Results 1 to 25 of 25

Thread: Clemens and steroids: Wasn't he acquittal of all charges?

  1. #1

    Clemens and steroids: Wasn't he acquittal of all charges?

    The reason, writers say, that Clemens has not been elected is that he used steroids.

    But he was charged in the federal courts for this matter, and he was cleared of all charges. Why, therefore, do we hold it against him?

    Bonds at least has a felony conviction for obstruction of justice. Clemens has nothing.

  2. #2
    Quote Originally Posted by redban View Post
    The reason, writers say, that Clemens has not been elected is that he used steroids.

    But he was charged in the federal courts for this matter, and he was cleared of all charges. Why, therefore, do we hold it against him?

    Bonds at least has a felony conviction for obstruction of justice. Clemens has nothing.
    No. Lou Whitaker has nothing. Alan Trammell has nothing. Greg Maddux has nothing.


    Clemens was indicted by a grand jury, and had enough against him to have warranted In the judges opinion) two (expensive) trials.

    It's important to not confuse a verdict in a jury trial with a voter's opinion. Voters are asked for their opinion and the standard is NOT beyond all reasonable doubt. Some may have taken the trial into account and some may not.
    Last edited by drstrangelove; 08-27-2014 at 04:59 PM.
    "It's better to look good, than be good."

  3. #3
    Quote Originally Posted by redban View Post
    The reason, writers say, that Clemens has not been elected is that he used steroids.

    But he was charged in the federal courts for this matter, and he was cleared of all charges. Why, therefore, do we hold it against him?

    Bonds at least has a felony conviction for obstruction of justice. Clemens has nothing.
    I believe shoeless joe was also acquittal of all charges.

  4. #4
    Quote Originally Posted by baltimorechop View Post
    I believe shoeless joe was also acquittal of all charges.
    So was Chick Gandil. Do you believe he was innocent?
    Bill Tom George Mark Bob Ernie Soupy Alex Sparky
    Joe Gary MCA Emanuel Sonny Dave Earl Stan
    Jonathan Neil Roger Anthony Ray Thomas Art Don
    Gates Philip John Warrior Rik Casey Tony Horace
    Robin JEDI

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by Captain Cold Nose View Post
    So was Chick Gandil. Do you believe he was innocent?
    I think you missed my sarcasm / word play.

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by baltimorechop View Post
    I think you missed my sarcasm / word play.
    Likely. That happens quite a bit around here.
    Bill Tom George Mark Bob Ernie Soupy Alex Sparky
    Joe Gary MCA Emanuel Sonny Dave Earl Stan
    Jonathan Neil Roger Anthony Ray Thomas Art Don
    Gates Philip John Warrior Rik Casey Tony Horace
    Robin JEDI

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by drstrangelove View Post
    Clemens was indicted by a grand jury, and had enough against him to have warranted In the judges opinion) two (expensive) trials.

    It's important to not confuse a verdict in a jury trial with a voter's opinion. Voters are asked for their opinion and the standard is NOT beyond all reasonable doubt. Some may have taken the trial into account and some may not.
    Innocent people have been indicted by a grand jury before, and innocent people have had courts feel their cases enough to warrant expensive trials. The system is not immaculate here.

    Clemens was under trial (ie. - intense scrutiny) over his alleged steroid use, yet he came out unfazed. It's wrong to hold it against him.

    Quote Originally Posted by Captain Cold Nose View Post
    So was Chick Gandil. Do you believe he was innocent?
    Quote Originally Posted by baltimorechop View Post
    I believe shoeless joe was also acquittal of all charges.
    Guilty people are sometimes cleared, sure. But, sometimes innocents are convicted too.

    Statistically, 4% of innocent people are sent to death row:

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...dants-innocent

    You really want to trust the law?
    Last edited by redban; 08-28-2014 at 08:22 AM.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    The Moon
    Posts
    5,033
    To add to the mordancy: O.J. Simpson was also acquitted. Probably wouldn't have been elected to the Pro Football Hall of Fame if the ballots had been cast afterward.
    "Allen Sutton Sothoron pitched his initials off today."--1920s article

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by Tyrus4189Cobb View Post
    To add to the mordancy: O.J. Simpson was also acquitted. Probably wouldn't have been elected to the Pro Football Hall of Fame if the ballots had been cast afterward.
    See the post above. It works on the reverse too.

    http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/ronhuff.htm

    10,000 INNOCENT PEOPLE CONVICTED EACH YEAR, STUDY ESTIMATES

    COLUMBUS, Ohio -- About 10,000 people in the United States may be wrongfully convicted of serious crimes each year, a new study suggests.

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by redban View Post
    See the post above. It works on the reverse too.

    http://researchnews.osu.edu/archive/ronhuff.htm

    10,000 INNOCENT PEOPLE CONVICTED EACH YEAR, STUDY ESTIMATES

    COLUMBUS, Ohio -- About 10,000 people in the United States may be wrongfully convicted of serious crimes each year, a new study suggests.
    What does that have to do with Clemens, now?

    If you want to believe he did not use, that's fine. But those voting are under no obligation to do so. The court's ruling does not mean public opinon, or anyone outside that court's decision on a single case, has to fall in line.
    Bill Tom George Mark Bob Ernie Soupy Alex Sparky
    Joe Gary MCA Emanuel Sonny Dave Earl Stan
    Jonathan Neil Roger Anthony Ray Thomas Art Don
    Gates Philip John Warrior Rik Casey Tony Horace
    Robin JEDI

  11. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by Captain Cold Nose View Post
    What does that have to do with Clemens, now?
    .
    The argument here is that his being charged [as opposed to convicted] is enough to implicate him as a steroid abuser. Here, the seeming notion is that the law always get it right. The cited article shows that it does not.

    Before the charges came in 2010, no one had suspected Clemens. With the acquittal, the proper decision is to let him enjoy the status he occupied before the prosecution.

  12. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by redban View Post
    The argument here is that his being charged [as opposed to convicted] is enough to implicate him as a steroid abuser. Here, the seeming notion is that the law always get it right. The cited article shows that it does not.

    Before the charges came in 2010, no one had suspected Clemens. With the acquittal, the proper decision is to let him enjoy the status he occupied before the prosecution.
    No one suspected him before 2010? You're kidding, right?
    Bill Tom George Mark Bob Ernie Soupy Alex Sparky
    Joe Gary MCA Emanuel Sonny Dave Earl Stan
    Jonathan Neil Roger Anthony Ray Thomas Art Don
    Gates Philip John Warrior Rik Casey Tony Horace
    Robin JEDI

  13. #13
    Join Date
    Sep 2007
    Location
    USA
    Posts
    6,219
    Quote Originally Posted by redban View Post
    Before the charges came in 2010, no one had suspected Clemens. With the acquittal, the proper decision is to let him enjoy the status he occupied before the prosecution.
    62.4% of HOF voters disagree with that.

  14. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by ipitch View Post
    62.4% of HOF voters disagree with that.
    I bet the majority of fans would at this point and time, too.
    Bill Tom George Mark Bob Ernie Soupy Alex Sparky
    Joe Gary MCA Emanuel Sonny Dave Earl Stan
    Jonathan Neil Roger Anthony Ray Thomas Art Don
    Gates Philip John Warrior Rik Casey Tony Horace
    Robin JEDI

  15. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by ipitch View Post
    62.4% of HOF voters disagree with that.
    Majority opinion doesn't mean right opinion.

  16. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by redban View Post

    You really want to trust the law?
    Well, you apparently are.

    Quote Originally Posted by redban View Post
    But he was charged in the federal courts for this matter, and he was cleared of all charges. Why, therefore, do we hold it against him?



    Humans make decisions based on inaccurate or incomplete information all the time. All the time. That's what voters are asked to do all the time (whether it's the Hall of Fame, the President or the local dog catcher.) Your opinion is that the voters should pretend he was innocent and act as if the trial proved he never used steroids. Voters have a different opinion.

    Reasonable people can disagree, although I don't personally find it reasonable to expect that 100% or even most voters will pretend Clemens didn't use steroids. There's too much circumstantial evidence for most voters to ignore.
    Last edited by drstrangelove; 08-28-2014 at 09:50 AM.
    "It's better to look good, than be good."

  17. #17
    Quote Originally Posted by redban View Post
    Majority opinion doesn't mean right opinion.
    Sometimes it does.
    Bill Tom George Mark Bob Ernie Soupy Alex Sparky
    Joe Gary MCA Emanuel Sonny Dave Earl Stan
    Jonathan Neil Roger Anthony Ray Thomas Art Don
    Gates Philip John Warrior Rik Casey Tony Horace
    Robin JEDI

  18. #18
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    The Moon
    Posts
    5,033
    **Double Post**
    Last edited by Tyrus4189Cobb; 08-28-2014 at 10:44 AM.
    "Allen Sutton Sothoron pitched his initials off today."--1920s article

  19. #19
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    The Moon
    Posts
    5,033
    Quote Originally Posted by redban View Post
    The argument here is that his being charged [as opposed to convicted] is enough to implicate him as a steroid abuser. Here, the seeming notion is that the law always get it right. The cited article shows that it does not.

    Before the charges came in 2010, no one had suspected Clemens. With the acquittal, the proper decision is to let him enjoy the status he occupied before the prosecution.
    I commend you for adhering to the notion of "innocent until proven guilty," but let's not paint Clemens as a defenseless sap who was victim of the law's crushing foot. The efficiency of the entire judicial system is not in question, but whether or not Clemens is in fact guilty.

    Quote Originally Posted by redban View Post
    Guilty people are sometimes cleared, sure. But, sometimes innocents are convicted too.

    Statistically, 4% of innocent people are sent to death row:

    http://www.theguardian.com/world/201...dants-innocent

    You really want to trust the law?
    You seem to trust that Clemens is not guilty. Why then should he be cleared if the court decisions are not to be trusted?
    "Allen Sutton Sothoron pitched his initials off today."--1920s article

  20. #20
    So Chick Gandil really was innocent.
    Bill Tom George Mark Bob Ernie Soupy Alex Sparky
    Joe Gary MCA Emanuel Sonny Dave Earl Stan
    Jonathan Neil Roger Anthony Ray Thomas Art Don
    Gates Philip John Warrior Rik Casey Tony Horace
    Robin JEDI

  21. #21
    Quote Originally Posted by drstrangelove View Post
    Well, you apparently are.
    You seem to trust that Clemens is not guilty. Why then should he be cleared if the court decisions are not to be trusted?
    This will get us nowhere.

    A person goes to trial and gets a conviction. You call him a criminal.

    A person goes to trial and wins an acquittal. You call him a maybe-criminal because the system may have gotten it wrong.

    In this thinking, just being charged is enough to confer the status of a criminal. That's unfair, considering that anyone can be really charged with a crime [research and see for yourself].

    I always side with the defendant. If the court clears someone, I say he or she is innocent. If the court convicts someone, I say he or she is a maybe or likely criminal.

    Clemens was charged, and no one can change that. But, he received the best possible outcome. What more can he do? Unless he has a time machine to stop the prosecution, then he, based on the responses here, must forever be a criminal.

  22. #22
    Quote Originally Posted by redban View Post
    This will get us nowhere.

    A person goes to trial and gets a conviction. You call him a criminal.

    A person goes to trial and wins an acquittal. You call him a maybe-criminal because the system may have gotten it wrong.

    In this thinking, just being charged is enough to confer the status of a criminal. That's unfair, considering that anyone can be really charged with a crime [research and see for yourself].

    I always side with the defendant. If the court clears someone, I say he or she is innocent. If the court convicts someone, I say he or she is a maybe or likely criminal.

    Clemens was charged, and no one can change that. But, he received the best possible outcome. What more can he do? Unless he has a time machine to stop the prosecution, then he, based on the responses here, must forever be a criminal.
    If one doesn't believe the person charged was innocent, and one doesn't believe the evidence brought forth (or concrete lack thereof) is sufficient to change that belief regardless of the outcome (it's not black and white, is it?) why should one's opinion change?

    They lakced the smoking gun in regards to Clemens. Not finding him guilty does not necessarily mean he is innocent.
    Bill Tom George Mark Bob Ernie Soupy Alex Sparky
    Joe Gary MCA Emanuel Sonny Dave Earl Stan
    Jonathan Neil Roger Anthony Ray Thomas Art Don
    Gates Philip John Warrior Rik Casey Tony Horace
    Robin JEDI

  23. #23
    Join Date
    Oct 2006
    Posts
    4,921
    There is also the fact that he was being tried for perjury, obstruction and making false statements during his sworn testimony before Congress, not the steroid use itself. Granted, it was alleged perjury about PED use, but the distinction is important.
    3 6 10 21 29 31 35 41 42 44 47

    Im honored to go into the Baseball Hall of Fame with such a great group of men. - Tom Glavine.

  24. #24
    Join Date
    May 2007
    Location
    The Moon
    Posts
    5,033
    Quote Originally Posted by redban View Post
    This will get us nowhere.

    A person goes to trial and gets a conviction. You call him a criminal.

    A person goes to trial and wins an acquittal. You call him a maybe-criminal because the system may have gotten it wrong.

    In this thinking, just being charged is enough to confer the status of a criminal. That's unfair, considering that anyone can be really charged with a crime [research and see for yourself].

    I always side with the defendant. If the court clears someone, I say he or she is innocent. If the court convicts someone, I say he or she is a maybe or likely criminal.

    Clemens was charged, and no one can change that. But, he received the best possible outcome. What more can he do? Unless he has a time machine to stop the prosecution, then he, based on the responses here, must forever be a criminal.
    No one is calling him a criminal. You are the first to bring it up. What I and others (if I may speak for them) are saying is that Clemens
    is guilty of using steroids regardless of what may or may not have been presented in a court. That his verdict was entered into the record as "not guilty" has no bearing on reality.

    Quote Originally Posted by Los Bravos View Post
    There is also the fact that he was being tried for perjury, obstruction and making false statements during his sworn testimony before Congress, not the steroid use itself. Granted, it was alleged perjury about PED use, but the distinction is important.
    Not dissimilar to the Black Sox, who were not being tried for throwing World Series games, but were being tried as villains conspiring to damage Comiskey's business and publicly defame the integrity of the national game alongside dubious gamblers.
    "Allen Sutton Sothoron pitched his initials off today."--1920s article

  25. #25
    Join Date
    Mar 2005
    Location
    southeastern PA
    Posts
    14,834
    Blog Entries
    34
    Quote Originally Posted by redban View Post
    This will get us nowhere.

    A person goes to trial and gets a conviction. You call him a criminal.

    A person goes to trial and wins an acquittal. You call him a maybe-criminal because the system may have gotten it wrong.

    In this thinking, just being charged is enough to confer the status of a criminal. That's unfair, considering that anyone can be really charged with a crime [research and see for yourself].

    I always side with the defendant. If the court clears someone, I say he or she is innocent. If the court convicts someone, I say he or she is a maybe or likely criminal.

    Clemens was charged, and no one can change that. But, he received the best possible outcome. What more can he do? Unless he has a time machine to stop the prosecution, then he, based on the responses here, must forever be a criminal.
    Clemens was found not guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of perjury. The testimony in question was that Clemens said he never knowingly took PEDs So, the government failed to prove beyond a reaonable doubr that he knowingly took steroids. That's quite a distance from a finding he didn't use PEDs at all.
    Seen on a bumper sticker: If only closed minds came with closed mouths.
    Some minds are like concrete--thoroughly mixed up and permanently set.
    A Lincoln: I don't think much of a man who is not wiser today than he was yesterday.

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •