How do we feel about the Chron guys now?

A huge point.

The elephant in the room.

 

This is for those who continue to be of the opinion that, above and beyond everything else, the two Chronicle reporters "get it right."

The following is just one small example of the many types of misinformation published in the Game of Shadows book that can easily be verified:

Page 87 is part of a chapter that contains information about track coach Remi Korchemny. The third paragraph says. "Among his greatest Olympians was Gail Devers, who won gold medals in the 100 meters at the 1992 and 1996 Summer Games. But for injuries, Devers would had competed in five different Summer Games. At a 70th Birthday party for Korchemny in San Francisco in 2002, Devers gave him a plaque that read: THE GREATEST TRACK COACH OF ALL TIME."

The reference given on page 293 is the USATF Website address.

If you go to the reference at USATF.org at look at the Gail Devers Bio you will see that she was coached for many years by Bob Kersee and then for the last several years she has coached herself. Under the category of Coach it says "Self." She moved from LA to Atlanta and began coaching herself and takes her small dog to the track with her each training session.

The bottom line is that Remi Korchemny has NEVER coached Gail Devers at any point in time. Gail Devers was NOT even at the party, which was stated in the book to be in San Francisco in 2002. The party was actually
in South San Francisco at a Russian steak house in the Brentwood neighborhood. Chryste Gaines was actually the person who stood up and presented Remi with the plaque, NOT GAIL DEVERS. Obviously these two Chronicle reporters "GOT IT WRONG."

The Chronicle reporters provide a lot of references to support the statements in their book. However, when the reader goes to the references and attempts to verify the accuracy of the information presented, they find that many times the references don't support the statements at all. In fact, sometimes the statements are totally inaccurate? When Gail Devers went public and asked the two reporters to clear her name, the two reporters refused to admit any wrongdoing and apologize. The book's publisher also refused to admit any wrongdoing and apologize. Apparently, they were both afraid of the potential legal consequences. Maybe it was also because of the two Chronicle reporter's focus upon "the big money." They should have admitted their glaring mistake and apologized publically to Gail Devers. For whatever reason, they chose not to do what was honorable.

creamora

 

I must admit that I am surprised that more are not coming out to defend the newspaper business and the concept of "right to know" . When the story first hit many name reporters were coming out of woodwork to defend the reporters. Now they all seem to have gone into hiding with the exception of Dave and Ragu.

Does your silence mean that you no longer support the actions of your fellow journalists?

 

And what is the 'honorable' thing now? Not regarding Devers, but overall? Turn over all the files? Sources? Tapes? For whose benefit, Ellerman's? Conte's? Barry Bonds? They're not facing legal action or criminal charges--to whom should they answer?

The people who rallied around W/FW during the contempt hearings did so to support a principle--the right to protect sources. Are those same people now going to say 'We didn't mean you should protect them from US! Tell us everything! We have the right to know!'

Do we have the 'right' to know? Not 'should' we know, but is it our 'right'? I know what Creamora thinks...someone else tell me. I have no idea any more.

 

Ragu,

Some of the information in the Game of Shadows book is simply wrong and over time you may be forced to watch it come apart at the seams, detail by detail. The BALCO story is far from over, so continue to keep your seatbelt strapped on "big picture" boy. I simply provided one small example of the type of sloppy work they are guilty of throughout the book. What's becoming more and more obvious to me is that you simply don't care to know the details of the story. You seem to be content to simply let the ends justify the means and I am not. There are many examples of a lack of attention to detail as well as total misinformation in their book. If the Chronicle boys weren't using "the clear and the cream" themselves, somebody else might have even won the competition for one of the biggest stories in sports in years. If the two reporters and Chronicle continue to use the weak "promise is a promise" excuse for not coming forth and answering the tough questions, it may be take a bit longer for a more truthful story to unfold. I'm simply suggesting here that other reporters should give them a nudge in the right direction, so we can all gain a better understanding of what actually happened. If their true motive, as it should be, is the "public's right to know," then they will come forward and answer the tough questions. If they are more concerned about what's in their best financial interests, it may take them a bit more time. I guess we'll all see.

creamora

 

Kindred,

OK. Please tell me. In your opinion, what was/is the real agenda of the Chronicle and the two reporters? Are you saying that they don't have one other than the public's right to know? Do you think they should come forward and answer the tough questions? Should they be able to hide behind the "promise is a promise" excuse at this point? Just curious.

creamora

 

Ragu,

I apologize for calling you "big picture" boy. I have strong feelings and a lot of passion regarding the many important issues surrounding the Chronicle, but that's no excuse for name calling. Sorry about that.

creamora

 

I have one more question for creamora, putting aside the mechanics of the investigation for a moment:

With regard to Bonds, do you feel W/FW's reporting and subsequent book were accurate? In your opinion, did the reporters indeed 'get it right'?

 

21,

I especially think that the Chronicle should turn over the entire "secret" tape recording of Anderson. It's my understanding that Williams flew to Las Vegas and played less than thirty seconds of the tape to then Anderson attorney, Tony Serra, before they wrote the article. The entire tape is supposed to be more than nine minutes in length. Once again, the two Chronicle reporters were able to "select" what they reported regarding this evidence. What is on the other eight minutes and thirty seconds of the tape? I'm sure that a lot of people would like to know. Who was on the other end of the conversation? The Chronicle only reported a few statements from what was supposedly said by Anderson. Why was there nothing reported about what was said by the other party on the tape? There are many questions that remain unanswered regarding very the "selective" reporting of evidence the Chronicle managed to get access to in the BALCO case.

Our legal system is supposed to be about finding "the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth." If the reporters know the "whole truth" regarding the contents of the tape, then why did they only report a small part of this truth? Why did the Chronicle not have the tape sent to an audio reserarch institution for verification of it's authenticity? For whatever reason, the Chronicle simply decided not to make the tape available to anyone for any purpose after they reported a few statements by Anderson that were carefully selected. Why does the Chronicle not make the entire tape available? Wouldn't that serve the "public's right to know?"

creamora

 

Elliott

Did the NYT explain its decision-making process in its investigation of this federal administration's massive wire-tapping of American citizens? Did the Washington Post explain its decision-making process in its reports on secret CIA prisons in Eastern Europe? Name me, if you will, one newspaper that made such explanations on stories involving confidential sources.