To: The Reader
Best of Chicago voting is live now. Vote for your favorites »
As I have stated publicly, I take full responsibility and apologize for my role in the 1995 Steinmetz decathlon scandal. But what I find amazing is that in a piece which rails against my ethical lapses the reporter himself would engage in such questionable behavior in pursuit of a story. How objective can this reporter really be when he clearly has a close, prior relationship with Steve Grossman and Steve’s wife, Mary Valentin, two of the principals in his article whose viewpoints he unabashedly outlines, promulgates, and supports? Apparently he feels no constraints about attending the May 11 Cheaters screening with them. Nor does he fret over compromising his objectivity by dining with them at the reception following the screening, or by reminiscing with them on the drive home as they jointly composed the tenets of his article, accepting their idle ruminations and scattered recollections as gospel.
Mr. Clark’s obvious bias pushes him into contradictions within the piece. On page 24, for example, he writes, “That betting thing, that never happened,” but in the next column, same page, he states, “Minkoff insisted on giving Plecki 3-to-1 odds.” On page 28, I am described as looking “uncomfortable” and avoiding eye contact, yet in the next column he quotes that this is “The high point of his life.” Which are we to believe?
