David

It's not that I think that IF they did this they shouldn't be punished. It's that unless there's proof that they indeed broke the law, there's nothing. The burden of proof lies with the accuser, not the defendant. They cannot be punished by the law if there's no proof of possession. The hypothetical was simply meant to illustrate that there are ways in which one can use steroids without technically breaking possession laws. That's all. There needs to be proof. In other words, a positive test isn't proof that they possessed the substance and thereby broke the law. Aside from that, you mentioned rules of conduct by an employer. MLB didn't have a testing/suspension policy at the time, either. Wasn't your argument earlier that MLB didn't need to have rules on this for it to be a punishable offense in baseball? As of yet, there's no way of convicting any player of possession (in which case, MLB could probably levy a punishment as, as goony stated, they had a policy with regard to being caught with illegal drugs), and there was no policy requiring drug testing or explicitly banning steroid usage. So, what do we have? Nothing. Also, although it wouldn't matter if it was, the hypothetical is NOT ridiculous. Ever see the Real Sports w/Bryant Gumbel on the misconceptions about steroids?

I hope they get him. I know a few here like him, but I think he is overrated.

Thanks for that... This is more or less what I was trying to get at with the last post or two.

MLB had rules against using illegal drugs. Guys had been suspended for using illegal drugs. That's what I was wondering. MLB had rules on it, and MLB took action on it. MLB, however, had no such policy on steroids prior to a few years ago. They didn't test for drugs, but, as much as they were illegal drugs, steroids fit into the category of drugs that could get you in trouble if you were caught with them by the law. OK, let's assume they, by nature of being illegal drugs, fit under the policy as you're saying. That's fine, but it raises another question. How can you prove, though, simply by means of a positive test, that anything illegal actually occured? Illegal possession itself would have to be proven, wouldn't it? A test proves that the person in question used the drug, but it doesn't really prove that the player possessed/used the drug illegaly. I guess what I'm asking is, without some sort of evidence that the players who tested positive actually had the drugs in their possession within the jurisdiction of this country, can the government really go after the player? I would imagine that the positive test could be used as supporting evidence against a player when a legit case is already made against him (i.e. proof of possession, paraphernalia, etc.), but I don't see how testing positive, alone, is enough.

MLB had rules against using illegal drugs. Guys had been suspended for using illegal drugs. That's what I was wondering. MLB had rules on it, and MLB took action on it. MLB, however, had no such policy on steroids prior to a few years ago. EDIT - I realize that steroids are also illegal drugs. I'm just doubting that the MLB policy was against "illegal drugs" without actually specifying which ones, since everything we've heard suggests there was no language referencing steroids in the policy back then.

How is it ridiculous? And who ever said anything about sneaking? That's a word that would suggest some sort of wrongdoing. You're trying to imply that simply because the players broke the law in allegedly using steroids, what they did should lead to consequences in baseball even though baseball had no rules against the use of steroids at the time. If they didn't break the law, the point is moot. It's not an argument, it's a hypothetical meant to illustrate a point that you seem to not be grasping. I don't know why you feel the need to ridicule someone who doesn't agree with you instead of just having a reasoned discussion. The law and MLB need to be separated. This is my opinion. The illegality of steroids has nothing to do with it. If a player gets multiple DUIs, much worse of an offense, in my MORAL opinion, than use of a controlled substance, he keeps on playing. It makes MLB look bad, it makes his team look bad, but he keeps on playing and it has no real effect on his career as a ballplayer. On the other hand, Darryl Strawberry was suspended for his involvement with illegal drugs. I'd be interested in knowing what kind of policy MLB had with regard to drugs of abuse at the time. If they had no policy, then there's clear precedent, even though the type of controlled substance in question is much different. (EDIT - but it turns out, as I suspected, they did. Thus, no such precedent was set). MLB had no such policy for steroids. Oh, and your point about people doing perfectly legal things getting fired because said actions reflect poorly on the company does nothing to further your argument. The company would have to have some sort of its own policy against the action. -edited

...(double post)

I'm not sure what you're getting at exactly. There are tons of laws that have no direct bearing on an athlete's performance in a professional sport. So any professional athlete that commits a crime should have his accomplishments brought into question? Let's just say that Darryl Kile had HOF credentials (he didn't). Should he not get into the HOF because they found marijuana in his system upon his death, and, we can presume, therefore broke the law? It shouldn't work that way. If steroids weren't against MLB policy, they weren't violating any MLB rules. As an aside, who is to say that marijuana doesn't have some sort of effect that enhanced Darryl Kile's own performance? Does it matter? Did MLB have a legit/enforced substance policy? Why should their statistics, then, be questioned? They didn't break any MLB rules in the process of achieving whatever it was that they achieved. An additional question which might bring up something to consider. Would it it illegal if these guys, say, drove to down to Tijuana, shot up there, and came back? Is it illegal for a US Citizen to go to Amsterdam and use recreational drugs and return while the drugs are still technically in his/her system? My point with the second part is that, if it's not illegal, (I'm not sure that it is or isn't), the player may not have even broken the law by using. It doesn't matter if they weren't violating MLB rules. Companies and organizations don't have to come up with parallel rules to match every law that's out there. How ridiculous. Here's a test. Go out and break a law which has no corresponding specific policy with your employer. In the process, make sure it reflects poorly on the company you work for. See what happens. I'm betting you won't. Think very carefully about *why* that's the case. BTW, these are federal investigators, not MLB ones. As for Marijuana, I don't think it's all that bad, but it's also illegal. I've known a friend or two who lost his job over the stuff. Nobody asked or cared if they snuck out to Amsterdam to smoke their joints. You're missing my point entirely. I'm probably at fault for that in the way in which I presented it. Rather than attempt to explain it right now, I'll just try to illustrate it with a hypothetical. IF it is not illegal for a player to travel to Tijuana, inject steroids there, and then return to the United States (again, I am not positive as to whether or not this is, indeed, the case), and MLB did not have a legit, official steroid policy (which they didn't up until a few years ago), what rules or laws has the player who used steroids and played baseball in the late 90s really broken? Why, aside from our own moral and subjective qualms about steroids, should the players be looked down on? The player in question broke no rules or laws (again, assuming that it is legal to use the substance in a country where its use is accepted). As for my point about laws, it wasn't that a business should have corresponding policies for every law in the book. Players break laws all the time. Why should one directed at possession/use of a controlled substance within the jurisdiction of the US be treated any differently? It's not a law directed at keeping athletes from having a competitive advantage. It's meant to keep a dangerous (as the government deems it) substance out of the hands of the American populace. Baseball would need it's own policy directed at their belief that such a substance would, in fact, give certain athletes an advantage over others. That is, if we want to call their performance into question. They didn't a few years ago. Now they do.

I'm not sure what you're getting at exactly. There are tons of laws that have no direct bearing on an athlete's performance in a professional sport. So any professional athlete that commits a crime should have his accomplishments brought into question? Let's just say that Darryl Kile had HOF credentials (he didn't). Should he not get into the HOF because they found marijuana in his system upon his death, and, we can presume, therefore broke the law? It shouldn't work that way. If steroids weren't against MLB policy, they weren't violating any MLB rules. As an aside, who is to say that marijuana doesn't have some sort of effect that enhanced Darryl Kile's own performance? Does it matter? Did MLB have a legit/enforced substance policy? Why should their statistics, then, be questioned? They didn't break any MLB rules in the process of achieving whatever it was that they achieved. An additional question which might bring up something to consider. Would it it illegal if these guys, say, drove to down to Tijuana, shot up there, and came back? Is it illegal for a US Citizen to go to Amsterdam and use recreational drugs and return while the drugs are still technically in his/her system? My point with the second part is that, if it's not illegal, (I'm not sure that it is or isn't), the player may not have even broken the law by using.

I'm sure he won't. Paxson said on the radio today (WSCR) that he's spoken with the league and expects that Posey will be dealt with. Also, did anyone catch when, on the post game show, Kendall Gill offered to sign with the team on a 10-day contract just to deal with Posey the next time we face the Heat? :twisted:

This HAS to be some sort of regional thing....you've used it twice in the past couple of days. You might could be from Louisiana? I was thinking the exact same thing.

Yeah UMfan83 posted that near the end of the game thread from last week. It's definitely gonna be tougher, but on the bright side they won't be able to say we haven't played anybody this time next year... :D Yeah for real. I still think they'll be good next year, but it's gonna be a hell of a lot harder. The nice thing is that next year they'll have some more depth on the d-line with Dusty back, and hopefully (assuming all turns out well with his hammie) Tommie will be back. They'll, hopefully, address the safety position early in the draft, because it looks like Mike Brown is on his last legs, no pun intended. Add in the fact that Rex will have a whole year (hopefully with a deep playoff run) and another offseason under his belt, and the team should be looking even better next year.

Yup. If the Bears draw Philly, they should go away from the pass. Philly's run defense is weak and, as you said, their pass rush and, to some extent, secondary are cause for concern on our end. Gash the Eagles with a heavy dose of CB/TJ. Obviously, pass on passing downs and throw a few play actions in. Just limit the passing game a little bit (sort of like in the Jets game) and ask Rex to have a solid, mistake-free game.

He also says Grossman was no match for 3 of the 4 AFC defenses he faced. People continue to classify his solid effort against the Jets as a bad game.

Sucks to be you! :lol: LOL, j/k... I'll be glad to take those damn tickets off your hands so you can go out and party, though. :wink:

Why are people so obsessed with this "proven" label? What has Marquis proven? That he can be terrible? Please don't respond to me with some 15 win garbage. I sure hope at least one of Guzman or Marshall can outdo what Marquis did last year, because otherwise, what in the world is our farm system producing? Why is it such a leap of faith to assume that one of these pitchers (Guzman, Marshall, Marmol) can perform just as adequately as, if not better than, Marquis for MUCH less money and no big long-term financial committment, along with the added benefit that you may be developing a young pitcher that you can slot into the rotation for years to come? Didn't we take that leap of faith last year? One of these guys could be good but the chances of all three of them being good is one huge leap of faith. We're not talking about last year, we're talking about this year. You only need one of them to be good to fill one rotation spot. But if you think it's worth 3 years and 20 million dollars for the assuredness that we'll have someone who has shown he can be a below average pitcher eating up innings in our rotation, far be it from me to change your mind.

Why are people so obsessed with this "proven" label? What has Marquis proven? That he can be terrible? Please don't respond to me with some 15 win garbage. I sure hope at least one of Guzman or Marshall can outdo what Marquis did last year, because otherwise, what in the world is our farm system producing? Why is it such a leap of faith to assume that one of these pitchers (Guzman, Marshall, Marmol) can perform just as adequately as, if not better than, Marquis for MUCH less money and no big long-term financial committment, along with the added benefit that you may be developing a young pitcher that you can slot into the rotation for years to come?

Probably even as a result of. EDIT - Or, better stated, the new signings continue to illustrate just how terrible he is.

On another note, Rex wins NFC Player of the Week :D http://www.chicagobears.com/news/NewsStory.asp?story_id=2829 I'm happy for him...He couldn't have rebounded from all the criticism any better.

Actually, voting ends tommorow at 11am. So I guess we'll have to concentrate on both. :)

He's catching up. Get those votes in!

http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/football/bears/cs-061219bearstank,1,903963.story?coll=cs-home-headlines from what channel 5 said, it wasant tank firing the guns it was posey. posey got mad at one of the dogs and took a shot at it. I suppose this adds another twist to our debate from before about whether Posey was really doing anything that harmed Tank. :wink:

Turns out Johnson's guns were all legally registered in AZ, where he's a legal resident. Looks like the charges might be dropped, and what originally happened (the raid and the results) really weren't as big a deal as they were originally made out to be. Big difference between legally acquiring guns and getting them off the street. He still was firing them all over his backyard like an idiot, though. http://chicagosports.chicagotribune.com/sports/football/bears/cs-061219bearstank,1,903963.story?coll=cs-home-headlines

How is that even possible?? The Blackhawks were in the playoffs for a bunch of years in a row before that finally ended 7 or 8 years ago. They were definitely a stron gteam in the early 90's. The Bulls obviously were. Were the Bears never above .500 at any moment while the other two were during those years? Weren't they a playoff team in 91? Were they ever any good from 90-93?? I have no proof, but that just seems like it can't be right (aside from the fact that the Hawks aren't really above .500 right now). It was 1995 Makes a lot more sense... Thanks EDIT - The Cubs were above .500 in 1995 too...(although that wouldn't exactly apply since we're talking about all teams being .500 at the same time)..

How is that even possible?? The Blackhawks were in the playoffs for a bunch of years in a row before that finally ended 7 or 8 years ago. They were definitely a stron gteam in the early 90's. The Bulls obviously were. Were the Bears never above .500 at any moment while the other two were during those years? Weren't they a playoff team in 91? Were they ever any good from 90-93?? I have no proof, but that just seems like it can't be right (aside from the fact that the Hawks aren't really above .500 right now).