 |
|
|
| |
« 2009 MLB Free Agents | Main | Phillies Sign Chad Durbin »
Real Grimsley Names Revealed
Remember when the L.A. Times got a peek at the Grimsley affidavit? They named Andy Pettitte, Miguel Tejada, Brian Roberts, Jay Gibbons, David Segui, and Roger Clemens. Now the affidavit has been completely unsealed, and the real names are a bit different.
I guess it's not a huge deal, since all six of these guys have been implicated independently. But U.S. District Court Judge Edward Voss was not amused with the "irresponsible reporting." The real Grimsley affidavit links a few new names to performance-enhancers, but there's nothing earth-shattering.
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d834515b9a69e2010534b38451970b
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Real Grimsley Names Revealed:
Comments
Verify your Comment
Previewing your Comment
This is only a preview. Your comment has not yet been posted.
As a final step before posting your comment, enter the letters and numbers you see in the image below. This prevents automated programs from posting comments.
Having trouble reading this image? View an alternate.
Top Stories
Search MLBTR
MLBTR Features
Recent Posts
Rumors By Team
Monthly Archives
Live Chats
Tuesdays at 2 p.m. CST
It doesn't absolve Clemens since Pettitte already admitted to HgH, but man, does it look bad for the paper that ran with the names.
Maybe it's a bellwether for mainstream media to ease back on the McCarthyism reporting and stick to facts. Let the blogs focus on the conjecture.
That's just me, though.
Posted by: jnr98 | December 21, 2007 at 09:13 AM
That LA reporter who picked out of a bunch of incorrect names should lose his job. I am not a big proponent of symbolic firings but this guy was pretty darn deliberate and irresponsible. Granted that a few of the ones he named were coroborated in later unrelated reports but that looks like it's pure coincidence with nothing to do with the Grimsley affidavit. Otherwise he singlehandedly adversely affected the careers of people so he could have a scoop.
We can't sit and ignore folks who pursue personal gain at the expense of others, esp. if it isn't even true. Pretty soon the news itself becomes totally unreliable.
Posted by: basemonkey | December 21, 2007 at 09:28 AM
I can't disagree with any of that, basemonkey. It's flat out irresponsible for a major media outlet to run with unsubstantiated rumors... like in the hours before the Mitchell Report was released and MSNBC and other mainstream news sites published the "email list" of names. Don't they have fact-checkers and editors who determine that it MIGHT not be true and therefore they should NOT publish until they have a confirmation?
And the mainstream hates bloggers.... hypocrites. Wait, I have a new idea for my next blog entry myself!
Posted by: jnr98 | December 21, 2007 at 09:35 AM
Who were the actual redacted names? I'm confused.
Posted by: MO Boiler | December 21, 2007 at 10:21 AM
OK my blog's been written on this subject. I feel better now.
Posted by: jnr98 | December 21, 2007 at 10:29 AM
Segui, Tejada, Sosa, Palmeiro, Canseco. and Glenallen Hill.
I think there may have been one or two more, but the above names aren't exactly a shock.
Posted by: Ya Hote Ta | December 21, 2007 at 10:54 AM
Tim, I think you're mistaken when you say it's not a huge deal.
The reason being is, that Mitchell cites that original Times article as corroboration for naming Clemens and Pettitte in his report.
Posted by: Jay C. | December 21, 2007 at 11:14 AM
Yeah, but Mitchell mostly went with McNamee quotes for Clemens and Pettitte. I guess he doesn't have corroboration now but no one was really treating it like he did.
Posted by: Tim Dierkes | December 21, 2007 at 11:55 AM
Yeah I read most of the Mitchell Report. None of the names overly shocked me, and I didn't feel any smarter after reading it, but the story about Clemens and Canseco when they were teammates on the Blue Jays seemed pretty reasonable...at least enough to not have to worry about what the Times said about the Grimsley affidavit.
Posted by: Ya Hote Ta | December 21, 2007 at 12:38 PM
I think its kind of a big deal to Grimsley because it turns out he isn’t exactly the weasel everyone insisted he was. A weasel? Yeah ~ but not nearly as much of one.
Otherwise, I’m one of the “who cares” guys. The Media lies to us all the time, why be surprised when they are caught doing so?
Posted by: darkstar1661 | December 21, 2007 at 03:56 PM
Not a big deal? A reporter and a paper going to press with a story that implicates people based on hearsay and no solid evidence and then turning out to be totally wrong and shown to have been reckless and irresponsible? That's called illegal.
Posted by: baileywalk | December 21, 2007 at 06:03 PM
"OK my blog's been written on this subject. I feel better now."
I'm happy you took that 50 minutes. There is probably a joke here to make, but I don't want to take the time to check the facts of what I'm talking about, formulate an intelligent response and then reply so I'm just going to hit post.
Posted by: ArodSucksAtLife | December 21, 2007 at 10:00 PM