Mitchell Report?

[JJ]

I find it interesting that the implications of this report all over the media are that the players named are all CURRENT users. Rick Ankiel says he DID use, but hasn't for more than five years. Matt Herges, a local boy who is a journeyman pitcher, is on the list and the "proof" of his involvement is a check that is four years old.
I suspect a lot of current and former users will never suffer any reprecussions legally, but will be embarrassed enough by the whole thing that they will never use - or THINK of using - again. While the Mitchell report is a crude tool, it will be an effective one.
JMHO

JJ

[greymule]

It's also worth noting that the main purpose of jury trials is NOT to get at the truth, but to protect defendants from state power.

Protecting defendants from state power is the purpose of having a jury, "twelve good men and true" independent of the state. The trial itself is supposed to get at the truth in an effort to seek justice. The framers of the Constitution, well aware of the abuses of British courts, believed juries, as well as the adversarial system, to be key to that overall effort.

95% of criminal cases are plea bargained and never see a jury.

It's true that the system is so overloaded that almost everything is plea-bargained, including many murder cases (I doubt that it's 95% for murder, though). Thus both prosecutors and defendants often consider time and expense and risk over truth and justice. As for curbing the power of the state, don't think that innocent defendants haven't agreed to plea deals to avoid the expense of a trial and the risk of a severe sentence, since courts are known to make examples of defendants who force the issue to trial.

The framers of the Constitution acknowledged that they had designed a system suited for a generally law-abiding populace. They could not have conceived of a Newark or a Camden, where only the most serious crimes are prosecuted, and where the entire system would grind to a halt if even 1 in 20 cases went to trial. They also could not have conceived of anyone being permitted to pile up 10, 20, 30 convictions for burglary, robbery, assault, etc. Anyone aware of the horrendous home invasion in Cheshire, Connecticut, a few months ago knows that both murderers had more than 20 burglary convictions each yet were free to rape a woman and her two daughters and then burn them to death.

At any rate, my point regarding baseball was that whether or not this player or that would be convicted in court is irrelevant. Probably few or even none would be convicted. (And no player will face actual legal prosecution anyway simply for having taken steroids/HGH.) But the overall picture is clear: the truth is that many players took drugs.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by gordon30307

Steve Howe was and still is an addict. Hopefully he's not using but never the less he's an addict. He's dependent on chemicals. As were Gooden and Strawberry. To my knowledge they were not taking Performane Enhancing Drugs. Alcohol, Cocaine, Heroin are not going to boost your performance. This is an entirely different issue.

Many people are addicted to taking steroids. They are considered Performance Enhancing Drugs. They do not necessarily enhance performance. In many cases they deteriorate a user's body, and do not help the athlete in the least. An athlete needs to have the talent to start with in order to get any enhancement at all.

Alcohol is legal, so let's leave that out of the conversation. I never mentioned heroin, so leave that out as well. Athletes took speed, coke and smoked weed in order to enhance their performance, whether these drugs are labeled as such or not. The athletes who took them did so (in their minds, at least) to enhance their performance.

Greenies and other amphetamines were intended to give energy and clarity of thought. They put them on the training table in bowls for any player who wished to use them. Cocaine has anasthetic qualities and gives a feeling of invincibility which can enhance overall performance, at least subconsciously. It is not an entirely different issue at all. It is like the steroids issue in that the players are looking for any edge they can get to gain an advantage over their competitors.

Question, have you ever taken either of these drugs to know what effect they have? If not, you cannot make a blanket statement that discounts the performance enhancing qualities of these drugs. Those players who used them felt that the drugs were helping them at the time.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by mbyron

Your argument boils down to: everyone's doing it, but nobody has any proof.

If that is what you think I have been saying or my argument, then you have not been reading my comments very well.

Peace

[Tim C]

"Steve Howe was and still is an addict."

Err, no he is not. Steve Howe is dead. RIP 4/28/06

REgards,

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Tim C

"Steve Howe was and still is an addict."

Err, no he is not. Steve Howe is dead. RIP 4/28/06

REgards,

Damn, you beat me to it.

Peace

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

If even one person named is not involved in steroid use, then it is a bad thing.

The witches of Salem also had to prove they were not witches, which is insanity.

I now call for all the names of former MLB players who used illegal drugs in the '60s, '70s and '80s. Let's throw them under the bus while we're at it. Oh, that was just speed and cocaine, no big deal, right? Drug use is drug use, so why now all the urgency to expose even the people who were least involved with steroids?

I think it's bad for baseball overall. It makes the do-gooder, feel-free-hug-a-tree crowd happy, but it going to hurt the game in the long run.

I would rather have cheaters in the game than quitters like the Falcon's Patrino, or dog killers like Vick. JMO.

1. You missed the point of my post, Steve. The report you slam for making "assumptions" is based on much research, direct testimony, questioning and providing those implicated with the opportunity to address their specific issues.

On the other hand you make assumptions based on what? Where is your research? Who did you question? Were they under oath? What did you do beside read a newspaper?

2. You stated: "I would rather have cheaters in the game than quitters like the Falcon's Patrino, or dog killers like Vick." I'm amazed that you would tolerate cheating under any circumstances and more amazed that you think there should be a choice made amongst activities, all of which should are harmful to the activity.

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

I think the thing you do not understand, is some of us do not care if Bonds did or did not use drugs.

I guess I have to understand that when one repeatedly posts on a subject it means they don't care about it. It's a difficult concept, but I'm working on it.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by GarthB

I guess I have to understand the when one repeatedly posts on a subject it means they don't care about it. It's a difficult concept, but I'm working on it.

The last time I did check I do post on this site for entertainment purposes. That means that what is said is not going to drastically change my life one way or the other. I watch many sports games and I do not recall that outcome of many of them is something that will affect me either, but I still watch the game. I look at this board and this discussion in a similar way as I just stated a line or two before. It is entertaining, but I do not recall what we talk about here is going to affect me personally. I personally do not care if everyone used drugs, I still say there are other factors to why numbers are they way they are and I do not see this as a major moral issue when there were no rules that prevented the taking of many drugs.

You are right, you do have some things to work on, like everyone does not share you point of view on things.

Peace

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

You are right, you do have some things to work on, like everyone does not share you point of view on things.

Oh, I understand and accept that, Jeff. I often learn from many of those with whom I initially disagree. But, again, you attempt to shift the focus of what I was addressing. I've learned to accept that as well.

Put simply, it will always be difficult to accept that one has no interest in a topic he discusses and defends ad infinitum. That's my only point at this time. Feel free to debate it, ignore it, or, once again, attempt to change the subject. Another point worth considering...my post was not addressed to you, but to "Bond apologists." Interesting that you were the first, and so far, the only one to reply. Hmmmmmmmm.

I have nothing to add to it and will move on.

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

McCarthy sullied the reputation of many people that were not guilty of anything other than what McCarthy thought was a moral issue (siding with communism). I do not recall many people being prosecuted for what McCarthy was accusing them of. And many of the people McCarthy brought to congress were not guilty of anything, but they paid a price with their reputation and are not very different than what is taking place in this report.

I am sorry, but I do not see much of a difference.

Wow. You don't?

McCarthy used the full force of the government to attempt to prosecute people for what they thought...not for what they did. McCarthy tried to deprive people of making a livelihood forever for this.

Mitchell investigated, at the direction of the players' employer, behavior (actions taken) that was either illegal or against "company policy" at the time of the behavior and to identify those involved. Mitchell recommended against taking away the players' ability to make the livelihood from baseball.

McCarthy kept secret his "sources" and deprived those who he accused of the opporutnity to refute the accusations prior to putting them "on trial" in front of his committee.

Mitchell named his sources throughout his investigation and advised all those who he named of the accusations and the evidence and provided them an opportunity to address those prior to finishing his report.

Anyone confusing the Mitchell report with McCarthyism does not understand one or the other or both.

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by GarthB

2. You stated: "I would rather have cheaters in the game than quitters like the Falcon's Patrino, or dog killers like Vick." I'm amazed that you would tolerate cheating under any circumstances and more amazed that you think there should be a choice made amongst activities, all of which should are harmful to the activity.

If given the choice of having to pick 1 of the 3 choices, yes, I would take cheaters over quitters or dog killers. Which would you choose? I don't condone cheating, but if faced with an either/or situation I would choose the cheaters over the other two choices.

Give me a Ken Caminitti over Patrino any day. At least Ken was trying, and always gave it his all. He may have been a druggie, but he never quit.

Give me Barry Bonds over Michael Vick too. Vick is scum and got off easy with 23 months. He'll do 18, get out, then play football again most likely. He should have gotten a much longer sentence.

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

If given the choice of having to pick 1 of the 3 choices, yes, I would take cheaters over quitters or dog killers. Which would you choose?

Perhaps I wasn't clear. Allow me to repeat:

I'm amazed that you would tolerate cheating under any circumstances and more amazed that you think there should be a choice made amongst activities, all of which should are harmful to the activity.

Clear yet?

No?

Okay, who would you choose for a partner in a new business enterprise in which you have sunk your enitre fortune and bet your future?

A. Someone who would cheat you.
B. Someone who would leave you when times got tough.
C. Someone who would kill your dog for sport.

If you wrote in "none of the above", you're starting to get it.

[gordon30307]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

Many people are addicted to taking steroids. They are considered Performance Enhancing Drugs. They do not necessarily enhance performance. In many cases they deteriorate a user's body, and do not help the athlete in the least. An athlete needs to have the talent to start with in order to get any enhancement at all.

Alcohol is legal, so let's leave that out of the conversation. I never mentioned heroin, so leave that out as well. Athletes took speed, coke and smoked weed in order to enhance their performance, whether these drugs are labeled as such or not. The athletes who took them did so (in their minds, at least) to enhance their performance.

Greenies and other amphetamines were intended to give energy and clarity of thought. They put them on the training table in bowls for any player who wished to use them. Cocaine has anasthetic qualities and gives a feeling of invincibility which can enhance overall performance, at least subconsciously. It is not an entirely different issue at all. It is like the steroids issue in that the players are looking for any edge they can get to gain an advantage over their competitors.

Question, have you ever taken either of these drugs to know what effect they have? If not, you cannot make a blanket statement that discounts the performance enhancing qualities of these drugs. Those players who used them felt that the drugs were helping them at the time.

Smoking dope and snorting cocaine do not enhance athletic performance. Players took speed to alleviate the effects of the hangover from drinking and chasing women and stumbling into the hotel after the strip clubs closed at 4:00 AM.

I don't do drugs. And I don't smoke. I don't have to smoke to know it's cancer causing. Oops since I don't smoke I can't make a blanket statement concerning it's harmfull effects.

[gordon30307]

Originally Posted by Tim C

"Steve Howe was and still is an addict."

Err, no he is not. Steve Howe is dead. RIP 4/28/06

REgards,

d.

My bad. Point is an addict is so for life. They are always in recovery.