AP asks judge to release names of players linked to drug use

[Skin & Bones]

NEW YORK - The Associated Press asked a federal judge to make public the names of baseball players a government agent said were implicated in drug use by former major league pitcher Jason Grimsley.

In an application filed Wednesday in U.S. District Court in Phoenix, the AP said a sworn statement signed in May 2006 to obtain a search warrant for Grimsley's home in Arizona should be released in its entirety based on legal precedent and public interest.

When the affidavit, signed by IRS Special Agent Jeff Novitzky, was made public in June 2006, names of the players Novitzky said Grimsley accused of using performance-enhancing drugs were blacked out.

“Any privacy interests of individuals named in the affidavit are insufficient to overcome the public's right to access,” the AP said in its court filing.

The AP also said that if prosecutors provided the complete affidavit to baseball steroids investigator George Mitchell, “then they should not be allowed to invoke the privacy interests of third parties as a shield to prevent disclosure to others.”

David Segui told ESPN in June 2006 that he was one of the blacked-out names, and the Los Angeles Times reported in October that Roger Clemens, Andy Pettitte and Miguel Tejada were also named, along with Brian Roberts and Jay Gibbons.

Players in the Times report denied using steroids, and Randy Hendricks, the agent for Clemens and Pettitte, said he was told Grimsley denied making the statements attributed to him by Novitzky. Grimsley has not commented publicly and a federal prosecutor said the report contained “significant inaccuracies.”

Natalya LaBauve, spokeswoman for the U.S. Attorney's Office in San Francisco, and Wyn Hornbuckle, spokesman for the U.S. Attorney's Office in Phoenix, declined comment.

Earlier this month, Hearst Corp. asked a federal judge in New York to make public a December 2005 sworn statement by Novitzky used to obtain a search warrant for the home of former New York Mets clubhouse attendant Kirk Radomski. The government said 36 current and former players were supplied drugs by Radomski but the names of the players were blacked out when the search warrant was unsealed this April.

Hearst said that if the names had been provided to Mitchell, they must be made public. Its motion is pending.

http://www.theworldlink.com/articles/2007/06/23/sports/sports14062307.txt

[ChrisLDuncan]

Umm...isn't there privacy issues here? I'm all for freedom of the press and you will not find a more liberal guy than I am, but I mean this is a bit much.

[baseball_83]

Umm...isn't there privacy issues here? I'm all for freedom of the press and you will not find a more liberal guy than I am, but I mean this is a bit much.

Not really- legal matters often become public (that whole legal precedent thing.) That's how we find out about all the investigations and court proceedings on the news- not just on this issue, but on every major story.

[ChrisLDuncan]

Well grand jury testimony is supposed to remain private...if there was a trial most trials are public anyways and all indictments are public matters anyways.

[Ubiquitous]

This isn't grand jury testimony but a sworn statement used to get a search warrant that had 36 names blacked out when it was released to the public.

[rockin500]

the public doesnt have the right. just the AP being the AP again.

[The Great Nom]

The public has a right to know. They're the ones who go to games and effectively pay the player's salaries.

[metfan13]

If there's precedent then I guess we do have a right to know. I hope we get all the names. Let's air out all the dirty laundry.

[Ubiquitous]

The public has a right to know. They're the ones who go to games and effectively pay the player's salaries.

So then your customers have a right to know about you and what you do?

[Ubiquitous]

If there's precedent then I guess we do have a right to know. I hope we get all the names. Let's air out all the dirty laundry.

A lawyer will tell you that there is legal precedent to take you to jail doesn't make it true. that is why we have a judge and laws. The lawyers claim this and that applies to this particular situation. the other side says no it doesn't. The judge then decides if it does or does not apply. If one side doesn't like the decision then they appeal. So on and so on until the options are exhausted.

[The Great Nom]

So then your customers have a right to know about you and what you do?

If it somehow relates to the service I'm providing and would be a problem, yes.

[Ubiquitous]

If some pedophile wrongly names you in a document as being in cahoots with him, I have a right to publish that info in every newspaper throughout the country?


These are not trials being hushed up but pieces of paper that have the potential to do incredible harm with little responsibility to being reliable.

[The Great Nom]

If some pedophile wrongly names you in a document as being in cahoots with him, I have a right to publish that info in every newspaper throughout the country?

I didn't accuse everyone of being named to be guilty. I'm saying if someone did in fact cheat the game, we have every right of knowing who they are. If it takes a leaking of names(combined with further proof like receipts or something) I have no issue with it.

[Ubiquitous]

I didn't accuse everyone of being named to be guilty. I'm saying if someone did in fact cheat the game, we have every right of knowing who they are. If it takes a leaking of names(combined with further proof like receipts or something) I have no issue with it.


So you are in favor of abandoning the law and going back to the days of mob mentality? You are willing to subvert the laws of our nation just to know who took drugs for baseball? This is baseball we are talking about we shouldn't be bending or breaking the law over baseball.

[Old Sweater]

NEW YORK - The Associated Press asked a federal judge to make public the names of baseball players a government agent said were implicated in drug use by former major league pitcher Jason Grimsley.


Investigative Reporting at it's best.

Still a buncha Rat's as far as I'm concerned that would write filth on their mother to sell their rag. IMO

[ChrisLDuncan]

If it somehow relates to the service I'm providing and would be a problem, yes.

Then boycott baseball if that's how you feel.

[StanTheMan]

The more info that becomes public.... the better. That said, if our legal system rules to keep this private, I certainly understand that as well.

But I love that the AP is pushing for this. Other similar entites should do so as well.

We'll get over this hump eventually, put PED's in the rear view mirror, and the game will be great again. :clapping

[Old Sweater]

What hump? Attendance has been rising for years and the game, has been and will always be great.

[flash143817]

No need to publish the names because it is not facts. Unless they have positive tests to back them up, it's just running someone's name through the mud for the sake of a story. Then regardless of what the facts eventually say, all those players will forever be guilty in the court of public opinion, and that's wrong to do without concrete fact.

It really would be similar to the Duke lacrosse case if they release the names, unless of course they have concrete evidence behind their case (positive tests, financial records, etc.). Those lacrosse players will always be associated with that false rape accusation because of a fame hungry DA. The same will be true of the players on that list and I don't think that's fair.

[sds416]

Then boycott baseball if that's how you feel.

This is a rare moment, but I agree with you.

The public has no absolute right to documents that are part of an active investigation. Furthermore, these are documents related to things such as search warrants, etc. The mere issuing of a search warrant does not imply that any crime has been committed by the party named. It merely states that a judge has determined that a search may be conducted.

In this instance, a suspected criminal made a statement that implicated others, when no other evidence existed that the implicated people had in fact participated in criminal activity. It could be considered slanderous to release the names that were listed on that warrant.

The AP is on a witch hunt.

[sds416]

I didn't accuse everyone of being named to be guilty. I'm saying if someone did in fact cheat the game, we have every right of knowing who they are. If it takes a leaking of names(combined with further proof like receipts or something) I have no issue with it.


This style of witch hunt justice is not justice at all. Wrongly associating someone with illegal activity in a public way, and knowingly doing it, is an even bigger wrong than the crime itself.

If someone did cheat the game, and it can be proven by acceptable methods, then they deserve whatever punishment and public shame that comes their way.

This whole PED investigation is starting to remind me of the whole McCarthy era communist witch hunt and the only bigger joke than the investigation itself is the reaction of fans who seem only to want a bigger witch hunt.

[ChrisLDuncan]

The AP is on a witch hunt.

You're giving them too much credit, they want a story and they're going to kick and scream until they get it.

[Captain Cold Nose]

You're giving them too much credit, they want a story and they're going to kick and scream until they get it.

Not really. This is pretty much a non-story, actually. Trying to access information in this method is fairly standard for journalists. There is certainly not a witch hunt involved, nor anything involving kicking or screaming.

[Ubiquitous]

You're giving them too much credit, they want a story and they're going to kick and scream until they get it.

Not really. The AP like all of us have the right to petition the courts for access to these documents. The AP as far as I know isn't running around screaming bloody murder, threatening to do anything, or standing en masse outside of government buildings. They are following the rules and procedures set forth by our citizens of this country. Now if they get turned down in the ruling and then somehow manage to get the names and publish them and it turns out they did it through nefarious means then you might have a point.

[ChrisLDuncan]

Not really. The AP like all of us have the right to petition the courts for access to these documents. The AP as far as I know isn't running around screaming bloody murder, threatening to do anything, or standing en masse outside of government buildings. They are following the rules and procedures set forth by our citizens of this country. Now if they get turned down in the ruling and then somehow manage to get the names and publish them and it turns out they did it through nefarious means then you might have a point.

Well this to me is an example where the AP knows that they won't get the documents, but yet asks anyways. To me it's akin to a lawyer asking a case to get thrown out even though they know the case has sufficient standing.

[metfan13]

A lawyer will tell you that there is legal precedent to take you to jail doesn't make it true. that is why we have a judge and laws. The lawyers claim this and that applies to this particular situation. the other side says no it doesn't. The judge then decides if it does or does not apply. If one side doesn't like the decision then they appeal. So on and so on until the options are exhausted.


Yes I realize that. That's why I said IF there's a precedent. The judge will decide that.