How do we feel about the Chron guys now?

Actually, there is such a thing as an altruistic motive. Some people want to get information out that will help good people or right an injustice.

Here's a new interview from the Business of Baseball Web site in which Lance Williams' comments suggest just the scenario I describe:

http://www.bizofbaseball.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=834&Itemid=80

SBR: Now you had thousands of documents and hundreds of interviews that you did but then you came across a grand jury transcript. How important was getting that transcript into your newspaper stories and ultimately your book?

Williams: Well, I’ll tell you being able to quote the grand jury testimony was the element that just hammered home the proof of what we were writing. There was sort of reader resistance to these stories in a way, I mean people don’t want to believe bad things about their sports heroes and we had written already that Bonds had used banned drugs of course what the feds were learning, but to be able to quote the athletes words it removed the doubt in the minds of people who were interested in the story. So I thought it was critically important. We would have never had to resort to this if the Federal Government had laid their cards face up on the table, but they did go to great lengths to protect the wealthy athletes names who were caught up in this thing, their names were drawn up in the court files and redacted, but the truth does want to be free and people on all sides of the case wanted to help us because they thought it was wrong to cover for the sports star.

LW certainly seems to believe sources can be altruistic.And of course, Ellerman turned around and used the reporting of that leak as part of his scheme to seek dismissal. Yes, I believe Ellerman was scheming. And no I don't think Kindred or anyone else has "shot" the theory "to hell."

 

A couple of posts ago you told me, Cran, No one has "altruistic" motives. Please make up your mind.

In the interview he assigns the single agenda: wanted to help us because they thought it was wrong to cover for the sports star. Personally, that sounds a little naive to me and I would have questioned that motive.

Please explain how "people on all sides of the case wanted to help us because they thought it was wrong to cover for the sports star" can be intrepreted as anything but describing an altruistic motive.

 

Lance Williams says, "We would have never had to resort to this if the Federal Government had laid their cards face up on the table, but they did go to great lengths to protect the wealthy athletes names who were caught up in this thing, their names were drawn up in the court files and redacted, but the truth does want to be free...."

This sounds like the Chronicle simply decided that they were going to fight fire with fire and take the law into their own hands and punish the athletes. "We would never had to resort to this.." Is he suggesting that the government's behavior in essence forced the Chroncle into making their decision to help Ellerman break the law? Williams sounds very arrogant in this interview to me.

creamora

 

I agree. It sounds like they were unhappy with the results of the judicial system and considered it their duty to override the system and mete out punishment. I didn't realize this was part of a journalist's job.

 

I agree also. It seems like the Chronicle wanted to interject themselves into the legal process.

We all know that there was a huge hunt going on to find any information possible to implicate Barry Bonds.

As time goes on Whitlocks theory becomes more plausible.

 

Lance Williams says, "Unfortunately, the government refused to make information about Bonds et al public - affidavits were redacted or rewritten to remove the names of the elite athletes, the indictments didn't mention them, and so forth."

"And so to get the story, we had to turn to confidential sources, who provided us with true information, including transcripts. Without their assistance, the truth would never have been known."

These statements by Williams are complete and total bullshit! If the BALCO case had gone to trial it's likely that much of the information contained in the GJ transcripts would have come out because the athletes would have been forced to testify publically. Willams is basically saying, "Because the government wasn't doing the job the way we thought it should be done, we decided to take the law into our own hands and do whatever it took to punish these athletes." These statement by Williams are outrageous. And the Chronicle has to have given him the liberty to be out there making these kinds of statements. Did the appearance that Williams made together with Fainaru-Wada on The Tonight Show go to his head? I'm shock at his completely over the top attitude. Thoughts?

 

Ragu,

We obviously disagree about a lot of these issues. I guess we'll have to wait and see how others in the world of journalism respond to these very bold statements recently made by Williams. It's my opinion that Fainaru-Wada, Williams and the Chronicle have stepped over the line. I think they need to be held accountable for their disregard for the judicial process as well as their violations of people's rights. I think that there are more that one "big picture."

creamora