OT: Clemens found not guilty of perjury

[Dback Jon]

 

[crisper57]

The Hall of Fame debate should be fun. Will the writers decide to make up for where the jury "failed" or will they decide that since he was acquitted, he can't be kept out?

 

[Dback Jon]

The Hall of Fame debate should be fun. Will the writers decide to make up for where the jury "failed" or will they decide that since he was acquitted, he can't be kept out?

Hopefully they make him wait

 

[CatBoxBackFan]

Shoeless Joe Jackson was acquitted but still not in the Hall

 

[TJ]

Hopefully they make him wait

They will. Voters are still mostly comprised of old timers who believe in the purity of the game.

For such a stat-driven league, MLB has seemingly the most subjective analysis of HoF credentials amongst the four major sports. Any stench of impropriety from a player and his legacy is forever tarnished.



Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[Covert Rain]

Still an F..ing cheater. Seriously, just another example of a high profile guy who has enough money and a large enough legal team to get off.

 

[Matt L]

What a waste of time and money.

 

[Matt L]

Much better said than me:

http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id...-verdict-our-senseless-national-drug-hysteria

 

[Russ Smith]

My take on Clemens is the same as my take on Armstrong, I don't believe him, and I don't really care if he did dope, I just don't like that he not only lies about it, but that he attacks other people's character when they dare to suggest he did dope.

Based on what I read about this case the problem was McNamee is such a detestable person the jury just didn't believe him. He contradicted himself too much, he was almost Mark Fuhrmann if you will. I don't think the jury believes Clemens is innocent, just that the prosecution didn't prove he was guilty, largely because they weren't sure when McNamee was telling the truth and when he wasn't.

Given that many of the top hitters of the day were using PED's I'm not sure why I should care that Clemens probably did. And I'd be pretty naive to believe he was that good, at that age, in a game full of cheating hitters, and not cheating.

 

[Chaz]

At least the jury has some sense.

What a colossal waste of time to prosecute this.

 

[BC867]

What a colossal waste of time to prosecute this.

Was it? People need and idolize sports and entertainment figures as an escape from everyday pressures.

If some stars (or many stars) go beyond the limit and take the venue down with them (to some degree), isn't it up to the authorities of our society to make it an issue? To discourage others from trying it in the foreseeable future?

Similar to the Hall of Fame making Pete Rose betting on games as a Major League manager an issue. As a player, Rose deserves entry. For his indiscretions (and arrogant attitude), it remains an issue. A deterrent.

Someone has to police those who break the laws or rules of good conduct. None of us have the power individually to clean it up. Even though it is our revenue that keeps it going.

 

[DWKB]

Was it? People need and idolize sports and entertainment figures as an escape from everyday pressures.

If some stars (or many stars) go beyond the limit and take the venue down with them (to some degree), isn't it up to the authorities of our society to make it an issue? To discourage others from trying it in the foreseeable future?

Similar to the Hall of Fame making Pete Rose betting on games as a Major League manager an issue. As a player, Rose deserves entry. For his indiscretions (and arrogant attitude), it remains an issue. A deterrent.

Someone has to police those who break the laws or rules of good conduct. None of us have the power individually to clean it up. Even though it is our revenue that keeps it going.

You want to keep Clemens out of the HOF, that's fine. I think it's stupid, but whatever. That has nothing to do with having him come before Congress and then having a trial because you don't believe what he said. That is the "colossal waste of time" SirChaz is referring to and he's absolutely correct.

 

[Covert Rain]

We all know just because a jury acquits someone has nothing to do with any level of sense. There are too many examples of that in history to deny that.

People are not addressing the real issue. If baseball, the lawyers that represent these guys and the fans that put these guys on the pedestal wasn't a factor.....in inquiry of this sort never happens.. The amount of cash sunk into the investigation never happens. The average joe would be sitting in a jail cell under similar circumstances.

This guy is guilty as hell. I don't have any issues at all with keeping all these guys out of the hall either. Guys like Clemons and Bonds hurt the game of baseball. The hall of fame is not only about your stats but you impact on the game.

 

[Chaz]

Was it? People need and idolize sports and entertainment figures as an escape from everyday pressures.

If some stars (or many stars) go beyond the limit and take the venue down with them (to some degree), isn't it up to the authorities of our society to make it an issue? To discourage others from trying it in the foreseeable future?

Similar to the Hall of Fame making Pete Rose betting on games as a Major League manager an issue. As a player, Rose deserves entry. For his indiscretions (and arrogant attitude), it remains an issue. A deterrent.

Someone has to police those who break the laws or rules of good conduct. None of us have the power individually to clean it up. Even though it is our revenue that keeps it going.

All of this is an issue for Major League Baseball.

I see no reason to literally make a federal case out of his testimony before Congress or even for Congress to be involved in the first place.


I personally think idolatry of sports and entertainment figures is misguided at best. If people want to do that or MLB wants to use that for advertising their product it is obviously up to them and I can just not participate.

 

[Chaz]

We all know just because a jury acquits someone has nothing to do with any level of sense. There are too many examples of that in history to deny that.

People are not addressing the real issue. If baseball, the lawyers that represent these guys and the fans that put these guys on the pedestal wasn't a factor.....in inquiry of this sort never happens.. The amount of cash sunk into the investigation never happens. The average joe would be sitting in a jail cell under similar circumstances.

This guy is guilty as hell. I don't have any issues at all with keeping all these guys out of the hall either. Guys like Clemons and Bonds hurt the game of baseball. The hall of fame is not only about your stats but you impact on the game.

This why we have jury trials at all. To let the people instead of the prosecutors and judges decide who deserves to be punished.

Let's also not confuse the "crime" against baseball with the subject of this trial.

 

[BC867]

You want to keep Clemens out of the HOF, that's fine. I think it's stupid, but whatever. That has nothing to do with having him come before Congress and then having a trial because you don't believe what he said. That is the "colossal waste of time" SirChaz is referring to and he's absolutely correct.

Your response didn't address the main point.

If some stars (or many stars) go beyond the limit and take the venue down with them (to some degree), isn't it up to the authorities of our society to make it an issue? To discourage others from trying it in the foreseeable future?

Baseball is not just a business. Its responsibilities sort of fall into the public domain. I applaud government for protecting the public from scams. Ballplayers on steroids to make a mockery of long standing records is a scam.

 

[Chaz]

Your response didn't address the main point.

Baseball is not just a business. Its responsibilities sort of fall into the public domain. I applaud government for protecting the public from scams. Ballplayers on steroids to make a mockery of long standing records is a scam.

On the surface this seems ridiculous to me.

Is it now the responsibility of the federal government to ensure the survival and integrity of MLB in perpetuity? Are the customers of MLB victims of fraud because someone may have ventured into an area of physical development that was unknown to them at the time?

Would our nation and society collapse without the presently constructed institution of professional baseball? What makes it different from basketball, football, or field hockey?

These are serious questions because I am trying to understand your position. I guess I am just not a big enough fan of baseball. It is a great game and a part of our history but I don't see it as irrevocably damaged over this.

 

[Covert Rain]

This why we have jury trials at all. To let the people instead of the prosecutors and judges decide who deserves to be punished.

There is a laundry list of examples where despite jury decision those who probably deserved to get punished still get off. Often this tends to happen way more often when it involves the rich and/or famous and their access to legal expertise.

I don't know if you have ever served on a big trial but I have. When some shady lawyer gets a motion passed to throw out a piece of evidence that says "guilty" under some technicality and the judge orders you not to consider or prevents you from seeing it...is the type of stuff that happens all the time. In this case, there was all kinds of evidence pointing to his guilt that was either discarded or called into question thanks to high price attorneys.

Again...jury decision doesn't equate to "sense" and it often comes down to who you can afford to represent you. Not to mention that it's usually these lawyers who extend out the legal process for months and months through various motions that drive up the cost of stuff like this.

 

[Russ Smith]

There is a laundry list of examples where despite jury decision those who probably deserved to get punished still get off. Often this tends to happen way more often when it involves the rich and/or famous and their access to legal expertise.

I don't know if you have ever served on a big trial but I have. When some shady lawyer gets a motion passed to throw out a piece of evidence that says "guilty" under some technicality and the judge orders you not to consider or prevents you from seeing it...is the type of stuff that happens all the time. In this case, there was all kinds of evidence pointing to his guilt that was either discarded or called into question thanks to high price attorneys.

Again...jury decision doesn't equate to "sense" and it often comes down to who you can afford to represent you. Not to mention that it's usually these lawyers who extend out the legal process for months and months through various motions that drive up the cost of stuff like this.

In this case the lawyers sort of shot themselves in the foot by trying to introduce evidence in this case that the judge had disallowed in the previous case. From what I saw on tv the "experts" said the judge sort of was in shock that they actually were dumb enough to do that and it set the tone for the whole case.

 

[Chaz]

There is a laundry list of examples where despite jury decision those who probably deserved to get punished still get off. Often this tends to happen way more often when it involves the rich and/or famous and their access to legal expertise.

I don't know if you have ever served on a big trial but I have. When some shady lawyer gets a motion passed to throw out a piece of evidence that says "guilty" under some technicality and the judge orders you not to consider or prevents you from seeing it...is the type of stuff that happens all the time. In this case, there was all kinds of evidence pointing to his guilt that was either discarded or called into question thanks to high price attorneys.

Again...jury decision doesn't equate to "sense" and it often comes down to who you can afford to represent you. Not to mention that it's usually these lawyers who extend out the legal process for months and months through various motions that drive up the cost of stuff like this.

Again it is why we have safe guards and standards are supposed to be set high to get a conviction.

Prosecutor misconduct and illegally obtained evidence are just a couple of examples of real issues and not just mere technicalities.

 

[Covert Rain]

Again it is why we have safe guards and standards are supposed to be set high to get a conviction.

Prosecutor misconduct and illegally obtained evidence are just a couple of examples of real issues and not just mere technicalities.

Right but now you are no longer talking about a persons guilt but the competence of those working the case. This doesn't mean he is any less guilty. This doesn't mean he isn't a scumbag. All it means is that his side knew how to use the legal system to get their client off.

It's funny how these high standards and safe guards come less and less into play the less money you have. Look at conviction rates of those with money versus those without.