Are all lies created equal?

[HoustonGM]

I think it's important to note that the author is saying it's a form of entrapment. As she says, though, it's "not one recognized as a common law defense to crime."

Yet I don't think they are intending to prosecute any player for using. They ask the player - did you use steroids? The player has two choices - answer honestly, face the consequences of their sport/fans and not go to jail. Or answer dishonestly and risk perjury. I don't think Congress would have pressed for charges against a player that admitted to using steroids - but they don't like to be lied to.

This is why I agree with the article and think that it is a form of entrapment. Admit to a crime, which any normal human being would be "afraid" to do out of fear of potentially being charged with the crime they admit to, or don't admit to the crime and suffer through a perjury investigation and potential perjury charges. Even though we know that the government isn't likely to go after admitted steroid users, admitting that you committed a crime when the government has little or no evidence of that crime...well, let's face it, that's not smart either.

Is it all worthy of additional prosecution? well that depends on if someone thinks that the truth in the steroids issue will help moving foward, if so they punishing those who impede that is step in the right direction. If telling players that if they know of steriod use and are questioned about it they should divulge that info will help clean things up who knows.

I think it's obvious that knowing who did what in the past, while satisfying curiosity, does nothing to advance the goal of ridding the game of steroids. In my opinion, focusing so much on who did what 10 years ago draws attention away from preventing the problem now and in the future.

And, either way, I don't think it's the government's job to clean up the game of baseball.

[gRYFYN1]

I think it's obvious that knowing who did what in the past, while satisfying curiosity, does nothing to advance the goal of ridding the game of steroids. In my opinion, focusing so much on who did what 10 years ago draws attention away from preventing the problem now and in the future.

And, either way, I don't think it's the government's job to clean up the game of baseball.

I agree that there is too much focus on what happened in the past, but that come from the deluded concept that steroid have had a major impact on the product on the field -which it seems les and less likely everytime new info comes up.

And I also agree that the gov't has gone too far down this rabbit hole - while some pressure was needed to prod the side into actually looking at it - they, as the gov't usually does, have gone way to far and are hunting flies with a shotgun.

I just fine that justifying what Tejada did as the result of some kind of entrapment a horrible misrepresentation.

[Arctic Blast]

Tejada chose to lie...there really isn't any way of showing that as entrapment...he lied, he chose to lie, he's an idiot.

[HoustonGM]

I just fine that justifying what Tejada did as the result of some kind of entrapment a horrible misrepresentation.

I don't think anyone is saying Tejada was right for lying, or trying to justify it like that. The issue isn't Tejada. He's just an example of the issue - the government can't charge these guys with steroid possession or distribution, but they want to get them for SOMETHING, so they "investigate", hoping...well, more knowing...that they'll get a lie and can then get them for perjury. The last paragraph sums it up:

It may be that the most disturbing aspect of the prosecution of dopers for lying, rather than for doping, is the hypocrisy inherent in the government's effectively lying to the courts about what it is really prosecuting while relying on a law that criminalizes lying. If the government cannot honestly and forthrightly gather evidence to prosecute the use of performance-enhancing drugs in baseball, then it has no business expecting players to provide honest answers to questions about such use.

Also, something from earlier in the thread that I just wanted to say something about because it's a huge pet peeve of mine...

Tjada COULD have just told the truth, he COULD have not been a lying rat that conveniently forgot how to speak english. But those are all for too high a standard to hold anyone to.

I don't know if you intended anything by the bolded statement, but it's a huge pet peeve of mine, and most notably comes up when discussing Sammy Sosa's testimony in front of Congress where he spoke through a translator. We really need to stop demonizing Spanish speaking people for having the gall to deal with legal issues in their native language. While Tejada (or Sosa) may be fluent in English, being as it is his second language, he should absolutely handle such potential life-changing matters such as legal activities in his native language. If I learn Spanish and live for a little in Mexico, and then face legal trouble there, should I really be forced to deal with the problem while speaking in Spanish, opening up the door for potential misunderstandings or something due to me not being a native speaker? The language someone uses when handling legal issues should not be an issue whatsoever.

[kenny1234]

I don't think anyone is saying Tejada was right for lying, or trying to justify it like that. The issue isn't Tejada. He's just an example of the issue - the government can't charge these guys with steroid possession or distribution, but they want to get them for SOMETHING, so they "investigate", hoping...well, more knowing...that they'll get a lie and can then get them for perjury.

You say that the government wants to "get them for something". What makes you think that? They haven't pursued charges against any player that has admitted to using any substance, they haven't pursued charges against any of the NFL players that have been caught using steroids - there is no basis for the idea that the players are going to be charged with steroid possession. Do I think that the whole thing is a waste of time? Yes. But if you are asked a question, under oath, before Congress - tell the truth, or plead the 5th amendment (I believe that you have that option). Yes, it will look bad - but that isn't Congress' problem.

[dickay]

we see the world in such different lights hgm. the argument IMO is flawed from the beginning. the govt. was performing an investigation to determine the extent of steroid use in baseball, and since steroid use and distribution is illegal...it seems obvious the overriding goal is to determine all the particulars into how the drugs were obtained, who sold them and where those people got them from. The players blatantly lying are without question obstructing justice.

The point is that the government isn't actually investigating into a crime. Their goal is not to find out who did steroids and prosecute those that did. They're investigating steroid use, but not with the intent of prosecuting anybody for it. The question that comes out of this is "Is lying that obstructs an investigation into a crime worse than lying that does not obstruct any such investigation?" To me, that answer is yes. That's why the murder example doesn't fit. The government is investigating a murder with the intent to prosecute the offender. That's different than the government investigating who did steroids, with no intent to prosecute them for the steroid use.

How do you find that the govt. isn't trying to prosecute anyone? I teach accident / incident investigation techniques, and while its not criminal investigation...the same principles apply into all investigations. Never go in trying to lay blame, because you most certainly will find it. If the investigators are doing their job...they know that criminal activity took place and are fact finding...trying to dig through the layers to determine the root cause of the problem. Lying to them obstructed their investigation. That is very clear and I don't understand how in anyway entrapment could be considered here. I really don't understand why this shyster is so adamantly against an investigation to steroids.

[HoustonGM]

I really don't understand why this shyster is so adamantly against an investigation to steroids.

He did not write this article. He simply linked to it and made a short comment about it (which I quoted in my first paragraph). He didn't even give any opinions in his blog entry at all.

[dickay]

He did not write this article. He simply linked to it and made a short comment about it (which I quoted in my first paragraph). He didn't even give any opinions in his blog entry at all.

i didn't read the article, just your comments on it. i saw you mention shyster in your first post which is why i thought it was his. i skimmed this thread in fact...didn't read it entirely.