March 15, 200521 yr QUOTE(poorme @ Mar 15, 2005 -> 09:40 AM) frank's ultimately responsible for what his lawyer says/does on his behalf. And where does it say he wants to be withdrawn...?
March 15, 200521 yr QUOTE(Steff @ Mar 15, 2005 -> 09:55 AM) And where does it say he wants to be withdrawn...? In the first sentence.
March 15, 200521 yr QUOTE(Leonard Zelig @ Mar 15, 2005 -> 09:57 AM) In the first sentence. His lawyer said... I have a hard time agreeing that is Frank's stance after all last week saying he was looking forward to going. JMO, of course.
March 15, 200521 yr QUOTE(Steff @ Mar 15, 2005 -> 10:02 AM) His lawyer said... I have a hard time agreeing that is Frank's stance after all last week saying he was looking forward to going. JMO, of course. Well, a few others have given their thoughts on why he might, read through the thread. And I believe "power of attorney" allows the lawyer to speak on behalf of his client. Edited March 15, 200521 yr by Leonard Zelig
March 15, 200521 yr QUOTE(Leonard Zelig @ Mar 15, 2005 -> 10:04 AM) Well, a few others have given their thoughts on why he might, read through the thread. As I said above.. I don't agree.
March 15, 200521 yr QUOTE(quickman @ Mar 15, 2005 -> 08:27 AM) This is the players union speaking. I have no doubt Frank wants to go, but the players union wants all the players to be unified. That's what unions do, one voice speaks for the players. if Frank jumps at the chance to go while the others are trying to decline Frank looks like he is not supporting the players. i am sure he will speak. Add me to the chorus who thinks you are correct here.
March 15, 200521 yr QUOTE(Leonard Zelig @ Mar 15, 2005 -> 10:04 AM) And I believe "power of attorney" allows the lawyer to speak on behalf of his client. So Frank has given up his ability to speak and make decisions...? Interesting..
March 15, 200521 yr QUOTE(Steff @ Mar 15, 2005 -> 10:07 AM) So Frank has given up his ability to speak and make decisions...? Interesting.. When it comes to union business, it's not that surprising.
March 15, 200521 yr I hav to agree with Steff. Change the title of this thread, Frank NEVER asked for the subpoena to be withdrawn. Infact, I don't see where his lawyer even asks for it to be withdrawn on Frank's behalf. All it says is: "To call Mr. Giambi and other players before the committee and ask them to 'name names' or otherwise testify against themselves and their teammates is unfair and unwise," the lawyers wrote in a letter to Waxman and Representative Tom Davis, Republican of Virginia, the committee chairman. Nothing there, just it's unfair and unwise...A union political move. Thomas, the lawyers wrote, would be suspected of steroid use even though he is being called because he "has long been an outspoken opponent of steroids." Just emphasizing how it's unfair In addition, they said Thomas would miss three days of therapy for an ankle injury that is said to be threatening his career. Just emphasizing how it's unwise I don't see the word "Withdraw" or phrase "Frank asking" anywhere.
March 15, 200521 yr I don't care about the subpoena how about this line In addition, they said Thomas would miss three days of therapy for an ankle injury that is said to be threatening his career.
March 15, 200521 yr QUOTE(RibbieRubarb @ Mar 15, 2005 -> 12:31 PM) Infact, I don't see where his lawyer even asks for it to be withdrawn on Frank's behalf. The end of the very first sentence: lawyers for Jason Giambi, Rafael Palmeiro and Frank Thomas asked the committee to withdraw their subpoenas.
March 15, 200521 yr Most of the lawyer speak is to protect Giambi & Palmiero's arses. They don't want to distinguish Thomas' innocence from that of Palmy's so that's why they made the statement they did. The last I read on the congressional hearings on steriod abuse in MLB is that they are trying to arrange for depositions in Tucson for some players. I'd imagine a similar thing is being arranged in Florida as well.
March 15, 200521 yr Author Damn guys it was 5:30 am when I found the article. I was on my way to school. I did not think everyone would spend so much energy trying to change the title of the thread. "Franks lawyers ask to withdraw subpoena" would that make everyone happy? My opinion is it is Frank asking to withdraw . When you have lawyers you are asking through a third party. It is Frank asking.Through his lawyers. For his reasoning, I have a feeling he just does not want to be put in a position of being the snitch. Through his lawyers. Maybe if I had 20,000 posts I would not get people b****ing about my thread title inderectly.
March 15, 200521 yr QUOTE(rangercal @ Mar 15, 2005 -> 03:09 PM) Damn guys it was 5:30 am when I found the article. I was on my way to school. I did not think everyone would spend so much energy trying to change the title of the thread. "Franks lawyers ask to withdraw subpoena" would that make everyone happy? My opinion is it is Frank asking to withdraw . When you have lawyers you are asking through a third party. It is Frank asking.Through his lawyers. For his reasoning, I have a feeling he just does not want to be put in a position of being the snitch. Through his lawyers. Maybe if I had 20,000 posts I would not get people b****ing about my thread title inderectly. Actually you would have many many more
March 15, 200521 yr Author QUOTE(Steff @ Mar 15, 2005 -> 03:16 PM) Oh relax already. ok, I guess that was direct , thank you.
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.