. But it is out there now, I've read it, most of us have read it. It is in the public discourse and it is forever attached to Bonds. I'm not going to feel bad, nor should anyone else, for judging him by that info, regardless of how it is obtained.

This is the court of public opinion, not a court of law.

ADDITION: I can't blame Chipper one bit for blowing off the NY Press. I know it was only a few of the concious-less papers, but better to close them all out then have them dog him again.

 

Rok ... I often wonder if somebody, knowing he didn't have a case that would stick in court, made the decision to try to bring down Bonds through the media and used GOS/SF Chronicle as the vehicle to accomplish the objective. Based on what I've read, there's little backup (like recordings of interviews with defendants and witnesses) for a lot of the stuff that's quoted by sources in the book. Who knows? The witness interview affadavits could have been made up altogether or twisted out of context (as Conte and Grimsley have both suggested). That's why I view certain portions of the book pretty skeptically.

I doubt Chipper will be shutting down the Times or Newsday because he's angry about unethical practices at the Post and News. Unfortunately, some of the other, smaller publications in New York might become non-combatant casualties until this cools off.

 

One question, cran; it's something I've been wondering about. Do you deny Bonds' use of the cream and the clear? And if so, on what grounds? This is a straight question.