Roberts Comes Clean

[Flip217]

Please elaborate. I was always under the impression that a court would never allow something like the following.

Prosecutor: So did you ever witness Brian Roberts purchase or use steroids?

Bigbie: No, but he told me that he used them once or twice.

Defense Attorney: Objection your honor, hearsay.

Judge: Sustained.

I thought you could testify about what a person told you they did, but not what somebody said somebody else did. Like if Bigbie said, "No, but Raffy told me Brian used them once or twice," that would be hearsay.

[TGO]

TGO, ChaosEX, cindyluvsbrady,

Stop the trolling and rep wars please. Please stay on topic.

Respectfully, I haven't trolled anyone or given out any negative rep in this thread, and no one has neg repped me either. I posted one comment that I deleted ~10 seconds after I posted it because I decided it wasn't my business and I didn't know what really happened.

My post about ChaosLex's "joke" was perfectly on topic.

[bgfield]

Comin into this thread late, looks like I'd better put on some protective gear first

Roberts is a classy guy. If he says he took steroids only once, I'll believe it. He's done enough outside of baseball to make me believe that he's a damn good person and he's earned himself the kind of reputation that would lead me to believe what he says on the subject. That said, he's never been a huge guy anyway, so it's hard to believe he ever took steroids on a regular basis.

Kudos to him for coming clean like this. Just reaffirms why he's my favorite O.

[33rd&Ellerslie]

I almost wish that we had another guys that was as flimsily named in the report as Roberts was but isn't as well-adored and he also came out and said he had only used once several years ago.

I think people are much more forgiving and beleiving of Roberts than they would be of, oh lets say Corey Patterson or Chad Bradford. Thats not neccesarily wrong, just interesting.

It is interesting, Mackus, however forgiveness is something I pretty much hand out like candy. I think I have said many times before that I wake up every day knowing that I am not going to make it through the day without needing forgiveness of others and it would be just shameful of me to not be as giving of it as I am needing of it.

Believing is something else. I will be honest and say I believe Brian because I have formed a general opinion of his character and I find him to be a kind and caring man. I don't know how I would react had it been Corey Patterson or Chad Bradford or anyone else for that matter but I would like to think I would be as fair in my judgement of them as I am with Brian Roberts.

[Gurgi]

I really would like to believe Brian when he states that he only did steroids once. However, I can’t help but think back to March 2005 and a finger-shaking Rafael Palmeiro to see how untrustworthy baseball players are when it comes to “refuting” PED use. I can’t help to look back to August 2005 and all the hypocritical statements from Jay Gibbons about Palmeiro’s positive test result.

I no longer believe any of them.

Witchy

I have already been there. Folks have slammed me a year ago for having steriods on the brain. I just dont think the players deserve the benifit of the doubt. We have been lied to tooo much already. Im not an ostrich and I refuse to put my head in the sand.

[McLovin]

Respectfully, I haven't trolled anyone or given out any negative rep in this thread, and no one has neg repped me either. I posted one comment that I deleted ~10 seconds after I posted it because I decided it wasn't my business and I didn't know what really happened.

My post about ChaosLex's "joke" was perfectly on topic.

You're right, apologies, I just glanced at the quotes in your post.

[Jagwar]

I thought you could testify about what a person told you they did, but not what somebody said somebody else did. Like if Bigbie said, "No, but Raffy told me Brian used them once or twice," that would be hearsay.

Right, definitely a difference between my example and yours. In mine, Bigbie would simply be saying "BRob told me this". In yours, Bigbie would be saying "Palmeiro told me that Brian told him this."

[Loupgaroo]

It was not hearsay, at least not according to any sort of legal definition.

I disagree.

"Carl Tobias, a professor at the University of Richmond Law School, said that the inclusion of Roberts based on Bigbie’s claim would raise many questions if the matter were part of a legal proceeding.

“Roberts’s naming is based on one person’s statement without any other corroboration or verification of its validity, and Bigbie was under pressure from federal authorities and wanted to avoid jail time,” he said. “If this was a proceeding playing out in the judicial system, there would be many questions raised about the validity and credibility of Bigbie’s statement about Roberts.” "

From: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/17/sports/baseball/17steroids.html?ex=1355547600&en=b02558fcf21fb7d0&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

[ChaosLex]

ChaosEX, cindyluvsbrady,

Stop the trolling and rep wars please. Please stay on topic.

Who is this ChaosEX?

Seriously though, my apologies. It won't happen again.

[Mackus]

Please elaborate. I was always under the impression that a court would never allow something like the following.

Prosecutor: So did you ever witness Brian Roberts purchase or use steroids?

Bigbie: No, but he told me that he used them once or twice.

Defense Attorney: Objection your honor, hearsay.

Judge: Sustained.

Here's what the lawyers had to say:

Admissible in court in this instance because the statement by Roberts, though being presented by another, has indicia of reliability because it is an admission of wrongdoing. Lawyer speak.

If he was a party opponent, it's admissible as an admission by a party opponent. It wouldn't matter that it was against his interest.

I'll say this for the last time: Roberts admitting the usage to Bigbie WAS PROOF.

If you want to say you don't believe Bigbie's statement on what he claims Roberts said, then fine. But don't keep acting like there is no evidence.

There were some more comments to the same effect, but I got bored with searching for them. The statements he made may actually count as being "hearsay" but even if they are, they still would be admissable as evidence based on the circumstances. It was all news to me too, but it sounds like all the lawyer-types here agree.

[TGO]

I disagree.

"Carl Tobias, a professor at the University of Richmond Law School, said that the inclusion of Roberts based on Bigbie’s claim would raise many questions if the matter were part of a legal proceeding.

“Roberts’s naming is based on one person’s statement without any other corroboration or verification of its validity, and Bigbie was under pressure from federal authorities and wanted to avoid jail time,” he said. “If this was a proceeding playing out in the judicial system, there would be many questions raised about the validity and credibility of Bigbie’s statement about Roberts.” "

From: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/17/sports/baseball/17steroids.html?ex=1355547600&en=b02558fcf21fb7d0&ei=5088&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

If this came up in court, it would be admitted but Roberts would have an opportunity to cross examine. That is what is troubling about it and where the credibility issues come in. The issue is not hearsay but whether Bigbie is a credible witness, and that Roberts cannot cross examine in the court of public opinion.

[Baroquen131]

I have mixed feelings about the whole thing.

I'm glad he came forward and said something - anything - as I find staying silent on an issue like this further portrays oneself in a negative way. And upon reading the article, the quotes attributed to Roberts come across as sincere and heartfelt, rather than a bunch of lawyer-approved, pre-fabricated soundbites and legalese.

That being said, I'm still disappointed in his decision. Sure, as he puts it, it was a time of weakness for him, and 2003 was before his career really took off. But he still chose to do it. Because everyone else was doing it? Because it could give him that edge? Who knows. But he did.

Also, this revelation did come after the fact. It obviously didn't hurt his conscience from 2003-2007. Now, only in these last four days has he experienced these pangs of regret? How coincidental?

Do I believe the "one time" part of his statement? I don't know. I'd like to, but there's no way to know for sure. And it's just sad. The whole situation is. I'm glad I don't have any small children who are worshipping these guys as heroes. Because that would be a tough explanation to try to make.

In the larger picture... life in general... he's still a great, charitable, giving person. It's just a bit of a shock that that image doesn't truly carry over onto the field. He's just like (most) everybody else. /shrug Like I said.. mixed emotions over all of it.

[Loupgaroo]

If this came up in court, it would be admitted but Roberts would have an opportunity to cross examine. That is what is troubling about it and where the credibility issues come in. The issue is not hearsay but whether Bigbie is a credible witness, and that Roberts cannot cross examine in the court of public opinion.

I think the issue is that this was the witch hunt part of the report. Mitchell had no documentation of any sort on Roberts; Bigbie could have simply listed any names he wanted, and they would have ended up in the report. It turns out that he was right about Roberts; so in a witch hunt you do end up getting a few actual witches. Doesn't justify the means.

[The Wedge]

I think the issue is that this was the witch hunt part of the report. Mitchell had no documentation of any sort on Roberts; Bigbie could have simply listed any names he wanted, and they would have ended up in the report. It turns out that he was right about Roberts; so in a witch hunt you do end up getting a few actual witches. Doesn't justify the means.

It wasn't a witch hunt. Don't lump the Mitchell Report in with Senator McCarthy dragging people before Congress and getting them blacklisted, etc.

The report existed to do just that. Report. Stop letting the fast food media make your decisions for you and dig a little deeper, man. All Mitchell did was report what he heard. If you read it, it comes across exactly like that: Bigbie said Roberts told him he used. Invited Roberts to speak about these allegations, he declined. Just a report. And as it turns out, it was true. But that doesn't change the fact that it was a report.

And your comment about naming anybody he wanted to doesn't hold water, because by all accounts, Mitchell left off MANY names that he felt weren't substantiated. Mitchell is a very careful man, and knows the law pretty well. He didn't put anybody's name on that list he wasn't comfortable with.

[Gurgi]

Anyone think anyone listed in the Mitchell report is innocent now? People misunderstand the innocent until proven guilty thing. That is just for a court of law. In real life we can judge the evidence and think and say what we want.

GUILTY!

By the way cant we use confessions as proof of guilt?