Posted By:
davidcyclebackDefine due process. Would that involve inviting each player and his lawyer in to review the evidence and to be able to comment and provide any counter evidence? Argue all one wants about Mitchell, but he was was asked by both the rival Irish and British to serve an impartial outside mediator between in Northern Ireland. If the Protestants and and Catholics of Northern Ireland can agree that Mitchell is a trustworthy and fair person, I find it hard to believe Mitchell wouldn't have seriously listen to and reported on both sides of the story if the ball players chose to participate. There's little doubt Mitchell asked players and the union to participate because he hoped they would
It should be noted that the Union's stated position is that the report shouldn't report a name of a player who didn't participate in the process. Mitchel said that policy would mean that all a guilty player had to do to not have his name reported would be to not participate, and, he added, all of these players chose not to participate.
If the complaint is that the report "includes only one side of the story," now who's fault would that be? If a player waives his due process rights, that means due process was available. If choosing to not exercise one's due process rights was sufficient to end a legal proceeding, there would be no one in prison.
Of course, the Mitchell report was not a courtroom legal proceeding (Nor did I say it was. It is not only courts that have due processes. Dog shows, spelling bees, NFL football games and eBay disputes all have their own due processes). Part of Mitchell's due process was to not only allow, but to encourage, players and their lawyers to participate. The players and their lawyers chose not to.
12-15-2007, 05:22 PM
For the Record: On how long steroids have been banned in MLB (since 1971)
Similar Threads
Linear Mode
