How do we feel about the Chron guys now?

Ragu,

The two Chronicle reporters were certainly playing both sides of the fence and this is what the evidence clearly shows. In fact, a brief was filed by the defense providing examples of 30 Chronicle articles in which it was stated that the evidence published was obtained from the government. These leaks of evidence were absolutely from the government because they occurred before the defense had even received the discovery. Remember that the indictments came down six months after the day of the raid. Once again, there were 30 Chronicle articles containing phrases like "according to an official inside the investigation" and "an authority involved in the case said." When this information was compiled and presented to Judge Alston, she said, "OK. I'll agree that it's the government who is leaking evidence. The problem is that I need a name. Who is the government?" So, there is no question that the government was repeatedly leaking evidence to the Chronicle.

21, is your throat sore yet or should I continue and provide some specific information about a few credibility issues involving Rag's boy Nevsky? Do you need some ? I don't want to cause you any further throat pain.

creamery

 

Sorry, I don't engage in the PM function, although I've helped people with requested information a few times over the years.

First, I'm not angry. But I was wondering what role people believe Novitzky may have played in the stories/book and whether people think it would be appropriate for him to have been a source during an ongoing investigation. Personally, I wouldn't be surprised if he was a major source of their information, despite the many conflicts that implies.

And I'm not suggesting the reporters shouldn't have taken information from Novtizky, if in fact they did. But I certainly think the accuracy of their portrayal of him would likely suffer if he was both a subject of and a major source for their stories.

Of course, it's a legitimate question. But it has little if anything to do with what I was asking Creamora. However, to answer your question, I believe much of the evidence that I've read about in the book and newspaper accounts. However, I don't necessarily believe a lot of the stuff that apparently comes from Novitzky's recollection of events and interviews he conducted without a recording device.

Why do you think the two are mutually exclusive? The reporters tell us there were many, many sources, and based on a lot of the points Creamora made in his review of the book's sources a few pages back, it appears that Novitzky might have been one of the main ones. And let's face it, Ellerman and Novitzky were both selling the same story -- "We've got to expose these awful athletes!" -- but for different reasons. Novitzky because he's a apparently a zealot who doesn't mind bending rules for what he perceives a greater good and Ellerman because he was a crooked lawyer trying scheme the system.


You don't really believe that Ellerman was the only source, right?

 

OK, maybe I'm stupid, but what's wrong with ``playing both sides of the fence'' as a reporter? If you can get both parties in an issue feeding you information, that seems like a plus -- more info, plus you balance out their conflicting interests and have a better chance of figuring out the truth, rather than a version of it colored by one side or the other. And I don't think any of it is illegal, is it?

Just wondering.

 

The government has done many things throughout the case that were illegal. It started with the illegal disposal of the trash during the surveillance throughout the year before the raid. A police report was filed regarding Novitzky's illegal activity and that is what cause the raid to be conducted prematurely. It continued with Novitzky not serving the search warrant properly on the day of the raid. It began to get serious with his fabrication of the information contained in the memorandums of interview. It simply goes on and on and on throughout the entire case. It's my opinion that the federal investigators and prosecutors along with the two Chronicle reporters are guilty of doing the exact same thing the athletes were doing, which is "cheating to win." It know, "The end justifies the means." However, it seems as though almost everybody involved with the case was using "the clear and the cream."

creamora

 

If the prosecutors and investigators were ``cheating to win,'' that's an issue. I still don't get how that carries over to the reporters, unless they were breaking some laws in their reporting, such as obstructing justice. And I haven't heard anyone even hint that might be the case.

 

Ragu says, "Creamora knows more than anyone here and he certainly hasn't offered up anything tangible."

That's an interesting deduction. If I supposedly "know more an anyone here", then why would you continue with "he certainly hasn't offered up anything..?"

What I do know is what a huge supporter of the two Chronicle boys you are no matter what is presented here? It also seems that there is much that you are unaware of regarding the case. It guess time will tell.

creamora

 

Well, it's pretty certain they allowed themselves to be used by Ellerman, which I consider poor judgement in the absence of any mitigating information. And it's becoming pretty clear to me that they relied heavily on stuff that someone from the prosecutors office was telling them without any verification. So while they have written a compelling book and stories I think they were probably quite flawed as well. I don't think they got the story totally right nor do I think they got it totally wrong. I think what we got was the Novitzky-authorized version of Balco. Interesting but not something I would necessarily consider historically accurate.

 

21 says, "I gotta believe you have more productive outlets for your information than an anonymous message board."

I agree that there are likely to be more productive outlets.

Ragu says, "Give me something tangible showing how they blew it and I'll listen. I promise."

I simply don't believe that is true. It seems that your thirst for the truth regarding the the possibility of the two Chronicle reporters having questionable motives has already been quenched. It's my opinion that more specific information will surface regarding the relationship between Ellerman and Fainaru-Wada. I also believe that more will become known about the two Chronicle reporters and their government sources. The intensity of this debate will continue to increase, but I don't believe you will ever be open to any other position.

creamora