|
Post by thecaptain15 on Dec 13, 2007 21:09:55 GMT -5
For everyone but Balls, Canseco said it all....
"The report proved nothing. It just proved what we already knew." "
|
|
|
Post by Jason Giambi on Dec 13, 2007 21:22:54 GMT -5
Who told you that? And on what basis?[/quote Barrister Cho
|
|
|
Post by yanksfan75 on Dec 13, 2007 21:45:19 GMT -5
Who is this MSB guy? Is he for real???
I dont mean to start anything but I joined this board and thought it was a really good place for intelligent baseball conversation amongst people like Larry, Sheriff, and Captain....then I see the likes of him and I question that. Is this all just a gag or something.
|
|
|
Post by Jackass on Dec 13, 2007 22:07:20 GMT -5
His name is MSBGammons.
RESPEK
|
|
|
Post by whalerfan on Dec 13, 2007 23:56:59 GMT -5
Glenallen Hill hit 16 HRs in 40 games with the Yankees lol
|
|
|
Post by elliejay21 on Dec 14, 2007 5:05:20 GMT -5
I thought Glenallen Hill was dead...
Quite honestly, the more I hear of this shit, the more I want to see ALL substances legalized. I mean if players want to shrink their nuts, punch walls in rage, spend copious amounts of time on the DL and suck anyway... let them.
If doctors and trainers have found substances that actually help people recover faster and better from injury, why is it wrong for professional athletes to take these substances?
If the use of "performance enhancing substances" is a prevalent as we all assume, and the list that was provided by this report is a representative sample, then I think that we have only proven than these substances DO NOT necessarily improve performance...
There really has been no competitive edge or "cheating" defined because it looks like basically "everybody's doing it." It's kind of like insider trading... if everyone has the information, then there's no advantage, is there?
|
|
|
Post by elliejay21 on Dec 14, 2007 5:21:57 GMT -5
Oh, and Congress should disband their little committee and get the fuck out of this ridiculousness.
There is a war going on... there are 47 million Americans without health insurance... there are homeless people and children who don't get enough to eat... kids graduate from the public schools without the ability to read and write... undocumented immigrants are driving around NY without ID...
BUT Congress has nothing better to do than debate about whether a bunch of multi-millionaires in the entertainment industry might be injesting substances that thier employer does not approve of, even though some of the sustances might be prescribed by doctors and acceptible for other people to injest...
Where's the Congressional committee dedicated to wasting time and taxpayer dollars presenting tall-all reports about the big cocaine scandal in Hollywood? Is that list too long? Is cocaine too unquestionably straight-up illegal? Are there too many celebs who have been actually caught possessing or using cocaine, rather than simply ratted out by someone who may have seen them take it once?
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Dec 14, 2007 6:36:39 GMT -5
Yanksfan--if you don't like it, feel free to go elsewhere. And Pete--while there is a higher standard to prove libel for these guys because they are public figures, if they are innocent, they could get their day in court.
And Captain--yeah, Canseco said it all, and noted that there was a lot more going on than even that.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Dec 14, 2007 7:18:50 GMT -5
From Today's Post... "Houston Chronicle columnist Richard Justice said Clemens and any other potential hall candidate included in the report can forget about his vote, even though Clemens has seven Cy Young awards, an MVP award and 354 career victories. "They're not going to the Hall of Fame unless they've got great explanations for why their names are in the Mitchell Report," Justice wrote. "I hope it was worth it for Roger Clemens . . . and the others. I hope they're OK walking through the rest of their lives known as cheats." And here's an article talking about tainted titles: www.nypost.com/seven/12142007/sports/yankees/tainted_titles_lose_some_juice_348365.htm
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Dec 14, 2007 8:03:17 GMT -5
So what, Clemens loses that idiots vote. He's in Houston, he probably made his mark voting for Enos Cabell. As to Clemens he may get in with 84% of the vote instead of 99% - big whoop. Laura, gotta punch a few holes in your theories. First off, as to legalizing and just letting it become part of the game. Although I question your seriousness, one of the main concerns of a lot of players is that someone on the drugs is taking their jobs. You dont want people forced to take drugs simply to "keep up." As to the Congress thing, thats an old gripe. Do you realize today there are Congressmen spending 3 hours sitting around a table talking about the price of a bale of hay, or the effect of certain bolts used on bridge foundations being corrosive to the shells in a stream? There are enough people in Congress where a whole lot of things can go on at once. There are these things called committees. If this group was not bandying about the steroid issue, are they really going to spend that time on war stuff? To say nothing of the fact that steroids are a big issue, there is movement being made in educating and keeping kids off of them, and people like us are discussing it all day... Have to say, the whole "Congress has time for this? " whine is pretty much silly.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Dec 14, 2007 8:13:04 GMT -5
I know. And the fact is, Clemens has 5 years to deal with the fall out before the HOF is a consideration. It should be very interesting to see if there are defamation suits filed over this. The problem is that truth is a defense to any defamation suit. Maybe go under a lie detector? I don't even know if that would work either, unless they can show that the lie detector people are people that can't be bought. Of course, the only court that a lie detector is admissible in is the court of public opinion.
|
|
|
Post by IronHorse4 on Dec 14, 2007 9:33:37 GMT -5
I'll start off by asking you to extend us the same courtesy with regards to referring to the other board on your board that you have begged for on more than one occasion. Thank you in advance.
As for the Mitchell Report, 9 pages worth of posts, and I haven't seen the actual intent and overall sentiment of the report mentioned on here. A point, by the way, that cancels out Balls' pipe dream of punishing everyone on the list.
Mitchell recommends (correctly) that none of these people be punished. A lot of this happened before MLB had sanctions, etc. The biggest point that this report makes is that all parties were negligent here. Not just players. MLB and its owners screwed the pooch here. MLB allowed this to happen because of their negligence, and sat idly by while they KNEW this was going on (see the point about where they were working with Dykstra in 2000 among many other points). It would be incredibly unfair to punish these players, because a) there is STILL no proof on most of them (including Clemens), b) what they were buying wasn't against MLB policy when most of them were reported to have bought it, which is an argument that Balls hasn't been able to successfully refute for many years now, and c) the report suggests that MLB is just as guilty for this "steroid era". If all parties involved are guilty, you can't punish just one party. Sorry.
Major League Baseball helped to create this mess in their own organization. They created this. You can't wipe out records of an organization that ALLOWED THIS TO HAPPEN in said organization.
Of course, most of these arguments refute what Balls said rather well, but I thought I'd just wander in and dump the 300-lb. cherry on top.
Shoo, Balls, shoo.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Dec 14, 2007 9:43:29 GMT -5
I meant the list posted on THIS board--you know--the one that had Pujols. I apologize if you took that as a slight on the other board, especially since I didn't read the thread over there.
Mitchell may recommend, (incorrectly) that none of these people be punished. But Selig has every right to ignore that recommendation, and rightfully is going to review each player on a case by case basis. It may be that Selig finds some or even all of these players to be not deserving of punishment. I would find that disappointing, since they were users, and getting off with a slap on the wrist means they get away with tainting the game. If that happens, all that will exist is the tainted reputation, which is a consolation.
I agree that there is negligence on the part of the owners and MLB. But not negligence on the part of the players. They knew what they were doing, and there was intent.
And sorry, but eyewitness testimony from the guy that stuck the needle in the ass of a player, is proof. Taken to be true, they are users. Clemens could have spoken to Mitchell himself, and chose not to. Now he has to rebut the charges.
All of these players do.
And steroids are illegal drugs, and have been long before MLB adopted a policy. That's why Congress got involved in the first place.
The players involved need to be made examples of in the best interests of baseball--after Selig conducts his own findings. Again, they had their chances to talk to Mitchell and refused.
Oh wait, David Justice changed his phone number....
|
|
|
Post by IronHorse4 on Dec 14, 2007 9:56:15 GMT -5
And Tom, whose post I cut-and-pasted in my last post, meant the other board. Don't sweat it...it's just a pissing contest he and I have going. Worry not.
Of course Selig has a right to ignore the recommendation. He paid for the report. In fact, I wouldn't be surprised if he does punish some. Because, you know, then he'll be a good commissioner. Never mind that all of this happened on his clueless watch. He'll have to suspend somebody. The owners will likely demand it of him, because they spent $20 million on this 400-page booster seat. Him suspending a few players really doesn't justify the report, and, in fact, it's highly hypocritical to do so.
Even more telling...Selig hadn't even read the report when he gave his press conference. What a joke.
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Dec 14, 2007 10:17:46 GMT -5
And sorry, but eyewitness testimony from the guy that stuck the needle in the ass of a player, is proof. Taken to be true, they are users. Clemens could have spoken to Mitchell himself, and chose not to. Now he has to rebut the charges.
I keep forgetting that someone saying something is considered proof. Balls, I called you out on this already. I said you had man-loving out there on vacation, and told you to prove you did not. Someone who saw it told me. Now I await your rebuttal. Oh, and by the way, Clemens already made his denial/rebuttal. So is he clear now?
As to my referencing "the other board" I did so in response to Boxseatssuck's obvious nod to it with one of those snide, "another board i read" quotes. And that list made its way here in full, specifically from there. Rather than take blame for spreading it around, I passed it off.
Also, in fairness to me, there is a difference in referencing something as "the other board" and referencing something as "virginandfatdrunk.com" which is a typical sort of post over there, as I have been led to believe.
So there.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Dec 14, 2007 10:25:07 GMT -5
Actually Tom, eyewitness testimony under oath is proof. It's direct evidence and many a trial has been won on it. Tom--you were not there on my vacation, and what you are describing is speculation.
At best, hearsay. Either way, not admissible.
In the case of Roger Clemens, you have the guy who actually assisted him in his evil deed. This is the guy that injected his ass.
And Justin is right--all this did happen under Selig's watch, and that won't change if he punishes people. Selig is a buffoon. But even a buffoon can do something right.
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Dec 14, 2007 10:27:38 GMT -5
I guess....I am sure you have done something right somewhere along the line.
Case is hurt cause this "assister in the evil deed" could have been coerced, and is hiding under the weeds right now. Dont be surprised if he denies ever saying any of it.
As to your vacation, I specifically said someone who was there told me. So now you need to refute that accusation he/she made.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Dec 14, 2007 10:30:13 GMT -5
You are right about that. Whether he was coerced will go to the truthfulness of the testimony and that is something that will have to come into question in the rebuttal.
As for you saying someone told you, what you are describing there is a textbook example of hearsay, which is not admissible.
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Dec 14, 2007 10:34:03 GMT -5
Balls, in this case I am just using an example. Forget that its ME telling you I heard about it. Imagine yourself refuting the person who is telling me. What if I went around saying I saw you doing that deed in the corner of Jeremys? Now you need to prove you never did that. See?
Another interesting tidbit I heard is that the guy who fingered Pettitte in all fo this was fired by Pettitte in the past. So it goes on and on.
|
|
|
Post by kingdzbws on Dec 14, 2007 10:39:37 GMT -5
What Oath was there? What court of law was testemony in? What jurisdiction?
And Tom is right. I doesn't even matter if the allegation is backed in fact. Try un-ringing that bell. Balls is Gay. Balls had ManLove. As a public figure you'd be hard pressed to refute that, false or not.
Your assertion that it's heresay is no different than some guy seeing a ballplayer's name in another guys phone book and assuming guilt.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Dec 14, 2007 10:45:00 GMT -5
That would be slander, and I would have a hell of a lawsuit.
It's a question of credibility of the witness. I realize you're using a ridiculous example, so let's use the example that isn't ridiculous--the Mitchell report.
This guy could be the scum of the earth, and still be telling the truth. You have a sworn statement under oath from a guy in a position to be telling the truth. He's connected with steroids, he's connected with Clemens and Pettitte. He's directly involved and is testifying to his own illegal behavior as well.
On its face, he is credible.
Plus, the fact that Clemens refused to talk to Mitchell didn't help him. Steroid use is a very serious charge. To not respond to an accusation or cooperate with Mitchell certainly leads credence to the idea that he has something to hide.
Even if this were a criminal trial, it is possible to convict. This guy has a relationship with Clemens that predates his time with the Yankees. It started in Toronto, where coincidentally, Clemens' on field performance skyrocketed. Though poorly written, it is evident from the report that he brought him to the Yankees in 1999, and while he stopped using around that time, he started up again during the 2000 season, where again, his performance improved.
His on field performance and the timing is corroborating evidence.
We have a guy who is a steroid dealer with a personal relationship with Clemens, ratting him out.
On the other side, we have Clemens, who at this point is only saying, "no I didn't."
If this were a court, who to believe is a jury question, because the juror determines the facts. So you could believe Clemens, or the guy saying Clemens took steroids.
If you choose the guy who claims Clemens did it, then as a matter of fact, you would say Clemens did it.
If you believe Clemens, then case dismissed.
But that said, absolutely you can declare Clemens to be a juicer based on that witness if you find that witness credible.
If this witness is not credible, then let Clemens and his lawyers show it.
|
|
|
Post by IronHorse4 on Dec 14, 2007 10:45:51 GMT -5
Also lost in this is that this whole report (aside from the BALCO stuff which was pretty much already out) is coming from two guys.
Two guys that I'm sure aren't working pro bono on this one.
As for being punished, the old fail-safe applies....baseball can't punish someone who didn't break their rules. According to this report, Clemens and most of the other ones didn't break the rules. You can't punish someone who didn't break the rules.
Not much more to say, really.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Dec 14, 2007 10:52:38 GMT -5
Well, the Black Sox guys were acquitted of any wrongdoing, and got banned from baseball. There's always the 'best interest in baseball' thing to get punishments done. But you are right that this is all on the testimony of two guys. Mitchell lacked the legal teeth to go further.
If the players can poke holes in their testimonies, it will destroy that report.
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Dec 14, 2007 10:55:52 GMT -5
Even if the report is not "destroyed" nobody has any interest in "banning anyone from baseball."
|
|
|
Post by Bad Mouth Larry on Dec 14, 2007 10:59:45 GMT -5
Yanksfan--if you don't like it, feel free to go elsewhere. And Pete--while there is a higher standard to prove libel for these guys because they are public figures, if they are innocent, they could get their day in court. And Captain--yeah, Canseco said it all, and noted that there was a lot more going on than even that. settle down corky. dont go trying to throw members off the website because they dont agree with your retarded thinking. this entire board doesnt agree with anything you say. if its not a gag, there really is something wrong with you.
|
|
|
Post by Bad Mouth Larry on Dec 14, 2007 11:01:11 GMT -5
i wont read the backpages of balls drivel from last night, but i must ask, is he really saying clemens + pettitte should be banned from baseball. please say that aint so.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Dec 14, 2007 11:03:15 GMT -5
No I'm not. But Clemens and Pettitte do have some splainin' to do.
|
|
|
Post by kingdzbws on Dec 14, 2007 11:05:18 GMT -5
Two things, Marc;
1 - You haven't answered the question as to what binding Oath was made? This is clearly not a legal document.
2 - It doesn't matter if you sue and even win a slander case, if; a) the public believes already the allegation, and b) you cannot disprove the allegation even if you DO NOT have to prove your innocence (as is our justice system)
Also a less (slightly) ridiculous example;
I can prove to a court that you associate with known drug users, that you have intimate connections with drug users. That you are known to congregate with known drug users and even a few convicted offenders. I can prove you have countless emails, texts, phone calls, IM etc. of communications with known drug users.
With yor logic, I could punish you if I were your boss, despite no proof of your actual drug use.
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Dec 14, 2007 11:05:53 GMT -5
Hmmm. I dont understand, Balls. You have openly called for Bonds and Jason Giambi to be kicked out of baseball in the past. Whats different here?
|
|
|
Post by IronHorse4 on Dec 14, 2007 11:05:55 GMT -5
Nice idea, except Landis threw them out because he believed the evidence was compelling enough that they threw the games for money, which was against the rules.
If Selig believes the evidence is compelling enough that, say, Roger Clemens took HGH in 2000, that's all well and good. Unfortunately, it wasn't against the rules until 2005. So, again, you can't punish someone who didn't break the rules.
The only thing getting holes poked in it is your futile effort in this thread.
|
|