I'm still reeling from the "shock" of Blanton being on the list... watching him pitch for the Reds this year, I kept thinking "another retread on the staff." Now I question. . .WTF? Juicing? Really? Ya gotta be kidding me... for what?
BTW... if HGH is not detectible... what percentage of NFL players are indulging? Everybody but the kickers? Maybe it explains Mort Anderson sticking around this long.
it is detectable but only via blood test and only if the test is administered soon after the HGH is taken. None of the major sports use blood tests.
:rofl: Dude, you're unbelievably clueless. Did you read "Juiced"? There were a number of blatant lies in there. Everything he said came true? That is SO far from the truth.
This report is a joke, we got a few new names that wern't surprising buit where are the rest? There are s many more players who used and got away w/ it b/c hey didn't have a trainer or clubhouse attendant willing to talk.
You're right. Now that I've had time to think back on yesterday, I blame Mitchell for me getting so pissed off. He did not represent this report as what it was. A small fraction based only on what he was able to extract from very limited sources. He did state it, but he should have stressed it. Instead, it's allowed ESPN to run with it, especially in the case of Clemens. Add in that his biggest "catches" are simply "guilty" thanks to heresay, and you have one big joke of a report. (Again, I'm not saying Roger is innocent, but his guilt in this case is not based on anything but the word of a drug-dealing rapist.) Bud Selig better think long and hard before handing out punishment.
No... I didn't read his book... and yes I know he was caught in lies in it... I was talking about his congress testimony... which was absolutely proved true... and the point is how subjective people are being to prove or disprove their side of the argument... and we're all guilty of it
I blame Mitchell as well who's been a hack his entire career... They basically have NOTHING on Clemens but the word of a criminal... and in the real world, outside of public opinion, that just doesn't fly... I'd be shocked if Clemens, who I think did it, doesn't sue Mitchell & Selig, and win
They pretty much said he will yesterday when his lawyer accused them of slander. Look for Pettitte to do the same thing after he speaks with the union which he is obligated to do first as he is under contract. Maybe even Knoblauch who was the third one on that list.
There isn't a chance in the world he will successfully sue. I'll say that again - not a single chance in the world. If, in the remotest of remote possibilities, he decided to actually FILE suit, he would lose miserably. For starters, Clemens, Pettitte, and all of the other idiots in the report, are public figures. The thresshold for slander is much higher. Second, they are employees of MLB, and an employer has a qualified privilege as a defense to slander. Third, he'd have to show that Mitchell and MLB knew the statements were false - clearly they believe them. Fourth, truth is a an absolute defense, and Mitchell has a compelling witness. Whether YOU believe him or not isn't the point. Lastly, they each have to prove that they were damaged (i.e. more than just hurt feelings). Clemens is roundly assumed to have pitched his last pitch, and Pettitte just signed for a $16 million contract. Both have made tens of millions of dollars over their careers - therefor, no damage incurred. I suppose they could argue that their future endorsement deals have been negatively affected, but I would think this is a stretch. Imagine either of them trying to convince a jury - each member making middle-income wages, that they've been financially damaged. That would take beachball sized balls. If either filed suit, expect it to be unceremoniously dropped or dismissed a year later.
I disagree...I don't think having a very public court session, potentially with evidence being broadcast left and right every day, would help Clemens.
Look... I'm sure Clemens did it.... my problem with the report though is allot of it was based solely on the work of a drug dealing rapist .... at least in Clemens & Pettitte's case
You're wrong about the employer part... An employer can not accuse and employee publicly of anything without concrete proof, whether they're public figures or not...If I accuse an employee of stealing at work based solely on the word of another thief and no actual proof, I'm screwed and so is the company, regardless of how credible the 1st thief is...
I totally agree, it won't be successful. However, he pretty much has no choice but to waste the money in an attempt. If nothing else it will make his accuser bankrupt. The real problem in any slander suit is that the plaintiff has to prove what was said is not true. The burden is not on the defendant who originally made the statement which I have always felt was wrong. Usually a total waste of time and money. Clemens and Pettite have the money, the other guy doesn't.
It's a qualified privilege. If I have a good faith basis to believe that the information is true - which is to say, if I'm not being reckless or staight-out lying (i.e. intentionally), I have a qualified privilege to make the statement, even if it's later proven to be false.
By they're own admission the investigation was incomplete .... Releasing information from and incomplete investigation is reckless.... Maybe they can sustain a lawsuit because they're major league baseball... but no other company would get away with what MLB did yesterday... nor would they even think about attempting it....
