Don't apologize. It's a sign of weakness.

How's Ron Kittle taking this?

thanks for coming. Have you tried the dip?

BostonDirtdogs.com is reporting Jose names Mr Hamm in the book.

NB: Boston Dirtdog and Jose have about the same credibility as Ms. Sec of State.

It's sad, so sad, it's a sad, sad situation.

And it's getting more and more absurd.

i feel bad for giambi. yes, he cheated, yes he deserves to be punished for it, but he shouldn't be the only scapegoat when far more egregious cheaters such as bonds get by without even being scathed.

but he shouldn't be the only scapegoat when far more egregious cheaters such as bonds get by without even being scathed.

Giambi made the 'mistake' of coming clean in his grand jury testimony, while the others were more evasive in their answers.

I just saw the thing on Nomar, that is a wankers site right there. All they do is pick on every word Pedro says and move Nomar makes.

If Giambi had mentioned steroids, would the Yankees be in the clear to void his contract?

From the Litke (AP) column:

But say this much for the former Bash Brother: At least Canseco tried to put the problem in perspective. Until further notice from prosecutors, or until somebody with credibility inside the game steps up and does the same, Canseco's estimate -- and a few others' -- that 50 percent of major leaguers were juiced doesn't sound so far-fetched. Especially not at the top of the game.

How has Canseco put the problem in perspective? He sensationalizing the issue to try to make a buck with hearsay and semi-informed speculation. While he deserves some credit for being one of the first former players to candidly start talking about the issue, what he's done with his book seems to be more gossip mongering than anything else. I don't know how "naming names" without any corroboration really adds anything to the discussion at this point.

I just saw the thing on Nomar, that is a wankers site right there. All they do is pick on every word Pedro says and move Nomar makes.

Sox fans have a tendency to do that, I thought the WS win would soften it, but doesn't look like it.

I should add, not all sox fans. Certainly not the ones here.

The problem, of course, is that he is right. His grand jury testimony is privileged, but if he stood at a mike and said, "I used illegal steroids," he could be arrested and charged with using illegal steroids, and his admission would be enough to convict him in court.

So, since apparently there is not enough evidence to convict him otherwise, he now cannot actually say, "I used illegal steroids," even though he may otherwise want to, and the fans want to hear him say it.

Yeah, lay off the us SOx fans. Some of us are classy.







Worst Choke Evah!!!!!!!!

His grand jury testimony is privileged, but if he stood at a mike and said, "I used illegal steroids," he could be arrested and charged with using illegal steroids, and his admission would be enough to convict him in court.

Didn't he get immunity in exchange for testifying?

but if he stood at a mike and said, "I used illegal steroids," he could be arrested and charged with using illegal steroids, and his admission would be enough to convict him in court

I can understand that but why isn't that same rule applied to Conseco? Why isn't he being arrest for using an illegal substance? His last year of playing was 2001, so I don't see statute of limitations being in effect. Also if actually comes out an admits to providing other players with steroids, why isn't he being threatened with arrest for being a dealer?

I can understand Canseco using steroids to get an edge, but in my opinion if he provided other players with them he is a scum bucket.

From ESPN:

It has been widely reported that Yankee management investigated ways to get out of Giambi's contract -- and the remaining $82 million he is owed -- due to his reported steroid admission. But doing so proved more challenging than they imagined. The only thing the Yankees have to go by is a newspaper story based on a source.

"The truth lies in sealed testimony that we can't access," Cashman said.

It made for a suspicious and uncomfortable setting. If Giambi would have admitted to the media that he used steroids, the Yankees may have had the ammo they needed to get out of his contract.

Well, Giambi is part of an ongoing federal investigation for one. Jose is not, so that is different

I wonder if in a few years after Giambi quits playing and he admits to using steroids, can and would the Yankees be able to ask for some of their $$$$ back since he admitted to breaking the contract?

It sure would set an interesting precedent if they could and did.

I don't know how "naming names" without any corroboration really adds anything to the discussion at this point.

That would be a valid point if anyone in the media was actually interested in a discussion. What they seem to be interested in is a witchhunt.

if he stood at a mike and said, "I used illegal steroids," he could be arrested and charged with using illegal steroids,

really? Using them is a crime that can be charged? I mean, as opposed to selling, distributing them without a prescription, etc.

Washington Post's story:

[The possible voiding of his contract] could explain why Giambi was so careful with his words Thursday, or why [agent Arn] Tellem, when the questioning got particularly pointed and Giambi appeared close to revealing a kernel of truth, interrupted and said, "He can go as far as he can, but he can't go any further."
...
When Giambi was asked whether he believes he had misrepresented himself to the Yankees when he signed his contract, Tellem jumped in again: "Absolutely, unequivocally no. End of story."

Didn't he get immunity in exchange for testifying?

He got immunity from the use of his testimony in the grand jury hearings. So, they can't prosecute him for saying "I used steroids" in his testimony.

And they probably gave him immunity from use of any evidence they gather as a result of his testimony (like if he said, "I used steriods, and hid them in the Cleveland bus station," and then the search the bus station and find them, those steroid would be inadmissible.)

But they can if he says it later out of court, or if they have independent evidence of it.

I can understand that but why isn't that same rule applied to Conseco?

Because there is an open investigation of Balco, so there are people making charges. No one is investigating the Canseco dealer, so no one cares.

Also, statutes of limitations are much shorter than you think. In most states, DUI statutes of limitations are as short as one year. I wouldn't be surprised if the statute of limitations here was three years or less.

<i>really? Using them is a crime that can be charged? I mean, as opposed to selling, distributing them without a prescription, etc.</i>

Under the Anabolic Steroids Control Act of 1990, steroids are Schedule III drugs, just like as barbiturates, LSD precursors, and Vicodin. Simple possession is a federal offense punishable by up to one year in prison and/or a minimum fine of $1,000.

"Didn't he get immunity in exchange for testifying?"

Unlike most drug investigations, this one is aimed at bringing down the users, rather than the dealers.

but he shouldn't be the only scapegoat when far more egregious cheaters such as bonds get by without even being scathed.

How can you (or anyone) say that Bonds is "far more egregious"? By what standard -- does anyone know (a) how much Giambi used compared to Bonds or (b) how long he was using compared to Bonds?

If this opinion is just based on the fact that Bonds has broken records that Giambi hasn't, that's ridiculous.

Unlike most drug investigations, this one is aimed at bringing down the users, rather than the dealers.

All the more reason why it's a witch hunt. This is the BALCO proceeding -- presumably, to investigate the company, not the athletes.

Didn't he get immunity in exchange for testifying?

He got "use immunity", which is all the Feds ever give, not "transactional immunity". The difference between transactional and use immunity is that transactional immunity protects the witness from prosecution for the offense or offenses involved, whereas use immunity only protects the witness against the government's use of his or her immunized testimony in a prosecution of the witness -- except in a subsequent prosecution for perjury or giving a false statement. Perjury aside, the government can still prosecute if they get independent evidence, which they can provde did not have its genesis in the immunized testimony.

As for going after Canseco or anybody else on his admission in public -- yes, it is evidence, but it is not necessarily conclusive or sufficient to convict. In the case of Canseco, he would say, "I was just kidding. Who are your going to believe, me or me?" The man is a walking case of reasonable doubt.

....What odds will somebody give me that on the grand jury, Giambi confessed to some unsolved murder somewhere?

And that's what he's apologizing for?

Odds, anybody?

I can understand that but why isn't that same rule applied to Conseco?

Because there is an open investigation of Balco, so there are people making charges. No one is investigating the Canseco dealer, so no one cares.

What bothers me about all of these accusations is that if 50% of "all" players or 50% of "premier" players were using steroids or whatever other designer drug who or where are their suppliers? If BALCO is not their supplier (and it appears they are not) then why isn't the government expanding the investigation? Are we to believe that these players who were driven to take these chances to preserve their lucrative careers are willing to buy this stuff from a street dealer? Maybe Canseco would be foolish enought to do so but the others he names? Puhleeze!

And where is our watchdog press on this one? If "bowls of greenies" were (are?) commonplace in Major League clubhouses can the teams truly be that blind to drug use? Chuck Tanner tried that in the '80s drug trials in Pittsburgh and it did not fly.

I smell a "Martha Stewart" here. Enron (the clubs) are getting a pass from the Press while they go after the unpopular scapegoat (the players).

Why isn't the Press giving us a daily dose of righteousness on the fact that our favorite players will be "juiced" or is it proper to say "wired" on a different drug? Is this just laziness on the part of the Press or is it part of a consiracy with the owners?

If it is "obvious" that Barry Bonds has been (is?) using steroids from his outlier performance then isn't it just as "obvious" that players who play with the type of fire and abandon that we admire are also doing it through artificial (speed) means? After all, "no one" can keep that kind of enthusiasm through 162 games.

Under the Anabolic Steroids Control Act of 1990, steroids are Schedule III drugs, just like as barbiturates, LSD precursors, and Vicodin. Simple possession is a federal offense punishable by up to one year in prison and/or a minimum fine of $1,000.

OK, I understand that possession of the (class of) drug is illegal. But the part I'm skeptical about is his being susceptible to a possession charge for confessing to use at some point in the past. I mean, logically it's hard to use something unless you possess it. But as a legal reality, does anyone -- can anyone -- get convicted of possession just for saying he or she had use a controlled drug?

And they probably gave him immunity from use of any evidence they gather as a result of his testimony

That is in fact an automatic part of use immunity. It greatly complicated the prosecution of North and Poindexter in Iran-Contra, because of all the immunized testimony that was give before Congress. The prosecution had to show that none of their evidence against a defendant was tainted by the testimony of that witness. The North conviction was in fact reversed because the trial judge failed to properly insulate the trial from the use of immunized testimony

Someone needs to write a book about the 1987 season and title it Only The Ball Was Juiced.

Waddaya think?

But as a legal reality, does anyone -- can anyone -- get convicted of possession just for saying he or she had use a controlled drug?

My layman's understanding is that there probably needs to be some sort of corroboration. But its a pretty stupid thing to do, as a public admission could greatly strengthen an otherwise weak circumstantial case.

Odds, anybody?

I'm tempted to give you 1,000,000:1, Buford, but that would come back to bite me in the ass, I'm sure.

"If the Red Sox win the World Series, they'll (Bostonians) be happy for about one week, then they'll go back to being miserable."

I'm not saying it's true. The site attacking Pedro and Nomar just made me remember it.

The site attacking Pedro and Nomar just made me remember it.

BDD, was merciless on Pedro when he left. Hell if you log on to it now and scroll down you'll see them have a dig at him for turning up early to Mets Spring Training. I loathe that site.

BDD is Simmmons without any of Simmons redeeming qualities. Plus, there's this