Gearing up for a lawsuit? Hope so, love to see cheats lose big time!
1 posted on
12/14/2007 8:40:57 AM PST by
meandog
To: meandog
I know nothing about baseball and very little about this case..but I don’t like the smell of congree releaseing names on anything telling the world someone is guilty without it being proven..it sounds like mcarthyism...some folks seem to think it’s ok if it rich ball playeres...
To: meandog
There will be no lawsuit.
Clemens' use of steroids was one of the worst-kept secrets in baseball over the last decade.
Any doubts I had about that were erased as soon as I saw/heard the statement from his smarmy lawyer who looks and acts like a character from a bad "B" movie set in Texas.
3 posted on
12/14/2007 8:47:48 AM PST by
Alberta's Child
(I'm out on the outskirts of nowhere . . . with ghosts on my trail, chasing me there.)
To: meandog
This is the problem I have will entire incident are the following:
1) Did Mitchell have the power of subpoenas?
2) Were people required to sign affidavits before giving evidence or reqiured to take an oath under the threat of perjury?
3) Where is eveidence to back up these claims?
4) Andro was neither illegal nor a banned substance when McGuire took it. I wonder if the concept of ex post facto means anything to any one?
5 posted on
12/14/2007 8:49:04 AM PST by
Perdogg
(Elections have consequences)
To: meandog
If gambling could keep Pete Rose out of the Hall of Fame (as it should) then steroids should keep Clements,Bonds and others out.
7 posted on
12/14/2007 8:49:58 AM PST by
Gay State Conservative
(Wanna see how bad it can get? Elect Hillary and find out.)
To: meandog
Clemens was so upset he popped the button on his 21 inch shirt collar.
9 posted on
12/14/2007 8:53:10 AM PST by
SaxxonWoods
(Fred Thompson's Federalism is right on.)
To: meandog
"Roger Clemens adamantly, vehemently and whatever other adjectives can be used, denies that he has ever used steroids or whatever the word is for improper substances."
I think he needs to hire a new lawyer, for starters.
To: meandog
Roger Clemens adamantly, vehemently and whatever other adjectives can be used, denies that he has ever used steroids or whatever the word is for improper substances. This from a lawyer?
12 posted on
12/14/2007 9:01:01 AM PST by
Izzy Dunne
(Hello, I'm a TAGLINE virus. Please help me spread by copying me into YOUR tag line.)
To: meandog
Mitchell is not a non-partisan in anything and is not, imo, a disinterested person.
Personally, I'd love to see the lawsuits fly in all directions, what lawyers call the shotgun stategery.
Eighty-five players named, almost all millionaires with lawyers, thirty ball clubs plus MLB all with rooms full of lawyers.
A wet dream. Go to Sam's and buy a crate of popcorn, this could be really a lot of fun.
15 posted on
12/14/2007 9:14:08 AM PST by
metesky
("Brethren, leave us go amongst them." Rev. Capt. Samuel Johnston Clayton - Ward Bond- The Searchers)
To: meandog
why not be sure before you bury these folks.........know why ?
Clemens is a republican and was gonna stump .....
22 posted on
12/14/2007 9:28:07 AM PST by
advertising guy
(If computer skills named us, I'd be back-space delete.)
To: meandog
If Clemens is soooo innocent, how come he did not respond to Mitchell BEFORE his report was issued. Mitchell said he gave everyone a chance to defend themselves BEFORE he issued the report.......and that almost no one came forward!
35 posted on
12/14/2007 9:42:11 AM PST by
TRY ONE
(NUKE the unborn gay whales!)
To: meandog
Seems like a simple situation to me...the innocent ones sue in civil court for slander and the guilty ones get an asterisk or get booted. This will go on for years and years and years.
To: meandog
Gearing up for a lawsuit? Hope so, love to see cheats lose big time!
I believe Clemens didn't sue when Canseco's book came out. One of the ESPN analysts said it best - anybody who is guilty is not going to risk losing a lawsuit.
To: meandog
The day he struck out 21 batters, his mother called him and said that that was his ticket to the Hall of Fame. Maybe not. He may wind up sitting on the bench next to Pete Rose.
47 posted on
12/14/2007 10:28:05 AM PST by
Lonesome in Massachussets
(NYT Headline: Protocols of the Learned Elders of CBS: Fake but Accurate, Experts Say)
To: meandog
I think it would be libel, not slander.
If he thinks he has a case, let him bring it.
I rather doubt that he will do so.
70 posted on
12/14/2007 11:15:36 AM PST by
B Knotts
(Tancredo '08!)
To: meandog
Wait. I see...he’s saying slander because he is claiming the trainer lied to Mitchell’s investigators.
Regardless, let him bring the lawsuit. Let’s see what he does.
FWIW, I don’t like what Barry Bonds did, but did get the feeling he was being unfairly singled out as far as public opinion goes, when probably half the major leagues is juiced.
71 posted on
12/14/2007 11:18:55 AM PST by
B Knotts
(Tancredo '08!)
To: meandog; All
Interesting. Very good thread. Thanks to all posters!
75 posted on
12/14/2007 11:22:04 AM PST by
PGalt
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson