The Mitchell Investigation - Fantasy Baseball Cafe 2014 Fantasy Baseball Cafe
100% Deposit Bonus for Cafe Members!

Return to Baseball Leftovers

The Mitchell Investigation

Moderator: Baseball Moderators

Re: The Mitchell Investigation

Postby Art Vandelay » Tue Dec 18, 2007 4:57 pm

This idea that it's okay to break the rules to recover from injuries but not okay to break them to increase production is laughable to me. Personally, I think anyone should be able to take whatever substances they want for whatever reason, but let's pretend I don't think baseball players should take steroids or HGH...why would it be okay for player A to take them to recover from an injury and increase their production from 0 HR to 20 HR, but not for player B to take them to increase production from 30 HR to 50 HR?

What if someone takes them before hand to prevent an injury instead of to recover from one? Would that be more acceptable? If you think taking PEDs is wrong and against the rules, then the motivation for taking them shouldn't matter. The big argument against them seems to be that it forces others to use and put their health at risk in order to compete on a level playing field, well isn't the person taking them to recover using to give himself an unfair advantage as well? What about the kid in AAA who would have been called up and got his shot in the bigs is player A didn't recover so fast due to using?
Image
Art Vandelay
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

CafeholicFantasy ExpertPick 3 Weekly WinnerLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 5265
(Past Year: 1)
Joined: 12 Mar 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: The Mitchell Investigation

Postby Lofunzo » Tue Dec 18, 2007 5:00 pm

Yoda wrote:
Tavish wrote:
Yoda wrote:I'm still wondering how Selig still is the commish. How the hell is he still holding that position with the way this entire steroids thing have been handled?

4 consecutive years of the league setting new attendance records.
Player's salaries through the roof.
Owners making millions.
Nearing 15 years of labor peace.

Fans can complain about steroids in baseball on internet forums and talk radio all they want. Those fans are the same ones who fork over their money to go out and scream at Bonds about how he is destroying the game. Selig, the owners, and the players can all sit back and do business as usual. Baseball is going strong and showing no real signs of slowing down.


Right... so everyone sits there and blames the players meanwhile enjoying the immense success those same players brought them. Makes a lot of sense.


So, you place more blame on Selig for looking the other way than you do the players who actually took the drugs??
Image
Lofunzo
Moderator
Moderator

User avatar
ModeratorCafeholicFantasy ExpertCafe RankerEagle EyeHockey ModPick 3 Weekly Winner
Posts: 23698
(Past Year: 18)
Joined: 9 Jul 2003
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Central Jersey

Re: The Mitchell Investigation

Postby jfg » Tue Dec 18, 2007 5:08 pm

Lofunzo wrote:
So, you place more blame on Selig for looking the other way than you do the players who actually took the drugs??


I definitely do. It would be different if it was 15-20 players using, but it was a culture of drug use. Selig knew it was going on and I wouldn't doubt if he (and ownership) privately endorsed it. In fact, I don't doubt it all. The drug culture and the record breaking years brought them back from a strike that threatened the game. Point being: Steroids made a lot of money for guys who weren't players. Selig is #1 on my list of guys to blame.
Image
jfg
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
CafeholicGolden Eagle EyeMatchup Meltdown SurvivorLucky Ladders Weekly WinnerTrivia Time Trial Monthly Winner
Posts: 6077
(Past Year: 169)
Joined: 4 Nov 2006
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: The Mitchell Investigation

Postby acsguitar » Tue Dec 18, 2007 5:24 pm

Art Vandelay wrote:
acsguitar wrote:Matt Holliday eats children if blatant Libel. He would sue and win that case even though he is a public figure. The evidence against Bonds is too strong for Libel and as a public figure he is legally able to receive that criticism.

Now if they make up lies about Bonds and Bonds can prove that they are doing it with no basis just to hurt him then sue away. however, as it stands Bonds is not getting treated unfairly for the level of public figure he is. Now if they said he is eating children he can sue.

I am a Media Com Major and got straight A's in Media Law. I'm not pulling this out of my butt.

I don't think your understanding of libel is quite as clear as you think. Firstly, 'Matt Holliday eats children' isn't blatant libel at all. In order to be considered libelous, a statement must be something that a reasonable person may consider to be true. Parody, satire, and statements so ridiculous that nobody would reasonably believe them are protected. I'm sure you're familiar with Hustler Magazine successfully defending itself against libel claims from Jerry Falwell for just this reason.

Also, opinion is protected. If, for example, a columnist writes that he thinks Bonds is a PED-using jerk whose records are tainted, he's protected from libel. Everyone, members of the media included, are allowed to give their opinions on issues of public interest.

Even if something is not an opinion, but rather a statement of fact, like in a news story, it would still have to be proven that the potentially libelous comment in question was made with actual malice, which means that proving that the statement is wrong is not enough. One would have to prove that the statement is factually incorrect as well as proving that whoever wrote it knew that it was incorrect, and that the published it anyway in an attempt to cause injury.


ART we both know Libel is extremely hard to prove and I wasn't trying to get into the ins and outs of libel. But yes I know that if it was a parody, satire, ridiculous statement then its not libel. However, if said as fact (and with Malice) then yes its libel.
I'm too lazy to make a sig at the moment
acsguitar
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Graphics Expert
Posts: 26722
Joined: 7 Apr 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Back in General Talk WOOO!!!

Re: The Mitchell Investigation

Postby acsguitar » Tue Dec 18, 2007 5:25 pm

Art Vandelay wrote:This idea that it's okay to break the rules to recover from injuries but not okay to break them to increase production is laughable to me. Personally, I think anyone should be able to take whatever substances they want for whatever reason, but let's pretend I don't think baseball players should take steroids or HGH...why would it be okay for player A to take them to recover from an injury and increase their production from 0 HR to 20 HR, but not for player B to take them to increase production from 30 HR to 50 HR?

What if someone takes them before hand to prevent an injury instead of to recover from one? Would that be more acceptable? If you think taking PEDs is wrong and against the rules, then the motivation for taking them shouldn't matter. The big argument against them seems to be that it forces others to use and put their health at risk in order to compete on a level playing field, well isn't the person taking them to recover using to give himself an unfair advantage as well? What about the kid in AAA who would have been called up and got his shot in the bigs is player A didn't recover so fast due to using?



Its not OK its DIFFERENT. Its a different circumstance and a different Moral action.
I'm too lazy to make a sig at the moment
acsguitar
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Graphics Expert
Posts: 26722
Joined: 7 Apr 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Back in General Talk WOOO!!!

Re: The Mitchell Investigation

Postby Art Vandelay » Tue Dec 18, 2007 5:28 pm

acsguitar wrote:
Art Vandelay wrote:
acsguitar wrote:Matt Holliday eats children if blatant Libel. He would sue and win that case even though he is a public figure. The evidence against Bonds is too strong for Libel and as a public figure he is legally able to receive that criticism.

Now if they make up lies about Bonds and Bonds can prove that they are doing it with no basis just to hurt him then sue away. however, as it stands Bonds is not getting treated unfairly for the level of public figure he is. Now if they said he is eating children he can sue.

I am a Media Com Major and got straight A's in Media Law. I'm not pulling this out of my butt.

I don't think your understanding of libel is quite as clear as you think. Firstly, 'Matt Holliday eats children' isn't blatant libel at all. In order to be considered libelous, a statement must be something that a reasonable person may consider to be true. Parody, satire, and statements so ridiculous that nobody would reasonably believe them are protected. I'm sure you're familiar with Hustler Magazine successfully defending itself against libel claims from Jerry Falwell for just this reason.

Also, opinion is protected. If, for example, a columnist writes that he thinks Bonds is a PED-using jerk whose records are tainted, he's protected from libel. Everyone, members of the media included, are allowed to give their opinions on issues of public interest.

Even if something is not an opinion, but rather a statement of fact, like in a news story, it would still have to be proven that the potentially libelous comment in question was made with actual malice, which means that proving that the statement is wrong is not enough. One would have to prove that the statement is factually incorrect as well as proving that whoever wrote it knew that it was incorrect, and that the published it anyway in an attempt to cause injury.


ART we both know Libel is extremely hard to prove and I wasn't trying to get into the ins and outs of libel. But yes I know that if it was a parody, satire, ridiculous statement then its not libel. However, if said as fact (and with Malice) then yes its libel.


Right. And my clarification wasn't necessarily for you, but for others reading. I know we've discussed similar stuff before. I just get tired of seeing the "well if it isn't true why doesn't he sue for libel" comments from people who have no understanding whatsoever of how libel law works. Didn't mean for that to come across as an attack on you.
Image
Art Vandelay
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

CafeholicFantasy ExpertPick 3 Weekly WinnerLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 5265
(Past Year: 1)
Joined: 12 Mar 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball

Re: The Mitchell Investigation

Postby Yoda » Tue Dec 18, 2007 5:30 pm

acsguitar wrote:
Art Vandelay wrote:This idea that it's okay to break the rules to recover from injuries but not okay to break them to increase production is laughable to me. Personally, I think anyone should be able to take whatever substances they want for whatever reason, but let's pretend I don't think baseball players should take steroids or HGH...why would it be okay for player A to take them to recover from an injury and increase their production from 0 HR to 20 HR, but not for player B to take them to increase production from 30 HR to 50 HR?

What if someone takes them before hand to prevent an injury instead of to recover from one? Would that be more acceptable? If you think taking PEDs is wrong and against the rules, then the motivation for taking them shouldn't matter. The big argument against them seems to be that it forces others to use and put their health at risk in order to compete on a level playing field, well isn't the person taking them to recover using to give himself an unfair advantage as well? What about the kid in AAA who would have been called up and got his shot in the bigs is player A didn't recover so fast due to using?



Its not OK its DIFFERENT. Its a different circumstance and a different Moral action.


What is worse?
1. a player taking roids in order to break some stupid baseball records that people deem as 'holy'
2. a player taking away opportunities of others to fulfill their life long dream as a MLBer

I'd say 2 is just as bad if not worse than 1.
"Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that." ~George Carlin
Yoda
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Fantasy ExpertMock(ing) Drafter
Posts: 21344
Joined: 21 Jan 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: 15th green...

Re: The Mitchell Investigation

Postby Yoda » Tue Dec 18, 2007 5:34 pm

Lofunzo wrote:So, you place more blame on Selig for looking the other way than you do the players who actually took the drugs??


I believe there should be at least equal blame placed on those who used PEDS and those who were aware of the use but did nothing about it.
"Think of how stupid the average person is, and realize half of them are stupider than that." ~George Carlin
Yoda
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Fantasy ExpertMock(ing) Drafter
Posts: 21344
Joined: 21 Jan 2005
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: 15th green...

Re: The Mitchell Investigation

Postby acsguitar » Tue Dec 18, 2007 5:34 pm

Art Vandelay wrote:


Right. And my clarification wasn't necessarily for you, but for others reading. I know we've discussed similar stuff before. I just get tired of seeing the "well if it isn't true why doesn't he sue for libel" comments from people who have no understanding whatsoever of how libel law works. Didn't mean for that to come across as an attack on you.


Cool. Yea libel law is a lot of interpretation and satisfying certain requirements and if 1 of those requirements isn't there good by case.

So yea Clemens can't really sue for libel in his case. Well he could but he'd lose
I'm too lazy to make a sig at the moment
acsguitar
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Graphics Expert
Posts: 26722
Joined: 7 Apr 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball
Location: Back in General Talk WOOO!!!

Re: The Mitchell Investigation

Postby ukrneal » Tue Dec 18, 2007 5:56 pm

I find it interesting that several players named in the report have now come forward and admitted (no matter how they spin it) to using either steroids or HGH. With each additional admission, the report gains more credence. With Roberts, Vina, Pettitte, etc., coming forward, it will be interesting to see if it just dies there, or if there are are a steady stream of admissions.
ukrneal
General Manager
General Manager


Posts: 2322
Joined: 29 Jan 2004
Home Cafe: Baseball

PreviousNext

Return to Baseball Leftovers

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: hondo4mvp, NikkiSixx, TheTrith and 14 guests

Forums Articles & Tips Sleepers Rankings Leagues


Today's Games
Friday, Apr. 18
(All times are EST, weather icons show forecast for game time)

Toronto at Cleveland
(2:20 pm)
LA Angels at Detroit
(7:05 pm)
Milwaukee at Pittsburgh
(7:05 pm)
St. Louis at Washington
(7:05 pm)
Miami at Miami
(7:08 pm)
indoors
NY Yankees at Tampa Bay
(7:10 pm)
indoors
Seattle at Seattle
(7:10 pm)
Atlanta at NY Mets
(7:10 pm)
Baltimore at Boston
(7:10 pm)
Chi White Sox at Texas
(8:05 pm)
Minnesota at Kansas City
(8:10 pm)
Philadelphia at Colorado
(8:40 pm)
Houston at Oakland
(10:05 pm)
Arizona at LA Dodgers
(10:10 pm)
San Francisco at San Diego
(10:10 pm)

  • Fantasy Baseball
  • Article Submissions
  • Privacy Statement
  • Site Survey 
  • Contact