How do we feel about the Chron guys now?

The following is an excerpt from the interview with
Lance Williams and Mark Fainaru-Wada published in
the March 15-21, 2006 issue of USA TODAY SPORTS WEEKLY
on page 26.

SW: Do you worry about getting subpoenaed, or spending time in prison for receiving leaked grand jury testimony?

LW: We have big concerns about that, and there are ongoing concerns. The most intense time was when the paper got demand letters from the U.S. attorney two or three times wanting sources, names and documents.

We know that FBI agents raided Victor Conte's house to attempt to learn sources from the story. We know there was interest in the topic, and that sort of played out in Washington (New York Times reporter) Judith Miller to jail (for contempt of court in the CIA agent leak
case). There is a continuing concern with that.

But our sources know we'll never give them up.... Our sources were the real whistler-blowers. These people wanted the truth told. The concern the whole time was the way the government handled the BALCO case. Names and athletes were held back. It all had to be ventilated if sports were to be reformed as a result of the case.... They trusted us to bring the truth and not have their lives all messed up.


In essence Williams is painting the picture that Troy Ellerman is a good guy. Does it not seem that Williams in presenting a case that there is a common agenda between the Chronicle and Ellerman? How about William's statement, "These people wanted the truth told." Do Ellerman's illegal activities really demonstrate that he wanted the truth told? Outright lies were being told by Ellerman for two years and the Chronicle had full knowledge of this fact. How about, "They trusted us to bring the truth and not have their lives all messed up." Did the chronicle really bring the truth? Seems to me that there was a collusion between Ellerman and Fainaru-Wada and bigtime. "It all had to be ventelated...." says Williams. Does this not sound like an agenda by the Chronicle and Ellerman in retrospect? It's time to out the Chronicle and both of these reporters for such very bad judgement. The Chronicle's motives must be seriously questioned. Wonder if these two reporters will win some more journalism awards instead?

 

Is there any possibility of civil suites vs Chronicle from those who may have been damaged by publication of grand jury testimony?

 

OK - so do they have a case against Ellerman?

 

Luggie,

Ellerman had me fooled, too. It didn't make sense that those leaks could have come from anyone but the prosecution. Good thing Larry McCormack, for whatever reason, became the only genuine whistle blower in the case.

Actually, Ragu, the issue here is really simple: Was the Chronicle using good judgement when it a) granted anonymity to Ellerman without adequately questioning his motives, and b) went back to the source again fter it gained full knowledge that the source was using the newspaper to trick the judicial system?

You and others have consistently and, in my opinion rather unsuccessfully, been trying to find ways to rationalize or mitigate the Chronicle's actions. Your (understandable) empathy with the plight of the reporters has clouded your ability to objectively examine the situation.

By the way, I believe the overall Balco reporting by the Chronicle remains excellent and would have suffered little had it not granted Ellerman the ability to use the newspaper for his illegal purposes.

I don't think it's far-fetched to think Ellerman was able to sell this angle to the reporters and that the reporters were sincerely convinced by him in the beginning. After the reporters became aware of Ellerman's real motivations, I believe they felt there was no turning back, so they probably decided to stick with their story and convinced themselves that, despite being played, there was this greater good being served.

The problem is that the greater good still would have been served perfectly well had they never granted anonymity to Ellerman and their ability to report the full story wouldn't have been compromised.

Once the Chronicle folks knew they couldn't turn back, they convinced themselves they had some type of obligation to replace the judicial system's wisdom in meting out justice with their own. Sure, they took on an agenda.

It became insufficient for them to merely report a great story. They convinced themselves that they should be prosecutor, judge and jury because they weren't satisfied that the prosecution was focused on the distributors. They decided by themselves that it was a miscarriage of justice if athletes weren't sufficiently held to public ridicule. Of course, the convenient part of this belief was that it would also help them sell more newspapers and books.

 

Why couldn't someone like Jason Giambi sue for damages? His loss of endorsements as a result would be quantifiable.

 

Like Kindred, I have been a staunch supporter of the Chronicle, believing we don't know the whole story, and willing to give the benefit of the doubt. But every time you post about this, you give me something to think about.

Questions:

1)

'Punished' how? Legal charges? Firing? Public and professional censure? What remedy are you looking for?

2) I could be wrong, but I get the impression from your posts that you feel Ellerman was the only leak. Other sources have suggested Conte may have also been a source of information (although perhaps Ellerman's guilt exhonerates Conte), and that the prosecution was also spilling information--that Ellerman leaked because the prosecution was doing the same. Thoughts?

 

Hearst lawyers told the government that Conte wasn't the source of the leak, according to this Chronicle story from July 6, 2006:

http://sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2006/07/20/BAGSEK25241.DTL

In a June 21 filing, prosecutors pointed to Conte as a possible source of BALCO grand jury transcripts that were cited in Chronicle articles, saying e-mails seized by federal agents at his home showed that he gave Fainaru-Wada information about the grand jury proceedings and that the reporter asked for the transcripts.

References to the e-mails were blacked out from public copies of the government's filing but could be read when copied into a word-processing program.

In response, lawyers for Hearst said on July 9 that they repeatedly told prosecutors that no documents in the newspaper's possession -- including the Conte e-mails -- identified the source or sources of the grand jury transcripts. In context, their statements amounted to a denial that Conte was a source, a point repeated in Tuesday's filing.

To me that eliminated one of the two loose cannons in the case. The remaining loose cannon at that point was Noviitzky who had demonstrated a distasteful arrogance thoughout the Balco investigation and who, according to the Playboy article, began his part of the investigation with a motive of bringing down Barry Bonds.