The MLBPA had the right to destroy the samples, but for all the explaining that Donald Fehr has made on the issue, there were at least 5 days in which they could have gone about this hypercritical task and did not do so. That gaffe put is in the position we’re in now.

The Feds seized the samples that were to be destroyed as part of the BALCO investigation, which touches on illegal search and seizure, which goes to the Fourth Amendment[...]

the combined sins of everyone even tangentially related to this mess pale in comparison to these, especially the Government's obnoxious "we can do whatever the **** we want" seizures...

sincere thanks for another thoughtful piece, Maury.

This makes Maury the Travis Bickle of internet baseball writers.

Why were names ever put to the numbers on the samples? Some people said it was to be able to challenge the results, but I don't get that. The Union could challenge the positive samples on the basis of the samples alone. Introducing names provides no benefit.

Why were names ever put to the numbers on the samples? Some people said it was to be able to challenge the results, but I don't get that. The Union could challenge the positive samples on the basis of the samples alone. Introducing names provides no benefit.

Information is power, you never know when you as a union boss has to give some member a hint or two.

Why were names ever put to the numbers on the samples?

Question of the day.

If the sole reason for the Survey Test was to determine whether a particular threshold was met, then names are meaningless. The only logic might surround retesting of a positive to for some reason.

The samples and name lists were in separate labs in NV and CA. When the Feds siezed what is now known as the "Tracy directory" off one of the computers it gave the Feds the key to the samples. Problem is, it grabbed thousands of names, not just the 104 from the Survey Test -- not all of whom are tied to BALCO, another issue.

Plain truth, it's the fact that all manner of the Survey Test not being destroyed that has us in this discussion. Thanks, MLBPA

You were right before, Maury. Double whiff for second guessing your better judgment. Nothing against Calcaterra, but his lawyering misses the bigger picture.

There's something called a "precedent."

A lot of people apparently need lawyers to make sure the wrong ones don't get set.

You were right before, Maury.

I beg to differ.

If the list had been destroyed, we wouldn't be having this discussion. Without the Survey Test, there'd have been no mandatory testing program in '04.

The mess we're in made me long for the list to be published insofar as to get away from the leaks, and the nonsensical discussions about whether World Series Championships AFTER mandatory drug testing was in place should be called into question.

Lastly, nobody gives a flying you-know-what as to whether rank-and-file players test positive. It's only the star players, showing the hypocrisy of it all. You either go all the way, one way or the other. You can't land in the middle on this one.

You were right before, Maury. Double whiff for second guessing your better judgment. Nothing against Calcaterra, but his lawyering misses the bigger picture.

I couldn't disagree more. The "big picture" here is the laws vital to the protection of personal privacy that are being flouted, both by the initial government seizure and subsequently by whoever is breaching the court order. Why should these laws give way to satiate public curiosity about what some people playing a game might have been doing six years ago?

lol, I always thought Maury Brown was like an 80 year old man. The second column is a lot better than the first. How about one holding these government prosecutors' feet to the fire for their continual unconscionable flaunting of the law.

Genuine curiosity here professional athletes, actors/actresses and to a lesser extend politicians seem to have 70% of their personal life dragged around in the public. Most of the time no one says anything about it, we see articles here about the personal lives of players and either no one says anything about their privacy or they avoid the article all together. Yet on the steroid issue it seems a lot of people here think there is a privacy problem here. What is the difference? We hear about divorces, drug problems, DUI's, family members being sick, etc. But it seems different with steroids, why?

Personally, since I do not know the extent of who was on and who was not I have no idea how it affected the results of anything I don't really care who was on. In fact the only reasons I care about the testing is that I would like to see it out of the game, the testing shows at least minor progress and to see if there is a suspension involved affecting the current year.

I always thought Maury Brown was like an 80 year old man.

that's Maury Povich :)

Next time on the Maury Brown show.

Is "Derek Jeter my daddy?"

But it seems different with steroids, why?

Ever heard of the fourth amendment? In this particular case, it matters just a little.

Ever heard of the fourth amendment? In this particular case, it matters just a little.

Yes, but didn't the union agree to the "search"?

Genuine curiosity here professional athletes, actors/actresses and to a lesser extend politicians seem to have 70% of their personal life dragged around in the public. Most of the time no one says anything about it, we see articles here about the personal lives of players and either no one says anything about their privacy or they avoid the article all together. Yet on the steroid issue it seems a lot of people here think there is a privacy problem here. What is the difference? We hear about divorces, drug problems, DUI's, family members being sick, etc. But it seems different with steroids, why?

In my mind, two issues make it different. The government is potentially using an illegal search to put players at risk of criminal charges. And, secondly, the players agreed to provide the samples in exchange for the promise that the results would be anonymous. Without that promise, there would be no steroid results and no finding that regular steroids testing is needed. I think the release of names reminds me "no good deed goes unpunished." That seems to be quite a different situation newspaper reporters trolling through celebrities trash cans.

Fair response, I don't see it much different than other reporting issues, like combing through the trash. I think both are an invasion of privacy, not a violation of the 4th amendment. Someones trash is not public property and to me is the same as stealing if taken or breaking and entering if just read and made public. I hate both of them, but I do not see this as a 4th amendment issue at all, if anything it is a breach of a contract or at the very least a breach of trust. Which made me ask why this unwanted peek into their personal lives is any different.

I always thought Maury Brown was like an 80 year old man.

A little over half that, although my wife says I act like I'm 12.

I do not see this as a 4th amendment issue at all

Really? The Government illegally seizes material, any you don't see the 4th Amendment issue?

You do understand that, if the Government had not improperly seized this material, there would have been no disclosures, all of which are coming after the government seized the materials and put together the list of names with the list of tests?

srul

it was perfectly OK for the government to illegally seize this stuff

how else could they find out of barry lamar was on That List so as they could finally throw him in prison where he belonged for being an arrogant N-word and breaking mark mcgwire's Sacred Home Run Record?

besides, everyone should be allowed to satisfy our curiousity about any celebrity/entertainer, who should not be allowed to have any legal rights about anything

really? The Government illegally seizes material, any you don't see the 4th Amendment issue?

Well, I was really talking about the leaks, which I don't find as a 4th amendment issue but if your thinking the leaks and the government seizures are too coincidental I see your point.

besides, everyone should be allowed to satisfy our curiousity about any celebrity/entertainer, who should not be allowed to have any legal rights about anything

Which was originally my point, I hate all that crap and think it sucks be it who did steroids, finding out what Brad Pitt said to the poor reporter who shoved and tripped him (that part being left out of course) or who is going through a messy divorce.

On the Fourth Amendment. The issue surrounds BALCO...

The list was found as part of the BALCO investigation (from United States v. Comprehensive Drug Testing):

[A] CDT director finally identified a computer directory containing all of the computer files for CDT's sports drug testing programs. This directory, labeled by its original compiler as the "Tracey" directory, contained numerous subdirectories and hundreds of files. Seeing this, Agent Abboud recommended copying the entire directory for off-site analysis, because of the time and intrusiveness involved in searching the voluminous directory on site. Knowing that the warrant required them to rely upon the advice of a computer analyst-here the advice of Computer Investigative Specialist Agent Joseph Abboud-agents copied the directory and removed the copy for later review at government offices.

The ruling then goes on to say that:

Agent Novitzky reviewed with CDT directors the evidence seized during the search. The documents seized included a twenty-five-page master list of all MLB players tested during the 2003 season and a thirty-four-page list of positive drug testing results for eight of the ten named BALCO players, intermingled with positive results for twenty-six other players.

And finally:

"[T]he directory contained 2,911 files that had nothing to do with Major League Baseball drug testing, but rather contained test results for numerous other sports entities and business organizations," wrote Judge Sidney R. Thomas in his dissent. "Dr. Jean Joseph of CDT later stated in an affidavit that the directory was easily searched by key word and would have provided the test information about the 10 players in a short period of time."

As Judge Thomas further writes, "What happened to the Fourth Amendment? Was it repealed somehow?"

So, in searching for BALCO players, the government uncovers Survey Test positives, and a directory of "2,911 files that had nothing to do with Major League Baseball drug testing, but rather contained test results for numerous other sports entities and business organizations..."

I now ask if that is "reasonable search and seizure?" What of the others that have zero to do with the BALCO investigation that are having their privacy infringed upon?

Just out of curiosity:

As a poster going by the name of “Stately, Plump Buck Mulligan” said in a thread for Craig Calcaterra’s outstanding Why the rest of the names cannot be released thread on Baseball Think Factory, “Why is Ozzie Guillen referred to as dumb while Maury Brown is referred to as smart?” The answer is, he isn’t, or rather, wasn’t for running the column he did.

rivverun, past Eve and Adam's, from swerve of shore to bend of bay, brings us by a commodius vicus of recirculation back to Howth Castle and Environs....bababadalgharaghtakamminarronnkonnkbronntonneronntuonnnthunntovarrhounanawnskawntoohoohoordenenthurnuk!

Do either of these make sense to you, dear reader?

I expect "bababadalgharaghtakamminarronnkonnkbronntonneronntuonnnthunntovarrhounanawnskawntoohoohoordenenthurnuk" to be the first response to every Plaschke thread from here on after.

Was the proto-Angry Samoans reference for my benefit Repoz?

They are amongst my personal faves.

I always thought Maury Brown was like an 80 year old man.

that's Maury Povich :)

I think you means Shirley Povich, who was in his 90s when he died about ten years ago after writing his last column.

I miss Sharon Tate, too.

Was the proto-Angry Samoans reference for my benefit Repoz?

and for Meltzer...for whom I owe my near fed-arrest record to.

and for Meltzer...for whom I owe my near fed-arrest record to.

Imagine this is a good story.