Comments on: News of the Day – 2/19/09

By: The Hawk

The Hawk — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 04:19:16 +0000

[27][28] Well it totally depends on who was on the list. It seems unlikely that someone even NEAR the same class of fame as A Rod is on it … Well maybe it’s hard to say, but I figure the biggest story by far is out. If there was anything close, that would be a huge story too and I assume would have leaked as well. I’m not buying this vendetta against A Rod business. The simplest explanation for why his name was leaked is that his is by far the biggest.

It’s funny because it supports his “amateur hour” story. I don’t know why people are so skeptical that he was juicing in such a haphazard way, but don’t question the fact that he didn’t stop for the test. Seems to me those two things actually compliment each other. If he was truly the superhuman professional control freak, he would have known what he was taking, sure, but he also would have knocked it off when the time came.

By: 3rd gen yankee fan

3rd gen yankee fan — Fri, 20 Feb 2009 02:28:15 +0000

Bernie was at camp! Bernie was at camp! :-D

By: Chyll Will

Chyll Will — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 22:58:11 +0000

[27] My interest is in how this would be spinning if 104 guys had been named. (And I am NOT saying it would even be ‘better’ if that had happened, just different in a big way, and a LOT less about Rodriguez.)

MLB is reeling today as the names of 104 major league ball players who had failed a major drug screening test conducted in 2003 before MLB mandated steroid testing were published in the current issue of Sports Illustrated. Among the over one-hundred names were several well-known players; the biggest name by far being arguably the best player in baseball, third baseman Alex Rodriguez of the New York Yankees…

That, or some variation with “Alex Rodriguez…” leading off.

{/cynicism}

By: Horace Clarke Era

Horace Clarke Era — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 22:30:31 +0000

I hope I’m not sounding as if I believe Selena Roberts should be ‘in trouble’ for this piece, as if she committed a crime. No. And I agree with JL (thanks for the data) that throwing a reporter in jail is a pretty major ‘statement’ and needs equally major reasons. I think whomever leaked the 104 names did commit (best I can tell) a criminal act. RECEIVING that info (Roberts, the NY Times people maybe, though they haven’t actually said that, have they) isn’t, as I understand it, a crime. She chased a story, was priming her book, and got lucky in a big way. The single name leaked certainly helps her a lot.

My interest is in how this would be spinning if 104 guys had been named. (And I am NOT saying it would even be ‘better’ if that had happened, just different in a big way, and a LOT less about Rodriguez.)

By: JL25and3

JL25and3 — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 21:09:01 +0000

Despite what happened with Fainura-Wada and Williams, I think they’d have trouble compelling Roberts to reveal her sources.

There aren’t any federal shield laws, but the Supreme Court did set a fairly high standard in Branzburg v. Hayes: the government has to “convincingly show a substantial relation between the information sought and a subject of overriding and compelling state interest.”

I have trouble seeing that here. Of course, I have trouble seeing it with Fainura-Wada and Williams, and the standard is ambiguous, so who knows?

But because the standard is ambiguous, the fact that it held there doesn’t mean it will hold here. (There’s also a whole lot less information that was revealed, isn’t there?)

Finally, the change from Bush to Obama might make a big difference. The government might well be less likely to seek a subpoena, and Holder might well be more likely to heed the protests and appeals that Gonzalez ignored.

I don’t see this as anywhere near important enough to warrant that drastic an action.

By: Diane Firstman

Diane Firstman — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 18:48:52 +0000

[24]

Comment of the day nominee ….

By: Chyll Will

Chyll Will — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 18:45:02 +0000

[19] I question how the information they obtained by illegal means is even helpful or important. It’s one thing if its government info that has an effect on society in general, but baseball does not have the same reach, regardless of it’s popularity. What are reporters, and by extension government officials prosecuting; if not the use of questionable enhancements before they were declared illegal in MLB, then the actual trading of banned substances? They’d also have to excoriate certain countries that either don’t consider them illegal, or turn a blind eye to their use. After all, certain countries have a trade embargo imposed on them for ostensibly political reasons (others to allegedly marginalize competition). Where do reporters stand on this?

By: Dimelo

Dimelo — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 18:38:57 +0000

[17] Here is the link: http://tinyurl.com/bvpxkt . And here’s the part I’m referring to:
The Times had been chasing the A-Rod story. “We were working on it for many weeks,” said Tom Jolly, the paper’s sports editor. “It’s a story whenever there’s smoke around A-Rod for a period of time, and we were chasing that smoke.”

Again, I don’t see how Roberts is the problem here. She was given information, which apparently was being shared amongst her other peers, and she just beat them to the punch. I am not defending Roberts the person, I just don’t understand how her professionalism comes into question in this instance. In the Duke case, I understand and agree fully. But just cause she botched that up doesn’t mean she did the same here.

The other thing is this, if they find Roberts is guilty and they throw her in jail for the rest of her life, does all of this go away? Does ARod admitting to PED usage automatically mean he no longer did it? It doesn’t, it’s just noise. ARod admitted to it, he said he got no gain whatsoever,

By: PJ

PJ — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 18:20:39 +0000

[20] Maybe she’d have better stats if she huffed Liquid Paper in cycles. At least then, she would be able to relate to being “young and stupid”…

;)

By: hoppystone

hoppystone — Thu, 19 Feb 2009 18:20:15 +0000

I know this is idealistic, but:
What if her book came out, and nobody bought it?
Wouldn’t that send the right message?