MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Dec 20, 2007 9:33:51 GMT -5
But if you let these guys in, I think you need to lift the HOF ban on Rose, who at least put up real numbers ON the field. He has not been accused of betting on baseball as a player. And even if he bet on every game, at least his numbers are real. There is no evidence that Rose used steroids. If we're going to let guys like Bonds, who used drugs to steal the greatest record in baseball, in, then we should let the guy who got more hits than anyone in history with or without steroids in.
As long as we're going with the multiple wrongs make a right defense, let Rose in.
|
|
|
Post by IronHorse4 on Dec 20, 2007 9:37:17 GMT -5
But there is overwhelming evidence that he broke the biggest rule in baseball, a rule that was decades old. So he's out, and deservedly so. That, and I don't believe baseball knew all along that Pete Rose was gambling and decided to let him continue to do it to spike baseball's popularity and profit margin.
These are completely different cases, obviously.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Dec 20, 2007 9:44:53 GMT -5
Timelines have been very important in your steroid arguments. Consistently, you have mentioned that if something happened before there was a specific rule in place against steroids, a player should not be punished. So a guy like McGwire, and pre2002 Bonds, should not have any blemishes because baseball had no rule in place. Forget that there was a rule against illegal substances in general.
Obviously, I don't believe in that theory, but if you go with it, then at the time in question, no rules were violated, and nothing should be affected.
With Pete Rose, it's not identical, but similar. The RULE was in place, but the violation did NOT occur during his playing career. A member of the HOF is judged by his time as a player. The only reason Rose isn't in is because his suspension, based on acts that came after he retired but during that 5 year period, made him HOF ineligible.
But he did NOT violate the rule as a player. Kind of like OJ didn't get kicked out of the HOF.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Dec 20, 2007 12:20:16 GMT -5
What the fuck are you talking about Ballzaro? I never said MLB and Mitchell could NOT be sued. I said the same shit as Tom, and you're sucking his cornhole for it. I said that MLB and Mitchell are the inappropriate people to sue for defamation. I also have a post in here saying that ANYONE can sue ANYONE for ANYTHING...whether or not it's appropriate is another thing. Welcome to the Ballzaro World - where truth fluctuates with Ballzaro's insecurities. I wonder if there's pussy on Ballzaro!
|
|
|
Post by Bad Mouth Larry on Dec 20, 2007 12:33:26 GMT -5
Timelines have been very important in your steroid arguments. Consistently, you have mentioned that if something happened before there was a specific rule in place against steroids, a player should not be punished. So a guy like McGwire, and pre2002 Bonds, should not have any blemishes because baseball had no rule in place. Forget that there was a rule against illegal substances in general. Obviously, I don't believe in that theory, but if you go with it, then at the time in question, no rules were violated, and nothing should be affected. With Pete Rose, it's not identical, but similar. The RULE was in place, but the violation did NOT occur during his playing career. A member of the HOF is judged by his time as a player. The only reason Rose isn't in is because his suspension, based on acts that came after he retired but during that 5 year period, made him HOF ineligible. But he did NOT violate the rule as a player. Kind of like OJ didn't get kicked out of the HOF. mcgwire used andro. a substance that was not banned by baseball until 2005 (year could be wrong, but it was banned AFTER he used it). it was an over the counter drug. not illegal in this country. so what exactly did he do wrong?
|
|
|
Post by jwmcc on Dec 20, 2007 12:43:33 GMT -5
1. His testimony before Congress where he "didn't want to talk about the past"
2.Being named in Canseco's book about using all types of steroids starting in the 80's.
3.His name coming up in an FBI steroids investigation that was published in the Daily News around the same time as his testimony.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Dec 20, 2007 12:43:56 GMT -5
Are you saying now you don't recall arguing that neither Mitchell nor MLB could be sued for defamation because they only reported other people's testimony? That Mitchell himself or MLB aren't liable because it isn't THEIR statements?
Let me show you your statements again, and this time, I'll put in extra bold letters the mistakes you made:
In short, the reasons a defamation case wouldn't work for Clemens are not the ones you laid out. The stuff you said is absolutely untrue and show a complete misunderstanding of defamation. Tom never said that MLB or Mitchell couldn't be sued because they weren't the ones who made the statements. That's not true. Fact is, Mitchell and MLB are the ones who made these statements public, which is all that's necessary.
Basically, you have excellent photoshop skills. But you know jackshit about defamation law. This case is a loser for Clemens, but not for any of the reasons you tried to indicate.
|
|
|
Post by Bad Mouth Larry on Dec 20, 2007 12:49:52 GMT -5
1. His testimony before Congress where he "didn't want to talk about the past" 2.Being named in Canseco's book about using all types of steroids starting in the 80's. 3.His name coming up in an FBI steroids investigation that was published in the Daily News around the same time as his testimony. 1. do you really blame him for not testifying before congress? i dont. 2. he said she said. wheres the facts? 3. well, duh, if everyone in the game was juicin, i would think big mac were too!
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Dec 20, 2007 13:36:53 GMT -5
"Are you saying now you don't recall arguing that neither Mitchell nor MLB could be sued for defamation because they only reported other people's testimony?" That's EXACTLY what I'm saying. Again dude, you're a crackpot. You just posted shit, and outlined it in BOLD, and it illustrates anything BUT what you are trying to accuse me of. Reading and Reading Comprehension are two different things. I said over and over that MLB and Mitchell are the inappropriate people to sue. INAPPROPRIATE. Get it? ?? I can call you a logical person - it would be highly inappropriate, but I could still call you that. Clemens could sue MLB or Mitchell...but they would not be appropriate people to go after. To clear his name he would need to go after McNamee. He wouldn't win, for reasons you stated earlier - it is difficult for a high profile person to win these things, but it would serve a PR purpose. I understand libel, slander, defamation CLEARLY. Believe me, I understand it CLEARLY. What I don't understand is your insistence on being right, despite facts to the contrary, to the point the people you sit with in the bleachers for the sake of unity in being Yankee fans start to dislike you personally because you are incapable of practicing logical, critical thinking on a message board. Tom didn't say that MLB and Mitchell couldn't be sued...and I never said that they COULDN'T be sued either. You are wrong about who SHOULD be sued, you are wrong about your legal interpretation of case law, you are wrong about SO MANY things in this thread but for some reason you get your kicks from arguing inane points. Ballzaro!
|
|
|
Post by Bad Mouth Larry on Dec 20, 2007 13:56:30 GMT -5
look. 18 pages of im right and your wrong. welcome to the world of ballzaro.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Dec 20, 2007 14:05:19 GMT -5
"Welcome to Ballzaro! Me hate girls.....me love Melky!"
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Dec 20, 2007 14:12:09 GMT -5
That's EXACTLY what I'm saying. ==============
And you are WRONG. You can call me all the names and make all the photoshops you want, but you don't know shit about the law. You are a total hypocrite because you do all the things you accuse me of doing. You argue for the sake of arguing, you are dead wrong and won't admit it, and you are stubbornly sticking your head in the sand.
You are dead wrong about MLB and Mitchell being the appropriate people to go after. They are EXACTLY who Clemens would go after. Read the newspaper articles about it. It's NOT that they can't sue MLB or Mitchell. It's that they can't WIN because Clemens is a public figure and they won't be able to prove defamation under the public figure standard.
Your argument has absolutely NOTHING to do with the law. It's like arguing that they can't sue MLB or Mitchell because both defendants begin with the letter M, and therefore are exempt. It's just not the case.
You do NOT understand defamation clearly. You just think you do. You have been proven wrong on two separate legal issues in this thread, and you still arrogantly cling to some theory that is just not real.
I'm not the one without a grip on reality. If you're such a lawyer wannabe, maybe you should consider taking a class. But I doubt that would work since you would be too busy telling the professor he doesn't know what he's talking about.
All the personal insults and photoshops will not change that what you are arguing is not a matter of opinion. It's a matter of both fact and law. And your argument is simply NOT accurate.
But at least Larry agrees with you.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Dec 20, 2007 14:17:42 GMT -5
Of course you're right Ballzaro....because accountability does not exist in the Ballzaro world - you ALWAYS get to be right. You can claim black is white till the cows come home, like you're doing now.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Dec 20, 2007 14:18:49 GMT -5
Actually, accountablility does exist, which is why I have backed myself up with actual caselaw and common law. You have backed yourself up with namecalling, photoshops, and Larry.
|
|
|
Post by Bad Mouth Larry on Dec 20, 2007 14:33:08 GMT -5
But at least Larry agrees with you. keep going balls. the world doesnt agree with you, you nervy jew fuck. didnt your family ever teach you the words "my bad" "my fault" or "im wrong". Christ, you are like 3 diff ex girlfriends of mine with the im always right malarky. dont walk around here with the "at least larry agrees with you" malarky. no one, and i mean NO ONE agrees with ANYTHING your virgin mouth spews. go fuck a sheep already. thankfully, you are NOT in front of me right now.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Giambi on Dec 20, 2007 14:41:07 GMT -5
Hi Larry
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Dec 20, 2007 14:42:06 GMT -5
Actually, "my bad," "my fault," and "I'm wrong" ARE in my vocabulary. However, that only happens when I AM wrong. This isn't an OPINION question. This isn't "is Jason Giambi good?" It's fact. It wouldn't matter if you polled every single person in Section 39 about the elements of defamation. They are what they are. Just like if everyone in Section 39 said Aaron hit 400 HRs, he still hit 755, even if I'm the only one saying it. No namecalling will change that. I don't need backup to look up something that is a fact. It's not that I'm always right, it's that you need disagree with everything, no matter what. This isn't even baseball related. It's a legal issue. I didn't make the law. A lot of it has its roots a couple centuries ago.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Dec 20, 2007 15:08:21 GMT -5
Yeah, because this is the ONLY time you've ever perpetuated an argument by steadfastly denying facts that the rest of the planet supports. I guess WE'RE ALL the ones who are Ballzaro!
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Dec 20, 2007 15:27:16 GMT -5
You are clearly in tantrum mode right now. But it still doesn't change that you simple have no clue. Photoshops don't make you right.
There are no facts in denial here, except by you. Again, you are doing what you are crying about me doing. Very Pee Herman of you. You are the one in denial of facts, which have been shown on not one, but two legal issues. The planet doesn't support you. One guy who also doesn't know shit about the law is on your side. If you spent this much time researching defamation rather than making silly (though very good) photoshops, you might learn a thing or two.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Dec 20, 2007 15:36:11 GMT -5
I know you are, but what am I?
(As long as I'm not delusional Ballzaro, I don't care what am I!)
Stop trying to paint yourself as pedantic, Ballzaro. You are anything but.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Dec 20, 2007 15:57:22 GMT -5
There you go Pee Wee. But that still doesn't change that you were wrong and are throwing a tantrum.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Dec 20, 2007 16:08:05 GMT -5
Don't be mad because I nailed you spot on with the Ballzaro crack. Your "Pee Wee" joke was a sad attempt at tit-for-tat (uhhhh huh huh I said TIT). But thanks for playing, Ballzaro. Goodonya!
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Dec 20, 2007 16:38:44 GMT -5
I'm not mad. But you're the one acting like a baby because you were wrong on not one, but two legal issues that you took a hardline stance on. All the photoshops and tantrums will not change that.
|
|
|
Post by Bad Mouth Larry on Dec 20, 2007 17:12:28 GMT -5
I'm not mad. But you're the one acting like a baby because you were wrong on not one, but two legal issues that you took a hardline stance on. All the photoshops and tantrums will not change that. someone needs a piece of pussy really bad.
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Dec 23, 2007 11:49:27 GMT -5
Clemens issues video denial In first public statements, veteran refutes steroid charges
By Alyson Footer / MLB.com
HOUSTON -- Roger Clemens spoke for the first time about his alleged steroid use when he released a video statement on Sunday, denying all allegations. The video, shown on his personal web site, rogerclemensonline.com, shows Clemens giving the following one-minute, 48 second statement:
"Over the last 15 days, it's been extremely difficult, for my family, my children, my extended family," Clemens said. "I'm holding up better than they are. I'm almost numb to some of these suggestions that I used steroids. It's amazing to me that I'm going to lengths that I'm going to have to defend myself.
"I faced this last year when the LA Times reported that I used steroids. I said it was not true then. Now, the whole world knows it's not true now that that's come out.
"It's surfaced again later now with this Mitchell Report. Let me be clear: The answer is no, I did not use steroids, human growth hormone, and I've never done so. I did not provide Brian McNamee with any drugs to inject into my body. Brian McNamee did not inject steroids or human growth hormone into my body, either when I played in Toronto for the Blue Jays, or the New York Yankees. This Report is simply not true."
Clemens added that he has granted an interview with Mike Wallace of "60 minutes." That interview will take place after Christmas, Clemens said.
"I'm angry about it," Clemens continued, referring to the Mitchell Report. "It's hurtful to me and my family. But we are coming upon Christmas now and I have been blessed in my life. I've been blessed in my career and I'm very thankful for those blessings."
Clemens was recently identified in the Mitchell Report as having used steroids in 1998 and 2000. Clemens' former personal trainer, McNamee, told Mitchell's investigative team that he injected Clemens with the steroid Winstrol through the end of the 1998 season and that Clemens' performance "showed remarkable improvement." During the 2000 season, Clemens reportedly went back to McNamee and said he was "ready to use steroids again."
During the latter part of the 2000 regular season, McNamee said he injected Clemens "in the buttocks four to six times with testosterone from a bottle labeled either Sustanon 250 or Deca-Durabolin" that McNamee had received from Kirk Radomski, the former Mets clubhouse attendant who is also named in the Report.
Clemens' attorney, Rusty Hardin, issued vehement denials the day the Mitchell Report was released. Sunday's statement was the first time Clemens has spoken directly about the allegations.
|
|
|
Post by 9 on Dec 23, 2007 12:35:46 GMT -5
If he's really innocent, this is something he should have done 20 minutes after the Mitchell Report came out.
|
|
|
Post by Bad Mouth Larry on Dec 27, 2007 17:26:00 GMT -5
If he's really innocent, this is something he should have done 20 minutes after the Mitchell Report came out. thats a pretty balsian (ignorant) statement. dont you think he should consult his attorneys if he truly were innocent, which i doubt many of us really beleive.
|
|
|
Post by 9 on Dec 27, 2007 20:00:36 GMT -5
Point taken. But if he's really innocent, did they really need to "consult" for a week? Either he did it, or he didn't do it. The week-long wait makes me think he did it and is trying to figure out ways around it. Maybe I'm just cynical.
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Dec 29, 2007 14:13:26 GMT -5
How is THIS for a plot twist. The trainer may file suit on Clemens, for defamation of HIS character....
McNamee moves to defend himself
Trainer reportedly could file defamation suit against Clemens
HOUSTON -- Brian McNamee, Roger Clemens' former trainer, has added another attorney to his legal team and could file a defamation suit against the seven-time Cy Young Award winner, according to The New York Times in its Saturday edition. Richard D. Emery, a prominent New York lawyer, told the newspaper he has been asked by the lawyer for McNamee to assist in defending McNamee against allegations that he lied to former Sen. George Mitchell's investigators about Clemens' use of steroids and human growth hormone.
McNamee's lawyer, Earl Ward, told the Times he recruited Emery because of his experience in libel and defamation cases.
The Mitchell Report, which was released on Dec. 13, named Clemens as having used steroids and human growth hormone in 1998, 2000 and 2001. McNamee, who had a 10-year professional relationship with Clemens, provided the information to Mitchell and his investigative team.
Clemens has steadfastly denied all allegations, and his Houston-based attorney, Rusty Hardin, has vowed to fight the charges. Hardin told local reporters on Dec. 23 that he was considering filing lawsuits against McNamee and those involved with the Mitchell Report, as well as the Los Angeles Times, which in 2006 wrongly identified Clemens as appearing in a affidavit made by former Major League pitcher Jason Grimsley, a one-time teammate of Clemens.
Ward told the Times that he and Emery "would be in a position to bring a lawsuit against Clemens if the pitcher and his lawyer continue to insist that McNamee did not tell the truth about Clemens."
Ward and Emery referred to a Mike Wallace interview with Clemens that is scheduled to appear on the Jan. 6 broadcast of "60 Minutes."
"He is afraid that his character is going to be assassinated on national television and that Roger is going to continue to lie and trash him," Ward said to the Times. "If that airs, Clemens should be prepared to see the matter litigated in the courts. We would file the suit to establish that Brian is not lying."
Clemens plans to meet with reporters after the interview airs. That meeting will likely take place on Jan. 7.
Hardin told the Times he would welcome a suit by McNamee.
"There would finally be a forum to question McNamee and I would be absolutely delighted," Hardin said. "We will no longer have to shadow box about this."
|
|
|
Post by 9 on Dec 29, 2007 16:43:27 GMT -5
WHAT character? I'm not defending Clemens here, but this guy doesn't have much character left to defend.
|
|