Mitchell probe looking at Sosa, Palmeiro

[Ding Dong Johnson]

Link

 

The Times said investigators have also asked the Orioles to send medical records pertaining to Jason Grimsley, David Segui and Fernando Tatis to those players, hoping they will release them to Mitchell.

 

The Daily News said on its Web site Tuesday that Mitchell's panel wants information from former Orioles player Jerry Hairston Jr., along with Palmeiro, Segui and Tatis.

[Chocolate Milk]

Shocker.

[RynoRules]

This Mitchell probe is a joke. I don't know why the feds don't involve themselves in this. Mitchell has no power to demand anything from anyone. Selig is just buying time at this point. He must have pics of Senators and Congressmen naked playing golf with Satan, or he gave them good deals on some nice used cars.

[The Voice of Reason]

So all Sammy has to do is provide the medical records proving he was not on steroids and he regains his reputation. Seems like a no-brainer to me.

[Soul]

Yes, because the way things work in our society is to make the accused prove their innocence.

[RynoRules]

Yes, because the way things work in our society is to make the accused prove their innocence.

 

Its not a criminal probe...yet...

[The Voice of Reason]

Yes, because the way things work in our society is to make the accused prove their innocence.

 

The players union gave Sammy the OK to release his records. Why not just do it and end all the speculation? The standard is and should be higher for high profile athletes. This is his chance to develop some good will with the HOF voters. Look what happened to McGwire after his ridiculous performance under oath before Congress. He didn't admit using steroids but in the eye of the HOF voters, by dodging the questions, he might as well have.

 

 

Major League Baseball and the players' union reached an agreement earlier this week that players will decide whether to release their medical records, unidentified baseball sources told the Daily News reported.

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2864613

[Soul]

Yes, because the way things work in our society is to make the accused prove their innocence.

 

The players union gave Sammy the OK to release his records. Why not just to it and end all the speculation? The standard is and should be higher for high profile athletes. This is his chance to develop some good will with the HOF voters. Look what happened to McGwire after his ridiculous performance under oath before Congress. He didn't admit using steroids but in the eye of the HOF voters, by dodging the questions, he might as well have.

 

 

Major League Baseball and the players' union reached an agreement earlier this week that players will decide whether to release their medical records, unidentified baseball sources told the Daily News reported.

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2864613

 

Well the HOF is a popularity vote, so that's another story. I could refuse to vote for Sosa because I didn't like his haircut if I was a HOF voter and so inclined.

 

We don't even know if Sosa's medical records would contain any enlightening information anyway. And if there's something else in there that is personal and he doesn't want to disclose, then that's a perfectly good reason to withhold the information. So if he does in fact choose to withhold the records it doesn't mean squat, period.

[The Voice of Reason]

Yes, because the way things work in our society is to make the accused prove their innocence.

 

The players union gave Sammy the OK to release his records. Why not just to it and end all the speculation? The standard is and should be higher for high profile athletes. This is his chance to develop some good will with the HOF voters. Look what happened to McGwire after his ridiculous performance under oath before Congress. He didn't admit using steroids but in the eye of the HOF voters, by dodging the questions, he might as well have.

 

 

Major League Baseball and the players' union reached an agreement earlier this week that players will decide whether to release their medical records, unidentified baseball sources told the Daily News reported.

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2864613

 

Well the HOF is a popularity vote, so that's another story. I could refuse to vote for Sosa because I didn't like his haircut if I was a HOF voter and so inclined.

 

We don't even know if Sosa's medical records would contain any enlightening information anyway. And if there's something else in there that is personal and he doesn't want to disclose, then that's a perfectly good reason to withhold the information. So if he does in fact choose to withhold the records it doesn't mean squat, period.

 

You don't have a vote and I seriously doubt if any the voters that do would use the criteria you suggest. Medical records are released all the time with portions blacked out that are irrelevant to the pertinent facts. If Sammy has nothing to hide regarding steroids, he should release his records.

[fromthestretch]

Medical records are released all the time with portions blacked out that are irrelevant to the pertinent facts. If Sammy has nothing to hide regarding steroids, he should release his records.

 

And then if nothing is found in his records, people will be asking about the portions that are blacked out.

[The Voice of Reason]

Medical records are released all the time with portions blacked out that are irrelevant to the pertinent facts. If Sammy has nothing to hide regarding steroids, he should release his records.

 

And then if nothing is found in his records, people will be asking about the portions that are blacked out.

 

 

No. All records pertaining to possible steroid use would need to be released. Records not relating to steroids use but of a potentially embarrassing nature (e.g., anti-depressants, STDs, etc.) could be blacked out. A simple avadavit stating all steroid-related information was disclosed could be obtained. Releases like this happen all the time. It's not a big deal.

[jmajew]

Medical records are released all the time with portions blacked out that are irrelevant to the pertinent facts. If Sammy has nothing to hide regarding steroids, he should release his records.

 

And then if nothing is found in his records, people will be asking about the portions that are blacked out.

 

 

No. All records pertaining to possible steroid use would need to be released. Records not relating to steroids use but of a potentially embarrassing nature (e.g., anti-depressants, STDs, etc.) could be blacked out. A simple avadavit stating all steroid-related information was disclosed could be obtained. Releases like this happen all the time. It's not a big deal.

 

Just to make sure I am clear on this VOR everything but information related to steriods would be blacked out of his record? This way embarassing info like if he has Herpes would not be disclosed to the public?

 

If I understand this correctly it seems pretty fair. The only reason I would see then to not give up the records is either on principle of invasion of privacy or because they used steroids. For the record I think it is an invasion of privacy, but if I needed to accept it to clear up my name I would definitely do it.

[jyoung55]

Medical records are released all the time with portions blacked out that are irrelevant to the pertinent facts. If Sammy has nothing to hide regarding steroids, he should release his records.

 

And then if nothing is found in his records, people will be asking about the portions that are blacked out.

 

 

No. All records pertaining to possible steroid use would need to be released. Records not relating to steroids use but of a potentially embarrassing nature (e.g., anti-depressants, STDs, etc.) could be blacked out. A simple avadavit stating all steroid-related information was disclosed could be obtained. Releases like this happen all the time. It's not a big deal.

 

Just to make sure I am clear on this VOR everything but information related to steriods would be blacked out of his record? This way embarassing info like if he has Herpes would not be disclosed to the public?

 

If I understand this correctly it seems pretty fair. The only reason I would see then to not give up the records is either on principle of invasion of privacy or because they used steroids. For the record I think it is an invasion of privacy, but if I needed to accept it to clear up my name I would definitely do it.

 

People lie in affidavits all the time and that's what the steroids witch hunters would say if Sammy presented redacted health records.

[Backtobanks]

Yes, because the way things work in our society is to make the accused prove their innocence.

 

The players union gave Sammy the OK to release his records. Why not just do it and end all the speculation? The standard is and should be higher for high profile athletes. This is his chance to develop some good will with the HOF voters. Look what happened to McGwire after his ridiculous performance under oath before Congress. He didn't admit using steroids but in the eye of the HOF voters, by dodging the questions, he might as well have.

 

 

Major League Baseball and the players' union reached an agreement earlier this week that players will decide whether to release their medical records, unidentified baseball sources told the Daily News reported.

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2864613

 

The most obvious answer to the question is that there might be something incriminating in his records. My stance is that you can't pick and choose who's records to check, check (or test) everyone in baseball or no one until you have proof.

[The Voice of Reason]

The most obvious answer to the question is that there might be something incriminating in his records. My stance is that you can't pick and choose who's records to check, check (or test) everyone in baseball or no one until you have proof.

 

Checking everyone is not practical. It seems like they are targeting former or current Orioles. Do you think there is a slight possibility that there may be a reason (or leads) to substantiate why they are targeting Palmeiro, Grimsley, Sosa, Segui, Tejada, Tatis and Jerry Hairston, Jr.?

Edited May 9, 2007 by The Voice of Reason

[fromthestretch]

The most obvious answer to the question is that there might be something incriminating in his records. My stance is that you can't pick and choose who's records to check, check (or test) everyone in baseball or no one until you have proof.

 

Checking everyone is not practical. It seems like they are targeting former or current Orioles. Do you think there is a slight possibility that there may be a reason (or leads) to substantiate why they are targeting Palmeiro, Grimsley, Sosa, Tejada, Tatis and Jerry Hairston, Jr.?

 

Oddly enough, four of those six played in Texas, too.

[SouthSideRyan]

I can't believe the player's union agreed to leave it up to the player. That puts the player in a horrible spot. They go ahead and agree to release their records, so then when the next guy in the hunt is asked for his records everyone can point to player A and say HE RELEASED HIS!!! WHAT ARE YOU HIDING? WHO ARE YOU WORKING FOR???

[Soul]

Yes, because the way things work in our society is to make the accused prove their innocence.

 

The players union gave Sammy the OK to release his records. Why not just to it and end all the speculation? The standard is and should be higher for high profile athletes. This is his chance to develop some good will with the HOF voters. Look what happened to McGwire after his ridiculous performance under oath before Congress. He didn't admit using steroids but in the eye of the HOF voters, by dodging the questions, he might as well have.

 

 

Major League Baseball and the players' union reached an agreement earlier this week that players will decide whether to release their medical records, unidentified baseball sources told the Daily News reported.

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2864613

 

Well the HOF is a popularity vote, so that's another story. I could refuse to vote for Sosa because I didn't like his haircut if I was a HOF voter and so inclined.

 

We don't even know if Sosa's medical records would contain any enlightening information anyway. And if there's something else in there that is personal and he doesn't want to disclose, then that's a perfectly good reason to withhold the information. So if he does in fact choose to withhold the records it doesn't mean squat, period.

 

You don't have a vote and I seriously doubt if any the voters that do would use the criteria you suggest. Medical records are released all the time with portions blacked out that are irrelevant to the pertinent facts. If Sammy has nothing to hide regarding steroids, he should release his records.

 

I said that to make a point. Sorry it went over your head.

 

And no, personal medical records are NEVER just released without express permission of the patient. You may wish to look up more information on HIPAA: private medical records are private.

 

None of this changes the fact that if Sosa has, say, herpes and wants to keep it private he'd be revealing that very embarrassing fact just to "prove" a negative -- which can't be proven anyway.

 

Medical records won't prove a damn thing. Every person on the planet has something or another that doesn't show up in their medical record, including drug use in some cases.

[Backtobanks]

The most obvious answer to the question is that there might be something incriminating in his records. My stance is that you can't pick and choose who's records to check, check (or test) everyone in baseball or no one until you have proof.

 

Checking everyone is not practical. It seems like they are targeting former or current Orioles. Do you think there is a slight possibility that there may be a reason (or leads) to substantiate why they are targeting Palmeiro, Grimsley, Sosa, Segui, Tejada, Tatis and Jerry Hairston, Jr.?

 

But when someone is found guilty of steroid use, why should they be the only one. Point your finger at Bonds, Sosa, Palmeiro, etc., but what about Clemens, Giambi, et al. They are never going to uncover everyone who used (or uses) steroids, so call it the Steroid Era and move on.

[The Voice of Reason]

Yes, because the way things work in our society is to make the accused prove their innocence.

 

The players union gave Sammy the OK to release his records. Why not just to it and end all the speculation? The standard is and should be higher for high profile athletes. This is his chance to develop some good will with the HOF voters. Look what happened to McGwire after his ridiculous performance under oath before Congress. He didn't admit using steroids but in the eye of the HOF voters, by dodging the questions, he might as well have.

 

 

Major League Baseball and the players' union reached an agreement earlier this week that players will decide whether to release their medical records, unidentified baseball sources told the Daily News reported.

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2864613

 

Well the HOF is a popularity vote, so that's another story. I could refuse to vote for Sosa because I didn't like his haircut if I was a HOF voter and so inclined.

 

We don't even know if Sosa's medical records would contain any enlightening information anyway. And if there's something else in there that is personal and he doesn't want to disclose, then that's a perfectly good reason to withhold the information. So if he does in fact choose to withhold the records it doesn't mean squat, period.

 

You don't have a vote and I seriously doubt if any the voters that do would use the criteria you suggest. Medical records are released all the time with portions blacked out that are irrelevant to the pertinent facts. If Sammy has nothing to hide regarding steroids, he should release his records.

 

I said that to make a point. Sorry it went over your head.

 

And no, personal medical records are NEVER just released without express permission of the patient. You may wish to look up more information on HIPAA: private medical records are private.

 

None of this changes the fact that if Sosa has, say, herpes and wants to keep it private he'd be revealing that very embarrassing fact just to "prove" a negative -- which can't be proven anyway.

 

Medical records won't prove a damn thing. Every person on the planet has something or another that doesn't show up in their medical record, including drug use in some cases.

 

I never said medical records were released without the patient's approval but they are released all the time with sections blacked out and the patient's permission in litigation, settlements, insurance claims, etc. - sorry it went over your head.

 

Medical records are used in litigation all the time and have proven many things which is probably why the investigators want them. Just because they might prove something you don't want to hear , that doesn't make medical records any less useful in the chain of evidence. Come on, these investigators are professionals, give them a little bit of credit for knowing what they are doing.

Edited May 9, 2007 by The Voice of Reason

[Soul]

Here are your words, just a little while ago:

 

The players union gave Sammy the OK to release his records. Why not just to it and end all the speculation?

 

Sammy releasing his medical records would not end any of the speculation. There could be any number of medical conditions, up to and including drug abuse, that might not be recorded there.

 

I'm not sure how to make it any more clear. It wouldn't do what you say it would.

[The Voice of Reason]

Here are your words, just a little while ago:

 

The players union gave Sammy the OK to release his records. Why not just to it and end all the speculation?

 

Sammy releasing his medical records would not end any of the speculation. There could be any number of medical conditions, up to and including drug abuse, that might not be recorded there.

 

I'm not sure how to make it any more clear. It wouldn't do what you say it would.

 

 

Soul what do you think is more likely? A major league baseball player chooses not to release medical records because:

 

A) It is a matter of principal to him as he is an acknowledged privacy advocate and sincerely concerned about potential violations of HIPPA privacy laws.

 

or

 

B) He knows they can help confirm his use of steroids.

[Chris]

A

[FergieJ31]

Let me rephrase the question slightly:

 

Assuming the ballplayer is clean, what do you think is more likely? A major league baseball player chooses to:

 

(A) Release his medical records because they can publically clear his name as a clean player of the Steroid Era.

 

or

 

(B) Not release the records because it is a matter of principle to him as an acknowledged privacy advocate, and is sincerely concerned about potential violations of HIPPA privacy laws.

 

If I were a ballplayer and 100% clean, I sure as hell know which one I would choose.

[The Voice of Reason]

Let me rephrase the question slightly:

 

Assuming the ballplayer is clean, what do you think is more likely? A major league baseball player chooses to:

 

(A) Release his medical records because they can publically clear his name as a clean player of the Steroid Era.

 

or

 

(B) Not release the records because it is a matter of principle to him as an acknowledged privacy advocate, and is sincerely concerned about potential violations of HIPPA privacy laws.

 

If I were a ballplayer and 100% clean, I sure as hell know which one I would choose.

 

A