How do we feel about the Chron guys now?

Ragu,

Why are you leaving out Fainaru-Wada's second trip to the well in November of 2004. This was months after several additional illegal acts by Ellerman. It's the second dip into the well that has put Fainaru-Wada way over the line. I'm of the opinion that Fainaru-Wada was an accomplice to a series of crimes.

 

I have to believe that if the reporters were "accomplices to a series of crimes," they would have been arrested by now. Don't you think? The fellow who fingered Ellerman, by the way, was never in danger of being accused of a crime -- unless he lied to a federal officer, which, as far as we know, didn't happen because he was never interviewed. He simply ran to the feds with what he knew to gain a certain vengeance on a man who, in his mind, had done him wrong.

 

Which is why the Chronicle/Bronstein need to explain themselves. As of now, they're just Mark McGwire saying I don't want to talk about the past. It wasn't a good enough answer for McGwire and it's not a good enough answer for journalists who presumably know better.

And this whole idea that we need to wait until all of the facts are in before we start pointing fingers is pure nonsense. Ask Gary Matthews.

That's wrong. Bud wanted his three strikes policy and, with Congress' backing them by threatening to pass stricter testing rules, shoved it down the players' throats. The players couldn't care less about the anti-trust exemption since it no longer pertains to labor.

 

That's an interesting parallel between the Chronicle's Fainaru-Wada, Williams and Bronstein and Mark McGwire's "I don't want to talk about the past" position. I agree that until these reporters have provided a reasonable explanation for their actions they will likely remain in the same boat as McGwire.

 

Larry McCormack knew that the feds were getting close to Ellerman because he learned that they had interviewed several other people around Ellerman. It seems like that may be the reason he came forward. He knew that it was only a matter of time before they came to him. His name was also found in the BALCO files because he had worked for them as a PI after the BALCO raid in 2003. It's more likely that he came forward because he was afraid and not because he had a beef with Ellerman. It was reported that he was not only in Ellerman's office when Fainaru-Wada was getting some of the goods, but he also attended an outside the office meeting at a restaurant with Ellerman and Fainaru-Wada.

Ragu, can you please provide a reasonable explanation for the double dip into the well by Fainaru-Wada?

ceramora

 

Two questions:

1) Do we know that the prosecution didn't leak also, and even before Ellerman, and maybe even inciting Ellerman?

2) I saw where Ellerman's motion to dismiss was 281 pages. If so, did the 281 pages contain many more arguments for dismissal than just alleged prosecution leaks?

Anyone know?

Would like to hear from someone who has read the 281 pages.

Thanks.

 

Very rarely are they not.

 

It smacks of a judge who sees two reporters playing loose and dirty with his court proceeding, who sees the utter absence of ethical standard (and potential criminality) as these guys try to hit a huge payday with a book.

Cry me a fucking river.

 

Except, it seems the legal system has an avenue to prosecute these two that wasn't in play for Big Mac.

 

Fenian:

I'm making a conceptual argument, and you're trying to make it way too literal.

The Exemption has allowed baseball to get drunk on a sense of entitlement. We're baseball. We're America's sport. We don't have to do shit.

Everybody cared about it, and here's why:

When Congress had to get involved it was embarrassing for baseball. There were cries of, "The government should stay out of baseball's business." Oh yeah? Fine, then let's untangle baseball and the government by getting rid of the Antitrust Exemption.

Oh no! Baseball didn't like that for one second. You've never seen lobbyists swing into action so fast.

The players themselves? Most are too stupid to understand something like the Antitrust Exemption.

 

Again, that's politics, not law. You attempted to make the argument that the existence of the exemption per se makes Barry Bonds the equivalent of a quasi-public employee in a quasi-public enterprise and, therefore, the case under discussion is close to a genuine whistleblower case. That is transparent nonsense, as has been explained to you here.