But in July that was going to be the end of that story. Washington kept his job, and nobody would know. The entire episode would be swept under the bat rack. And was, as the season gave way to fall and winter.
Then, however, came the blackmail threats.
Somebody, you see, did know. How or why he knew, that’s unknown.
But this team employee, fired after the season, had all the details. He also had a list of demands for the club, which if not met would mean the Ron-does-dope story would suddenly become national news.
Some of his demands were met, but the club balked at personally giving this person a glowing letter of recommendation and also refused at least one other item. By January, word leaked that the former employee was bad-mouthing Washington around north Arlington.
Blackmailer was real unhappy, but all was still quiet as spring training opened in Arizona nearly four weeks ago. Then this week, Washington received a call from a national baseball writer saying he had the Ron-does-dope details.
It’s uncertain if this is how the blackmailer made good on his threat to disgrace Washington and embarrass the ballclub, but I’d definitely wager that way.
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
1. Jacob Posted: March 18, 2010 at 11:49 AM (#3481345)"Just one more question Mr. Ryan, ahhh...you seem to have dropped your gun, let me get that for you....ahhh..hmm."
I'm more impressed by the sort of guts it must take for a blackmailer to ask for a letter of recommendation, and curious as to what that resulting letter would look like.
My question is why blackmail? It's just like the Letterman guy. You can get more $$$$$ selling your story to The Enquirer, with no legal liability.
1. Going to the Enquirer will get you blackballed from the industry. This blackmailer seems to have been very concerned to preserve his career (hence the letter of recommendation).
2. The information was obtained illegally or there's a duty of confidentiality etc. I don't know anything about Letterman but this must surely apply here. So you'll get legal liability anyway.
3. What RB said.
4. You've got plenty of skeletons in your own closet that you don't want spilling out when you are inevitably attacked in the second wave.
Those five words alone made this thread worth visiting.
This is the only action I'd like to see taken in all of this.
I'd be shocked if the police were not already investigating.
My question too.
Actually, why do we care about a criminal's motives? Would you feel better if the guy did it b/c of greed, vs. personal hatred, vs. racism? It's the same crime.
I've always questioned "hate crime" laws for that reason. To me, bashing someone in the head with a brick for his wallet is equally heinous as bashing him b/c you don't like his skin color. Same crime, should have the same punishment.
He's trying to get the thread closed.
The first call Ryan made as soon as the guy hung up should been to the cops, second to RWashington. In any organization there is always negative business information to be exploited; there should be no tolerance of such people.
Blackmail... Ron Washington.... black male..... racism! All we need is a chalkboard and Glenn Beck to connect those dots.
Should painting a swastika on a synagogue be punished any differently than painting "Kilroy Was Here"?
I can see why some people have some issues with the "hate crime" concept, but it wouldn't be an issue if there weren't racist, homophobic people that keep trying to keep the institutionalized "Good Ol' Days" alive through acts of terror.
Shouldn't be punished at all. The idea of ownership is one of the worst things in society.
Unless there's some link to advocating/perpetrating violence, yeah pretty much. i.e. if it's the Aryan Nation doing it as part of an intimidation campaign, you might want to add some "menacing" charges, or even RICO if it was systematic, but if it's some dumb kids or average weirdos, I'd treat it as vandalism.
I'm actually more concerned about crimes against persons, rather than property. Treating some crimes as more serious b/c of protected group status, makes victims unequal before the law.
Gonna paint a wagon, gonna paint it good.
Probably white, statistically speaking. Not that that implies racism as a motivation, of course.
In certain situations, I guess I might sympathize a little more with a guy getting railroaded if the guy's black. He had a tougher road to get to where he got, and I'd hate to see him lose it over this hysterical nonsense.
Yes.
Yes. And what I've learned is that you can't rub anyone out without setting up a clumsy alibi for yourself first. So you gotta set the blackmailer's watch ahead after you kill him, and then smash the watch on the ground to fix the supposed time of death to some point in the future when your alibi is supposed to kick in (e.g., you have tickets to an art gallery and you show up there constantly asking people what time it is).
It totally works.
Yes, but there's a shortage of white blackmailers in baseball right now, so there's an increased chance that the blackmailer is actually of some other race. Probably Latino, non-US born. I understand that group is currently over-represented in MLB. Although nobody realizes this, because people think the Latino blackmailers are actually African American.
Sometimes it's more about jurisdiction than punishment. Having the local yokels deal with crimes targeting the "undesireables" in their community will deprive them of justice.
Concern for recidivism is another issue, as someone who harms others for pleasure (hate crime) is distinct from someone who harms others for need (e.g. robbery) or by accident. People who see violence against others as a desireable end rather than a means to an end are more dangerous to the community.
Much to my chagrin, I am forced to agree. That was some good comedy.
Lesssee, Hurdle replaced Jaramillo last fall. But Rudy isn't white so he can't be a racist. Hicks is white and is on his way out, but he's not gone yet, so he can't be the guy. Some guy named Jay Robinson who used to be a special assistant to the GM was not renewed after the season. I've never heard of him so I'm not certain he's not a racist, so I guess he's the one. Cue the Bartman mob!
EDIT: Just for the record, the guy's actual name is Jay Robertson and I still have not heard of him. Please do not submit his name to Deadspin.
No, if those reasons, too, are part of a continuation of a quasi-institutionalized deprivation of Constitutionally protected rights.
The letter should have some code that spells out "this guy sucks" when you lineup all the first letters of each sentence:
It's almost like he's working for the other side.
(The "obvious reason" being that there just aren't very many Klan members around anymore. If these laws were limited to those sorts of situations, prosecutors would never get to use them, and wouldn't get to put out all those press releases at election time.)
Vicente Padilla?
Very good article.
My reaction, who gives a #### if it was a hate crime. This "kid" attacked an innocent man with no provocation and caused serious injuries. 16 is plenty old enough to be tried as an adult. He should have gotten 3 to 5 for aggravated assault. That he got off with probabtion is unconscionable.
I can't begin to assess how much time I will waste in the future while looking for secret messages in recommendation letters. All I know for sure is that I will never again be as productive as I was before reading that post.
Bravo
Bravo
Don't spoil the ending ....
Getting robbed doesn't deprive you of your constitutional rights?
I assume you also think terrorists are just the same as criminals, and they should be tried in federal civilian court, right?
Hate crime legislation doesn't make certain victims more special than others; it recognizes that hate crimes victimize more people than just the direct victim.
In general, SBB tends to come clear out of left field more than any other poster I've seen on this site. Not always, but enough times that it's noticeable.
Depends. If they are enemy combatants, belonging to an organized group waging war against the US, they should be dealt with under military law, which prescribes summary execution for espionage, sabotage, and non-uniformed combatants. i.e. they have no rights under international law, and should be treated as such.
If they are general wackos and cranks like the Unibomber, or the radical environmentalists, or Timothy McVeigh, then civilian courts work fine.
This statement could mean anything, depending on how you define the terms.
My first memory of him was some digression about Rosie Ruiz. Anyone else remember that?
More to the point, do you not acknowledge that hate crimes terrorize communities? Or do you just think that shouldn't matter?
Nicholas Butler Murray is not impressed.
Yes, much better than Arnold Schwarzenegger's.
Yes. Non-uniformed combatants can be executed on the spot. You don't have to, e.g. if they have intelligence value, but you can. Witness the German spies executed in WWII.
I'm not appealing to it as statutory law, but as a universal law, much like if I say murder is wrong, that comes from natural law, not the actual criminal statutes. The international standard, for centuries, is that non-uniformed combatants, like spies, have no rights as soldiers, and can be executed.
More to the point, do you not acknowledge that hate crimes terrorize communities? Or do you just think that shouldn't matter?
Random murders, rapes and street crimes terrorize communities too. If someone issues threats against a group, charge them with that crime.
Ah, the Bonds Exposed thread.
With that background, I am surprised that the Rangers gave in to some demands from the blackmailer but refused to give a "glowing" recommendation (whatever that means). On the other hand, I don't know the nature of all the demands. Maybe they are so despicable that the Rangers finally decided they had to draw the line.
for after I'm dead.
Still amped up about the Palmeiro thing, huh?
Every time you go to the ballpark you see something you've never seen before :-)
Nah. But I am still roided up about it :)
Also, in Tricky Dick's examples, is it possible that the potential for getting sued over a bad recommendation was outweighed by the dismissal of the EEO complaint?
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main