Tweet
Originally posted by Da Coach
View Post
By the way- here is the original article from Michael S. Schmidt (not the baseball HOF Mike Schmidt) of the New York Times.--
Sosa Is Said to Have Tested Positive in 2003
In this article, the author says he got the information from lawyers who were familiar with the case (presumably former lawyers for the Players Union). On the WSCR morning show, Schmidt was interviewed, and went further, saying he had to dig pretty hard, and do some unconventional things to uncover this confidential information about Sosa. However, he defended it by saying it was what the fans wanted to know, and that regardless of whether he was breaking any laws, he felt the public had a right to know.
In the article, Schmidt says this in referring to "the lawyers" who were his source-
"They spoke on condition of anonymity because they did not want to be identified as discussing material that is sealed by a court order."
But Mr. Schmidt himself apparently has no problem with violating the court ordered confidentially sealed list by publishing this article revealing that Sammy Sosa's name was on it.
I guess he feels his rights and the public's "right to know" override the laws that the rest of us are expected to abide by.
I would like to hear from someone in the media- Does the media have a right to publish unconfirmed reports like this, from confidential (and anonymous) sources, that seriously attack a person's character, and appear to ignore a court's orders, and the intent of both sides (MLB and the Player's Union) and publicize such private confidential information?
Sosa Is Said to Have Tested Positive in 2003
In this article, the author says he got the information from lawyers who were familiar with the case (presumably former lawyers for the Players Union). On the WSCR morning show, Schmidt was interviewed, and went further, saying he had to dig pretty hard, and do some unconventional things to uncover this confidential information about Sosa. However, he defended it by saying it was what the fans wanted to know, and that regardless of whether he was breaking any laws, he felt the public had a right to know.
In the article, Schmidt says this in referring to "the lawyers" who were his source-
"They spoke on condition of anonymity because they did not want to be identified as discussing material that is sealed by a court order."
But Mr. Schmidt himself apparently has no problem with violating the court ordered confidentially sealed list by publishing this article revealing that Sammy Sosa's name was on it.
I guess he feels his rights and the public's "right to know" override the laws that the rest of us are expected to abide by.
I would like to hear from someone in the media- Does the media have a right to publish unconfirmed reports like this, from confidential (and anonymous) sources, that seriously attack a person's character, and appear to ignore a court's orders, and the intent of both sides (MLB and the Player's Union) and publicize such private confidential information?
On a related note, I've heard/read that the player's union didn't destroy the test samples because they were hoping to use the test results to show that there was a high number of false positives. In essence, the union wanted to create evidence that could be used to show that the testing system being used was completely inaccurate so as to eliminate testing all together. Oops! If they had simply destroyed the samples instead of trying to take on the entire testing system, there would be no players names to leak right now. Double Oops!
Comment