They should do one of these for Jeff Bagwell, I think the collective 180 which would follow would be amusing.
I saw this last night and the commish's note was pretty good and I agree with it...It is an amazing mark that you have to respect...A-Rod will break in within 7 years...
I thought Bonds said he used some cream/oil which he did not know/think was steroids. I don't think there has ever been any testimony like I used steroids and didn't know, the cream that I used was definately steroids, etc. If there has been I stand corrected........ My main point is I don't think he has ever come out and said he used anything. Isn't that what the grand jury is trying to bust him on, for supposedely lying? I think he said he used some cream (which was supposed to be confidential anyway but that's a whole other issue), and everyone said well he got the cream from the steroid dude so it had to have been the same stuff...GUILTY....
Another issue seemingly broken down across racial boundries........same as the Mike Vick case. It would be interesting to see a poll based upon race as to what people think of Bonds and whether he knowingly cheated. I am a white male, and I am 100% sure he cheated...... But, so did everyone else, so I still applaud his record, even though I believe it was tainted. DD
there was a poll on this a while back, it was pretty one-sided in terms of race. espn did it i believe, i'll see if i can pull it up to sum it up, white people believe barry is guilty (something like 60%) while like 30% of black people believe he's guilty. lol
come on man...first off you see how much his body has changed. he came out and said he used a clear/ cream substance stuff didnt know what is was..which one can lead to believe he used roids. Let me ask you this...this is a professional athlete, making millions of dollars. Yet hes going to take a substance he doesnt know what it is..and put it in his body, no questions asked?
Don't forget the book that came out about him using Steroids, and him not suing the makers of the book for liable....because...well, it is a true account. DD
As much as I think Schilling craves attention like a certain 40+ year old SP for the NY Yan.... anyways...., as I was saying, Schilling is right about one thing: if someone writes a book on you claiming that you did stuff and you're innocent, and you spent all your life going after this record, I'd sure as heck sue the living daylights out of this book, instead of ignoring it.
its not that simple to sue someone for liable. when you sue you open your life up. that's why you don't see celebrities sue everytime some ridiculous story comes out on them in some tabloid.
ROFLMAO.....you did not just say that....... Celebrities sue all the damned time......over everything....... Bonds not suing is a clear admittance of guilt. Bonds is guilty....you know it, you just don't want to admit it. DD
Good for Barry, this whole mess is on Selig and the rest of the idiots who run MLB. It's funny how I think baseball is the greatest game ever invented but yet it ranks a third behind the NFL and the NBA for me and just ahead of the PGA and ATP in my book.
yeah, they're averaging around 31,000/game around the whole league...making money like crazy right now...clearly it's not relevant to our culture.
http://www.filmmaking.com/self-defense.html A. DEFAMATION Defamation is a communication that harms the reputation of another so as to lower him in the opinion of the community or to deter third persons from associating or dealing with him. For example, those communications that expose another to hatred, ridicule or contempt, or reflect unfavorably upon one's personal morality or integrity are defamatory. One who is defamed may suffer embarrassment and humiliation, as well as economic damages, such as the loss of a job or the ability to earn a living. The law of defamation can be very confusing. That is because the common law[iii] rules that have developed over the centuries are subject to constitutional limitations. To determine the current law, one must read a state's defamation laws in light of various constitutional principles. For example, recent United States Supreme Court decisions have imposed significant limitations on the ability of public officials and public figures to win defamation actions. If a state's law is inconsistent with a constitutional principle, the law is invalid. There are a number of defenses and privileges in defamation law. Therefore, in some circumstances a person can publish an otherwise defamatory remark with impunity. Why? Because protecting a person. s reputation is not the only value we cherish in a democratic society. When the right to protect a reputation conflicts with a more important right, the defamed person may be denied a recovery for the harm suffered. Keep in mind that while truth is an absolute defense, the burden of proving the truth may sometimes fall on you. So if you make a defamatory statement, you should be prepared to prove that it is true -- which may not be an easy task. Another privilege is the conditional common law privilege of fair comment and criticism. This privilege applies to communications about a newsworthy person or event. Conditional privileges may be lost through bad faith or abuse. This privilege has been largely superseded, however, by a constitutional privilege applied in the context of statements about public officials or public figures. Public figures,[iv] such as celebrities, or public officials, such as senators, have a much higher burden in order to meet to prevail in a defamation action. They must prove that the defendant acted with "actual malice." Actual malice is a term of art meaning that the defendant intentionally defamed another or acted with reckless disregard of the truth. Plaintiffs often find it difficult to prove that a defendant acted with actual malice. That is why so few celebrities sue the National Enquirer. To successfully defend itself, the magazine need only show that it acted without actual malice. In other words, the newspaper can come into court and concede that its report was false, defamatory and the result of sloppy and careless research. But unless the celebrity can prove that the National Enquirer acted with actual malice, the court must dismiss the case. Mere negligence is not enough to create liability when the subject is a public figure or a public official. you can get off the floor and stop laughing
