849 replies to this topic

[MoGator71]

If Bud actually tries to go back 10 years and discipline guys he's going to get royally bitch-slapped by Fehr and the union. He needs to take Mitchell's advice and move forward.

[Kitchkinet]

If Bud actually tries to go back 10 years and discipline guys he's going to get royally bitch-slapped by Fehr and the union. He needs to take Mitchell's advice and move forward.

Yeah. Selig's going to end up getting more criticism in the union press conference than Mitchell at this rate.

[Ananti]

I think whether he read it or not, he's better off saying he hadn't yet so he doesn't have to answer some of these question.

[Trautwein's Degree]

Trautwein, I respectfully disagree, but am not going to hijack this thread to lecture on evidence and the hearsay rule.

You disagree that the hearsay rule only applies in court proceedings?

You disagree that the hearsay rule does not have to be applied in administrative proceedings? Do you practice zoning law at all?

You disagree that there aren't nearly 20 exceptions to the hearsay rule?

I've made objections before judges in bench trials and have been told that even though the evidence is hearsay the judge will give it's credibility the appropriate weight. Any rule with that many exceptions isn't a rule at all.

The hearsay rule exists in part because its drafters believed jurors were idiots. That and the right to confront a witness in a criminal trial.

Edited by Trautwein's Degree, 13 December 2007 - 04:57 PM.

[Ananti]

Yeah. Selig's going to end up getting more criticism in the union press conference than Mitchell at this rate.

It's highly unlikely he's going to punish any one, but he can't say that, he has to reserve for himself the right to impose punishment.

[Hello]

If Bud actually tries to go back 10 years and discipline guys he's going to get royally bitch-slapped by Fehr and the union. He needs to take Mitchell's advice and move forward.

Well yes, baseball should move forward......which is why the whole Mitchell Report shouldn't have happened.

After 2003 (the first testing year I think?), there should have been a line drawn that said "from here on out, X will happen if you Y," and be done with it.

But no, baseball then decided to go looking 20 years prior and pull out some names (and based on how information was gathered, I can't fathom all the names), and keep it going.

I think drawing the line would have been the more effective way to do it.

(I think a similar approach was done with regards to gambling way back when...it was prominent in the sport, and instead of retroactively punishing players, the commissioner drew the line.)

[Kitchkinet]

The lighting wherever Cossack is being green-screened is terrible.

[Ananti]

Well yes, baseball should move forward......which is why the whole Mitchell Report shouldn't have happened.

After 2003 (the first testing year I think?), there should have been a line drawn that said "from here on out, X will happen if you Y," and be done with it.

But no, baseball then decided to go looking 20 years prior and pull out some names (and based on how information was gathered, I can't fathom all the names), and keep it going.

I think drawing the line would have been the more effective way to do it.

(I think a similar approach was done with regards to gambling way back when...it was prominent in the sport, and instead of retroactively punishing players, the commissioner drew the line.)

Complete BS.

We can't move forward because baseball still doesn't have a good system of tests.

And the reason we don't have a good testing is because some people (like the MLBPA) wants to acts as though it's a minor problem.

And that's why the investigation is important, to show the world that it's not a minor problem, that major corrective measures needs to be taken.

The investigation was necessary in order to "move forward".

[Hello]

Complete BS.

We can't move forward because baseball still doesn't have a good system of tests.

And the reason we don't have a good testing is because some people (like the MLBPA) wants to acts as though it's a minor problem.

And that's why the investigation is important, to show the world that it's not a minor problem, that major corrective measures needs to be taken.

The investigation was necessary in order to "move forward".

I disagree.

I think the investigation was an incomplete witch hunt....which discredits the entire thing.

[Deathofthebambino]

I disagree.

I think the investigation was an incomplete witch hunt....which discredits the entire thing.

Right, because if you can't catch everyone, you should let everyone else go.

[Hee-Seop's Fable]

If Bud actually tries to go back 10 years and discipline guys he's going to get royally bitch-slapped by Fehr and the union. He needs to take Mitchell's advice and move forward.

God I hope someone can talk this bit of sense into him. He' coming off as a complete buffoon. He found someone as honorable and wise as Mitchell to do the study in the first place, then he takes the same highly considered advice that helped bring peace to Northern Ireland, and he throws it out in favor of conducting it as a lynching of a few scapegoats?

edit: accuracy to affirm Ananti's point

Edited by Hee-Seop's Fable, 13 December 2007 - 05:16 PM.

[jose melendez]

Kruk sounds even more like an idiot than usual.

"why bring up people from the past?"

"This wouldn't hold up in court."


Christ, there's not burden of proof on suspensions for headhunting either.

[Ananti]

Do you even know the meaning of the term "witch hunt"? Here is a hint, the term hinges on the presumption that witches don't exist.

[Deathofthebambino]

God I hope someone can talk this bit of sense into him. He' coming off as a complete buffoon. He found someone as honorable and wise as Mitchell to do the study in the first place, then he takes the same highly considered advice that helped bring peace to Northern Ireland, and he throws it out in favor of conducting it as a witch hunt?

I'm not getting that feel at all. I think he's going to do nothing, punishment-wise, but can't publically say that right now. All he's doing is putting off everything until later, and by later, I mean never.

What he's going to do is use this report as leverage against the Union to implement Olympic-style testing in baseball, IMO, and that would be just fine with me.

Just clean it up. I don't care how, just clean it up.

[marsrover21]

I don't know about anyone else, but Lenny Dykstra is probably the most surprising name on the list to me.

What are the surprising names to everyone else?

[jose melendez]

Really? I would have put Lenny in the 10 most likely in baseball history.

[Ananti]

I'm not getting that feel at all. I think he's going to do nothing, punishment-wise, but can't publically say that right now. All he's doing is putting off everything until later, and by later, I mean never.

What he's going to do is use this report as leverage against the Union to implement Olympic-style testing in baseball, IMO, and that would be just fine with me.

Just clean it up. I don't care how, just clean it up.

Exactly, he's not going to cut himself off at the knees by stating that he won't punish any one.

[Guinevere]

You disagree that the hearsay rule only applies in court proceedings?

You disagree that the hearsay rule does not have to be applied in administrative proceedings? Do you practice zoning law at all?

You disagree that there aren't nearly 20 exceptions to the hearsay rule?

I've made objections before judges in bench trials and have been told that even though the evidence is hearsay the judge will give it's credibility the appropriate weight. Any rule with that many exceptions isn't a rule at all.

The hearsay rule exists in part because its drafters believed jurors were idiots. That and the right to confront a witness in a criminal trial.

Sigh.

The hearsay rule applies in some other non-court situations, for example, some administrative hearings. No I don't practice zoning law, I'm a civil litigator. If you are referring to Zoning Board proceedings, or other town board then I agree, most evidentiary rules would not apply. However, to cut to the point here, I think the rules of evidence would apply in an disciplinary hearing and/or arbitration where contractual rights were at stake, and certainly in any civil action under the contract, or any action for defamation or libel.

I agree that there are many exceptions, but I don't agree that because it has many exceptions it isn't really a rule. I noted the many exceptions in my initial post discussing hearsay.

Edited by Guinevere, 13 December 2007 - 05:12 PM.

[Hee-Seop's Fable]

Complete BS.

We can't move forward because baseball still doesn't have a good system of tests.

And the reason we don't have a good testing is because some people (like the MLBPA) wants to acts as though it's a minor problem.

And that's why the investigation is important, to show the world that it's not a minor problem, that major corrective measures needs to be taken.

The investigation was necessary in order to "move forward".

Perfectly stated. Why is this difficult to grasp?

If there were no names at all, doubting types could write off the problem as isolated and insignificant, unworthy of attention. Given the significance of those involved, it is clear this is only a small representation of the caliber of player prone to involvement.

Given these illustrations of the magnitude of the problem, it's clear a full effort needs to be given to thorough and fair controls from here on out. The truth and wisdom of this approach is exactly what made McGuire's comments at the Senate hearings so funny. They were a parody of this approach that were completely absent of any foundational content. These names and details provide illustrations of that foundational content.

[scrizzy]

Well yes, baseball should move forward......which is why the whole Mitchell Report shouldn't have happened.

After 2003 (the first testing year I think?), there should have been a line drawn that said "from here on out, X will happen if you Y," and be done with it.

But no, baseball then decided to go looking 20 years prior and pull out some names (and based on how information was gathered, I can't fathom all the names), and keep it going.

I think drawing the line would have been the more effective way to do it.

(I think a similar approach was done with regards to gambling way back when...it was prominent in the sport, and instead of retroactively punishing players, the commissioner drew the line.)

This happened because Congress wanted it to happen, not because MLB wanted it to happen. The report is supposed to be about why the testing and the whole system needs to be strengthed going forward, not about individual players.

As for people (read Wingack) who think it is too 'light', should they have just made up a bunch of shit so that it would be more exciting to you? I bet you had a huge boner when that fake list came out with Tek on it huh? What a bummer.

[Deathofthebambino]

Sigh.

The hearsay rule applies in some other non-court situations, for example, some administrative hearings. No I don't practice zoning law, I'm a civil litigator. If you are referring to Zoning Board proceedings, or other town board then I agree, most evidentiary rules would not apply. However, to cut to the point here, I think the rules of evidence would apply in an disciplinary hearing and/or arbitration where contractual rights were at stake, and certainly in any civil action under the contract, or any action for defamation or libel.

I agree that there are many exceptions, but I don't agree that because it has many exceptions it isn't really a rule. I noted the many exceptions in my initial post discussing hearsay.

Listen, there are enough lawyers here that a discussion of a specific portion of the report that you or someone feels is hearsay can be had here pretty easily. Earlier in the thread, the discussion centered around Bigbie's testimony (and I write testimony, because it was done as part of his cooperation with Federal investigators in a distribution matter) in which he said that Roberts admitted to using steroids.

It is my, and others, opinion that this constituted admissible hearsay under the statements against interest exception. If you feel differently about that specific part of the report, I'm all ears. If not, I don't think anyone is disagreeing with anything you say.

[marsrover21]

May I suggest moving all this hearsay stuff to another thread? It is distracting from the point, really. Say what you want, but Roberts was named. If you so choose, take it with a grain of salt. No need to get all Lawyerly.

[opes]

I don't know about anyone else, but Lenny Dykstra is probably the most surprising name on the list to me.

What are the surprising names to everyone else?

Yes, Really? Dykstra was rumored years ago even.

The biggest surprise to me, wasnt specifically a name, just the amount of detail on Clemens.
IMO, hes fucked.

[Trautwein's Degree]

However, to cut to the point here, I think the rules of evidence would apply in an disciplinary hearing and/or arbitration where contractual rights were at stake..

You'd be wrong. Have you ever sat through a greivance hearing which takes place under collective bargaining? School expulsion hearings? The hearsay rule does not apply.

Edited by Trautwein's Degree, 13 December 2007 - 05:35 PM.

[stephensjh]

Well yes, baseball should move forward......which is why the whole Mitchell Report shouldn't have happened.

Sadly, Selig is far too weak to take on Fehr and the Union without more ammunition. There is no real evidence that without the Mitchell Report, baseball would " move forward " i.e., reduce and ultimately minimize the pervasive baseball drug culture. My bet is the Mitchell Report will energize the Congress to ' force' Incompetent Bud and Enabler Fehr to implement a strong, effective and independent drug testing program.

[Guinevere]

Listen, there are enough lawyers here that a discussion of a specific portion of the report that you or someone feels is hearsay can be had here pretty easily. Earlier in the thread, the discussion centered around Bigbie's testimony (and I write testimony, because it was done as part of his cooperation with Federal investigators in a distribution matter) in which he said that Roberts admitted to using steroids.

It is my, and others, opinion that this constituted admissible hearsay under the statements against interest exception. If you feel differently about that specific part of the report, I'm all ears. If not, I don't think anyone is disagreeing with anything you say.

I never commented on a specific portion of the report -- I haven't read enough to do that. I was only commenting in response to the Gammons comment that its all hearsay, and that my take is generally the report is based on credible information, some of which may be hearsay, some of which may fall within the exceptions. Period.

[DJnVa]

Mommy, the lawyers are ruining the thread!!!!!

Edited by DJnVa, 13 December 2007 - 05:39 PM.

[scrizzy]

My favorite part of the report so far:

Howie Clark Toronto Blue Jays (pg 228)

Apparently what Arod yelled at him wasn't "I got it!" it was "HGH!"

[drleather2001]

My favorite part of the report so far:

Howie Clark Toronto Blue Jays (pg 228)

Apparently what Arod yelled at him wasn't "I got it!" it was "HGH!"

Clark is on page 276.

Keep the one liners to yourself, especially if they are not funny enough to be immediately recognizable as jokes.

Edited by drleather2001, 13 December 2007 - 05:39 PM.

[marsrover21]

Mommy, the layers are ruining the thread!!!!!

I can't tell if that is a jab at my post, or if you are humorously agreeing. Either way, you could not be more correct

Edit: LOL. Didn't notice that you wrote "layers" at first.

Edited by marsrover21, 13 December 2007 - 05:47 PM.

[Rough Carrigan]

Why isn't anyone talking about that part of the "report" where it was revealed that a doctor was giving steroids to a whole fucking team?!

Oh yeah. That was the Carolina Panthers of the NFL.

Isn't the difference in standards between the two leagues incredible? We now know that virtually the entire rosters of those Steelers teams of the 70's were jacked out of their heads on steroids. Nobody cares. If we found out that the big Red machine was all on juice everyone'd go nuts. Your local Home Depot wouldn't be able to keep sack cloth in stock to go with your ashes. But it's the NFL so no one gives a shit.

Amazing.

[Hello]

This happened because Congress wanted it to happen, not because MLB wanted it to happen. The report is supposed to be about why the testing and the whole system needs to be strengthed going forward, not about individual players.

As for people (read Wingack) who think it is too 'light', should they have just made up a bunch of shit so that it would be more exciting to you? I bet you had a huge boner when that fake list came out with Tek on it huh? What a bummer.

But why should Congress have any say in a business' drug testing policy?

I know people are going to bring up the anti-trust thing, but I feel like Congress bothering with steroids in baseball is akin to it deciding that all Microsoft employees need to have regular drug tests for cocaine.

[scrizzy]

Clark is on page 276.

Keep the one liners to yourself, especially if they are not funny enough to be immediately recognizable as jokes.

Feel free to bite me! Arod's name make you a little nervous there sport?

And the page labeled 228 in the document is what I was referring to, not the 276th page of the PDF (which are one and the same).

Edited by scrizzy, 13 December 2007 - 05:46 PM.

[Delicious Sponge]

But why should Congress have any say in a business' drug testing policy?

I know people are going to bring up the anti-trust thing, but I feel like Congress bothering with steroids in baseball is akin to it deciding that all Microsoft employees need to have regular drug tests for cocaine.

If Microsoft was making billions of dollars while its employees were systematically using stolen code to build their software, and in spite of complaints, Microsoft was pretty much doing nothing about it, you better believe Congress would get involved.

You also better believe some industrious US Attorneys would get involved, too.

[scrizzy]

Why isn't anyone talking about that part of the "report" where it was revealed that a doctor was giving steroids to a whole fucking team?!

Oh yeah. That was the Carolina Panthers of the NFL.

Isn't the difference in standards between the two leagues incredible? We now know that virtually the entire rosters of those Steelers teams of the 70's were jacked out of their heads on steroids. Nobody cares. If we found out that the big Red machine was all on juice everyone'd go nuts. Your local Home Depot wouldn't be able to keep sack cloth in stock to go with your ashes. But it's the NFL so no one gives a shit.

Amazing.

Because we expect football players to be big, dumb roiders. Baseball is the pure, cerebral, American sport.

[scrizzy]

But why should Congress have any say in a business' drug testing policy?

I know people are going to bring up the anti-trust thing, but I feel like Congress bothering with steroids in baseball is akin to it deciding that all Microsoft employees need to have regular drug tests for cocaine.

There is the whole thing about child athletes using these substances and either dying or having health problems and whether or not nailing the pros for it will have a deterrent affect.

Personally I like the government to be involved in as little as possible, but it's not my call. I was just saying that MLB's decision to start this investigation and produce this report was fuled by their desire to do it themselves and not have the feds do it for them.

[LahoudOrBillyC]

Isn't the difference in standards between the two leagues incredible? We now know that virtually the entire rosters of those Steelers teams of the 70's were jacked out of their heads on steroids. Nobody cares. If we found out that the big Red machine was all on juice everyone'd go nuts. Your local Home Depot wouldn't be able to keep sack cloth in stock to go with your ashes. But it's the NFL so no one gives a shit.

All true. The NFL is filled with roiders, the Patriots have known roiders. The NFL has had debilitating strikes. The NFL has used replacement players in actual games that counted in the standings. And their fans were so outraged that they ..... zzzzzzzzzzzzz.

Baseball fans need their sport to be relatively clean and pure, and the records to be meaningful. I think this is a good thing for the sport.

[Ananti]

Why isn't anyone talking about that part of the "report" where it was revealed that a doctor was giving steroids to a whole fucking team?!

Oh yeah. That was the Carolina Panthers of the NFL.

Isn't the difference in standards between the two leagues incredible? We now know that virtually the entire rosters of those Steelers teams of the 70's were jacked out of their heads on steroids. Nobody cares. If we found out that the big Red machine was all on juice everyone'd go nuts. Your local Home Depot wouldn't be able to keep sack cloth in stock to go with your ashes. But it's the NFL so no one gives a shit.

Amazing.

I think it proves that people love baseball more than they love football.

If your nephew was caught doing cocaine you'd be upset, but not nearly as upset as you'd be if your son was caught doing cocaine. You are always tougher on those you love, because their failures to live up to your expectations hurts you more.

[satyadaimoku]

It is my, and others, opinion that this constituted admissible hearsay under the statements against interest exception.

It's going to be a huge mess for baseball to try and organize a realistic process to determine suspensions for players named. I would imagine that the report on a whole is going to contain many statements that might qualify as statements against interest, along with others that could qualify under business record exceptions, or party admissions, or a dozen other things. But you combine (1) the inherent vagueness of these hearsay exceptions; (2) the vague status of MLB disciplinary proceedings; (3) the vague status of MLB rules at the time these steroids were taken; (4) the fact that most of these players are multimillionaires with unlimited resources to defend themselves in hearings or in court; and you've got a situation where trying to discipline these players is going to be a huge mess that will make a lot of lawyers a ton of money and take years to resolve. Despite what Selig has said today, I think MLB's only realistic option is to have a general amnesty for this period as a whole and move on to dealing with the problems of today. Which actually I think is only fair, given the way that MLB team executives looked the other way while this problem was becoming widespread throughout the league.

[8slim]

I think it proves that people love baseball more than they love football.

If your nephew was caught doing cocaine you'd be upset, but not nearly as upset as you'd be if your son was caught doing cocaine. You are always tougher on those you love, because their failures to live up to your expectations hurts you more.

All it proves is that the MLB PR department is vastly inferior to the NFL's.

[joewoodfan]

Pretty nice visual breakdown of the various parties and their PED spans:

http://www.baseballssteroidera.com/

[Jack Sox]

Didn't see this anywhere yet:

Agent Randy Hendricks sent out a statement saying Roger Clemens "vehemently denies allegations in the Mitchell Report that he used performance-enhancing steroids." Hendricks's release says that Clemens "is outraged that his name is included in the report based on uncorroborated allegations of a troubled man threatened with federal criminal prosecution."

http://www.rotoworld...g...MLB&id=1417

[LahoudOrBillyC]

Didn't see this anywhere yet:
http://www.rotoworld...g...MLB&id=1417

In other words, the Pete Rose Defense™.

[dnramo]

xi5LESZ7_Kc

Edited by dnramo, 13 December 2007 - 06:23 PM.

[YouLookAdopted]

Agent Randy Hendricks sent out a statement saying Roger Clemens "vehemently denies allegations in the Mitchell Report that he used performance-enhancing steroids." Hendricks's release says that Clemens "is outraged that his name is included in the report based on uncorroborated allegations of a troubled man threatened with federal criminal prosecution."

You know the one thing that really gave Conseco credibility in my mind was the fact that so many of the players he fingered were "outraged", but not a single one sued his accuser in court. Clemens' reaction is familiar in that way.

[zenter]

I've read the past 15-20 pages of this thread, and I didn't see this anywhere... Either way, apologies if this is a repeat comment/question:

The Red Sox were aware of suspicions of both Donnelly and Gagne being dopers before acquiring either of them, but did anyway. Out of context (of being in a front office and inquiring about players on a consistent basis), I can't tell if this was unusual in this day and age or not. Assuming it is not a run-of-the-mill inquiry... Would it not follow that conversations like the one in the Gagne section occurred more rampantly in the 1990's, when there was less oversight over doping in baseball?

I ask because, going forward, baseball will be "policing" the players who dope. Which is a good thing. But I don't really see how baseball will police those clubhouses where there is a "culture" of doping. Like they presumably had in Baltimore. Or the one Paxton Crawford describes.

So far, in theory, I can see why the union might not be happy about the report - it makes the players look bad, and only implies that clubhouses may have played a part. I'm sorry, but the Cardinals looked the other way with McGwire, the A's looked the other way with Giambi, and I'm sure the Sox looked the other way with players as well. Things like the Gagne email, assuming they are exceptions to standard operating procedure, are indications that there is awareness among the front offices, and would have been in the past. I'd like to see more accountability for the teams (I'm looking at you, B'more).

For that reason, I think baseball should seriously consider implementing policies where the player, team and league are financially punished for doping. This isn't the best example, but it's the one I could think of off the top of my head: Establish the independent doping-monitoring agency. If my favorite player (Jody Reed, for argument's sake) gets caught, not only is he suspended, but the team and league can no longer profit from Jody Reed merchandise. All merchandise purchases would go to fund anti-doping research and campaigns for a set period (last X years for first offense, last X years times 2 for second offense, etc). This means the player does not benefit, and the teams are given financial incentives to self-police.

Or something like that...

[The Four Peters]

All it proves is that the MLB PR department is vastly inferior to the NFL's.

I disagree. I think there's a deeper issue involved. People become really invested in their baseball teams. You watch a team for 6 months, day in day out, going through all the ups and downs, and you become attached to them. I feel infinitely more invested in a Red Sox season than a Pats season. That's part of the beauty of baseball.

Also, baseball players aren't covered up by pads and helmets, playing a sport that not many people fully grasp. Almost everything thinks they understand/know baseball, and you can see pretty much everything about the players with their unis. It's infinitely more intimate and personal than football. I think this dynamic is the primary reason that people/media hold baseball to a higher standard. And I'm glad they do.

But yes the PR dept/machine IS worse. I just think are greater factors.

[Rough Carrigan]

You know the one thing that really gave Conseco credibility in my mind was the fact that so many of the players he fingered were "outraged", but not a single one sued his accuser in court. Clemens' reaction is familiar in that way.

The term used in All the President's Men was a "non-denial denial".

[Rough Carrigan]

All it proves is that the MLB PR department is vastly inferior to the NFL's.

I think you're partly right but I think that more than that it proves that the media applies two completely different standards to the two sports.

[AlNipper49]

OK we let this game thread live on for as long as we could. Please feel free to start new threads on relevant, more specific, topics.