Jay Mariotti is no stranger to court cases and defending his name against people who make claims against him. When Jay re-introduced himself for the first time on the Sports Talk Florida site, he wrote the following about the woman who accused him of assault and the court system that he thinks chewed him up unfairly:
While the Internet paves new avenues of media creativity, it also
enables the irresponsibility of hacks. I know this too well, having come
off a legal case filled with countless lies and accompanied by lazy,
reckless, inaccurate, incomplete news coverage.
I’m confident we would have won at trial. But realizing the L.A.
system is bureaucratic at best and insidious at worst, I had no
interest in spending a half-million dollars on legal fees, exposing my
daughters and family to what clearly was one-sided media coverage
Wrote Rieder: “Life is packed with nuances and subtleties and shades of
gray. But the news media are often uncomfortable in such murky terrain.
They prefer straightforward narratives, with good guys and bad guys,
heroes and villains. Those tales are much easier for readers and viewers
to relate to.”
You can say I’m uniquely qualified now to comment on athletes in
legal messes. I’ve been among those who’ve offered quick-trigger
opinions about athletes in trouble, and after seeing how the system
works, I’ll know in the future to investigate all angles.
Perspective, it’s called.
Jay (of all people, which is what I wrote at the time) lectures his readers about nuance, subtleties and the one-sided coverage of the news media in his original re-introduction with Sports Talk Florida. He writes about how the media jumps to conclusions without all the facts, doesn't care for shades of gray, and prefer straight narratives with good and bad guys. He has "perspective" now that he has been chewed up by the legal system. I didn't buy it at the time and for good reason.
Then in Jay's next re-introduction with the "San Francisco Examiner," after his media mogul gig at Sports Talk Florida failed, he doubled down on his disdain for the legal system. He wrote the following:
The media should be firm but fair, edgy but accurate. I realize this
more than ever now, having experienced my own news-cycle storm that made
me understand why people in sports — and everywhere, really — dislike
and distrust the media. To recap, I was accused of domestic violence
offenses I did not commit by a plaintiff who tried, without success, to
win a financial reward in a civil suit. Not only did that suit fail
quickly, the original case was dismissed and expunged ("Not guilty,"
read the court documents), which means there was no conviction.
Expungements, as The New York Times recently noted, are issued rarely and with considerable diligence.
Know this: Just because someone is accused doesn't mean he is guilty,
and just because one pleads no contest doesn't mean he is acknowledging
I've seen firsthand how sleazy it all is — traffic-obsessed media,
sloppy and dishonest police work, headline-seeking prosecutors,
predisposed judges, a rival lawyer who advised my lawyer not to
represent me. I wrote about it three and a half years ago in my e-book, The System, and I've learned a mean lesson about watching my associations.
In my case, only one media outlet has bothered to try to complete the
story and publish news of the expungement. And that happened only when I
had the document sent to a confused San Francisco Chronicle
reporter earlier this month — he said he was having trouble finding it —
and demanded that he publish it, as did my attorney. That didn't stop
the Chronicle's tweeting editor-in-chief, who should know better,
from mischaracterizing a quote of mine from her own paper and calling
me a name that does not legally apply. Since the announcement of my
appointment at the Examiner, how many news outlets have written about the expungement even after the Chronicle grudgingly reported it? None that I've seen. I'd suggest media outlets require all writers and editors to take law classes.
I apologize for the wall of text, but it's important to know these are Jay's positions when going through the column he has posted about Barry Bonds. See, these really aren't Jay's positions overall, but Jay's positions regarding HIMSELF. HE was chewed up by a corrupt court system. HE was the victim of an over-zealous prosecutor. HE was a victim of the traffic-obsessed media and HE knows that just because someone is accused that doesn't mean the person is guilty. This rule only pertains to himself though. HE knows that an expunged record gets a lot less media coverage than the original accusations.
As it pertains to others who are accused, chewed up by the system and are a victim of the traffic-obsessed media? Fuck 'em. Jay doesn't care. When it's Jay's head on the chopping block the whole system is doing him wrong and the media is ravenous for a good story. When it's Jay's chance to become a part of the ravenous media who is traffic-obsessed and unable to understand any type of nuance, well, he is eager to join the media in working with the corrupt court system. Barry Bonds' conviction for obstruction of justice was overturned and all that perspective Jay had has gone out the window because he smells chum in the water. Everyone in the media is out to get Jay. He's quick to cry about this, but when he has a chance to work in the media and go after someone, Jay is just another media scum who doesn't truly have the perspective he now claims to have.
I believe Barry Bonds used steroids and all of that. I'm not really looking to defend Bonds' good/bad name. I find it hilarious at what Jay writes when he laughs off one of the federal judges believing the legal system was out to get Bonds, mostly because Jay has written several times about how the legal system was out to get him personally. As always, there are different rules for Jay Mariotti and everyone else. He's always the victim, and quick to laugh at those who claim to also be a victim or may be a victim of the legal system themselves.
So now we can expect the Incredible Shrinking Barry Bonds to hit up his
Instagram feed — if you need a good laugh, check it out — and take a
retaliatory selfie. Maybe he thumbs his nose.
This is as opposed to Jay Mariotti trashing the court system, his alleged victim and everyone else in a column...which he has done twice.
And also, plenty of athletes shrink down some after they retire. It's not terribly unusual. Most get fat if they don't shrink down.
Maybe he signals that we should shove it where the syringe doesn’t
stain. Maybe he resends his self-portrait bearing the inscription, “99
PROBLEMS BUT A PITCH AIN’T ONE.”
Just remember that Jay has perspective now...or he claims to have perspective. Remember that Jay claims to be able to differentiate between accusations and what a person may have really done. Perhaps Bonds is guilty of using steroids (which he probably is), but Jay now claims to have the ability to understand that it doesn't mean Bonds is guilty of obstruction of justice as well...or he claims to have this ability now, but doesn't seem in a hurry to use this ability.
Because today, technically, Bonds can tell the world that his record is
clean, that he never has been convicted for an offense related to
performance-enhancing drugs. Thanks to a hometown ruling seemingly
hatched in a booth down the street at Dottie’s True Blue Cafe, the 9th
U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals overturned Bonds’ felony conviction for
obstruction of justice,
It's a "hometown ruling"! Now the corrupt court system is ruling in favor of the wealthy when in Jay's situation the corrupt court system was trying to tear him down because he's wealthy. The courts wouldn't rule for Bonds if he wasn't just so damn well-liked. Barry Bonds is so engaging and kind to everyone that the court probably factored that in, while Jay Mariotti being surly and confrontational is why the LA courts were so biased against him.
with 10 of 11 judges concluding that his long-winded answer during a
2003 grand jury proceeding wasn’t material to the government’s probe
Jay Mariotti in his introductory column for the "Examiner":
Since the announcement of my
appointment at the Examiner, how many news outlets have written about
the expungement even after the Chronicle grudgingly reported it? None
that I've seen. I'd suggest media outlets require all writers and
editors to take law classes.
Perhaps the law classes that Jay suggests others take based on his experiences within the legal system could help him as well. Jay could learn that 10 of 11 judges probably don't care about Barry Bonds and only concerned themselves with the rule of law before them. But I'm sure Jay thinks this ruling is another example of "the system" letting famous people off easy, except for Jay of course. "The system" persecutes Jay. He's such a victim.
Which means Bonds can launch what surely will be a loud, aggressive campaign for the Baseball Hall of Fame.
He's not getting in any time soon, so I'm not sure why this is a concern or even relevant to whether the non-legal expert Jay Mariotti is correct in questioning and being snarky about the legal opinion of 10 federal judges or not. How dare the judges validate Barry Bonds and his Hall of Fame credentials by ruling that his felony conviction would be overturned! I want to know what happened to Jay's "Accused doesn't mean guilty" line of thought? This line of thought disappears when Jay isn't the one accused but not really guilty.
Which means the Giants, who have worked cautiously in bringing Bonds
back into the organization, now can make him an ambassador or a roving
minor-league coach or — if their hitting problems persist — a batting
instructor without having to address criticism about a felony
You mean sort of like how Sports Talk Florida or the "San Francisco Examiner" can hire Jay Mariotti as a columnist or multi-media mogul without him having to address criticism about his no-contest plea? Or is this totally different because (a) it deals with the victimized Jay Mariotti and (b) Jay has given his biased side of the story while calling the entire system corrupt?
Which means Bonds’ legions of Bay Area fans, who wore blinders about
BALCO and the Steroids Era while the bloated Barry was passing the
honorable Henry Aaron as the sport’s all-time home run leader, now can
hoist him as the Power King without legalities usurping their joy.
No, because he still clearly used PED's. He just didn't obstruct justice. Did Jay even read the ruling? Also, it's just grand to read about Jay's new perspective on the legal system and how the media is so quick to make a rush to judgment. It's grand to read about because Jay completely ignores this perspective when discussing Barry Bonds. Jay has no idea if the ruling was correct or not, instead he's just worried this will validate Bonds in some way and indicate that Bonds didn't use steroids. I can't see how Jay is "investigating this story from all angles" as he promised to do just a few years ago after his tangle with the legal system. No time for that when there is chum in the water and Jay can become the person he has railed against.
Let him bask. In my mind, as a longtime member of the voting group known
as the Baseball Writers Association of America, nothing changed
Doesn't Jay hate when sportswriters are "uncomfortable in murky terrain" and prefer straightforward narratives with good guys and bad guys"? I think it's hilarious that Jay is becoming guilty of the very things he supposedly was going to rail against, though it shouldn't shock me. Most of Jay's anger towards others in the news media (like ESPN, big media entities) results from his not being allowed to be a part of that news media any longer. If given the chance, Jay would gladly take a job with the huge news entities with corporate interests, but while he's not given the chance, he'll rail against them until the time comes to be a hypocrite.
Bonds still is a bum who symbolizes an era we’re trying to purge from
our collective consciousness — a treacherous period of cheating and
lying that irreparably damaged the public’s trust in sports — and anyone
who thinks he suddenly belongs in Cooperstown is a bigger dope than the
SO FUCKING NUANCED! The amount of nuance I'm reading about right now is literally choking me and pulling my hair (allegedly) until I plead "no-contest" to the nuance just taking my mind over to where all I can see is nuance. But hey, Jay understands why so many dislike the media. Thank God for nuance such as this.
“I think at the end of the day, America knows the truth and who the real
home run record holder is, who did it the right way, and it’s obviously
not Barry Bonds,” said Travis Tygart, chief executive officer of the
U.S. Anti-Doping Agency, who told The Associated Press the decision was
“almost meaningless for the real issue, which is whether he used
performance-enhancing drugs to cheat the fans of baseball.”
He's right. It's meaningless, but Jay just had to show off the "new Jay Mariotti" and display the thorough knowledge of the legal system he learned about (and wrote a book about!) while defending himself against false accusations. Jay has learned the system chews him up and spits him out, but treats everyone else fairly. Jay also learned, using his knowledge of "the system," that a court ruling Bonds did not obstruct justice means the court has ruled Barry Bonds did not use PED's and should get a red carpet invitation to join the Hall of Fame. Obviously.
This isn’t a time to celebrate as much as a reason to wonder how the
justice system works and how many taxpayer dollars are wasted in
If in making this statement Jay means that the taxpayer dollars were wasted in prosecuting Barry Bonds for obstruction of justice, then he is absolutely correct. If Jay means the taxpayer dollars were wasted because 10 of 11 federal judges agreed on a ruling that Jay doesn't agree with, then Jay needs go take his anger out on someone he can batter or assault. Maybe try to make it a person of the male gender this time though.
Clearly, Bonds gave a rambling, evasive answer when asked if his
trainer, Greg Anderson, ever gave him steroids, human growth hormone or
“anything that required a syringe to inject yourself with?”
I wonder if this would qualify as "lazy,
reckless, inaccurate, incomplete news coverage" if it were written about Jay Mariotti? My best guess is that it would be. Of course, Jay pled no contest to save a few dollars and because he wanted the world to know he was innocent of the charges, so there is no public court testimony for Jay to sound rambling and evasive when answering questions.
I have no idea if Jay was innocent or not, but his whole "I went with a no-contest plea to save money and to keep my good name" excuse has always sounded like bullshit to me. So you plead no-contest and basically admit you aren't going to defend yourself against the charges and this is supposed to save face for Jay? Whatever, not my deal. What is my deal is that Jay didn't get any testimony on record where he could ramble or be evasive (probably by design) and now the "new" Jay Mariotti is up to his old tricks of doing the same things he accuses the media doing to him.
Bonds: “I’ve only had one doctor touch me. And that’s my only personal
doctor. Greg, like I said, we don’t get into each others’ personal
lives. We’re friends, but ... we don’t sit around and talk baseball,
because he knows I don’t want — don’t come to my house talking baseball.
If you want to come to my house and talk about fishing, some other
stuff, we’ll be good friends. You come around talking about baseball,
you go on. I don’t talk about his business. You know what I mean?”
Prosecutor: “And, again, I guess we’ve covered this, but did [Anderson]
ever give you anything that he told you had to be taken with a needle or
Bonds: “Greg wouldn’t do that. He knows I’m against that stuff. So, he
would never come up to me — he would never jeopardize our friendship
Exactly. Everyone knows that Barry Bonds isn't injecting anything to his body. He prefers creams and other more non-invasive methods of using steroids.
Prosecutor: “OK. So, just so I’m clear, the answer is no to that, he never gave you anything like that?”
Now Bonds has resorted to just naming general directions? "Right," "Left," "Straight"...at what point do these evasive answers become obstruction of justice? Jay Mariotti, Esq. knows that answers and the corrupt legal system again screwed up by not acknowledging Jay's reality as the reality that is the rule of law.
Shrewd and calculating, Bonds waited out the pitcher. He didn’t swing
and took his bases on balls. Now, years later, he somehow gets a
This is an excellent example of Jay "not pushing a straightforward narrative" to find "heroes and villains." Jay was quick to point out how an expungement is issued rarely and with considerable diligence. Apparently a federal court overturning the decision of a lower court in a 10-1 ruling happens often and with zero diligence or regard for the facts of the case. Federal courts sometimes overrule a lower court's ruling by a 10-1 margin rather than confirm or remand the case just because the Magic 8-Ball says to do so.
I still chuckle at the "perspective" that Jay claims to have now. He's the worst.
Judge Alex Kozinski writing, “Making everyone who participates in our
justice system a potential criminal defendant for conduct that is
nothing more than the ordinary tug and pull of litigation risks chilling
zealous advocacy. It also gives prosecutors the immense and
unreviewable power to reward friends and punish enemies by prosecuting
the latter and giving the former a pass.”
So Kozinski is suggesting Bonds has been wronged by a corrupt prosecutor. What a world, huh?
Apparently Jay wrote this sentence with no sense of irony regarding what Jay has written before. Here is what Jay wrote prior on Sports Talk Florida:
I've seen firsthand how sleazy it all is — traffic-obsessed media,
sloppy and dishonest police work, headline-seeking prosecutors,
predisposed judges, a rival lawyer who advised my lawyer not to
Yeah Jay, suggesting that you were wronged by a corrupt, headline-seeking prosecutor is RIDICULOUS though isn't it? Bonds didn't even say he was wronged, but a federal court judge mentioned in his opinion he was concerned by unnamed, possibly not existing and definitely not existing in this case, prosecutors maybe having unreviewable power. Jay, using the same legal knowledge that allowed him to write a book about "the system," takes this to mean the Judge Kozinski is calling THIS prosecutor as corrupt. In reality (which is a place where Jay does not live), the only one complaining about a corrupt and power-hungry prosecutor is Jay Mariotti.
I side with the lone dissenting judge, Johnnie B. Rawlinson, who wrote: “I cry foul.”
The smell is foul, too.
Maybe you should take a shower and wash the stink of your own bullshit and hypocrisy off of you then. Nice "perspective" you have now, Jay. Jay wants to have it both ways. He wants to write about the corrupt legal system and the headline-thirsty media, all while taking part in being headline-thirsty himself. He wants to claim he's a "new" Jay Mariotti while also claiming he isn't going to change. Jay wants to claim a special knowledge of the legal system all while clearly having no idea what a legal ruling entails and means. He's a fake and a hypocrite as always.