Deadspin wrong about Pujols and HGH

[beer_man]

yea, that's my point. this no more proves his innocence

 

People who are innocent should not be expected to have to PROVE their innocence. Your statement implies that Pujols has to PROVE his innocence.

 

His statement does not imply that at all. He already stated that the original article did not prove Pujols of being guilty, just like this article does not prove Pujols is innocent. He's basically saying Pujols has no reason to be mentioned in either of these articles.

 

I agree with that. He should not have been linked either way. This just proves that deadspin was dead wrong...nothing more. I do think though that anyone that reports these false things should have to pay a price...Even Keith Olberman jumped on this story that night without any proof. The media is too quick to report "news" without waiting for facts.

[Guest]

yea, that's my point. this no more proves his innocence

 

People who are innocent should not be expected to have to PROVE their innocence. Your statement implies that Pujols has to PROVE his innocence.

 

no, I'm saying that neither article sheds any light on whether pujols did HGH or not. you're making something out of nothing.

[Careless]

In other words, "deadspin may not be wrong about pujols, they just don't know"

[Catman61]

yea, that's my point. this no more proves his innocence

 

People who are innocent should not be expected to have to PROVE their innocence. Your statement implies that Pujols has to PROVE his innocence.

 

no, I'm saying that neither article sheds any light on whether pujols did HGH or not. you're making something out of nothing.

 

Not exactly

this "I'm saying that neither article sheds any light on whether pujols did HGH or not."

and this "this no more proves his innocence"

are not the same thing and don't convey the same message.

 

Proving innocence in a matter such this (steroids/HGH) could only be proven if someone was under close & personal 24 hr watch as that would be the only way to prove the negative.

 

The connotation and implication of "this no more proves his innocence" is or comes across as you beleive he is guilty. If you don't beleive someone is doing something, you don't need proof that he/she is NOT doing it.

[Guest]

yea, that's my point. this no more proves his innocence

 

People who are innocent should not be expected to have to PROVE their innocence. Your statement implies that Pujols has to PROVE his innocence.

 

no, I'm saying that neither article sheds any light on whether pujols did HGH or not. you're making something out of nothing.

 

Not exactly

this "I'm saying that neither article sheds any light on whether pujols did HGH or not."

and this "this no more proves his innocence"

are not the same thing and don't convey the same message.

 

Proving innocence in a matter such this (steroids/HGH) could only be proven if someone was under close & personal 24 hr watch as that would be the only way to prove the negative.

 

The connotation and implication of "this no more proves his innocence" is or comes across as you beleive he is guilty. If you don't beleive someone is doing something, you don't need proof that he/she is NOT doing it.

you seem to be the only one having trouble understanding the statement and subsequent clarifications.

[Catman61]

If you think that then you didn't read the last 2 sentences of the previous post.

[Soul]

yea, that's my point. this no more proves his innocence

 

People who are innocent should not be expected to have to PROVE their innocence. Your statement implies that Pujols has to PROVE his innocence.

 

His statement does not imply that at all. He already stated that the original article did not prove Pujols of being guilty, just like this article does not prove Pujols is innocent. He's basically saying Pujols has no reason to be mentioned in either of these articles.

 

I agree with that. He should not have been linked either way. This just proves that deadspin was dead wrong...nothing more. I do think though that anyone that reports these false things should have to pay a price...Even Keith Olberman jumped on this story that night without any proof. The media is too quick to report "news" without waiting for facts.

 

I'll agree with that, other than the idea that it is somehow suprising that Olberman jumped too quickly at a story. His show is little more than The Daily Show repackaged for MSNBC.