Fascinating

[lvjeremylv]

Lots of people in baseball used and still use PED on every team, we just have to accept it while MLB "tries" to contain it, because the use is far too widespread to even hope it can be contained. Ask a scout, I know everyone here knows one.

Everyone on here knows a scout? I don't.

[Soxbadger]

jeremy,

 

Thats nice that your drug free, millions of American's arent.

 

These players are role models who children look up to, and steroid use among the youth of America is a real problem. It's not solely because of what's going on in MLB, but it certainly isn't helping.

 

 

If the problem is with TEENS, then maybe the govt should set a more stringent testing policy for High School students.

 

Its interesting if your theory is that this is all to stop teen steroid usage, why does the Mithcell Report fail to use the word "teenage" 1 time? http://files.mlb.com/mitchrpt.pdf

 

If this is about teenagers why are we not bringing in convicted teenage steroid dealers and users and trying to find out where they are getting the drugs from. Do you think BALCO is giving kids drugs? Or that Mcamee was selling them to the kids on the street?

 

The answer is no, so I dont understand how going after high profile athletes is any sort of a deterent towards teenagers. If anything it would lead me to believe that no one cares about drug use in amateurs (more correctly teens, olympics is rough on testing) and that all this is about is money.

 

In fact through out this whole thing, what has become more and more apparent, is no one is even discussing whether or not what Clemens did was dangerous, or could have killed him. This is all about cheating, whether he lied, not about whether he harmed himself or the effects of HGH and the harm it may do.

 

If I was a teenager Id be watching this and thinking:

 

"Just dont get caught, dont write checks,dont throw away evidence in my own garbage, dont let people know."

 

Tejada isn't an aging veteran, and he'll be going down for perjury

 

You do know that the entire Mitchell Reprt would be considered hearsay and thus inadmissable in court.

 

"278 Id. at 30. Player A gave the investigators a vial of the vitamin B12 that he had received from Tejada, which was tested and found not to contain any banned substances. Id. at 31."

 

"Piatt emphasized that he did not know whether Tejada actually used the substances."

 

"Radomski never spoke, or sold performance enhancing substances, directly to Tejada."

 

Perjury for what?

 

The only question I could see a problem with is if they asked if Tejada ever bought or sold steroids. I dont have a transcript of the proceeding so I cant really comment on the strength of the case.

Edited February 14, 2008 by Soxbadger

[Balta1701]

Perjury for what?

 

The only question I could see a problem with is if they asked if Tejada ever bought or sold steroids. I dont have a transcript of the proceeding so I cant really comment on the strength of the case.

Actually, in the Rafael Palmeiro investigation, Tejada was deposed and was asked exactly that question...which is why he's possibly facing charges in the near future.

[lvjeremylv]

Thats nice that your drug free, millions of American's arent.

As out of whack as this country is these days, drug users are still in the minority. Even if they weren't, that still wouldn't make it OK, as drugs ruin the lives of those who use them and those around them. Drug abuse of all kinds needs to be addressed by "the powers that be" to help preserve this great nation from going down the sewer.

 

If the problem is with TEENS, then maybe the govt should set a more stringent testing policy for High School students.

I agree completely, and I believe that will come with time. We're just scraping the tip of the iceberg with the problem of steroids and the youth of America.

 

Its interesting if your theory is that this is all to stop teen steroid usage, why does the Mithcell Report fail to use the word "teenage" 1 time? http://files.mlb.com/mitchrpt.pdf

I don't necessarily think that's the main purpose of the hearings they had today. The hearings today had to do with 1 specific case, which is Roger Clemens. Roger, I believe - based on what I see on the back of his baseball cards as well as his conduct today under oath before Congress- is a bold-faced liar and he's backed himself into a corner from which he has absolutely no escape. He could have admitted whatever he did and simply lost his baseball legacy. But instead of that, he's going to go to prison for an undetermined length of time while his family sits and home and waits for him to get out. Very unwise decision.

 

I dont understand how going after high profile athletes is any sort of a deterent towards teenagers. If anything it would lead me to believe that no one cares about drug use in amateurs (more correctly teens, olympics is rough on testing) and that all this is about is money.

You're right, putting people like Clemens and Bonds in prison is probably not going to stop a high school kid with NFL or MLB aspirations from taking a shortcut to try to get there. But what this does do is bring to light a real problem that is present with the young athletes of America. The problem is probably more widespread than we know, and it could be causing some serious, serious damage to our kids. That's something that needs to be addressed as soon as possible at every level. From the government, to the education system, to the house at the end of the block. Parents really need to take a pro-active role in educating their children on the dangers and risks that are associated with all drugs, including steroids.

 

In fact through out this whole thing, what has become more and more apparent, is no one is even discussing whether or not what Clemens did was dangerous, or could have killed him. This is all about cheating, whether he lied, not about whether he harmed himself or the effects of HGH and the harm it may do.

 

Well I don't know how much of the hearing you watched today, but the subject of children came up on many occasions. And if you saw the hearings back in March of 2005 with Sosa, Schilling, Palmeiro, etc, they also mentioned it there too. Perhaps not to the extent that it should be, though.

 

You do know that the entire Mitchell Reprt would be considered hearsay and thus inadmissable in court.

The report itself would not be admissible, but the persons mentioned in the report would be subpoenaed and they would be asked to testify before the grand jury. Then they would be in the same position that Andy Pettitte and Roger Clemens are in: lie and you're going to prison.

 

Perjury for what?

As someone mentioned, the feds are coming after Tejada and if he lies, that will be the end of his career. B12 my ass.

[Soxbadger]

Well Tejada already produced the b12 shot and it was cleared by congress, see the footnote I quoted from the Mitchell Report:

 

"278 Id. at 30. Player A gave the investigators a vial of the vitamin B12 that he had received from Tejada, which was tested and found not to contain any banned substances. Id. at 31."

 

.

 

As out of whack as this country is these days, drug users are still in the minority. Even if they weren't, that still wouldn't make it OK, as drugs ruin the lives of those who use them and those around them. Drug abuse of all kinds needs to be addressed by "the powers that be" to help preserve this great nation from going down the sewer.

 

Well thats where you and I have a fundamental difference. I dont believe that govt needs to protect people from ruining their own lives. I think people should make the choices they want to make, otherwise why not ban drinking, smoking, gambling, the internet, video games...

 

All have proven to lead to people's lives going down the sewer...

[CanOfCorn]

Well thats where you and I have a fundamental difference. I dont believe that govt needs to protect people from ruining their own lives. I think people should make the choices they want to make, otherwise why not ban drinking, smoking, gambling, the internet, video games...

 

All have proven to lead to people's lives going down the sewer...

 

Exactly! That's why I think they need to lock the owners rep (Selig really isn't, but kinda is) and the Fehr, the players rep and a mediator that won't let them out until it's a good solution. Leave the gov't out of it.

[YASNY]

One important point I'd like to make, if may interject. Regarding those sarcastic posts in the beginning of this thread that would select particular players and imply PED use by them for one reason or another ... If you read those posts straight up, and ignore the obvious sarcasm, they could be easily misconstrued by say a national sports publication. Soxtalk posts have been used ver batim in such a publication before, so it does happen. Just keep this in mind when formulating your posts.

 

Thank you. Now, back on your soapboxes.

[RME JICO]

Some pretty interesting info from a Body Language Analyst: http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3244344

 

Basically says Clemens exhibited several signs of deception, whereas McNamee only a few.

[CanOfCorn]

Some pretty interesting info from a Body Language Analyst: http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3244344

 

Basically says Clemens exhibited several signs of deception, whereas McNamee only a few.

 

Y'know, to boil it down...McNamee has nothing to lose. Clemens has everything to lose. I wouldn't be surprised if Clemens lied MORE...but I don't believe either of them.

[iamshack]

The report itself would not be admissible, but the persons mentioned in the report would be subpoenaed and they would be asked to testify before the grand jury. Then they would be in the same position that Andy Pettitte and Roger Clemens are in: lie and you're going to prison.

 

Well, not really. There is really not much anyone can do to prove Clemens took anything. You have to take his word or the word of McNamee, basically, and even if you believe McNamee, no one is going to put Clemens in jail based on that testimony.

[Middle Buffalo]

Some pretty interesting info from a Body Language Analyst: http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3244344

 

Basically says Clemens exhibited several signs of deception, whereas McNamee only a few.

I would be much more convinced of the analysis if I was certain that the Body Language Analyst had no prior knowledge of the situation. This woman seems to know the "facts" of this case, and it doesn't seem as if she's unbiased in the way she's viewing the tape.

 

If (and I don't believe he is), if Clemes is innocent, showing disgust wouldn't necessarily be out of line. Stuttering over a word or having cotton mouth isn't really that uncommon, especially when you are being grilled by a panel of people who are out to make an example of you.

 

Regarding the hearing, one of the Reps kept bringing up evidence that MacNamee had changed his story and lied several times. However, the Rep was citing newspaper and magazine articles. Does he really think being asked questions by a reporter, and being grilled by Congress under oath are the same?

 

 

[StrangeSox]

Well, not really. There is really not much anyone can do to prove Clemens took anything. You have to take his word or the word of McNamee, basically, and even if you believe McNamee, no one is going to put Clemens in jail based on that testimony.

 

People have been convicted of much more serious crimes (drug trafficking, murder) based solely on witness testimony from questionable sources and circumstantial evidence.

Edited February 14, 2008 by StrangeSox

[iamshack]

People have been convicted of much more serious crimes (drug trafficking, murder) based solely on witness testimony from questionable sources and circumstantial evidence.

 

Not named Roger Clemens....

[Soxbadger]

People have been convicted of much more serious crimes (drug trafficking, murder) based solely on witness testimony from questionable sources and circumstantial evidence.

 

And people have gotten off of very serious crimes because most people can not afford the type of legal representation that is necessary to combat a criminal prosecution.

 

See: OJ Simpson, Claus Von Bulow

 

Who does Clemens remind you more of:

 

A) Random criminal on street who will be getting public defender

 

B ) High profile criminal who will be getting a private attorney

 

Winning cases is about resources, when resources are equal it gets much much harder to convict.

[lvjeremylv]

And people have gotten off of very serious crimes because most people can not afford the type of legal representation that is necessary to combat a criminal prosecution.

 

See: OJ Simpson, Claus Von Bulow

 

Who does Clemens remind you more of:

 

A) Random criminal on street who will be getting public defender

 

B ) High profile criminal who will be getting a private attorney

 

Winning cases is about resources, when resources are equal it gets much much harder to convict.

OJ beat the state of California. Roger is going up against the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. Huge, huge difference. For me, the sworn statement from Andy Pettitte is going to be enough to ruin Roger's chances at escaping prison time.

[Balta1701]

OJ beat the state of California. Roger is going up against the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. Huge, huge difference. For me, the sworn statement from Andy Pettitte is going to be enough to ruin Roger's chances at escaping prison time.

I think a surprising amount will depend on the quality of the evidence McNamee kept. If he actually has a needle with HGH residue and Clemens's blood on it, then it's over. If he turns those things over to the Feds and they find B-12 and only B-12 in it, or can't find a trace of Clemens's blood/find someone else's, then that kills 2 of the 4 biggest problems for Clemens that we know about so far (The other 2 being Pettitte and the housekeeper).

[SoxFan562004]

I think a surprising amount will depend on the quality of the evidence McNamee kept. If he actually has a needle with HGH residue and Clemens's blood on it, then it's over. If he turns those things over to the Feds and they find B-12 and only B-12 in it, or can't find a trace of Clemens's blood/find someone else's, then that kills 2 of the 4 biggest problems for Clemens that we know about so far (The other 2 being Pettitte and the housekeeper).

I think with the needles and such, the chain of custody may be a major problem for the government

[Mplssoxfan]

Here's an interesting take on the hearings from a political reporter.

 

I'll add my voice to the contention that the "physical evidence" that McNamee has is pretty much worthless in a court of law. In the court of public opinion, though, it could be the last straw against Clemens.

[Soxbadger]

OJ beat the state of California. Roger is going up against the FEDERAL GOVERNMENT. Huge, huge difference. For me, the sworn statement from Andy Pettitte is going to be enough to ruin Roger's chances at escaping prison time

 

Why is that a huge huge deal?

 

State prosecutors prosecute more cases on average than federal prosecutors.

 

And the evidence McNamee has is worthless, there is no way of knowing what he has done to it. He could have had a sample of Clemens blood and a syringe with steroids. If he dips the needle in the blood, it would appear that it was good evidence.

[lvjeremylv]

Why is that a huge huge deal?

 

State prosecutors prosecute more cases on average than federal prosecutors.

You just answered your own question. The federal government doesn't go after people unless they have overwhelming evidence. They aren't stupid, contrary to popular belief.

[Soxbadger]

The federal government doesn't go after people unless they have overwhelming evidence. They aren't stupid, contrary to popular belief.

 

????

 

Have you ever worked with an Assistant United States Attorney or anyone in the United States Attorney's office...

 

Or are you just speculating?

 

Because if its just speculation, thats fine, but at least say as much.

[Balta1701]

????

 

Have you ever worked with an Assistant United States Attorney or anyone in the United States Attorney's office...

 

Or are you just speculating?

 

Because if its just speculation, thats fine, but at least say as much.

Whether or not he actually has worked for them, there is actually evidence to support the claim. The main nugget was thrown around all the time when the Vick Indictments came down...Most federal prosecutors in this country have a rate of success (in terms of either a conviction or a plea bargain) well over 90%. Basically, if they come after you, the odds are in their favor unless they're coming after you for personal or political reasons.

[lvjeremylv]

Whether or not he actually has worked for them, there is actually evidence to support the claim. The main nugget was thrown around all the time when the Vick Indictments came down...Most federal prosecutors in this country have a rate of success (in terms of either a conviction or a plea bargain) well over 90%. Basically, if they come after you, the odds are in their favor unless they're coming after you for personal or political reasons.

Thank you. I thought this stuff was common knowledge? A person doesn't have to work for the feds to know how they operate. They don't want to be made out to look like fools, so of course they're only going after someone when they have a lot of evidence.

[Soxbadger]

Most federal prosecutors in this country have a rate of success (in terms of either a conviction or a plea bargain) well over 90%

 

And most state prosecutors also have a conviction rate of about 90% (find me evidence that feds have well over 90%)

 

http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb52...06/ai_n19914079

 

Thats Cali because you tried to argue that OJ only won because he was in Cali State court.

 

Now compare to Fed stats:

 

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/fed.htm

 

Notice the important part:

 

4% for violent offenses such as murder, rape, assault, and robbery.

 

Only 4% of the entire federal case load is violent offenses. They are very very rare because almost every single murder prosecution is done at the state level. So to argue that a federal prosecutor would have more successfully litigated a murder case than Marcia Clark.

 

http://law.jrank.org/pages/5265/Clark-Marcia-Rachel.html

 

Clark prevailed in 19 successful HOMICIDE prosecutions in just over a decade against such high-profile defendants as the murderer of TV actress Rebecca Schaeffer and Los Angeles vigilante James Hawkins. Colleagues and adversaries alike praise her abilities. She is noted for her ability to critically examine complex SCIENTIFIC EVIDENCE.

 

On July 6, 1995, after five and a half months, the prosecution rested its case. The numbers were staggering: Clark and fellow prosecutors had presented 58 witnesses over 92 days of testimony with 488 exhibits—at a minimum expense to Los Angeles County of $5.69 million.

 

Thank you. I thought this stuff was common knowledge? A person doesn't have to work for the feds to know how they operate. They don't want to be made out to look like fools, so of course they're only going after someone when they have a lot of evidence.

 

Well State prosecutors only go after some one when they have a lot of evidence. Most wealthy county's boast about an 80-90% convction rate as well, they just generally handle more difficult cases than the Fed so their statistics suffer.

 

I also find it interesting because I was trianed in trial technique by both state and federal prosecutors. Its generally believed amongst attorneys that state prosecutors are much tougher to beat at a murder case because they are prosecuting those cases with much more regularity where as the fed mostly goes after :

 

1) 37% of felony cases were drug offenses (almost impossible case to lose because they generally have a witness who has flipped)

 

2) 36% public order offense (19% immigration even easier to win, 11% weapons once again easy win)

 

3) 15% property offense (failure to pay taxes, the govt never loses)

 

So 85% of the felony cases that the govt even brings to trial are winners to start.

 

I just am some what intrigued by this view that the federal prosecutions are better than state prosecutions, the figures are really negligible (90% to 90%), except for the fact the state almost exclusively handles the more difficult felonies (murder).

 

But thats just my opinion, Id be interested if there even is a Federal Prosecutor who has 19 successful homicide convictions. Anyways, in my opinion, the difference between a federal case and a state case (for most crimes) is negligble.

 

So to say that there is a huge huge difference between OJ beating the state of California and Clemens potentially beating the United States, in my opinion, is just not true. At the end of the day Clemens has the resources to fight this if he chooses, and a perjury charge will still remain almost impossible to prove.

 

As for Pettite, here is how I would cross:

 

"So you saw Roger take steroids, correct"

 

Pettite: No

 

"But you remember that Roger said XXX, correct?

 

Pettite: Yes

 

"And you said that happened on XXX day correct?

 

Pettite: Yes

 

"And that was XXX years ago correct?

 

Pettite: Yes

 

Now in the pretrail deposition of Pettite, I would have asked him a million questions about things that have happened over the last XXX years. Whatever questions he couldnt remember or answered wrong in the dep, I then ask at trial.

 

"So on XXX you remember roger arrived at 2:30 pm correct?

 

Pettite: I dont remember or (worst case scenario he says yes)

 

Now we call Roger:

 

"Roger can you explain to me about XXX."

 

Roger: Oh yes it was a wonderful day at Andy's house. Everyone was there and we were having a great time. I remember that I arrived at 4pm because my son had a high school baseball game that I attended.

 

Closing argument:

 

Members of the jury, today you are asked to decide whether or not Rogers Clemens knowingly made a false material statement while under oath. The only evidence that has been presented to you that Roger has lied is from 2 witnesses, 1) of them has been convicted by the United States, has on numerous occasions lied and the 2) Cant even correctly recall the events of the day that he supposedly heard Roger tell him that he took steroids.

 

(Here is a little sidebar for anyone interested, generally Pettite could not say what he heard clemens say, that would be considered hearsay evidence, and therefore inadmissible under the federal rules of evidence. But because Clemens is a party to the case, his comment on using drugs would be considered a statement against party interest, and therefore be an exception to the rules of evidence and therefore admissible.)

 

So I ask you, is that proof beyond a reasonable doubt? Can you say with 100% certainty that Roger took XXX, or perhaps is there a little doubt. Because if you have any doubt, any doubt whatsoever that Roger may not have taken steriods, you have to acquit, the law requires it of you. So I ask you as the jury to apply the law of the United States, to ask yourself has the govt met its burden of proof, the burden that they convince you beyond a reasonable doubt, beyond any second guessing. Because if they have not, it is your duty as a citizen of the United States to find in favor of the defendant Roger Clemens and acquit him of all charges.

 

Sorry for the long post, I just get really frustrated with the reporting of ESPN in regards to legal proceedings because for the most part they are not attorneys (with the exception of Lester Munson who is an attorney but I believe works for SI) and they often just blatantly mislead the public in terms of the reality of trial.

 

At the end of the day, if the case goes to trial, it is well known amongst attorneys that the conviction rate is:

 

50%

 

Basically if you can afford to go to trial and there is no smoking gun, its a toss up.

 

Just in case you dont believe me, here is an article that basically says how impossible a perjury conviction for Clemens will be:

 

http://www.newsday.com/sports/baseball/ny-...0,2193837.story

 

It quotes Alan Dershowitz, hes got some street cred.

Edited February 16, 2008 by Soxbadger

[Middle Buffalo]

What I find fascinating about this stuff is that the guys who admit to using steroids or HGH pretty much get a free pass. Granted, the're not the high profile types like Clemens, McGwire, or Bonds, but still some big names. Pettite was made to look like an angel at the hearing, yet he admitted to using HGH two times in 2001. Later it came out that he also used HGH in 2004 - and he got it from his Dad. So he has some credibility issues as well.

 

Assuming he used HGH, Clemens had to know there was a possibility that eventually he'd be outed. Why not formulate a better defense than denial and defiance beforehand? Say you used to recover from an injury, and the public forgives. Lie, even if all the evidence seems to implicate you as a user, and the public gets offended.

 

If I'm a MLB player, and I've used HGH, I'm getting my story ready now for when I am eventually outed. I might even make a statement on my own admitting that I used for a short time for whatever reason. If Jim Thome came out and said he used HGH on the advice of a doctor or trainer to recover from a back injury, I don't think people would be outraged. Everyone uses drugs or medicine at some point to recover from illness or injury.