Yep and the guys who admit to using HGH before 2005 are also denying ever using steroids.

And Jimmy Crack corn, and I don't care.

All I know about is the affadavit with blacked out names -- if there are other documents that name Clemens, please provide a link to back that up. There was a report that Clemens' was one of the names in the affadavit, but the next day a US attorney stated that the report had a number of errors (without stating what the errors were).

 

Now, it wouldn't surprise me if Grimsley named Clemens, since we know Grimsley was linked to McNamee. But until we know that he is named, and how Grimsley knew he was a user, we can't say the evidence is as strong.

 

Both are off of hearsay technically. Again, if Roger steroid/hgh use isn't true, why hasn't a lawsuit even been mentioned yet?

Both are off of hearsay technically. Again, if Roger steroid/hgh use isn't true, why hasn't a lawsuit even been mentioned yet?

So I don't know what or who the first sentence refers to, and the second one obviously can't be directed at me, since I've told you more than once that I'm not saying that Clemens didn't use and you wouldn't be so ridiculous as to keep attaching to me a position that I renounce every single time you mention it -- right?

 

So maybe you quoted the wrong post.

Both are off of hearsay technically. Again, if Roger steroid/hgh use isn't true, why hasn't a lawsuit even been mentioned yet?

Well, to be fair, it would take a fair amount of time even to file the paperwork to bring a suit against anyone due to this report. But personally, that is still what I'd want to see before I believe a word.

And Jimmy Crack corn, and I don't care.

 

Sounds like what someone on steroids would say. Cheater.

So I don't know what or who the first sentence refers to, and the second one obviously can't be directed at me, since I've told you more than once that I'm not saying that Clemens didn't use and you wouldn't be so ridiculous as to keep attaching to me a position that I renounce every single time you mention it -- right?

 

So maybe you quoted the wrong post.

 

You claimed Clemens' evidence is off of hearsay. I'm saying, technically you could say Bonds' is off of hearsay too. Only difference between Clemens and Bonds is Clemens didn't say he took it by accident. And he's just speaking through his lawyer. At least Barry had the balls to speak to people on his own.

You claimed Clemens' evidence is off of hearsay. I'm saying, technically you could say Bonds' is off of hearsay too. Only difference between Clemens and Bonds is Clemens didn't say he took it by accident. And he's just speaking through his lawyer. At least Barry had the balls to speak to people on his own.

 

In front of a grand jury, mind you.

i dislike how all the players refused to talk to mitchell, then waited to whine to the media to dispute it.

Both are off of hearsay technically. Again, if Roger steroid/hgh use isn't true, why hasn't a lawsuit even been mentioned yet?

Probably because Roger's legal team knows that they have an extremely slim chance of prevailing in a defamation suit.

You claimed Clemens' evidence is off of hearsay. I'm saying, technically you could say Bonds' is off of hearsay too. Only difference between Clemens and Bonds is Clemens didn't say he took it by accident. And he's just speaking through his lawyer. At least Barry had the balls to speak to people on his own.

Where did I say that? Show me the quote. Clearly it isn't hearsay -- McNamee claims to have injected Clemens himself, he doesn't claim that Clemens told him he used.

 

The main evidence about Bonds is from his own testimony and a record (the failed test). Neither is hearsay.

Where did I say that? Show me the quote. Clearly it isn't hearsay -- McNamee claims to have injected Clemens himself, he doesn't claim that Clemens told him he used.

 

The main evidence about Bonds is from his own testimony and a record (the failed test). Neither is hearsay.

 

Well, the evidence regarding Clemens is actually, hearsay, technically. Mitchell is writing that McNamee is saying that he injected Roger. But, yes, your point is taken.

 

And Linnwood, responding to your post, "hearsay" is not another word for "bullsh*t." Something can be hearsay and still be the absolute truth. The negative connotation that comes with the term hearsay is because most forms of it are not admissible in court, not because it means it is by definition untrue.

People who still defend Bonds, Clemens and company are quickly becoming baseball's equivalent of the Flat Earth Society.

Well, the evidence regarding Clemens is actually, hearsay, technically. Mitchell is writing that McNamee is saying that he injected Roger. But, yes, your point is taken.

 

And Linnwood, responding to your post, "hearsay" is not another word for "bullsh*t." Something can be hearsay and still be the absolute truth. The negative connotation that comes with the term hearsay is because most forms of it are not admissible in court, not because it means it is by definition untrue.

Official reports are usually not considered "hearsay". (And in this case, it's not just Mitchell -- most of the interviews were witnessed by a team of people.) I've never heard anyone say that everything reported in a newspaper is hearsay. I don't see myself what happened in the stock market, but I don't say that reports that the DJIA went up by X percent is "hearsay". I mean, you could widen the definition to include that, but it would make the word fairly trivial.

Official reports are usually not considered "hearsay". (And in this case, it's not just Mitchell -- most of the interviews were witnessed by a team of people.) I've never heard anyone say that everything reported in a newspaper is hearsay. I don't see myself what happened in the stock market, but I don't say that reports that the DJIA went up by X percent is "hearsay". I mean, you could widen the definition to include that, but it would make the word fairly trivial.

 

Hearsay is someone telling you what someone else said. It's hearsay because you cannot clarify the context and meaning with the person who originally said it.

 

There's a difference between reporting verifiable information, such as the DJIA, and reporting what someone told you.

Edited December 16, 200718 yr by StrangeSox

Hearsay is someone telling you what someone else said. It's hearsay because you cannot clarify the context and meaning with the person who originally said it.

 

There's a difference between reporting verifiable information, such as the DJIA, and reporting what someone told you.

No, there is a broader meaning of 'any information heard from someone else' (I'm not talking about a legal definition, since this has nothing to do with the courts).

 

And if we want to be technical, the DJIA isn't verifiable to me, unless I can see the actual sales records of every individual stock, personally. Unless by "verifiable" you mean that multiple people can confirm the information, but that would be true of the Mitchell report information, as well, since multiple people were present for every interview.

 

It's just a silly use of the word. We don't say that any quote in a newspaper is "just hearsay". It's a pointless semantic sidebar.

The dow jones industrial average has nothing to do with the mitchell report.

There are actual rules in regards to hearsay:

 

DJIA falls under:

 

(17) Market reports, commercial publications. Market quotations, tabulations, lists, directories, or other published compilations, generally used and relied upon by the public or by persons in particular occupations.

 

Therefore an exception.

 

http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rules.htm#Rule803

 

Mitchell report is not (6) regularly record activity, it could be (8) public record and report, but my guess is that would not fly as Mitchell was commissioned by a private entity.

Edited December 17, 200718 yr by Soxbadger

After reading the entire Mitchell Report, I have to ask, where'd that 20 million dollars go?

 

If it costs that much to make some phone calls that aren't returned and basically interview just two different people a total of like 7 times, then s*** costs a lot these days.

 

Selig & Co. should be embarrassed by the final product. Does anyone really care?

After reading the entire Mitchell Report, I have to ask, where'd that 20 million dollars go?

 

If it costs that much to make some phone calls that aren't returned and basically interview just two different people a total of like 7 times, then s*** costs a lot these days.

 

Selig & Co. should be embarrassed by the final product. Does anyone really care?

Considering the ridiculous amount of media attention, I would say many, many people care.

 

As for the 20 million, where are you getting that? Didn't Selig say the cost was being greatly exagerated?

There are actual rules in regards to hearsay:

 

DJIA falls under:

Therefore an exception.

 

http://www.law.cornell.edu/rules/fre/rules.htm#Rule803

 

Mitchell report is not (6) regularly record activity, it could be (8) public record and report, but my guess is that would not fly as Mitchell was commissioned by a private entity.

 

Badger, I think from your previous posts you are an attorney, and I am one myself. I'm fairly certain the report would be inadmissible as hearsay, as you seem to be saying. However, this is not my area of expertise and thus I cannot be sure.

 

Regardless, any attorney who has read the Report would probably admit that any facts gained from it would have to be established separately from the Report.

 

As for the $20 million, I was thinking the exact same thing....seems like it could have been done for a few hundred k...

Considering the ridiculous amount of media attention, I would say many, many people care.

 

As for the 20 million, where are you getting that? Didn't Selig say the cost was being greatly exagerated?

What did we really learn from the investigation? Steroids are bad, people cheated, and those we suspected of cheating we still suspect of cheating. The 20 mill is down from a 50 mill estimate at first.

What did we really learn from the investigation? Steroids are bad, people cheated, and those we suspected of cheating we still suspect of cheating. The 20 mill is down from a 50 mill estimate at first.

This wasn't for us, remember. It was a privatly financed report. We are lucky to even got what we got. Anyways, what may be the biggest thing to come from this(For Bud at least) is the pressure that will be put upon the MLBPA, and in turn, if they lose some of their power. If that happens, I believe Selig will think he has his money worth.

This wasn't for us, remember. It was a privatly financed report. We are lucky to even got what we got. Anyways, what may be the biggest thing to come from this(For Bud at least) is the pressure that will be put upon the MLBPA, and in turn, if they lose some of their power. If that happens, I believe Selig will think he has his money worth.

 

This wasn't for us? Who do you think it was for? Do you honestly believe this would have ever been released to the public (or even commissioned in the first place) if not for the pressure put on MLB by Congress? And the only reason Congress put that pressure on MLB was because constituents were breathing down the neck of their Congressperson.

 

This was indeed for us.

No I agree with you that its hearsay.

 

Ive gone through some of the other exceptions that may apply (statement against party interest), just was trying to point out that the there is a difference between different type of reports.

3 more names, unmentioned in the Mitchell Report, are noted in the Jason Grimsley affidavit, which has been unsealed. Pete Incaviglia, Geronimo Berroa, and Allen Watson.