Full Disclosure

A judge has sentenced two San Francisco Chronicle reporters to 18 months in prison for refusing to reveal the sources they used in cracking the steroid saga, a web that famously includes the likes of Barry Bonds, Jeremy Giambi and other athletic superstars.

The two reporters, Lance Williams and Mark Fainaru-Wada, have said repeatedly they'd rather spend time in jail rather than reveal the sources that leaked them the grand jury testimony that allowed them to write a series of groundbreaking stories as well as their book Game of Shadows. For the time being they will avoid the prison time as they appeal the latest decision.

While trying to avoid the soapbox on this subject, the freedom of the press is rooted so deeply in the uses of anonymous sources that asking a reporter to reveal their secret informant is tantamount to confiscating their tools as an investigative journalist and then expecting them to be able to do their job somehow just as effectively as before. And while many might feel that a journalist being required to make public the names of people who provided them critical information is a small price, make no mistake that if these two reporters eventually to give up the names, it changes their entire livelihood and will ultimately trigger a domino effect for reporters of all beats.

Fainaru-Wada and Williams know full well if they ever have to suffer the fate of disclosing these names — people who themselves performed the illegal act of giving up sealed testimony — that their careers as investigative journalists are over. No one ever again will provide these writers with the public information we need, but wouldn't always be privy to.

That Fainaru-Wada and Williams are sentenced to 18 months in prison, not for an illegal act mind you, while the likes of Victor Conte and Greg Anderson combined haven't served that amount despite the fact they are the ones right at the heart of the entire debacle.

Fainaru-Wada and Williams very likely will end up serving jail time for an act that sits at the very heart of what it means to be an investigative journalist. They did their job well, they exposed dirty secrets that we all should know about and they stood their ethical ground in the face of the threat of prison.

Unnamed sources helped expose a president, they have been integral in exposing the seedy underbelly of municipal, civic and federal politics and they've found their way into arguably the biggest sports story of all time.

If we are to continue our pursual of vital information such as that which was exposed by the Chronicle, the journalists who bring us such material can't be burdened with the need to constantly look over their shoulders wary of another misguided legal battle.

Big Red's Big Talk

Good friend Julio alerted me to this story, just a few days before the beloved Big Red is to get its first major challenge of the season, a trip to Los Angeles to face the juggernaut USC Trojans.

I won't get into this too much, my superstitious side won't allow me to. But let's just say, in my unconditional support for all that is Nebraska, I appreciate our boys going in with confidence and talking big, but the last thing anyone needs to be doing is giving a team that's won 27 straight at home. It's a new team there in L.A. but it's still the fourth-ranked team in the nation and firing them up isn't always advised. So can we please just all calm down?

Perhaps that's the weak me talking — the guy who doesn't even want to utter words of impending games because of my belief if jinxes the good guys.

That said, Nebraska is a three-touchdown road dog in this game, which makes little sense to me. Hopefully the Huskers use that as their motivation to counteract what will undoubtedly be a fired up USC group in light of Jones' remarks.

Where to begin

Just way too much football to deal with now that the NFL and NCAA have gotten their seasons underway. We'll start with Pittsburgh, which got a nice win against a Miami team that still should be considered to at least contend for the AFC East.

Still, I can't help but think they're the same as the Minnesota Vikings from a year ago: Make a ton of off-season moves, get everyone janky about your prospects, get pre-season Super Bowl hype. Hell, they've even got their starting quarterback. Anyway, we all know how that story turns out.

The only thing I'll say about the controversial Heath Miller touchdown is that if I'm a Dolphins fan I'm absolutely livid at my coach. Yes, he got the flag down to challenge the score but where in heaven's name was the intensity you'd want to see from your coach? I just think that was a guy who wasn't entirely convinced he should challenge the play, which begs the question: Why wasn't he? At that stage of the game, as backbreaking as the play could potentially be, how can you not just automatically get out there and KNOW you need to challenge the play. And then when you do, you'd better be damn sure you're on the field making it known you've challenged. That said, the refs botched the call AND botched the "hey, should we be looking even slightly in the Miami bench's direction to see if they want to challenge this thing?" thing.

The Steelers still need to get more a running game going and hopefully bringing in Najeh Davenport addresses their slight lack of power running, which I don't think is yet an area of panic concern.

---

Moving west, the Nebraska Cornhuskers are 2-for-2 in the softies category. Two wins at Memorial over peons Lousiana Tech and Nicholls State aren't anything to jump for joy about but the manner in which they got those wins is encouraging.

The Huskers much-publicized running troubles of a year ago are seemingly taking care of with the four-headed monster in the backfield of Marlon Lucky (showing why he was so coveted a recruit), Kenny Wilson (ridiculously talented), Cody Glenn (change-of-pace bruiser) and Brandon Jackson (extra piece to the puzzle).

Zac Taylor has looked very good throwing seven touchdowns against one INT and the defence, well ... the defence is what it always is.

That said, the biggest benchmark comes next Saturday when they head to L.A. for the USC game. I'm not convinced that Nebraska is so out of its league here. We'll see. It's just way too hard to tell right now, but I'm absolutely bubbling over in anticpation for it. A win in this game is not even huge, or HUGE.... it would be HYYUUGGGE.

Since you asked

Editor's note: An MSNBC.com column suggested, putting an asterisk on the home run totals of Mark McGwire et. al.

Since You Asked: Asterisking an Era

-----Original Message-----
From: David Larkins [mailto:dlarkins@steelersfan.org]
Sent: Monday, August 28, 2006 6:03 PM
To: Garasa, Julio: OPS
Subject: Re: Since you asked ...

While it would be foolish to argue legitimacy when talking about the home run record, undoubtedly there are legions of people who will go to their grave fighting the futile fight. I call those people San Francisco Giants fans.

But my feeling on this has always been that you can't just change one record and disregard everything else. If there's one thing we've learned from this debacle of steroids over the past few years it is that people are ignoring all the other juicers because they're so transfixed on the power numbers. Well, pitchers are arguably worse offenders and have slid under the radar. While we lay into McGwire and Palmeiro - and rightfully so - no one even raises a brow towards, say, Roger Clemens. This is a guy who, at 44, has made no only a living, but a dominant one at that, at doing something that is widely known as the most unnatural athletic motion the human body can perform. We talk about what the drugs did for Bonds - improving his ability to return from injury and allowing his body to regenerate strength through the vigors of a long season - but
somehow that same discussion is never brought up for pitchers, namely a guy like Clemens. So here's a guy who is performing at a high level years after what is considered peak for most pitchers, looking like he hasn't lost a stride all the while doing a job that requires you to do things the body isn't even meant to do and we don't think "hmm, how does
he do it?"

If you change one record - just because balls were flying further and more frequent - you have to change them all, because it isn't just home runs that have been affected by the steroid era.

— — —

From: "Garasa, Julio: OPS"
To:
Subject: Since you asked ...
Date: Mon, 28 Aug 2006 16:55:00 -0400

You know, I remember questioning Clemens' prowess when he came out of retirement and then even more when he went deep into the season with a ridiculous 1.2 ERA and more shutout innings than he may have had his entire career. But I decided to not get too hasty in condemning him, for three main reasons. First, he was playing in the NL which, frankly,
does not have the hitters that strike the fear of God into you (save for Albert Pujols) that the AL has. Sad but true.

Second, he's not an anomaly. He's rare as an over-40 pitcher that still completely dominates his craft. But he's not unique. Nolan Ryan is an obvious example of a fireballer that no one dares suggests took anything untoward to further his career. I'm sure he stocked up on pain medications and a few of the legal uppers and whatnot, but HGH or high-end Stanazolol? Doubtful. So benefit of the doubt has to be given here, unlike with Bonds or McGwire who were doing things completely out
of this world and not commensurate with their obvious natural abilities.

The changes were too drastic. McGwire was always a good hitter and his 49 HRs in his rookie season were the most until the mid-90s (the 'juiced age'?) when he went off the charts. Same goes with Bonds. Always a good hitter but had never hit more than 50 until late in his career when, normally, power and speed decline at the plate. Then he goes off and hits 73? Please. At least with Clemens and Ryan (or even Tom Glavine and Greg Maddux for that matter) their careers demonstrated their mastery of their position. And being able to continue at such a high level and at their age is not too hard to grasp precisely because they are the rare cases. I understand the counterargument that McGwire or Bonds are equally rare cases but a hitter is in a different framework than a pitcher. Pitchers can continue their careers by adjusting so as to save their arms. Randy Johnson has learned only this season that he can no longer over power hitters and is learning how to actually pitch.
Maddux and Glavine never were power pitchers but even they could occasionally call on a fast ball. Today? Not so much. Even Clemens has had to rely much more on sinkers and curves more so than the fastball. He's even fallen in love with his split-fingered fastball that has more movement than speed.

Thirdly, don't get me wrong. I agree that today there are undoubtedly a lot more chemicals going around to try to squeeze out every possible year from your body to stay at the major league level. But let's face it, it still takes an enormous amount of talent to continue to dominate - or at least to be effective -. For every Roger Clemens (and I'm not suggesting he's doing/taking anything illegal or banned) you have about 1000 Jason Grimsley's who HAVE taken banned stuff and who are STILL
average at best. Consider this: I ran a marathon in 3:07 just two years ago. You could make my diet nothing but EPO and I still wouldn't come close to winning any of the major (or minor) marathons. Natural ability still plays a dominant role. That doesn't mean it's condoned. It just means that those players who are, effectively, doing more harm than good
to their bodies are postponing the inevitable and extending average careers even longer.

As for the asterisking of the era, I still don't mind it. The records can stay on the books (just like Roger Maris' 61 was always on the books) but the asterisk is there to remind us that something was amiss those years and should be looked at in that context.

-----Original Message-----
From: David Larkins
Sent: Saturday, September 2, 2006 5:18 PM
To: Garasa, Julio: OPS
Subject: RE: Since you asked ...

I think to me the bottom line in this particular argument is that we're so consumed with the pop in bats as if that's the only thing to be viewed in this discussion of steroids. But because that's not the reality whatsoever, it then becomes misguided to start asterisk-ing what are in fact random stats. Yes, the home runs are the power figure but every other aspect of the game is affected by rampant steroid use.

If we're asterisk-ing one thing, we have to asterisk everything else. And doing it to an entire era is illogical because anything that is fair - and who's really to say what is - is also encompassed in that.

In short, it's much too simplistic to just say "give it an asterisk". It misses every point.

— — —
From: "Garasa, Julio: OPS"
To:
Subject: Since you asked ...
Date: Mon, 9 Sept. 2006 —0900
All very good points. I suppose that's the nature of the steroid beast: it's about power, and HRs are the sexiest demonstration of that. If pitchers all of sudden started consistently throwing in the 100s (not just the random few pitches), then you'd have incontrovertible proof on the non-hitting side of the game. But it doesn't work that way. Such things as better speed or stronger arms (either outfield or infield) don't really have records that would question their legitimacy
(exception: SBs. But when I think of speed I'm not thinking blazing base stealing speed a la Carl Crawford or Joey Gathright but more so becoming the first 50/50 man or shagging balls in the outfield that 2-3 years previous would have harmlessly passed you by.). Asterisking the era is not about taking all manners of records or accomplishments off the books. Rather, it serves as a reminder that there were widespread - and questionable - circumstances that need to be accounted for. It's
akin to acknowledging the 'dead ball' era or the 'live ball' era or when parks were downsized making 400' the exception rather than the shortest part of the park. Ruth and Gehrig were consistently hitting bombs well over 400. How many of our non-juiced guys could do that? On a consistent basis? Of course, pitchers also weren't throwing in the mid-to high 90s and there were no such things as bullpens. These are academic debates and perhaps not fair comparisons but the point is that
these types of circumstances are acknowledged, all the while leaving the records intact. I realize my asterisking idea is harsh to what I think (hope?) is the majority of players but sometimes those "few bad apples" really do ruin it for the rest by calling everything into question.