Soxbadger

And in a league with no dh....

Yeah the schools I applied to sent me information about the scholarships theyd give me if I decided to attend their university.

Tex, I dont agree on Flynt. If your going to be a public personality, you are putting yourself in the spot light, you are going to get the postitive and negative attention. Im one of the biggest supporters of First Amendment, but unless there is something missing these kids didnt write a parody.

Texsox. Falwell is a public personality. Therefore in order for him to be defamed it had to be with malice. The teacher in this question is not a public personality. Plus this is defamation per se because it involves allegations of sexual misconduct. Now the question of parody comes in.... http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/Speech...c=parody_satire Im failing to see how this is a "parody". But then again I havent seen the sit

"average payroll" Well I assume that he means if you include payrolls like Boston, Yankees, Angels, and then divide it by 30. But I would guess the median payroll wont hit 100mil for another 10 years, because some teams are still under 50mil. The facts are the Sox went from an "average" payroll in 2004, to a top 5 payroll in 2007. Thats not just moving with averages, thats increasing versus everyone else as well.

Sorry on the percentages thing, I was at work and wasnt really thinking. I was thinking 2x 40= 80 therefore 200%, but that is in fact 100%. So my statement should have read, the Sox increased payroll almost 100%. And thats not really accurate either because 40/65= 61%. It still is a drastic increase, I just should have stopped to think.

They have increased payroll over $40mil in 4 years. Sorry that they wont be increasing it over $60mil like some think would be wise.

How are the Sox a cheap broke small market team with a payroll in the top 5? http://asp.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/sa....aspx?year=2007 People just are not happy with anything. In 2004 the payroll was $65mil. http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=1778397 In 3 years the White Sox increased their payroll by $40mil (almost 200%) and yet fans are still not happy. They still want to say that the Sox dont spend the money. I call bulls***. As of today the Sox have the 1-2 highest payroll in the AL Central. They probably have the 5-6th highest payroll in all of the AL. HOW IS THAT CHEAP? Or is anyone that doesnt spend Boston or NYY money cheap? DA, What else can Williams say? Clearly some of these fans would only be happy if the Sox spent money like Boston or NYY, which would probably bankrupt the entire organization in less than 5 years, regardless of the time of cash influx from attendance. These people do not understand you cant just spend spend spend and then start a new franchise in MVP when you ruined its financial outlook.

Good luck, barbri is more boring than law school class. But it makes the Bar a million times easier.

Texsox, I think what you said is absolutely fair. If a guy was borderline, then maybe steroid use is what puts them in the no column. But I dont think that clear HOF players should be kept out.

I understand the analogy. The problem is that you keep pointing to things that are both illegal. It was legal for the players to use the cream and HGH. It was illegal for the players to doctor balls. The best example I can think of is: Its not a crime to drink alcohol while your pregnant. It is a crime to drink alcohol when your under 21. The govt cant punish you harder for the first when its not even against the law... And thats not to say people cant disagree with the govt or baseball, just they are the ones who make the rules, and we unfortunately have to live by it.

Pratt, There could be some "exigent circumstances" clause or "best interests of the game" clause that you could perhaps try and loop hole that memorandum under. Im not exactly sure, so Im playing the safe route of saying that without a copy of the CBA, I dont really know what type of argument they could pull out of their hat. There still is the problem that the memorandum does not discuss penalties outside of trying to rehabilitate players. Which would mean the penalty under the Vincent memorandum would be something like drug counseling and future suspensions should the player refuse to undergo treatment. Not exactly a damning sentence.

The problem is that the Vincent memo was not approved by the players union. It is the equivalent of George Bush writing that: "From now on the use or consumption of alcohol is illegal." Its great that the President came out and spoke out against alcohol, but it really does not mean jack until congress passes the law. Just like if congress came out and said "Tomorrow we are making alcohol illegal" and then Bush never signed the law. Youll also notice in the memo, there is no mention of the consequences. This is because the memo was merely a statement of Fay Vincent's intentions as commissioner (its also interesting to note right after this memo he is no longer commissioner.) The memo is not binding on the players because it was never agreed to under the CBA by the players union. The letter really isnt a rule, its more of the commissioner trying to get a rule started... (Edit) I just wand to add that im not 100% sure thats what the CBA says. But from some of the articles ive linked (specifically baseball prospectus and the mlb site) it seems to suggest that 1) the vincent memo was not binding, 2) that there needed to be MLBPA approval before it became binding. Every CBA is different so unless I have a copy of the CBA, its impossible to really tell.

Doing some further research here is an interesting time line from MLB's website: http://mlb.mlb.com/mlb/news/drug_policy.jsp?content=timeline Using steroids, precursors or performance-enhancing drugs is not illegal at that point in Major League Baseball. That would suggest that prior to 2002, steroids and their precursors, PEDs, etc were not illegal until 2002. Which would mean all action prior to 2002 should not be considered cheating.

Its all really murky in terms of prescriptions. For the most part I cant find any real literature on when prescriptions were required for either HGH or Tetrahydrogestrinone. From this article: http://query.nytimes.com/gst/fullpage.html...C8B63&fta=y It would appear the use of Tetrahydrogestrinone prior to 2003, did not require a prescription. Because if prior to 2003 any company was able to produce or sell it, it seems that you would not need a prescription. So any usage of "the cream" prior to 2003 when it was banned by the FDA and considered a controlled substance could not have been against the rules of baseball or even against the rules of the United States. HGH on the other hand seems to have needed a prescription. I cant find any date for this, but from all the articles and literature Im finding it appears HGH has been legal to use with a prescription for a while now (which suggests that it was illegal to use without a prescription). On the other hand, if any of these players who used HGH produce a prescription (if they were over 35 at the time they could have legitimately gotten it) they would be outside the scope of the Vincent memorandum. Also, ive been arguing this from the stand point that the Vincent memorandum was binding. Im not sure if that is so, and would require tons of research into the CBA and all of that stuff. I do not believe that the CBA passed these rules exactly, but then again im not 100% sure. http://www.sabernomics.com/sabernomics/ind...nhancing-drugs/ This article (which I have no clue if they are smart or not) seems to suggest that it was not binding because it was not approved by the CBA. Which would in the end mean that none of this stuff was even close to illegal for baseball players to use.

Northside, Here is what I said: Knowledge of the penalty is required. Laws are public, therefore knowledge of the law is imputed on every individual. Ignorance of the law is no excuse. But, you must have knowledge of the penalty in that the govt can not retroactively change the penalty. That is ex post facto. You still seem to be clinging to an argument I did not make. I thought it was clear the argument I was making was as follows: Between 1992 and 2005 the penalties were different from the penalties post 2005. The baseball players from 1992-2005 had no knowledge of the future penalties. Therefore applying the post 2005 penalties would be ex post facto. Yes I didnt spell it out as well, sorry, Im just posting when I have a few seconds. As soon as you commented on it, I cleared up what I meant. You have yet to respond how that is not ex post facto. As for the Vincent memo: HGH is not a controlled substance (I have to do further research on prescriptions) The Cream (Tetrahydrogestrinone) was not made a controlled substance until 2003. (Have to do further research on prescriptions)

I got a Blackjack the other day. Its my first smart phone, so far I like it. Only reason I got one was my Razr died.

Texsox, My scale is this: If some things are explicitly banned (doctoring a baseball), why are they being let off lighter than things that were not banned? How is it cheating, if it wasnt against the rules?

And from Northsides own damn site, god I f***ing hate laziness: http://sol.lp.findlaw.com/2000/seling.html At least im being paid for this. increasing retroactively the penalty for a prohibited act. So yes they can be penalized as they would have been when they committed the act, but you cant rewrite the penalty. Sorry for saying that they had to have "knowledge of the penalty", I meant that if there is a penalty you cant retroactively change it. Thats why asked what the penalty was in 1992, because that was the law they had knowledge of. IE Back between 1992 and 2005 the first offense was not a suspension. You cant go back and time to change the penalty to be now a 50 game suspension.

Northside, If you can find that, Id love to see it. All I have is baseball saying that they cant ban different types of steroids, and that they arent specifically covered. http://www.biopsychiatry.com/dhea/legal.html And here is the smoking gun: http://www.baseball-analysis.com/article.php?articleid=2634 Steroids include all anabolic androgenic steroids on federal schedule III. As noted above: The cream does not appear until 2003 HGH does not appear until 2005 Prior to those points they were legal in baseball. Perhaps your own research will net different results. Yasny, Yes but those substances were not illegal until 2003 and 2005 respectively. And therefore not banned by baseball until put on the FDA's list. Therefore they broke no law at the time, which to my understanding is ex post facto. But perhaps Northside will enlighten us on his treatise of what ex post facto means, and how even though these substances werent banned before 2003 and 2005, we should still punish players who used them during that time period.

When was HGH banned? Because my understanding is 2005, not 1992.... The Cream was banned by the FDA in 2003, not sure what baseball's rule says on steroids say but my understanding is that FDA ban is what triggers the MLB ban. Perhaps actually read my post before you start spouting off? Now if you want to go after players caught for anabolic steroids, prescription drugs, go ahead. Also a key part of ex post facto, which you conveniently glossed over is that they must know the PENALTY. What was the penalty for taking steroids in 1992? I dont believe it was being suspended from baseball for life. So yes, if you completely take my post out of context and say that I argued anabolic steroids were ex post facto. But I pretty clearly said "some substances", ie HGH. Which is what many of the Mitchell report are being accused of. I figured my audience of fellow baseball enthusiasts would know these facts. Oh here is an article about how in 2005 the police entirely changed: http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2224832 If baseball wants to penalize players on the pre-2005 scale (10 game suspensions), for taking drugs that were illegal prior to 2005, I dont think anyone would really have a problem with it. Well actually the first offense was no suspension prior to 2004....

Well Ill go ahead and back Pratt on this one, Whitesoxfan101, No this has nothing to do with "if some one else jumped off a bridge would you." No one is saying that what these players did was "Okay because some one else did it." The argument is: The Hall of Fame has never penalized players for cheating before, baseball has purposefully subverted drug enforcement and even promoted drug use, baseball has made millions and "saved itself" on the back of the drug use, and now baseball wants to play the holier than thou card. It isnt about if other people did it, its okay, its about basic ideas of justice. An ex post facto law is basically the most unjust law, it was so repulsive to our founders that in Article 9, limits on Congress, it is explicitly listed as prohibited. These players were not caught by baseball. They were not punished by baseball. There are some questions as to what exact rules were even in place for baseball for certain substances. To go back and punish players now with rules that were never there, with penalties they had no idea they might face, is ex post facto. It goes against the basic notion of justice, that you should have notice of the crime and the consequences of it.

Steve, No thats an excuse for quitters. Most of these players were not caught because there was NO TEST. Not because they beat the system, not because of anything more than baseball simply did not want to test because it did not want to find out the truth. Does baseball use a hair test? No Does baseball use a blood test? No The 2 most reliable drug tests are not used in baseball. Why? So that players can beat them. Im sorry but for $50 you can beat most urine tests, you can beat the ones given by the state of Illinois for sure. You want to make a smart ass comment about AIDS, go ahead. But baseball isnt EVEN TRYING to catch players. (Edit) The only reason there is even a Mitchell Report is that Congress started to get pissed and there were whispers of Baseball losing its Anti-Trust Exemption if it didnt cooperate. Baseball now has thrown Congress some names, shown that there was a problem, and that they will correct it. Congressmen get to say that they cleaned up the drug problem in baseball, baseball gets to say its the good guy, and everyone wins.

So then why is it okay to doctor a ball? That gives a pretty clear advantage over their competition and history books. If its about cheating, then end cheating in baseball. But thats not what this is about, this is about finding a few scapegoats so that everyone can go home feeling warm and fuzzy that they did something. Meanwhile, no one really focuses on trying to PREVENT FUTURE CHEATING. If they care so much, then ban a player after one offense. I promise no one will be trying to beat the system if they face a possible ban. But no one really wants to end it like the Olympics do, they just want to pretend that they are doing something.

So should players who dip be suspended? That can kill you. What about players that smoke, that is much more likely to harm some one else than "roid rage"? The comment "Just because other people do something or did something doesnt mean its okay", yes thats true. But there is a reason why precedent means something, its because it sets a standard. Now if they want to over turn precedent, if they want to remove players from the hall, than so be it. But otherwise its pretty much a joke. Oh and I agree with you Pratt, but Ive been on this argument for years now.