Mitchell Report Thread

[Soxbadger]

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.

 

Edited December 14, 2007 by Soxbadger

[Balta1701]

So are you committing to believe anyone who files a lawsuit?

I'm committing to give a fair evaluation to any statements they give or evidence they bring forth. I will say this, I will believe a denial under oath vastly more than I will believe a denial to the press. But it all depends on the quality of the denial. If you have say, Clemens, under oath, and he is asked repeatedly about the statements or documents presented in the Mitchell Report, and all he says is "they never happened", that's not doing that much, and could possibly wind up with some nice perjury charges against him. If he made an attempt to make a case, under oath, that's something I'd be more than willing to evaluate.

[Balta1701]

If you sue just to sue your going to get burned.

My point is...I don't care if they lose. Yes, the standard of proof is high. But at least you're facing your accuser. If you're not willing to do that, if you're not willing to face a loss, why should I believe you?

[iamshack]

How are checks written for a few thousand dollars not proof?

 

So because their supplier was busted but others were not they should be freed.

 

When I was referring to proof about accusations, I was not referring to the Mitchell Report information. I was referring to Balta stating that if Tejada or another player is upset that someone is claiming they are using steroids, and that the vitamin B-12 injections (or something similar) are really steroids, that those accusations do not provide any proof of anything. If some of these players sued everyone everytime someone decided to speculate that the player was using performance-enhancing illegal substance, or some other illegal or unethical activity, these players would be constantly dealing with legal issues and spending substantial sums of money to pay for legal services. I'm just not sure it's even worth trying to combat the speculation, because there are so many sources and so many instances.

 

As to your second question, read what I posted earlier a little more thoroughly. I'm not saying that the players named should face no consequences whatsoever, I just think that it's irresponsible by MLB as well as those who authored the Mitchell Report to release this Report publicly without premising it more accurately. The media was commenting all afternoon and evening yesterday as if the Mitchell Report was some sort of authoritative document on who is using performance-enhancing drugs in MLB, when in fact, that couldn't be farther from the truth. What the Mitchell Report is is a report on the contacts and customers of two men who were discovered in the Federal Government's Balco investigations.

 

I just think the way the report was released, the way the press conferences were scheduled, the way the media was expected to comment on it without being allowed to see it previously, the lack of an explanation previously as to what this document really was....it really is unfair, irresponsible, and basically, a profiling of players who did business with Radomski and McNamee instead of the several other distributers who have yet to be fingered by any other government investigation.

[jackie hayes]

All of the players could have responded to the investigators and said, "I did not say that" or "that did not happen". This report is not some author making things up. Everybody had the opportunity to defend themself and choose not to.

 

What is the deal with Clemens trainer? Has he been busted for something I had never heard his name before.

 

In the slander and libel case the person making the accusations has to prove his position. If McGwire sues Canseco, Canseco has to prove McGwire did steroids. Sure much if it can be hersay but if Canseco does prove his case what happens.......McGwire is proven in court to be a user.

 

The question I have never seen asked of Bonds, "If you were unknowingly given steroids, why did you not sue the party that gave them to you and ruined your reputation?" same thing with Sheffield.

The fact that individual players did not cooperate is neither here nor there. The evidence against many of them is still incredibly weak.

 

McNamee is under investigation in the Radomski bust.

 

Just because the statement is presumed false doesn't mean it is easy to show malice, which is also necessary.

[NorthSideSox72]

The MLB as an organization, and even more importantly the players, have been flouting the rules and the law for quite a while now. And the MLBPA has done everything in their power to keep the roiders roiding.

 

I have little sympathy for them when a report like this comes out that may smear them a bit. Especially when most of them refused the opportunity to be part of the process.

 

[iamshack]

Which one are you referring to here?

 

I was referring to both of them. One being Kirk Radomski- he was the one who supplied the cancelled checks, and the other was this McNamee character who trained Clemens and Petitte. He did not provide any physical proof of the allegations he was making. Rather, just his own word- his own word after he had been charged with a felony. He then offered up what he did in exchange for the charges being dropped.

[Soxbadger]

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.

 

 

[jackie hayes]

I'm committing to give a fair evaluation to any statements they give or evidence they bring forth. I will say this, I will believe a denial under oath vastly more than I will believe a denial to the press. But it all depends on the quality of the denial. If you have say, Clemens, under oath, and he is asked repeatedly about the statements or documents presented in the Mitchell Report, and all he says is "they never happened", that's not doing that much, and could possibly wind up with some nice perjury charges against him. If he made an attempt to make a case, under oath, that's something I'd be more than willing to evaluate.

What if a player files a suit, but because there's absolutely no hard evidence either way, it never gets considered? Would you believe the player then?

 

Saying players should sue, sue, sue, no matter how flimsy the case, just to prove themselves to you -- sorry, but that's goddam ridiculous.

[iamshack]

The reason they refused to be part of the process, or to cooperate with Mitchell's investigation, is because there was a "code of silence" amongst the players.

 

And seriously, what would any of them have to gain by doing so? The only thing they could do is deny the allegations.

 

But honestly, I don't think much of the evidence in the Report was inaccurate. I think some of it should have been excluded, such as the evidence regarding Brian Roberts and Jack Cust. And McNamee really didn't provide any proof...just anecdotes about his contacts with Clemens and Petitte. But most of the clients of Radomski, well, it's pretty clear what was going on, and I don't really dispute that.

 

But the point is that this Report was built up as some sort of authoritative and all-encompassing document, and it simply isn't even close to such. And the implications made, the opinions formed and gathered, etc, are so far from accurate right now and that is the fault of MLB and those who authored and released the Report.

[Vance Law]

I was referring to both of them. One being Kirk Radomski- he was the one who supplied the cancelled checks, and the other was this McNamee character who trained Clemens and Petitte. He did not provide any physical proof of the allegations he was making. Rather, just his own word- his own word after he had been charged with a felony. He then offered up what he did in exchange for the charges being dropped.

 

Ok, but when you say "hearsay," I think that applies to Bigbie saying, "Cust told me he did steroids." I don't think that applies to "I personally shot Clemens' ass full of steroids on multiple occasions."

 

I'm just looking forward to the trial, where McNamee is able to describe Clemens' ass in detail from memory and it matches the photographs.

Edited December 14, 2007 by Vance Law

[iamshack]

Ok, but when you say "hearsay," I think that applies to Bigbie saying, "Cust told me he did steroids." I don't think that applies to "I personally shot Clemens' ass full of steroids on multiple occasions."

 

I'm just looking forward to the trial, where McNamee is able to describe Clemens' ass in detail from memory and it matches the photographs.

 

Well, it is hearsay in the sense that the report is authored by Mitchell and his team, and they are saying "this guy said he shot Clemens in the ass with steroids." It's not a report authored by McNamee claming he did this. Therefore, it's hearsay because Mitchell is essentially stating "this guy said this." Mitchell stating that Bigbie said he heard Cust or Roberts admit to doing steroids is actually double hearsay.

[Soxbadger]

Bigbie saying "Cust told me he did steroids" would be admissible in court.

 

(3) Statement against interest. A statement which was at the time of its making so far contrary to the declarant's pecuniary or proprietary interest, or so far tended to subject the declarant to civil or criminal liability, or to render invalid a claim by the declarant against another, that a reasonable person in the declarant's position would not have made the statement unless believing it to be true. A statement tending to expose the declarant to criminal liability and offered to exculpate the accused is not admissible unless corroborating circumstances clearly indicate the trustworthiness of the statemen

 

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.)

Edited December 14, 2007 by Soxbadger

[Vance Law]

Well, it is hearsay in the sense that the report is authored by Mitchell and his team, and they are saying "this guy said he shot Clemens in the ass with steroids." It's not a report authored by McNamee claming he did this. Therefore, it's hearsay because Mitchell is essentially stating "this guy said this." Mitchell stating that Bigbie said he heard Cust or Roberts admit to doing steroids is actually double hearsay.

 

I follow you, but I still think there is a difference. What McNamee is quoted as saying is the equivalent of him on the witness stand saying all of those things. He is not contesting them. This isn't Mitchell saying "I heard McNamee say all this stuff about Clemens," and McNamee saying, "I never said that." Mitchell being the one who wrote the report is the equivalent of Mitchell being the lawyer in the courtroom asking the questions.

[iamshack]

I follow you, but I still think there is a difference. What McNamee is quoted as saying is the equivalent of him on the witness stand saying all of those things. He is not contesting them. This isn't Mitchell saying "I heard McNamee say all this stuff about Clemens," and McNamee saying, "I never said that." Mitchell being the one who wrote the report is the equivalent of Mitchell being the lawyer in the courtroom asking the questions.

 

No, I understand the distinction you are making. Clearly, McNamee claiming he shot up Clemens himself is different than Bigbie stating he heard Roberts and Cust claim they once tried steroids.

 

That being said, I still don't think it's the strongest of evidence. And it further colors his comments that he agreed to a plea agreement which exonerates him from any charges as long as he is "truthful." Do we not think that the Federal Government knew he was involved with Clemens and Petitte? They clearly agreed to not charge him with the goal of getting him to implicate Clemens and Petitte in performance-enhancing drug usage.

[nitetrain8601]

No, I understand the distinction you are making. Clearly, McNamee claiming he shot up Clemens himself is different than Bigbie stating he heard Roberts and Cust claim they once tried steroids.

 

That being said, I still don't think it's the strongest of evidence. And it further colors his comments that he agreed to a plea agreement which exonerates him from any charges as long as he is "truthful." Do we not think that the Federal Government knew he was involved with Clemens and Petitte? They clearly agreed to not charge him with the goal of getting him to implicate Clemens and Petitte in performance-enhancing drug usage.

 

What reason would he have to lie? Mitchell said it himself, everyone who was interviewed was asked to tell the whole truth and one of the conditions for him is to tell nothing but the truth. If none of his clients used steroids, then don't say they did. He had to be 100% truthful or he could get thrown in jail. I don't think they were going, "hmm, that Roger Clemens fellow, I don't like. Let's speak to his trainer and get him to implicate Roger". Mitchell also asked that no one exagerate the truth and make a hyperbole out of it. He also didn't want anyone to tell only half of what they knew.

 

McNamee getting into detail about shooting up Clemens himself is pretty good evidence if you ask me.

[iamshack]

What reason would he have to lie? Mitchell said it himself, everyone who was interviewed was asked to tell the whole truth and one of the conditions for him is to tell nothing but the truth. If none of his clients used steroids, then don't say they did. He had to be 100% truthful or he could get thrown in jail. I don't think they were going, "hmm, that Roger Clemens fellow, I don't like. Let's speak to his trainer and get him to implicate Roger". Mitchell also asked that no one exagerate the truth and make a hyperbole out of it. He also didn't want anyone to tell only half of what they knew.

 

McNamee getting into detail about shooting up Clemens himself is pretty good evidence if you ask me.

 

McNamee was caught distributing illegal substances, which is a felony. In exchange for his cooperation, he was told he would not be charged at all. I'm not claiming that he made the story up, or that he even exaggerated anything. All I said was that his comments or anecdotes are colored by the fact that he was making them to avoid prosecution of a felony charge. And who knows if what he said was exactly the truth. Previously, he was quoted as stating that he never, ever administered or obtained performance-enhancing drugs for Roger Clemens or Andy Petitte.

 

Secondly, if you think for one minute that federal authorities don't 1) seek out known criminals with the intention of charging them with a crime for the purpose of getting valuable information out of that criminal in exchange for a favorable plea; and 2) specifically target information about people currently targeted in other investigations, especially what is considered a "big fish," well, I'm sorry, you're just way too naive about the way our criminal justice system operates.

Edited December 14, 2007 by iamshack

[The Ginger Kid]

interesting quip by Canseco (maybe already posted):

"It's a slap on the hand," he told Fox Business Network. "The report proved nothing. It just proved what we already knew."

 

Canseco's name appears 105 times in the Mitchell report, more than that of Barry Bonds (103) or Roger Clemens (82). In all, the 409-page report identified 86 names to differing degrees, but Clemens clearly was the symbol.

 

"I saw the list of players, and there are definitely a lot of players missing," he told Fox Business Network. "I don't know what they accomplished or what they are trying to prove."

 

Prodded further about players not included, Canseco said this of Alex Rodriguez: "All I can say is the Mitchell Report is incomplete. I could not believe that his name was not in the report."

[southsider2k5]

interesting quip by Canseco (maybe already posted):

 

That makes sense when you take it in the context of the early "false report".

[jackie hayes]

That makes sense when you take it in the context of the early "false report".

ARod wasn't on that list, either.

[Linnwood]

Well, to me, Barry Bonds comes out of this as a somewhat sympathetic figure. Barry has been stating over and over in the media that it is ridiculous that there is a relentless witch hunt into his activities, as well as a media crucification of his character and accomplishments. He's also implied that the reason for this is because he is African-American.

 

Bonds has basically been dragged through mud for the past 4-5 years, while Clemens has been celebrated by the public, worshipped in the mainstream media, and paraded around by public opinion as some sort of mythical hero.

 

I am not going to sit here and claim we should all feel sorry for Bonds, but at the same time, he's been the recipient of the majority of the fallout from the steroid scandal unil now. It's about time some of the blame, anger, disappointment, and hatred fell on other shoulders.

 

 

Except Clemens is now in the same boat as Bonds. At least in my book. Aside from the schadenfreude, the best part of this is that Bond and his apologists can now shut the hell up about this being a racial thing. You can't play the race card if Clemens is equally reviled.

[iamshack]

Except Clemens is now in the same boat as Bonds. At least in my book. Aside from the schadenfreude, the best part of this is that Bond and his apologists can now shut the hell up about this being a racial thing. You can't play the race card if Clemens is equally reviled.

 

Yeah, now he is. But what about the past 4-6 years? What affect on Bonds' career the last several years has this had?

 

Imagine that this had come out 5 years ago about Clemens. You think he's still getting paid $20 million a season? Clemens has probably made close to $200 million in salary by using performance-enhancing drugs since 1997.

[Soxbadger]

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.

 

 

[Balta1701]

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.

Does it matter if I think he's just as guilty as Bonds?

[daa84]

now i know the report didnt turn up a whole lot of entirely credible evidence, but its a joke the way espn and other reporters are completely denying that the events in the mitchell report are unsubstantiated...the entire goddamn MLBPA is corrupt....they cheated, everyone knows it, everyone knew it, but now because nobody was willing to talk to the mitchell report its like espn is trying to construe this as...oh well we dont know if clemens took steroids still....WTF!?!? my ass we don't...how much clearer do we really have to make it?! ugh sorry just got so fed up reading stark and gammons b**** about the report was inconclusive mud slinging....mud deserves to be slung! these guys cheated... and no matter how much frank thomas says that somewhat clears his name..somewhere along the lines in history people will question him, and thats bull cuz he was probably clean and A holes like clemens and bonds have ruined it for guys like big frank

Edited December 14, 2007 by daa84