Favorite restaurant (home): Boulevard Restaurant, SF, “favorite spot of my wife and mine - we go there on anniversaries or moments we want to celebrate – the fois gras is great”

So much for my image of investigative reporters being hard nosed and blue collar.

But when he's slurping down that fois gras he's thinking of the little people.

That’s the other sort of legal inside thing our lawyers point out when people say we trampled on Barry’s rights. You go before a grand jury not because you’re promised confidentiality. You go because you are subpoenaed and you promise to tell the truth and there’s a chance that if it goes to trial that stuff will become public.

Is that true or just his spin?

After all of the commotion about how GJ proceedings are confidential the witness KNOWS what he says may become public?

what was so good about that interview? It was a wanna be industry insider talking to a wanna be industry insider.

I love the fact that the biased reporter was hired by ESPN the day Bonds was indicted. The world wide leader thru so much money at him, he had no choice but to accept and go on camera instantly!
he has done more to damage the game of baseball than any steroid will every do .. that much i can tell you for sure.

Sportsmediaguide.com is owned and operated by Murray Sorkin and Steve Marantz.

story Published by marantzsteve at 10:48 am

Marantz is a researcher for ESPN Content Development.

Barry Bonds needs to start reading BTF, he'd feel so much better about what people think of him.

That’s the other sort of legal inside thing our lawyers point out when people say we trampled on Barry’s rights. You go before a grand jury not because you’re promised confidentiality. You go because you are subpoenaed and you promise to tell the truth and there’s a chance that if it goes to trial that stuff will become public.

This is is horsesh*t. One of the primary reasons for confidentiality is for the protection of witnesses in those cases where there is no trial because no indictment is issued. The system still wants to encourage witnesses to come forward without fear that what they say against someone who stands to be accused of a crime will later be used against them if and when that person is roaming free. Indeed, it's probably more important then. Think Verbal Kint in The Usual Suspects: How do you shoot the devil in the back? What if you miss?

That aside, since when do the lawyers for the Chronicle get to decide whether the violation of a law really tramples someone's rights? Fainaru-Wada can rationalize it all he likes, but the fact of the matter is that the leaking of that testimony was a crime (for which the leaker is now serving time). He should thank his lucky stars that the leaker was caught before he had to go to the pokey.

Abetted a felony whether or not it was technically against the law.

Cost taxpayers a ton of money as the apparently barely competent prosecutors yielded to political pressure caused by the selective leaks to prosecute Bonds. Because reading testimony in full, hard to see how they could ever win the case so the decision to go forward must have been political.

Cost Bonds millions obviously.

Caused the major leagues to waste untold millions on the Mitchell report, etc.

Enjoy your money and fame.

Abetted a felony whether or not it was technically against the law.

This is the part of the two Chronicle reporters' conduct that is most contemptible to me. They relinquished any claim to the moral high ground -- not that they had any -- when Fainaru-Wada copied transcripts of grand jury testimony that he knew Troy Ellerman had been entrusted -- indeed ordered by Illston -- to keep secret. They knew Ellerman was breaking the law and compromising the integrity of the process by allowing Fainaru-Wada to even see -- let alone copy verbatim -- the transcripts.

Not only did Ellerman swear under oath that he wasn't the source for Tim Montgomery's leaked testimony, Ellerman then filed a motion to dismiss the case against Jim Valente based on the leaks that he himself had committed. He then allowed Fainaru-Wada to copy the Bonds, Giambi, and Sheffield testimony.

_This_ is the moral high ground that Fainaru-Wada is trying to claim, as he profits handsomely from writing the book, becomes famous, and gets cushy jobs with the likes of ESPN.

Can Fanairu-Wada pipe down a little? My god.

This guy is a total douche-bag. Total. Absolutely.

But the information only enhanced his reporting. I never saw a court transcript that taught somebody how to write a sentence.

And Fanairi-Wada illegally took grand jury testimony just that one time, didn't like how it felt afterwards, and never took any more.

The important thing is that he did it all on his own, without the knowledge of his bosses at the Chronicle. They were as shocked as anyone to learn one of their reporters was breaking the law.

He should thank his lucky stars that the leaker was caught before he had to go to the pokey.

If only Ellerman weren't so utterly contemptible (*), I'd wish we hadn't found out about him so that FW and W could have spent some richly deserved time in jail.

FW (and Williams) didn't personally break the law by reporting on the testimony, but he, while hiding behind frivolous legal arguments about protecting sources, sanctimoniously talks about informing the public... while keeping secret the identity of someone who is sabotaging the integrity of the grand jury system. Which is there more of a public interest in knowing -- (1) the identity of someone illegally leaking secret documents, or (2) what Barry Bonds said about Greg Anderson?


(*) Leaking the stuff is bad enough, but then trying to use the leak as a reason to get his client off is completely beyond the pale.

Most stories involve a succession of failures. Our hero here is no different.

That said, he did his job. He's not the failure here. The local USA failed (I'd suggest, purposefully) to secure the Grand Jury testimony. The reporter who promulgates same is just doing his job.

As with fraud, where you follow the money, here you follow the duty. The US Attorney is the one with a duty to safeguard testimony. Reporters have a duty to uncover and publish it.

F-W seems like a schmuck, but he did his job.

I'm still trying to process the idea that F-W eats and enjoys foie gras, but Bonds is the bad guy in this story.

The reporter who promulgates same is just doing his job.

And revealing the source of same was the reporter's legal duty, yet he refused to do it.

The US Attorney is the one with a duty to safeguard testimony.

Ellerman had a duty to keep the testimony secret. He was even ordered to do so by the judge, and he agreed. What did you want them to do? Assign a 24-hour chaperone to him to be sure that he didn't let scum like Fainaru-Wada copy the testimony?

I think calling Fainaru-Wada "scum" is a bit much. I think Ellerman certainly is. Fainaru-Wada is something else. Sanctimonious, I'd venture. No doubt deluded about the nature of the freedom of the press when balanced against the legal process. Opportunistic? And how! There's even a certain poetry about his life in that, like his subject, his career was profoundly enhanced by illegality. That Bonds' illegality involved chemicals while Fainaru-Wada's involved documents seems of little consequence.

All in all, though, I'd probably have no problem with him if, when asked who leaked the info, he gave up the name.

"I think calling Fainaru-Wada "scum" is a bit much."

Anybody who eats foie gras is scum. I mean, have you seen how they make that stuff? It's like enjoying a nice dish of chilled baby eyes.

F-W has all of the moral piety of kevin, but without the war stories...

I think calling Fainaru-Wada "scum" is a bit much.

I see your argument, Craig, but I stand by my statement. While Fainaru-Wada didn't do anything illegal, he certainly did something immoral. He knew he was subverting the legal process. And he didn't just look at the testimony -- didn't just copy it -- but he published it. Then he refused to reveal his source, choosing to protect the identity of a despicable lawbreaker. Then he made -- still makes -- absurd and (as you say) sanctimonious excuses for his conduct.

And to what end? Was he exposing government corruption? Standing up for victims or children? No. He was out to make a buck and a name for himself. I must have missed when Fainaru-Wada and Williams donated the proceeds from the sale of their book to the Taylor Hooton Foundation.

Much of what outrages people about the steroids issue is the moralistic aspect of it; people feel that using steroids is cheating, even though the users (allegedly Bonds during the relevant time period) weren't technically breaking the rules prior to testing. Well, Fainaru-Wada didn't technically break any rules either. But what he had a hand in -- undermining the integrity of the grand jury process -- is far worse than anything any steroids user ever did.

And that's not even getting into the other conduct of Fainaru-Wada that I find shameful, which is writing a book that subjects someone to public scorn and embarrassment.

I see where you're coming from, Ray.

For my part, I kinda like muckracking (I don't think that word is an epithet) and I think there's a place for it. To the extent I have an issue with Fainaru-Wada and Williams, it began after the whole leak controversy and everyone -- in a rush to protect what they erroneously believed to be the rights of the press -- felt the need to hold them up as martyrs to some noble cause rather than simple muckrakers who found themselves in a tight spot of their own making.

When I see quotes from them like the one highlighted in #7 above, it's clear that they believe the martyrdom story too, and think of their work as something more than the simple muckraking it is.

And that's not even getting into the other conduct of Fainaru-Wada that I find shameful, which is writing a book that subjects someone to public scorn and embarrassment.

I don't see that book as being something terrible unless it exaggerated and distorted facts (which may very well be the case). Public figures, especially the very famous ones, know that this is an occupational hazard.

To the extent I have an issue with Fainaru-Wada and Williams, it began after the whole leak controversy and everyone -- in a rush to protect what they erroneously believed to be the rights of the press -- felt the need to hold them up as martyrs to some noble cause rather than simple muckrakers who found themselves in a tight spot of their own making.

Agreed.

When I see quotes from them like the one highlighted in #7 above, it's clear that they believe the martyrdom story too, and think of their work as something more than the simple muckraking it is.

Could be, yes. Could also be that they're just making excuses for their conduct.

Anybody who eats foie gras is scum. I mean, have you seen how they make that stuff? It's like enjoying a nice dish of chilled baby eyes.

If baby eyes tasted that good, we'd all be walking around with eyepatches.

While Fainaru-Wada didn't do anything illegal, he certainly did something immoral. He knew he was subverting the legal process.

Why do you hold Fainaru-Wada to this standard but will be dragged to your grave before you hold Bonds/Clemens/whoever to the same standard?

Why are the feds jack-booted thugs when they muscle Anderson to give up what he knows but are heroes when they do the same to Fainaru-Wada?

Enquiring minds want to know.

Why do you hold Fainaru-Wada to this standard but will be dragged to your grave before you hold Bonds/Clemens/whoever to the same standard?

Why are the feds jack-booted thugs when they muscle Anderson to give up what he knows but are heroes when they do the same to Fainaru-Wada?

Enquiring minds want to know

F-W subverted the legal process.

Anderson did not.

Rather, those that went after him were attempting to.

Yeah, sure. You keep drinking that Kool-Aid.

I don't see that book as being something terrible unless it exaggerated and distorted facts (which may very well be the case). Public figures, especially the very famous ones, know that this is an occupational hazard.

Well, much of their book is unsourced, so we don't really know exactly what may have been distorted. But putting that aside, I see your central point, and I won't fight you too hard on it. Still, there's something about this that is unseemly to me. Investigating a public figure in order to publish dirt on him and destroy his reputation is different from merely commenting on him.

At a minimum, I certainly don't see why one should be praised for doing this. But people drool all over Fainaru-Wada (is there a good reason he hyphenates his name with his wife's?), Williams, and Game of Shadows.

Investigating a public figure in order to publish dirt on him and destroy his reputation is different from merely commenting on him.

If this were actually true, you might have a point.

Since it isn't, you don't.

That said, he did his job. He's not the failure here. The local USA failed (I'd suggest, purposefully) to secure the Grand Jury testimony.

The local USA did not "fail" to do anything... except fail to put Fainuru-Wada in jail.

As with fraud, where you follow the money, here you follow the duty. The US Attorney is the one with a duty to safeguard testimony. Reporters have a duty to uncover and publish it.

A reporter has no such "duty," any more than he has a "duty" to publish the names of our spies in Beijing. The grand jury testimony is secret for a reason.

Why do you hold Fainaru-Wada to this standard but will be dragged to your grave before you hold Bonds/Clemens/whoever to the same standard?
Why are the feds jack-booted thugs when they muscle Anderson to give up what he knows but are heroes when they do the same to Fainaru-Wada?
Enquiring minds want to know.

Our federal government and our press should be held to a higher standard than our leftfielders and starting pitchers. Are you seriously suggesting otherwise?