Soxbadger

There is a real chance Arod may end up taking a pay cut, and you have to wonder if Boras would let him do that.

Texsox, A) Yes, if Bonds was doing nothing but taking the drugs and then was seeing miracle results, you would impute knowledge. But that would be if all things were equal, if all things except X were constant. But in this case we have a myriad of variables: 1) Work out regiment. Was Bonds on a more stringent work out routine? 2) What was his trainer telling him, when Bonds asked about getting stronger was he told things like "Oh thats just the new weight program." You can say he should have known, but that would be up to the trier of fact to decide. From the evidence that has been presented, there is very little to suggest if Bonds knew, and more importantly, when did he know. If the results took months, years, etc when do you start to say he should have known? Thats the important question, because the statute says "knowingly" so when did he have knowledge. It surely wasnt the first time he put it on, and after that it becomes a slippery slope. B) But there are plenty of records, etc. You can put an asterisk on their HOF plaque, etc. But the reason Ecko did it was publicity, nothing more, nothing less. C) I dont think baseball truly wants to get rid of cheating. Its not about a holier than thou attitude, or high horse, its about what has the institution done to prevent cheating. The answer is very little, players are caught cheating on the field all the time, they are given slaps on the wrist. Baseball does not investigate as hard as they could, and when there is a wink wink nudge nudge attitude, it generally breeds more cheating. So its more that baseball condones cheating that is my problem. Texsox, (added for second post) I think that the HOF is a happy go lucky place. You wont find information about Ty Cobb being a racist, etc. So why is it about keeping a true record, when it only does it when it wants to? I mean its not like it has a list of cheaters who were inducted into the HOF. Now if it did, then Bonds would have no complaints.

House does in fact rule. Also ER this week had some on location in Chicago. Abby was at the Sheridan El stop to buy liquor, and then miraculously is at Franklin and some where around Ohio. Seems that they shot the scene for buying the liquor when they were at Wrigley, and then spliced it with a scene where she was at Franklin.

Northside, Why is that a surprise? That I am a human and understand human philosophy. I went to law school, Id say on any given exam 50%+ did some form of cheating. Whether it was writing something in a statute book that they shouldnt have, looking at some one elses exam to get an answer, etc, etc. People cheat in court every day, the lawyer next door comes over and post marks envelopes, other attorneys teach their clients how to come within a hair of perjury, in the end, you hold yourself to your own standards. Baseball is a game, its played for fun, at the end of the day thats all it is, entertainment. As to my argument, the law clearly disagrees. Just because you say "ignorance of the law" does not mean that has any relevance to the matter at hand. The statute clearly says knowingly, almost every crime in US law requires knowledge. Now here is where the argument "ignorance of the law is no excuse" works: I smoke Marijuana, I believe marijuana is legal, in fact marijuana is legal. I can not argue, I thought it was legal therefore I am innocent. Hence "ignorance of the law is no excuse" On the other hand, the argument: I took pill X given to me by my trainer. My trainer told me that the pill was flaxseed oil. Flaxseed oil is legal under US laws. Unknown to the defendant, pill X turned out to be PCP. The prosecutor would have to prove that when they took the drug they knew it was illegal. If I dose my boss with LSD, they cant convict him for taking LSD, he had no fault, no criminal mind, etc etc. Once again, Bonds may or may not have broken the laws of the US. The US prosecutors are not going after him, so I will defer to their expertise that Bonds did not knowingly take steroids. He broke the rules of baseball, like many other before him. The difference is as you stated, he broke a treasured record. Its not like they didnt try and asterisk Maris either. Jackie, I meant that Bonds violated no laws. Yes I know my wording as not clear, but I was going off of "knowingly" used, which is the standard. It wasnt really the crux of the point. It was more to compare: A) Simple possession violation. B) Revealing grand jury testimony. In my opinion B is worse than A, but thats just opinion.

I dont know why Barry does what he does. If I was Barry my answer would be: So what. I think its hilarious this holier than thou attitude, I feel that everyone cheats. Small ways, big ways, every way in between. Thats life. But I think Barry wants to believe that he broke the record with out cheating, and thats where the whole thing falls apart. People like Belichek, they are happy they cheated, they are glad with the results. Bonds wants to have his cake and eat it too.

No, as in he is being singled out as some one that needs to be branded. No one is going around trying to put asterisks on Gaylord's memorabilia like Ecko did to Bonds. And I assume if some one did that to another player, that player may not want to be in the HOF either.

And im fine with that. If every player who gets caught has all of their stuff asterisked, im fine. I can understand that. But why is 1 player being singled out? Shouldnt players like Gaylord have all of their stuff asterisked? Or is it because the HOF is a different entity that it just doesnt matter? I think its all stupid. A large portion of baseball players cheat, its a game, its not meant to be taken seriously. And the whole steroid thing is much deeper than just players, but no one is going to hold owners accountable.

Jackie, You are right, what the reporters did is technically legal. Even though it undermines the entire grand jury system, our society favors the rights of the press over the rights of the defendant. http://www.nytimes.com/2005/01/15/politics/15jackson.html My disgust for them does some times jade the reality of the law. Even though what they did is tantamount to a crime, since they are journalists, they are protected by the first amendment. So as long as they did not obtain the evidence illegally, they can do whatever they want. I disagree with this, because all of the evidence has to be obtained illegally, as it is illegal to talk about a grand jury proceeding while it's under seal, but its irrelevant, the law is the law, and they did not break it. You cited 21 usc 802, note for you to be guilty: Knowingly or intentionally (and then it states the exact exemption of if it was prescribed by a practitioner) So Bonds did not violate federal law, because he did not knowingly take an illegal substance. Knowledge is a requirement, you can read the grand jury transcript where he said he "didnt know". So yes I misspoke on the reporters. I feel what they did is no better than the person who leaked it, and it should be illegal, but as of this time it is not. I more meant that they aided in the publishing of illegally obtained transcripts, but that was not how i worded it.

Im saying that if you are going to use federal grand jury testimony to convict Bonds, then every baseball player needs to be brought before a federal grand jury, told that they do not have immunity, and if they fail to answer the question truthfully will be held in contempt. Every player that answers that they did use illegal drugs will be given the same treatment as Bonds. If thats how they do it, then Im fine with it. But as it is now, Bonds was never caught by MLB. Why is he held to a different standard? Fair is fair, and Bonds is being convicted by testimony unfairly obtained. I dont agree with cheating, I just dont believe that you can let every other player off and only holds Bonds accountable.

Well why couldnt bonds believe that he was doubling in size due to all the strength and weight programs? Why would he think rubbing a cream on his body would be doubling his size? And you are right, I thought that Anderson was a Dr/trainer (most trainers have PHD's but it does not seem Anderson does). I still think that you have to hold Bonds to the same standard as everyone else, and that is "knowingly". Did Bonds "knowingly" cheat. Not did he have a suspicion, not did he put the pieces together: But when he took the cream and the clear, did he know it was steroids. If he did, then he is on the same page as Gaylord Perry. He cheated, did it knowingly, and the question is; Why is Barry less accepted than Gaylord? My guess is personality. If Bonds was a happy go lucky guy, no one cares that he cheated. But Bonds is perceived as a dick, and no one wants a dick to succeed.

Jackie, Interesting you point out the leaker broke the law, not the journalists. Much like the Dr. broke the law illegally giving Bonds medication, versus Bonds broke the law unknowingly using the medication. Now lets say I go to the Dr., he proscribes me Amoxicillin, the drugs he gives me turn out to be PCP. Who is at fault, the Dr, or the patient? This is basic stuff, so I didnt think I needed to spell it out. Not one person has ever said Bonds knowingly took it, the Dr said the same thing as Bonds. Also, if you are going to say there is a law, cite it. I want the law, so I can research it, find the case law about it, and make sure that you are actually giving me good precedent. Lawyers are not expected to know every single law, they are expected provide the common courtesy of a cite. So if you have a law, find it, cite it, and let me see it. Texsox, Where have I said Bonds didnt do it? All I have asked is why can pitchers blatantly cheat, Gaylord Perry, but Bonds is held to some different standard? Bonds arguably didnt knowingly cheat, I can say with 100% certainty that Gaylord Perry knew he was throwing a spit ball. Yet Bonds is the bad guy. Source: Me and the Spitter (Gaylord Perry) So please if you are going to argue, at least keep it relevant. Ive never said that Bonds didnt do it, merely that: 1) Baseball has never caught him. And its pretty unfair to hold Grand jury testimony against him that was illegally obtained. Imagine if every baseball player had to talk about cheating under oath, and were told that none of this would ever be leaked, and that if you testify you are helping the fed, etc etc. Only to find out all of their testimony was leaked. How many of your heroes do you think have taken greenies, or roids, or other performance enhancers? Equal is equal, and baseball has a test for cheaters. Bonds never failed baseballs test. 2) Plenty of other baseball players have cheated as badly or worse than Bonds, and yet their records are not tarnished by public perception.

Leur looked really good, Badgers have considerable size this year. JP Gavinski does not look to be a player, tall and big doesnt always mean good at basketball. Hughes ran the point really well, Flowers is back.

Right, "Game of Shadows", the book that contains illegally obtained federal grand jury evidence. Those authors are such a beacon of following the law, that they, unlike Bonds, actually broke federal law. Those authors should be ashamed at what they have done to the judiciary process because they have made Bonds unconvictable. But yes, lets all give a loud cheer for the authors who blatantly violated the fact that grand jury testimony is supposed to be sealed and not released to the public. Lets all commemorate their blatant disregard for the law of the United States, because they wanted to make some money. Because its okay for them to break the law, screw the federal govt's ability to prosecute Bonds, just because they wanted to make a quick buck. But its not okay for Bonds to have allegedly used "the cream" and "the clear" because while those were against no federal law, its clear that we would rather completely destroy the judiciary process, than let some one like Bonds perhaps gain an edge in a game. Because the game of baseball's integerity is more important than the US court systems itegrity. Book of Shadows is a joke, and their authors should be in prison. And it really is a sad day for the American legal system, when more people consider it okay to violate one of the most important tenants of the criminal proceeding (grand jury evidence is sealed). And Im sure all of you criminal lawyers in this thread know that Grand Jury testimony is of course taken without any ability to cross examine a witness, and that is why it is not considered real evidence at a trial. But yes, we should convict Barry on grand jury evidence. Because once again, hearsay is admittable at the grand jury level because the whole point is for an indictment, not a conviction. All they are trying to prove is probable cause, not whether or not the person actually committed the crime. Not to mention barry had no 5th amendment rights during the grand jury trial, hence why he was forced to answer the questions. But who cares about the legal system, lets just destroy that, because maybe a guy used some cream on his body for a game. Lets all appluad the authors who violated our system, who destroyed a federal investigation, because they made money off of it. It wasnt about the truth, it wasnt about honor, it wasnt about fairness, it wasnt about anything but money. And for that the authors deserve a far worse fate, than a man who may have cheated in a game, that is full of cheaters.

So lets use our imaginations for a second. A-rod breaks the record, I catch the ball, I take the ball and write: "You can suck my balls Boras" They would show it? Because they just want memorabilia right? They wouldnt try and cover it up, or hide the tarnish, they would just put it out there for the world to see? Otherwise they are making a statement, and they should do whatever it takes to restore the ball to its natural condition before it was defiled.

Jenks, I understand that, but I thought they were across the street. From my first post: In the clinic/hospital case you are saying that they were inside. A comparable fact scenario would be protesters outside of a hospital, across the street. And that most likely would be constitutionally protected.

Hopefully he opens his own hall of fame that respects people's accomplishments on the field and doesnt get swayed by rumor and hearsay. Bonds has never been caught cheating, he has never been found guilty, and yet he is made an example of? What about all the pitchers in the HOF who threw spit balls, why are they not branded the same way? What about players who corked their bat and were caught on the playing field. Why is Bonds the example? Its a joke, and Bonds is right.

You could not set up speakers, they could stop you for noise violations etc. Govt has the right to control, time, place, and manner of the protest so long as it is content neutral. I dont know the facts, but my guess is that they stand outside the cemetery and yell. Not really sure once again how you can stop that. For example, at Clark and Sheridan there is a cemetery, Graceland or whatever. From the street, you could yell at people inside. Thats not against the law, its being a jerk. Now cemeteries could build walls, etc that could prevent this, but then again thats not free. My guess is that they tried intentional infliction of emotional distress and lost, because that is more inline with what happened. Ive yet to see how they had a privacy right when they were availing themselves to the public.

Well I read "jury verdict" http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/94-896.ZO.html And that was all that could come to my mind.

Its going to be really hard for an appeal court to uphold this decision. I dont know what happened, but 11mil in compensatory damages would be insane, so did they some how get punitive? With out the exact facts, it is really hard to comment, but I am some what perplexed by the decision. In public you have almost no right to privacy, so as long as these people were protesting in public, there is really nothing legally they may have done wrong. Sure it is sick behavior, but Im not sure what theory of law you could really say they broke. If your in public, how can your privacy be invaded? If the funeral service was in their home, and the protesters snuck in, then sure they have a great case. But if you are out in the open, its really hard. Its clear they were not on private property, because once your on private land you no longer can use the first amendment as a shield, because first amendment only prevents govt action, not private action. Therefore it had to be public land otherwise they would have just been thrown out and arrested when they did it. My guess is over turned at the appellate level.

Sounds good, I like Sefalosha, and am not really huge on Kirk. Just was wondering what the impact would be for this season.

I was going to ask the basketball experts, if we lose Hinrich and Gordon, who will play pg? Or is that not even a big of deal once we get Kobe

They have Brown (who I really like) and Landingham (most natural runner on the Badgers) but the problem is that Bielema never gave those guys meaningful touches for the first part of the season so now if PJ is hurt, they will go in with basically no experience. Lance Smith had the choice of missing the first 5 games, or missing all the away games, the Badgers coaching staff and Smith selected the away game option. Looking back now, it seems to be a horrible decision, but at the time I guess they didnt want 2 true freshman backing up Hill for the first 5 games. After the losses to Illiois and PSU, I really just lost a lot of faith in the team. Sure its great that they played well against NIU and Indiana, but where were those performances 3 weeks ago? Just to inconsistent to be a legitimate pick away from Camp Randall. Now I think theyll keep it closer than 15, but if they dont we may get to see Everidge get some meaningful playing time.

Well instead of just giving an opinion Ill give the law, and then give my interpretation. Since she works in Chicago, she is governed by Illinois law. 775 ILCS 5/2-101: (E) Sexual Harassment. "Sexual harassment" means any unwelcome sexual advances or requests for sexual favors or any conduct of a sexual nature when (1) submission to such conduct is made either explicitly or implicitly a term or condition of an individual's employment, (2) submission to or rejection of such conduct by an individual is used as the basis for employment decisions affecting such individual, or (3) such conduct has the purpose or effect of substantially interfering with an individual's work performance or creating an intimidating, hostile or offensive working environment. Because there are no unwelcome advances, request for sexual favors, or conduct of a sexual nature, your friend would have a very hard time winning a sexual harassment suit (and thats not even going into the 3 elements). Im trying to come up with another cause of action, but the problem is as of right now, there is no proof that the company is treating her any different due to the dress attire. Let me think about it more, I dont really think there is much as of yet. But facts change, if at work they start treating her different, etc, then perhaps there is more than meets the eye. But as of right now, I would not say that conduct alone would meet the requirements of sexual harassment. If it really bothers her enough she can consult an attorney who specializes in this area, most will give a free consultation, and if they think its a good enough case would take it on contingency. I could have done more research also, but I just grabbed the statute, so there may be some cases out there that give better guidance. But free is free right?

Want to give me 15 for the Badgers. And then if the Badgers lose by 15 give me free tix to so that I can hide my shame? lol

Rex, Lets look at a similar real world example. If you are convicted, you some times are given a second chance called parole. Part of your parole is that you have terms that you have to follow, such as checking in with your Parole officer on X day at X time, or taking a mandatory alcohol/ drug test, there also could be job restrictions etc. None of these rules apply to a regular citizen, but if you are parole, they apply to you. And Im pretty sure that if you blatantly violate your parole 18 times or so, the govt would not take the excuse: "Well every other citizen doesnt even have to follow those rules" Well no, the reason why you have those rules is because you broke other rules in the first place. Had you always followed the rules, then there would be no problem. But Sampson has violated the rules, and then was given a new set of rules so that he could still coach, he once again violated them. Even worse is in the real world we have respondeat superior, in which the master is liable for the torts of the servant. Sampson should be responsible for what the staff below him does, in the end he is the one that is accountable. If you let Sampson off the hook because it was one of his servants, than all it does is set the precedent for creating a fall guy. Every coach will hire an assistant to bend as many rules as possible, and then play dumb when the NCAA comes calling. Hope for Indiana that they have the cache to make the NCAA not really devastate Indiana, because I think that would be the only way to send a message to guys like Sampson. 0 calls is permissible, not 1, not 2, not 10, not 18, 0. And I dont buy the argument that if he really was breaking the rules he would have just done it blatantly and much more often. Thats not how criminals act, thats not how rule breakers act, they break the rules only when it is necessary, so those 18 or so calls were probably the most necessary times to do it. Not to mention, what number is exactly a number that isnt just a mistake? To me that number is 1, maybe I could give him 1 mistake. But 18? You might as well have 50 mistakes, 100 mistakes, because really whats in a number.