[Perdogg]

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?

[Tallguy]

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?

I think its safe to say that Mark McGwire went far beyond Andro with his training program considering his relationship with Canseco & the proximity of BALCO. But your other questions are valid.

[aroundabout]

Where is eveidence to back up these claims?

Is there anything at all besides one mans word against another?

[Labyrinthos]

This is the problem I have will entire incident are the following:

1) Did Mitchell have the power of subpoenas?

No.

2) Were people required to sign affidavits before giving evidence or reqiured to take an oath under the threat of perjury?

Sort of. Brian McNamee, who is Clemens' accuser, agreed to cooperate with Mitchell as part of his plea bargain with the Feds. McNamee was given immunity with respect to his statements to Mitchell provided he was completely open and truthful. A Federal prosecutor was present at each interview to assure compliance with the plea agreement.

3) Where is evidence to back up these claims?

Although I can't recall whether McNamee provided documentary evidence specific to Clemens, Mitchell's report has an extensive appendix that contains documentary evidence to back up many of the allegations, including canceled checks, notes, FedEx receipts, etc. I also note all of the named juicers were given an opportunity to respond to the allegations and all but a handful refused.

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?

Mitchell acknowledges that in the report. But that vast, overwhelming majority of the accusations refer to stuff that was illegal and/or forbidden by MBL rules at the time of use. He uses McGuire and Bonds as evidence that MLB, from the Commissioner's office right down the chain of command, buried their heads as the use of juice became widespread.

[Sonny M]

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?

In the report it notes that steroids were banned in 1991 by fay vincent.

[incredulous joe]

“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?”

Yeah, I remember that.

McGuire was very open about his use of Andro. At the time I thought, hey, that can’t be right. But any of the other players could have legally used the stuff, as well.

I don’t like cheaters, but I like 20/20 moralists even less.