$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Dec 13, 2007 17:50:30 GMT -5
PS - I find it hilarious a guy with a law degree like Balls does not know the law.
|
|
|
Post by ajfreakz on Dec 13, 2007 17:51:40 GMT -5
i read the other day that Brian McNamee also slipped a date rape drug in some girls drink .. and might have raped the girl
and we are going to believe this guy who could've gone to prison for this yet probably was told give us a few names and we will let you go..
|
|
|
Post by Jason Giambi on Dec 13, 2007 17:52:47 GMT -5
"They were won by juiced players. " Really? Says who? Show me the failed drug tests. Show me ANYTHING other than anecdotal and circumstantial evidence. ANYTHING, please....I'm waiting. And don't give me this Barry Bonds hypocrisy shit either....alledgedly there ARE failed drug test results in existence for Barry Bonds. Big difference in Bonds breaking a sacred record with a failed drug test on his resume in the midst of the pursuit of the record, and an already convicted steroid-dealer throwing out a laundry list of names of people he allegedly provided roids for. The difference is IMMENSE. I'm not excusing Pettitte or Clemens for their actions, if true...I'm saying, show me the emphatic proof. I'm not ready to go down that slippery slope of convicting people based on testimony from shady people with an agenda. Mitchell would not have named names if he didn't have proof. We'll see how many players sue MLB for Libel......
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Dec 13, 2007 17:57:34 GMT -5
I find it hilarious (actually not hilarious at all) that Senator Mitchell's goal was wake baseball up to it's drug plague...and no one is focusing on that....all anyone is talking about is dragging specific players through the mud based on here say.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Dec 13, 2007 17:58:06 GMT -5
If you want proof that the 1999 and 2000 championships are tainted, see the Mitchell report.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Dec 13, 2007 18:02:32 GMT -5
Dude, WHAT are you talking about??!?!?!?!?!
Sue MLB for libel? MLB hasn't accused anyone of ANYTHING. There will be NO suing of MLB by anyone.
Mitchell did NOT NAME NAMES in the sense that you are talking about. Again, I will repeat, Mitchell presented anecdotal evidence (and he QUALIFIES it, over and over and over and over and over and over .... AND OVER....as being NOTHING MORE than anecdotal evidence based MAJORLY on the testimonies of a convicted drug dealer and a former player/gross-abuser of steroids as evident by his failed drug tests). He interviewed two clearly guilty and convicted drug providers/users with a clear agenda, and took their testimony only as circumstantial evidence for the purpose of illustrating a global drug problem in major league baseball.
|
|
|
Post by Bad Mouth Larry on Dec 13, 2007 18:03:22 GMT -5
Um....Mitchell had the burden, and met it. Now Clemens has to prove his innocence. Let him rebut the charges. Not all evidence has to be a smoking gun. Two Yankee championships got tainted thanks to this report. u r a fuckin dork.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Dec 13, 2007 18:07:06 GMT -5
If the Mitchell Report will not hold up in a court of law in a trial to convict any one player on charges of illegal drug use (and it WOULDN'T...and you'd clearly have to know that Balls) then it doesn't convict the Yankees of having "tainted titles."
You would need to a failed drug test to convict Roger Clemens of illegal drug use, and you would need a failed drug test to convince any reasonable (therein lies the issue, I guess) person that the Yankees (or any World Series winning team for that matter) won their championships with drug-enhanced players who otherwise were not good enough to win the championship.
The implication is completely absurd....completely idiotic.
|
|
|
Post by ajfreakz on Dec 13, 2007 18:10:41 GMT -5
isnt this whole pettitte and clemens thing all from the reports we got last year.. ??
from the grimsley reports that were leaked... now im kinda wondering what the big deal is
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Dec 13, 2007 18:14:50 GMT -5
Um... first, we are not talking about criminal charges. Second, evidence is evidence. You can choose to believe it or not. I don't believe in sticking my head in the sand just because I don't like what I'm seeing.
AJ, I think it's more than just Grimsley stuff, but yeah, their names were leaked. All the players deserve the chance to rebut the charges, I will say that.
|
|
|
Post by Bad Mouth Larry on Dec 13, 2007 18:15:52 GMT -5
If you want proof that the 1999 and 2000 championships are tainted, see the Mitchell report. shut up dork. 50% of players were using steroids. that means nothing is tainted. if juiced up players beat up other juiced up players, its a wash. fuckin maroon.
|
|
|
Post by ajfreakz on Dec 13, 2007 18:24:11 GMT -5
got to love a league who lets shit fly for so long then acts like they had no clue
and a league whose own logo is known other than of PETE ROSE.. the alltime hits leader and cheater
..david justice will be on yankees hot stove tonight.. should be exciting !!!!!!
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Dec 13, 2007 18:27:46 GMT -5
No it's NOT Balls. You are DEAD WRONG. Senator Mitchell himself prefaced this report by saying that the "bulk" of it is based on the testimony of Grimsley and Kirk Radomski....period. Senator Mitchell said that himself...he said that without those testimonies, this report would not have contained anything substantial...HE SAID THAT...so any caveats to that report added by MetsSuckBalls means absolutely SHIT!
Look, I'm not burying my head in the sand. You have a very rigid thought process once you convince yourself of something in your head and you do not budge, even in the face of stark evidence to the contrary. You are a lawyer and you are not adhering to the training given to you in law school in regards to how to critically think through an issue. The issue here is proving drug use...not drumming up paranoid speculation of drug use. Drug use (steroids) is illegal. You can not prove drug use without meeting the burden of proof. If the "proof" offered is circumstantial and anecdotal, and there are NO toxicology reports determining that one has the drugs tested for in their system, you can not determine drug use. A drug USER will never been convicted on circumstantial and anecdotal evidence...period. Other reasonable assumptions can be made with this type of evidence such as intent to distribute, but there is still no proof of use. MLB adopts the very same qualification as a court of law to determine steroid use - a failed drug test - a scientific, black and white criteria that will emphatically prove drug use. Bottom line. The Yankees Championships will be proven to be tainted when they produce failed drug tests.
I will not convict on speculation and as a lawyer it is INSANE and inappropriate for you to do so.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Dec 13, 2007 18:38:56 GMT -5
So Larry's attitude is that if everyone cheats, no one cheats.
And Cho--those testimonies ARE evidence.
Those testimonies are NOT speculation. They are witness testimony. You can choose not to believe them, but that's on you.
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Dec 13, 2007 18:40:57 GMT -5
People dont go to jail just cause someone said "they saw them do something." Nor do they lose Hall of Fame votes, or face suspensions.
So shut up, Balls.
|
|
|
Post by ajfreakz on Dec 13, 2007 18:54:01 GMT -5
gotta have that clemens picture changed to he looks to calm..lol
have to have the 2000 world series game 1 picture of roger throwing the bat
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Dec 13, 2007 18:59:33 GMT -5
Actually Tom, you're wrong. It's called being a witness. Freakz--that's a good idea. If I find one, it'll go up.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Dec 13, 2007 19:07:59 GMT -5
If you REPORT libelous/slanderous words presented to you by a witness, and qualify it as the words of the witness and NOT your words....you can not be found guilty of libel/slander. Again Balls, astounding that you do NOT comprehend that. This is a report of testimony. Next think you know Balls will want to have stenographers on the hook for libel, because after all they recorded the libelous/slanderous remarks in print. You're INSANE!
(See Andy Back in '08 thread)...
You're NUTS dude...completely NUTS. You clearly do not understand the intent of this report and the extensive prefaces made by Senator Mitchell in order to absolutely clear up any ambiguity about what message this report sends.
You are absolutely interpreting this report as evidence to prove specific cases of guilt of actions in violation of both the laws of the land and major league baseball....and that was absolutely NOT the intent and absolutely what Senator Mitchell didn't want his report to be viewed as. This is a study, more or less, on the overall state of the drug problem in baseball, not a witch hunt against specific players.
I will resign from this thread. The whole "Giambi SUCKS...no he doesn't....yes he does....no he doesn't...yes he does...no he doesn't" thing is cute and I know it's your gimmick, but your insistence that the earth is flat when every bit of provable evidence states the contrary is tiresome. You are clearly playing over your head in interpreting this report...and as the resident lawyer on this board who should understand the variances in guilt, innocence, factual and circumstantial evidence, it is astounding to me that you of all people have the worst comprehension of the Mitchell report of anyone on this board.
So, I'll bow out - I'm right and you're cracked, but I'll let you continue in this sandbox continue to proclaim that Ballsian theories are accurate, when they're anything but.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Dec 13, 2007 19:12:18 GMT -5
Repeating your post will not make you right. You don't understand the concept of testimony. So feel free to throw up your hands in frustration. Ranting at me will not make this report irrelevant.
|
|
|
Post by Chris on Dec 13, 2007 19:17:42 GMT -5
The report is NOT irrelevant. It serves an important purpose (just not yours) and therefore it is anything but irrelevant . You retroactively disqualifying player/team achievements based on unverifiable here-say IS.
That is all.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Dec 13, 2007 19:21:04 GMT -5
It shows that quite a good chunk of players are juicers, and yes, it taints their accomplishments. You can choose to ignore the cheating all you want, but I don't.
|
|
|
Post by thecaptain15 on Dec 13, 2007 19:49:16 GMT -5
OK and this is hypothetical but what if a player saw guys around him doing it and decided he wanted to give it a try and see what would happen...He goes ahead and orders some steriods and he gets them. He then stares at them and comes to the conclusion he doesn't want to take them and chucks them.......His name would be in the Mitchell Report but yet he never took them.....Now look I am pretty sure that most of these guys have probably done it but who is to say something like this didn't happen.........
|
|
|
Post by ajfreakz on Dec 13, 2007 19:57:46 GMT -5
and thats exactly what i heard david justice might have done... but idk
|
|
|
Post by Jason Giambi on Dec 13, 2007 19:58:13 GMT -5
Were these people under oath while talking to Mitchell?
Don't give me the babe in the woods routine Captain, you know what was going on.
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Dec 13, 2007 20:11:48 GMT -5
LOL at the apologists on the YES Network.
David Justice - "they may have tried to call me, but I changed my number a couple of times. You know that yourself Bob."
Bob - "yeah, he's right. He changed his number a couple of times. And lets not forget that he lost his house in the California wildfires."
Yeah...ok. How bout this....the guy is implicated on the report, they all pooh-pooh it, and then talk about how its such a black mark that Justice played with so many people who took shortcuts.
LOLOLOL!!!!
|
|
|
Post by ajfreakz on Dec 13, 2007 20:13:46 GMT -5
i guess bob took a liking to mr justice..lol
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Dec 13, 2007 20:15:32 GMT -5
That was pretty flimsy. Funny, but flimsy. Michael Kay was talking about how to clear your name, you're going to have to sue for libel. Should be interesting.
|
|
|
Post by Jason Giambi on Dec 13, 2007 20:40:33 GMT -5
no, i was told libel doesn't apply......
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Dec 13, 2007 20:50:09 GMT -5
Who told you that? And on what basis?
|
|
|
Post by ajfreakz on Dec 13, 2007 20:55:28 GMT -5
Jose Canseco barred from attending news conference on Mitchell Report, calls it 'laughable' By BILL KONIGSBERG, AP Sports Writer December 13, 2007
NEW YORK (AP) -- When Jose Canseco tried to get into the Mitchell Report news conference Thursday, the man mentioned most often in those 409 pages wasn't welcome. Major League Baseball officials refused to let him in, saying it was a "media only" event.
The former Oakland Athletics slugger didn't force the issue and was unimpressed with what he heard of the report.
"It's a slap on the hand," he told Fox Business Network. "The report proved nothing. It just proved what we already knew."
Canseco's name appears 105 times in the Mitchell report, more than that of Bonds (103) or Clemens (82).
"I saw the list of players, and there are definitely a lot of players missing," he told Fox Business Network. "I don't know what they accomplished or what they are trying to prove."
Prodded further about players not included, Canseco said this of Alex Rodriguez: "All I can say is the Mitchell Report is incomplete. I could not believe that his name was not in the report."
Canseco was one of the first to admit using steroids in his 2005 book "Juiced." There, he gave specific names of other players who allegedly used, including teammate Mark McGwire.
In Mitchell's report, Canseco is reported as the first target of public speculation about steroids in baseball. In 1988, Washington Post writer Thomas Boswell claimed Canseco was "the most conspicuous example of a player who has made himself great with steroids."
Canseco, coming off the first 40 home run-40 steal season in baseball history, denied using steroids at the time. He won the MVP award that year.
He changed his tune in his book, in which he recounts his use of anabolic steroids and human growth hormone, and claimed widespread use throughout the league.
According to Mitchell's report, former Oakland manager Tony La Russa told "60 Minutes" in 2005 that Canseco used to laugh about how other players were spending time in the gym, and how he didn't have to, because he was doing the other 'helper.'
"You know, the easy way," La Russa had said.
Dave McKay, an Oakland coach from 1984 to 1995, told the Toronto Sun at the time: "We had one guy who talked about steroids and that was Jose. ... The most common question I was asked was: 'I won't get too big, will I?"'
When interviewed in connection with the report, however, La Russa and McKay said they had no direct knowledge Canseco used steroids.
After Canseco's book came out, he and McGwire were among the players subpoenaed to appear before the House Committee on Government Reform. McGwire refused to answer specific questions. In the course of the Mitchell investigation, a number of people who knew McGwire were interviewed. No one other than Canseco alleged use by McGwire.
|
|