|
Post by IronHorse4 on Dec 15, 2007 9:19:05 GMT -5
That link doesn't work.
And I don't care if they broke any laws. If these players are in trouble with the law, then so be it...it's on them. I'm just glad they didn't violate any baseball rules, and we can move on from here.
|
|
|
Post by Jackass on Dec 15, 2007 10:12:37 GMT -5
Interesting take, Justin, and one I would subscribe to.
There is one nagging detail from the recent past that I think deserves some consideration though, and it's more contractural than rule breaking.
If you recall, when Giambi's name surfaced a few years back, there was talk of voiding his contract because he violated the contract clause for keeping himself in top physical condition (based upon the premise that the use of illegal drugs constituted degradion of one's health). The Yankees decided not to pursue that, bacause they felt they would get too much grief from the MLBPA, even though they didn't pipe up when the Yankees voided Brett Boone's contract for the roughty the same reason when he blew out his knee (and they explored the idea when Kevin Brown broke his hand).
Now, with such a large number of possible "contract-breakers" and the "legitimacy" of this lengthy and expensive investigation, it is entirely possible that the owners could conclude to void these contracts or seek repayment because now it is a significant amount of money to squabble with the union about, and not just one guy's contract.
Thoughts?
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Dec 15, 2007 10:56:25 GMT -5
Thoughts? That would be a hell of a fight, but a damn cool one to watch.
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Dec 15, 2007 11:37:10 GMT -5
I think there is a lot of legitimacy to the idea of "moving on." Keep in mind around half the names are gone from the game and will remain unscathed outside of reputation. The challenge by owners will never be universal, some will want to protect their goods. Without that unanimity, a push would not work.
Also, the "legitimacy" of this hurts. More just cause would be FAILED DRUG TESTS. There is a question on wether or not any of this is to be believed, in some eyes, varying from offender to offender.
At the end of the day I would be surprised if there are even repercussions towards the players coming out of Selig's office, yet alone pushes from ownerships to start killing off contracts.
Oh, and if this stuff starts up in that direction, we may very well have another strike on our hands. Just sayin'
|
|
|
Post by ajfreakz on Dec 15, 2007 11:52:32 GMT -5
and if that happens.. it will get very very ugly between the owners and the players union
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Dec 15, 2007 12:03:51 GMT -5
And I find it hard to believe anyone would want that, just to "kill off" a few nasty contracts.
|
|
|
Post by yanksfan75 on Dec 16, 2007 21:27:03 GMT -5
For those who are saying what they did was "not outside the rules of baseball", I believe that you would be wrong as Fay Vincent put together a policy in 1991 which is below: sports.espn.go.com/espn/eticket/format/memos20051109?memo=1991&num=1As per his policy being these substances were not prescribed by team doctors nor were team doctors made aware and therefore these offenses if found to be true may 100% be punishable.
|
|
|
Post by elliejay21 on Dec 16, 2007 22:20:25 GMT -5
Yes, but there are an awful lot of "questionable" supplements available without a script, non-controlled and legal... and the status of this stuff changes frequently, and many substances you used to be able to buy at GNC are now illegal. You actually can buy a weak solution of HGH, along with a host of other OTC performance enhancing supplements in health stores and on the internet. www.hghagent.com/what-s-the-real-deal-on-hgh-human-growth-hormone-anyway.html
|
|
|
Post by yanksfan75 on Dec 16, 2007 23:30:08 GMT -5
Thats great, we arent talking about "questionable" supplements in the Mitchell Report but rather things that were in effect banned in 1991.
|
|
|
Post by Bad Mouth Larry on Dec 17, 2007 12:42:35 GMT -5
I don't care if every registered member disagreed with me. Case law says otherwise. As a general rule, with only a few exceptions, it is absolutely possible to convict someone based solely on eyewitness testimony. STFU already. you are an idiot. no one is putting anyone away with just 1 eyewitness UNLESS evidence corroborates the witness story. if no evidence is there to corroborate the story. sorry.
|
|
|
Post by IronHorse4 on Dec 17, 2007 13:07:38 GMT -5
Jackass,
That is a compelling point. I agree with you that it seems they would have a leg to stand on. And it was Aaron Boone's contract, not his brother, but I remember the incident well.
The issue I see here is with regard to exposure. Does baseball want to continue to go through the ringer on this? I interpreted Proud-to-be-yer-Bud's comments to mean that they would have to review cases individually, and he was just happy that it was out in the open and they can move forward from it.
Sounds to me like he wanted the report, and now wants it to go away.
Another interesting way to look at it is that this could be leverage against the Union in future negotiations. Not just on testing, but perhaps on an issue like a salary cap as well. We won't go after your boys if you give us what we want.
Then again, by the time the next agreement is discussed, all of these guys will be out of baseball anyway.
|
|
|
Post by yanxchick on Dec 17, 2007 14:30:39 GMT -5
I saw this online today:
This directly from the Mitchell Report:
Human growth hormone is a prescription medication. It is illegal to issue a prescription for human growth hormone except for very limited purposes. Human growth hormone never has been approved for cosmetic or anti-aging uses, or to improve athletic performance. Issuing a prescription for human growth hormone for any of these unauthorized purposes is a violation of federal law.
Many have asserted that steroids and other performance enhancing substances were not banned in Major League Baseball before the 2002 Basic Agreement. This is not accurate. Beginning in 1971 and continuing today, Major League Baseball’s drug policy has prohibited the use of any prescription medication without a valid prescription.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Dec 18, 2007 11:55:09 GMT -5
Balls, I still think that you are splitting hairs in any effort just to appear right and that your own "proof" has actually negated your legal theories...but that's the last I'll say on that.
I'll agree to disagree and apologize for cursing at you and calling you names for pages throughout this thread. Sorry.
Now, I still haven't looked at the report but someone told me that there are actually photocopies of canceled checks in the report?
|
|
|
Post by Bad Mouth Larry on Dec 18, 2007 12:02:09 GMT -5
Balls, I still think that you are splitting hairs in any effort just to appear right and that your own "proof" has actually negated your legal theories...but that's the last I'll say on that. I'll agree to disagree and apologize for cursing at you and calling you names for pages throughout this thread. Sorry. Now, I still haven't looked at the report but someone told me that there are actually photocopies of canceled checks in the report? cho. you need to stop apologizing to that panzy. his agruments are retarded and should be called out as such. now, you havent even glimpsed at the report? go ahead. yes, copies of cancelled checks. i will eventually read this whole thing. but im busy on the balco book right now. now stop fighting with balls and read something worthwhile like the actual report you momo!!!
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Dec 18, 2007 12:08:15 GMT -5
"his arguments are retarded" - HA. I agree with that Larry!!! But, I feel kinda like a douche after I spend pages yelling and cursing at a guy I never met (maybe if I had the pleasure like you guys, I wouldn't feel this way). But even though I feel like Balls is more interested in being perceived as "right" than anything else, and even though I feel he will take a wrong opinion to the grave knowing full well it's wrong just to avoid going back and admitting it....he does deserve some respect on this message board. So that's why I apologize.
What I have read of the report is the list of names, and various summaries of the report, but not the report itself. Are any of the checks Pettitte's or Clemens'?
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Dec 18, 2007 12:11:21 GMT -5
Absolutely no cancelled checks from Messers. Pettitte and Clemens. The ONLY evidence against those two is the word of the one witness. Yes, I said that, ONE witness.
I myself believe wholeheartedly they are guilty of said offenses, but that evidence is not going to get anything done. Nor should it, this is the steroid era, and hopefully its the close of it. Lets move on.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Dec 18, 2007 12:13:46 GMT -5
"I myself believe wholeheartedly they are guilty of said offenses, but that evidence is not going to get anything done."
This is exactly the point I've been trying to push all along.
|
|
|
Post by 9 on Dec 18, 2007 13:17:01 GMT -5
Every single response from players on the list, but almost EVERY SINGLE ONE, is something along the lines of: "I tried HGH once or twice to recover from an injury, not to enhance performance, and I have NEVER used steriods." It's like a form letter!
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Dec 18, 2007 15:57:31 GMT -5
In this particular case, Pettitte's confession certainly corroborates McNammee's word, which fucks Clemens.
And in GENERAL, in a criminal case, you do not need corroborating evidence to convict someone. That is a fact. There are exceptions, but that does not negate the general rule. The specific facts of the cases I supplied weren't important to the legal principle they were applying. Whether a defendant is let off or convicted doesn't change that you CAN convict someone on eyewitness testimony as a general rule.
Think about it for a second. I see you steal money from a cash register. I'm the only one. You really think you can automatically get away with it because I'm the only witness? There would be far fewer prosecutions without the ability to accept eyewitness testimony as the only form of evidence.
Unfortunately for the Mitchell Report people, thanks to Pettitte, there IS corroborating evidence.
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Dec 18, 2007 16:26:54 GMT -5
In a walk to the back of the office I heard snippets of sports talk radio, and Clemens has officially released a statement denying all charges, 100%. He has NEVER used anything, he claims. He also has speech-like testimonials on how the stuff is bad for you, how he is owed the benefit of the doubt for 25 years of service, blah blah and blah.
|
|
|
Post by ajfreakz on Dec 18, 2007 16:31:06 GMT -5
anyone ever think that maybe pettitte was the only one of the two to use it .. and so maybe McNamme felt the only way to sound legit was to make it seem like Roger was the main user w/ Andy using it a few times.. but really andy was the only one who used ??
maybe thats a stretch.. but maybe not
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Dec 18, 2007 16:35:42 GMT -5
I think it's a stretch. I don't know if it's wishful thinking, because I don't know how big of a Clemens fan you are, but I find it very unlikely that McNamee, who was brought to the Yankees BY Clemens, would lie about one but not the other.
|
|
|
Post by ajfreakz on Dec 18, 2007 16:42:51 GMT -5
maybe he NEEDED to sound more credible so he knew pettitte used and just threw in clemens and made a nice story or 2 up.. i mean the fucker dropped a date rape drug in a girls drink, raped her and then was told by the feds to tell them everything or else he was going away to prison
i want to see how fast that guy made up a lie to save his ass..
for now
and im not a huge clemens fan at all..
i think he is one of the greats of my lifetime and would hate to see all i thought he did be a lie,so im holding out hope but not a clemens guy at all..
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Dec 18, 2007 16:50:21 GMT -5
Sometimes the most likely situation is the truth. I'm sure we all wish it wasn't true, but it sure looks like it is, not just from the Mitchell Report, but combined with Pettitte's confession.
This guy didn't HAVE to lie about Clemens. Thanks to Pettitte, we KNOW he had real dirt on players.
I don't think Clemens was a specific target. Mitchell was after naming names in general. So where is McNamee's incentive to lie? If McNamee is CAUGHT in a lie, he goes to jail.
So if he had NOTHING on Clemens, why make it up? It wouldn't be in his best interests.
And if he was in the process of making stuff up, why stop at Clemens? Why not name other Yankees?
Is Clemens the only strong denial so far? I haven't followed others.
|
|
|
Post by ajfreakz on Dec 18, 2007 16:52:17 GMT -5
David Justice seems to be the other.. and brendon donnelly
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Dec 18, 2007 16:58:48 GMT -5
There have been a few then, but I don't think Pettitte is the only confession, which means he legitimately had stuff on various players in the report. With that being true, lying about other players was very much against his self interest. Meanwhile, the players issuing the denials are doing so in part because it's very much IN their self interest. It's very hard to simply take them at their word.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Dec 18, 2007 17:14:35 GMT -5
"Think about it for a second. I see you steal money from a cash register. I'm the only one. You really think you can automatically get away with it because I'm the only witness? There would be far fewer prosecutions without the ability to accept eyewitness testimony as the only form of evidence."
I apologized to you, and I won't drag this out for another few pages. I know for a fact I am right. You are also right in a sense...eyewitness testimony can be the sole reason someone is sent to jail. However, I am emphatically, absolutely, categorically correct in stating (and citing the abundance of case law that repeat themselves over and over and over verbatim) that said testimony must be corroborated and lent credibility by other "facts." I'm right about that and that's all there is to it...it's in the "law books." Anyone on this board who cares to check for themselves can, and they will see a billion cases in every single state which cite exactly, verbatim, what I have posted...or they can let you cite out-of-context snippets of cases that you have strategically presented in order to spin your "I'm right" agenda. Either way is cool with me.
As far as your analogy goes...if I stole money from a cash register and the ONLY evidence linking me to it is you saying I did it, I wouldn't be arrested for it in the first time. Think about it....if money is missing from a cash register, you can just walk into to a police station and say I know for a fact that this guy Chris in Huntington Beach, CA took that money. You think the police are going to rush out and arrest me because YOU SAID SO? Hell no, there will have to exist other evidence that alludes to my guilt...perhaps I was in the store at the time and was seen on security camera entering the front door, perhaps I have a receipt for something I actually bought at the time of the theft, perhaps I have a legacy of "beef" with the store....there will be SOME corroborating piece of information that not only will lead to my arrest, but my ultimate conviction in court......something however slight, that corroborates and lends credibility to eyewitness testimony.
Again, I'm done with this - I'm right and you're either wrong, being obtuse for fun, or just splitting hairs and we're both trying to verbalize the same concept differently. Anyone on this board is free to research this and see.
But, yes you are right about Pettitte...and also, Pettitte's guilt is, in a way, corroborating evidence toward Clemens' guilt - at the very least in the court of public opinion.
EDIT: I should clarify. I have stated this before. I am not implying that there must be other evidence to point directly toward guilt. I am saying there must be other evidence corroborating, supporting, lending credibility to the testimony. In the analogy - me buying something at the store where the cash was stolen in no way directly links to me being guilty of stealing the money. But it DOES put me at the scene of the crime, at the time of the crime, and therefore supports the testimony...understand?
|
|
|
Post by Jason Giambi on Dec 18, 2007 17:16:20 GMT -5
What is your training in the legal profession that makes you correct and his less correct?
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Dec 18, 2007 17:22:22 GMT -5
"On the job training" - I have been in courtrooms more times than I care to count. ;D
What's your point? We all talk about baseball here till we're blue in the face. None of us have ever been major league ballplayer, coaches, managers, bat boys, locker room fluffers, etc... What makes any one of us more justified than the other in discussing baseball?
I know that's a stretch considering Balls actually IS/WAS (??) a lawyer. But the point is, this is easily researchable, simple, uncomplicated legal concepts...free for ANYONE to research themselves....this isn't Tom Clancy-esque intertwined legal tanglings we're talking about.
|
|
|
Post by Bad Mouth Larry on Dec 18, 2007 17:27:09 GMT -5
In this particular case, Pettitte's confession certainly corroborates McNammee's word, which fucks Clemens. And in GENERAL, in a criminal case, you do not need corroborating evidence to convict someone. That is a fact. There are exceptions, but that does not negate the general rule. The specific facts of the cases I supplied weren't important to the legal principle they were applying. Whether a defendant is let off or convicted doesn't change that you CAN convict someone on eyewitness testimony as a general rule. Think about it for a second. I see you steal money from a cash register. I'm the only one. You really think you can automatically get away with it because I'm the only witness? There would be far fewer prosecutions without the ability to accept eyewitness testimony as the only form of evidence. Unfortunately for the Mitchell Report people, thanks to Pettitte, there IS corroborating evidence. havent you ever heard that single eyewitnesses to crimes point out the wrong guy like half the time.
|
|