Steff Posted March 2, 2004 Share Posted March 2, 2004 yes you can actually punish someone for doing something without knowing. There have been instances where guys have been arrested for having sex with underaged girls, even though they had an ID that said they were 21 and they were dancing in a club that does not allow people under 21 inside. They did not know that a girl was under 18 or 17, but that does not get them off the hook. They still did the dirty deed. Just because you don't knowingly do something does not get you off the hook for doing it. It may look better to everyone else around you, but it doesn't get you off the hook. You do the crime you do the time. What a stupid analogy. If a guy ADMITS he slept with a girl and it turns out she was underage then yes he's in trouble.. but if they BOTH deny it and there's no PROOF that they had sex.. then no one is in trouble. PROOF being the key word there. There is NO PROOF that these guys took anything. They did NOT test positive that we know of. Can't get in trouble if there's NO PROOF. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsideirish Posted March 2, 2004 Share Posted March 2, 2004 The point is, in case you missed it, is that you can punish someone for not knowing. Just because they did something unknowingly does not make the whole situation ok. That was the point of the analogy. Never stated that there was proof or not. Sorry you missed that point. I will try to clarify better in the future. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted March 2, 2004 Author Share Posted March 2, 2004 Steff, perception can sometimes be worse than reality. In many people's minds, Bonds will be associated with steroids, fairly or not. Will there be any official repurcussions, no? Will that still be part of the discussion when talking about Barry Bonds 20 years from now? I believe it will. Agree there. Water cooler conversation will be laced with this till the end of time. I'm talking about marking their records. That will never happen. Sorry if I wasn't clear. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted March 2, 2004 Author Share Posted March 2, 2004 The point is, in case you missed it, is that you can punish someone for not knowing. Just because they did something unknowingly does not make the whole situation ok. That was the point of the analogy. Never stated that there was proof or not. Sorry you missed that point. I will try to clarify better in the future. And the point you missed is that you can NOT convict someone without PROOF. Who said they knew..? Who said they did anything wrong..? They sure didn't. They're saying they did NOTHING.. and at this point - that we know of - that's fact. How can you punish someone for something when they DENY they did anything wrong and there is no PROOF..? You can't. I didn't miss anything. You analogy - which is interestingly absent from this thread - is flawed. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsideirish Posted March 2, 2004 Share Posted March 2, 2004 That analogy was never used to prove that point. That analogy was only used to prove that you can punish someone for doing something unknowingly. I believe my original post was directed at Rex for stating how can you punish someone for dong something unknowingly. That is all. Again, I will try my best to be clearer in the future about the point I am trying to make. I am sorry that you missed it. It is not absent from the thread, since you quoted it it is still there. I accidentally clicked on delete instead of edit, however for you I will put it back up. Have fun with this post! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsideirish Posted March 2, 2004 Share Posted March 2, 2004 Steff, I think you hit the nail on the head..... Here is the problem with this whole thing..... I can understand the players argument here. Whether it is truthful or not, who knows, but I don't see a way to prove it. The players are saying in so many words that they never knowingly took anything that was illegal. Considering that the substance in question wasn't known to exist. It couldn't have been illegal if no one knew it existed. Of course, it has since been discovered and found to be an illegal steroid, but can you go back and punish someone for taking something that they may or may not have known exactly what it was? They could have been told it was a new supplement and not given the details. If I am Barry Bonds and I am a long time friend of my trainer and he comes to me and says hey, I have this new supplement I want you to try, I'd trust him and do it. New supplement products become available daily. It would be like him asking me to change from Myoplex to MetRx. I trust him and wouldn't consider questioning him until all of this recently came out. Granted, Bonds and MLB players have the ultimate responsibility to know what is going into their bodies and they cannot be completely excused here. But I think you would have a hard time punishing them in this case. Baseball will have a tough road with this one. I do think the players legacy will be tainted somewhat. The bottom line is the players can be considered shady or stupid. Neither makes them look very good. yes you can actually punish someone for doing something without knowing. There have been instances where guys have been arrested for having sex with underaged girls, even though they had an ID that said they were 21 and they were dancing in a club that does not allow people under 21 inside. They did not know that a girl was under 18 or 17, but that does not get them off the hook. They still did the dirty deed. Just because you don't knowingly do something does not get you off the hook for doing it. It may look better to everyone else around you, but it doesn't get you off the hook. You do the crime you do the time. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted March 2, 2004 Author Share Posted March 2, 2004 That analogy was never used to prove that point. That analogy was only used to prove that you can punish someone for soing something unknowingly. I believe my original post was directed at Rex for stating how can you punish someone for dong something unknowingly. That is all. Again, I will try my best to be clearer in the future about the point I am trying to make. I am sorry that you missed it. It is not absent from the thread. Since you quoted it it is still there. Have fun with this post! Yes.. your attempt was to prove that someone can be punished for doing something unknowingly.. and if it was not to prove to Rex (since you were responding to him in regards to them being unaware of what they might have been putting in their body was something illegal...) regarding this issue.. they why did you post it at all? Were you not equating to ball players getting into trouble even if they didn't know..? Are you not posting in the 'roid thread? Are you saying that you just all of a sudden had a thought about a guy getting busted for unknowingly having sexual contact with a minor..... and decided to post it.... ironically in response to a comment made by Rex DIRECTLY related to this issue..? :headshake Good grief SSI.. the analogy was flawed. No more, no less. Yes.. thankfully I quoted it. Why did you delete it..?? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted March 2, 2004 Author Share Posted March 2, 2004 And poof... it returns. Why did you remove it in the first place..? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkokieSox Posted March 2, 2004 Share Posted March 2, 2004 And the point you missed is that you can NOT convict someone without PROOF. Who said they knew..? Who said they did anything wrong..? They sure didn't. They're saying they did NOTHING.. and at this point - that we know of - that's fact. How can you punish someone for something when they DENY they did anything wrong and there is no PROOF..? You can't. I didn't miss anything. You analogy - which is interestingly absent from this thread - is flawed. The MLB is not the court of law. You do not need proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Even though the evidence against Rose was indeed substantial, he was never tried. He was simply eliminated from baseball in all capacities. I don't believe they will take back the records or anything, but this issue isn't going to die. Now there may not be evidence of him injecting himself with steroids, but there is evidence that he was sent it, provided by witnesses. Now he can deny it, and in the court of law, he would be able to get away with it. However, baseball works differently, and as such, steroids will be observed with much more scrutiny. Whatever has happened is most likely in the past and will probably not be affected in any official capacity. With all that said though, Bonds is a juice head. You see that guy's traps. You can't transform your traps in that manner naturally. It's certainly debatable, I just would never be convinced that he hasn't used steroids, and multiple cycles at that, over the years. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsideirish Posted March 2, 2004 Share Posted March 2, 2004 I think I just posted why I deleted it. Accidents happen. This seems to be going way over your head. I did indeed post to Rex. where did I ever say I didn't? Rex states: "The players are saying in so many words that they never knowingly took anything that was illegal." But I think you would have a hard time punishing them in this case. There you go. For the last time, that is what the analogy was for. Go to it!!!! This should be fun. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted March 2, 2004 Author Share Posted March 2, 2004 Even though the evidence against Rose was indeed substantial, he was never tried. He was simply eliminated from baseball in all capacities. Oh lookie who joined the party... Rose signed an agreement to be VOLUNTARILY barred from baseball. Another flawed analogy. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted March 2, 2004 Author Share Posted March 2, 2004 I think I just posted why I deleted it. Accidents happen. I was replying when you were editing so I did not see your explination.. but right on cue with the smart ass reply. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsideirish Posted March 2, 2004 Share Posted March 2, 2004 Another? Wow, the I guess only one person can make judgements around here to what is flawed and what isn't. Bow down to the queenie!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted March 2, 2004 Author Share Posted March 2, 2004 Rex clearly states... "in THIS case" You are absolutely correct.. this is over someone's head. Thanks for the quote. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SkokieSox Posted March 2, 2004 Share Posted March 2, 2004 Oh lookie who joined the party... Rose signed an agreement to be VOLUNTARILY barred from baseball. Another flawed analogy. Rose would have been banned regardless. Besides, baseball changed Maris's record because of a technicality, and would be able to do so again if they deemed necessary. Again, the MLB is not the court of law. They have to act within a certain set of guidelines, but it is not the same by any means. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsideirish Posted March 2, 2004 Share Posted March 2, 2004 In this case or any case you can be punished for unknowingly doing something. In this case, I believe, is refering to because they did so unknowingly. Over and out. ZOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMMM I know your feeling the breeze going over you now!!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted March 2, 2004 Author Share Posted March 2, 2004 Another? Wow, the I guess only one person can make judgements around here to what is flawed and what isn't. Bow down to the queenie!!!! Judgement... nope. Just my opinion. And your bulls*** queenie s*** is getting annoying. Everytime your pee pee gets slaped you whip out the green and hide your confrontational s*** with a smirk.. but you fool no one. You can dish it.. but you can't take it. C'mon SSI.. I'm trying to debate with you on a legit subject... no fun unless you can cry about me being mean to you...? :headshake Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted March 2, 2004 Author Share Posted March 2, 2004 Rose would have been banned regardless. Besides, baseball changed Maris's record because of a technicality, and would be able to do so again if they deemed necessary. Again, the MLB is not the court of law. They have to act within a certain set of guidelines, but it is not the same by any means. You're absoultely right. However that's not the argument - at least I don't see that as being the argument. CrimsonWeltall made a comment about Bonds records now being questioned, tainted, etc.. I took the liberty of commenting further. Without proof no one will ever be punished for taking anything. That's the bottom line. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsideirish Posted March 2, 2004 Share Posted March 2, 2004 Wow a legit subject on how my analogy was flawed? But then you have no concept of what the analgy is being used for? Then when it is shown to you what it was used for you can admit your mistake, you just keep going round and round spweing out nonsesnse? OK, if that is a legi subject and a legit argument fine by me. Have fun with it all you want. My pee pee is here waiting to be slapped. Go on miss queenie get on your high horse once more and tell everyone how flawed these opinions are. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted March 2, 2004 Author Share Posted March 2, 2004 In this case or any case you can be punished for unknowingly doing something. In this case, I believe, is refering to because they did so unknowingly. Over and out. ZOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOMMM I know your feeling the breeze going over you now!!!! Please.. please.. PLEASE tell me how IN THIS CASE anyone will be punished for anything without PROOF. Who did what unknowlingly? I know it must be hard.. but can you at least try to act like an adult when posting..? :headshake Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsideirish Posted March 2, 2004 Share Posted March 2, 2004 Where did I state that you can punish someone without proof? Was that my argument? I don't believe it was. If that is found anywhere please let me know because then this would be flawed. MY point was you can get punished for doing something unknowingly. That is all. That was all the point was. Not about proof. The analogy was not made for that, so if you are looking into too much then maybe you are looking for way too much. Hopefully this will get through to you as I have posted this about a million times to you already. You mean acting like you while posting? That doesn't seem to be too hard miss queenie. My pee pee slapped? That is very adult like! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted March 2, 2004 Author Share Posted March 2, 2004 Wow a legit subject on how my analogy was flawed? But then you have no concept of what the analgy is being used for? Then when it is shown to you what it was used for you can admit your mistake, you just keep going round and round spweing out nonsesnse? OK, if that is a legi subject and a legit argument fine by me. Have fun with it all you want. My pee pee is here waiting to be slapped. Go on miss queenie get on your high horse once more and tell everyone how flawed these opinions are. Where is my mistake SSI..? Please point it out to me..? By all means.. if I misunderstood and you were NOT attempting to correlate getting in trouble for having unknowing sex with a minor (with proof I assume...? ) with getting into trouble for using an illegal substance with NO PROOF... then I'll be sure to apologize. And stop trying to drag everyone into your pity party. I'm sure they don't appreciate it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Steff Posted March 2, 2004 Author Share Posted March 2, 2004 Where did I state that you can punish someone without proof? Was that my argument? I don't believe it was. If that is found anywhere please let me know because then this would be flawed. MY point was you can get punished for doing something unknowingly. That is all. That was all the point was. Not about proof. The analogy was not made for that, so if you are looking into too much then maybe you are looking for way too much. Hopefully this will get through to you as I have posted this about a million times to you already. You didn't.... that's my point. You come storming in posting something that has NOTHING to do with this topic... The analogy YOU posted REQUIRES PROOF. There is NO PROOF in this matter. Gezzus friggin criminey... :headshake Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsideirish Posted March 2, 2004 Share Posted March 2, 2004 Correlate what? My analogy is simlpy stating that you can be punished for doing something unknowingly. That is all. Pity party? Dragging people in? What are you talking about miss queenie? WOW! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
southsideirish Posted March 2, 2004 Share Posted March 2, 2004 My analogy does not require proof becuase I am not talking about proof. Storming in? I thought I came into this thread the same way everyone has. Wow, storming? At least I announce my presence with authority!!! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts