Thoughts on the writers of 'Game of Shadows'?
Bryan S. Slick
used leaked grand jury testimony to put said book together, are under
scrutiny by the presiding judge to give up their sources or face
potential jail time.
What do you think?
I think that while it's true that reporters should be able to protect
their sources, that the sanctity of the grand jury trumps the public's
"right to know" anything at all about something as trivial as whether or
not any athlete ingested an illegal drug.
I also think that the writers should sack up, protect their source, and
go to jail. Actually, I think they should go to jail regardless for
soliciting leaked testimony from someone with access to a federal grand
jury.
In a way, I hope they give up the source(s).. as their careers as
journalists will be over.
--
Bryan S. Slick, onyx_hokie at yahoo dot com
"Associate yourself with men of good quality if you esteem your own
reputation for 'tis better to be alone than in bad company."
(George Washington, First U.S. President, 1732-1799)
Jon Enslin
Bryan S. Slick wrote:
> ESPN Radio reported yesterday that the writers of 'Game of Shadows', who
> used leaked grand jury testimony to put said book together, are under
> scrutiny by the presiding judge to give up their sources or face
> potential jail time.
>
> What do you think?
>
> I think that while it's true that reporters should be able to protect
> their sources, that the sanctity of the grand jury trumps the public's
> "right to know" anything at all about something as trivial as whether or
> not any athlete ingested an illegal drug.
Heh..."sanctity of the grand jury"...good one.
>
> I also think that the writers should sack up, protect their source, and
> go to jail. Actually, I think they should go to jail regardless for
> soliciting leaked testimony from someone with access to a federal grand
> jury.
If the judge wants to put them in jail for refusing to leak their
source I'm fine with that. They should not go to jail simply for
writing leaked testimony. It isn't their job to make sure that it
stays quiet.
>
> In a way, I hope they give up the source(s).. as their careers as
> journalists will be over.
Why would you want their careers to be over?
Jon
Bryan S. Slick
[ Jon Enslin | jen...@charter.net ]
[ <1147395552.9...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> ]
:> I also think that the writers should sack up, protect their source, and
:> go to jail. Actually, I think they should go to jail regardless for
:> soliciting leaked testimony from someone with access to a federal grand
:> jury.
:
:If the judge wants to put them in jail for refusing to leak their
:source I'm fine with that. They should not go to jail simply for
:writing leaked testimony. It isn't their job to make sure that it
:stays quiet.
You don't think it is (or should be) against the law to spread leaked
grand jury testimony?
:> In a way, I hope they give up the source(s).. as their careers as
:> journalists will be over.
:
:Why would you want their careers to be over?
They're attempting to profit off of the destruction of another person's
image, doing so by underhanded and illegal means.. why wouldn't I?
--
Bryan S. Slick, onyx_hokie at yahoo dot com
"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent."
(Salvor Hardin in 'Foundation', Isaac Asimov)
Douglas Berry
<onyx_...@hi-lo.not> posting the following on Thu, 11 May 2006
20:49:46 -0400 iin alt.sports.baseball.sf-giants?
>ESPN Radio reported yesterday that the writers of 'Game of Shadows', who
>used leaked grand jury testimony to put said book together, are under
>scrutiny by the presiding judge to give up their sources or face
>potential jail time.
>
>What do you think?
There is a difference between using a source, like an insider in a
corporation or a street dealer, and using leaked testimony in
violation of Federal Law.
--
Douglas E. Berry Do the OBVIOUS thing to send e-mail
Atheist #2147, Atheist Vet #5
"Men never do evil so completely and cheerfully as
when they do it from religious conviction."
Blaise Pascal (1623-1662), Pense'es, #894.
Charles Beauchamp
> ESPN Radio reported yesterday that the writers of 'Game of Shadows',
> who used leaked grand jury testimony to put said book together, are
> under scrutiny by the presiding judge to give up their sources or face
> potential jail time.
>
> What do you think?
>
> I think that while it's true that reporters should be able to protect
> their sources, that the sanctity of the grand jury trumps the public's
> "right to know" anything at all about something as trivial as whether
> or not any athlete ingested an illegal drug.
>
> I also think that the writers should sack up, protect their source,
> and go to jail. Actually, I think they should go to jail regardless
> for soliciting leaked testimony from someone with access to a federal
> grand jury.
>
> In a way, I hope they give up the source(s).. as their careers as
> journalists will be over.
For starters your opinion is off base with pretty much everyone since you
are already on record as not being bothered by the use of steroids. That
frames your view pretty clearly.
Now to the pretection of witnesses. These reporters are safe under the law
as the courst have long held that reporters are not bound by privacy
protections for others. Secondly there is no inference anywhere that the
reporters solicited grand jury testemony. The crime if any...lies within
the hands of whomever had access to that information. The real oddity
though is that the testemony in question is of dubious privacy protection
since your right to personal privacy does not extend to your comments
regarding your own personal illegal activities. Criminal actions are not
private..they are by their nature public.
If anyone should be getting investigated it is Barry Bonds for potential
lies before said grand jury.
--
v/r Dread Pirate Rackham
"You know one things that's wrong with this country? Everybody gets a
chance to have their fair say." - President Clinton 28 May 1993
"There is nothing patriotic about hating your country, or pretending
that you can love your country but despise your government." -
President Clinton 5 May 1995
Charles Beauchamp
> [ 11 May 2006 17:59:13 -0700 ]
> [ Jon Enslin | jen...@charter.net ]
> [ <1147395552.9...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> ]
>
>>> I also think that the writers should sack up, protect their source,
>>> and go to jail. Actually, I think they should go to jail
>>> regardless for soliciting leaked testimony from someone with access
>>> to a federal grand jury.
>>
>> If the judge wants to put them in jail for refusing to leak their
>> source I'm fine with that. They should not go to jail simply for
>> writing leaked testimony. It isn't their job to make sure that it
>> stays quiet.
>
> You don't think it is (or should be) against the law to spread leaked
> grand jury testimony?
>
Of course it should not unless the reporters know the information to be of
national security interest. I hardly think that an investigation into the
obvious violation of law by a millionair athlete rises to that standard.
>>> In a way, I hope they give up the source(s).. as their careers as
>>> journalists will be over.
>>
>> Why would you want their careers to be over?
>
> They're attempting to profit off of the destruction of another
> person's image, doing so by underhanded and illegal means.. why
> wouldn't I?
No they aren't. They broke a story and conducted an actual journalistic
investigation...precisely what we have a free press for. They did their
job. The real question is why are you such a Bonds cocksucker on all this?
The guy is vile. He has done extraordinary damage to baseball and made a
mockery of the record books, not to mention simply cheating the results on
the field of play.
Greg Lentz
<C.E.Be...@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote:
>Bryan S. Slick wrote:
>> ESPN Radio reported yesterday that the writers of 'Game of Shadows',
>> who used leaked grand jury testimony to put said book together, are
>> under scrutiny by the presiding judge to give up their sources or face
>> potential jail time.
>>
>> What do you think?
>>
>> I think that while it's true that reporters should be able to protect
>> their sources, that the sanctity of the grand jury trumps the public's
>> "right to know" anything at all about something as trivial as whether
>> or not any athlete ingested an illegal drug.
>>
>> I also think that the writers should sack up, protect their source,
>> and go to jail. Actually, I think they should go to jail regardless
>> for soliciting leaked testimony from someone with access to a federal
>> grand jury.
>>
>> In a way, I hope they give up the source(s).. as their careers as
>> journalists will be over.
>
>For starters your opinion is off base with pretty much everyone since you
>are already on record as not being bothered by the use of steroids. That
>frames your view pretty clearly.
>
>Now to the pretection of witnesses. These reporters are safe under the law
>as the courst have long held that reporters are not bound by privacy
>protections for others.
Ask Judith Miller about that. Ask her how she enjoyed jail too.
>Secondly there is no inference anywhere that the
>reporters solicited grand jury testemony.
Sure there is. See their collected works at the Chronicle and their book
for further info.
>If anyone should be getting investigated it is Barry Bonds for potential
>lies before said grand jury.
Uh, he is dumbass.
--
Greg Lentz
Dr. Wayne Simon
"Charles Beauchamp" <C.E.Be...@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote in message
news:YuqdnbQf97WVeP7Z...@comcast.com...
>grand jury testimony should be in trouble. Being that the government knows
>who testified at the grand jury, they should question those folks and try
>to see if they can decide who leaked.
jen...@charter.net
Bryan S. Slick wrote:
> [ 11 May 2006 17:59:13 -0700 ]
> [ Jon Enslin | jen...@charter.net ]
> [ <1147395552.9...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> ]
>
> :> I also think that the writers should sack up, protect their source, and
> :> go to jail. Actually, I think they should go to jail regardless for
> :> soliciting leaked testimony from someone with access to a federal grand
> :> jury.
> :
> :If the judge wants to put them in jail for refusing to leak their
> :source I'm fine with that. They should not go to jail simply for
> :writing leaked testimony. It isn't their job to make sure that it
> :stays quiet.
>
> You don't think it is (or should be) against the law to spread leaked
> grand jury testimony?
It is illegal to leak. It is not the responsibility of the parties
reporting the substance of the leak. As long as it is accurate, I
don't have a problem.
I also don't have a problem with a judge forcing them to id the leaker
though.
>
> :> In a way, I hope they give up the source(s).. as their careers as
> :> journalists will be over.
> :
> :Why would you want their careers to be over?
>
> They're attempting to profit off of the destruction of another person's
> image, doing so by underhanded and illegal means.. why wouldn't I?
Well, maybe Barry should sue them if he is destroying his image. What?
He isn't suing? Why do you suppose that is?
Maybe because he can't actually refute anything they wrote because it's
the truth. I have not read it, but everyone who has says that it is
fair and balanced - without bias.
It's called freedom of the press.
Jon
Bryan S. Slick
[ Jon Enslin | jen...@charter.net ]
[ <1147401290....@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> ]
:It's called freedom of the press.
...to write books or sell newspapers? Isn't there, shouldn't there be,
a difference? They're not reporting the news.. they're trying to make
money by tearing down someone else.
Furthermore, how in the Hell do you figure that it shouldn't be a crime
to spread grand jury testimony to millions of people? It was a crime
for whoever leaked the testimony to them to do so.. surely to further
perpetrate the spread of said information should be considered a crime.
I think in this case the natural American impulse of being desperately
nosey about every-damn-thing is overriding your common sense. We hate
secrets by nature. The idea of something being kept from the public for
some sinister reason sure generates a Hell of a lot of interest.
Conspiracy sites do very well off of such interest. There's nothing
about the testimony of Bonds or anyone else to that grand jury that's
any business of anyone not sitting in the room.
--
Bryan S. Slick, onyx_hokie at yahoo dot com
"Always forgive your enemies; nothing annoys them so much."
(Oscar Wilde, Irish novelist & poet, 1854-1900)
James Schrumpf
> ESPN Radio reported yesterday that the writers of 'Game of Shadows', who
> used leaked grand jury testimony to put said book together, are under
> scrutiny by the presiding judge to give up their sources or face
> potential jail time.
>
> What do you think?
>
> I think that while it's true that reporters should be able to protect
> their sources, that the sanctity of the grand jury trumps the public's
> "right to know" anything at all about something as trivial as whether or
> not any athlete ingested an illegal drug.
>
> I also think that the writers should sack up, protect their source, and
> go to jail. Actually, I think they should go to jail regardless for
> soliciting leaked testimony from someone with access to a federal grand
> jury.
>
> In a way, I hope they give up the source(s).. as their careers as
> journalists will be over.
>
When a journalist makes a personal interpretation of the Constitution to
"protect" his sources, it's noble and in the public interest.
If the President does the same thing in the name of national security, he's
a Constitution-trashing dictator -- and often called so by journalists.
($1 to Michael Kinsley)
--
------------------------------------------------------------------------
James Schrumpf http://www.hilltopper.net
We Must Protect this Couch!
TheDave©
> I think that while it's true that reporters should be able to protect
> their sources, that the sanctity of the grand jury trumps the
> public's "right to know" anything at all about something as trivial
> as whether or not any athlete ingested an illegal drug.
The degree of triviality is completely 100% irrelevant.
Ron
Bryan S. Slick <onyx_...@yahoo.cem> wrote:
> You don't think it is (or should be) against the law to spread leaked
> grand jury testimony?
Nope.
That's the sort of law which is far too easy to abuse. ESPN, CNN, SI,
and most baseball fans and usenet posters on asb.sf-g would be in
violation of it.
And I think it's a bad idea to have laws which everyone breaks unless
you intend to go after everyone for them.
The leaker is the one who may have committed the crime.
-Ron
I'm not really here
"Ron" <ronald...@hotmail.com> wrote in message news:ronaldinho_m-
>
> And I think it's a bad idea to have laws which everyone breaks unless
> you intend to go after everyone for them.
Like the speed limit?
jen...@charter.net
Bryan S. Slick wrote:
> [ 11 May 2006 19:34:50 -0700 ]
> [ Jon Enslin | jen...@charter.net ]
> [ <1147401290....@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> ]
>
> :It's called freedom of the press.
>
> ...to write books or sell newspapers? Isn't there, shouldn't there be,
> a difference? They're not reporting the news.. they're trying to make
> money by tearing down someone else.
A book, a newspaper, a blog, a magazine...it doesn't matter.
Furthermore, you keep saying "tearing down someone else." You
conveniently ignore the fact that if he was wronged that Bonds could
sue them for libel. He isn't doing that though because the authors
essentially reported the truth.
I have no trouble with people reporting the truth and making money off
of it.
>
> Furthermore, how in the Hell do you figure that it shouldn't be a crime
> to spread grand jury testimony to millions of people? It was a crime
> for whoever leaked the testimony to them to do so.. surely to further
> perpetrate the spread of said information should be considered a crime.
I disagree. It's not as though these are state secrets told in
confidence. The obligation is on those who are part of court
procedings, not whomever has the information. For instance, every news
outlet that has now reported the substance of that testimony is now
doing something illegal in your world? No way. Too restrictive.
>
> I think in this case the natural American impulse of being desperately
> nosey about every-damn-thing is overriding your common sense. We hate
> secrets by nature. The idea of something being kept from the public for
> some sinister reason sure generates a Hell of a lot of interest.
> Conspiracy sites do very well off of such interest. There's nothing
> about the testimony of Bonds or anyone else to that grand jury that's
> any business of anyone not sitting in the room.
Fine. Figure out who leaked it and punish them. Don't punish the
thousands of newspapers, the authors of this book, ESPN, and the radio
stations that have reported it.
Jon
abor...@redshark.goodshow.net
> [ 11 May 2006 19:34:50 -0700 ]
> [ Jon Enslin | jen...@charter.net ]
> [ <1147401290....@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> ]
>
> :It's called freedom of the press.
>
> ...to write books or sell newspapers? Isn't there, shouldn't there be,
> a difference? They're not reporting the news.. they're trying to make
> money by tearing down someone else.
...and who are you to decide what is and isn't news? As for making money by
tearing someone down - if your facts are true, have fun.
--
Aaron
dam
> [ 11 May 2006 17:59:13 -0700 ]
> [ Jon Enslin | jen...@charter.net ]
> [ <1147395552.9...@j33g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> ]
>
> :> I also think that the writers should sack up, protect their source, and
> :> go to jail. Actually, I think they should go to jail regardless for
> :> soliciting leaked testimony from someone with access to a federal grand
> :> jury.
> :
> :If the judge wants to put them in jail for refusing to leak their
> :source I'm fine with that. They should not go to jail simply for
> :writing leaked testimony. It isn't their job to make sure that it
> :stays quiet.
>
> You don't think it is (or should be) against the law to spread leaked
> grand jury testimony?
>
> :> In a way, I hope they give up the source(s).. as their careers as
> :> journalists will be over.
> :
> :Why would you want their careers to be over?
>
> They're attempting to profit off of the destruction of another person's
> image, doing so by underhanded and illegal means.. why wouldn't I?
They're not the only ones. Barry did sue them, but not for libel. He
sued because he thought he was the only one who should be able profit
from any books about his steroid use. That's a real stand up guy there,
alright.
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/11994076/
dam
Barry Bonds
book ...
jon...@hotmail.com
alleged Barry used steroids it was not illegal in and since it became
illegal in baseball, Bonds has never tested positive. His reply was
that steroids were illegal in the USA since 1991. This indicated to me
that he represented the prosecution who leaked and wanted their case
advocated by the media in the court of public opinion. I remember some
of the other Chronical special reports. Like the one on GG Park meant
to kick the hippies out and on the GG bridge meant to build a fence to
deter jumpers. Those reports' intent was to build public support for
what someone in authority, their source, wanted done. Here the
Chronical represented the voracious war on drugs bureaucracy, likewise
ESPN represented the senate subcommittee that had a new "drug" to
grandstand and pound their chest about. The senators' overarching
reaching rationale was that teen committed suicide because of steroids
was similiar to the claim of families that the Chronical touted, the
bridge caused the suicides.
Douglas Berry
following on 12 May 2006 06:01:29 -0700 iin
alt.sports.baseball.sf-giants?
>A book, a newspaper, a blog, a magazine...it doesn't matter.
>Furthermore, you keep saying "tearing down someone else." You
>conveniently ignore the fact that if he was wronged that Bonds could
>sue them for libel. He isn't doing that though because the authors
>essentially reported the truth.
There's a bit more to libel. You have to prove that the work
materially harmed you financially, professionally, or personally.
_Game of Shadows_ has not affected Bonds' status as a ballplayer, has
not cost him a dime, and his personal relations with his teammates,
fans, and family remain unchanged.
He wouldn't have a case.
Bryan S. Slick
[ | jen...@charter.net ]
[ <1147438889.1...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> ]
:
:Bryan S. Slick wrote:
:> [ 11 May 2006 19:34:50 -0700 ]
:> [ Jon Enslin | jen...@charter.net ]
:> [ <1147401290....@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> ]
:>
:> :It's called freedom of the press.
:>
:> ...to write books or sell newspapers? Isn't there, shouldn't there be,
:> a difference? They're not reporting the news.. they're trying to make
:> money by tearing down someone else.
:
:A book, a newspaper, a blog, a magazine...it doesn't matter.
:Furthermore, you keep saying "tearing down someone else." You
:conveniently ignore the fact that if he was wronged that Bonds could
:sue them for libel. He isn't doing that though because the authors
:essentially reported the truth.
:
:I have no trouble with people reporting the truth and making money off
:of it.
..via breaking the law, truth or not? (and you have no way of knowing
if what they have written is true.. don't kid yourself)
:> Furthermore, how in the Hell do you figure that it shouldn't be a crime
:> to spread grand jury testimony to millions of people? It was a crime
:> for whoever leaked the testimony to them to do so.. surely to further
:> perpetrate the spread of said information should be considered a crime.
:
:I disagree. It's not as though these are state secrets told in
:confidence. The obligation is on those who are part of court
:procedings, not whomever has the information. For instance, every news
:outlet that has now reported the substance of that testimony is now
:doing something illegal in your world? No way. Too restrictive.
Degree matters. They got the information, and spread it, from a source
with first-hand knowledge.
:> I think in this case the natural American impulse of being desperately
:> nosey about every-damn-thing is overriding your common sense. We hate
:> secrets by nature. The idea of something being kept from the public for
:> some sinister reason sure generates a Hell of a lot of interest.
:> Conspiracy sites do very well off of such interest. There's nothing
:> about the testimony of Bonds or anyone else to that grand jury that's
:> any business of anyone not sitting in the room.
:
:Fine. Figure out who leaked it and punish them. Don't punish the
:thousands of newspapers, the authors of this book, ESPN, and the radio
:stations that have reported it.
The authors of the book got it from a first-hand source and went public
with it. They should give up the source or be punished.. or give up the
source *AND* be punished, though less harshly than if they refused to
give up the source. They broke the law. They solicited leaked
testimony. The imaginary right of the public to know everything about
what goes on in sports is trumped by the actual laws of the land.
--
Bryan S. Slick, onyx_hokie at yahoo dot com
"Violence is the last refuge of the incompetent."
sfb
January, 2005.
<jon...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1147472137....@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
RJ
> ... and his personal relations with his teammates,
> fans, and family remain unchanged.
He hates all of them as much as he ever did.
jen...@charter.net
Bryan S. Slick wrote:
> [ 12 May 2006 06:01:29 -0700 ]
> [ | jen...@charter.net ]
> [ <1147438889.1...@i39g2000cwa.googlegroups.com> ]
>
> :
> :Bryan S. Slick wrote:
> :> [ 11 May 2006 19:34:50 -0700 ]
> :> [ Jon Enslin | jen...@charter.net ]
> :> [ <1147401290....@i40g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> ]
> :>
> :> :It's called freedom of the press.
> :>
> :> ...to write books or sell newspapers? Isn't there, shouldn't there be,
> :> a difference? They're not reporting the news.. they're trying to make
> :> money by tearing down someone else.
> :
> :A book, a newspaper, a blog, a magazine...it doesn't matter.
> :Furthermore, you keep saying "tearing down someone else." You
> :conveniently ignore the fact that if he was wronged that Bonds could
> :sue them for libel. He isn't doing that though because the authors
> :essentially reported the truth.
> :
> :I have no trouble with people reporting the truth and making money off
> :of it.
>
> ..via breaking the law, truth or not? (and you have no way of knowing
> if what they have written is true.. don't kid yourself)
First, it is clear that they did not break a law. Why aren't they
being prosecuted?
Second, while I am not 100% clear that what they have written is true,
I havn't seen much to suggest otherwise - including from Bonds himself.
What law did they break Bryan? Seriously, this law seems to exist in
your head and that's about it.
Jon
Bryan S. Slick
[ | jen...@charter.net ]
[ <1147481633....@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com> ]
:> The authors of the book got it from a first-hand source and went public
:> with it. They should give up the source or be punished.. or give up the
:> source *AND* be punished, though less harshly than if they refused to
:> give up the source. They broke the law. They solicited leaked
:> testimony. The imaginary right of the public to know everything about
:> what goes on in sports is trumped by the actual laws of the land.
:
:What law did they break Bryan? Seriously, this law seems to exist in
:your head and that's about it.
ESPN Radio reported yesterday that a judge was threatening them with
jail if they didn't give up the source, and that the local DA was
considering charges against them for soliciting the leaked testimony in
the first place. If the radio talking head was wrong, so be it.
jen...@charter.net
Bryan S. Slick wrote:
> [ 12 May 2006 17:53:53 -0700 ]
> [ | jen...@charter.net ]
> [ <1147481633....@v46g2000cwv.googlegroups.com> ]
>
> :> The authors of the book got it from a first-hand source and went public
> :> with it. They should give up the source or be punished.. or give up the
> :> source *AND* be punished, though less harshly than if they refused to
> :> give up the source. They broke the law. They solicited leaked
> :> testimony. The imaginary right of the public to know everything about
> :> what goes on in sports is trumped by the actual laws of the land.
> :
> :What law did they break Bryan? Seriously, this law seems to exist in
> :your head and that's about it.
>
> ESPN Radio reported yesterday that a judge was threatening them with
> jail if they didn't give up the source, and that the local DA was
> considering charges against them for soliciting the leaked testimony in
> the first place. If the radio talking head was wrong, so be it.
Well the judge issue is a contempt of court issue, not because their
actions were against the law. It has to do with their unwillingness to
cooperate.
If the DA brings up charges then I will stand corrected. I think it is
important to point out the difference between "soliciting" grand jury
testimony versus "reporting" grand jury testimony however. I would
wonder if the DA would have to have a witness come forward saying they
asked for it.
Jon
Bryan S. Slick
[ | jen...@charter.net ]
[ <1147487705.5...@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> ]
:If the DA brings up charges then I will stand corrected. I think it is
:important to point out the difference between "soliciting" grand jury
:testimony versus "reporting" grand jury testimony however. I would
:wonder if the DA would have to have a witness come forward saying they
:asked for it.
It's not a perfect analogy, but a question: if a prostitute approaches
you on the street and offers you a blowjob for $50, and you accept, can
you be arrested for solicitation of a prostitute?
(assuming that a cop witnessed this, not that the prostitute was the
cop.. that would be entrapment, I believe)
jen...@charter.net
Bryan S. Slick wrote:
> [ 12 May 2006 19:35:05 -0700 ]
> [ | jen...@charter.net ]
> [ <1147487705.5...@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> ]
>
> :If the DA brings up charges then I will stand corrected. I think it is
> :important to point out the difference between "soliciting" grand jury
> :testimony versus "reporting" grand jury testimony however. I would
> :wonder if the DA would have to have a witness come forward saying they
> :asked for it.
>
> It's not a perfect analogy, but a question: if a prostitute approaches
> you on the street and offers you a blowjob for $50, and you accept, can
> you be arrested for solicitation of a prostitute?
Well ya. Again, not a perfect analogy, but if a local television
station reported the above blow job, did they do anything wrong?
Jon
Bryan S. Slick
[ | jen...@charter.net ]
[ <1147520570.0...@y43g2000cwc.googlegroups.com> ]
:
In the analogy, the leaker would be the hooker, the reporter the john.
sfb
January, 2005.
It was illegal to possess and use FDA approved prescriptive anabolic
steroids.
So until you prove a) Bonds used anabolic steroids and b) used steroids
illegal to use in the US, get off the legal/illegal soap box.
"Solly" <solnichkaf...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1147530844.6...@u72g2000cwu.googlegroups.com...
>> It was pointed out to one of the Chronical authors that when they alleged
>> Barry
>> used steroids it was not illegal in and since it became
>> illegal in baseball, Bonds has never tested positive. His reply was
>> that steroids were illegal in the USA since 1991. This indicated to me
>> that he represented the prosecution who leaked and wanted their case
>> advocated by the media in the court of public opinion.
>
> Steroids have been banned in baseball since Fay Vincent was the
> commissioner, actually. They were listed on a banned substances list
> circulated by the commissioner's office crica 1991.
>
> Steroids are a federally controlled substance, and whether "illegal" in
> baseball or not, federal law supercedes MLB "rules".
>
> A journalist representing the prosecution? Any other stupid comments
> you want to add? You could at least spell "Chronicle" properly to earn
> some 'net cred.
>
David M. Nieporent
"Solly" <solnichkaf...@gmail.com> wrote:
>> It was pointed out to one of the Chronical authors that when they alleged
>> Barry used steroids it was not illegal in and since it became
>> illegal in baseball, Bonds has never tested positive. His reply was
>> that steroids were illegal in the USA since 1991. This indicated to me
>> that he represented the prosecution who leaked and wanted their case
>> advocated by the media in the court of public opinion.
>Steroids have been banned in baseball since Fay Vincent was the
>commissioner, actually. They were listed on a banned substances list
>circulated by the commissioner's office crica 1991.
The commissioner doesn't get to make labor policy by issuing memos. Such
policy must be negotiated with the union.
>Steroids are a federally controlled substance, and whether "illegal" in
>baseball or not, federal law supercedes MLB "rules".
It doesn't. Federal law is separate from, not "superceding," MLB rules.
One can't use MLB rules as a defense to federal criminal charges, of course
-- but it doesn't work the other way, either.
Ron
"I'm not really here" <imnot...@asb.sfg> wrote:
> > And I think it's a bad idea to have laws which everyone breaks unless
> > you intend to go after everyone for them.
>
> Like the speed limit?
Yup. I think they should tell us what the speed limit really is, the
bust people who go over that.
Selectively-enforced laws all have in them the potential for abuse.
-Ron
Ron
Bryan S. Slick <onyx_...@yahoo.cem> wrote:
> ESPN Radio reported yesterday that a judge was threatening them with
> jail if they didn't give up the source, and that the local DA was
> considering charges against them for soliciting the leaked testimony in
> the first place. If the radio talking head was wrong, so be it.
The laws about reporting grand jury procedings are weird.
If I remember (and most of my knowledge comes from some reading about
Watergate) people can volunteer anything they want to you, and you're
fine.
But if you go up to them and say, "Hey, tell me what happened in the
grand jury room" you're in trouble.
So whether or not the authors broke the law may have something to do
with who approached whom, and/or the exact substance of those
conversations.
In any event, it'll be very hard to prosecute since everyone involved
could plead the 5th. But let's say they invited a federal prosecutor out
for drinks, were chatting away about things it was legal to chat about,
and he said, "Oh, by the way, look at this transcript ..."
Then they didn't do anything illegal, although the prosecutor may have.
-Ron
Charles Beauchamp
>> It was pointed out to one of the Chronical authors that when they
>> alleged Barry used steroids it was not illegal in and since it became
>> illegal in baseball, Bonds has never tested positive. His reply was
>> that steroids were illegal in the USA since 1991. This indicated to
>> me
>> that he represented the prosecution who leaked and wanted their case
>> advocated by the media in the court of public opinion.
>
> commissioner, actually. They were listed on a banned substances list
> circulated by the commissioner's office crica 1991.
>
Thank you. I am glad someone mentioned this often ignored point as well.
Commissioner Vincent 'banned" steroids in the early 1990's.
> Steroids are a federally controlled substance, and whether "illegal"
> in baseball or not, federal law supercedes MLB "rules".
>
> A journalist representing the prosecution? Any other stupid comments
> you want to add? You could at least spell "Chronicle" properly to earn
> some 'net cred.
--
v/r Dread Pirate Rackham
"You know one things that's wrong with this country? Everybody gets a
chance to have their fair say." - President Clinton 28 May 1993
"There is nothing patriotic about hating your country, or pretending
that you can love your country but despise your government." -
President Clinton 5 May 1995
Charles Beauchamp
Amazingly enough you are precisely wrong on both points. The Comissioner of
baseball has governing authority to act in the "best interest of MLB." Has
since Judge Landis took over more then 80 years ago.
Pat McLean
"TheDaveŠ" <n...@no.com> wrote in message news:eMT8g.20$2z...@newsfe14.phx...
>> Bryan S. Slick wrote:
>> I think that while it's true that reporters should be able to protect
>> their sources, that the sanctity of the grand jury trumps the
>> public's "right to know" anything at all about something as trivial
>> as whether or not any athlete ingested an illegal drug.
>
> The degree of triviality is completely 100% irrelevant.
This is most certainly true. Not try getting that across to those who think
that, since it's a "baseball player using steroids", it's ok, but had it
been something to do with nationla security then it would be bad.
David M. Nieporent
"Charles Beauchamp" <C.E.Be...@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote:
>>>> It was pointed out to one of the Chronical authors that when they
>>>> alleged Barry used steroids it was not illegal in and since it became
>>>> illegal in baseball, Bonds has never tested positive. His reply was
>>>> that steroids were illegal in the USA since 1991. This indicated to
>>>> me that he represented the prosecution who leaked and wanted their
>>>> case advocated by the media in the court of public opinion.
>>> Steroids have been banned in baseball since Fay Vincent was the
>>> commissioner, actually. They were listed on a banned substances list
>>> circulated by the commissioner's office crica 1991.
>> The commissioner doesn't get to make labor policy by issuing memos.
>> Such policy must be negotiated with the union.
>>> Steroids are a federally controlled substance, and whether "illegal"
>>> in baseball or not, federal law supercedes MLB "rules".
>> It doesn't. Federal law is separate from, not "superceding," MLB
>> rules. One can't use MLB rules as a defense to federal criminal
>> charges, of course -- but it doesn't work the other way, either.
>Amazingly enough you are precisely wrong on both points. The Comissioner of
>baseball has governing authority to act in the "best interest of MLB." Has
>since Judge Landis took over more then 80 years ago.
Your rebuttal has little to do with the second point I made, and your
rebuttal is wrong on the first point. What Landis had is precisely
irrelevant to anything. Landis is dead, and there's an MLBPA now that
didn't exist in 1920.
What would be accurate to say is that the Commissioner of baseball has
authority to act in the best interest of MLB _subject to limitations agreed
to by MLB._
The Commissioner of Baseball was not appointed by god at Mt. Sinai, nor did
the founding fathers create his office in the Constitution. The
Commissioner of Baseball derives his authority from the owners; the owners
cannot give him authority that they themselves do not possess. The owners
expressly agreed on limits to their powers in the Collective Bargaining
Agreement.
Some Commissioners post-Landis have deluded themselves into thinking that
they had unchecked power to act "in the best interest of baseball"; those
Commissioners either found themselves unemployed or found their edicts
overturned by an arbitrator.
sfb
ruling. Selig has publicly said the best interest authority today isn't what
it was before the union.
"Charles Beauchamp" <C.E.Be...@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote in message
news:idSdnVuGFqI...@comcast.com...
Seth Breidbart
sfb <s...@spam.net> wrote:
>Anabolic steroids were legally available over the counter in the US until
>January, 2005.
No, they weren't. They required prescriptions in the US.
Seth
Seth Breidbart
sfb <s...@spam.net> top-posted:
>Anabolic steroids were legally sold across the counter in the US until
>January, 2005.
You're still wrong.
>It was illegal to possess and use FDA approved prescriptive anabolic
>steroids.
Unless you had a prescription. (And, depending on just when and
which, it is legal to possess and use prescription drugs without a
prescription.)
Seth
sfb
over the counter legally contained anabolic steroids until January, 2005
which is why the NFL publishes a list of supplements that are clean.
In 1990, all known - note known - anabolic steroids were banned, but the
1994 Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act opened the door to steroids
sold as health foods unless it could be proven they were detrimental to your
health. As of January, 2005 all anabolic steroids were banned regardless.
"Seth Breidbart" <se...@panix.com> wrote in message
news:e46560$hdr$1...@reader1.panix.com...
Jeff in Seattle
They made money using stolen property. They knew it was stolen. That is
wrong. Our legal system is screwed up. This goes way beyond Bonds.
--
Jeff
The one constant through all the years has been baseball.
Terence Mann to Ray Kinsella in Field of Dreams
David M. Nieporent
jen...@charter.net wrote:
>Bryan S. Slick wrote:
>> [ Jon Enslin | jen...@charter.net ]
>> :> In a way, I hope they give up the source(s).. as their careers as
>> :> journalists will be over.
>> :Why would you want their careers to be over?
>> They're attempting to profit off of the destruction of another person's
>> image, doing so by underhanded and illegal means.. why wouldn't I?
>Well, maybe Barry should sue them if he is destroying his image. What?
> He isn't suing? Why do you suppose that is?
Because it's next to impossible in the United States for a public figure to
win a libel suit.
Ron
Jeff in Seattle <jeffs...@comcast.net> wrote:
> They made money using stolen property. They knew it was stolen. That is
> wrong. Our legal system is screwed up. This goes way beyond Bonds.
If you're going to be this reductionist about it, you have to admit that
ESPN, Sports Illustrated, CNN, Fox Sports, your local newspaper,
Woodward & Bernstein, the New York Times, and, well, you name it ...
have broken the same law.
And I don't think all those people should be prosecuted. If they can be,
/then/ I think our legal system is really screwed up.
To say they made money with "stolen property" is sort of silly, in any
event, because what's the property in question? Information isn't
property, after all.
-Ron
David M. Nieporent
Bryan S. Slick <onyx_...@yahoo.cem> wrote:
>:If the DA brings up charges then I will stand corrected. I think it is
>:important to point out the difference between "soliciting" grand jury
>:testimony versus "reporting" grand jury testimony however. I would
>:wonder if the DA would have to have a witness come forward saying they
>:asked for it.
>It's not a perfect analogy, but a question: if a prostitute approaches
>you on the street and offers you a blowjob for $50, and you accept, can
>you be arrested for solicitation of a prostitute?
You can be arrested, but the charge wouldn't be solicitation.
Your thinking isn't entirely wrong; it's just likely inapplicable to this
situation. If the reporters actually did something to induce the leaker to
leak -- e.g., paying someone to reveal the transcripts -- that could indeed
be a crime on the part of the reporter. But neither listening when someone
talks, nor printing what the person said, qualifies.
>(assuming that a cop witnessed this, not that the prostitute was the
>cop.. that would be entrapment, I believe)
It would not be. Entrapment is only when law enforcement induces someone
to commit a crime which they would not have otherwise committed. A mere
request does not rise to the level of "inducement."
Seth Breidbart
>Prescriptive anabolic steroids required prescriptions. Food supplements sold
>over the counter legally contained anabolic steroids until January, 2005
You are calling thing "anabolic steroids" which aren't.
Seth
Realto Margarino
> What would be accurate to say is that the Commissioner of baseball
> has authority to act in the best interest of MLB _subject to
> limitations agreed to by MLB._
And where are these limitations documented?
> The Commissioner of Baseball was not appointed by god at Mt.
> Sinai, nor did the founding fathers create his office in the
> Constitution. The Commissioner of Baseball derives his authority
> from the owners; the owners cannot give him authority that they
> themselves do not possess. The owners expressly agreed on limits
> to their powers in the Collective Bargaining Agreement.
So it is in the CBA that the Commissioner does not have the power to
act in the best interests of the game?
> Some Commissioners post-Landis have deluded themselves into
> thinking that they had unchecked power to act "in the best
> interest of baseball"; those Commissioners either found themselves
> unemployed or found their edicts overturned by an arbitrator.
Examples, please.
cordially, as always,
rm
Realto Margarino
> Because it's next to impossible in the United States for a public figure to
> win a libel suit.
Tell that to the National Inquirer. They have lost many times.
cordially, as always,
rm
I'm not really here
"David M. Nieporent" <niep...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote in message
news:nieporen-6359C4...@host170.octanews.net...
So what if some guy committed a murder, and you know who the murderer
is, but you don't want to tell the law enforcement for whatever reason
(maybe he's your friend). And the cops find out you know who it is.
Are you free from any wrongdoing?
If the reporters didn't do anything wrong, why might they go to jail,
just because the judge feels like it?
Josh Rosenbluth
In addition to the questions raised elsewhere about whether and how the
CBA limits the "best interests of baseball" power of the commissioner,
is it true that MLB cannot take disciplinary actions against a player
who has been convicted of a crime? indicted? Citations?
Josh Rosenbluth
Charles Beauchamp
My rebuttal was very much relevant and on target to both points. The
Comissioner's role today is identical far as that goes to what it was with
Judge Landis. The MLBPA is a factor, but not absolute in any real sense of
the term. What that tells me is on the one hand the argument that he
"wasn't breaking any baseball rules" is bogus. It was against "the rules"
since the early 90's regardless of what the union says. Secondly...if
anything MLB was complicit in the wide spread performance enhancing
substance use by players. So a pox on all their houses.
> What would be accurate to say is that the Commissioner of baseball has
> authority to act in the best interest of MLB _subject to limitations
> agreed to by MLB._
>
> The Commissioner of Baseball was not appointed by god at Mt. Sinai,
> nor did the founding fathers create his office in the Constitution.
> The Commissioner of Baseball derives his authority from the owners;
> the owners cannot give him authority that they themselves do not
> possess. The owners expressly agreed on limits to their powers in
> the Collective Bargaining Agreement.
>
While this is true in a general sense...the fact remains that Fay Vincent
had the authority to enforce a ban on steroid use and there is simply no
possible way that the union would have won that fight. It was always a
curiousity to me why the owners didn't crack down hard early. My answer
isn't that the MLBPA would have balked (they would have and did) but whether
or not the owners actually wanted a ban to begin with. Essentially you had
a rule that was ignored by both sides.
> Some Commissioners post-Landis have deluded themselves into thinking
> that they had unchecked power to act "in the best interest of
> baseball"; those Commissioners either found themselves unemployed or
> found their edicts overturned by an arbitrator.
And in each case that was only due to fighting with the owners. No
exception. Learn the effing history.
Charles Beauchamp
> Prescriptive anabolic steroids required prescriptions. Food
> supplements sold over the counter legally contained anabolic steroids
> until January, 2005 which is why the NFL publishes a list of
> supplements that are clean.
> In 1990, all known - note known - anabolic steroids were banned, but
> the 1994 Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act opened the door
> to steroids sold as health foods unless it could be proven they were
> detrimental to your health. As of January, 2005 all anabolic steroids
> were banned regardless.
This is incorrect. You are using the term anabolic steroid in a way that
fails to meet the definition.
> "Seth Breidbart" <se...@panix.com> wrote in message
> news:e46560$hdr$1...@reader1.panix.com...
>> In article <XLedneLl-6t9hvjZ...@comcast.com>,
>> sfb <s...@spam.net> wrote:
>>> Anabolic steroids were legally available over the counter in the US
>>> until January, 2005.
>>
>> No, they weren't. They required prescriptions in the US.
>>
>> Seth
--
sfb
I suggest you look at the DOJ'S Rule implementing the Anabolic Steroid
Control Act of 2004 (
http://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/fed_regs/rules/2005/fr1216.htm) which
states:
"The Act does two things of relevance to this rulemaking. It replaces the
existing definition of "anabolic steroid'' in 21 U.S.C. 802 and revises the
language exempting certain over the counter products from regulation as
controlled substances."
"Charles Beauchamp" <C.E.Be...@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote in message
news:IL-dnSwvDIod7vrZ...@comcast.com...
Charles Beauchamp
That is the weaqkest funniest silliest thing I've ssen said in this thread
that wasn't posted by Bryan Slick.
Charles Beauchamp
> What definition?
>
> I suggest you look at the DOJ'S Rule implementing the Anabolic Steroid
> Control Act of 2004 (
> http://www.deadiversion.usdoj.gov/fed_regs/rules/2005/fr1216.htm)
> which states:
>
> "The Act does two things of relevance to this rulemaking. It replaces
> the existing definition of "anabolic steroid'' in 21 U.S.C. 802 and
> revises the language exempting certain over the counter products from
> regulation as controlled substances."
>
Yea I am familiar with the act. I am also familiar with what the law was
previously and your above cite does not support your odd contention.
> "Charles Beauchamp" <C.E.Be...@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote in message
> news:IL-dnSwvDIod7vrZ...@comcast.com...
>> sfb wrote:
>>> Prescriptive anabolic steroids required prescriptions. Food
>>> supplements sold over the counter legally contained anabolic
>>> steroids until January, 2005 which is why the NFL publishes a list
>>> of supplements that are clean.
>>> In 1990, all known - note known - anabolic steroids were banned, but
>>> the 1994 Dietary Supplement Health and Education Act opened the door
>>> to steroids sold as health foods unless it could be proven they were
>>> detrimental to your health. As of January, 2005 all anabolic
>>> steroids were banned regardless.
>>
>> This is incorrect. You are using the term anabolic steroid in a way
>> that fails to meet the definition.
--
Josh Rosenbluth
> David M. Nieporent wrote:
>>
>>The Commissioner of Baseball was not appointed by god at Mt. Sinai,
>>nor did the founding fathers create his office in the Constitution.
>>The Commissioner of Baseball derives his authority from the owners;
>>the owners cannot give him authority that they themselves do not
>>possess. The owners expressly agreed on limits to their powers in
>>the Collective Bargaining Agreement.
>
> While this is true in a general sense...the fact remains that Fay Vincent
> had the authority to enforce a ban on steroid use and there is simply no
> possible way that the union would have won that fight.
Not according to this story
(http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/writers/john_donovan/04/19/vincent.bonds/index.html).
While Vincent defends his decision to place steroids on the banned
list, he admits that as a matter of law, he did not have the authority
to do so: "Federal protections afforded the players under the
collective bargaining agreement between the players' union and the
owners make the 'best interests' power meaningless, [Vincent] said."
Josh Rosenbluth
sfb
contribute something beyond your less than helpful "I know more than you do"
posts.
"Charles Beauchamp" <C.E.Be...@NOSPAMcomcast.net> wrote in message
news:U5mdnVG04P1...@comcast.com...
David M. Nieporent
"I'm not really here" <imnot...@asb.sfg> wrote:
>"David M. Nieporent" <niep...@alumni.princeton.edu> wrote in message
>> >[ | jen...@charter.net ]
>> >:If the DA brings up charges then I will stand corrected. I think it is
>> >:important to point out the difference between "soliciting" grand jury
>> >:testimony versus "reporting" grand jury testimony however. I would
>> >:wonder if the DA would have to have a witness come forward saying they
>> >:asked for it.
>> >It's not a perfect analogy, but a question: if a prostitute approaches
>> >you on the street and offers you a blowjob for $50, and you accept, can
>> >you be arrested for solicitation of a prostitute?
>> You can be arrested, but the charge wouldn't be solicitation.
>> Your thinking isn't entirely wrong; it's just likely inapplicable to this
>> situation. If the reporters actually did something to induce the leaker
>> to leak -- e.g., paying someone to reveal the transcripts -- that could
>> indeed be a crime on the part of the reporter. But neither listening
>> when someone talks, nor printing what the person said, qualifies.
>So what if some guy committed a murder, and you know who the murderer
>is, but you don't want to tell the law enforcement for whatever reason
>(maybe he's your friend). And the cops find out you know who it is.
>Are you free from any wrongdoing?
So far, you're fine, assuming you didn't do anything to assist the murderer
commit the crime or get away with it (such as destroying evidence or lying
to the police.) Your problem comes when you're subpoenaed.
>If the reporters didn't do anything wrong, why might they go to jail,
>just because the judge feels like it?
They didn't do anything wrong -- if by wrong you mean illegal -- WHEN THEY
PRINTED THE STORY. When (if) they refuse to testify, they are in legal
trouble.
Unless there's an established privilege -- e.g., doctor-patient,
attorney-client, priest-penitant, spousal, self-incrimination -- you don't
get to refuse to testify when you're subpoenaed. Some _states_ recognize
reporter-source, but the federal government does not.
David M. Nieporent
The Commissioner's "role" might be identical, but his powers are far more
circumscribed.
>> What would be accurate to say is that the Commissioner of baseball has
>> authority to act in the best interest of MLB _subject to limitations
>> agreed to by MLB._
>> The Commissioner of Baseball was not appointed by god at Mt. Sinai,
>> nor did the founding fathers create his office in the Constitution.
>> The Commissioner of Baseball derives his authority from the owners;
>> the owners cannot give him authority that they themselves do not
>> possess. The owners expressly agreed on limits to their powers in
>> the Collective Bargaining Agreement.
>While this is true in a general sense...the fact remains that Fay Vincent
>had the authority to enforce a ban on steroid use and there is simply no
>possible way that the union would have won that fight.
Neither of those are "facts." Your mistake is thinking of this as a
"fight," as if it were a debate on Crossfire or something. It isn't a
"fight." It's a legal proceeding -- an arbitration hearing -- and the
union won such hearings on precisely that point on numerous occasions,
including against Vincent himself.
> It was always a
>curiousity to me why the owners didn't crack down hard early. My answer
>isn't that the MLBPA would have balked (they would have and did) but whether
>or not the owners actually wanted a ban to begin with. Essentially you had
>a rule that was ignored by both sides.
Well, perhaps it would be less of a "curiosity" to you if you weren't
starting from the mistaken premise that the owners could "crack down hard
early." It's a perfect example of how faulty assumptions lead to faulty
conclusions.
>> Some Commissioners post-Landis have deluded themselves into thinking
>> that they had unchecked power to act "in the best interest of
>> baseball"; those Commissioners either found themselves unemployed or
>> found their edicts overturned by an arbitrator.
>And in each case that was only due to fighting with the owners. No
>exception. Learn the effing history.
Wrong. Arbitrators overturned commissioners' rulings when they tried to
unilaterally impose drug policies on the union. Learn the effing history.
I'm not really here
Which is bound to happen, since the cops know about it. So the end
result? You're going to jail.
> >If the reporters didn't do anything wrong, why might they go to jail,
> >just because the judge feels like it?
>
> They didn't do anything wrong -- if by wrong you mean illegal -- WHEN
THEY
> PRINTED THE STORY. When (if) they refuse to testify, they are in
legal
> trouble.
Yeah, and they refused, so they should go to jail. End of story.
Printing the story in itself is not illegal, of course, but with the
"source" of the information they're printing, they should know that
there could be a chain reaction that lead them to testify in court. And
they might have been fine if they just printed the story and left it
alone, but noooo...., they got greedy and tried to make big bucks off
it, and made the whole thing bigger and bigger. They really can't blame
anyone.
But then again, 3 months or less of jail time for whatever money they're
making off the book, I think they still come out ahead. But they knew
that already.
joh...@ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca
David M. Nieporent wrote:
>
> Neither of those are "facts." Your mistake is thinking of this as a
> "fight," as if it were a debate on Crossfire or something. It isn't a
> "fight." It's a legal proceeding -- an arbitration hearing -- and the
> union won such hearings on precisely that point on numerous occasions,
> including against Vincent himself.
As for instance Vincent's attempt to ban Steve Howe.
joh...@ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca
I can tell you that when Peter Uberroth attempted to discipline the
players named in the Curtis Strong affair he deferred judgement against
Mike Norris -- who was facing criminal charges at the time. (and that
was the reason given)
They can take action against players who have been convicted.
Vida Blue comes to mind. Blue missed the first three months
of 1984 because he was in prison and the rest of the season
as further punishment by MLB.
However that year Bowie Kuhn also attempted to suspend
Willie Wilson, Willie Mays Aikens, Jerry Martin and Pascual
Perez for the entire 1984 season (he also attempted to ban
Steve Howe permanently and lost -- no criminal case involved)
All had been convicted of drug crimes (Wilson, Aikens and Martin
in the same trial as Blue). An arbitrator tossed out all penalties
against Perez (who spent 3 months in prison in the off-season)
and ordered the other three reinstated after a 5 week suspension.
(given that they were in prison for much of the time, kinda moot)
Blue got an increased penalty because Kuhn's investigators
were able to establish that Blue had been dealing to teammates,
and had been doing so for at least two years.
joh...@ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca
sfb wrote:
> Judge Landis didn't have a Player's Association to challenge his every
> ruling. Selig has publicly said the best interest authority today isn't what
> it was before the union.
So for that matter did Vincent -- in talking about that memo he handed
down. Vincent makes it clear that he didn't think he had the power
to enforce it on players.
Quoting now (talking specifically about the memo):
I'm sure that what the General Managers are saying is correct that
nobody paid too much attention to it because it was aimed at people
who probably weren't big steroid users anyway. I mean the clubhouse
man, and the coaches would hardly be taking steroids. But that's
all we could do. We couldn't do anything with the union because
the union wouldn't even give us a hearing on strengthening the
cocaine drug problem laws. I mean, I'm glad I did it (sent the memo),
I wished we'd done more.
http://www.businessofbaseball.com/vincent_interview.htm
jon...@hotmail.com
Solly wrote:
> > It was pointed out to one of the Chronical authors that when they alleged Barry
> > used steroids it was not illegal in and since it became
> > illegal in baseball, Bonds has never tested positive. His reply was
> > that steroids were illegal in the USA since 1991. This indicated to me
> > that he represented the prosecution who leaked and wanted their case
> > advocated by the media in the court of public opinion.
>
> Steroids have been banned in baseball since Fay Vincent was the
> commissioner, actually. They were listed on a banned substances list
> circulated by the commissioner's office crica 1991.
>
> baseball or not, federal law supercedes MLB "rules".
>
> you want to add? You could at least spell "Chronicle" properly to earn
> some 'net cred. yes, The Chronic has been a joke embarassment to the city of SF, at least since the days of McCabe, Hoppe and the green sports page. I remember when the current owners ran the other paper, they made a front page headline when a local sports star was present when the police raided a massage parlor. As someone questioned at the time "how is that news". It was character assassination, sensationalism and a cheap shot. This could describe the Media campaign of villifying Bonds. The Media usually represents the interest of their sources and the prosecution and police are principal source for local news. The reporters, led by the ESPN group, who villify Bonds ignore the baseball context. Most analysts who know why Bonds is a grest hitter back off from the charges of the attack dog reporters.
jrose...@att.com
Was that distinguishing fact between Blue and the others covered in the
CBA? If not, why was it a difference maker?
Josh Rosenbluth
joh...@ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca
jrose...@att.com wrote:
> joh...@ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca wrote:
> >
> > Blue got an increased penalty because Kuhn's investigators
> > were able to establish that Blue had been dealing to teammates,
> > and had been doing so for at least two years.
>
> Was that distinguishing fact between Blue and the others covered in the
> CBA?
Not directly as best I can tell. I remeber expecting the section on
discipline in the CBA to have been lovingly crafted. Not the case back
in the early 80s.
In a very real sense arbitrators were making MLB's drug policy
one case at a time (though MLB and the PA did have an
agreement for a single year. Uberroth killed it because he
didn't want anything less than Olympic style season round
testing and the system that was in place was probable cause based)
> If not, why was it a difference maker?
Good queation. I still haven't been able to find the full test of
Bloch's
ruling. I have however found a different arbitrator who references Blue
(and Wilson and company) in a general discussion
http://www-unix.oit.umass.edu/~splaw488/discipline.htm
Quoting:
Bloch upheld that suspension, characterizing Blue's involvement
with cocaine as "active, widespread... continuous" and "substantially
more serious" than that of the other players, with a suspension of that
length accordingly justified
jrose...@att.com
joh...@ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca wrote:
> jrose...@att.com wrote:
> > joh...@ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca wrote:
>
> > >
> > > Blue got an increased penalty because Kuhn's investigators
> > > were able to establish that Blue had been dealing to teammates,
> > > and had been doing so for at least two years.
> >
> > Was that distinguishing fact between Blue and the others covered in the
> > CBA?
>
> Not directly as best I can tell. I remeber expecting the section on
> discipline in the CBA to have been lovingly crafted. Not the case back
> in the early 80s.
Does the CBA currently cover what MLB can do to convicted criminals
apart from the drug policy? For example, a player convicted of
perjury.
> In a very real sense arbitrators were making MLB's drug policy
> one case at a time (though MLB and the PA did have an
> agreement for a single year. Uberroth killed it because he
> didn't want anything less than Olympic style season round
> testing and the system that was in place was probable cause based)
>
> > If not, why was it a difference maker?
>
> Good queation. I still haven't been able to find the full test of
> Bloch's ruling. I have however found a different arbitrator who references Blue
> (and Wilson and company) in a general discussion
>
> http://www-unix.oit.umass.edu/~splaw488/discipline.htm
>
> Quoting:
>
> Bloch upheld that suspension, characterizing Blue's involvement
> with cocaine as "active, widespread... continuous" and "substantially
> more serious" than that of the other players, with a suspension of that
> length accordingly justified
I'm not sure if this sets any kind of workable precedent for what MLB
can do to convicted criminals.
Josh Rosenbluth
joh...@ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca
jrose...@att.com wrote:
> joh...@ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca wrote:
> > jrose...@att.com wrote:
> > > joh...@ccrs.nrcan.gc.ca wrote:
> >
> > > >
> > > > Blue got an increased penalty because Kuhn's investigators
> > > > were able to establish that Blue had been dealing to teammates,
> > > > and had been doing so for at least two years.
> > >
> > > Was that distinguishing fact between Blue and the others covered in the
> > > CBA?
> >
> > Not directly as best I can tell. I remeber expecting the section on
> > discipline in the CBA to have been lovingly crafted. Not the case back
> > in the early 80s.
>
> Does the CBA currently cover what MLB can do to convicted criminals
> apart from the drug policy? For example, a player convicted of
> perjury.
Nope. Which doesn't mean in practice that Selig can do what
he likes. Best I can tell the arbitrator is going to look at other
disciplinary rulings to guide him. And as Nicolau notes,
what's going to be of interest is the extent that the illegal
conduct did material damage to MLB -- the damage that it
did to society is a matter for the criminal justice system.
So (as Nicolau did) he'll compare the perjury or tax evasion
to Hoyt, Blue and Rocker (among others -- and yes I know,
Rocker's case didn't involve criminal conduct, but it was an
off-field incident where MLB perceived that not taking action
would damage the game from a PR point of view)
The arbitrator won't permit action based on an indictment (see
Hoyt) alone. And he'll want to know of any mitigating factors.
>
> > In a very real sense arbitrators were making MLB's drug policy
> > one case at a time (though MLB and the PA did have an
> > agreement for a single year. Uberroth killed it because he
> > didn't want anything less than Olympic style season round
> > testing and the system that was in place was probable cause based)
> >
> > > If not, why was it a difference maker?
> >
> > Good queation. I still haven't been able to find the full test of
> > Bloch's ruling. I have however found a different arbitrator who references Blue
> > (and Wilson and company) in a general discussion
> >
> > http://www-unix.oit.umass.edu/~splaw488/discipline.htm
> >
> > Quoting:
> >
> > Bloch upheld that suspension, characterizing Blue's involvement
> > with cocaine as "active, widespread... continuous" and "substantially
> > more serious" than that of the other players, with a suspension of that
> > length accordingly justified
>
> I'm not sure if this sets any kind of workable precedent for what MLB
> can do to convicted criminals.
Other than this. In both Blue and Hoyt the arbitrators were concerned
about the damage that the criminal conduct did to the team. The
arbitrator in the Hoyt case hinted that he'd have permitted MLB
and the Padres to release Hoyt (without paying the balance owed)
had Hoyt been dealing to teammates.
Can't see MLB establishing damage to the team, so any dispipline
is going to be based on damage to the game's image if they
don't take action. Which brings Rocker into play.
>
> Josh Rosenbluth