Sammy Sosa told by Congress let you go but not Roger Clemens

championMan · May 27, 2010

http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd ... d=10488140
Government will not have the Justice Department look into whether Sosa lied when he said, "I have never taken illegal performance-enhancing drugs" during a March 2005 hearing before Congress.

I am not saying this is a White or Black issue. But I do find this case interesting. A guy with a POSITIVE test of taking illegal PED is not investigated. Someone like Roger Clemens with no positive test being investigate for perjury.

ChasHawk · May 27, 2010

When did Sosa have a positive test?

Btw: Sosa is hispanic.

Sly · May 27, 2010

chashawk said:
When did Sosa have a positive test?

Btw: Sosa is hispanic.

Yeah, I don't recall a positive test either.

On top of that, has a trainer or someone come out and said "I have proof against Sosa"?? No.

It's all about the fact that there is a legitimate case against Clemens and there is not one against Sosa.

All The Hype · May 27, 2010

Sly said:
chashawk said:

When did Sosa have a positive test?

Btw: Sosa is hispanic.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I don't recall a positive test either.

On top of that, has a trainer or someone come out and said "I have proof against Sosa"?? No.

It's all about the fact that there is a legitimate case against Clemens and there is not one against Sosa.

Exactly. And no, there has not been a positive test against Sammy Sosa.

championMan · May 27, 2010

Don't know how you guy missed it. So to not link unreliable news links I gave U NY Times one of the most respectable news source in America.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/17/sport ... .html?_r=1

matfanofold · May 27, 2010

championMan said:
Don't know how you guy missed it. So to not link unreliable news links I gave U NY Times one of the most respectable news source in America.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/17/sport ... .html?_r=1

Just so you do not look foolish, you do know that is not proof of anything, yes?

Sosa "Is Said" to Have Tested Positive in 2003

Sly · May 27, 2010

championMan said:
Don't know how you guy missed it. So to not link unreliable news links I gave U NY Times one of the most respectable news source in America.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/17/sport ... .html?_r=1

Unfortunately something like that is probably not solid evidence in court, especially if the union is filing a grievance that the tests were "seized illegally." Additionally you have a couple guys who were not willing to be named (therefore probably wouldn't testify) and that they "did not know the substance for which Sosa tested positive..."

I really don't imagine something like that would hold up in court.

At the end of the day, test or no test, I don't think many would argue that Sosa probably did take steroids. But the evidence against him just isn't there, as opposed to it being there for Clemens.

maxpower · May 27, 2010

championMan said:
http://mlb.mlb.com/news/article.jsp?ymd=20100527&content_id=10488140
Government will not have the Justice Department look into whether Sosa lied when he said, "I have never taken illegal performance-enhancing drugs" during a March 2005 hearing before Congress.

I am not saying this is a White or Black issue. But I do find this case interesting. A guy with a POSITIVE test of taking illegal PED is not investigated. Someone like Roger Clemens with no positive test being investigate for perjury.

Playing the race card goes both ways. "I am not saying this is a White or Black issue"? Actually, that's exactly what you're saying.

First, you're just flat out wrong about the PED test. Second, what about Barry Bonds? You just conveniently forget that he was CHARGED with perjury?

I'm not saying you're a moron, but I do find your post interesting.

All The Hype · May 27, 2010

Sly said:
championMan said:

Don't know how you guy missed it. So to not link unreliable news links I gave U NY Times one of the most respectable news source in America.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/17/sport ... .html?_r=1

Click to expand...

Unfortunately something like that is probably not solid evidence in court, especially if the union is filing a grievance that the tests were "seized illegally." Additionally you have a couple guys who were not willing to be named (therefore probably wouldn't testify) and that they "did not know the substance for which Sosa tested positive..."

I really don't imagine something like that would hold up in court.

At the end of the day, test or no test, I don't think many would argue that Sosa probably did take steroids. But the evidence against him just isn't there, as opposed to it being there for Clemens.

I didn't read the entire article, but there have to be some legality issues with the way the anonymous test results were seized and revealed. Guys take a test thinking the results will not be publicized and then they are taken and used against them?

pigskincardboard · May 27, 2010

If Clemens wasn't such a brash jagoff, he wouldn't have a problem right now.

bowmanchromeandorr · May 27, 2010

sosa, big mac, palmiero, bonds, clemens (unfortunately) along with a lot more have juiced. i remember whne canseco came out with his first book, i thought he was just getting back at baseball/ we look at his book now as the humble beginnings of tring to clean up baseball. the union needs to "man up" and get testing more stringent, either that or make roids legal in baseball so it wont matter anymore... just my 2 cents.. and to the OP: its not a black and white thing (or hispanic in this case), it is a proof thing. if mcnamee ends up lying out his ass, then clemens will be standing there with his hand out like vito corleone waiting for everyone to kiss his ring then lining up behind him to kiss his heiny....

Bonds73 · May 27, 2010

The question that I have always had about the events of March 17, 2005 has always been how the players that were questioned were selected. I am not trying to imply that any of these players I am suggesting are/were guilty of anything, but:

1 - Why Sammy Sosa, and not say Juan Gonzalez?
2 - Why Curt Schilling, and not say Mike Mussina?
3 - Why Mark McGwire, and not say Eddie Murray?

What would have been the legal ramifications for the players selected had they not testified, and just what legal jurisdiction did the Senate have over the entire matter?

donrusscrusademan · May 27, 2010

Sosa painted white-out on his face a while back so he could be seen innocent.

maxpower · May 27, 2010

championMan said:
Don't know how you guy missed it. So to not link unreliable news links I gave U NY Times one of the most respectable news source in America.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/06/17/sport ... .html?_r=1

A couple problems with this source.

First, Sosa is 'reported' to be on the list. There has been no confirmation. But I give you that he probably is on the list and did take steroids.

That leaves open the question of perjury. Sosa may very well have skirted the line between truth and fiction when he said that he hadn't taken "illegal performance enhancing substances" because they likely weren't illegal where they were taken.

I'm willing to bet that that the government lawyers took a very close look at this and would definitely have made a run at Sosa if they thought they could win. This would be exactly the type of high profile, low political cost prosecution that an AUSA would love to bring.

andyduke86 · May 27, 2010

Glad to see the government is focused on going after real problems like Roger Clemens and steroids in baseball ::facepalm::

js0000001 · May 27, 2010

Congress has special authority over baseball as a reult of there exemption from anti-trust laws.

Legal monopoly as a result of MLB being declared a national treasure.

andyduke86 said:
Glad to see the government is focused on going after real problems like Roger Clemens and steroids in baseball ::facepalm::

200lbhockeyplayer · May 27, 2010

Race? Come on guys...read further.

The statute of limitations made it impossible for them to chase perjury charges on Sosa. The limit was March so for the government saying that they will not pursue these charges against Sosa is simply their way of saying that they cannot legally pursue charges even if they wanted to.

Not sure why this was even made a story.

braden · May 27, 2010

I hate when cops pull me over for being white.

ChasHawk · May 27, 2010

braden said:
I hate when cops pull me over for being white.

[youtube:2a1ni4ea]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=34u_3Z9_LUw[/youtube:2a1ni4ea]

sportscardtheory · May 27, 2010

Sammy Sosa was on the same failed-test list as Alex Rodriguez. Why is that hard for some people to believe. Like 200lb said, the only reason they aren't pursuing Sosa for perjury is the statute of limitations has passed (5 years). Roger Clemens perjured himself in 2008. People really need to educate themselves on the situation before commenting.

Welcome to our community

Be apart of something great, join today!

Sammy Sosa told by Congress let you go but not Roger Clemens

Member

New member

Active member

Active member

Member

Active member

Active member

New member

Active member

New member

New member

Member

New member

New member

New member

New member

Active member

New member

New member

Active member

Similar threads

Log in