Mitchell Investigation To Release Findings Tomorrow - Page 4

PlayTheKids · 12-13-2007, 03:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Skipaway

The best thing for Bonds is that now people can't use the excuse of baseball records to single him out. Clemens surely have a lot of records too. How about a bunch of asterisks for Clemens?

I'm no fan of Barry's, but this is exactly what I'm saying if I'm him. Don't bring race into it, but Clemens is clearly the most similar guy to Bonds in this whole saga.

mikev · 12-13-2007, 03:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Cooleyvol

If the evidence against an individual is listed, and it was obtained during the investigation, why in bloody hell shouldn't it be in the investigation report?

Because it's pretty much the equivalent of saying "This guy took steroids because this other guy said he did."

That's not very good evidence. Not at all.

I think it takes away some of the credibility of the report because I don't think anybody should have been named without hard evidence -- copies of checks, money transfers, failed tests, etc...

PlayTheKids · 12-13-2007, 03:25 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rasmuth

First of all...I'm a big Piazza fan...and true he was never hugely muscular...but I remember seeing something about reporters seeing Creatine...or whatever that stuff was...in his locker...so sometimes you figure one thing leads to another.

Plus...his opposite field home-run power was at times not human...so sometimes I would silently wonder.

Didn't mean to imply agenda or anything, I just couldn't see why you thought Piazza. As for creatine, I would be 95% of major leaguers took it at some point...it's available at GNC right off the shelf. Lots of people take it without steroids (I did, but don't anymore).

Anisoptera · 12-13-2007, 03:26 PM

I had a feeling Blue Jay C Gregg Zaun would be named. I hope they get rid of him even if that leaves us with no decent catcher. I was tired of his big yap before this, but this seals it. Hopefully our tv stations won't let him on anymore otherwise he'll just get all pissed and say how everyone's out to get him. Heck, he did that before. Imagine now.

BaseballMan · 12-13-2007, 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by remangiii

Lot of Orioles on that list.

Judging by the Orioles record that pretty much tells me the whole steroid frenzy was a waste of time. Unless your goal was to finish 4th.

BaseballMan · 12-13-2007, 03:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikev

Because it's pretty much the equivalent of saying "This guy took steroids because this other guy said he did."

That's not very good evidence. Not at all.

I think it takes away some of the credibility of the report because I don't think anybody should have been named without hard evidence -- copies of checks, money transfers, failed tests, etc...

I agree. Funny how people just automatically assume that the report is proven fact. It isnt. Its just a report.

Russ · 12-13-2007, 03:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BaseballMan

I agree. Funny how people just automatically assume that the report is proven fact. It isnt. Its just a report.

You're right. People shouldn't be angry just because a player is listed in the report. Take a look at it, look at the facts presented, and form your own opinion.

The Wolf · 12-13-2007, 03:40 PM

"Clemens, Bonds, Tejada named in Mitchell Report"

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=ap-mitchellreport

BaseballMan · 12-13-2007, 03:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Russ

You're right. People shouldn't be angry just because a player is listed in the report. Take a look at it, look at the facts presented, and form your own opinion.

I was finally able to get through and download the pdf file. Printing it right now.
If there is hard evidence against a player i think he should be suspended but only if it was after the rules were changed. For players that are proven to have taken steroids before the rule that will just have to left up to the hall of fame voters.

Russ · 12-13-2007, 03:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BaseballMan

I was finally able to get through and download the pdf file. Printing it right now.
If there is hard evidence against a player i think he should be suspended but only if it was after the rules were changed. For players that are proven to have taken steroids before the rule that will just have to left up to the hall of fame voters.

Pretty much verbatim what Sen. Mitchell recommended. But he's a little softer than you.

BaseballMan · 12-13-2007, 03:43 PM

What if Bonds is found innocent of perjury. Wouldnt that throw mess the whole report up. because if the govt cant prove he did steroids how can i beleive Mitchell can. Then again it might help the govt case against Bonds.

DiMaggio5CF · 12-13-2007, 03:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BaseballMan

What if Bonds is found innocent of perjury. Wouldnt that throw mess the whole report up. because if the govt cant prove he did steroids how can i beleive Mitchell can. Then again it might help the govt case against Bonds.

First of all, he wouldn't be found innocent, he would be found not guilty.

Second, they're not trying Bonds to determine if he took steroids. They're trying Bonds to determine if he knowingly lied about taking steroids while under oath. If the government was able to prove that Bonds undoubtedly took steroids, they could still lose the case.

Third, Mitchell is not held to the same burden of proof that the legal system is. In a criminal case, the prosecution must prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt. Mitchell is held to virtually no burden of proof other than telling the truth because he is not, from what I understand, drawing any conclusions.

Elendil · 12-13-2007, 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mikev

Because it's pretty much the equivalent of saying "This guy took steroids because this other guy said he did."

That's not very good evidence. Not at all.

No, that is pretty good evidence. People have been convicted of murder in courts of law for that: "I saw him do it." However, "This guy took steroids because this other guy said he told him he did," is hearsay and is not as good evidence (although not worthless either).

thehatfield · 12-13-2007, 04:02 PM

I hope David Bell got a refund.

The Wolf · 12-13-2007, 04:09 PM

It must suck to use PED's and still be worthless.

BaseballMan · 12-13-2007, 04:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Elendil

No, that is pretty good evidence. People have been convicted of murder in courts of law for that: "I saw him do it." However, "This guy took steroids because this other guy said he told him he did," is hearsay and is not as good evidence (although not worthless either).

yeah but they have a little bit more evidence then just "I saw him do it."
I highly doubt a person was convicted of murder by testimony alone unless your talking before the 20th century. They usually have fingerprints, ballistics, etc etc. If that were true then what would keep your noisy neighbors from getting revenge for that lawn mower you forgot to return.

I just think the testimony needs to be backed up by the evidence which may or may not be the case. I will have to read the report and then decide

mikev · 12-13-2007, 04:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Purple Cowboy

I hope David Bell got a refund.

According to his BBRef page, Bell made just over 23 million dollars in his MLB career.

I'd say that's a pretty good return on his few thousand dollar investment of PEDs.

Anisoptera · 12-13-2007, 04:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BaseballMan

What if Bonds is found innocent of perjury. Wouldnt that throw mess the whole report up. because if the govt cant prove he did steroids how can i beleive Mitchell can. Then again it might help the govt case against Bonds.

You can't be found innocent of injury, only not found guilty which only means it can't be proven, doesn't mean he didn't lie.

CBL-Commish · 12-13-2007, 04:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Wolf

It must suck to use PED's and still be worthless.

Must suck to be in the top 0.001% of your profession and be considered worthless.

<Pion> · 12-13-2007, 04:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Anisoptera

You can't be found innocent of injury

Can you be found guilty of injury? Maybe if it's a cheap shot or blind-side hit?

12-13-2007, 04:02 PM	#74
thehatfield All Star Starter Join Date: Apr 2002 Location: dirty jerz Posts: 1,339	I hope David Bell got a refund. __________________ AFBL - Maryland Bridegrooms SBC - Western Suburbs Magpies no pressure no problem

12-13-2007, 03:26 PM	#64
Anisoptera Minors (Double A) Join Date: Aug 2007 Posts: 169	I had a feeling Blue Jay C Gregg Zaun would be named. I hope they get rid of him even if that leaves us with no decent catcher. I was tired of his big yap before this, but this seals it. Hopefully our tv stations won't let him on anymore otherwise he'll just get all pissed and say how everyone's out to get him. Heck, he did that before. Imagine now.

12-13-2007, 03:43 PM	#71
BaseballMan Hall Of Famer Join Date: Jan 2002 Posts: 6,661	What if Bonds is found innocent of perjury. Wouldnt that throw mess the whole report up. because if the govt cant prove he did steroids how can i beleive Mitchell can. Then again it might help the govt case against Bonds.