|
|
#271
09-29-2007, 12:10 AM
|
|||
|
|||
Re: The Fate of #756 by Marc Ecko
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] "I think Bonds did steroids." "No one cares what you think, you are talking about putting an asterisked ball into the HoF or finding Bonds guilty of something in a court of law." "I think Bonds did steroids." [/ QUOTE ] This is what MT2R and every other person says. "Well, this isn't a court of law, so there doesn't need to be proof beyond a reasonable doubt!" Yeah, great. Nice line of logic you have there. [/ QUOTE ] Right, they somehow think we are DEMANDING that Bonds be introduced into the Hall of Fame of their hearts. [/ QUOTE ] nope, I think you are demanding that I not judge the man harshly 
|
|
#272
09-29-2007, 01:22 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The Fate of #756 by Marc Ecko
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] "I think Bonds did steroids." "No one cares what you think, you are talking about putting an asterisked ball into the HoF or finding Bonds guilty of something in a court of law." "I think Bonds did steroids." [/ QUOTE ] This is what MT2R and every other person says. "Well, this isn't a court of law, so there doesn't need to be proof beyond a reasonable doubt!" Yeah, great. Nice line of logic you have there. [/ QUOTE ] Right, they somehow think we are DEMANDING that Bonds be introduced into the Hall of Fame of their hearts. [/ QUOTE ] nope, I think you are demanding that I not judge the man harshly [/ QUOTE ] You can do whatever you want. But people are trying to keep him out of the Hall, erase his records, and try him in court. Thats where we demand evidence.
|
|
#273
09-29-2007, 01:30 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The Fate of #756 by Marc Ecko
[ QUOTE ]
You can do whatever you want. But people are trying to keep him out of the Hall, erase his records, and try him in court. Thats where we demand evidence. [/ QUOTE ] the worst part is they will be successful - journalists make me [censored] sick with their obvious loathing for anyone more successful than them.
|
|
#274
09-29-2007, 01:35 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The Fate of #756 by Marc Ecko
Bonds supporters,
I understand that you feel that there is not enough evidence to prove that Bonds took steroids, and I understand it when you say you would find him 'not guilty in a court of law, but if you had to give a percentage on the likelihood that he juiced, what would it be?
|
|
#275
09-29-2007, 03:31 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The Fate of #756 by Marc Ecko
How do you define "juiced"?
Edit: I'm not trying to be a dick, by the way.
|
|
#276
09-29-2007, 06:21 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The Fate of #756 by Marc Ecko
[ QUOTE ]
How do you define "juiced"? Edit: I'm not trying to be a dick, by the way. [/ QUOTE ] he took steroids during the 2001 season.
|
|
#277
09-29-2007, 09:17 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The Fate of #756 by Marc Ecko
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] "I think Bonds did steroids." "No one cares what you think, you are talking about putting an asterisked ball into the HoF or finding Bonds guilty of something in a court of law." "I think Bonds did steroids." [/ QUOTE ] This is what MT2R and every other person says. "Well, this isn't a court of law, so there doesn't need to be proof beyond a reasonable doubt!" Yeah, great. Nice line of logic you have there. [/ QUOTE ] Right, they somehow think we are DEMANDING that Bonds be introduced into the Hall of Fame of their hearts. [/ QUOTE ] nope, I think you are demanding that I not judge the man harshly [/ QUOTE ] You can do whatever you want. But people are trying to keep him out of the Hall, erase his records, and try him in court. Thats where we demand evidence. [/ QUOTE ] No, you demand proof beyond a reasonable doubt, or perhaps beyond a shadow of a doubt. That is not the same thing as evidence. I don't know why people can't seem to get it straight that there is a ton of evidence Bonds used steroids, but not proof (so far). Each person has to evaluate the weight and credibility of all the evidence. I think a lot of the evidence is credible; Redbean thinks none of it is. But the fact that the evidence does not equal absolute proof (yet) does not mean that all the evidence must be dismissed. And with regards to standards of proof, "beyond a reasonable doubt" is the standard that must be reached BEFORE SOMEONE IS SENT TO PRISON. A stiff penalty and therefore an onerous burden of proof. "Not getting in the Hall of Fame" is entirely different than being sent to prison, and I don't think the standard of proof should be as high. I don't think someone should have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Bonds used steroids before he's denied the highest honor and privilege in the game. The Hall of Fame should be reserved for the best of what baseball has to offer, and if there's significant evidence that a guy cheated, I don't think he gets in. In other words, while there's not (yet) enough evidence/proof to send Bonds to jail, there's enough to keep him out of the Hall. IMO. Will any of the Bonds supporters at least acknowledge the point I'm making about different burdens of proof? Doubtful. Oh well. Arrrggg I don't wanna post here anymore.
|
|
#278
09-29-2007, 09:47 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The Fate of #756 by Marc Ecko
[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] [ QUOTE ] "I think Bonds did steroids." "No one cares what you think, you are talking about putting an asterisked ball into the HoF or finding Bonds guilty of something in a court of law." "I think Bonds did steroids." [/ QUOTE ] This is what MT2R and every other person says. "Well, this isn't a court of law, so there doesn't need to be proof beyond a reasonable doubt!" Yeah, great. Nice line of logic you have there. [/ QUOTE ] Right, they somehow think we are DEMANDING that Bonds be introduced into the Hall of Fame of their hearts. [/ QUOTE ] nope, I think you are demanding that I not judge the man harshly [/ QUOTE ] You can do whatever you want. But people are trying to keep him out of the Hall, erase his records, and try him in court. Thats where we demand evidence. [/ QUOTE ] No, you demand proof beyond a reasonable doubt, or perhaps beyond a shadow of a doubt. That is not the same thing as evidence. I don't know why people can't seem to get it straight that there is a ton of evidence Bonds used steroids, but not proof (so far). Each person has to evaluate the weight and credibility of all the evidence. I think a lot of the evidence is credible; Redbean thinks none of it is. But the fact that the evidence does not equal absolute proof (yet) does not mean that all the evidence must be dismissed. And with regards to standards of proof, "beyond a reasonable doubt" is the standard that must be reached BEFORE SOMEONE IS SENT TO PRISON. A stiff penalty and therefore an onerous burden of proof. "Not getting in the Hall of Fame" is entirely different than being sent to prison, and I don't think the standard of proof should be as high. I don't think someone should have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that Bonds used steroids before he's denied the highest honor and privilege in the game. The Hall of Fame should be reserved for the best of what baseball has to offer, and if there's significant evidence that a guy cheated, I don't think he gets in. In other words, while there's not (yet) enough evidence/proof to send Bonds to jail, there's enough to keep him out of the Hall. IMO. Will any of the Bonds supporters at least acknowledge the point I'm making about different burdens of proof? Doubtful. Oh well. Arrrggg I don't wanna post here anymore. [/ QUOTE ] I demand the same amount of proof that a courtroom demands, since the consequences are similar. Not to mention, half of what I'm talking about IS the courtroom. And as RedBean has said so many times, if there was anything CLOSE to enough evidence to show, beyond reasonable doubt, that he has done it, he'd be indicted or AT THE VERY LEAST the league would have taken action against him. The league doesn't even need to have proof beyond reasonable doubt. And yet, somehow, nothing has happened. The evidence that you think is so strong is really just the bare minimum needed to convict in the media. We know full well how little that actually is. And again, you keep slipping up and saying "cheated" when what you really mean is "used PEDs." This is a pretty critical distinction, one that RedBean keeps pounding into you, and one that you keep failing to make.
|
|
#279
09-29-2007, 10:02 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The Fate of #756 by Marc Ecko
[ QUOTE ]
no indictment yet, the case is to get at the suppliers and distributors [/ QUOTE ] That case ended in 2003. Since that time the Government has been trying to indict Bonds for perjury and prove that he lied under oath when he denied using steroids. To prove this, they must prove Bonds knowingly used steroids and then lied about it under oath. The GJ has yet to find enough evidence to proceed to trial.
|
|
#280
09-29-2007, 10:07 AM
|
|||
|
|||
|
Re: The Fate of #756 by Marc Ecko
[ QUOTE ]
Luckily, Bonds isn't being charged with any criminal actions, so we can use logic and reason to judge him. [/ QUOTE ] He hasn't been charged, but not for lack of trying. The government is on it's third Grand Jury attempting to indict Bonds for perjury. The have yet to find enough evidence to go to trial. [ QUOTE ] Whether or not Bonds violated any MLB rule, it seems pretty clear the guy was doping. Doping and sports is bad, m'kay? [/ QUOTE ] Barry Bonds played by the rules. [img]/images/graemlins/wink.gif[/img]
|
 |
|
|
Linear Mode
