December 14, 200718 yr Tom, be serious. They weren't testing and there was no defined penalties. They had no desire to enforce it because they needed Sammy and Mac to bring the fans back. You are very intelligent -- you know that policy from '97 is nonsense. And the reason why I say, you penalize the players, penalize the teams and vacate any championships won during that period.
December 14, 200718 yr And the reason why I say, you penalize the players, penalize the teams and vacate any championships won during that period. Respectfully, I think that would be over-kill. Let's not use a hammer to kill a fly.
December 14, 200718 yr Respectfully, I think that would be over-kill. Let's not use a hammer to kill a fly. IF THEY PENALIZE THE PLAYERS and the teams were turning a blind eye to it, why should they not share in the penalities?
December 14, 200718 yr IF THEY PENALIZE THE PLAYERS and the teams were turning a blind eye to it, why should they not share in the penalities? A. Why are you yelling at me? B. I'll be shocked if there is any penalties to the players. The evidence that Senator Mitchell has on most of them is so weak (hearsay in many cases) that it would never hold up once the Union filed their grievance. Nothing will come of it, like I said earlier, besides the "court of public opinion." Colossal waste of time and money.
December 14, 200718 yr If I smoked weed in 2005, can you prosecute me? Even if I admit to it? DId you know that smoking weed can stunt your growth?
December 14, 200718 yr A. Why are you yelling at me? B. I'll be shocked if there is any penalties to the players. The evidence that Senator Mitchell has on most of them is so weak (hearsay in many cases) that it would never hold up once the Union filed their grievance. Nothing will come of it, like I said earlier, besides the "court of public opinion." Colossal waste of time and money. I figured at your advance age your hearing my be going and I need to speak louder.:jump: As someone mentioned, if they get penalties and go to court, now they are under oath on the stand. So, do they take that risk and stand up to any penalties?
December 14, 200718 yr As someone mentioned, if they get penalties and go to court, now they are under oath on the stand. So, do they take that risk and stand up to any penalties? Umm, someone was me. There is a difference to standing up to a penalty by the Union filing a grievance and suing for slander / defamation. You won't need to testify under oath with a grievance filed.
December 14, 200718 yr Umm, someone was me. There is a difference to standing up to a penalty by the Union filing a grievance and suing for slander / defamation. You won't need to testify under oath with a grievance filed. :thumb: I thought it was but on Friday morning and students active, I didn't have a chance to go back and check. Would they not have to testify in a grievance case?
December 14, 200718 yr Author 74 of the 90 or so in the report are Americans. Can you say, "Tip of the iceberg?" I bet there were some guys that conveniently forgot how to speak English. *cough*Sammy*cough*
December 14, 200718 yr Author On a side note, there is ZERO surprise that Denny Neagle's on this list. That cat's got some problems, he'll do ANYTHING!
December 14, 200718 yr On a side note, there is ZERO surprise that Denny Neagle's on this list. That cat's got some problems, he'll do ANYTHING! Including a neat train whistle.
December 14, 200718 yr Author Including a neat train whistle. That's not right, coming out of a human's mouth...
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.