Soxbadger

Yeah the questions are difficult, but its a lot of strategy on some of those toss ups.

Damn Ive been watching Journeyman too lately. I dvred the whole season and finally caught up over the last 2 weeks during reruns of other shows. I liked the way that past events effected future events, and unlike Quantum Leap where he actually went home and saw the ramifications of his actions. Damn them for canceling, but they also canceled Jericho but it made its way back (hopefully).

Do you have a problem that almost only American athletes are going to suffer becasue the probe did not look into South America? Do you have a probelm that for some of these athletes who are not national citizens, they can return to their home country to take some of these drugs legally? Where is the justice in that?

Sabans smart, SEC is a vastly superior league and there really is no gaurantee he will ever be able to recruit like he did at LSU, or even be one of the top 3 in any season. At WVU he is in one of the worst conferences and will most likely be able to pull in the top Big East class each year.

Steve, Well in theory they could have taken the drugs outside of the United States. IE Im in Venezuela, I get my HGH on. Then I go back to the United States and wait to do HGH until the next time im back in Venezuela. USA has no jurisdiction.

No I agree with you that its hearsay. Ive gone through some of the other exceptions that may apply (statement against party interest), just was trying to point out that the there is a difference between different type of reports.

There are actual rules in regards to hearsay: DJIA falls under: Therefore an exception. http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rules.htm#Rule803 Mitchell report is not (6) regularly record activity, it could be (8) public record and report, but my guess is that would not fly as Mitchell was commissioned by a private entity.

Well Radomski and McNamee are two... which would be multiple sources. So did you actually read it? So he didnt call it the cream and the clear but instead dropped hints.... I dont know what your exactly trying to prove.... Im sure Clemens was smart enough not to go running around shooting up in front of everyone, it was close circle of people. The only 2 people privy two that circie have turned on him. Who else are you going to find? What more evidence do you want?

Your right I misspoke. I meant to say multiple sources saying that they personally knew clemens did steroids. I for a second thought Canseco had said that he had injected Clemens, but I looked and could not find it. I stand corrected, sorry.

My opinion is to forget about the past and just work harder in the future.

Jackie, You have no clue what my viewpoint is. I dont care that Clemens took roids, I dont care that Bonds took roids. I dont care that Gaylord Perry put vaseline on baseballs, I dont care that Sosa corked his bat. I dont care when teams steal signs, I dont care about any of it. I think its a joke, I think the law is a joke. But that is an argument for another time another day. And the evidence against Bonds is just as equal to multiple sources saying that they injected Clemen's personally. http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/arti...trainer/?page=3 Fortunately for Clemens, he was popular so the names on the Grimsely affidavit stayed sealed. But if he gets the Bonds treatment, those documents will be unsealed.

Jackie, Bonds admitted to using the "Cream" and the "clear" not knowing they were roids. If you take the grand jury admission as fact, then you have to believe that Bonds did not knowingly take steroidsbecause there is absolutely no proof in the grand jury testimony that he did know. The only facts about whether Bonds knew are allegations made by other people (most of whom had an act to grind against Bonds). The failed steroids test, irrelevant. Bonds took a test in a private clinic, who knows the protocols, who knows what they were really doing. This is BALCO, they are a corrupt felony organization. Now we are going to believe documents and tests that they produced? What if they put in a positive for Barry to blackmail him should they ever need it? People want barry to be guilty, they want Clemens to be innocent. The sad part is, there is a very real chance that barry told the absolute truth in that grand jury room (that he did steroids but just didnt know) and due to some scumbags wanting to make money his whole career was ruined.

Um this is proving the Bonds "apologists" right. When Bonds was indicted, it was as if he was convicted. When Clemens was fingered, its all "hearsay", "convicted felons testifying", etc etc. Thats the exact same s*** thats happening to Bonds, but back then no one was saying how its totally unreliable. They were treating him like a convict. Its funny to see all these reporters change their feelings now that the precious has been accused.

Bigbie saying "Cust told me he did steroids" would be admissible in court. Thats 804 (B )3 http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rules.htm And hearsay is really difficult to get a grasp on because of all of the different rules. (Also Cust would have to be unavailable to testify for this exception to work, some it doesnt matter if the declarant is unavailable.)

Because our society allows people to say false things about celebrities. And if you start to make a mountain out of it its just going to get more and more scrutiny and it becomes even harder to disprove. Look at all the tabloid newspapers, the more a celebrity responds to any single rumor, the more people believe that its true. The best thing you can do in this case is just say: "Listen, MLB has no positive samples. The only evidence they have against me is a convicted felon who was trying to get a insert following reason (lighter sentence, off early, more favorable treatment). At the end of the day this proves nothing, it is nothing more than a witch hunt in which a few people named a bunch of names. MLB admittedly did not even prove into amphetamines, but we are to believe this report? It seems that baseball has done a good job of hiding real abuse in the past (Canseco, Big Mac, Sosa) so why should you believe this report? Is it not odd that basically every big name on the report is on the downside of their career? Did you notice that they did no investigating into Latin America? This doesnt seem to be an investigation, this seems to be a set up." And perjury is really rare. I know that because of Bonds it seems really common, but unless its a federal investigation, they just dont care that much. Id say in almost every courtroom at the daley center there is some sort of perjury going on.

In libel or slander they dont have to prove anything. Truth is an absolute defense, but all they would have to prove was that they did not make this report with malice (a reckless disregard for the truth.) If any baseball player was to sue, it would be the biggest waste of time, and it would do nothing but further destroy their career. In cases with flipper witnesses (where you have some one convicted flip on a co-conspirator) unless you have evidence to the contrary it is just a he said she said. And in that case, you can not win defamation. You do not have to have the absolute facts, you dont even have to know for sure. So Canseco would not have to prove that Mac did steroids, hed just have to prove that what he said about Mark was not reckless. And as soon as Canseco gets on the stand and says "I saw him do steroids" well that basically ends the slander case, because Mac would have to prove the jury that Canseco was lying. How do you prove some one is not telling the truth with out evidence? In the end, "weak evidence" is evidence. And if they have ANY evidence of the use of steroids, then the player has absolutely no shot at winning a case for slander/libel. And as to why Bonds has never sued his trainer if he gave him steroids instead of flaxseed oil is because you dont sue when you have nothing to gain. In the end it would be a case where the Dr would say "He knew what he was getting" and Barry would say "No I didnt" and who wins with that? If you sue just to sue your going to get burned.

Ive heard the word hearsay thrown around so many times today its insane. The Mitchell Report is the equivalent of an indictment, its not absolute proof, you dont get any chance to defend yourself. But its interesting how people respond so differently. Good day for Bonds fans. And I dont know what this ESPN Law anaylst is saying about slander/defamationthe standard is not reasonable basis, its a reckless disregard for the truth, because the athletes are all public personalities and therefore held to a higher standard (have to prove malice.)

Well here is what I would do: 1) Quit with all the doom and gloom, all the guys we wanted got huge contracts. Its not like the Sox were cheap, they just were unwilling to give a weak free agent crop huge contracts. I dont really disagree with them. 2) Not delude myself. This team is most likely not going to compete unless a lot of players come up huge. But at the same time try and place optimism in the fact the starting line up will have 4 younger players (Richar, Quentin, Fields, Owens) and that hopefully 1-2 of them can turn into good to great players. The pitching staff is what it is, Vaz and Buerhle are good and dependable, Danks and Floyd young question marks, Contreras old question mark. It could all come up Millhouse, it could all go to hell, but if the Sox can manage to find away to upgrade the weakest of those pitchers (presumably Count) into a Vaz/Buerhle level the pitching staff isnt that bad. 3) Dont waste the money that was saved. The sox have offered over $10mil per year in free agent contracts, they should place that $10mil in a 5 month CD and save it for the draft. Draft best player available in every round (I know the Sox dont have a 2nd, but a lot of guys still slide to the later top few rounds due to signability) and use the $10mil saved to improve the farm system. Year after, same routine, use the money saved on older FA's like Hunter, Rowand, to spend more money on top talent in the draft. I know that draft picks dont always pan out, but high talent guys generally still pay off in trades later down the line. By improving our farm system using the cash that would be given to FA's (i believe most draft money is signing bonus therefore its only a 1 year deal, with 10mil to play with you could give the top guy 5mil, and still have another 5 to play with in later rounds, let alone the slot money that the Sox were already planning to spend.), the Sox can then trade for players because it appears the best talent is being traded and not going to FA. I think that method the Sox conceivably be better off by missing out on all of these free agents. Prospects are the wave of the future with these insane contracts, if the Sox start to spend money in the draft they can better balance their talent investment. The only problem is I believe the Sox are outspoken on paying slot value, and well that just cant happen in my scenario.

Marquette was just to quick for Wisconsin. Hopefully they are just a really quick team, and its not Wisconsin is horribly slow.

MSU down 10 early @ BYU

I really doubt most molesters, rapists, and other criminals are choosing bench trials. Generally its a JURY, that decides whether or not they are innocent.

Um so Seth Davis just said Wisconsin at 6-1 is one of the biggest disapointments this year? I guess they should have beat Duke at Cameron Indoor? Even funnier is many publications didnt have Wisconsin in the NCAA Tourney this year, so they werent expected to be one of the top 64 teams, but were expected to beat Duke on the road. Very interesting analysis.

Willis -68-54 at age 25 Vaz- 41- 56 at age 25 Since then Vaz has only put up 2 seasons with less wins than losses. Probably didnt hurt that Willis played for the Marlins and Vaz played for the Expos.... And thats not necessarily true about the best packages are found in the offseason... Plus I really think the Sox are going to have a hard time justifying trading Konerko, after he took a paycut to play here. This isnt MVP, DBPL, or any other game where you can just trade your franchise centerpieces and there wont be any long term ramifications. Plus right now teams arent going to over pay for Konerko, Thome, Dye, etc because most feel that they have in house answers that will put up similar numbers for the much cheaper. I doubt Kenny's phone is ringing off the hook for older players who seem to have put their best days behind him. Im sure they are actively shopping every player, but at the same time who here would accept a deal where we basically gave Konerko away? Because my feeling on the market right now is that there arent that many teams in need of an older 1b who has some injury concerns, who are going to give up top spects.

Why are the Sox under pressure to rebuild right now? They can easily start to trade guys during the season if they really want to rebuild...

Just so I understand, Are people b****ing Kenny didnt sign Hunter to the 90mil contract? Or are they b****ing that Kenny didnt get Hunter to sign a cheaper contract that would have been worthwhile? Because if the Sox signed Hunter for 90mil it would have been a disaster. For some reason I just dont see Hunter being able to stay healthy the majority of the next 5 years.