What I meant was that if Pearlman has something to say, and it’s the truth then it’s not libelous. So, since he’s a reporter, he should report what truthful facts he has. That’s all.

Really good.

At baseball.

Like, Mila Kunis/Natalie Portman sex scene good.

According to Verducci he will not vote for a player he suspects did steroids. Period.

Heyman said he’d vote for them if he thinks they were a HOF player before they did steroids. In other words, he’s going to vote for Clemens and Bonds. What he did suggest, which is insane but I wouldn’t be surprised if the HOF did this, was to induct PART of their career, or make not of when they started using steroids.

Gammons seemed to be on the side of keeping steroid users out but he didn’t go into as much detail as the other two.

Seriously. That would be an idiotic move and he’d never, ever have a hope of getting in.

Right now, the ball is in Bagwell and Biggio’s court…whether they want it/deserve it, or not.

Hey, I have as much evidence to support that as Pearlman does to support his Bagwell./Biggio steroid theory.

The “Well then why don’t they just sue?” argument is always put out there, but in reality most of the accusations are made in such a way that there is nothing you can sue over, its just the accusers opinion.

There are some specific cases where it would work though. I am pretty certain that Rafael Palimerio could have sued Canseco because Canseco was very specific in his accusation, even claiming to have injected Raffy himself. He also could have sued Tejada for the tainted Vitamin B12 shot if that story were true. In my opinion of course, I’m not a lawyer so I could be wrong. But in both cases he was wronged by a third party and flunked a drug test, so to clear his name I think a lawsuit could have done the trick given the circumstances.

I don’t think anyone has made explicit falsifiable claims in the case of Bagwell or Biggio, so there isn’t much that can be done.

So, nice try, but no.

Maybe they are afraid because the last time a baseball player went after someone for lying about steroid use(Roger the Dodger), he got his ass handed to him so badly that he is still eating it for breakfast daily.

Plus, a lie detector test is a lose-lose situation. Either (a) he fails the test and just incriminated himself, or (b) he passes the test, and then people argue that he beat the test. I don’t see too many people going “oh well he passed a lie detector, he must have been clean.”

A lot of people will believe what they want to believe, no matter how much evidence you present them. To them, winning the argument is more important than learning the truth, because they hate being wrong. How many times have you gotten into a discussion with someone, they make a point, you made a counterpoint with irrefutable evidence, and they just keep arguing?

So what’s the point in doing a lie detector test if nobody will believe him anyway?

You could argue Bagwell and others shouldn’t have to prove their innocence without specific evidence, but individuals like Palmeiro could prove their “innocent vitamin” stories pretty quickly if willing to put their money where their mouth is.

http://www.jeffpearlman.com/a-final-steroid-thought/

“I’d equate this more to a murder trial where the accused, and those working on behalf of the accused, hid the bloody knife, the gun and the severed head beforehand so nobody could find them—then argued, ‘No evidence.’”

And what happens in that situation? Unless you have concrete proof that that evidence existed or that this specific accused person hid evidence of a murder, he walks.

The real analogy to Pearlman’s point of view is this: there are fifty murders in a month, but the crooked police force hid all the evidence, so we just start arresting and convicting random citizens who we suspect might have committed one of them.

(that was the argument against Bagwell anyway, so shouldn’t the inverse be true about Biggio?)