"Game o Shadows" authors refuse to reveal sources, may face jail time.

[Boris]

[ QUOTE ]
Read this.

[/ QUOTE ]

Yellow journalism at its finest.

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
I love how you criticize "the sports media" and anti bonds people for being biased and then turn around and present a litany of the most one sided posts possible.

[/ QUOTE ]

Advocating that Bonds should have a right to due process instead of being tried in the court of public opinion is suddenly considered "biased" and qualifies me as "pretty dense". Interesting perspective some of you guys have.

Why is it perfectly okay for Bonds haters to jump to conclusions, make false accusations, and commentary without the entire story as long as it paints him negatively.....but god forbid when someone sympathetic to Bonds jumps to a conclusion in the other direction, then it is HOLY JIHAD on them.

Brilliant!

Shame on me for not condemning a man accused of committing an alleged crime without proof or due process, right?

Sorry guys, sometimes I think for myself, and don't just go blindly by what Rick Telander, Jeff Pearlman, or two criminals who wrote a book think.

Do I personally believe Bonds used performance enhancing drugs? Yes, along with thousands and thousands of others, from Kirk Gibson's documented use, to Roger Clemens, to Greg Maddux, to Hank Aaron, to Willie Mays and a host of others.

Do I believe he violated MLB rules? No, just as none of the others above.


Maybe one day people can get past their prejudices, their preconcieved notions, and then we can have a detailed intelligent discussion of why Bonds is wearing teflon and he won't be sanctioned.....or....rather than discuss little matters like "facts", "evidence", and "details", we can just go ahead and call him a juiced-up dick that everyone should hate because the folks in the sports media says it is ok.

[TheRover]

[ QUOTE ]
.....but god forbid when someone sympathetic to Bonds jumps to a conclusion in the other direction, then it is HOLY JIHAD on them.

[/ QUOTE ]

o rly? exaggerate much or has someone here declared a holy war on you that I missed?

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]

If it's not true, if none of the allegations in the book are true, why aren't Bonds, Conte, Montgomery, Jones and everyone else suing the writers and everyone associated with the book and the San Francisco Chronicle?

[/ QUOTE ]

Do you realize that the burden of proof is very different in libel cases that involve "public figures" than as it applies to regular people? Bonds is considered a "public figure".

If I publish a book full of lies about a public figure, but I beleive them to be true myself, despite it later shown they were not true, that does not constitute libel.

The simple defense from the authors would be "We thought it was true.", and regardless of whether it was chock full of lies, no grounds for libel of a public figure would exist.

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
o rly? exaggerate much or has someone here declared a holy war on you that I missed?

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course I exaggerated that part, much the same as everyone exaggerates about everything related to Barry Bonds. Of course, only the exaggerations in his favor are called into question. Exaggerations that paint him negatively are, of course, readily welcomed.

Funny how that works.

Bonds has never failed a MLB drug test, nor has he violated any MLB rules pertaining to steroids. That is not an exaggeration. Saying otherwise is not only exaggeration, but rampant speculation.

But of course, that's ok, since it is negative towards Bonds, and the mob mentality condones it.

[Triumph36]

You have to be joking.

Yes, Barry Bonds never violated rules of major league baseball. He violated the morals of the court of public opinion by taking steroids. As did Gary Sheffield, Jason Giambi, and a whole list of players we don't even know about. Barry Bonds, however, is a very prominent player - and has also been regarded as an a-hole by teammates and the media. Also, he's dumb enough to have an ESPN reality show.

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
Because if their sources leaked grand jury testimony they would face jail time. you're coming across as pretty dense

[/ QUOTE ]

Let me get this right. You think it's noble of two guys to be accessory after the fact to the commission a federal crime...so long as they do it in the spirit of outing a guy who allegedly cheated at a <u>game</u>?

And you consider me "dense" because I value an American citizen's right to due process in our judicial system <u>over</u> a statistical recording of the amount of homeruns a man has hit in a sporting event?

Interesting perspective you have, to say the least.

[RedBean]

[ QUOTE ]
Yes, Barry Bonds never violated rules of major league baseball. He violated the morals of the court of public opinion by taking steroids.

[/ QUOTE ]

So you are saying he is guilty in the "court of public opinion", but <u>not guilty</u> of breaking any rules.

That's exactly what I'm saying too, and I certainly hope you can understand why there is an issue of a concern that two guys who write a book for profit are risking jail time to protect someone who committed a federal felony all over a guy who hits a baseball real far, who you said yourself has *not* broken any rules of a game.

[Sluss]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]
Because if their sources leaked grand jury testimony they would face jail time. you're coming across as pretty dense

[/ QUOTE ] Let me get this right. You think it's noble of two guys to be accessory after the fact to the commission a federal crime...so long as they do it in the spirit of outing a guy who allegedly cheated at a game?

And you consider me "dense" because I value an American citizen's right to due process in our judicial system over a statistical recording of the amount of homeruns a man has hit in a sporting event?

Interesting perspective you have, to say the least.

[/ QUOTE ]

Seriously, It's time to take a step back and take a breath. If these guys go to jail it is good. Not good because it will vindicate Bonds good because it is a very important asspect of our society.

One of the things that makes this country great is freedom of the press. There are very few countries in the world that have this freedom. Without the ablity of journalists to protect thier sources trouble is right around the corner.

At the crux of investigative journalism is the source. If these writers give up their source it hurts our whole society. Whistleblowers of major companies and government agencies have to know that their identity will be kept secret. It's these people that allow us to have a free and open society.

Obviously grand jury testimony that is suposed to be sealed should remain sealed. However, if it is leaked than that source must be protected at all costs. Let's take a step back from the Bonds situation and look at this from a different perspective. Let's say that there was a major cocaine ring that was being investigated by a San Francisco grand jury. The same source who leaked the Balco testimony would be the same leak for that testimony. Now there is a good shot that this testimony would never get out. However, let's say that the druglords bought off a D.A. and where given a lighter sentence or if the charges just disapeared. It would be the media that would have to bring this to light and that source would be key. If that source is exposed during the Bonds investigation then it would probably get the source fired.

There is a reason these guys will go to jail to protect their sources. It has nothing to do with them being liers or cheats and has everything to do with the journalistic code of ethics.

[Boris]

Sluss - There is a qualitative difference between a whistleblower and the guy who leaked Bonds' grand jury testimony, and thus subverted our hallowed institution of due process.