|
Post by Bad Mouth Larry on Dec 14, 2007 11:09:41 GMT -5
i heard this morning that there is testimony from a trainer saying roger was injected before the 99 playoffs (i think it was 99, the year he 1 hit 15k seattle, and then threw the bat at piazza). thats pretty damning. but again, its one mans word against another mans word. much ado about nothing, a waste of $20M that could be used for something besides telling the world what we already knew. well, the world minus msb.
|
|
|
Post by kingdzbws on Dec 14, 2007 11:15:01 GMT -5
I gotta say, though...what the fuck is with these dummies buying steroids with PERSONAL CHECKS. Who buys ANYTHING they might not want a trail to with checks??
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Dec 14, 2007 11:19:58 GMT -5
Depends what you are punishing me for--if association itself is punishable, then you're right.
As for the validity of the testimony, see page 139 of the report. It was part of a plea agreement that Radomski cooperate with the US District Attorney, who in turn told the guy to tell the truth to Mitchell, in exchange for a more lenient sentence. Failure to provide the truth could lead to a far stricter sentence. So basically, if he lies, he's fucked.
In addition to statements, he provided bank statements, canceled checks, telephone and other records. They didn't get all the checks because the banks couldn't get checks pre-2000.
That was one guy.
The other guy, more relevant was Brian McNamee, see page 147.
He had legal representation in his testimony, and was warned of criminal prosecution for lying. McNamee was acting against his financial interest by participating. The information he provided was confirmed to be consistent with previously provided information to federal prosecutors.
McNamee was a subdistributor for Radomski. He entered into a written agreement with the US District Attorney's office. If he is found to be lying, he will be charged with making false statements--a felony. See page 167 for that.
The statements made by these guys were done so with clear criminal penalties if they were lying. It was in their interest to tell the truth.
|
|
|
Post by kingdzbws on Dec 14, 2007 11:47:08 GMT -5
>>>>in exchange for a more lenient sentence....
SO, this guy has a huge incentive to give Mitchell what he wants to hear. Your honor, this witness is not credible, as he's obviously doing whatever they say to stay out of jail.
>>>He entered into a written agreement with the US District Attorney's office. If he is found to be lying, he will be charged with making false statements--a felony.
Another guy with incentive to give Mitchell what he wanted to hear. Again, Your Honor, not credible. And I may add that it is quite possible to distort the truth by inference and by omission of facts that would not be construed as lying, yet would be far from the actual truth.
I ask, why would the jury trust two men with questionable pasts who have received a plea agreements to avoid prison sentances. Their so-called testimony to this non-binding committee is tainted.
Thank you very much.
|
|
|
Post by Bad Mouth Larry on Dec 14, 2007 11:53:16 GMT -5
>>>>in exchange for a more lenient sentence.... SO, this guy has a huge incentive to give Mitchell what he wants to hear. Your honor, this witness is not credible, as he's obviously doing whatever they say to stay out of jail. >>>He entered into a written agreement with the US District Attorney's office. If he is found to be lying, he will be charged with making false statements--a felony. Another guy with incentive to give Mitchell what he wanted to hear. Again, Your Honor, not credible. And I may add that it is quite possible to distort the truth by inference and by omission of facts that would not be construed as lying, yet would be far from the actual truth. I ask, why would the jury trust two men with questionable pasts who have received a plea agreements to avoid prison sentances. Their so-called testimony to this non-binding committee is tainted. Thank you very much. yea, but if the evidence supports these guys being truthful, then so be it. such as mailing and receiving payments for hgh. that can be corroborated. the issue i have is when trainers claim to have injected players. that is difficult to prove though. there is no paper evidence.
|
|
|
Post by ajfreakz on Dec 14, 2007 11:55:36 GMT -5
The statements made by these guys were done so with clear criminal penalties if they were lying. It was in their interest to tell the truth
And the same thing goes for Barry Bonds and looked what happened with him !!
|
|
|
Post by thecaptain15 on Dec 14, 2007 11:57:08 GMT -5
referencing something as "virginandfatdrunk.com"
TOM NOW THAT IS FUNNY!!!!
|
|
|
Post by Bad Mouth Larry on Dec 14, 2007 11:59:57 GMT -5
referencing something as "virginandfatdrunk.com"TOM NOW THAT IS FUNNY!!!! i missed this. quote the whole thing!!!!
|
|
|
Post by thecaptain15 on Dec 14, 2007 12:09:04 GMT -5
The only thing I learned from this thread is that I would never ask Balls for legal advice!!!
|
|
|
Post by kingdzbws on Dec 14, 2007 12:12:01 GMT -5
That's the point. Where is any credible evidence. Some of these ballplayers are named because their names appeared in one of the trainer's phone books.
Who can say what these checks were for.....weren't these dudes personal trainers?
How can anyone determine whether these trainers are truthfull if there is no witnesses or evidence? So what, a ballplayer gave a private trainer a check? So what that a ballplayer recieved a box from BALCO, there is no evidence of the contents of that box.
So they railroad a dude and make him say he shot Rocket with the juice. Rocket denies it (surprise) there's no proof. Case closed.
Rocket should sue for defamation and potential loss of income.
Look, I think alot of these guys did 'roids, or HGH, but I think baseball knew it, and did nothing as long as the seats were filled.
And again, just like Justin said. IF HGH was not illegal at the time, what law did he break - if he admitted to shooting up?
|
|
|
Post by Bad Mouth Larry on Dec 14, 2007 12:21:22 GMT -5
That's the point. Where is any credible evidence. Some of these ballplayers are named because their names appeared in one of the trainer's phone books. Who can say what these checks were for.....weren't these dudes personal trainers? How can anyone determine whether these trainers are truthfull if there is no witnesses or evidence? So what, a ballplayer gave a private trainer a check? So what that a ballplayer recieved a box from BALCO, there is no evidence of the contents of that box. So they railroad a dude and make him say he shot Rocket with the juice. Rocket denies it (surprise) there's no proof. Case closed. Rocket should sue for defamation and potential loss of income. Look, I think alot of these guys did 'roids, or HGH, but I think baseball knew it, and did nothing as long as the seats were filled. And again, just like Justin said. IF HGH was not illegal at the time, what law did he break - if he admitted to shooting up? have you read any of the report? i read VERY LITTLE, but i would think they have some evidence to the effect of after receiving $1,800 checks, something was shipped to the player. what would a personal trainer ship to a player? hmmmmmm but i also agree, baseball did shit about this and they knew all along. heck, a moron like me knew all along too. what i dont get is how this investigation doesnt lead to any heat against the suits. gms know who is on roids and who isnt. shouldnt they have a penalty here too?
|
|
|
Post by thecaptain15 on Dec 14, 2007 12:22:48 GMT -5
Like I said before once they were able to get the Union to agree to testing and the suspensions they should have just let this die because it is a waste of time that just keeps it in the news......All Mitchell did was go to the same few reports that everyone knew about already and made a few million to do it....
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Dec 14, 2007 12:24:26 GMT -5
Plea agreements happen all the time. Many times they trade a small fish for a bigger one. If that didn't work, they would never do it. So the argument that he had incentive, while it should be made and does go to the credibility of the witness, in and of itself, does not discount the testimony.
Marc--in your last post, you are basically rebutting the evidence. That's what the players need to do. It's not case closed. It's not open and shut.
But that said, it's time for the players to respond. Rocket has a hard standard to prove. But the damage to his reputation is GIGANTIC. If he can win a defamation case, he can make millions. All of them can.
|
|
|
Post by thecaptain15 on Dec 14, 2007 12:26:17 GMT -5
Balls bottom line though is when most of this stuff happened it wasn't against the rules.......so guilty of what? ? You cannot go back and prosecute someone for breaking a law that was established in 2005 when they commited the act in 2002..........
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Dec 14, 2007 12:29:15 GMT -5
Steroids have been illegal for a long time. And no one is talking criminal charges here, so the idea of no ex post facto is not applicable. Again, the Black Sox also were found not guilty of any wrongdoing and got banned anyway.
|
|
|
Post by Bad Mouth Larry on Dec 14, 2007 12:30:21 GMT -5
EXACTLY CAPTAIN. this is all so retarded.
|
|
|
Post by Bad Mouth Larry on Dec 14, 2007 12:30:48 GMT -5
banned for what? they did nothing wrong back then
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Dec 14, 2007 12:32:57 GMT -5
what would a personal trainer ship to a player? hmmmmmm
How do we know it was not powder for his shakes? Or a new weight-grip glove from a sponsor? Or CDs he burned off his home computer?
Sorry, assumptions dont get it done in court.
|
|
|
Post by kingdzbws on Dec 14, 2007 12:36:38 GMT -5
I read about 20-30 pages so far, here and there and I don't even know why I am defending these people. Maybe I am so used to debating Balls.
But a check from an athlete to a trainer can be for services rendered, I could argue.
Where I do tend to agree with you,Larry and Marc (shocking), it's that IF the Players Association got forewarning of this document, why did they not move to supress it's release to the public? There is WAYYYY more to this than this meaningless report that seems to be crafted to make Slig look like he's got a backbone, and shame the players in order to ----big leap here --- in order to supress future salaries.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Dec 14, 2007 12:38:06 GMT -5
They used illegal drugs. Whether baseball itself banned that specific drug doesn't change that they were illegal in the real world, and the old "best interests of baseball" standard is a broad way to punish anyone for anything.
And as for what the checks were for, you now have testimony under penalty of criminal charges saying they were for HGH. In court, the player will have a right to respond, and a jury would decide who to believe.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Dec 14, 2007 12:45:10 GMT -5
Giambi, don't over-simplify things to make me look like I'm the one talking out of my ass.
I didn't tell you "libel is not at play here."
YOU said someone should sue MLB. I said, FOR WHAT. MLB didn't do anything, didn't accuse anyone of anything, didn't write any report, and therefore are not in a position to be sued for ANY sort of defamation. You are the one who misunderstood the issue, not me.
Then there were implications that Mitchell sued be sued for libel since his report is "print" and there are accusations listed. Again, I felt the need to correct this assumption. MITCHELL himself didn't not accuse anyone of anything. Mitchell did not accuse Pettitte or Clemens or anyone else for that matter, of abusing performance enhancing drugs. I will tell you exactly what Mitchell did - he provided, more or less, a transcript of testimony from Kirk Radomski, Jason Grimsley, and McNamee. He didn't say "Andy Pettitte took steroids." He said, "McNamee claims Andy Pettitte took steroids." Then based on those anecdotes from those sources, Mitchell make a very general conclusion with NO specific names implicated in his conclusion - he never said ANDY PETTITTE has a drug problem...he said that baseball has a severe drug problem which needs to be corrected in order to preserve the integrity of the game.
This is apparently where you and Balls are falling short of your comprehension of the Mitchell report. Any defamatory statements made either in print or verbally can be attributed to one of the three sources of Mitchell's information: Grimsley, Radomski, and McNamee. That's it. IF some of these named players choose to clear their names via legal avenues, the defamatory law suits should be appropriately brought against one of those three sources of Mitchell's anecdotal evidence....NOT against Mitchell himself (the phrase "Don't shoot the messenger" applies here) and absolutely not against Major League Baseball.
Balls knows the law...if he weren't putting his BALLS-MESSAGEBOARD-ANTAGONIST character before Marc The Attorney, he'd tell you I'm right.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Dec 14, 2007 13:02:55 GMT -5
I think that MLB and the Mitchell report may be responsible. If a newspaper reporter writes a libelous story, and the paper merely printed it, the paper is responsible. MLB commissioned the report and Mitchell compiled the data and made it public.
They could be a named party. It's going to be interesting how this plays out. I don't think a libel case is that easily dismissed. I believe MLB financed the report, and that gives them responsibility for its contents as it does Mitchell, who compiled the data and presented it.
That said, being that there are public figures involved, winning a libel case is going to be VERY tough. There's a different standard involved than if say, you or I were defamed.
But even if they don't meet that standard, they will have a chance to rip apart the report, and that could certainly do wonders for restoring their reputations.
It's a shame they didn't just talk to Mitchell.
|
|
|
Post by Bad Mouth Larry on Dec 14, 2007 13:09:00 GMT -5
what would a personal trainer ship to a player? hmmmmmm How do we know it was not powder for his shakes? Or a new weight-grip glove from a sponsor? Or CDs he burned off his home computer? Sorry, assumptions dont get it done in court. i hear ya tom. players can make anything up. its hard to prove. i think we all really know though....
|
|
|
Post by grover on Dec 14, 2007 13:42:48 GMT -5
I say MLB should be shut down and everyone banned. Just give the Yankees the championship and we'll all say yay!
|
|
|
Post by thecaptain15 on Dec 14, 2007 13:49:38 GMT -5
Again, the Black Sox also were found not guilty of any wrongdoing and got banned anyway.
Yup and that was wrong...Landis would have never gotten away with that these days with the Union and ACLU and the like......
|
|
|
Post by ajfreakz on Dec 14, 2007 13:52:52 GMT -5
im surprised Hank hasn't spoken yet..
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Dec 14, 2007 13:52:56 GMT -5
I don't know if the ACLU would have anything to argue. The union of course would take umbrage.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Dec 14, 2007 13:56:35 GMT -5
Balls, again, some clarification is needed DESPERATELY here as a lot of people do not seem to be grasping the difference between actually making a slanderous/libelous statement and third-party reporting on a potentially slanderous/libelous statement.
When newspapers get sued for libel, it's because the author of the news article is the one who is actually asserting the defamatory claim, and not simply citing someone else's defamatory claim.
Mitchell, nor his report were the authors of the following comment - "Andy Pettitte took steroids." George Mitchell and his report are NOT making a claim that Andy Pettitte took steroids.
The claim that the Mitchell report asserts is - "Brian McNamee CLAIMS that Andy Pettitte took steroids."
The difference is HUGE and you know it. Brian McNamee is the source of the defamatory statement, NOT Mitchell, and NOT Major League Baseball. The only person who could justifiably sue Mitchell is McNamee, in the event that he claims that he never accused Pettitte of taking steroids. Andy Pettitte would have to appropriately go after McNamee in search of retribution for the defamatory statement.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Dec 14, 2007 14:05:41 GMT -5
I think the difference isn't as large in this case as you make it out to be. If a reporter cites a source for a claim, the paper is still responsible. That's not the same as a paper reporting the Mitchell report though.
If there are libel suits filed, it will be against MLB and Mitchell. Mitchell is an agent of MLB in this case. It was the Mitchell report that made this public.
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Dec 14, 2007 14:12:48 GMT -5
If a reporter cites a source for a claim, the paper is still responsible.
No, thats absolutely not true. I took many years of journalism and spent a lot of time on this very thing.
As to the Mitchell report, he could deflect any challenges to himself by simply stating the obvious, "I just reported what this guy said."
Plus, get over it. No one is suing or winning a case against ex-Senator George Mitchell. If ANYONE is going to be sued, its going to be the former Met batboy and Yankee bullpen catcher.
|
|