PDA

View Full Version : US House of Representatives to subpoena baseball players


Palehose Pete
03-08-2005, 07:03 PM
Sorry that I don't have the link, but I just heard on ESPN's Sportcenter that Congress isn't just inviting the Canseco and Co. to testify, but is going to subpoena them so that they have to testify under oath.

Discuss.

FightingBillini
03-08-2005, 07:10 PM
Frank is gonna go on the stand and shoot from the hip. I am predicting the national media will turn hard against Frank claiming "Why didn't you say anything at the time, Frank?" "He is a hypocrit and a liar" "Frank ratted out his fellow players" "Look at Frank Thomas' career, most of his injuries look like they look steroid related" "Frank Thomas is not credible, he is just bitter that his career has been downhill since 1997, and he hopes to get revenge on the players that are better than him". I just hope the national scrutiny Frank faces doesn't get him in a bad mood before opening day, because ESPN is going to make him look like a villain.

Ol' No. 2
03-08-2005, 07:17 PM
Frank is gonna go on the stand and shoot from the hip. I am predicting the national media will turn hard against Frank claiming "Why didn't you say anything at the time, Frank?" "He is a hypocrit and a liar" "Frank ratted out his fellow players" "Look at Frank Thomas' career, most of his injuries look like they look steroid related" "Frank Thomas is not credible, he is just bitter that his career has been downhill since 1997, and he hopes to get revenge on the players that are better than him". I just hope the national scrutiny Frank faces doesn't get him in a bad mood before opening day, because ESPN is going to make him look like a villain.I think you're wrong on all counts. I don't see Frank coming out with guns blazing. I think he'll say pretty much what he's already said.
"No, I never took steroids"
"No, I never saw anyone taking steroids"
"There wasn't testing for it before, but now there is. It's time to move on."

And I don't see the ESPN gunning for Frank, either. There will be way too many bigger targets.

daveeym
03-08-2005, 07:21 PM
Frank is gonna go on the stand and shoot from the hip. I am predicting the national media will turn hard against Frank claiming "Why didn't you say anything at the time, Frank?" "He is a hypocrit and a liar" "Frank ratted out his fellow players" "Look at Frank Thomas' career, most of his injuries look like they look steroid related" "Frank Thomas is not credible, he is just bitter that his career has been downhill since 1997, and he hopes to get revenge on the players that are better than him". I just hope the national scrutiny Frank faces doesn't get him in a bad mood before opening day, because ESPN is going to make him look like a villain. Uhm no, unless the comission knows something the rest of us don't. They're not going to ask Frank to name any names, they're gonna paint him as a good guy, ask him how he felt being screwed out an mvp and then how he felt about it after Giambi "admitted" or "apologized", how it hurt him financially, how it hurt him professionally. Anyone in the national media raking him over the coals before the comission would be an idiot. The mediots right now are just hedging their bets and playing devils advocate right now so if by some insane chance they have something on frank they can say they were right and if not they're still all good and can glow about how Frank is so standup and you really have to reevaluate his career.

samram
03-08-2005, 07:22 PM
I think you're wrong on all counts. I don't see Frank coming out with guns blazing. I think he'll say pretty much what he's already said.
"No, I never took steroids"
"No, I never saw anyone taking steroids"
"There wasn't testing for it before, but now there is. It's time to move on."

And I don't see the ESPN gunning for Frank, either. There will be way too many bigger targets.

Agreed. I think the Chicago media has treated Frank worse than the national media (I think Frank has said so himself), so I don't think ESPN has any type of agenda to make him look bad. Furthermore, all Frank is going to do is tell the truth. I don't really see any problems for him unless there's something we don't know.

Daver
03-08-2005, 07:22 PM
I would really like to see the grounds that Congress is using to issue these subpeonas.

Ol' No. 2
03-08-2005, 07:25 PM
I would really like to see the grounds that Congress is using to issue these subpeonas.They don't need grounds. They make the rules, and they can do pretty much whatever they want. Unless there's something unconstitutional about it, no one can stop them.

MRKARNO
03-08-2005, 07:32 PM
I would really like to see the grounds that Congress is using to issue these subpeonas.

Congress can subpoena anyone they want to guide their legislation if they feel it is necessary in the writing of any future legislation, regardless of whether or not it is actually necessary. It is up to Congress to decide whether or not it is necessary. It doesnt matter if it's a force-less joint resolution condemning the use of steroids in baseball or a threat to remove Baseball's antitrust provision if they fail to strengthen the drug testing policy.

Daver
03-08-2005, 07:37 PM
Congress can subpoena anyone they want to guide their legislation if they feel it is necessary in the writing of any future legislation, regardless of whether or not it is actually necessary. It is up to Congress to decide whether or not it is necessary. It doesnt matter if it's a force-less joint resolution condemning the use of steroids in baseball or a threat to remove Baseball's antitrust provision if they fail to strengthen the drug testing policy.

Translation;

Congress is using our tax dollars to tie themselves into the publicity hyperbole around the entire steroids in baseball issue, when they have no authority to dictate the way MLB conducts their business.

Ol' No. 2
03-08-2005, 07:43 PM
Translation;

Congress is using our tax dollars to tie themselves into the publicity hyperbole around the entire steroids in baseball issue, when they have no authority to dictate the way MLB conducts their business.Well, that's a point of dispute that's been going on a long time. They do have the authority to look after the public interest, which can be (and has been) interpreted pretty broadly. The can and do regulate the way many companies conduct their business. That authority is not limitless, but I wouldn't want to be the one arguing in court that these subpoenas should be quashed. Is there an element of grandstanding going on? Of course. Not the first time and certainly won't be the last.

MRKARNO
03-08-2005, 07:44 PM
Translation;

Congress is using our tax dollars to tie themselves into the publicity hyperbole around the entire steroids in baseball issue, when they have no authority to dictate the way MLB conducts their business.

I really don't think our government knows how to conduct their business while wasting as few tax dollars as possible.

These hearings will be nothing but a show. They'll be interesting to watch, but there's really no real good reason for Congress to be holding these hearings.

FJA
03-08-2005, 08:42 PM
Translation;

Congress is using our tax dollars to tie themselves into the publicity hyperbole around the entire steroids in baseball issue, when they have no authority to dictate the way MLB conducts their business.

Actually, Congress does have the authority to regulate interstate commerce, something MLB obviously generates. Congress has done baseball a great favor in maintaining its antitrust exemption. Most interstate businesses do not enjoy such a privilege.

That being said, I don't think there is serious consideration at this point of revoking MLB's antitrust exemption. I think Congress sees a group of baseball officials unwilling to hold the Bonds and Giambi crowd accountable. Personally, I don't think it's such a bad thing that a single Congressional committee (not the entire Congress) is going to spend a few days making steroid users testify under oath. Selig is trying to sweep this under the rug daily, including the ridiculous assertion that the problem will be completely solved before the end of this season. If he isn't going to get serious, at least someone is.

Daver
03-08-2005, 08:52 PM
Actually, Congress does have the authority to regulate interstate commerce, something MLB obviously generates. Congress has done baseball a great favor in maintaining its antitrust exemption. Most interstate businesses do not enjoy such a privilege.


Per the MLB anti trust exemption, baseball is a sport, not a business, therefore Congress has no authority over it.

Joosh
03-08-2005, 08:59 PM
From ESPN.com

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2008206

House presses for testimony on steroids


NEW YORK -- Former Oakland Athletics sluggers Jose Canseco (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/profile?statsId=3730), Mark McGwire (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/profile?statsId=3866) and Jason Giambi (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/profile?statsId=5386) were among seven current and former baseball stars that a congressional committee plans to subpoena as soon as Wednesday to testify about steroids.

Curt Schilling (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/profile?statsId=4267), Sammy Sosa (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/profile?statsId=4344), Rafael Palmeiro (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/profile?statsId=3897) and Frank Thomas (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/players/profile?statsId=4527) also were asked last week to testify. Thus far, only Canseco and Thomas have said they were willing to appear.

"We hope subpoenas won't be necessary, but we are prepared to move forward with subpoenas [Wednesday] if we receive information that witnesses are not willing to appear voluntarily," David Marin, a spokesman for House Government Reform Committee chairman Rep. Tom Davis, said Tuesday.

veeter
03-08-2005, 09:14 PM
My hope is that they chose Frank to represent guys who've had great careers the clean way. I think the politicians will be intimidated by the athletes and it will be a love fest. Maybe I'm wrong but I don't think anything will get accomplished.

FJA
03-08-2005, 09:23 PM
Per the MLB anti trust exemption, baseball is a sport, not a business, therefore Congress has no authority over it.

It was the Supreme Court who actually decided that there was no interstate commerce involved in baseball in 1922. Every Supreme Court decision involving baseball since then has assumed baseball is a business, does involve interstate commerce, and it is only because of Congress' choice to exempt baseball from antitrust laws that they are exempt. It seems Congress could revoke the exemption and feel pretty confident if a case ended up in court.

From what I've read about it, as it stands now, while baseball itself is exempt from antitrust laws, certain aspects of baseball can be regulated on the basis that related businesses that are subject to the regulation of interstate commerce are affected by what baseball does.

Not really worth getting into a technical argument about except to say that Congress can justify an awful lot under their commerce power and its unlikely you'll find anyone to mount a serious legal challenge to these subpoenas. Since the baseball antitrust exemption and court decisions concerning it are a mess, you'd probably see quite a fight if Congress ever tried to actually pass a law concerning baseball and steroids.

FightingBillini
03-08-2005, 10:06 PM
I think you're wrong on all counts. I don't see Frank coming out with guns blazing. I think he'll say pretty much what he's already said.
"No, I never took steroids"
"No, I never saw anyone taking steroids"
"There wasn't testing for it before, but now there is. It's time to move on."

And I don't see the ESPN gunning for Frank, either. There will be way too many bigger targets.

I don't think Frank would come out with all guns blazing, but I think he will most definately be the most candid of all the players. I don't think he would name names, but I could still see his testimony heavily scrutinized, possibly moreso than that of loveable Shammy So-so. ESPN as a whole might not do it, but I think you will hear the Woody Paiges, Skip Cluelesses, and Jay Moronottis of the world on such steaming piles of crap as Cold Pizza, Around the Horn, and PTI bitching about Frank, questioning his credibility, and such because he didnt do anything about other players' steroid use. I may be wrong, but Frank generally gets crap for doing nothing, while Sosa could get away with murder simply by smiling for the cameras. Maybe that is just the Chicago media, but I am lead to believe that ESPN has as much bias against Frank when his name is hardly mentioned, and a mediocre player like Torii Hunter is given superstar status. Frank Thomas IS the White Sox, and to ESPN, the White Sox are a punching bag. I just dont see the national media painting Frank as a hero after this, even though he has always been clean.

daveeym
03-08-2005, 10:31 PM
It was the Supreme Court who actually decided that there was no interstate commerce involved in baseball in 1922. Every Supreme Court decision involving baseball since then has assumed baseball is a business, does involve interstate commerce, and it is only because of Congress' choice to exempt baseball from antitrust laws that they are exempt. It seems Congress could revoke the exemption and feel pretty confident if a case ended up in court.

From what I've read about it, as it stands now, while baseball itself is exempt from antitrust laws, certain aspects of baseball can be regulated on the basis that related businesses that are subject to the regulation of interstate commerce are affected by what baseball does.

Not really worth getting into a technical argument about except to say that Congress can justify an awful lot under their commerce power and its unlikely you'll find anyone to mount a serious legal challenge to these subpoenas. Since the baseball antitrust exemption and court decisions concerning it are a mess, you'd probably see quite a fight if Congress ever tried to actually pass a law concerning baseball and steroids. Without breaking out my old sports law text that's all been pretty accurate, the government has protected baseball for the last century and they are not going to let Bud Lite thumb his nose at them.

Daver
03-08-2005, 10:38 PM
Without breaking out my old sports law text that's all been pretty accurate, the government has protected baseball for the last century and they are not going to let Bud Lite thumb his nose at them.

George Bush is one of the ones responsible for making Bud the commisioner of baseball, who's kidding who here?

daveeym
03-08-2005, 10:43 PM
George Bush is one of the ones responsible for making Bud the commisioner of baseball, who's kidding who here? you're point being? don't see what George's what, 4 years max involvement with the rangers really has to do with the last 15 - 20 years of baseball ignoring the issue and a bipartisan committe looking in to it when bud and baseball could have dropped the hammer put in a real testing program, still not singled out any players and have the whole government involvement put to rest.

Viva Medias B's
03-08-2005, 10:47 PM
Something in me thinks that when Frank appears, he'll sing like a canary.

FJA
03-08-2005, 10:53 PM
I don't think Frank would come out with all guns blazing, but I think he will most definately be the most candid of all the players. I don't think he would name names, but I could still see his testimony heavily scrutinized, possibly moreso than that of loveable Shammy So-so. ESPN as a whole might not do it, but I think you will hear the Woody Paiges, Skip Cluelesses, and Jay Moronottis of the world on such steaming piles of crap as Cold Pizza, Around the Horn, and PTI bitching about Frank, questioning his credibility, and such because he didnt do anything about other players' steroid use. I may be wrong, but Frank generally gets crap for doing nothing, while Sosa could get away with murder simply by smiling for the cameras. Maybe that is just the Chicago media, but I am lead to believe that ESPN has as much bias against Frank when his name is hardly mentioned, and a mediocre player like Torii Hunter is given superstar status. Frank Thomas IS the White Sox, and to ESPN, the White Sox are a punching bag. I just dont see the national media painting Frank as a hero after this, even though he has always been clean.

Just to lay to rest some of your fears, here's what the Baltimore Sun (who originally broke the story) wrote:


Not all of the players on the list have been alleged by Canseco - or anyone else - to have used steroids. Thomas, for example, appears to be on the list because of his public statements that the game needs to be cleaned up. He has said he would be happy to testify at the hearing, although he has expressed concern about the effect that flying to Washington from the team's Arizona spring training site could have on an injured ankle.



http://www.baltimoresun.com/sports/baseball/bal-steroids08,1,1738622.story?coll=bal-home-headlines&ctrack=1&cset=true

Daver
03-08-2005, 11:21 PM
you're point being? don't see what George's what, 4 years max involvement with the rangers really has to do with the last 15 - 20 years of baseball ignoring the issue and a bipartisan committe looking in to it when bud and baseball could have dropped the hammer put in a real testing program, still not singled out any players and have the whole government involvement put to rest.

Simple.

Congress is not going to acheive anything by holding this turkey shoot, other than gain headlines, even if they were to draft a law that involved MLB and steroids, and manage to get it passed( which I doubt would happen) it will never make it past Bush's veto.

Your giving Congress way to much credit for starting a meaningless witch hunt.

NSSoxFan
03-08-2005, 11:30 PM
Simple.

Congress is not going to acheive anything by holding this turkey shoot, other than gain headlines, even if they were to draft a law that involved MLB and steroids, and manage to get it passed( which I doubt would happen) it will never make it past Bush's veto.

Your giving Congress way to much credit for starting a meaningless witch hunt.

Daver, while I agree with your stance on this situation, I don't see Bush vetoing something like that. He was the one who stressed a harder line against steroids in his State of The Union....

daveeym
03-08-2005, 11:31 PM
Simple.

Congress is not going to acheive anything by holding this turkey shoot, other than gain headlines, even if they were to draft a law that involved MLB and steroids, and manage to get it passed( which I doubt would happen) it will never make it past Bush's veto.

Your giving Congress way to much credit for starting a meaningless witch hunt. So which is it bush's witch hunt or congress' that bush is going to veto? The public outing and fan reaction will probably be all it takes, bud and fehr will be ousted or they'll implement a real testing system and save their asses from the court of public opinion.

Daver
03-08-2005, 11:36 PM
Daver, while I agree with your stance on this situation, I don't see Bush vetoing something like that. He was the one who stressed a harder line against steroids in his State of The Union....

George Bush is very good at manipulating the court of public opinion,as is Bud Selig.

Bush did not get to where he is today by throwing supporters under the bus.

Daver
03-08-2005, 11:39 PM
So which is it bush's witch hunt or congress' that bush is going to veto? The public outing and fan reaction will probably be all it takes, bud and fehr will be ousted or they'll implement a real testing system and save their asses from the court of public opinion.

What power does congress have to oust the head of a private union, or for that matter the CEO of a private business?

Lip Man 1
03-08-2005, 11:44 PM
Daver:

For what it's worth. According to the Lords Of The Realm by John Helyar. Bush was one of the few owners who supported Fay Vincent and talked in his behalf at the owners meeting where Uncle Jerry, Bud and company were dead set on throwing him out.

Just paraphrasing from the book but Bush's comments went along the lines of Vincent has done a lot for baseball and it would be a public embarassment to have him forced out.

Lip

daveeym
03-08-2005, 11:54 PM
What power does congress have to oust the head of a private union, or for that matter the CEO of a private business? who said they have any? I said public opinion and the fans would cause them to be ousted. All congress can do is revoke their semi monopoly exemption and then start harassing them. Are you related to Bud or something?

Hokiesox
03-09-2005, 12:00 AM
The long and short story is this: Congress can subpoena whoever they want. And yes, the Federal courts have long been willing to enforce those subpoenas. I too would like to see why the players are being compelled to testify. Baffling to me, but, I wouldn't be in this business if everything were predictable.

Daver
03-09-2005, 12:01 AM
Daver:

For what it's worth. According to the Lords Of The Realm by John Helyar. Bush was one of the few owners who supported Fay Vincent and talked in his behalf at the owners meeting where Uncle Jerry, Bud and company were dead set on throwing him out.

Just paraphrasing from the book but Bush's comments went along the lines of Vincent has done a lot for baseball and it would be a public embarassment to have him forced out.

Lip

Bush plays the game well, he also endorsed Bud Selig to be acting commisioner after Fay Vincent was shown the door, and was a staunch defender of his during the strike of 94.

daveeym
03-09-2005, 12:15 AM
The long and short story is this: Congress can subpoena whoever they want. And yes, the Federal courts have long been willing to enforce those subpoenas. I too would like to see why the players are being compelled to testify. Baffling to me, but, I wouldn't be in this business if everything were predictable. Basically it's cuz America is baseball and apple pie and the government has protected baseball for years. They gave bud and co. a chance to keep it all in house and actually clean up their own mess and Bud and co. keeps thumbing their noses at everyone (government, fans, everyone). 40-70 years ago a half ass argument could be made that it was a sport or a game. It's not now (if it ever was) it's a business. They've been getting breaks because of it (monopoly exemption, government stepping in to break up strikes etc. etc. etc.) , been pricing the blue collar fans and joe blow out of the park on steroid induced stats, contracts and BUSINESS BUSINESS BUSINESS. Baseball means alot more to america, home and abroad, then just being a game. Without using any words or phrases to incite the numskulls around here and get this locked in the ****house, try thinking about it on a broader scale.

ode to veeck
03-09-2005, 01:17 AM
Congress is using our tax dollars to tie themselves into the publicity hyperbole around the entire steroids in baseball issue, when they have no authority to dictate the way MLB conducts their business.

until after they end the anti-trust exemption (like a snowball's chance in hell, the pragmatist would point out)

in the meantime, high paid hyperbole attempts to sense enough public opinion to make more public hyperbole to make more media coverage to drive more hyperbole, still a long way from anyone calling the kettle black and mentioning the anti-trust exemption (I don't know how politicians are able to get out of bed in the morning-too big a decision)

meanwhile bud & co smirks and ducks, even when called to the stand

The Racehorse
03-09-2005, 07:31 AM
Basically it's cuz America is baseball and apple pie and the government has protected baseball for years. They gave bud and co. a chance to keep it all in house and actually clean up their own mess and Bud and co. keeps thumbing their noses at everyone (government, fans, everyone). 40-70 years ago a half ass argument could be made that it was a sport or a game. It's not now (if it ever was) it's a business. They've been getting breaks because of it (monopoly exemption, government stepping in to break up strikes etc. etc. etc.) , been pricing the blue collar fans and joe blow out of the park on steroid induced stats, contracts and BUSINESS BUSINESS BUSINESS. Baseball means alot more to america, home and abroad, then just being a game. Without using any words or phrases to incite the numskulls around here and get this locked in the ****house, try thinking about it on a broader scale.

Nice post. :cool:
-------------
Here's another log for the fire.

Baseball's antitrust exemption: Q & A (http://espn.go.com/mlb/s/2001/1205/1290707.html)... here's what I find interesting;

Q: Things have changed since 1922. Why does the exemption still exist?
A: The exemption was not considered again by the Supreme Court until 1953 in Toolson v. New York Yankees, Inc. George Toolson, a Yankee minor leaguer, sued over the reserve clause (which binds a player to one organization), claiming it blocked his path to the major leagues. In the decision, the Supreme Court did not deny that baseball was not interstate commerce. Instead, the court ruled that when the Sherman Act was enacted in 1890, Congress didn't intend it to include baseball -- that the Sherman Act was more closely directed to the monopolies and trusts of the robber barons like John D. Rockefeller and Andrew Carnegie.

Q: Why don't other sports have the antitrust exemption?
A: For 18 years after Toolson, in case after case, judges admitted that the baseball exemption was flawed, but it was never overruled. Exemptions for boxing, football and basketball were denied in the higher courts, while hockey and golf antitrust exemptions were also denied in the lower courts.In 1972, Curt Flood's case -- which also challenged baseball's reserve system -- reached the Supreme Court and although it was again acknowledged that baseball's antitrust exemption was "an anomaly," the Court ruled that it is up to Congress to change baseball's antitrust exemption. Bills were introduced before and after Flood v. Kuhn (1972), but none ever became a law. In 1998, Congress passed the Curt Flood Act of 1998, which said challenges to league rules that restrict player movement or compensation would be subject to antitrust laws. (Although the Supreme Court ruled two years earlier that unionized employees may not file antitrust suits.)

-------------

I wouldn't mind seeing the Government putting both feet in MLB's backside and stripping them of their manifesto [the anti-trust exemption]. MLB owners have long subscribed to the Golden Rule... those that have the gold, make the rules. Nothing like a bunch of rich old white guys wanting to keep things the way they are. Btw, we can now add Steinbrenner to the list of robber barons.

ode to veeck
03-09-2005, 09:32 AM
If its hard to think of a used car salesman as a robber baron, you're not alone. The used car salesman schtick is just a stealthier, sleazy, bottom feeder way of going about it, kind of like a carp in emperor's clothes.

The Racehorse
03-09-2005, 10:54 AM
Just heard Colin Cowherd's I hear voices segment on ESPN radio say that McGwire was granted immunity... don't yet see a link anywhere.

http://espn-att.starwave.com/media/mlb/2005/0309/photo/sosa_mcgwire_ft.jpg
If there ever was a picture that told a thousand lies...

daveeym
03-09-2005, 11:33 AM
Just heard Colin Cowherd's I hear voices segment on ESPN radio say that McGwire was granted immunity... don't yet see a link anywhere.

http://espn-att.starwave.com/media/mlb/2005/0309/photo/sosa_mcgwire_ft.jpg
If there ever was a picture that told a thousand lies... This is getting good.

Ol' No. 2
03-09-2005, 11:38 AM
Just heard Colin Cowherd's I hear voices segment on ESPN radio say that McGwire was granted immunity... don't yet see a link anywhere.

http://espn-att.starwave.com/media/mlb/2005/0309/photo/sosa_mcgwire_ft.jpg
If there ever was a picture that told a thousand lies...They're going to have to grant immunity to anyone who was using. No biggie. It's done all the time and was done for the grand jury hearings in the BALCO case. It will be interesting to see which players DON'T insist on a grant of immunity.

daveeym
03-09-2005, 11:40 AM
They're going to have to grant immunity to anyone who was using. No biggie. It's done all the time and was done for the grand jury hearings in the BALCO case. It will be interesting to see which players DON'T insist on a grant of immunity. I'd imagine they'll just give a blanket immunity amongst the players, they don't want to let the cat out of the bag before the big dance.

Fredsox
03-09-2005, 11:42 AM
The truth of the matter is it is really irrelevant if people are suspicious of the motives of Congress (like Bruce Levine and other media) who say that the politicians are doing this to get votes. If Baseball Inc. (meaning the owners, the players, and the media including Mr. Levine) had taken care of this issue in the past this would not be happening. They ALL swept it under the carpet with a nod and a wink.

Remember folks, no one was talking about congressional hearings until things were VERY MUCH out of hand and John McCain was the first to threaten action. I don't know too many people who would suggest that he's a man who is motivated primarily for political gain.

Besides, if Bond, Giambi, Canseco, and the rest of them get exposed for being the cheaters that they are, that's ok with me and I don't care who may benefit as a result of that.

balke
03-09-2005, 12:09 PM
Giambi testified before a federal grand jury investigating steroids in 2003 and, according to a report by the San Francisco Chronicle in December, told the panel he had used steroids. Giambi has not denied the report but has refused to publicly discuss steroids, citing advice from his lawyers.

Giambi was granted limited immunity by prosecutors for his grand jury testimony. Because of the ongoing investigation, it is possible the Justice Department, the committee and Giambi might have to negotiate an immunity agreement before he would answer questions from the congressional panel.

If he is granted immunity and testifies publicly, the Yankees potentially could use any admissions as grounds to attempt to void his contract, which has four years and $82 million remaining.

This could be very bad. If the Yankees free up that kind of cash, they'll have even MORE room to pick up every all-star in baseball. Beltran to DH? Not for a few years in reality. But if the Yanks free up some money and DO need a solid high OBP DH midseason... /gulp.

I'm hoping they have to choke on Giambi's contract.


:gulp:

daveeym
03-09-2005, 12:17 PM
This could be very bad. If the Yankees free up that kind of cash, they'll have even MORE room to pick up every all-star in baseball. Beltran to DH? Not for a few years in reality. But if the Yanks free up some money and DO need a solid high OBP DH midseason... /gulp.

I'm hoping they have to choke on Giambi's contract.


:gulp: :?: In that case cancel the hearing. Damn King George just another ploy to hog all the players.

Fredsox
03-09-2005, 12:23 PM
The interesting thing is, is that they won't offer everyone immunity, just one or two guys. Someone without it will be asked "Did you take steroids? How about human growth hormones? Any substances that are banned by the Olympics?" and they will either have to take the 5th or speak the truth. You lie and get caught, you can go to jail (just ask Martha).

balke
03-09-2005, 12:57 PM
:?: In that case cancel the hearing. Damn King George just another ploy to hog all the players.

That's..... NOT what I'm saying AT ALL. But that's money back in the Yankees pocket which is something to think about. 80 million in 4 years to be exact. As much as we'd like to think their pocket book is endless, its not.

We're in the same league, and will be competing against them. I'd like to see them get stuck w/ Giambi personally.

Ol' No. 2
03-09-2005, 01:42 PM
This could be very bad. If the Yankees free up that kind of cash, they'll have even MORE room to pick up every all-star in baseball. Beltran to DH? Not for a few years in reality. But if the Yanks free up some money and DO need a solid high OBP DH midseason... /gulp.

I'm hoping they have to choke on Giambi's contract.


:gulp:Didn't we have a long thread here a while back discussing the fact that the Yankees agreed to REMOVE any language in the contract that would allow them to void it for steroid usage?

balke
03-09-2005, 01:47 PM
That's what I thought. But I'm just going off of the quoted source from ESPN. Perhaps there is a loophole due to the new hearing? ESPN was where I learned about the language being taken out of his contract. But perhaps being subpoened and forced to testify falls under some other language in his contract?

Ol' No. 2
03-09-2005, 01:52 PM
That's what I thought. But I'm just going off of the quoted source from ESPN. Perhaps there is a loophole due to the new hearing? ESPN was where I learned about the language being taken out of his contract. But perhaps being subpoened and forced to testify falls under some other language in his contract?Or maybe ESPN just didn't have all its facts straight. There's a first time for everything.:rolleyes:

RichFitztightly
03-09-2005, 02:21 PM
Didn't we have a long thread here a while back discussing the fact that the Yankees agreed to REMOVE any language in the contract that would allow them to void it for steroid usage?

I wonder if it's possible to have the contract voided on a morals clause. Isn't steroids a controlled substance? Possibly it's a federal offense to posess/use them? If that's the case and the Yankees are desparate to void the contract, I could see them going that route.

Foulke29
03-09-2005, 02:31 PM
I think you're wrong on all counts. I don't see Frank coming out with guns blazing. I think he'll say pretty much what he's already said.
"No, I never took steroids"
"No, I never saw anyone taking steroids"
"There wasn't testing for it before, but now there is. It's time to move on."

And I don't see the ESPN gunning for Frank, either. There will be way too many bigger targets.

Hey Nellie - how's it goin.

I think you are right on all counts. However, I think Frank will do one more thing. He'll say that 'baseball' has turned a blind eye to the obvious signs that started in the late '80s and early '90s. Knowing Frank, there will be a touch of 'I told you so.' without pointing the finger at any individuals.

The Racehorse
03-09-2005, 02:35 PM
I wonder if it's possible to have the contract voided on a morals clause.
Denny Neagle = yes.

Isn't steroids a controlled substance? Possibly it's a federal offense to posess/use them? If that's the case and the Yankees are desparate to void the contract, I could see them going that route.
I know the Yankees GM was caught with his pants-around-his-ankles regarding them taking out the steroid language in Giambi's contract, BUT if Giambi uses the the "S" word, you can bet they'll be Yankees representatives there to take notes for the very reason you just pointed out.

StillMissOzzie
03-09-2005, 03:29 PM
I know the Yankees GM was caught with his pants-around-his-ankles regarding them taking out the steroid language in Giambi's contract, BUT if Giambi uses the the "S" word, you can bet they'll be Yankees representatives there to take notes for the very reason you just pointed out.

Cashman has been quoted as saying that he felt that the Yankmees were protected by other parts of the contract - a weak rationale to remove "steroids" from Giambi's contract, but he felt he had one.

Back to the Congressional hearings: Interesting to note that they offer immunity to the INACTIVE player (if it's true about Big Mac, anyhow) but not to any CURRENT players. I think it would be real interesting to hear the current players plead the 5th Amendment, after their braying denials in the press, if indeed that comes to pass.

SMO
:gulp:

jdm2662
03-09-2005, 04:10 PM
I would love for some of these players to be caught lying and go to jail for it. Hell, Martha got five months for lying. She had the attitude I'm Martha Stewart, they can't do anything to me... Why can't any of these dopes get the same punishment she did?

I'm glad that Frank is going to express his views. However, I can't wait for the PA to stick their noses and make up some excuse why he shouldn't go or the things he should say. I don't think he will personally rat anyone out unless asked about a particular person, but it's been quite clear he's been against steriods for so long. Why he didn't rat anyone out? Simple, it wasn't the best interest in baseball at the time, and he probably would've been laughed at.

Frank can't win in this town. He's never been good with the mic, and that's all the media needs to perceive someone as a bad teammate or a cancer. Unlike the cute and cuddley hero on the North Side that smiled and loved being on TV. Since he loved the mic, the media loved him for it. I for one hope the dopes that juiced get revealed, but I doubt I will get what I want to see.
________
Amateur Girlfriend (http://www.****tube.com/categories/58/girlfriend/videos/1)

Jerko
03-09-2005, 06:38 PM
Now Skip Clueless is on ESPN saying Bonds isn't getting subpoened....this time. He also said he's more excited about these congressional hearings than he is opening day so maybe he should switch to a news channel and get off the sports channel. Plus, the PA will "fight" the subs.

SluggersAway
03-09-2005, 07:04 PM
I really want to know why Bonds isn't being called to testify. Something just doesn't seem right.

FJA
03-09-2005, 07:19 PM
I really want to know why Bonds isn't being called to testify. Something just doesn't seem right.

Pure speculation, but I'm guessing if baseball "plays nice" they won't have to deal with the PR disaster of having Bonds testify publicly at the same time he's chasing Ruth/Aaron. It would get ugly, and I'm guessing Congress wants to keep this somewhat civil.

Lip Man 1
03-09-2005, 07:25 PM
Check on some of the other themes about this subject. There have been some significant updates, including the owners saying they are fighting this and refuse to allow the players to testify.

Lip

Fredsox
03-09-2005, 08:07 PM
Check on some of the other themes about this subject. There have been some significant updates, including the owners saying they are fighting this and refuse to allow the players to testify.

Lip

That isn't too surprising. They're just as culpable as the players in this.

Ol' No. 2
03-09-2005, 09:05 PM
Check on some of the other themes about this subject. There have been some significant updates, including the owners saying they are fighting this and refuse to allow the players to testify.

Lip:tool This is going to be harder than I thought. Better order a whole tanker of whitewash.

The Racehorse
03-09-2005, 09:14 PM
:tool This is going to be harder than I thought. Better order a whole tanker of whitewash.

LOL! ... Nice. :cool:

Viva Medias B's
03-09-2005, 09:47 PM
If individuals try to defy the subpoenas, they could face Contempt of Congress charges. Right?

Ol' No. 2
03-09-2005, 10:11 PM
If individuals try to defy the subpoenas, they could face Contempt of Congress charges. Right?If it comes to that. I don't know all the avenues that MLB has to try to quash the subpoenas. One might be to get a federal judge to do it. I'm pretty much at the limit of my legal knowledge here. I guess they'd have to show somehow that congress is overstepping it's authority. Federal judges have historically not been too keen on telling congress it can't do something. I think that's going to be a tough sell. If they don't succeed through legal means, they're not going to flip off congress.

Daver
03-09-2005, 10:52 PM
If it comes to that. I don't know all the avenues that MLB has to try to quash the subpoenas. One might be to get a federal judge to do it. I'm pretty much at the limit of my legal knowledge here. I guess they'd have to show somehow that congress is overstepping it's authority. Federal judges have historically not been too keen on telling congress it can't do something. I think that's going to be a tough sell. If they don't succeed through legal means, they're not going to flip off congress.

MLB has many avenues to pursue to quash a subpoena. The first would be that it is frivilous and draws no conclusion, the second would be that it violates the rights of the union members because they are complying with a CBA that was approved by an arbitrator, and altered less than a year ago.They could also ask to continue it until after the season is over, on the grounds that it interferes with the preperation for the upcoming season. They can also ask for a motion of dismissal based on the fact that the altered CBA has yet to see any test results.

MRKARNO
03-09-2005, 11:16 PM
MLB has many avenues to pursue to quash a subpoena. The first would be that it is frivilous and draws no conclusion, the second would be that it violates the rights of the union members because they are complying with a CBA that was approved by an arbitrator, and altered less than a year ago.They could also ask to continue it until after the season is over, on the grounds that it interferes with the preperation for the upcoming season. They can also ask for a motion of dismissal based on the fact that the altered CBA has yet to see any test results.

Rules on Congressional Investigations and Subpoenas:

http://www.fsmlaw.org/fsm/code/title03/T03_Ch04.htm#409

§ 408. Issuance of subpoenas.
(1) The Speaker or other Presiding Officer of the Congress may issue subpoenas requiring the attendance of witnesses and subpoenas duces tecum requiring the production of books, documents, or other evidence in any matter pending before a committee.

(2) Every investigating committee may issue, by majority vote of all its members, subpoenas requiring the attendance of witnesses and subpoenas duces tecum requiring the production of books, documents, or other evidence in any matter pending before the committee.

(3) Any subpoena, warrant of arrest, or other process issued under the authority of the Congress shall run in the name of Federated States of Micronesia and shall be addressed to the Sergeant at Arms of the Congress or any National police officer of the Federated States of Micronesia. The subpoena, warrant, or other process shall be signed by the officer authorized to issue it, shall set forth his official title, shall contain a reference to the rule or resolution, or other means, by which the taking of testimony or other evidence, or the issuance of such warrant or other process, was authorized, and shall, in the case of a summons or subpoena, set forth in general terms the matter or question with reference to which the testimony or other evidence is to be taken.

(4) Any officer to whom such process is directed shall forthwith serve or execute the same upon delivery thereof to him.

Source: COM PL 5-36 § 8; TT Code 1980, 2 TTC 268; PL 1-63 § 1(3).

§ 409. Subpoena - Notice to witnesses.

(1) Service of a subpoena requiring the attendance of a person at a hearing of an investigating committee shall be made at least five days prior to the date of the hearing unless a shorter period of time is authorized by majority vote of all the members of the committee in a particular instance when, in their opinion, the giving of five days' notice is not practicable; but if a shorter period of time is authorized, the person subpoenaed shall be given reasonable notice of the hearing, consistent with the particular circumstances involved.

(2) Any person who is served with a subpoena to attend a hearing of an investigating committee also shall be served with a general statement informing him of the subject matter of the committee's investigation or inquiry and with a notice that he may be accompanied at the hearing by counsel of his own choosing.

Source: COM PL 5-36 § 9; TT Code 1980, 2 TTC 269.

§ 414. Contempt.

(1) A person shall be in contempt if he:

(a) fails or refuses to appear in compliance with a subpoena or, having appeared, fails or refuses to testify under oath or affirmation;

(b) fails or refuses to answer any relevant question or fails or refuses to furnish any relevant book, paper, or other document subpoenaed by or on behalf of an investigating committee; or

(c) exhibits disrespect of an investigating committee by unlawfully, knowingly, and willfully interfering directly with the operation and function of such committee by open defiance of an order in or near the meeting place of such committee, by disturbing the peace in or near such meeting place, by interfering with an officer of such committee in the lawful performance of his official duties, or by unlawfully detaining or threatening any witness of such committee because of that person's duty as a witness.

(2) An investigating committee may, by majority vote of all its members, report to the Congress any instance of alleged contempt. The Speaker shall certify a statement of such contempt under his signature as Speaker to the Attorney General who shall prosecute the offender in a court of competent jurisdiction in the Federated States of Micronesia. If the Congress is not in session, a statement of the alleged contempt shall be certified by the chairman or acting chairman of the committee concerned, under his signature, to the Attorney General who shall prosecute the offender as aforesaid. An instance of alleged contempt shall be considered as though committed in or against the Congress itself.

Source: COM PL 5-36 § 14; TT Code 1980, 2 TTC 274; PL 1-63 § 1(4).

§ 415. Penalties.

(1) A person guilty of contempt under this chapter shall upon conviction be fined not more than $1,000, or imprisoned not more than one year, or both.

(2) If any investigating committee fails in any material respect to comply with the requirements of this chapter, any person subject to a subpoena or a subpoena duces tecum who is injured by such failure shall be relieved of any requirement to attend the hearing for which the subpoena was issued or, if present to testify or produce evidence therein; and such failure shall be a complete defense in any proceeding against the person for contempt or other punishment.

(3) Any witness shall have only those privileges against testifying or producing other evidence under subpoena duces tecum which are:

(a) authorized by the Supreme Court of the Federated States of Micronesia Rules of Evidence; or

(b) required by the Declaration of Rights of the Federated States of Micronesia, or other law applicable to the Federated States of Micronesia.

(4) Any person other than the witness concerned or his counsel who violates the provisions of subsections (7) or (8) of section 412 of this chapter shall upon conviction be fined not more than $500, or imprisoned not more than six months, or both. The Attorney General, on his own motion or on the application of any person claiming to have been injured or prejudiced by an unauthorized disclosure, may institute proceedings for trial of the issue and imposition of the penalties provided herein. Nothing in this subsection shall limit any power which the Congress may have to discipline a member or employee or to impose a penalty in the absence of action by a prosecuting officer or court.

Source: COM PL 5-36 § 15; TT Code 1980, 2 TTC 275; PL 1-63 § 1(5); PL 7-89 § 2.

Cross-reference: The statutory provisions on Judicial Procedures are found in title 6 of this code. The constitutional provisions making up the Declaration of Rights are found in FSM Const., art. IV.


I tried to include all of the relevent sections. It does not appear that there are any ways to fight the subpoena, regardless of the reasons that the MLB might have.

The SC cant rule it unconstitutional because there is no lawsuit. Also this means that there cannot be any dismissals because you cannot dismiss a meeting of a Congressional Committee.

The only thing the MLB can really hope for is that the committee members sympathize with their concerns and decide to cancel the session. We all know this isn't happening, so the players and the MLB are going to give testimony. If they physically cannot appear (it might happen in Thomas's case, but that's about it), then they will send a team to depose the players on site.

This is almost an inevitability assuming there's no change of heart by the committee. The MLB can pout and stomp its feet all it wants, but it can't stop Congress in this case.

The Racehorse
03-09-2005, 11:34 PM
You know what? If MLB & the players union succeed in avoiding the subpoenas served by the U.S. House of Representatives, the following will be undeniably observed by everyone with the ability to see with there own eyes:

1. The arrogance that MLB & the players union can actually shield known users of illegal drugs from federal laws prohibiting their use [steroids & ephedra. No technicalities about the new 'roid policy... it's 2005 and players have been using since the Regan Administration -1st or 2nd, just pick one].

2. In the court of public opinion, the arrogance that federal laws have no jurisdiction over baseball because MLB hides behind an archaic antitrust ruling from 1922, will [someday, please!] bite Donald Fehr & Bud Selig like a vampire's kiss from Grace Jones.

3. The arrogance that MLB & the players union can tempt fate by implying that the government has no jurisdiction, what so ever, into MLB's affairs. I have two quick questions.
Question: Who issued the antitrust exemption?
Answer: U.S. Government.
Question: Well, then who then can repeal the antitrust exemption?
Answer: U.S. Government
I'm no rocket scientist, but whatever is legislated can eventually be un-legislated.

4. Did I mention arrogance? :rolleyes: :rolleyes: :rolleyes:

5. Finally, Bud Selig & Donald Fehr in bed on the same issue. Talk about your one-night stands!

Lip Man 1
03-10-2005, 01:31 AM
Karno:

According to Roger Cossack, ESPN legal analyst on Outside The Lines, there are ways that MLB can get the motions quashed. However he thinks it would be a very long shot of it happening.

Lip

Lip Man 1
03-10-2005, 01:32 AM
Racehorse:

Except that congress has about a million other more important issues not the least of which is the fact that there still is a war going on in the Middle East, with 1,500 U.S. troops dead.

I think that's a tad more important that worrying about a game.

Lip

Spicoli
03-10-2005, 07:58 AM
I am generally not a fan of ESPN columnist Jayson Stark; but he wrote a very sober piece on the upcoming Congressional Hearings that I thought some of you might be interested in reading. I think he makes many very sound points.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/story?columnist=stark_jayson&id=2009160

The fact that there is no evidence is certainly right. Moreover he hit the nail on the head in stating that this will be trying the players in the court of public opinion which has no guidelines and if based solely off of emotion and sensationalism--sorry, there are very few rational people in society at large. Many have said this, and I think they are correct, this is another version of McCarthyism. I'll bet you that Thomas's name, no matter what, will become as synonymous with steroids as the others' in many peoples' minds. Truth is, people don't pay much attention to things unless they really matter to them--i.e., Sox fans will be well aware of his innocence. But others, not self-interested, will be careless and prone to equivocation of he and other guilty players. Furthermore, those with something against the Sox, i.e., Flub fans, will ignorantly use it to indict Thomas and continue their smear campaign against everything Sox (Sosa, they got him from the Sox and they got rid him him because of the recent 'revelations' about his 'roid usage). Flub fans live for this stuff and their mediots will likewise help to blur truth from fiction, thereby making Thomas an unfortunate fall-guy. These hearings should not take place.

Finally, I wish Stark's writing on actual baseball was as thoughtful as his commentary about the off-field drama!

The Racehorse
03-10-2005, 08:45 AM
Racehorse:

Except that congress has about a million other more important issues not the least of which is the fact that there still is a war going on in the Middle East, with 1,500 U.S. troops dead.

I think that's a tad more important that worrying about a game.

Lip

Lip, I served. In fact, spending 20 years in the military has gone a long way to shaping my views on matters involving those who think they are held to different standards;

Any idea that MLB’s list of banned substances has jurisdiction over federal law disgusts me.
Any language from either the commissioner’s office or the players union saying that the U.S. government has no jurisdiction in baseball’s business makes me wonder what I was helping to defend for 20 years. MLB is it’s own country, like the Vatican and Italy. A country within a country. What a concept! Send all the ball players to Iraq and bring home the Army & Marines!
Baseball's antitrust exemption of 1522.
This whole MESS reminds me of The Who’s great song, Won’t Get Fooled Again...

There's nothing in the street
Looks any different to me
And the slogans are replaced, by-the-by
And the party on the left
Is now the party on the right
And their beards have all grown longer overnight

I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again
Don't get fooled again
No, no!

Yeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!

Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss

daveeym
03-10-2005, 08:46 AM
Karno:

According to Roger Cossack, ESPN legal analyst on Outside The Lines, there are ways that MLB can get the motions quashed. However he thinks it would be a very long shot of it happening.

Lip The only thing I see possibly gettin quashed is portions of the document subpoena. The medical records and testing results are unneccesary for this hearing IMO.

MRKARNO
03-10-2005, 08:53 AM
Karno:

According to Roger Cossack, ESPN legal analyst on Outside The Lines, there are ways that MLB can get the motions quashed. However he thinks it would be a very long shot of it happening.

Lip

Thanks for that. I hadn't seen any legal analysis up to the point where I had posted that earlier post, so that was all really just speculation on my part. It sounds like they could bring a lawsuit, but I can't see any judge ruling in their favor. Congress has reasonable grounds under which to conduct these hearing, regardless of how useless they probably will end up being.

ma_deuce
03-10-2005, 10:26 AM
This whole MESS reminds me of The Who’s great song, Won’t Get Fooled Again...

I'll tip my hat to the new constitution
Take a bow for the new revolution
Smile and grin at the change all around
Pick up my guitar and play
Just like yesterday
Then I'll get on my knees and pray
We don't get fooled again
Don't get fooled again
No, no!

Yeaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaah!

Meet the new boss
Same as the old boss
The Senators inquire to clear up the confusion
To best decide whats the proper solution
Invite some, but no one would come around
Now subpeanas are in play
The Committee, they cannot evade
And the Unions up to its old ways...
They're cryin' like babies
Cryin' like babies!

Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!

Meet the new drug policy
Same as the old policy

pssondacubs
03-10-2005, 10:55 AM
I applaud Frank for going before Congress and testifying when asked. Even though in my opinion our govt. has no business getting into this issue. My major concern is why wasn't Barry Bonds issued a subpeona to testify? His dealer was busted, which started the whole steroid "We Care" attitude. An article on CBSsportsline.com says that the committee has no interest in hearing from Barry Bonds. I guess it's only the whites and latino's that they worry about. I'm sure they know that Barry will run with the race card again. Sad how these idiots will put on a show without actually doing there job. We need someone like ol' Joe McCarthy was to look into this problem if they feel that it's their business. Someone with some balls that will not let political correctness and the media get in the way of an honest inquiry.

FJA
03-10-2005, 11:03 AM
I applaud Frank for going before Congress and testifying when asked. Even though in my opinion our govt. has no business getting into this issue. My major concern is why wasn't Barry Bonds issued a subpeona to testify? His dealer was busted, which started the whole steroid "We Care" attitude. An article on CBSsportsline.com says that the committee has no interest in hearing from Barry Bonds. I guess it's only the whites and latino's that they worry about. I'm sure they know that Barry will run with the race card again. Sad how these idiots will put on a show without actually doing there job. We need someone like ol' Joe McCarthy was to look into this problem if they feel that it's their business. Someone with some balls that will not let political correctness and the media get in the way of an honest inquiry.

I don't think it has anything to do with political correctness, and I think it's ridiculous to imply there is some racist motive for not calling Bonds. They simply don't want to put up with the BS he spews whenever a microphone is in front of him (even leaving alone the race card) and have it distract from what they view as a public education forum. In terms of public awareness and accountability, a lot of good can come out of these hearings. Having Bonds up there yelling about Sanford and Son reruns would be nothing but a distraction from the real issues.

Fredsox
03-10-2005, 11:15 AM
Rules on Congressional Investigations and Subpoenas:

http://www.fsmlaw.org/fsm/code/title03/T03_Ch04.htm#409

[b]

I tried to include all of the relevent sections. It does not appear that there are any ways to fight the subpoena, regardless of the reasons that the MLB might have.

The SC cant rule it unconstitutional because there is no lawsuit. Also this means that there cannot be any dismissals because you cannot dismiss a meeting of a Congressional Committee.

The only thing the MLB can really hope for is that the committee members sympathize with their concerns and decide to cancel the session. We all know this isn't happening, so the players and the MLB are going to give testimony. If they physically cannot appear (it might happen in Thomas's case, but that's about it), then they will send a team to depose the players on site.

This is almost an inevitability assuming there's no change of heart by the committee. The MLB can pout and stomp its feet all it wants, but it can't stop Congress in this case.

I was unaware that we hold the Federated States of Micronesia in such high regard.

The Racehorse
03-10-2005, 11:18 AM
The Senators inquire to clear up the confusion
To best decide whats the proper solution
Invite some, but no one would come around
Now subpeanas are in play
The Committee, they cannot evade
And the Unions up to its old ways...
They're cryin' like babies
Cryin' like babies!

Waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaahhhhhhhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!

Meet the new drug policy
Same as the old policy

Nice!!! :cool:

:)

POTW!

daveeym
03-10-2005, 11:22 AM
I was unaware that we hold the Federated States of Micronesia in such high regard.
[/color][/font] LOL

The Racehorse
03-10-2005, 11:23 AM
I am generally not a fan of ESPN columnist Jayson Stark; but he wrote a very sober piece on the upcoming Congressional Hearings that I thought some of you might be interested in reading. I think he makes many very sound points.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/story?columnist=stark_jayson&id=2009160

The fact that there is no evidence is certainly right. Moreover he hit the nail on the head in stating that this will be trying the players in the court of public opinion which has no guidelines and if based solely off of emotion and sensationalism--sorry, there are very few rational people in society at large. Many have said this, and I think they are correct, this is another version of McCarthyism. I'll bet you that Thomas's name, no matter what, will become as synonymous with steroids as the others' in many peoples' minds. Truth is, people don't pay much attention to things unless they really matter to them--i.e., Sox fans will be well aware of his innocence. But others, not self-interested, will be careless and prone to equivocation of he and other guilty players. Furthermore, those with something against the Sox, i.e., Flub fans, will ignorantly use it to indict Thomas and continue their smear campaign against everything Sox (Sosa, they got him from the Sox and they got rid him him because of the recent 'revelations' about his 'roid usage). Flub fans live for this stuff and their mediots will likewise help to blur truth from fiction, thereby making Thomas an unfortunate fall-guy. These hearings should not take place.

Finally, I wish Stark's writing on actual baseball was as thoughtful as his commentary about the off-field drama!

I read Stark's column half way then stopped. Why? Because Congress has hearings all the time. Any hearing can always be debated as to wether it's relevant or not.

[Retorical question & answer] You want to be a MLB baseball player? Fine. Bust your ass and maybe you'll make millions. Along the way, you'll have to make ethical decisions that go to the very core of who you are. We all have to make these decisions in our lives, why are ball players any different?

The House of Reps want to "talk" to a bunch ball players, so what... but everyone gets hysterical even though our Legislators have these "talks" all the time. I'm not that naive to think that these hearings will solve anything in MLB. But at the same time, whatever happened to doing your duty, and earning a honest day's pay for an honest day's work?

I want these hearings to happen. If the whole thing becomes a circus, so what. As unfair as that maybe, ball players are public figures, and they get paid very well to be public figures. If Fehr & Selig start slinging mud at the Reps and vice versa, that'd be great! But it'll never happen due to the battalion of lawyers on both sides of the aisle. Whatever the motive is to hold these hearings in the first place is something I could care less about. It's not as if the government is looking to smash 'little people'.

Frank's anti-steroid past could very well make him the star attraction.

Ol' No. 2
03-10-2005, 11:24 AM
I was unaware that we hold the Federated States of Micronesia in such high regard.
[/color][/font]I saw that, too. What's up with THAT?

Fredsox
03-10-2005, 11:38 AM
I saw that, too. What's up with THAT?

Well, for all you young geographists out there, the Federated States of Micronesia is a few hundred islands somewhere in between the Philippines and the Solomon Islands. If that doesn't help, fly to Australia, head north, and follow the signs.

My guess is that we have a bad link, but it makes you wonder, doesn't it?

MRKARNO
03-10-2005, 01:47 PM
My guess is that we have a bad link, but it makes you wonder, doesn't it?


Could be. I probably didnt do a proper vetting of the source. Lip has updated us with the legal avenues that the MLB would be forced to take.

PaleHoseGeorge
03-10-2005, 02:02 PM
I had been pretty indifferent about this House investigation. I liked the WSJ's Daily Fix take on the subject: "Worthwhile grandstanding vs. Worthless grandstanding." Most everything the U.S. Congress does is just grandstanding, worthy or otherwise.
:wink:

But then I read these comments from MLB's lawyer Stanley Brand.

"The audacity, the legal audacity of subpoenaing someone who's been a grand jury witness before there's been a trial in the case in California is just an absolutely excessive and unprecedented misuse of congressional power," Brand said.

HOLY COW! Where there is smoke there is fire! Even the MLBPA was smart enough not to have any comment on the subject. Sheesh...

As a lawyer, Brand must know he is talking complete gibberish. Congress has the authority to investigate anything it wants... and no court is going to step into the U.S. House's path. Congress has the broadest authority of any Constitutional entity!

Brand's righteous outrage is the biggest hint yet that MLB is scared to death of what might happen next. I say bring it on!
:gulp:

voodoochile
03-10-2005, 02:13 PM
I had been pretty indifferent about this House investigation. I liked the WSJ's Daily Fix take on the subject: "Worthwhile grandstanding vs. Worthless grandstanding." Most everything the U.S. Congress does is just grandstanding, worthy or otherwise.
:wink:

But then I read these comments from MLB's lawyer Stanley Brand.



HOLY COW! Where there is smoke there is fire! Even the MLBPA was smart enough not to have any comment on the subject. Sheesh...

As a lawyer, Brand must know he is talking complete gibberish. Congress has the authority to investigate anything it wants... and no court is going to step into the U.S. House's path. Congress has the broadest authority of any Constitutional entity!

Brand's righteous outrage is the biggest hint yet that MLB is scared to death of what might happen next. I say bring it on!
:gulp:

Rhetoric and comedic meter value are both going through the roof. This one is going to be a fight for the ages. MLB Vs. The US Congress. Neither side is accustomed to losing or being told how to conduct their business.

I say rope off the rotunda and set up a cage. First team to three pins wins. You think the HOR has anyone who can take Pierzynski? :tongue:

MRKARNO
03-10-2005, 02:16 PM
As a lawyer, Brand must know he is talking complete gibberish. Congress has the authority to investigate anything it wants... and no court is going to step into the U.S. House's path. Congress has the broadest authority of any Constitutional entity!

Exactly. I have no clue where the MLB thinks it's going with this by trying to fight the subpoenas. I knew the MLB wasn't exactly the smartest of the 4 majors sports, but after hearing this, I'm not even sure that the league is halfway competent. The fact that they are fighting this with such rigor is really an embarassment to Major League Baseball. Very few are arguing that the hearings should not take place on legal grounds, despite the fact that many feel that they might have no use. I, for one, think that they will be highly interesting, but that Congress really won't end up doing anything signficant with the testimony.

The MLB should stop while they're behind and drop any objections to the subpoenas. They're not going to find a court who will stop them and if they do, the decision will be repealed by a higher court. The hearings will go on. The MLB would be wise to accept this and move on.

MRKARNO
03-10-2005, 02:19 PM
Rhetoric and comedic meter value are both going through the roof. This one is going to be a fight for the ages. MLB Vs. The US Congress. Neither side is accustomed to losing or being told how to conduct their business.

I say rope off the rotunda and set up a cage. First team to three pins wins. You think the HOR has anyone who can take Pierzynski? :tongue:

An Analogy:

MLB would bring its ballplayers to the fight while Congress would bring its guards from the US military that are assigned to protect the Capitol building.

The Racehorse
03-10-2005, 02:26 PM
Brand's righteous outrage is the biggest hint yet that MLB is scared to death of what might happen next.

What happens next should be taking away MLB's unlimited pot of gold called the antitrust exemption... all good things gotta come to an end sometime.

Ol' No. 2
03-10-2005, 02:27 PM
Exactly. I have no clue where the MLB thinks it's going with this by trying to fight the subpoenas. I knew the MLB wasn't exactly the smartest of the 4 majors sports, but after hearing this, I'm not even sure that the league is halfway competent. The fact that they are fighting this with such rigor is really an embarassment to Major League Baseball. Very few are arguing that the hearings should not take place on legal grounds, despite the fact that many feel that they might have no use. I, for one, think that they will be highly interesting, but that Congress really won't end up doing anything signficant with the testimony.

The MLB should stop while they're behind and drop any objections to the subpoenas. They're not going to find a court who will stop them and if they do, the decision will be repealed by a higher court. The hearings will go on. The MLB would be wise to accept this and move on.Not to mention the fact that MLB is coming off looking like complete tools who are desperately trying to cover up something. It's uncanny how such a group of supposedly intelligent people can so unerringly shoot themselves in the foot.

PaleHoseGeorge
03-10-2005, 02:33 PM
Here's another great quote.

Bob Cohen, McGwire's agent, questioned "what's the ultimate purpose of the hearings?"

LOL! I imagine Mark McGwire as this furry little rabbit hiding next to a tiny bush and he just now realizes that the approaching wolf has spotted him.

:roflmao:

Tony LaRussa is going down for his charade defending Mac on 60 Minutes, too.

:roflmao: :roflmao:

MisterB
03-10-2005, 02:44 PM
An Analogy:

MLB would bring its ballplayers to the fight while Congress would bring its guards from the US military that are assigned to protect the Capitol building.

Nope. Gotta be Reps vs. Owners. I'd pay to see a Jerry Reinsdorf - Henry Waxman cage match. :D:

:reinsy
VS.
http://www.lcv.org/images/client/LCVwaxman.jpg

::millslane
"Let's get it on!"

Spicoli
03-10-2005, 02:49 PM
I read Stark's column half way then stopped. Why? Because Congress has hearings all the time. Any hearing can always be debated as to wether it's relevant or not.

[Retorical question & answer] You want to be a MLB baseball player? Fine. Bust your ass and maybe you'll make millions. Along the way, you'll have to make ethical decisions that go to the very core of who you are. We all have to make these decisions in our lives, why are ball players any different?

The House of Reps want to "talk" to a bunch ball players, so what... but everyone gets hysterical even though our Legislators have these "talks" all the time. I'm not that naive to think that these hearings will solve anything in MLB. But at the same time, whatever happened to doing your duty, and earning a honest day's pay for an honest day's work?

I want these hearings to happen. If the whole thing becomes a circus, so what. As unfair as that maybe, ball players are public figures, and they get paid very well to be public figures. If Fehr & Selig start slinging mud at the Reps and vice versa, that'd be great! But it'll never happen due to the battalion of lawyers on both sides of the aisle. Whatever the motive is to hold these hearings in the first place is something I could care less about. It's not as if the government is looking to smash 'little people'.

Frank's anti-steroid past could very well make him the star attraction.

The issue isn't this black and white...too bad people are willing to compromise hard fought liberties such as due process in order to smooth the world over as if everything can fit into an either/or proposition. Life is not this simple and if it was your life on the line, you'd certainly want due process.

Your retort is full of informal logical fallacies. Being 'public figures' does not negate their inalienable rights as citizens of this country. The stench of McCarthyism is getting stronger.

You are right, we all make these decisions. But we don't all get tried without hard evidence in the court of public opinion. This is simply un-democratic. But then again, why bother with adhering to the system if it doesn't get me my way, right. Somebody has got to pay!

How much money, how much fame, etc., should not matter in metering out the law. "As unfair as it maybe [sic]..." We should not stand for unfairness. Why even bring up the straw man of the "little people" unless you do not have any sound arguments to make? Equality before the law. If you weasel your way around that principle, then let's reinstate the king; quit the charade of a free democratic process.

I suspect many of the players are guilty and I too want baseball cleaned up. But I don't want to send a bunch of innocents to the electric chair in the process. That is a moral decision we all have to live with too--our congressional representatives included.

Ol' No. 2
03-10-2005, 02:59 PM
The issue isn't this black and white...too bad people are willing to compromise hard fought liberties such as due process in order to smooth the world over as if everything can fit into an either/or proposition. Life is not this simple and if it was your life on the line, you'd certainly want due process.

Your retort is full of informal logical fallacies. Being 'public figures' does not negate their inalienable rights as citizens of this country. The stench of McCarthyism is getting stronger.

You are right, we all make these decisions. But we don't all get tried without hard evidence in the court of public opinion. This is simply un-democratic. But then again, why bother with adhering to the system if it doesn't get me my way, right. Somebody has got to pay!

How much money, how much fame, etc., should not matter in metering out the law. "As unfair as it maybe [sic]..." We should not stand for unfairness. Why even bring up the straw man of the "little people" unless you do not have any sound arguments to make? Equality before the law. If you weasel your way around that principle, then let's reinstate the king; quit the charade of a free democratic process.

I suspect many of the players are guilty and I too want baseball cleaned up. But I don't want to send a bunch of innocents to the electric chair in the process. That is a moral decision we all have to live with too--our congressional representatives included.Due process has it's roots in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution:

1) The Fifth Amendment states: "No person shall be . . . deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." (applies to the federal government)

2) The Fourteenth Amendment provides: "No State shall . . . deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." (applies to the states)

It's generally held to be applicable to criminal proceedings (deprived of life or liberty) or seizures (deprived of property). None of these guys are going to jail or are going to have any property taken away as a result of these hearings. Due process does not apply to having to admit publicly that you've lied and cheated. Maybe one of the lawyers can elaborate.

Spicoli
03-10-2005, 04:16 PM
Due process has it's roots in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution:

1) The Fifth Amendment states: "No person shall be . . . deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." (applies to the federal government)

2) The Fourteenth Amendment provides: "No State shall . . . deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law." (applies to the states)

It's generally held to be applicable to criminal proceedings (deprived of life or liberty) or seizures (deprived of property). None of these guys are going to jail or are going to have any property taken away as a result of these hearings. Due process does not apply to having to admit publicly that you've lied and cheated. Maybe one of the lawyers can elaborate.

Good point except that precisely because they are public figures and their livelihoods (i.e., the personalities) are their 'property,' I think due process should protect them, no? This is why we have slander laws I believe. Thier mere association with these trials, much like the McCarthy era trials, could ruin their livelihoods. They could loose out on endorsements, etc., which is a seizure of assets. But not being a lawyer, I might be mistaken. I am just examining the philosophical underpinnings of the Constitution which these proceedings seemingly contradict. Thanks for your thoughtful reposnse No. 2!

ma_deuce
03-10-2005, 04:26 PM
:prozac
Everyone calm down. This isn't McCarthyism. Its a hearing on steroids (of which the purchase or possession of is illegal in many states) use in Baseball. No one is getting condemned or blacklisted because of their beliefs.

In addition, no one is having their rights violated by being subpoenaed. You have the right to refuse to answer any question before the Congress as per the Fifth Amendment (ie. "pleading the Fifth"). However, the Congress can choose to grant you immunity and then you could not take refuge behind the Fifth Amendment. You would have to answer, or face possible contempt.

PaleHoseGeorge
03-10-2005, 05:45 PM
In addition, no one is having their rights violated by being subpoenaed. You have the right to refuse to answer any question before the Congress as per the Fifth Amendment (ie. "pleading the Fifth"). However, the Congress can choose to grant you immunity and then you could not take refuge behind the Fifth Amendment. You would have to answer, or face possible contempt.

Thank you for bringing some sanity back to this thread.
:thumbsup:

If the people running MLB had any brains they would be THANKING GOD that Congress has chosen to "investigate" this steroids issue. Any and all dirt Congress uncovers can be disclosed without penalty simply by getting immunity. It's like a "get out of jail free" card! It's a much better deal for the owners and players than anything that the grand jury might dig up. People are going to jail over there.

Hell, the more they admit to Congress, the less the grand jury can ever prosecute the ballplayers and owners for. So naturally MLB will keep stonewalling and get themselves into even more trouble when the grand jury inevitably corners them in their lies and half-truths. "Yeah, let's fight the legality of a congressional inquiry... that's the winning ticket!"
:kukoo:

Idiots... absolute idiots...

:tool
"Right now I wish I was back in Milwaukee selling used cars!"

The Racehorse
03-10-2005, 08:53 PM
The issue isn't this black and white...too bad people are willing to compromise hard fought liberties such as due process in order to smooth the world over as if everything can fit into an either/or proposition. Life is not this simple and if it was your life on the line, you'd certainly want due process.

Your retort is full of informal logical fallacies. Being 'public figures' does not negate their inalienable rights as citizens of this country. The stench of McCarthyism is getting stronger.

You are right, we all make these decisions. But we don't all get tried without hard evidence in the court of public opinion. This is simply un-democratic. But then again, why bother with adhering to the system if it doesn't get me my way, right. Somebody has got to pay!

How much money, how much fame, etc., should not matter in metering out the law. "As unfair as it maybe [sic]..." We should not stand for unfairness. Why even bring up the straw man of the "little people" unless you do not have any sound arguments to make? Equality before the law. If you weasel your way around that principle, then let's reinstate the king; quit the charade of a free democratic process.

I suspect many of the players are guilty and I too want baseball cleaned up. But I don't want to send a bunch of innocents to the electric chair in the process. That is a moral decision we all have to live with too--our congressional representatives included.

Hey, you just called me a compromising-fallacy driven, stinky weasel. Flattery will get you nowhere. :wink:


I’m about as far away from an advocate of McCarthyism as there ever was. I’m advocating Apathy-ism. That’s right, I am guilty of apathy-ism spiked with glee when the situation involves the establishments consisting of old rich white guys battling over the interpretation of rules that they both squeegeed & wrung-out prior to writing them. I’m not the one with the army of lawyers looking for loopholes, as Selig & Fehr are doing, to keep the players from answering the subpoenas. But I’m the one weaseling around the law? LOL!

You’ll probably mistake my response as typical class-warfare. Let me help you. It’s arrogance-warfare, pure & simple. The arrogance that players think they are not subject to federal law. The arrogance of the players union for turning every legal sleeve inside out, protecting MLB players from federal jurisdiction [in general, NOT the hearings on the 17th... well, that too], and the arrogance of Bud Selig & his cronies for thinking they wear glass slippers and can do whatever they please.

BTW, this huge mess only involves steroids. Just wait for the day when the stuffy shirts on Capitol Hill realize that the ephedra genie is out of the bottle, running loose in clubhouses for a hell of allot longer than ‘roids ever did!

StillMissOzzie
03-11-2005, 09:33 PM
Sorry that I don't have the link, but I just heard on ESPN's Sportcenter that Congress isn't just inviting the Canseco and Co. to testify, but is going to subpoena them so that they have to testify under oath.

Discuss.

I've just read that Canseco has asked for immunity, and has been told that he probably will NOT get it. I predict the MLB players subpoened will subject us all to a blizzard of new and different ways of utilizing their 5th Amendment rights.

:shammy
"Under de advi of my agent...uh, lawyer, I respefully plea de 5th-an I'm not even a citizen of the USA! I swear, they was only Flinstone vitamins!"

SMO
:gulp:

Ol' No. 2
03-11-2005, 09:39 PM
I've just read that Canseco has asked for immunity, and has been told that he probably will NOT get it. I predict the MLB players subpoened will subject us all to a blizzard of new and different ways of utilizing their 5th Amendment rights.

:shammy
"Under de advi of my agent...uh, lawyer, I respefully plea de 5th-an I'm not even a citizen of the USA! I swear, they was only Flinstone vitamins!"

SMO
:gulp:Why would Canseco need immunity? Is there anything he could say that's not already in his book?:?:

ma_deuce
03-14-2005, 10:07 AM
Why would Canseco need immunity? Is there anything he could say that's not already in his book?:?:

There is a huge difference between saying something in a book and saying it under oath. Lying in a book may get you sued (libel is not easy to prove), but lying to the Congress will get you jailtime.

Deuce

Ol' No. 2
03-14-2005, 11:38 AM
There is a huge difference between saying something in a book and saying it under oath. Lying in a book may get you sued (libel is not easy to prove), but lying to the Congress will get you jailtime.

DeuceImmunity doesn't shield you from perjury.

ma_deuce
03-14-2005, 12:04 PM
Immunity doesn't shield you from perjury.

If you have immunity, there is no reason to lie. By saying that he assisted others in getting steriods, he could very well be implicated himself in a conspiracy to distribute illegal substances by his own testimony.

If he wrote about helping others acquire illegal substances in his book, he can always say that he lied and the only recourse is a libel suit. If he says the same thing under oath, he has no out. He is either 1) telling the truth and implicating himself in the conspiracy or 2) lying and admitting to perjury. That is why he needs immunity. With it, telling the truth is your best option as a lie will 1) get you charged with perjury and 2) cancel out the immunity.

Deuce

maurice
03-14-2005, 01:29 PM
There is a huge difference between saying something in a book and saying it under oath. Lying in a book may get you sued (libel is not easy to prove), but lying to the Congress will get you jailtime.

There's very little difference if he's telling the truth. Admitting to illegal drug use in a book or under oath can get you jail time, if there's a prosecutor willing to indict.

"I was lying when I repeatedly admitted to criminal conduct" is not a very persuasive defense.

Ol' No. 2
03-14-2005, 01:51 PM
There's very little difference if he's telling the truth. Admitting to illegal drug use in a book or under oath can get you jail time, if there's a prosecutor willing to indict.

"I was lying when I repeatedly admitted to criminal conduct" is not a very persuasive defense.Moreover, even if you have immunity from the use of your own statements, it's not that hard for a prosecutor to get around. If Canseco says "I injected Joe Blow 5 times", that statement can't be used. But the prosecutor can get Joe Blow and threaten him with prosecution unless he rolls over on Canseco. Immunity also prevents that if the prosecutor has no other source to tie Canseco to Joe Blow, but if it's in the book, all bets are off.

maurice
03-14-2005, 02:17 PM
Canseco's statements at the hearing probably are not admissible against "Joe Blow," unless Canseco actually testifies at Joe Blow' trial.

Ol' No. 2
03-14-2005, 02:29 PM
Canseco's statements at the hearing probably are not admissible against "Joe Blow," unless Canseco actually testifies at Joe Blow' trial.But Canseco could be subpoenaed to testify at Joe Blow's trial. Besides, they just need enough of a credible threat against Joe Blow to get him to roll over on Canseco. Once guys start going down, it's just a case of convincing him that it's a race to see who rolls on who first. I've watched enough courtroom TV shows to know how this works.:cool:

ma_deuce
03-14-2005, 02:33 PM
There's very little difference if he's telling the truth. Admitting to illegal drug use in a book or under oath can get you jail time, if there's a prosecutor willing to indict.

"I was lying when I repeatedly admitted to criminal conduct" is not a very persuasive defense.

I never said it was a good defense, but it is a defense. Jose is not a very honest person and his accusations are inherently suspect. More over, we are talking about a moron here.

:canseco

"Deuce call Jose moron! Jose smash!!!"

ma_deuce
03-14-2005, 02:34 PM
:tomatoaward

Did someone order a tomato?

maurice
03-14-2005, 02:35 PM
. . . which brings us back to my earlier point: Canseco is already vulnerable "if there's a prosecutor willing to indict."

maurice
03-14-2005, 02:38 PM
I never said it was a good defense, but it is a defense. Jose is not a very honest person and his accusations are inherently suspect.

Ah, now I see where you're coming from. You'd have him take the stand and testify in his own defense that he was lying in the book and everybody should believe his testimony that he was lying because everybody knows that he's not a very honest person. Got it.
:rolleyes:

Ol' No. 2
03-14-2005, 02:41 PM
. . . which brings us back to my earlier point: Canseco is already vulnerable "if there's a prosecutor willing to indict."I doubt very much that any prosecutor anywhere is going to be interested in indicting a ballplayer for taking steroids. What would be the point? Even if they got a conviction, jail time would be unlikely. Most prosecutor staffs are stretched to the limit, and they're not going to want to waste time on symbolic convictions. Even in the BALCO case, they're interested in the BALCO people and not the athletes involved.

maurice
03-14-2005, 02:45 PM
Even in the BALCO case, they're interested in the BALCO people and not the athletes involved.

Right. There's much more to gain by prosecuting the drug dealers than the individual users. OTOH, if the growing evidence shows that certain players were supplying drugs to fellow players, that makes them dealers too.

NUCatsFan
03-15-2005, 02:53 AM
Looks like Frank's lawyers (who also represent Giambi and Palmeiro) are trying to get the subpoenas withdrawn. Apparently, they are arguing that it will affect his recovery from injury which is legit (or, seems legit, at least). The other two have other excuses.

Link to ESPN.com (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2012840)

(just wanted to post this so that you're not misled by hearing the sports news....it doesn't appear that Frank is unwilling to testify)

Deadguy
03-15-2005, 09:32 AM
Looks like Frank's lawyers (who also represent Giambi and Palmeiro) are trying to get the subpoenas withdrawn. Apparently, they are arguing that it will affect his recovery from injury which is legit (or, seems legit, at least). The other two have other excuses.

Link to ESPN.com (http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2012840)

(just wanted to post this so that you're not misled by hearing the sports news....it doesn't appear that Frank is unwilling to testify)

What happened to the option of Thomas doing the deposition in Arizona, via satellite, so he wouldn't have to make the trip? Thomas seemed eager to do that, and even willing to deal with the hastle of going to Washington.