Re: Mitchell report due today
Quote:
Originally Posted by
FRENCHREDSOX
basically a lot of players/trainers' found a "loophole" in the rules & exploited it for their own gains.
Which is something that goes on in nearly every competitive sport at one time or another.
Quote:
simple as that steroids is considered "federally" in the same context as heroine & cocaine.;)
And unless a player is caught actually using cocaine or heroin, like say, Steve Howe, the MLB does not punish them. If hearsay evidence comes out years later, like Tim Raines admitting to cocaine usage, the MLB does not retroactively punish him. Why should steroids be held to a different standard?
Re: Mitchell report due today
Quote:
One has to consider the whole picture not just the MLB & its rules.Steroids are an illicit drug which cannot be used without a certified doctor's prescription for a real ailment.IN the case of players',they knowingly were using it outside the context of medicair & thus were breaking FEDERAL law,simple as that steroids is considered "federally" in the same context as heroine & cocaine.
I had been wondering if anyone of these players could be charged with a federal drug charge. As you said steroids fall under the same laws as pot, coke, heroine. So a would a cancelled check to a steroid supplier be consider evidence to an illegal act, if the supplier has already been caught like Balco. Its also against the law to buy drugs, just not using them
Re: Mitchell report due today
Cancelled checks would be considered evidence. I'm no legal expert, but I would assume that it would probably take more than just cancelled checks, especially in the case of like Kurt Radomski. There's no evidence beside Radomski's word that the checks were written to him FOR steroids. Now, don't get me wrong, I do believe that they were, but I don't think it'd hold up in a court of law.
In order for them to actually be convicted, it'd require evidence that the player had illegal drugs in his possession.
Re: Mitchell report due today
Quote:
Originally Posted by
Reade
I had been wondering if anyone of these players could be charged with a federal drug charge. As you said steroids fall under the same laws as pot, coke, heroine. So a would a cancelled check to a steroid supplier be consider evidence to an illegal act, if the supplier has already been caught like Balco. Its also against the law to buy drugs, just not using them
Checks,samples & actual possession are all evidence - it then upto the Government to decide if it is feasible & worth it (as a Federal Trial has millions of dollars of cost involved).
The pecuniary aspect is a major element in all Federal cases & the most logical way is to indite the producer/supplier & obtain the list of his "clients" & indite them on lesser charges (basically what they have been doing with BALCO & the internet pharmacy groups in New Jersey & Florida).
Thus the problems that Marion Jones & now Bonds' have.
Re: Mitchell report due today
Quote:
Originally Posted by
HoustonGM
Cancelled checks would be considered evidence. I'm no legal expert, but I would assume that it would probably take more than just cancelled checks, especially in the case of like Kurt Radomski. There's no evidence beside Radomski's word that the checks were written to him FOR steroids. Now, don't get me wrong, I do believe that they were, but I don't think it'd hold up in a court of law.
In order for them to actually be convicted, it'd require evidence that the player had illegal drugs in his possession.
Actually there is evidence of Radomski's "cancelled checks",paid checks & "steroid" supply (& thus possession), in his ledgers WHICH are held by the Feds (& thus Mitchell & Co. could not obtain the factual evidence as they have NO real jurisdiction & had to "rely" on Radomski's word.)
However,it is not in Radomski's motivation to lie either to Mitchell as he has already told the Federals' the same story & has clearly given them evidence sustaining the names provided.
Re: Mitchell report due today
Here's another interesting perspective re: HGH, from Jayson Stark's chat:
Quote:
Steve (DC): How is using a Cortisone shot to return from injury different than using HGH?
Jayson Stark: (12:19 PM ET ) That's another great issue. The simple difference is that cortisone is legal (a legal steroid, actually) and HGH is illegal if improperly prescribed. But what you find if you dig through the accounts for context is that clearly, players came to believe that HGH was a miracle healing drug that helped them recover from injuries faster. So a lot of them sought it out for the same reasons players ask for a cortisone shot -- so they can get back and play when they ordinarily couldn't. If a guy takes a cortisone shot to play in a postseason game, he's a hero. But if a guy uses HGH so he can get off the DL in time to play in the playoffs, he's a "cheater." It's a fine line, isn't it?
And re: court cases:
Quote:
Kevin (Houston, TX): What type of evidence do you think would be significant proof? We all know that people aren't going to get caught on tape (at least not enough to matter). The only thing we can hope for is multiple sources claiming a certain player used. That is the best we can get.
Jayson Stark: (12:25 PM ET ) That's right. But we don't have multiple sources for most of these players. We mostly have one source -- and it's generally one of two guys who are talking to save their own butts. A lawyer told me yesterday that a judge would instruct a jury that the testimony of a witness who made a deal with the government is not sufficient for a conviction. There needs to be corroborating evidence. And it's lacking in many, many instances in this report.
Re: Mitchell report due today
Quote:
Here's another interesting perspective re: HGH, from Jayson Stark's chat:
Stark KNOWS very little about HGH & its effects.He is advocating only 1 possible usage,whereas it has multiple usages from recovery of injury to muscle growth to muscle development(which is not neccesarily the same as muscle growth) to the development of nuclei to actual retardation of the aging process.The REAL advantage of HGH is that it is undetectable in urine samples & therefore in untraceable under MLB testing procedure.
In other sports,such as WADA administereded events like the Tour de France or Athletics blood samples are used & HGH is "supposedly traceable" eg Vinoukov had 2 distinct blood types,although obviously compatible.
If it was used as in the Stark examples firstly it would be have been prescribed by a doctor & a professional M.D. would have known that it was banned for a professional athlete & secondly a sensible/responsable player would not use a "banned" product when an alternative product could have been used without risk.
All the above is just my Humble opinion but it is funny that HGH first came into the system in Body building just as did steroids previously & not for recuperation usage.;)
Re: Mitchell report due today
Quote:
Originally Posted by
FRENCHREDSOX
Stark KNOWS very little about
HGH & its effects.He is advocating only 1 possible usage,whereas it has multiple usages from recovery of injury to muscle growth to muscle development(which is not neccesarily the same as muscle growth) to the development of nuclei to actual retardation of the aging process.
He isn't advocating any sort of usage, or saying anything about what he knows about the substance. He's saying what players thought. "But what you find if you dig through the accounts for context is that clearly, players came to believe that HGH was a miracle healing drug that helped them recover from injuries faster." The PLAYERS believed it to be that.
Quote:
If it was used as in the Stark examples firstly it would be have been prescribed by a doctor & a professional M.D. would have known that it was banned for a professional athlete & secondly a sensible/responsable player would not use a "banned" product when an alternative product could have been used without risk.
This exact thing came up later in Stark's chat.
Quote:
Chris (NY, NY): The problem I have with some guy's using the injury excuse for HGH is the soruces they got it from. If they had a liscensed doctor rpescirbe something that the doc said would make them heal faster then that's one story. But if you were really concerned about your health would you really be buying your medicine from gym rats or clubhouse attendants? Can't a reasnoable person distunguish the difference?
Jayson Stark: That's true, too. Let's take the Rick Ankiel case. Here's a guy who you want to believe. He wasn't even suspended by the commissioner's office after he met with them. He clearly believed what a lot of players believed -- that he could heal faster if he used HGH. But let's think about this another way. When you were 21, did you ever hang around an anti-aging clinic? When you pick up a prescription, do you ever pick it up at an anti-aging clinic? If you're getting your prescriptions through a place like that, you can't possibly believe that what you're doing is totally on the up and up, can you? But remember the context. That was the culture. Lots of guys did it. So where do we start hammering them and where do we start sympathizing? There are lots of levels to this story.
Re: Mitchell report due today
It is pretty funny. People complain that McGwire hit 70 homeruns when he was using Andro. My question is how many could he hit without? He hit 49 in his rookie season, in an age that there were no 50 homerun men.
I think that Jose Cansasco book did more damage then this report will ever do.
Re: Mitchell report due today
Quote:
Originally Posted by
boomboom
It is pretty funny. People complain that McGwire hit 70 homeruns when he was using Andro. My question is how many could he hit without? He hit 49 in his rookie season, in an age that there were no 50 homerun men.
I think that Jose Cansasco book did more damage then this report will ever do.
healthy and everything going right he probably could hae hit 70 anyway, it would be within historical norms, for a player, remember maris never cracked 40 when he hit 61, a 22 homer increase....
Re: Mitchell report due today
Quote:
Originally Posted by
boomboom
It is pretty funny. People complain that McGwire hit 70 homeruns when he was using Andro. My question is how many could he hit without? He hit 49 in his rookie season, in an age that there were no 50 homerun men.
Nevermind the fact that andro was a perfectly legal substance until April of 2004 when the FDA banned the sale of it.
Re: Mitchell report due today
For anyone interested Shysterball is running a piece-by-piece breakdown of the Mitchell Report. 4 parts are up, and he's barely a third into the report.
Re: Mitchell report due today
Quote:
Originally Posted by
HoustonGM
Huh?
Some time ago you had a nearly allergic reaction when I stated that Donnelley was a steroid user. Well, I still can't remember where I got that information then, but, well, I'm not calling you ill informed but......
Re: Mitchell report due today
Quote:
Originally Posted by
robinhoodnik
Some time ago you had a nearly allergic reaction when I stated that Donnelley was a steroid user. Well, I still can't remember where I got that information then, but, well, I'm not calling you ill informed but......
I'll search the forum for that when I get home later and see if we can put some context to it or what not.
Re: Mitchell report due today
Quote:
Originally Posted by
HoustonGM
Nevermind the fact that andro was a perfectly legal substance until April of 2004 when the FDA banned the sale of it.
The problem is Androstenedione is a steroid,although as stated a legal one at the time of McGwire's HR season,but also & this is where the problem lies,is it could have been a "masking agent".Like Drug dealers used Coffee beans to mask cocaine shipments from DEA dogs,Andro in the '90's could/was used to mask other products.
McGwire was also a known associate of steriod dealer Curtis Wenzlaff who was "busted" in MAY 1992 (or 6 years before his andro jar incident)
