How do we feel about the Chron guys now?

Absolutely, 21. As I mentioned to Luggie before, Ellerman's tricks had me fooled, too. The leaks screamed Novitzky, just what he wanted everyone to believe. Right now, it appears that instead of cultivating a source, the source cultivated the reporters. That's disturbing. But there could be plenty more to this than we know at the moment. In fact, I'd be surprised if this story doesn't take a few more interesting twists and turns before we have a good handle on it. If we ever get a good handle on it. As a spectator, it's interesting. I'm just trying to develop a logical narrative so I can try to understand it.

See, this is what bothers me about this idea that in the end no harm was done and justice has been served. Like him or not (and there's obviously plenty not to like), but it appears that Conte has some legitimate gripes about how his case has been handled by both prosecutors and his own defense.

 

Please. He was the "mastermind," to use a word loosely, of an illegal scheme that ruined dozens of careers, if not lives, and cost taxpayers millions of dollars to prosecute. For all that, the guy got 4 months in prison and 4 months at home. Even the judge said the sentencing guidelines were ridiculously lenient. He should be giving his lawyers a bonus instead of suing them.

 

Everyone is entitled to a fair trial as I understand it, even the bad guys. He apparently didn't get one. So, no, it's not OK to deny him this most basic of rights in the interest of getting a few little pieces of information in a newspaper or trying to trick the judicial system.

 

Well, like Ragu, I'm back.......

Look, a federal judge ruled against dismissal of the case. If the proceedings were fair enough for her, they were fair enough for me. Your man Conte must've liked it a little, too. He pled guilty rather than have a jury hear the case.

Now, tell me this, Cran: Which is worse, number 1 or number 2?

1) On Dec. 3, 2004, the Chronicle reported accurately and without so much as a whisper of refutation a news story based on Barry Bonds's grand jury testimony in which he denied that he ever knowingly used performance-enhancing drugs. In effect, the Chronicle was doing Bonds a favor by printing his denials. Up 'til then, remember, he'd never been under oath and we had reason to disbelieve his protests. But now a newspaper printed his under-oath testimony that as far as he knew he'd used something called flaxseed oil and an arthritic balm. Under oath, a man wouldn't lie, would he? So, at last, we knew the truth. Barry was clean.

2) On Dec. 4, 2004 -- the next day -- your man Conte went on national television, "20/20," and smeared Marion Jones with accusations that she was on peformance enhancing drugs during the Sidney Olympics when she won three gold medals. This though she had been his client. This though she had never tested positive at any point in her career. She insisted the charges were lies. She immediately field a defamation suit saying so.

So, Cran, which was worse: Reporting the truth of a man's denial of drug use? Or using national television to hang drug accusations on an old client?

 

Oh, hell. When asked, just blame Mark Sweeney.

 

21,

1. How can and should the Chronicle reporters be punished? They should be pressured into knocking off the "promise is a promise" nonsense and tell the truth regarding all that they know about the how, when, where and why they received the grand jury transcripts from Ellerman. Pressure should continue to be placed upon them by other reporters who would like to know the answers to the many unanswered questions that can best be answered by the two reporters and especially Fainaru-Wada. Maybe Ellerman will eventually release them from what they feel is their obligation to keep the truth about these matters a secret. Many reporters stepped up and supported them by writing articles when they thought the government was the source of the transcript leaks. Now that we know differently, reporters who would like to have them step up and address these important issues should write articles in which this is expressed. Many reporters wrote articles in their support before the truth came out regarding Ellerman. Where are those same reporters at now? This is far from over and there are steps that should be taken as outlined to help flush out the truth. Remember the public "has a right to know" argument that many reporters used in their support. Is the "big picture" argument simply to lead us away from questions that need to be answered?

2. Was Ellerman the only one who leaked? It's my opinion that the grand jury transcripts were exclusively leaked to the Chronicle by Ellerman. However, there were other sources of leaks of evidence that were reported by the Chronicle that likely came from the government. In fact, a status memorandum was filed by the defense at one point citing twenty-seven articles written by the two Chronicle reporters which contained statements such as "the Chronicle obtained this information from an official inside the investigation" and "according to a government source" and "according to an authority within the investigation."

creamora

 

Kindred,

Marion Jones threw Conte under the bus months before he appeared on national television in her book called "Life In The Fast Lane." There were several outright lies in her book about her relationship with Conte that were clearly exposed during the ABC "20/20" program in December of 2004. Martin Bashir pointed out her many lies one by one during the program while holding a copy of her book in his hand. Marion punched Conte first by telling outright lies about him in her book and he simply set the record straight in response on national television. It seems quite obvious that Marion Jones lied about her use of drugs. Once again, after the defamation lawsuit was settled, Conte went on the record and publically said that everything he said about Marion Jones was the truth. What does that indicate about who was telling the truth and who was lying? Whatever was in the settlement agreement enabled Conte to continue making the exact same public statments. You've got to have enough brain power to figure this one out.

creamora

 

Just a lowly sportswriter here.

But I did a search of newspaper archives and found nothing in which Conte reiterated his accusations against Jones. Not to say he didn't, just to say there's no public record that I can find.

Anyway, your honor, I'll accept counsel's word on that because I want to get back to the point of this thread, which is the Chronicle's unsurpassed reporting on a complex, even Byzantine, story filled with plots, sub-plots, and enigmas inside mysteries, not to mention a cast of characters with enough psychological disturbances to keep a squadron of shrinks busy long past Barry's 756th.

To me, the most powerful truth in all this is an uncontested truth that should make all newspaper people proud. While the holier-than-thou, out-of-the-arena kibitzers want to debate ethics, morality, techniques, practices, and how many angels can dance on the head of a pin, no one has argued that the Chronicle got this hard story wrong. Some people just don't like iit that the story was told. Tough. Some might not like getting beat on the story professionally. Tough. And to those who might feel betrayed by Ellerman and/or the Chronicle, a paraphrase of Harry Truman: If you don't like heat, you better not go near the kitchen.

 

As I recall the govt released information that showed Conte was also conversing via e-mail with the Chronicle around same time, Would these conversatios be enough to offset any liability that Ellerman would have?

In the end the Chronicle clearly had to understand why Ellerman and Conte would want to talk to them. They opted to turn a blind eye and publish story.

The crux of the matter is the balance between "right to know " and the law. It appears that the Chronicle put the right to know above the laws of confidentiality.

 

I agree with Ragu on the point here. The reporters broke no law, they provided the public important information on a story of great interest and they told the truth. That's a pretty good trifecta. Let's face it, if someone offers you (assuming you are a reporter) grand jury testmony from a red hot story, you're not going to say no thanks. You're going to take it and run with it. Do you know the source has an axe to grind? Sure, but so what? Most sources do. The key is whether the information is good. In this case, it clearly was. It shed light on an important story of tremendous interest to the public, and its truth was never in question.

That said, I'm afraid I must address one of those nitpicky details, just to put it on the record for our discussion. Sorry, Ragu.

The fact is, Barry Bonds was offered immunity for his grand jury testimony, as were the rest of the athletes called to testify. That's one reason Bonds was being investigated for perjury, not the actions to which he testified before the GJ, and why no one else has been charged or investigated for their part in receiving or using illegal steroids.

Check out the 10th graf of this story from CNN.com in April, 2006:

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/04/13/bonds.steroid/index.html

``Bonds and his colleagues were offered immunity for their testimony. The deal was simple: Tell the truth, and you draw a walk; lie and go down for perjury.''

There, I feel better. And don't forget, I'm with you on the big picture, Ragu.