Palmerio says he got the "vitamin/steroid" from

[adamb0719]

Looks like his season is officially over. He no longer has a uniform

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2170471

[MeatampPotatoesMan]

Looks like his season is officially over. He no longer has a uniform

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2170471

 

good. he deserves it.

[erik316wttn]

You'd think he would have pointed the finger at Sammy. He'd have been the easier target in the public's eye.

 

Not wanting to open up the "Did or didn't Sammy juice" argument for the 9,000th time.

[Diffusion]

I don't think this is anything like you're alleging.

 

It sounds to me as though Raffy listed a number of supplements/vitamins/whatever that he'd taken and raised the possibility that they were not what he thought they were and that therefore they may have caused the negative test.

 

One of those supplements that he listed was the B-12 that Tejada gave him, which was subsequently tested and ruled out. But at no stage did Raffy say "Tejada, the most profilic drug user that I've met in this game, gave me "B-12", but it can't have been B-12 because it didn't taste like it, and that's definately what must have caused my negative test".

 

Now, obviously, if Palmeiro knowingly took steroids, even suggesting that they were accidentally taken via something else that another player gave him when he knows damn well that that's not the case, that's a very serious thing to do.

 

But as far as I was aware, it hasn't yet been proven that Palmeiro knowingly took steroids. While that looks likely, the possibility that Palmiero accidentally took something that wasn't what he thought it was cannot be entirely ruled out. And if that is what happened, do you not think Palmeiro is well within his rights to list all the substances and supplements that he's taken and have them test and at least ruled out?

 

You've all already found him guilty, of taking steroids and of perjury. As far as I can tell, you must have all in the bathroom when Palmeiro took the big syringe labelled "STEROIDS" and injected it into his stomach and backside, you saw it with your own two eyes.

 

Why do you think that Palmeiro isn't going to be charged with perjury? Because it can't be proven that he knowingly took steroids and then lied about it in front of Congress, there's not enough evidence.

 

Well maybe you guys should step forward with your eye witness accounts of what happened, and then there will be enough evidence.

 

Personally I think that Palmeiro did knowingly take steroids, and had been taking them for a while, and that he knowingly lied about it before Congress. I also think it is a terrible thing to do to even raise the possibility that one of your teammates was responsible for you failing the drugs test, if you know that that's definitely not the case. However, I don't know any of that. It's just what I think.

 

Doubt continues to exist. And therefore the benefit of the doubt should too.

 

Under your test, no one could ever be PROVEN of doing anything knowingly without having some sort of device that looked into their mind. And even then I think you would have reservations about its accuracy AT THE TIME of the act. You have to infer intent from surrounding actions that the person takes. From those actions it is pretty clear that Palmeiro knowingly took steroids.

 

Just because a liar says he didn't do something doesn't mean you have to ignore everything else and say that raises doubt. It only raises UNreasonable doubt.

 

BTW, he likely will not be convicted of perjury because they have no evidence that he was doing it BEFORE he testified(he tested positive afterwards), NOT because they have no evidence of intent. Prosecutors across this country get juries to infer intent from far more tenious cases than this.

 

Maybe there's something wrong with your country then. Or your lawyers. Or your juries. Or all three. That wouldn't surprise me.

 

What evidence of intent do they have? From what surrounding actions are you infering intent?

 

And on what evidence are you calling Palmeiro a liar?

 

Or is this more guilty until proven innocent suppositioning?

 

Testing positive for drugs doesn't prove that you knowningly took them, and took them to gain an unfair advantage.

[frostwyrm]

I don't think this is anything like you're alleging.

 

It sounds to me as though Raffy listed a number of supplements/vitamins/whatever that he'd taken and raised the possibility that they were not what he thought they were and that therefore they may have caused the negative test.

 

One of those supplements that he listed was the B-12 that Tejada gave him, which was subsequently tested and ruled out. But at no stage did Raffy say "Tejada, the most profilic drug user that I've met in this game, gave me "B-12", but it can't have been B-12 because it didn't taste like it, and that's definately what must have caused my negative test".

 

Now, obviously, if Palmeiro knowingly took steroids, even suggesting that they were accidentally taken via something else that another player gave him when he knows damn well that that's not the case, that's a very serious thing to do.

 

But as far as I was aware, it hasn't yet been proven that Palmeiro knowingly took steroids. While that looks likely, the possibility that Palmiero accidentally took something that wasn't what he thought it was cannot be entirely ruled out. And if that is what happened, do you not think Palmeiro is well within his rights to list all the substances and supplements that he's taken and have them test and at least ruled out?

 

You've all already found him guilty, of taking steroids and of perjury. As far as I can tell, you must have all in the bathroom when Palmeiro took the big syringe labelled "STEROIDS" and injected it into his stomach and backside, you saw it with your own two eyes.

 

Why do you think that Palmeiro isn't going to be charged with perjury? Because it can't be proven that he knowingly took steroids and then lied about it in front of Congress, there's not enough evidence.

 

Well maybe you guys should step forward with your eye witness accounts of what happened, and then there will be enough evidence.

 

Personally I think that Palmeiro did knowingly take steroids, and had been taking them for a while, and that he knowingly lied about it before Congress. I also think it is a terrible thing to do to even raise the possibility that one of your teammates was responsible for you failing the drugs test, if you know that that's definitely not the case. However, I don't know any of that. It's just what I think.

 

Doubt continues to exist. And therefore the benefit of the doubt should too.

 

Under your test, no one could ever be PROVEN of doing anything knowingly without having some sort of device that looked into their mind. And even then I think you would have reservations about its accuracy AT THE TIME of the act. You have to infer intent from surrounding actions that the person takes. From those actions it is pretty clear that Palmeiro knowingly took steroids.

 

Just because a liar says he didn't do something doesn't mean you have to ignore everything else and say that raises doubt. It only raises UNreasonable doubt.

 

BTW, he likely will not be convicted of perjury because they have no evidence that he was doing it BEFORE he testified(he tested positive afterwards), NOT because they have no evidence of intent. Prosecutors across this country get juries to infer intent from far more tenious cases than this.

 

Maybe there's something wrong with your country then. Or your lawyers. Or your juries. Or all three. That wouldn't surprise me.

 

What evidence of intent do they have? From what surrounding actions are you infering intent?

 

And on what evidence are you calling Palmeiro a liar?

 

Or is this more guilty until proven innocent suppositioning?

 

Testing positive for drugs doesn't prove that you knowningly took them, and took them to gain an unfair advantage.

 

The accepted legal standard of proof is REASONABLE doubt, not a "you can't prove Martians didn't build the Pyramids" level of doubt.

[Diffusion]

I don't think this is anything like you're alleging.

 

It sounds to me as though Raffy listed a number of supplements/vitamins/whatever that he'd taken and raised the possibility that they were not what he thought they were and that therefore they may have caused the negative test.

 

One of those supplements that he listed was the B-12 that Tejada gave him, which was subsequently tested and ruled out. But at no stage did Raffy say "Tejada, the most profilic drug user that I've met in this game, gave me "B-12", but it can't have been B-12 because it didn't taste like it, and that's definately what must have caused my negative test".

 

Now, obviously, if Palmeiro knowingly took steroids, even suggesting that they were accidentally taken via something else that another player gave him when he knows damn well that that's not the case, that's a very serious thing to do.

 

But as far as I was aware, it hasn't yet been proven that Palmeiro knowingly took steroids. While that looks likely, the possibility that Palmiero accidentally took something that wasn't what he thought it was cannot be entirely ruled out. And if that is what happened, do you not think Palmeiro is well within his rights to list all the substances and supplements that he's taken and have them test and at least ruled out?

 

You've all already found him guilty, of taking steroids and of perjury. As far as I can tell, you must have all in the bathroom when Palmeiro took the big syringe labelled "STEROIDS" and injected it into his stomach and backside, you saw it with your own two eyes.

 

Why do you think that Palmeiro isn't going to be charged with perjury? Because it can't be proven that he knowingly took steroids and then lied about it in front of Congress, there's not enough evidence.

 

Well maybe you guys should step forward with your eye witness accounts of what happened, and then there will be enough evidence.

 

Personally I think that Palmeiro did knowingly take steroids, and had been taking them for a while, and that he knowingly lied about it before Congress. I also think it is a terrible thing to do to even raise the possibility that one of your teammates was responsible for you failing the drugs test, if you know that that's definitely not the case. However, I don't know any of that. It's just what I think.

 

Doubt continues to exist. And therefore the benefit of the doubt should too.

 

Under your test, no one could ever be PROVEN of doing anything knowingly without having some sort of device that looked into their mind. And even then I think you would have reservations about its accuracy AT THE TIME of the act. You have to infer intent from surrounding actions that the person takes. From those actions it is pretty clear that Palmeiro knowingly took steroids.

 

Just because a liar says he didn't do something doesn't mean you have to ignore everything else and say that raises doubt. It only raises UNreasonable doubt.

 

BTW, he likely will not be convicted of perjury because they have no evidence that he was doing it BEFORE he testified(he tested positive afterwards), NOT because they have no evidence of intent. Prosecutors across this country get juries to infer intent from far more tenious cases than this.

 

Maybe there's something wrong with your country then. Or your lawyers. Or your juries. Or all three. That wouldn't surprise me.

 

What evidence of intent do they have? From what surrounding actions are you infering intent?

 

And on what evidence are you calling Palmeiro a liar?

 

Or is this more guilty until proven innocent suppositioning?

 

Testing positive for drugs doesn't prove that you knowningly took them, and took them to gain an unfair advantage.

 

The accepted legal standard of proof is REASONABLE doubt, not a "you can't prove Martians didn't build the Pyramids" level of doubt.

 

And what, because Palmeiro failed a drugs test, you know and can prove beyond your reasonable doubt that he took them intentionally, and has been taking them intentionally for the last 12 years or however long it's supposed to have been?

 

Look, it looks bad for Palmeiro, of course. The weight of evidence is against him, it is more likely than not that he knowingly took steroids and had for a long time knowningly been steroids, and then he finally got caught. But the weight of evidence isn't so compelling that a complete outsider such as yourself, or anyone here, has any right to go around calling Raffy "scum" or a "POS". You've already found him guilty.

 

Where's the evidence? A failed drugs test and a leak you don't know the validity of? Great, he simply has to be guilty.

 

You look at the way people react even to this story. What quite clearly happened was that he listed a number of supplements/vitamins/whatever that he'd taken and raised the possibility that they were not what he thought they were and that therefore they may have caused the negative test. One of those supplements that he listed was the B-12 that Tejada gave him, which was subsequently tested and ruled out. But at no stage did Raffy say "Tejada, the most profilic drug user that I've met in this game, gave me "B-12", but it can't have been B-12 because it didn't taste like it, and that's definately what must have caused my negative test".

 

He might as well have done though for the reaction that this leak has got. All sense of perspective has been lost. You've got people lining up to put the boot in, with or without a good reason. It's ridiculous. And it's the same with the original situation that's led to this. What do you know about the leak regarding the substance? Can you vouch for the validity of that? Or have all you got to go on that Raffy didn't deny it? How much do you really know about the failed drugs test? My guess is you know sweet FA. But in environments like this, where everyone wants to vent and shout about steroids in baseball and how terrible they are and how terrible steroid users are and everything, possibility becomes "fact", and "fact" becomes fact, and before you know it you've built an open and closed case based on a bunch of likelihoods and possibilities, absolutely none of it that can be proven beyond any doubt, reasonable or otherwise.

 

Now I'm not entirely au fait with the exact facts of the Raffy case, but enlighten me further if you feel the need.

[erik316wttn]

Hell, it took a lot less than a failed drug test for some people to convict Sammy of every offense under the sun.

 

After reading opinions on this board, everywhere else on the internet, seeing them on TV, reading them in the paper, etc., let me just say I am damed glad that trials aren't held in the court of public opinion.