ChadLover Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 So people are calling for the heads of the four sources and say they should go to jail for divulging facts that are supposed to be sealed in a court of law. Shouldn't Selena also be penalized? Maybe she will be asked to reveal her sources and jailed if she doesn't like the guys in San Francisco but even if she doesn't reveal her sources, isn't she the one that essentially went public with information that is supposed to be sealed? Should she not be punished for that?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
talisaynon Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 this was the same whale that wrote the piece on the duke lacrosse team. what a ****ing cow. she's a ****ing embarassment to women sports writers everywhere. i hope she gets offed, she's a dumb *****ing cu nt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Dierking Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 this was the same whale that wrote the piece on the duke lacrosse team. what a ****ing cow. she's a ****ing embarassment to women sports writers everywhere. i hope she gets offed, she's a dumb *****ing cu nt What the heck are you talking about? Selena Roberts broke no law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Troll Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 Man, she's hot. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
talisaynon Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 What the heck are you talking about? Selena Roberts broke no law. she writes about ARod like she's like that fat pig that always got picked on in high school. [Which she is] She has a book coming out on March about ARod. What a coincedence! She's scum. Release the other names too you useless cu nt Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Zeebers Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 she writes about ARod like she's like that fat pig that always got picked on in high school. [Which she is] She has a book coming out on March about ARod. What a coincedence! She's scum. Release the other names too you useless cu nt What are you talking about? If this is your contribution to forums, please stop it already. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Dierking Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 she writes about ARod like she's like that fat pig that always got picked on in high school. [Which she is] She has a book coming out on March about ARod. What a coincedence! She's scum. Release the other names too you useless cu nt The reason she was introduced to this info, was that she was writing the book. That is how this cropped up. I saw her on MLB Network with Costas, and she is only reporting the news here, she did not push A-Rod to use. You seem confused. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bugg Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 A-rod was wrong. His rep is destroyed forever.And may be that's as it should be. But as to the fairness of all this, Roberts is a typical whiny media douchebag. In a fair world and if she were a man(and she's certainly manly, if DNA says otherwise), Rodriguez would have been allowed to slug her in the face when she came to his gym last Thursday. Ms. Roberst already deserves a cold place in hHell for what she and the Times tried to do to those Duke lax players. When you guys wonder why I hate the media so much, look no further than this parasite. She takes confidentail information that should never have been released and uses it as a marketing tool for her book. Just freaking grand! She released subpeonaed sealed materials that a federal judge in the Bonds case said before all this these items should not have been given to the Feds in the first place. Reporters, like Roberts's former colleague at the Times Judith Miller, have gone to jail for refusing to reveal their sources in exactly that situation. It will be XXL jumpsuit for this POS. The Times is owned by the same parent company as the Boston Red Sox, and the own a book publishing firm. Take a wild guess who Ms. Roberts' publisher is. Last I saw this woman she was mewling on Bob Costas' HBO dog&pony show(she qualifiies as both) that Lebron James would not give her an interview. WGAF? Like a. Lebron James has any clue who she is, and b. why does she think the golfers who read SI give a flying Boris about Lebron James. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garb Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 this was the same whale that wrote the piece on the duke lacrosse team. what a ****ing cow. she's a ****ing embarassment to women sports writers everywhere. i hope she gets offed, she's a dumb *****ing cu nt so, because she is over-weight her story is embarassing, she should be killed for writing such stuff and she's a dumb "really bad word." So, 'lemme ask you this: If she was a hottie with boobs like nobodies business and an ass that would melt your heart - and wrote this same exact story - would it illicit the same venom? Or would the insults just change? You know - instead of fat pig, she's be a pig with herpes. I in no way condone her piece, btw. I just find your verbal assult very disturbing - especially the c-word. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bugg Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 so, because she is over-weight her story is embarassing, she should be killed for writing such stuff and she's a dumb "really bad word." So, 'lemme ask you this: If she was a hottie with boobs like nobodies business and an ass that would melt your heart - and wrote this same exact story - would it illicit the same venom? She is unattractive. But if she ws dropdead gorgeous she would still be a miserable human being. And she deserves to be in jail. I hope the Duke guys sue her for every penny she has ever made. Whores have more morals that this beast. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Garb Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 She is unattractive. But if she ws dropdead gorgeous she would still be a miserable human being. And she deserves to be in jail. I hope the Duke guys sue her for every penny she has ever made. Whores have more morals that this beast. I thought that Duke case was hideous beyond belief myself. I know a woman who will remain nameless- (not a fan of hers) - that is/was celebrated attorney that goes national everytime there is a case where a woman has been "violated." I recall an interview about the Duke case - where she obviously found them guilty without knowing any of the facts. And then it hit me. This is her shctick: The good lookin' feminist attorney who rails against bad men. I think the same goes for this woman. Part of me really doubts they beleive everything that comes out of their own mouths. It's their money-makin' niche. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Dierking Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 If she was a hottie with boobs like nobodies business and an ass that would melt your heart - and wrote this same exact story - would it illicit the same venom? . Then it would be-"Tempest in a D-Cup" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Otter Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 I have no problem with Roberts report on ARod. She received information about a positive test and she had it verified by four different sources. I'm sure that she had to run the report by not only her editors at Sports Illustrated but by the magazines lawyers as well. Baseball cannot be trusted to police themselves and they would have hidden this information forever if they had their druthers. Now MLB has to step up and release the 103 other names on the list. They are all eventually going to come out. MLB should release them all in one fell swoop and get it all over with. ARod only has himself to blame for the mess he is in right now. He did steroids. Case closed. We shouldn't be killing the messenger. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rillo Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 She is unattractive. But if she ws dropdead gorgeous she would still be a miserable human being. And she deserves to be in jail. I hope the Duke guys sue her for every penny she has ever made. Whores have more morals that this beast. Wait, jail? For what? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aten Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 Selena Roberts broke no law. Right. Knowingly receiving and publishing confidential information in violation of a court order is perfectly legal. Can I get a cite on that? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aten Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 Wait, jail? For what? Gee, I dunno. Committing a jailable criminal offense? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Dierking Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 Right. Knowingly receiving and publishing confidential information in violation of a court order is perfectly legal. Can I get a cite on that? The information was confidential to the business of baseball. If baseball wanted to destroy the information (the Players Union specifically), it should have been done by now. There is no source as to where the leak has come from, and who provided teh information. As long as teh information is true (and A-Rod has now corroboated), Roberts has broken no law. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rillo Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 Right. Knowingly receiving and publishing confidential information in violation of a court order is perfectly legal. Can I get a cite on that? Gee, I dunno. Committing a jailable criminal offense? Link? I seriously doubt the Feds will let her do this if true, is there anything out there saying that she could face criminal charges? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aten Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 The information was confidential to the business of baseball. If baseball wanted to destroy the information (the Players Union specifically), it should have been done by now. There is no source as to where the leak has come from, and who provided teh information. As long as teh information is true (and A-Rod has now corroboated), Roberts has broken no law. 'Confidential to the business of baseball?' That a term of art or something? Do you honestly believe that you know what you're talking about here? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jets Voice of Reason Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 'Confidential to the business of baseball?' That a term of art or something? Do you honestly believe that you know what you're talking about here? I admit I don't know much about law, but isn't it a bigger issue for the people who leaked the info? Or is it just as condemnable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Dierking Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 'Confidential to the business of baseball?' That a term of art or something? Do you honestly believe that you know what you're talking about here? Baseball, in changing its "collective bargaining" said that they would "destroy" the names and it would be "anonimous". Because that information then gets passed to a reporter, breaks no laws on teh reporter's part. What law was broken by the writer? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SenorGato Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 So people are calling for the heads of the four sources and say they should go to jail for divulging facts that are supposed to be sealed in a court of law. Shouldn't Selena also be penalized? Maybe she will be asked to reveal her sources and jailed if she doesn't like the guys in San Francisco but even if she doesn't reveal her sources, isn't she the one that essentially went public with information that is supposed to be sealed? Should she not be punished for that?? Honestly, these people are the worst people in these situations. They, more than anyone else, are doing this for the fame and money that comes from breaking this "news." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Dierking Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 Honestly, these people are the worst people in these situations. They, more than anyone else, are doing this for the fame and money that comes from breaking this "news." So there should be no "checks and balances" in society? People and programs should go unfettered and with no questions asked? is that really the society you want? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SenorGato Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 Baseball, in changing its "collective bargaining" said that they would "destroy" the names and it would be "anonimous". Because that information then gets passed to a reporter, breaks no laws on teh reporter's part. What law was broken by the writer? The unwritten law of not being a douche reporter. There was a point where sports reporting was getting to know the best sides of the athletes. They've made this a witch hunt of the greatest names and players of a generation where it's obvious more than just great players did this stuff. ARod's a douche because ARod's a douche. I'm more mad he straight up lied in front of the camera when asked if he was ever tempted. A half human would have been like "of course I was tempted, it's the ML-f'ing B and I was playing with Texas in 2003. I wouldn't be surprised if that whole infield used PEDs not to mention the pitchers who'd probably lose their arms if they use something. I'll sort out what I really think about steroids one day. This issue is just ridiculous. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Dierking Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 The unwritten law of not being a douche reporter. Is this the same law that says-Thou shalt not question a dynasty, or the number 26? I honestly can't tell if some of you are serious about what you say here. If you don't want news, don't turn on your TV, don't read the paper and just close your minds. The YES Newtork will continue to placate you, at this will. Give props to MLB Network though. They really did a much better job than I thought they would. Already, it is the best OandO sports Network. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Otter Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 The unwritten law of not being a douche reporter. There was a point where sports reporting was getting to know the best sides of the athletes. They've made this a witch hunt of the greatest names and players of a generation where it's obvious more than just great players did this stuff. ARod's a douche because ARod's a douche. I'm more mad he straight up lied in front of the camera when asked if he was ever tempted. A half human would have been like "of course I was tempted, it's the ML-f'ing B and I was playing with Texas in 2003. I wouldn't be surprised if that whole infield used PEDs not to mention the pitchers who'd probably lose their arms if they use something. I'll sort out what I really think about steroids one day. This issue is just ridiculous. So the media should just report propaganda pieces for athletes? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aten Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 Baseball, in changing its "collective bargaining" said that they would "destroy" the names and it would be "anonimous". Because that information then gets passed to a reporter, breaks no laws on teh reporter's part. What law was broken by the writer? And the "judge," in reviewing the "illegally siezed evidence" from the "BALCO raid," ordered said evidence "sealed." Disclosing information that you know to be under judicial seal is "contempt of court" even if you received the information secondhand. Conte's "lawyer" has already been thrown in "jail" for violating the same order Roberts did. I'm sure there's a federal statute too, but I don't see that my looking it up for you would make any difference at all. P.S. teh teh teh teh teh teh teh. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Otter Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 And the "judge," in reviewing the "illegally siezed evidence" from the "BALCO raid," ordered said evidence "sealed." Disclosing information that you know to be under judicial seal is "contempt of court" even if you received the information secondhand. Conte's "lawyer" has already been thrown in "jail" for violating the same order Roberts did. I'm sure there's a federal statute too, but I don't see that my looking it up for you would make any difference at all. P.S. teh teh teh teh teh teh teh. I'm interested in seeing where your got this information from. Do you have a link? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aten Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 I'm interested in seeing where your got this information from. Do you have a link? Nope, sure don't. Guess that means I'm wrong. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SenorGato Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 Is this the same law that says-Thou shalt not question a dynasty, or the number 26? I honestly can't tell if some of you are serious about what you say here. If you don't want news, don't turn on your TV, don't read the paper and just close your minds. The YES Newtork will continue to placate you, at this will. Give props to MLB Network though. They really did a much better job than I thought they would. Already, it is the best OandO sports Network. This isn't news. "Alot of people did steroids in baseball" is not news. Not anymore at least. "Hey look, THIS GUY did steroids" is a witch hunt. ARod lying is news, but not that significant unless you want to make it so. That happened and we bought it. I'm a Cubs fan BTW. You couldn't pay me to watch anything but interesting Yankee games on YES. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bugg Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 And the "judge," in reviewing the "illegally siezed evidence" from the "BALCO raid," ordered said evidence "sealed." Disclosing information that you know to be under judicial seal is "contempt of court" even if you received the information secondhand. Conte's "lawyer" has already been thrown in "jail" for violating the same order Roberts did. I'm sure there's a federal statute too, but I don't see that my looking it up for you would make any difference at all. P.S. teh teh teh teh teh teh teh. Roberts' colleague at the Times, Judith Miller, spent sevral months in jail for refusing to reveal her sources to a federal grand jury when ordered by a federal judge in the Scooter Libby case. Roberts was working at the Times at exactly that time. The presiding judge in the Bonds case was upset with the feds for exceeding the purview of the subpeona in the first place. Federal judges are not known for being egoless polite people, especially when someone violates their seal. Suspect he is going to see to it that Ms. Roberts is so placed in front of a grand jury and asked who gave her that information. And if she refuses to answer she's going to jail for contempt, period. Again, I think the whole Bonds' trial is a joke. But since the feds opened this can of worms, Roberts took the next step of promoting her crappy book with judicially-sealed information. From the looks of her, this bovine might enjoy a few months in a womens only facility with no makeup and clothes that don't care about your figure. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Dierking Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 And the "judge," in reviewing the "illegally siezed evidence" from the "BALCO raid," ordered said evidence "sealed." Disclosing information that you know to be under judicial seal is "contempt of court" even if you received the information secondhand. Conte's "lawyer" has already been thrown in "jail" for violating the same order Roberts did. I'm sure there's a federal statute too, but I don't see that my looking it up for you would make any difference at all. P.S. teh teh teh teh teh teh teh. This was not "Balco" information. Baseball itself may have leaked teh infor to Roberts. Conte was not working off the same info as Roberts. Your info is askew. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Aten Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 This was not "Balco" information. Baseball itself may have leaked teh infor to Roberts. Conte was not working off the same info as Roberts. Your info is askew. My info isn't askew. It's the same court order. The list of 104 was siezed by the BALCO investigator at the behest of the BALCO prosecutor and ordered sealed by the BALCO judge. You are wrong and your argument is stupid. Just stop. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Scott Dierking Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 My info isn't askew. It's the same court order. The list of 104 was siezed by the BALCO investigator at the behest of the BALCO prosecutor and ordered sealed by the BALCO judge. You are wrong and your argument is stupid. Just stop. Balco had NOTHING to do with baseball and its adjustment to the collective bargaining agreement. Now, the list of 104 was eventually subpoenaed by the Feds in the Bonds case. But that does not mean that it where the leak came from. You have no idea. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bugg Posted February 9, 2009 Share Posted February 9, 2009 Balco had NOTHING to do with baseball and its adjustment to the collective bargaining agreement. Now, the list of 104 was eventually subpoenaed by the Feds in the Bonds case. But that does not mean that it where the leak came from. You have no idea. But we do know that this information was under seal and not supposed to be released to anyone. That said judge was displeased that other than the specific 10 BALCO-involved players(Bonds, Giambi et al who were called before the grand jury), he didn't think it appropriate that any other inofmration was released to the US attorney and said so on the record. He's not going to be any happier that now someone has released that data to a reporter so she can promote her crappy book. Whether someone in the union or MLB or the US Attorney's office is irrelevant; someone released sealed information against his order. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.