MLB - The Mitchell Report

[Blaster86]

I'd need to see the cheque to judge.

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by Blaster86

I'd need to see the cheque to judge.

Page 228 (of adobe) of the Mitchell Report.

http://files.mlb.com/mitchrpt.pdf

Dunno if that answers anything, because it appears to be the worst photocopy job in the history of man kind.

[Sylvanfan]

Well the cheque doesn't show up very clearly. Sounds like a pretty weak excuse to me though. You make a friendly bet with your buddy and give him a blank cheque? I don't buy it. The fact that two parties would finger a guy like Zuan who's a journeyman player at best seems a bit fishy too. Really why would multiple sources randomly pick a player like that to accuse?

[Flames in 07]

Pretty weak. And same as Clemens, if my name was being dragged through the mud, and it was untrue, I'd be foaming at the mouth waiting to get in front of a microphone to talk about why the allegations are not true. Clemens took about a week and a half, and Zaun has taken about 2 months.

[metallicat]

Why are these guys lying about their pasts? I really don't get it. Baseball isn't going to ban them based on past drug use are they? And with Clemens, he's now facing prison time because of his obvious lies. What is wrong with their lawyers?

[Blaster86]

Originally Posted by Flames in 07

Pretty weak. And same as Clemens, if my name was being dragged through the mud, and it was untrue, I'd be foaming at the mouth waiting to get in front of a microphone to talk about why the allegations are not true. Clemens took about a week and a half, and Zaun has taken about 2 months.

Well he is right. The cheque was two different styles of writing, from what I can tell (small loops to big loops. Usually the way someone handwrites is how their signature ends up).

Perhaps he took the attitude of "It's not true, so why justify it with a response." Quickly jumping to sue for slander isn't exactly a proving sign you're innocent.

[Flames in 07]

Originally Posted by Blaster86

Well he is right. The cheque was two different styles of writing, from what I can tell (small loops to big loops. Usually the way someone handwrites is how their signature ends up).

Perhaps he took the attitude of "It's not true, so why justify it with a response." Quickly jumping to sue for slander isn't exactly a proving sign you're innocent.

Two styles of writing doesn't prove much. The dealer may have just filled in his own name.

I just can't picture hearing my name in the report then as a response sit there and do nothing.

[CaramonLS]

Originally Posted by Blaster86

Perhaps he took the attitude of "It's not true, so why justify it with a response." Quickly jumping to sue for slander isn't exactly a proving sign you're innocent.

This isn't some school yard "haha you're gay" comment that was made by someone that you can shove under the rug because of the idiocy, this was a freaking senate report.