Comments on: Well I’m glad that’s over

By: David

David — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 07:48:39 +0000

If you ain’t cheatin’, you ain’t tryin’…
-Anon

Personally if I were interested in cheating in baseball(which I’m not sure if using the test even bothers me) and who did it I’d much rather read a book like Juiced by Canseco - who had the inside track and is credited as bringing the stuff into the game by many.

The truth(who knows if this report is even telling the truth or used pressure to create false acusations) the WHOLE TRUTH (which the report seems to be lacking) and nothing but the truth (again who knows).

Inge on the otherhand is a longtime Tiger an exceptional third-baseman (I really don’t care what anyone says), a good media personality and frankly not a SMART hitter.

If he were a good hitter then there really would be not much to hang your hat on if you were an Inge hater.

The reason Inge posts (IMO) garner many responses is because most people tend to see one glaring side and ignore the other.

With Crag/Casey gone Inge could be seen as the free-swinging weak spot - which many fans (this site being no exception) - a rally-killer and they thing they must crusade against the Inge lovers inorder to make the lineup more ridiculous than it already was and is.

Where are the posts for/against Pudge??? He didn’t exactly do too well last year.

Go Tigs!

By: ron

ron — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 06:23:24 +0000

I find it interesting that there are only 56 comments concerning the biggest scandal in baseball since 1919. A statement by Brandon Inge concerning anything would garner twice as many responses. Are people so inured to this cheating in baseball and boorish behavior by athletes in all sports that they just don’t care?

By: Greg

Greg — Mon, 17 Dec 2007 23:09:06 +0000

Dave, I don’t think that’s right. Slander and libel are intentional torts. But the “intent” element merely requires that the speaker/writer intended to say what he did.

Intent to do harm would certainly be relevant to punitive damages (and might be a crime?).

By: Dave

Dave — Mon, 17 Dec 2007 21:00:37 +0000

The players would also have to prove that any false information was cited for the purpose of doing them some kind of harm.

By: Greg

Greg — Mon, 17 Dec 2007 17:18:07 +0000

I’m an attorney (although I don’t handle these types of cases). A lot of people talk about suing for libel. I think even Roger Clemens threatened it. MLB indemnified Mitchell, so Mitchell does not face any personal liability.

Libel is a tough burden. Clemens, or any player, has the burden of proving that the report was untrue. The burden is just to prove it by a “preponderance of the evidence,” it isn’t like the criminal law standard of “beyond a reasonable doubt.” The problem is that the report doesn’t explicitly say “Clemens used steroids.” It says “so and so said that Clemens used steroids, and here’s a copy of a check he wrote.” Unless the informant didn’t actually say those things, it’s hard to accuse the report of being inaccurate. And it has to be explicitly wrong — I don’t think innuendo counts.

I would advise the players that they don’t have any legal recourse, although I’m sure there are plenty of money and attention-hungry attorneys who will take on such a case. It complicates things that all of the players were given a chance to talk to Mitchell, but declined.

By: ron

ron — Mon, 17 Dec 2007 16:19:31 +0000

Where are the lawyers on this site? Any advice for some of these players?

By: ron

ron — Mon, 17 Dec 2007 14:30:13 +0000

We’re waiting to hear from you ,Roger. It’s Monday morning and your agent or lawyer should have a nicely worded statement like Andy’s how you did it for the team. And Nook, where are you?

By: ron

ron — Mon, 17 Dec 2007 01:07:22 +0000

How much financial reward do some of these guys need to risk their health. They’re addicted to the fame and money and we’re addicted to them. Who are the fools here?

By: Kurt

Kurt — Sun, 16 Dec 2007 18:42:56 +0000

Right from the mitchell report:

There is a widespread misconception that the use of steroids and other performance enhancing substances, such as human growth hormone, was not prohibited in Major League Baseball before the inclusion of the joint drug program in the 2002 Basic Agreement. In fact, as early as 1991 baseball’s drug policy expressly prohibited the use of “all illegal drugs and controlled substances, including steroids or prescription drugs for which the individual … does not have a prescription.”

By: BobS.

BobS. — Sun, 16 Dec 2007 15:04:39 +0000

Cortisone is a corticosteroid,a class of drugs which have fairly widespread conventional applications in medicine as anti-inflammatory agents in conditions ranging from asthma to orthopedic problems to immunosuppression in transplant patients.
Growth hormone has more specific applications and can be legally prescribed for hypopituitarism,which has various causes.Generally speaking,an endocrinologist should be consulted regarding it’s use.Because of the medical-legal-ethical issues presently attached to it’s use,most physicians would probably be reluctant to casually prescribe it to professional athletes as a training supplement or even to help recover from an injury.
I guess the answer to your question is that cortisone is used to treat an existing diagnosed medical problem,the same way some athletes are treated with insulin for their diabetes or chemotherapy for their cancer.Growth hormone is not used based on medical diagnosis,but usually for the sake of it’s user to enhance an otherwise healthy body in order to gain a competitive edge.Like all medical treatment,there are potentially hazardous side effects that some users are obviously prepared to risk.The biggest problem I have with performance enhancing agents like growth hormone is that their use by some players force the Hobbesian choice on other players who otherwise wouldn’t use them to either risk the potential lifelong medical complications associated with their use or lose their competitive edge and the financial reward that goes with it.