I want to know what percentage of people on here feel that A-Rod has tarnished the game and that your opinion of him is forever changed. And to comment: Does this take away your hall of fame vote for him?
Printable View
I want to know what percentage of people on here feel that A-Rod has tarnished the game and that your opinion of him is forever changed. And to comment: Does this take away your hall of fame vote for him?
Personally he is still a hall of famer for me as well
No. Even though he did do roids for a few years, he is and was great. During the years he did not roid up he was great. And after. I am sure some idiotic writers will not vote for him, but he, IMO is an easy 1st rounder. This should not be blasted against him, nor against Big Mac and Barry.
I agree with you, but I wonder how many others willQuote:
Originally Posted by RedsoxRockies
I know that most fair weather fans and sports writers will not.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffy25
It has changed my opinion of him, however he did fess up and admit his wrongdoing (tho only because he was caught) my opinion has changed about him but I still feel he belongs in teh HOF.... however...
REALEASE the other 103... I Don't just want stars... I want EVERYONE who did them out in the open.
And I think the majority of baseball players want that as well, otherwise it's sort of like guilty by association.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheNamelessPoet
If the entire group of players that took them (forget the 104 and Mitchell report) came out and saidQuote:
Originally Posted by Jeffy25
THAT would settle this. Strike a deal with the Commish that noone will be suspended from anything before this date, and anythign going forward is 1 year suspension for the 1st time and lifetime ban for the next offense. You think the media, and fans would not look at that with compassion. Come on, it would be cleaning up the sport, and it would be admitting faultQuote:
We made a mistake. We are not saying where we got them, who started it nor placing the blame on Owners for allowing it, the Union for Facilitating it, Our coworkers for helping/suggesting them, or our trainers looking the other way; we just want to apologise to everyone for allowing this sport to be tarnished. Instead of picking on the the "Icon's" of our great sport, and National Pastime, we would like to do what a Union was desiged to do, and stand up for our bretheren. We made the mistake, its not the Drug companies fault. Its not the Owers fault, it's OUR fault, we allowed this to happen and we are sorry.
A deal wouldn't be needed for multiple reasons, such as the fact that you can't retroactively punish someone for doing something which you didn't punish at the time.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheNamelessPoet
I agree. I think 30-45 game suspensions are even a little extreme....but I would still support it.Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
I support the current system in place for positive tests. I am wholeheartedly against punishing players that did the deed while baseball was NOT punishing players. I am also even more wholeheartedly against punishing players for failing a test that nobody should have known they failed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffy25
I understand that, but keep in mind houston we are educated and THINK (most of the time anyway) and there are MANY outthere who want to punish for things done previously. Remember, you get a retrial if evidence is discovered later in time ;)
it would make the masses believe that they are putting it to rest... it would also make the players who don't understand feel as tho its a free pas and it will show that I am an adult and will admit when I am wrong
Retrials are done if evidence is discovered that EXONERATES you from the crime, not implicates you. If you get off, you can't get retried.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheNamelessPoet
And it'd be wrong. It'd be like prosecuting McGwire for using andro while it was legal.Quote:
it would make the masses believe that they are putting it to rest... it would also make the players who don't understand feel as tho its a free pas and it will show that I am an adult and will admit when I am wrong
if you get off and more edidence is found convicting you... you absolutly CAN be retried. You are telling me that say I shoot someone and they cant convict me because they cant find the gun... I get off... then they find the gun with my blood, their blood, and a video I took of killing the person... that I cant be tried again!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by HoustonGM
I like that this poll is going this way: currently 9-2
As a Dodger fan I looked forward to a day when ARod and not a Gnat would be at the top of the most hallowed American sports record...
cmon now, while he could be disciplined for conduct detrimental to the league, Selig has already said he's turned the page. He did so after the mitchell investigation, and claimed everyone involved with that would not be disciplined by the league. This is no different.
He gets enough punishment in the court of public opinion. My opinion hasn't changed because I was confident he had done roids prior to this acknowledgement.
Thats a wrong analogy. Andro was legal in baseball and society. Roids are not legal, therefore he could technically be fined. Whereas, if he was still under that contract he was when he tested positive, the team could have voided anything remaining in it (as was discussed with Giambi).Quote:
And it'd be wrong. It'd be like prosecuting McGwire for using andro while it was legal.
There is nothing in the football rulebook about carrying an unregistered gun, yet Plaxico was suspended indefinitely. Why, because he broke the law and it was deemed a violation of contract and against conduct clauses in the CBA.
Yes, but A-Rod didn't break the law. Just a baseball rule that didn't carry any consequences.Quote:
Originally Posted by dickay
steroids are an illegal substance if not prescribed.Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeffy25
That's correct, you can not. The legal principle is double jeopardy, as incorporated in the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution: "nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb."Quote:
Originally Posted by TheNamelessPoet
Essentially it means you can't be tried again after acquittal for the same offense. There are some exception, for example if you were acquitted in a state court and grounds were later found to try you at the federal level, that could be done. And if you weren't acquitted but were freed because a conviction was overturned or because of a mistrial, you could be tried again.
This is why you'll often see indictments delayed for months while the prosecution continues to develop evidence, leaving the suspect free while that happens. Once they go to trial, they're stuck with the evidence they have.
Yes to the first question, no to the second question. And no overall, because my opinion of him as a quality player has not changed at all.
My opinion of him as a person has changed, because I respect him for coming forward and being honest. And he wasn't stupid about it, at all. My opinion has changed in a positive way.
I don't think he's tainted the game any more or less than McGwire, Clemens, etc. And at this point, the more names that come up as unclean, it's probably for the better. Why? Because it means all the performance enhancing players just ended up nullifying themselves, and it was an era that ended up as a level playing field for all involved.
ok... so if I use my method above I cant be tried by the federal court (asuming that is who originaly convicted me) but I CAN be by the State court??? I just want to be sure im clear
Basically for that to happen you'd have to be charged differently. If there were grounds for federal murder charges and you were acquitted there, it's unlikely you could be charged for the same crime at the state level for the same act. If, though, you were acquitted of kidnapping, related to the murder, at the federal level you could still be charged for the murder in a state court. I should have clarified in the last post that by "grounds were later found to try you at the federal level" I meant on substantially different charges related to the act.Quote:
Originally Posted by TheNamelessPoet
What has been done occasionally is a person acquitted in a state court is later charged for a different federal crime, usually a civil rights violation.
That "dual-sovereignty doctrine" is what was used to prosecute the cops involved in the Rodney King case. They were acquitted in a state court of using excessive force, then were tried again and convicted in federal court of violating King's civil rights. That conviction was appealed on double jeopardy grounds, but the ruling on appeal was that they were two separate violation of the laws of two different jurisdictions, even though they stemmed from the same act.
interestin... good to know.... *plotting*
If you did something that violates both federal criminal law and the criminal law of the state that you did it in, then yes, you can be tried in both federal and state court for it. Note, however, that there's a lot less overlap than you might think--for example, murder, in general, is not a federal crime (it's only a federal crime under certain circumstances--for example, if the victim was a federal employee killed while performing their duties, or if the murder is part of a criminal conspiracy that crosses state lines).Quote:
Originally Posted by TheNamelessPoet
Yep... other examples: murder committed on federal land or a military base, or by an inmate in a federal prison.Quote:
Originally Posted by dps
But still, if you're acquitted on federal charges of murder you can not be subsequently tried for murder on the state level for the same act. It's the same offense under the Blockburger Test, and "jurisdictional elements" do not override double jeopardy. What could happen under the circumstances he's describing is a different charge at the state level, a gun possession charge for example.
no he was man enough to admit he did wrong
comenting on a Yankee are we RSR:D:DQuote:
Originally Posted by RedsoxRockies
No, i still think he's a retard
Another insight into the man...
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/02/09/op...tml/?th&emc=th
No, but my opinion of Bud Selig is becoming worse and worse if possible.
I hate when one poll asks two questions and you might want to answer each differently.
Has your opinon of A-Rod been forever changed?
Has he tainted the game?
How can there be just a "yes" and "no" choice to answer both of those?
It's two separate questions. My answer to each would be "no" but that's not really the point. The point is that the wording has tainted the poll, and therefore my opinion of the poll has been forever changed.
I agree, I wish there was a "dont care" option, because thats how I feel about the prima donna players.Quote:
Originally Posted by JayC