stevestojan Posted March 17, 2005 Share Posted March 17, 2005 I know the easy answer is "If they didn't take steroids, why not just say "no, i didn't"". But today they will be asked under oath, and we are expected to hear some 5th admentment pleas. What will you think? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cåblelady Posted March 17, 2005 Share Posted March 17, 2005 guilty Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
N.Y. Orangeman Posted March 17, 2005 Share Posted March 17, 2005 I know the easy answer is "If they didn't take steroids, why not just say "no, i didn't"". But today they will be asked under oath, and we are expected to hear some 5th admentment pleas. What will you think? 277645[/snapback] I would expect that if there is any ambiguity in the questions posed by Congress or the definition of "steroids", most players will take the 5th. While the court of public opinion will be brutal, a charge of perjury is much worse. I think this whole hearing is ridiculous, nothing more than political grandstanding. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BarkLessWagMore Posted March 17, 2005 Share Posted March 17, 2005 yes Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CosmicBills Posted March 17, 2005 Share Posted March 17, 2005 The thing is, even if they say yes...what are they going to do? The answer is they can't do anything. Taking steroids is not illegal. Selling, distributing and possessing steroids is. Not taking them. This is just congressional posturing. These hearings are a joke. No player will admit anything, even if they say "No"...what's the Congress going to do? How can you prove they did? Simple heresay won't work. And since baseball has never had a testing policy, it's not like they can fall back on any sort of tests to prove them a liar. this is a witch hunt. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
USMCBillsFan Posted March 17, 2005 Share Posted March 17, 2005 The thing is, even if they say yes...what are they going to do? The answer is they can't do anything. Taking steroids is not illegal. Selling, distributing and possessing steroids is. Not taking them. This is just congressional posturing. These hearings are a joke. No player will admit anything, even if they say "No"...what's the Congress going to do? How can you prove they did? Simple heresay won't work. And since baseball has never had a testing policy, it's not like they can fall back on any sort of tests to prove them a liar. this is a witch hunt. 277673[/snapback] What I don't understand is if it's no big deal to admit and all these people want to plead the 5th, then why is Conseco requesting immunity? What does he need immunity from if nothing was illegal? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kasper13 Posted March 17, 2005 Share Posted March 17, 2005 Of course it does. People have the right to not incriminate themselves on a witness stand. If someone asks a player "Did you take steroids?" They can answer one of three way. "Yes", "No" or "I plead the 5th". If Mark McGwire says no, then he is a liar and is guilty of perjury. If he says Yes, then he publicly humiliates himself, taints his entire career and probably will cost himself a spot in the Hall of Fame. If he pleads the 5th, everyone knows he did but he won't admit it in public,continuing the speculation until someone else proves that he did. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
obie_wan Posted March 17, 2005 Share Posted March 17, 2005 The thing is, even if they say yes...what are they going to do? The answer is they can't do anything. Taking steroids is not illegal. Selling, distributing and possessing steroids is. Not taking them. This is just congressional posturing. These hearings are a joke. No player will admit anything, even if they say "No"...what's the Congress going to do? How can you prove they did? Simple heresay won't work. And since baseball has never had a testing policy, it's not like they can fall back on any sort of tests to prove them a liar. this is a witch hunt. 277673[/snapback] the actual target is major league baseball intself. MLB is trying to stop Congress from imposing its own rules control the use of performance enhancing drugs- which are then used all the way down to the high school level. Unfortunately, MLB has shot itself in the foot by lying directly to Congress about the terms of its new policy and the little detail that the testing program is still only in draft form and has not been signed by the league of players. MLB sold Congress on the fact that the policy would be effective because players would be fearful of testig positive and then being suspended and identifed to the world as cheaters. MLB forget to tell Congress that they added a little clause that gives the commissioner, (that bastion of leadership-Bud Selig) the discretion to issue $10,000 fines- instead of public suspensions. The whole program is a farce designed to allow MLB to protect any name player who is stupid enough to get caught. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CosmicBills Posted March 17, 2005 Share Posted March 17, 2005 What I don't understand is if it's no big deal to admit and all these people want to plead the 5th, then why is Conseco requesting immunity? What does he need immunity from if nothing was illegal? 277713[/snapback] That's a great question actually. There is no way the athletes will go and admit anything (for reasons I stated above about there not being any evidence to prove otherwise). If they did admit it, it would damage any of their future deals (endorsments or even current contracts with clubs that may have steroid clauses). If Congress REALLY wanted to be accomplishing something, they would be using the players to go after the suppliers (i.e. find out who supplied them with roids etc) so they could make arrests. But if this is what they wanted, they certainly wouldn't do so IN OPEN HEARINGS. They would do it closed door, offer the players immunity and seal the testimony...that's the only way the players will (pun intended) play ball. Like I said, it's a witch hunt. This accomplishes nothing other than get a few senators and congressman face time on a "hot button issue". It's a joke. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beerball Posted March 17, 2005 Share Posted March 17, 2005 guilty 277646[/snapback] Wish youda been on the Blake jury! Yeah Stojan, you gotta figure they're guilty even though the Supreme Court and every lawyer says otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
kasper13 Posted March 17, 2005 Share Posted March 17, 2005 "Taking steroids is not illegal" Uh, YES, taking steroids is in fact illegal. To say taking steroids is not illegal is just plain ignorance. "The Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 1990 added anabolic steroids to the federal schedule of controlled substances, thereby criminalizing their non-medical use by those seeking muscle growth for athletic or cosmetic enhancement. It places steroids in the same legal class as amphetamines, methamphetamines, opium and morphine. Those caught illegally possessing anabolic steroids even for purely personal use face arrest and prosecution. Under the Control Act, it is unlawful for any person knowingly or intentionally to possess an anabolic steroid unless it was obtained directly, or pursuant to a valid prescription or order, from a practitioner, while acting in the course of his professional practice (or except as otherwise authorized). A simple possession conviction is punishable by a term of imprisonment of up to one year and/or a minimum fine of $1,000." In 2004 the following drugs were added to the above TETRAHYDROGESTRINONE (THG), ANDROSTENEDIONE, AND SPECIFIC RELATED CHEMICALS USED TO PROMOTE MUSCLE GROWTH. SPECIFICALLY, ANDROSTENEDIONE, OR ANY "ANDRO"-CONTAINING SUBSTANCE" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Like A Mofo Posted March 17, 2005 Share Posted March 17, 2005 Wars and conflicts going on all over the world that the USA is involved in...and our congre$$men are concerned about whether or not Mark McGwire took the juice....gotta love that they are spending our $ wisely and their priorities are in order!!! We all know most of these athletes in EVERY sport nowadays took the juice or some kind of illegial drug that enhances their performance, we all know MLB will NOT include blood testing and will have loopholes available for players to take other drugs, like Growth Hormones. As long as big $$$ is involved, more players will choose greed over health. And owners and agents and the commish WILL turn the other cheek. It just the sad facts. Sure you can stop it at the lower level all you want (HS, College), but eventually these players will find out about these drugs and a lot of them WILL use them for the love of fame and $, period. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevestojan Posted March 17, 2005 Author Share Posted March 17, 2005 Selig is gonna get lambasted today. The players are just there for song and dance. My question is, aren't we at war right now? I mean, why the hell is congress wasting their time and our time with this crap? If my company, or your company, or any company has a drug abuse problem, I have a weird feeling congress won't hold a session just for us... Anyway, people may hate Conseco for throwing other players under the bus, but at least he's honest. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevestojan Posted March 17, 2005 Author Share Posted March 17, 2005 Wars and conflicts going on all over the world that the USA is involved in...and our congre$$men are concerned about whether or not Mark McGwire took the juice....gotta love that they are spending our $ wisely and their priorities are in order!!! 277742[/snapback] damn, you beat me to it! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slothrop Posted March 17, 2005 Share Posted March 17, 2005 As a lawyer I would say the answer is no. For example, what if they were asked a question whether they took any "performance enhancement drugs?" An answer to that ambiguous question, either yes or no, could bind them down the road. As a lawyer you want to preserve all of your client's rights and legal options. What may seem as a harmless question or a harmless answer may result in serious liability down the road. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stevestojan Posted March 17, 2005 Author Share Posted March 17, 2005 As a lawyer I would say the answer is no. For example, what if they were asked a question whether they took any "performance enhancement drugs?" An answer to that ambiguous question, either yes or no, could bind them down the road. As a lawyer you want to preserve all of your client's rights and legal options. What may seem as a harmless question or a harmless answer may result in serious liability down the road. 277757[/snapback] ok, so what if the question isn't ambiguous? What if they were to ask: "Mr. McGuire, did you ever inject yourself, or have someone else inject you with, anobolic steroids?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
scribo Posted March 17, 2005 Share Posted March 17, 2005 Yes. I don't think they could legally use the 5th otherwise. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
slothrop Posted March 17, 2005 Share Posted March 17, 2005 ok, so what if the question isn't ambiguous? What if they were to ask: "Mr. McGuire, did you ever inject yourself, or have someone else inject you with, anobolic steroids?" 277762[/snapback] I would still instruct him to "take the 5th" because a Congressional hearing is not a court of law (sort-of) and any answer he gives could be used against him down the road in a court of law. It is still uncertain if McGuire would face any criminal charges, so why would I want my client to expose himself to liability? or box him in legally as far as legal options? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KRC Posted March 17, 2005 Share Posted March 17, 2005 Wars and conflicts going on all over the world that the USA is involved in...and our congre$$men are concerned about whether or not Mark McGwire took the juice....gotta love that they are spending our $ wisely and their priorities are in order!!! 277742[/snapback] Honestly, other than budget debates regarding the wars, there is not much for them to do. Now you have the right idea about other things being a higher priority (in no specific order): Intelligence reform Confirmations of new appointees Social Security Reform Medicare Reform Budget proposals Drilling in ANWR etc... This baseball crap is meaningless and is nothing more than politicians looking for facetime. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
R. Rich Posted March 17, 2005 Share Posted March 17, 2005 I think this hearing will finally get to the bottom of all these steriod questions and the public will get the answers they seek. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts