Printable View
More BS,,, the worker could be immune to the chemical itself Or could be the crane operator with a caged in AC unit that filtered the air in his workplace environment and his testimony of what he WITNESSED of his fellow employees would still be accepted.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
You can say its not evidence all you want but it only shows you to be wrong.
Eye witness testimony is EVIDENCE. PERIOD.
The worker can demonstrate how his fellow employees were affected. Wally Joyner cannot demonstrate how his statistics were affected.
LOL, more BS.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
The worker is in the same position as Joyner. They both have eye witness accounts to what something in the work place was doing to fellow employees even though they themselves werent significantly affected by them.
For anyone to say that they wouldnt accept that kind of testimony is just wrong.
The worker can say, "so and so began to experience symptom x, symptom y, and symptom z." Wally Joyner cannot say "so and so hit 20% more home runs after he started taking steroids." There's a difference here. The worker can provide physical evidence of what occurred. Wally Joyner cannot.
WOW,,, more BS.
If you consider symptoms physical evidence; Wally Joyner testimony of the "symptoms" of steroids would stand.
WTF are you not getting here.
Joyner's witnessed symptoms, players recover faster, they get bigger and stronger frames, etc.
The worker CANNOT say this workers performance was affected by 75% because of the chemical contamination.
Buy a Clue.
And none of this is evidence of what steroids do for statistics.Quote:
Originally Posted by DontTreadOnMe
Eye witness testimony is EVIDENCE.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
Seems like I have typed that before.
Symptoms described by Worker = Physical Evidence = Accepted by HGM
Symptoms described by Joyner = not Physical Evidence? = Unaccepted by HGM
Thats some consistency bub.
This was my first post on this subject:Quote:
Originally Posted by DontTreadOnMe
Key word there - HOW.Quote:
Also, pointing out that "Joyner knew steroids would help his stats" is not evidence of how steroids affect stats.
The problem here is that Joyner is not qualified to testify to a causal relationship between any physical changes that other players may exhibit and their use of steroids. All he could testify to is that he saw a certain people use steroids.Quote:
Originally Posted by DontTreadOnMe
Testimony about the physical effect of steroids is not eyewitness testimony--it's expert testimony.
I've got to go to work now, but I'll post more about this later.
Yes it is, when the eye witness says, players he knew were using steroids were physically recovering faster and phyiscally becomming a lot bigger, that is evidence.Quote:
Originally Posted by dps
It is circumstancial evidence.
Its not expert concrete factual 100% evidence.
But it is still EVIDENCE non the less.
Again to say that a court wouldnt allow eye witness testimony by a fellow employee in regards to what steroids does to players is just wrong.
Its up to the jury to decide whether or not they give that evidence any significant weight or not.
And for that matter, Juries in my experience tend to listen more to eye witness testimony from people who were there and witnessed it themselves, especially if they are found of good character and credible.
They dont pay too much attention to "expert Testimony"
1. Because a lot of them dont understand it
2. Because whatever expert one side puts on, there is the other side that has their own experts that say something completely opposite.
Like the worker in a company, he cant say, because of this Chemical it affected this guys work 75%, only an expert doctor could give that kid of estimation.
But the eye witness is allowed to tell what he witnessed and his testimony is EVIDENCE.
Is saying that players were becoming bigger and recovering faster evidence of how steroids affect stats? NO. This is all I've been saying. Yes, Joyner's testimony is evidence that steroids help you recover faster from injury, as well as make you bigger. That is different than being evidence for the statistical effect on baseball. Get what I'm saying now?Quote:
Originally Posted by DontTreadOnMe
this debate could go on forever1
Any debate can go on forever. But I think it's pretty clear what my point has been from the beginning, and I don't see how anyone can say that "they got bigger" and "they recovered faster" are evidence of what was done to statistics...
Yeah, I get it and its quite laughable.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
You are saying that being Faster, Stronger, and being able to recover Faster has no effect on Stats.
Im saying otherwise.
When Joyner says that those players are able to recover faster and therefore get more playing time, that affects stats.
When Joyner says these players are way stronger because they use steroids and are hitting way more Homeruns than before.
That is evidence they affect stats.
Is it concrete 100% evidence, no and nothing in life is usually 100%
Just like I pointed out your expert can say one thing, someone else's could say something the exact opposite.
Joyner's testimony is still evidence, however circumstancial it may be.