Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Mike L
Regarding the Mitchell report. Why does it seem everyone keeps trying to place these actions under the criminal system of beyond a reasonable doubt? This is nothing more than an employee/employer situation (admittedly magnified because of the public nature of the business). Any actions taken by one or the other that is not criminal will be settled in the civil court. And there, it is the proof of what is most likely, not what is beyond a reasonable doubt.
|
Let me give you an example of why I have a problem with this report. David Justice was accused of using steroids because he had a conversation with someone associated with a club he was on. No paper trail, no eyewitness reports, just a conversation that he had years ago about the drug which even did not suggest that Justice claimed he was using or used the drugs previously.
I keep bring it back to officiating. Would it be fair if you worked a conferences and someone took a conversation you had years ago and assumed that you helped throw a game all based on a conversation? Then as a result you are known as a cheater by everyone because your name was put in a report with people they actually proved or admitted to throwing games? I put this on the same plane as NBA Officials being mentioned in a report about throwing games with Tim Donaghy based only on information that they had a conversation with Donaghy or were accused by Donaghy without any cooperation and then the accused official also loses their job or their reputation.
Would that be fair?
Peace