Ray Donovan once asked the question "Which office do I go to get my reputation back?" After last week's 9th Circuit decision finding that federal investigators should not have retrieved the entire list of 2003 Major League Baseball (“MLB”) positive drug tests using a search warrants much narrower in scope, a number of MLB players are probably asking themselves the same question. Since federal investigators seized MLB’s 2003 drug test results in 2004, tests that reveal an estimated 100 players were using performance enhancing drugs (“PEDs”) during the 2003 season, names from that results list have been trickling out. Though Barry Bonds was the name most associated with steroid use in baseball, it was Selena Robert’s article about Alex Rodriguez, a player considered by many to be on the way to being included in the “best of all time” conversation, that shined a spotlight on the infamous 2003 list. A recent leak by an attorney working with the list (an attorney who will hopefully be disbarred for his or her disregard of confidentiality) also named Manny Ramirez and David Ortiz, two major cogs in the Red Sox World Series championship teams of 2004 and 2007, as also being on the 2003 list. That leak led to a press conference where a MLB attorney explained that players could not be told what they tested positive for in 2003 while the ongoing court battle about the list was being waged. Unfortunately, that left Ortiz, known as “Big Papi” to his fans, unable to defend himself against accusations that he was in fact on the 2003 list. Instead, Ortiz was shredded in the media and his past efforts to clean up the game of baseball by suggesting harsh penalties for steroid users were impugned.
There has been blame thrown around about this list for some time, a lot of it at the MLB Player’s Union for not destroying the list as they were permitted to do after the 2003 season, some to the attorneys who were leaking names to reporters, and now some can be thrown in the direction of federal investigators overreaching on their search warrants. Unfortunately, for players like Rodriguez and Ortiz, however, none of these people run an office they can go to in order to get their reputations back.
Comments
Re: Reputations?
I think if the law disqualifies the use of illegally obtained evidence in courts, regardless of guilt, because of an overriding public policy, then the same public policy should hold true here as well. Of course, a court is generally less distracted and adheres to the rule of law more often then the masses (generally). The problem here is that these guys are idolized by millions across this country and it is substantially harder to forgive a hero than a nobody or a villain. I think the comment by Anonymous reflects this feeling of disappointment and cynicism.
Reputations?
If these athletes were really doing PEDs, shouldn't that in itself warrant the loss of reputation? I hate to sound harsh, but they should have thought about the consequences to their reputation along side the consequences to their health and their jobs. I think this is a place where ethics needs to catch up with technology, and the law & technology should never abandon ethics.
Post new comment