Soxbadger

http://www.cnn.com/2006/LAW/04/25/duke.suspect/ One of the defendants Finnerty is now also being tried for an unrelated assault charge, in which he attacked some one when they told Finnerty and his friends to stop calling him gay. Basically Finnerty is f***ed, part of his probation was that he could not be anywhere that alcohol was served so even if the stripper story turns out false, he will still go down for the assault charge. He even violated the curfew that was set for him, so this may be the leak in the damn that brings down the whole defense. If Finnerty is innocent in the stripper case, he has to flip at this point. The prosecutor will most likely be able to get him out of the assault case if he is willing to work with the authorities to convict the rapist. Otherwise Finnerty will go down for sure on the assault charge, and then will have a mountain to climb in the rape case. Because the assault will be a prior felony conviction within the last year, it will be allowed into the rape trial as impeaching evidence if Finnerty decides to take the stand. If the defense's grand idea was to attack the victims credibility, it will be much harder now that Finnerty's past is being revealed.

How is labeling a city racist, being a racist? It seems that you have a different definition of racist then I or a dictionary does. From dictionary.com Does his statement about Boston contain racial intolerance? No Does his statement about Boston contain a suggestion that one race is superior to another? No Does his statement about Boston contain discrimination based on race? No By saying "Boston" he clearly does not create a racial suggestion. Boston has people of many different races, although you could easily spin his statement to be directed at "white people", although every race can be "racist". Now you are trying to switch, saying that Bonds uses the "race card". That is quite a different argument than saying Bonds is a racist. The argument that Bonds is portraying a "martyr" does have some merit, and there are plenty of quotes where Bonds uses his own race to make his plight seem worse than others. But that is once again not racist. The leap you seem to be trying to make is that: A) Bonds feels he is the victim of racial discrimination B) Since Bonds says this in the press, he must be a racist. I can not find the logic in this argument. If Bonds is the target of racial discrimination in his mind, this once again makes him want to be a "martyr" not a "racist". He no where says Black people are better, he does not say white people are lesser. He does say hes getting the short end of the stick because of things outside of his control (race), classic martyr langauge. As to Thomas Jefferson, you can give him a pass but comparing him to Cobb is quite strange. Jefferson lived a century earlier than Cobb, and therefore he should be compared to the same people of his era. Almost all landed gentry at the time had slaves, which meant that unlike Cobb who was in the minority, Jefferson was in the majority. There is also evidence that Jefferson did not believe in the inequality of blacks, just he was a victim of the time he lived in. There is undisputed evidence that Cobb lived at a time when blacks were much more accepted in society, and he went out of his way to try and make their lifes miserable, and prevent them from playing baseball. As to the stars you listed, your right the media does like humble stars. They like when the All-Star does not talk back, or when they are humiliated like MJ and his "betting scandals" they take it on the chin and dont lash back. But is that how athletes should be judged? They are good guys if they let the media walk all over them, they are bad guys if they stand up for themselves? And we will never see a pitcher who bats or a batter who pitches again. There is a reason why the Yankees would not let Ruth pitch anymore, and it is because players are more valuable when they play a specialized role. Many of the best players in MLB were both great hitters and pitchers at some point in their career, but as they were developed the teams they played for made them focus on only one or the other. Especially as salaries are so high these days, there is no reason to risk a great offensive player pitching, or vice versa. The fact that the Yankees were not even willing to let Ruth pitch should suggest that the reason why we will never see a pitcher/hitter like that again is not because of talent, but because of team policy.

Article 1 quotes Bonds as saying Boston is racist. There is no quote nor information that says Bonds is a racist. Article 2 actually reaffirms my point, Bonds is quoted as saying "“But I’m not a racist,” Bonds says." Article 3 contains no evidence of Bonds being a racist, it does not have any quote by Bonds to even suggest he prefers any race. In fact the picture shows Bonds with a young white fan, which is proof once again Bonds is NOT a racist. So your quick google search proved my point. WHERE IS THE EVIDENCE OF BONDS RACISM? The reality is, Bonds being a racist is a media creation. They media has painted Bonds as a racist, therefore some people believe that he is. This is nothing more than Nazi propaganda 101, if you say something enough times, and the message is simple, the masses will believe it. You are willing to give Cobb a pass because he played in the early 20th century, and "racism was more acceptable". Well then should we give Goering, Hitler, and the rest of the Nazi crew a pass because "in the middle of the 20th century anti-semitism was not only accepted in Germany, but it was the social norm." The answer is no. Cobb is given some leniancy because he lived in a different time, but he still was far more racist than other people of his day, where the comparison should lie. As to the Ruth argument, once again Ruth was playing against much weaker competition. First, Ruth never played against a single minority. Black's were not allowed in MLB, there were no latin american players, there were only white people. This greatly diluted the talent level and made it so that the few great athletes were that much better. Was Ruth a better pitcher than Satchel Paige? Probably not. Was Ruth a better hitter than Josh Gibson? Maybe, but this just goes to show that since there were 2 leagues Ruth had the great benefit of never having to face many of the most talented players in the game. If you look at your own article that you gave me in which Bird says African American's are better athletes, and then look at Ruth having the fortune of never having to play in an integrated league, it is not very hard to understand why Ruth's numbers may be inflated. Ruth was the greatest player of his time, but if he had to play in the modern era he would not have been the greatest player. He would have been a good player, but his physical talents would be limited. Back on to the subject, can you please find me a quote of Bonds saying something racist, like "I hate white people" or "white people are inferior to blacks" or any of the other million variation of racist statements. So far the articles you presented me just claim Bonds is a racist with no proof. The job of the media is to sell stories, and more papers sell when your villian is "A racist" then when your villian is "a poor black guy who has gotten a bad rap from the media."

Can you please provide me some quotes of Bonds race baiting the media? Or outside of Ron Kittle, a quote where Bonds has actually made a racist statement? It seems to me that the basis for Bonds being a racist, is nothing more than hearsay and unsubstantiated facts. So far I have not heard one interview, nor heard one statement from Bonds himself that has said anything racist about white people. Jim Leyland, a white person, has nothing but praise for Bonds, and never has once said Bonds is a racist. Now if you want to give me some facts of Bonds being a racist, I will respond to why Bonds is race baiting. But so far I can not tell. As for the Ruth versus Bonds debate, if Bonds played in the early 20th century, he would have been the greatest player to ever live. If Ruth played in the late 20th century he would have been at best a very good player. It is almost impossible to compare different eras, and try and say this player is better than that player. Once again, there is a glaring lack of "proof" when it comes to Bonds. Unless you have some quotes that you just are not producing? Otherwise this seems to be merely gossip and hearsay, not very dependable sources of information.

Fla, ACT has more grammar, SAT has more vocab is one of the big differences. Now on to the suggestions. The first thing that you should do with any question is to cross out the answers that are not right. If you can get it down to 1 of 2 answers, statistics show that your odds are vastly increased. Also note that the ACT does not have the 1/8 point penalty for guessing that the SAT has, therefore taking a guess will not hurt you. Second, although this is some what unorthodox, is to skip a question you are having trouble with. At the start of the test try and break down how much time you have per question. I go through and answer all the ones I know first, making a notation on those that I am not sure about. I then go back through and slowly reduce the amount that I have skipped over. It will leave the questions that you are the least sure about till last, meaning that you will at worst be making a guess. This is important in timed tests, especially if you feel time will be a factor. If you do not get to the final 5 questions and have to just guess on them, you may be missing a question you could of easily answered. If you have gone through every question, then you will have a better chance. Remember, you can take the ACT as many times as you want with there being no penalty. So just relax and do your best.

Steff, Its because the people who say Bonds is a racist are most likely racist themselves. Its called projection, they dont want to see Bonds pass Ruth, so they say they dont want to see it because "Bonds is a racist." Well damn, how come no one is saying Ty Cobb was the worst thing in baseball? He actually was a racist, refused to play in any game in which a black person was a part of, and went into the stands on occassion to start a fight. Yet this man is a hall of famer because he was a white racist (which is good in many peoples eyes). Now when a black person aka Bonds gets the short end of the stick because he is black and remarks on it, he is a racist. Bonds should just get on his knees and give the white man a blow job for even letting him step on the field in the white man's game of baseball. The truth is, the media has been far worse to Bonds, than Bonds has been to any one else. All you have to do is look at the kid gloves Big Mac is treated with, the way Giambi gets a free pass, and so on and so forth. Its not because Bonds is a racist or mean or anything else, its quite simply the same reason Aaron got death threats. Both happen to be of a different color.

Did not say he wouldnt make them better. I did say he would not have made a difference. To me keeping games close is not a "difference". A difference would be if he made the Illini bowl contenders, which he would not have.

Kiper has more access to information than most people. Other than that he is about as good or bad as anyone else who follows football on a consistent basis.

Cutler benefited greatly from the SEC having a down year, especially in the defense department. Also he never put up more than 300 yards in a game where the other team did not score over 20 points. That generally means that he got to throw 80%-90% of the time. If you compare his 2004 when he only threw for 2k yards, he actually had a better QB rating. In my opinion, Cutler would of been roughed up bad in the Big 10, where they are not going to let the game turn into a track meet.

Cutler would not have made any difference on the Illini. And I find it very hard to believe that Rex Grossman would go to Illini over Florida, especially since Grossman is from Indiana, where both his father and grandfather played. If he was going to go to a terrible program he might as well of gone to Indiana.

JP Losman fits well on that list too. Being a QB is not always about whether you can throw a football through the goal posts from the 50 yard line on your knees.

When I hear Jay Cutler, I think Kyle Boller. Some team will take a real risk with him if hes top 10.

In the business this is called bias and interest. When your entire case boils down to having people that are "pissed", bad mouth some one, its not a good one. Remember, in a grand jury there is no 6th amendment right to cross-examination. The US judiciary has interpreted the 6th to only apply to petit jury and therefore the governments evidence goes unrebutted. Just wait till those "pissed witnesses" get crossed. And for Palmeiro why would the feds need evidence that he was using steriods while he testified? For a charge of perjury you need (im cutting out the unimportant parts to make it easier) this is 18 USC 1623 if you would like to look it up yourself and make sure im not lieing. Id suggest 18 USCA 1623, because that will also have the annotations. Section 1623. False declarations before grand jury or court (a) ... knowingly makes any false material declaration or makes or uses any other information, including any book, paper, document, record, recording, or other material, knowing the same to contain any false material declaration, shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both. ... © An indictment or information for violation of this section alleging that, in any proceedings before or ancillary to any court or grand jury of the United States, the defendant under oath has knowingly made two or more declarations, which are inconsistent to the degree that one of them is necessarily false, need not specify which declaration is false if - (1) each declaration was material to the point in question, and (2) each declaration was made within the period of the statute of limitations for the offense charged under this section. In any prosecution under this section, the falsity of a declaration set forth in the indictment or information shall be established sufficient for conviction by proof that the defendant while under oath made irreconcilably contradictory declarations material to the point in question in any proceeding before or ancillary to any court or grand jury. It shall be a defense to an indictment or information made pursuant to the first sentence of this subsection that the defendant at the time he made each declaration believed the declaration was true. I believe Palmeiro said something to the effect that he had "never used steriods." Which is a much easier statement to prove false, then the ones that they are going to have with Bonds. I have not seen the Grand Jury testimony, but my guess is that Bonds said he did not know it was steriods, not that he never did them. That is going to be hard to prove, because they are going to have to prove Bond's knowledge. Its very hard because its always a mater of credibility.

Was Barry ever convicted for spousal abuse? What ever happened to innocent until proven guilty? Or is that only for non-stars? WCS, I dont have a hard on. I just want Barry to be treated like every other player in a similar circumstance. Why is the fed not going after Palmeiro? He perjured? Why is baseball not going after Mac, he used steroids? Hypocrisy needs to be beaten down, no matter who it forces you to defend.

I believe the Sox moved back their time because of the Dan Ryan construction. Otherwise driving to the Cell would be a nightmare since its basically down to 50% capacity around there.

Palehose, I know you know alot about recruiting, but as an Illinoisian I have to say, if you are a good player and go to Illinois you are stupid. Im sorry but I hate Notre Dame, and if I had the choice between Illinois and ND, youd see me playing at South Bend. Not only does Illinois not have a great football program, it does not even have a great field, nor does it have the prestige of any of those other programs. I guess there is the fact his "Friend" is going there, but outside of that there is just no reason to go to Illinois when other top programs want you.

Yes. Im not even a Bonds fan, I have never even followed his career. But when its so apparent Bonds is a scape goat, I start to feel that it is necessary to stand up and say "This is wrong." On one hand you have Bonds being "banned for life" and hes never even been caught, on the other hand you have players who were actually caught cheating in a game, some times multiple times, who recieved nothing but a slap on the wrist. Its a joke.

I lost my first post cause of an IE error so this one probably will be not as good. Ah well such is life. 1) How does Bonds deserve to be banned for life? If you compare his alleged crime of using steriods to other players such as, using a corked bat, using a file on a baseball, etc who received a 1 week to 2 week suspension how can you justify Bonds being banned for life? There is no way that the crime fits the time. Especially since during Bonds allged use, there is absolutely no test that proves he actually did steriods. There is no bat that broke open with cork, there is no vaseline on the top of his cap, there is nothing but smoke. To ban Bonds for this will be unjustifiable in comparison to other similar acts and their respective punishments. Even now Bonds would have needed to be caught 3 times before he was banned, Bonds to this day has been caught 0 times. Im pretty sure that the MLBPA agreement has some sort of clause that makes it impossible to suspend a player with out giving him hearing. Meaning that if they even attempt to suspend Bonds for a week, they will need to have a hearing. At that point it will become very interesting how they will try and punish some one for actions that took place years ago. While there is no statute of limitations in baseball, it seems blatantly unfair to punish some one for something they never were actually caught doing. Will Giambi be suspended for life? Palmeiro? Big Mac? Sosa? These are all players who almost have the exact same rap sheet. Palmeiro was actually caught and still there was no talk of life time ban. It seems extremely excessive and undefendable that Bonds who was never caught can be banned for life, yet other players who were caught cheating in a game receive a slap on the wrist. Almost seems better if Bonds had been caught, because all he would have gotten was at most a 1 week suspension. Yet now because he was never caught, he deserves a life time ban? 2) What about Gaylord Perry? What about Sammy, Big Mac? Or perhaps a Sox player Belle who was one of the best hitters at the time caught corking his bat? All of these players get a free pass, but yet Bonds is banned for life? Once again the double standard is astounding, I could find other hall of fame players or potential hall players who were caught cheating or did something wrong, who got a few game suspensions and then it was over. Yet Bonds, never once caught, should be banned for life? 3) Its not a question of whether he will be acquitted, it is a fact. He will not be convicted, and you can quote me on that. The govt can not charge him with any other crime, he was given IMMUNITY for the use of the clear and the cream. That means that even if they can prove he did the steriods, they can never convict for that. They can only convict for perjury, one of the hardest convictions to get. Most prosecutors do not even charge for perjury unless they evidence that absolutely is undeniable. This case is going to be he said she said. The govt will not get very many witnesses to testify in the real trial. A grand jury is much different. Why? 1) A grand jury can use evidence that would not be allowed in a trial. If you do not believe me you can look up whether hearsay evidence is allowed in a grand jury, because outside of limited exceptions it is not allowed in petit jury (fancy name for regular 12 person jury). 2) In a grand jury there is no cross-examination. Cross is one of, if not the most important part of a trial and that is why it is gauranteed by the constitution. When a grand jury hears testimony, it is unrebutted. They do not hear all of the damaging testimony, in fact there is case law that suggests a DA need not bring in exculpatory evidence to a grand jury. This is a far cry from a real case in which the DA has a duty to hand over all evidence to the defense, and where all of the DA's witnesses are going to be crossed. This is why you will not see a Sheff, etc on the witness stand. When they get up there, they will be at the mercy of the defense lawyer, and if it is about credibility they will dig up everything to discredit the witnesses. Second, I said "Break Ruth's Record", which is what Ruth's HR total is. Its his own personal record, I never said MLB record, I said that he would come behind Hank. So Bonds will end up 2nd on the list behind Hank but in front of Ruth. And a quick side note, when Ruth was hitting all those home runs there were many people that claimed he was actually "african american". So in the end, Bonds will never be convicted, and I doubt baseball will impose any sort of retroactive penalty. It would seem some what insane to retroactively penalize bonds, but give every other player a free pass and not subject them to any scrutiny. In the end, whatever happens to Bonds will have to happen to atleast a handful of other players. If Bonds is gone for life, so will big Mac, etc. That is why it wont happen, baseball does not want to give itself a black eye. Just look at Palmeiro, he perjured to Congress and in the end there was just nothing to do. They even caught Palmeiro taking steriods after he told Congress he had "never done them". But perjury is so impossible, and Palmeiro had Angelos with his power house law firm in the back pocket. They are just trying to make Barry's life miserable, that is what the govt does when they feel you dicked them. This is nothing more than revenge for Bonds not giving them the testimony they wanted at the first grand jury. You can bet your life that had Bonds perjured in such a fashion that got better convictions for BALCO, Bonds would be a hero in the govt's eyes. But hey when the GOVT witness perjurs, thats just prepping a witness.

I didnt see this one, but last year over the summer I did see what appeared to be a dead person floating in the river by Merc/ Lyric Opera (on the Merc side of the river). Ive contemplated what would happen many times as I walk over those bridges every day, and I do not think that the fall would be terrible unless you hit one of the edges. The river though probably has currents etc, which could make some areas have under tows and be dangerous. Also random garabage and s***.

Only reason Rose even was caught was that he was racking up huge debt to bookies and never paying them. It just gets sickening that people are willing to throw Bonds under a bus for at the absolute worst, cheating in a game. There are so many pro-Athletes who have actually committed real crimes, spousal abuse, DUI, murder, yet here people come painting Bonds as the worst thing ever. Ill just be happy when Bonds is acquitted and breaks Ruth's record. The Babe was great, but in terms of history he represents a dark time in America when racism prevented many talented players from ever having a chance at the big leagues. Thats nothing against the Babe, but part of me will always feel better knowing that those tainted records will eventually be wiped off the books. Because in my opinion, the taint of racism is far worse than the taint of steriods.

Rose bet on games when he was the manager of the Reds. Now read my statements concerning Rose again and think of a manager who is betting on his own team. There is some evidence that Rose even bet against the Reds while he was the manager.

Bulls***. What Rose did is far worse than what Bonds did. The worst a person can argue Bonds did was go beyond the black letter rules of baseball to try and improve his performance. Rose bet on baseball games that he actually had an impact on. Regardless of whether he bet on his own team to win or lose, it still cast a shadow over every single game that was played. If Rose was not betting the Reds "Did he know something?". If Rose was betting on the Reds "Did it mean he was going to make sure his best players were used no matter what?" Where is the Big Mac article Jay? Where is the Slammin Sammy article for the f***ing cork? Or we can all play the innuendo game of Sammy getting "big". Bonds will take down Ruth, and then bow to Hank. He has walked 15 times in 11 games yet pitchers arent afraid of him anymore? Why dont you actually do some research Jay, a f***ing OBP of over .500 with a batting average of .211 is insane. In fact Bonds has the highest OBP of the Giants, and would be top 5 in the entire NL. Ah well what more do you expect from the most knowledgeable man in sports.

I have no problem being patient with a rookie for the first half of the season. But come All-Star time, if he is still struggling and the White Sox are contending, they may need to seek a stop-gap solution. Anderson wont make or break the team, but if hes not pulling his weight on offense it will make the margin of error much smaller for the Sox to keep on winning. Everyone has slumped for a month, etc, just have to keep it in perspective.

Zoom, If you would like feel free to PM me on either board and Ill give you some advice. In my opinion there are 2 different schools of thought on Major League talent star ratings. Some people subscribe to starss, some people subscribe to ratings. I am in the latter, so if the 2.5 star pitcher has better ratings than the 3.0 pitcher I like the 2.5 pitcher better. Stars is more dependent on actual performance from what I can tell. To everyone else, If anyone is interested in helping a team out Im getting really busy and do not have the time to put into my team that I used to. So I would be looking for some one to help me get deals done etc. My team is Oakland.

I just think saying this is all for an election is a very big simplification of whats going on. Just looking at the evidence, it would be almost impossible for the DA not to bring charges. 1) They have a victim. 2) They have an identification. If that was all the evidence they had, at trial the DA probably has a 50% shot at conviction, depending on what goes on. Which ever side had the more compelling witness, is going to be the side that wins. I doubt that the defense attorneys are going to put their clients on the stand, maybe its really hard to tell without the depositions or without personal knowledge. At that point you have the defense calling experts to testify about DNA, and you have the prosecution with a live breathing witness. Most jurors are going to find the impact of the girls testimony to be more compelling. If they believe the girl, conviction. If they think shes lieing, acquittal. Now there is still evidence outstanding. They are going to run more DNA tests, if you get a DNA match, you are almost at 75% conviction. This is because at that point the defense starts to have to "rationalize how the DNA got there." Now the defense has a much more difficult time, if you are not willing to call your client (the defendant) then you have unrebutted testimony that: A) This is the guy who did it. B ) The guys DNA is on her. At that point the only defense really becomes consent, or trying to make up a theory that most jurors wont buy. Looking at this case, I would say that there would have been a much bigger problem if with this evidence the DA did not bring charges. There are more cases that convictions occur because of eye witness testimony than because of DNA evidence. Many murder cases have nothing more than: "I saw this guy shoot X." No gun, no prints, nothing but an eye witness. Hence why the DA has to go forward. But it is very cool to play the race card. I mean if a white girl was the one claiming rape, Im sorry but the charges would have been brought quicker, and the bail would probably have been set higher. (Edit) One last thing, in my opinion the biggest thing about this case is that white people do not want to believe that rich white Duke students would want to rape a poor black stripper. Hell if this was black student athletes and a white stripper, the public would have them guilty before the trial even started.