NationStates Jolt Archive

Here's the link:

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news;_ylt=Ak5fX9F86eFHxy_b9gbYNxcRvLYF?slug=ap-clemens-schilling&prov=ap&type=lgns

Personally, I think Shilling should wait for some sort of proof before condemning Clemens. After all, it's still innocent until proven guilty in this country. If Clemens admits it though, or sufficient proof can be found to show Clemens used HGH or steroids, then I do feel that some sort of punishment should be meted out.

Thoughts on this article?

If it was possible for Schilling to be any more of a jackass, I'd say this would accomplish it, but I'm pretty sure he's hit his limit. Why people still give him airtime is beyond me. As if what the world really, really needed was Curt Schilling's Impeachable Opinion on Everything.

If it was possible for Schilling to be any more of a jackass, I'd say this would accomplish it, but I'm pretty sure he's hit his limit. Why people still give him airtime is beyond me. As if what the world really, really needed was Curt Schilling's Impeachable Opinion on Everything.

and that bastard owes me 20 bucks!

No, I'm serious, Curt Shilling actually owes me 20 bucks.

Here's the link:

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news;_ylt=Ak5fX9F86eFHxy_b9gbYNxcRvLYF?slug=ap-clemens-schilling&prov=ap&type=lgns

Personally, I think Shilling should wait for some sort of proof before condemning Clemens. After all, it's still innocent until proven guilty in this country. If Clemens admits it though, or sufficient proof can be found to show Clemens used HGH or steroids, then I do feel that some sort of punishment should be meted out.

Thoughts on this article?All this holier than thou by Shilling.
It makes me sick.

Clemens certainly is not worthy of any of the Cy Youngs he received post 1997.

Clemens certainly is not worthy of any of the Cy Youngs he received post 1997.

For what reason? If you say steroids, then you won't mind providing your proof, correct?

For what reason? If you say steroids, then you won't mind providing your proof, correct?

The checks photocopied into the Mitchell Report are pretty damning.

The checks photocopied into the Mitchell Report are pretty damning.

I'm looking at the Mitchell report now. Where are the photocopies (what page)?

Here's the link:

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news;_ylt=Ak5fX9F86eFHxy_b9gbYNxcRvLYF?slug=ap-clemens-schilling&prov=ap&type=lgns

Personally, I think Shilling should wait for some sort of proof before condemning Clemens. After all, it's still innocent until proven guilty in this country. If Clemens admits it though, or sufficient proof can be found to show Clemens used HGH or steroids, then I do feel that some sort of punishment should be meted out.

Thoughts on this article?

"Innocent until proven guilty" applies to trials in a court of law. The 1919 Chicago Black Sox were all found not guilty by a jury, but were thrown out of baseball anyway, and rightly so.

I'd go even farther than Schilling. I've said all along that Baroid Bonds should be kept out of Cooperstown, and to be consistent, I'd have to apply that standard to Clemens and anyone else who may have juiced up.

"Innocent until proven guilty" applies to criminal trials in a court of law.

Fixed. I imagine use of steroids constitutes some breach of contract as well, for which the standard of proof is lower.

...and to be consistent, I'd have to apply that standard to Clemens and anyone else who may have juiced up.

"May have been"? That's a long, long list you're looking at, buddy.

Would you apply the same standard to players who have used amphetamines? Not only are they not allowed in the game, they're actually illegal, and their use is FAR more widespread than steroids.

"Innocent until proven guilty" applies to trials in a court of law. The 1919 Chicago Black Sox were all found not guilty by a jury, but were thrown out of baseball anyway, and rightly so.

I'd go even farther than Schilling. I've said all along that Baroid Bonds should be kept out of Cooperstown, and to be consistent, I'd have to apply that standard to Clemens and anyone else who may have juiced up.

IIRC, there was testimony and evidence against the Black Sox though. So far, there's no evidence against Clemens, and only the testimony of one person against him. As far as comparing Bond's situation to Clemens situation, again it's a matter of evidence.

Fixed. I imagine use of steroids constitutes some breach of contract as well, for which the standard of proof is lower.

But there has to be more than the testimony of one person against you to prove breach of contract, correct?