I'm a big fan of Hank Aaron, and I'm sure his heart is in the right place with this, but he's way wrong here:
The former home run king favors releasing the full list of players who tested positive for performance-enhancing drugs in 2003 . . . "I wish for once and forever that we could come out and say we have 100 and some names, name them all and get it over and let baseball go on," Aaron said. "I don't know how they keep leaking out. I just wish that they would name them all and get it over with."
As I wrote last week, the fact that these names still exist on a list is attributable to a serial violation of the players' rights, and the act of releasing the names -- be it via a leak or by some misguided attempt at attaining closure -- is a far worse offense than their taking of PEDs in the first place.
My biggest concern in all of this is that as more and more people ignorantly speak out in favor of releasing the names, those who are breaking the law by leaking will feel more and more comfortable engaging in their illegalities and feel justified in leaking even more ("Hey, Hank Aaron says it's OK . . .").
I'm just some dumb lawyer/blogger and no one is going to listen to me, but someone -- anyone -- in a position of moral authority in baseball needs to educate folks about what "releasing the names" really means, and how the issues it invokes are much bigger than baseball.
Leave a Comment:
Saving...
Funny, I just wrote something like this, including a linkback to your CTB article on the subject:
http://www.itsaboutthemoney.net/2009-articles/august/hank-aaron-has-had-enough-of-rights-and-bans.html
Of course, Craig (and Jason) are right.
But that won't stop people from repeating the "good reasons" for exposure that their favorite "pit bull" sports talk show host dragged out of his ass.
I can't tell you how some of this discussion makes me cry for the American educational system.
Doug Glanville's recent piece in the NY Times was dead on. The wrong people are being prosecuted here by the U.S. government.
Another critical and 1 sided position by the dubious Craig "The Big Cheese" Calcaterra. Hank Aaron is just saying what i was saying last week. The names are going to come out. Slowly but surely. So why wait. End the controversy whether it be legal or not and move on. And to call him ignorant for that is ridiculous. Craig, you attacked Ozzie Guillen for saying the same thing. And all this does is make you look stupid. These peoples opinions are based on the scarring this does to the game to slowly leak names. If it was even conceivably possible to stop the names from coming out then there would be an alternate argument. But there isnt. Those names are coming out. And releasing them fast instead of slow makes a lot of sense. Thank God Your "just some dumb lawyer/blogger and no one is going to listen to" you...
If someone asked you whether the law was more important that baseball, would you agree? The "scarring this does to the game" (not that I'm sure there is any scarring going on) is small potatoes compared to the law-breaking done by the leaker.
Hey, Hank Aaron is good company to be in, DC. You're still both wrong, but knowing that even one of the most admirable people in sports is wrong too should make you feel better. ;-)
Is this one of those situations where you put your hands over your ears, starting mumbling aloud, refusing to accept even the possibility your wrong. The point is made below. Some names are leaked, so bring on the rest. Why alienate some and not all? Why drag it out and tarnish the game? Why have stupid bloggers calling Hank Aaron an idiot? Why argue with you when i can tell your hands are on your ears as I speak...
I didn't call Hank Aaron an idiot nor would I. I have the utmost respect for the man. The man, however, just happens to be wrong here, as are many people (yourself included) who while having pure intent, aren't considering all of the implications of what you are demanding.
My hands aren't over my ears. I understand that you and others view this as an issue of fairness. And I appreciate that. As explained here and elsewhere, my view is that this is an issue of law and individual rights that outweigh those of simple fairness or the public's right to know.
Let's test your hearing: read my little hypothetical below about the credit card information and tell me whether you would support your information -- informaton you believed to be protected by contract and law and subject to a court order ensuring its confidentiality -- being released the way the other people's are in the hypo. Hey, it's fair! Why not let all of that information come out?
"My biggest concern in all of this is that as more and more people ignorantly speak out in favor of releasing the names"
Thats not a jab at Aaron and Guillen and people who respond like myself? Thats a straight insult. And your credit card example is flawed. To correct it, the credit card company had all the records sealed of known fraud and cheats. The government sealed those account transactions in a side deal with the credit card company to protect major celebrities from being exposed in the illegal fraud ring. For new stories and side payments someone leaks a couple of names. Now a few celebrities have been tarnished. But there are more yet to be released. Because of the big name factor, because this list protects cheaters and illegal activity, because the public wants to know are the reasons to release the names. And the legal crap protecting these cheaters is exactly that, crap!!!
Sou you're calling the fourth amendment and the power of a federal judge's court order "crap"? And not only that, but "crap" that is less important than "the public's right to know" about things celebrities do? Really? If that's how you feel about this, I don't know that we can continue to have a reasonable conversation.
You know the problem with your writing Craig and the problem with blogging in general? It masquerades as news articles when instead it's just simple editorial opinions. News is objective. Blogging isn't. This piece is a perfect example.
You always take nasty little shots at people in your blogging and you do it in that gutless way where you try and wrap it in sweetness.
"You're still both wrong, but knowing that even one of the most admirable people in sports is wrong too should make you feel better. ;-)" As if the wink at the end makes up for singularly judging someone to be wrong.
Or...
The heading itself..."Hank Aaron proves that even awesome people can be wrong sometimes". Aww, it's so nice how you complimented him before you smacked him.
Or...
"Let's test your hearing:". The person is reading it, not hearing it.
Why not simply state the facts and let them speak for themselves or suggest what might be incorrect in a person's opinion or suggest that they read xyz to see a different point of view rather than being rude and bluntly stating...'You're wrong'. Who made a simple blogger like you (defintion: Blogger. One who is not good enough to be a real journalist or writer) the arbiter of what is right and wrong? Remember Craig, you're a lawyer not a judge.
No i am calling the fact it was sealed crap. It isnt fair that the fact that their major stars give them the right to be protected. The users are getting millions, the distributors are going to jail. Is that how its done with any other drugs? And the courts sealed this to protect the users, and when it gets leaked, bloggers like you want to protect the remaining users? Thats ridiculous. I 100% agree it never should have been leaked, and i bet Aaron and Guillen would say so to. But it has, and why only a few be known and not all. The law has already been broken. Dont forget that.
"The law has already been broken. Dont forget that."
So, there should be more law breaking to make everything okay?
Well, in this case yes. Because its being used to protect premodanna millionaire athletes.
DC: do you believe that people have different rights under the law based on how rich and famous they are?
This is an epically weak argument.
Does not compute. Abort (A), Retry (R), Fail (F)?
There's no sense arguing with Craig. He is the "know all, "be all" and "end all" of everything related to "the list" or in existence for that matter and we should bow to his greatness! His moral superiority is breathtaking and his wit is unmatched even by God himself. I am going to name every male child and even pets I ever have "Craig" and the females "C.C." in his honor. I only hope one day I have to ultimate pleasure of meeting Craig or at least knowing of a place he has walked so I may bow down and kiss the ground he walks on.
That being said, Craig is an absolute idealist who I believe has some kind of hidden agenda here because the release of the list poses no threat to any on-going investigation and some judge is merely got paid to uphold some BS court order. It's a static list that isn't going to change whether it is released or not. The search and seizure argument is BS as well and will be thrown out in less than an hour of the hearing. Craig's legal high ground is commendable but in this case all the legal garbage is just the red tape of some sleazy backroom dealings and pocket linings. There's no real justifiable reason not to release the list and all this posturing is doing is delaying the inevitable.
Personally, I'm patient enough to wait until all these ridiculous legal procedings rule out every objection Craig has and then along with the gratification of having the cheaters revealed we get to hear Craig whine and moan about how it's still not right and how we're all wrong and our opinions are insignificant. I can't wait!
Wrong, wrong, wrong. The outcome of this case can easily set precedents for future cases. Do you want sensitive private information capable of seizure and publishment? Because that is exactly what is at stake here.
And the conspiracy theorists are out. Thanks for playing Kevin.
How is it "a conspiracy theory" to assume that an action applied in one case can be argued for in another? Do you have a Law and Order fan's understanding of how the system works at least?
The real question is does releasing the remaining names really damage the integrity of the laws that protect such an action? To Craig, the answer is yes. That breaking such laws in this case is so damaging it must not be done under any circumstances, even since the law has already been broken for 7 names. The law is protecting law breakers. And this never should have been sealed to protect law breakers for no other reason than public humiliation.
If you don't want knowledge of your illegal activity to be made public then don't do illegal things. If that's the implication, which is all it could be, then I'm fine with that. They already make sex offenders register so everyone can know who they are, they publish names of DUI offenders and thieves, etc. in the newspapers. Release the names of the steroid users, steroids are illegal in this country in case you didn't know. Craig's assertion that this is in violation of the 4th Amendment is garbage as I've already stated because they obtained information of the existence of a list and requested it as evidence in an ongoing investigation. That's neither an illegal search nor illegal seizure and therein lies the "conspiracy theory".
Perhaps it is in this case, but that's beside the point. Lots of laws protect lawbreakers. That's why we have a Bill of Rights and a criminal defense system. If you simply ignored the law when "lawbreakers" were involved there wouldn't be any trials. There would be mass executions in the town square.
Less dramatically, the law is not "protecting law breakers." The law -- here, a court order -- is protecting "information which a judge has decided must remain confidential and which has been ordered as such." There's a process to review such an order, and if the judge wrongfully sealed this, you can bet someone (probably the government in this case) would have tried to get it overturned. They didn't. The fact is that we have a valid court order and it doesn't matter what it protects. To break it is a violation of the law.
And that's still the case even if the information on the list only damages rich people, because contrary to popular belief, they have rights too.
In America, you are innocent until proven guilty. We do not know if any of the people on the list did anything illegal or not - there is no proof other than a positive test. This could be lab error, legally taken in a foreign country, or whatever. That is what a trial is for.
Publishing the names of DUI offenders and sex offenders is completely different - they have been convicted of their crimes. No one on this list had been given due process. Violating their rights and valid court order because of a suspicion of illegal activity and public interest is ridiculous.
That's funny, I read all the time, including on ESPN, stories about people being pulled over "under the suspicion of DUI". Where was their due process? I guess being caught with your hand in the cookie jar and crumbs on your face doesn't mean you were taking any cookies right? Besides, for all intents and purposes, they're still innocent, that nice little ideal doesn't apply to public opinion.
"There's a process to review such an order, and if the judge wrongfully sealed this, you can bet someone (probably the government in this case) would have tried to get it overturned. They didn't."
Yet. Formal appeals of all sorts, requests to reopen court decisions, overturning court orders. These are not things done overnight Craig. As a lawyer you should know that, so that arguments pointless. The governments investigation is open right now. During this investigation this sealed court order maybe reopened and overturned. Then, legally, the names become released. All at once, smoothly. And then it can all end. But thats the fastest smoothest way, which won't happen. Instead, some guy making a few bucks will sell of the names little by little to make more money. And the process will be slower. Don't you find that so much more uglier, sleazier, and unlawful than just releasing the names all at once?
There wasn't a valid court order prohibiting their name from being released for suspicion of DUI.
Why is this so difficult to understand? I get that we all want to see who did steroids so we can call them names and build statues to the olden day players, but our desire for knowing < their legal rights. They would have never have taken the tests without legal confidence that the results would never, ever see the light of day. The fact that someone broke the law and exposed a few of them does not change the fact that the rest should still be protected.
Valid is questionable, it just hasn't been disputed. I'm not in a hurry, I can wait until they're "legally" released, it will have the same effect, I just don't have a problem with them being released and in fact encourage it.
Sorry Craig once again you are wrong, some of the names have been leaked out so its only fair that we get all of them out there. Also we are not learning how "tainted" Mr Mitchell's report was, i mean how did he miss Manny and Ortiz for example? Oh wait, thats right he was drawing a paycheck from the redsuks!! Nope we need all the names out and Mr Mitchell should also be questioned as to how he didnt find these other names. What a joke!
The Mitchell Report only focused on known PED dealers who were already subject to federal prosecution (Radomski, McNamee, BALCO). Mitchell did no independent research or investigation. It was a total whitewash in that regard, true, but I don't think it's fair to say that he hid the Red Sox under the rug. He simply didn't know about them because he didn't look too hard. Whether that's worse is an open question.
"only fair?" Let's say your credit card company got sued for unfair business practices with respect to its customers' accounts. Because it's sensitive info, the judge decided to issue a sealing order, preventing anyone from spreading the information in those accounts publicly. Then say someone -- maybe the credit card company, but we don't know -- put up a website with all of three or four of the customers' credit card purchases, account numbers, etc. Would it be your position then, that it's "only fair" for your information to be released too? Because it's a perfectly analagous situation.
Craig, what exactly are the legal ramifications of the list being released? My understanding is that the players union violated contract law with the players by not destroying the list after it was compiled and by not keeping the list annonymous/confidential.
If the government came upon the list as a result of an investigation, why should they be subject to an agreement by the players union and the players? I would think said agreement wouldn't involve them and that they would be free to publish the information. If I found the list in a dumpster, would I be subject to said privacy rights / contract laws?
Finally, your analogy about the credit card companies doesn't really work. A better analogy would be a credit card company doing an internal audit on all of its customers that used credit cards to purchase illegal materials. The company compiles a list and the government, having been investigating said company for ties to illegal activities, seizes the list with the intent of exposing/prosecuting said card holders. I doubt the evidence would be admissible in court for prosecution. The question is whether or not the government would be breaking the law by exposing said cardholders. Personally, I'm in favor of it, as is Hank Aaron, and the vast majority of baseball fans.
The problem is that the list itself is subject to a pending fourth amendment challenge as having been obtained by the government in the course of an illegal search and seizure. We are currently awaiting that ruling. If the search was illegal (I personally believe it was due to overbreadth), the list with those names should not have been seized.
More generally, the problem is that the leaking of these names is being done in contempt of court and in violation of the ethical rules to which lawyers are subject. Respect for court orders and those ethics rules are vitally important. If we do things which causes people to feel that they cannot depend on court orders or legal ethical rules to protect them, the system is placed in peril, because so much of our system is based on trusting in its efficacy. Turning someone's violation of these orders and rules into a call for them all to be released belittles the importance of these orders because this is exactly the conversation the leaker wishes to have.
In your hypothetical, the government would most certainly be breaking the law, because there is still a court order sealing said records. It doesn't matter what the records show: leaking them in violation of a court order is illegal.
More broadly, though, let's assume, as is the case here, that the government seized not only the records of the people it had probable cause to believe were in cahoots with BALCO (10 players were named in the warrant), but 94 others who were in no way connected to the crime in the underlying case. Maybe some of them had misued their other credit cards. Maybe some of them had unpaid parking tickets. Doesn't matter: they were swept up in an investigation that had nothing to do with them, and now they are being outed -- illegally -- as a result. I have a problem with that.
I understand that you're playing devil's advocate and taking a purely legal stance on the matter. That being said, Aaron (and the rest of us) are by no means, "wrong" for wanting the names on the list released. None of us are "wrong" for feeling that way.
Aaron's reasoning (along with the rest of us) is sound. We believe that inevitably, the entire list will be leaked (illegally or not). That said, we believe it should simply be released all at once instead of in pieces because it is a lot more painful for everyone involved to have a name drip out eveyr couple of months.
You argue that this would jeopardize the trounce on the rights of the players yet to be named. I would argue that their rights have already been violated. Further I would argue that the list has already been leaked. It doesn't matter how the court rules.
I'm not sure to whom Aaron was talking when he asked that the list be released. Regardless, be it the leaker, be it a lawyer, be it the government, the courts or the players union, the vast majority of baseball fans want the list to be released. None of us care about the legal ramifications, and/or the privacy rights. We care about baseball.
First, steroids were not banned in baseball back in 2003, so these "cheaters" are being shelled for something that wasn't even wrong according to baseball. The Commissioner should be FIRED over this whole thing. It's illegal now - it's so unfair to the players whose names were released, so just release them all, get it over with, and put the leaker in JAIL! I'm so tired of people complaining about these cheaters, in 2003, when it was OK to do by MLB!! BLAME BASEBALL! Who wouldn't try to get ahead? And why are boneheads going to baseball games and attacking players who used steroids? Stay home if it bothers you that much. I wish this whole issue would just go away.
Not banned in baseball but illegal in the country the baseballs being played in. Doesn't that mean anything...
No, Aaron is absolutely correct!
The Genie is out of the bottle, let all the names be revealed and not just selcted ones!
So what you're saying is that if someone broke the law 4 times, it's OK to break the law 100 more times? Because that's what this is.
What I am saying is what ever the number of positive tests, to name only a few is discrimination. Name them all since the confidentiality agreement has been rendered moot for some it should be rendered moot for all.
Which "law" is being broken? Please inform us!
"Which "law" is being broken? Please inform us!"
Violating a court order is breaking the law.
Lets have a major investigation into WHO is leaking these names. They are evil and cheaters themselves.
I was at the Hall for the induction of Rice and Henderson, and as The Hammer was signing autographs I would say at least half the people asked him about steriods or Bonds. He is right, get it out there and let baseball move on. If they don't get it out baseball will lose fan support. I have yet to watch a game this season, mostly because the Mets suck, but steriods has tainted the game for me. Bring on the NFL, footbal can't start quick enough for me. Go Pats!
because im sure there are no steroid users in pro football, not even one
IF some have been named, then release them all. The players gave up their rights when they took the drugs. Plus if you want to ban someone, then lets ban sports writters.
If you honestly believe this, I hope you never have a position of authority in government. Because the "rights" you're talking about here include contract rights, Fourth Amendment rights, and the expectation that court orders directly effecting them be followed.
Craig, come on now. This isn't a Fourth Amendment issue. Is it law enforcement that is accessing the results of these records? No. It's the media. The Fourth Amendment does not protect you from an "unreasonable search and seizure" from Sports Illustrated. Buster Olney doesn't need to get a warrant to do an investigative piece on steroid use by a player.
The players on the list might very well have a cause of action against the people who leaked their information. Unless they were taking the steroids legally, though, they're going to have a tough time. You should know that you can't make a legally-binding agreement to keep a crime secret. If their steriod use was illegal, then they aren't going to have any remedy in court if their "confidentiality agreement" was breached any more than a Mafia hitman could bring a lawsuit against a government informer.
Finally, not to be too nit-picky, I think you meant "affecting" them at the end of that post.
Patrick, I'm sorry, but you're wrong: the whole case that is currently pending (the case from which the sealing order was issued) deals with federal agents excuting a search warrant to obtain the list. That search warrant is being challenged on fourth amendment grounds. If the search warrant is illegal -- which I and many others believed it to be due to overbreadth -- the list would not have been seized and the names would not be released. Given what we know about the leaks (i.e. it's lawyers and others with knowledge of the contents involved) it's entirely possible that the leakers themselves are government attorneys and/or agents.
And I could care less about any causes of action that the named players may have against the leakers. The leakers are breaking the law regardless of any players' standing. There is a court order here issued by a federal judge that is being violated. The court order was issued, among other reasons, to protect the players' whose names appear on the lists. Anyone who is asking that the names be released is essentially asking that the order be rescinded and/or violated, which is itself a call to disregard the rights of the players that the judge saw fit to protect in the first place.
Patrick,
Its not the media. The media's sources have all been "attorneys familiar with the situation" - it's not like Buster Olney has the list under his pillow and is doing with it what he wants. Craig made an excellent post about the long list of possible culprits - attorneys, player/owner representatives, law clerks, etc. And the way that I understand it, there is no proof that any of these positive tests resulted from an illegal activity, it is merely a list of positive tests.
All employers with a drug testing policy are obligated to maintain confidentialty of test results, much like a medical file. (Copy and paste from a quick google search of the federal law) "Negligent release of test results could result in legal action over issues such as invasion of privacy, intentional infliction of emotional distress, and defamation. Due to the federal law (ADA), it is necessary to maintain such records in a separate, confidential medical file."
If you were tested at work in 2003 for smoking pot, were promised that the test was for survey purposes and would be kept secret and that you could not be terminated for your result, wouldn't you feel shorted if your name was leaked six years later and you were suddenly persona non grata? Or if a couple of your co-workers were outed, would you only think it was fair for you to be exposed too?
Or what if you went to the doctors office and someone posted a partial list of who had been given Valtrex, should he open the rest of his files?
Our interest in who exactly tested positive CANNOT overcome the basic need of fidelity in contract law and confidentiality agreements.
Yeah, because there are no steroids in football.
And while I'd hate for baseball to "lose fan support" that consideration has to take a back seat to, you know, abiding by the law and keeping confidential information subject to a court order confidential.
We all want the names out, if for no other reason to be done with the painful "drip drip drip drip" every few months.
BUT, doing so is a rights violation. However much we might despise it, even the guilty & accused have SOME rights remaining.
Those who are leaking the names should be tried and convicted.
This is rediculous...once the first name was released, the Pandora's box was opened. Release all of the names and let's get back to playing the game.
Can we please stop referring to the "players' rights", they have legal rights as people or citizens, but as players they have privileges. These are the same people that held a sport hostage for thousands and/or millions of dollars more in income to play a GAME. A game that many of us would and do play for fun without any compensation. Hell, some of us pay to play the sport in leagues and such. Somehow, these guys figured they couldn't live a life or raise a family on a couple hundred thousand dollars, or god forbid, only a few million a year salary, for 9 months work (which I use loosely here regarding a game).
Like it or not, they have become the face of a national pastime, one of which has the most children involved in it than any other youth sports program in this country. They are idols and role models, again maybe not by choice, but notheless they are the moment they put a uniform on and trot out onto that field. Cheating is what it is. It's been a part of baseball for as long as the game's been played, but to cheat by injecting and ingesting drugs and chemicals that could prove harmful and detrimental to one's physical well being is both immoral and irresponsible. They had created an environment where it was not only acceptable (on a player level) to do, but neccesary to compete. Minor leagueres, college players, and even high school players knew the score. These kids were faced with the decsion wether to take performance enhancing drugs just to keep pursuing their dreams. Now a whole generation of ball players is tainted and the sport is trying get up and limp on after taking another black eye.
Sure, they have rights as people, but as players they only have privileges. Privileges that came with responsibilty, and they chose to behave irresponsibly. I was taught, as I think most of us were, from a young age that if I was irresponsible that they're would ALWAYS be consequences to those actions. My father must have neglected to tell me that didn't apply to professional sports athletes. These guys are still playing ball, still getting paid the thousands and millions to play that ball game. I'm not saying they should all be fired and released or serve prison time or even pay enormous fines. I think that they should be exposed for the dangerous and reckless cheats that they are/were, wether motivated by greed in the form of larger pay checks, the fame that came with big numbers, or just fear of being left behind in a game that was moving forward at unnatural break-neck pace; these guys cheated by using drugs. While we, as a nation, spent billions to educate our youth on the dangers of drugs and try to instill a drug free culture within the youth, part of which involved these famous athletes talking to our youth and recording PSA's to help convince the kids to "just say no", our natonal past time was busy injecting themselves with syringes filled with a pharmaceutical cheat. These guys need called out so that the next generation of ball players know exactly who is worth looking up to and emulating, and so the guys that posted their numbers without the drugs (or at least without gettuing caught) can get the proper recognition they deserve.
There are no legal remifications to that, if there was no union that is. In part; because I'm not advocating we deprt them, imprison them, fine them, or even fire them. Just inform the public and the sport of their misdeeds directly involving the game, not any personal misdeeds that are outside of the game. They don't have the right to play basball for money, that's a privilege. No one can argue that. And it's a privilege that no one tells the public how you were able to play that game so well, not a right. These guys, the players on that Report that is, need to know what it's like when some one takes a privilege away from them so they can understand the difference between the two.
To suggest that the jerk(s) releasing the names would be encouraged by the release of the whole list is absolutely ridiculous. If the whole list were released, he wouldn't have anything left to release, now, would he?
So the question is do we want to keep getting the names on this guy's schedule, when he wants to, or do we just rip off the band-aid and get it over with?
The people releasing the names know they're breaking the law. As is the case in almost any setting (including ballplayers' steroid use, ironically enough) when everyone is willing to overlook the illegality of it all, the behavior will only be encouraged. Maybe not with this specific leaker, but there are lots of court cases with tons of confidential information that the public might be interested to know. Celebrity divorces spring to mind. Trade secret cases. The business and legal dealings of high-profile individuals. Sealing orders are put in place in these kinds of cases all the time. There are people who know this information and would love to see it released. Why not leak a bit of it, wait for the public outcry to know more, and then have it all come out?
release the hounds!!
Fill me on why it is wrong to release a list naming people who participated in illegal activities? Was there a confidentiality agreement in place that the MLB wouldn't release data regarding player's illicit activities? Correct me if I am wrong, but I was under the impression that any contract regarding the perpetration of illegal activities was null and void.
Frankly I could give a flying *expletive deleted* about the MLB in general, but if you want the public to regard it as a legitimate sport then it must adhere to its own standards as well as, oh I don't know, Federal law which prohibits the use of performance enhancing drugs.
As far as I am concerned they should have two leagues for all sports; "The Juice League" and "The Clean League" and we should see once and for all which would be more entertaining.
Because a federal judge -- who is empowered by the United States Constitution -- issued a binding order demanding that the information not be released. Because the information only exists because another branch of the federal government may very well have exceeded its authority and illegally seized it (that's the subject of the case).
Because though we all suspect that these were "illegal activities," that has not been determined for anyone on the list. There are all kinds of substances banned by sports leagues that aren't illegal to take. How many of the people on the list were doing that? How many people were, as Bronson Arroyo and others have suggested, taking spiked Andro?
There is still a presumption of innoncence in this country. Why it's not applied to baseball players by most of the people in this thread is beyond me.
This leaking is going to go on for years.
Just pull off the band-aid now!
Jesus, Craig, I think you might be a saint for all the patience you manage to show these people. If I were you I'd keep the lawyer stuff on HBT/Shysterball and just let the ignoramuses over here insult you over beanball wars or whatever. yeesh.
I live for this stuff, Grant. But thanks for looking out for me. ;-)
yeah, I can tell. you have a stronger stomach than I do. I guess that's why you're the lawyer and I work in a library.
Its a debate dude. Neither side is confirmed correct nor incorrect. All arguments are made on opinions based on the currect situation. The facts may be irrevelant in the outcome and also irrelevant in the opinions. As a librarian im sure you already know how to shut your mouth. So i suggest you do so again since your not arguing for nor against and clearly don't even understand the premise of a debate.
I'm pretty sure the guy on the side of upholding the law is correct.
A "debate" is when both sides give logical arguments. You're giving no logical arguments -- your only reasoning seems to be "they're millionaire athletes so they have no rights", which is just silliness.
First of all, the investigation is open. The names are sealed by a federal judge for now, not permanant. And the debate is whether the names should be released following a leak in that federal seal. Now at the same time that federal seal can be uplifted. So legally and illegally the names can be released. Now, if you took english comprehension in high school, you would know how to understand what your reading. I have said the ONLY reason these athletes got this special legal treatment is because they are celebrities and public figures. So no i am not removing their rights as Americans but questioning the validity of the extra protection they have been given after doing AN ILLEGAL ACT. Such lawbreakers who got slaps on the wrists like Richard Nixons pardon or Dante Stallworths brief jail stint. Would that happen to anyone who was NOT in the public spotlight??? I can not spell that out any clearly. Now disagree with my side all you want, thats fine, but make sure you know what im saying before you questions its very merit.
Simple fact, the players on the list cheated and hiding behind the players union is a joke. The fact that Hank wants the list to come out and the players who cheated the game of baseball is what the majority of baseball fans are thinking anyway. The union is a joke, it stands for protecting whiny players who cheat and want more money than lottery winners.
This has nothing to do with money. This has to do with upholding the LAW, which most people in this country find important.
Hey Craig, here's an idea. If you believe so strongly in the sanctity of those test results, how about you agree to not go along with the release of any of them? The next time this jerk tries to leak another name or two, you don't print them. Terminate your business relationship with any organization (NBC, for example) that does publish them. Show your principles.
If offered the names by a source, I would not be the person to break the story on general principles. Once any individual's name is out, however, the damage with respect to that person has been done. I write a news blog, and I'm not going to pretend that news hasn't happened.
The damage has not yet been done to those people who remain anonymous, however.
It will be. One at a time, or all at once. We have someone with an axe to grind, and a news media that doesn't care if it's legal or not. The names will come out, the important ones anyway. The utility infielders using steroids to barely hang on may remain anonymous because nobody cares.
Release the names, all of them. If their name is on the list and they set ANY records wipe them from the record books. Don't put astericks or question marks after them, use and eraser. Period.
What about players in the 70's who admitted using amphetamines, such as Mike Schmidt (and I know there are many others)? What about pitchers like Gaylord Perry who admitted in a book that he doctored the ball his entire career? Do you erase all their names from the record books too?
Baseball history is filled with players who did everything they could to win, including what could easily be described as cheating. How many players stole signs in their career? I have no idea why, all of a sudden fans, want to crucify players who tried to enhance their performance when baseball players have been doing it for over a hundred years. It just doesn't make sense.
You know Craig, I like how you keep bring up the "Law" when last time I checked taking Steroids (Not Prescribed by a doctor) has been against FEDERAL law for a long time now... It wasn't against "Baseball Law" but who cares about FEDERAL law. Oh wait, like all lawyers you want the law to work only for you and not against you. Go ahead and say it is illegal to leak the names. Its illegal to take Roids isn't it???
Look, the fact is that HA has a point. This has tarnished the game, more so than the black sox scandal, or even Rose for that matter. I am not a HA fan (Ted Williams AKA "Frozen Head" - The greatest hitter to ever play) but more in support of get all the cheaters out there in the open and lets move on. Now baseball has a policy (not a great one) but it is there. In order to put all this to rest, the remaining players on that list WILL COME OUT. I and the majority or real baseball fans will always have it in the back of our heads that they are all cheats and until the remaining players come out, we will all think it.
So your argument is basically "two wrongs make a right?" You sure you wanna go with that?
No, his argument is that if it takes 293840298439 wrongs to release this list we would be satisfied. Afterall, we're baseball fans, not lawyers. Do you think we all sat around after A-Roid was outed talking about how sad it was that his rights were violated? HELL NO. Craig, I think you need re-evaluate your audience before writing an article like this. I'm sure there are constitutional law websites that are eating this stuff up right next to the Eminent Domain stuff.
The bottom line is, the list will come out one way or the other. Talking about why it shouldn't be leaked is irrelevant. If I were a betting man, I would place all my chips on the list being full leaked within a year.
After yesterday's show put on by Pujos, I'm wondering if Albert might just be on that list....I hope not.
@ Dave W
"Simple fact, the players on the list cheated and hiding behind the players union is a joke. The fact that Hank wants the list to come out and the players who cheated the game of baseball is what the majority of baseball fans are thinking anyway. The union is a joke, it stands for protecting whiny players who cheat and want more money than lottery winners."
I assume you have never asked for a raise in your life then. Or perhaps you feel bad for the poor, poor owners who have to pay these salaries.
I love it when some reporter who nobody knows & I would be willing to bet did not play in the Major Leagues & thinks he is quailified to tell the true Home Run King he is wrong about the steriod issue. Who do you think you are. You were part of the group that covered up the steriod era because of the money to be made off of it. when that dried, you guys then turned on the players to cover the media's fault in all this & again making money off of the new spin on the story. So excuse me if I don't care what you have to say. When stating an opinion maybe you should be able to carry the man's shoes that you are saying is wrong.
He's a lawyer, speaking to an issue of law. I love it when some commenter who nobody knows & I would be willing to bet did not pass the bar exam & thinks he is qualified to tell a lawyer he is wrong about an issue of law. Who do you think you are?
Like I said, I love me some Hank Aaron, but I'm willing to bet that my legal training and experience is a bit more extensive than his.
And yours too, by the way, but that doesn't make me think you shouldn't be allowed to voice your opinion.
What planet have you been beamed down from, Greg? Craig's responsible for covering up the Steroid Era? Priceless.
What Craig HAS done here (and elsewhere) is to lend his legal training to some of the issues surrounding the game. Issues that even the greatest players of all time might not fully comprehend. Blasphemy that anyone disagrees with The Hammer? C'mon, he's got no better legal background than I do, but it's far less than Craig's.
But because Hank wants to out those who were promised anonymity and drive a wedge into the Union, it's gospel?
Greg,
What makes you think a former baseball player is more qualified to discuss legal issues of rights and privacy than anyone else? Last time I checked, hitting home runs means somewhere near the realm of zero when discussing an issue of this sort. I think Craig is extremely qualified to claim Aaron is wrong...and at the very least disagree with him.
Quite an accusation: "You were part of the group that covered up the steroid era...". If I could actually comprehend more of what you wrote, I'd comment more.