Ellis, D. That is all.
There are two things I hate about situations like this. First, names are leaked without any associated facts. As often as not, it turns out that the persons mentioned are guilty of nothing, but it doesn't matter because the leak created buzz. Second, I hate that raids like this have become necessary, but I guess they have. Until the pain of the penalties start to outweigh the benefits, many elite athletes are going to do whatever it takes to remain competitive. Education about the extremely harsh health dangers doesn't seem to be enough to slow most of them down (and if we slow them down enough, the supplier problem solves itself since there are no longer buyers). Maybe taking away enough of the money they make and preventing them from competing for long enough periods would do the job. Getting banned from competition would kind of defeat the purpose of using illegal performance enhancers, right? I hope something works. Too many young people are gambling their futures against a chance for instant gratification. Russian roulette, anyone?
I don't think the "Evan Fields Name Generator" will be quite the hit that the Ron Mexico version was You may be wrong. There would be actual drugs related to it, not just somebody thinking they smelled drugs.
Smells like ground axe in here.
This probably won't result in more names being released... The investigators insist that this is not an attempt to identify any individuals involved, rather it is to break the chain of distribution. Thing is, you can bet if there are any records available, there will be names attached. You can also bet that if the names are available, they will be leaked. (Sorry for shouting, but I really want to call attention to this) Someone who is privy to the information will let it out to a member of the press. Whether it is done for some sort of payoff or just because someone wants to impress others with his "importance", names will become known. The pity is that the press will willingly go along with sullying the reputation of people without hearing all of the facts in the case. I'm not trying to condone the use of banned substances, but the media of today seem to go too far in their attempts to sensationalize. They are not trying to report. It is nothing more than an attempt to print or broadcast those things which will boost circulation or ratings. Higher circulation or ratings equate to more money for advertising. Truly, would any of us pay a lot of attention to an article that said, "We will not publish the names of anyone connected until a court judgement has been reached"?
I'm guessing George Mitchell finds this pretty interesting.
SI has more on Matthews, Jr. I still don't understand why SI reporters have to interview themselves for stories. I especially love it when they introduce the article with "We caught up to SI reporter dot dot dot..." If it's that much work catching up to them, how do you know where to send the checks?
