[quote]rainjack wrote:
TJN713 wrote:
The term “witch hunt” usually is made in reference to a situation where the targets of the hunt did nothing wrong, but chose to take a position unpopular with that of the prevailing mainstream. They are targeted for their (legal) beliefs. See the Communist Witch Hunts of the 40s and 50s for reference. Here you have a situation where the “accused” apparently did exactly what they are being “accused” of doing. Were their actions illegal at the time? Yes. Did their employers care at the time? Obviously not. But to name names now, in a report more designed to clear up the sport’s public perception, in my eyes does not qualify as a witch hunt.
Apparently? You think you can use the word “apparently” in reference to a federal crime and have it stick? What in fucks name ever happened to due process? You have the testimony of someone under the thumb of the feds. You have no hard evidence, at least NOTHING that can stand up in a court of law.
You can doubt the veracity of the evidence all you want, but the stuff cited in the exhibits to the Mitchell Report (you have looked at it by now, correct?) are more than sufficient enough to be entered into evidence in a Court of law.
Drop your fucking condescension at the door, asshole. I am reading it, but I am also listening to the lawyers on ESPN rip your contention a new orifice. Most of the evidence came from a fucking book - which is here say at best.
Informant’s testimony, when corroborated, is often enough to convict. Why is it any less valuable in this situation? You have seen the canceled checks, money orders, delivery receipts, etc. attached to the Report, haven’t you? The paper trail rarely lies. In this instance, it confirms the testimony of the various sources.
Not in all instances. You are talking about a very few cases. Most of the names are thrown in with only third person evidence al la Tejada.
I personally can give a rat’s ass as to who used or didn’t use. I still buy my Padres season tickets every year. But any attempts to discredit the Mitchell Report will not fly. That report has no doubt been vetted 8 ways till Sunday, and every last allegation in there is backed by substantial evidence. Plus, you do realize that some of the names in the Report actually admitted their use to the investigative team?
I am so glad you take at face value what the report says. I especially like the way you swallow the ownerships gloss over.
I feel for those that were named without proper proof. I how they sue the shit out of baseball. Selig should be tried as a co-conspirator. He is a whore who turned a deaf ear to steroid use while it helped pull MLB out of the shitter. Lest you think I am full of shit - baseball was a $1.3 billion business in 1998. In 2006, it turned $6 billion and change.
At the least - owners and MLB should take the lion’s share of the blame. As it stands - and contrary to your idiotic position - there is not enough proof to convict anyone anywhere but in the court of public opinion.
[/quote]
Angry? Check.
Out of proportion? Check.
Unnecessarily personal? Check.
Under-informed? Check.
Typical response from you.
Hey. How about you identify all the players who were named without proper proof? You obviously have much better information about all this than the investigators and the Feds. And using ESPN hired talking heads to back up your points pretty much cements your lack of credibility.
Why so angry? It’s just the internet.