Author Topic: Visual Evidence  (Read 3062 times)

Holly

  • Should Have Quit 500 Posts Ago
  • Posts: 1394
    • View Profile
    • The Dutton Family
Visual Evidence
« on: December 13, 2007, 04:37:00 pm »
Don't put the baby in the bulldozer.

OldBlevins

  • Prime Time Player
  • Posts: 633
    • View Profile
Re: Visual Evidence
« Reply #1 on: December 13, 2007, 05:06:14 pm »
blah, blah, blah . . .

headhunter

  • Veteran Role Player
  • Posts: 336
    • View Profile
Re: Visual Evidence
« Reply #2 on: December 13, 2007, 05:16:46 pm »
You would think they'd have paid in cash.

my thoughts exactly. never knew a dealer who would take a check.

Here's how it works--the check is for the training, the drugs were a lost leader.
my probation officer is real proud of me
I drive an Olds 88 got the devil on a leash...
I'm going out West...

toddthebod

  • Key Member of the Conspiracy
  • Posts: 3385
    • View Profile
Re: Visual Evidence
« Reply #3 on: December 14, 2007, 01:44:25 am »
You want to know why these guys wrote checks?  Because they wanted to take the tax deduction.  If you a professional athlete, you can deduct the money that you pay to your personal training as a business expense.  So these fucking millionaires created the most ridiculous paper trails in order to save a couple of bucks on their taxes.  Maroons.
Boom!

Arky Vaughan

  • Administrator
  • Pope
  • Posts: 6335
    • View Profile
Re: Visual Evidence
« Reply #4 on: December 14, 2007, 03:05:30 am »
Would taking a tax deduction on purchasing illicit substances constitute tax fraud?

Albino Rhino

  • Clark
  • Posts: 12
    • View Profile
Re: Visual Evidence
« Reply #5 on: December 14, 2007, 06:07:14 am »
Quote
Would taking a tax deduction on purchasing illicit substances constitute tax fraud?

Belicheck's fine for his little adventure in rule-breaking is tax deductible. 

http://blogs.wsj.com/law/2007/09/17/tax-profs-bill-belichick-can-deduct-his-500000-fine/

So the argument could be made that this would be the same.  Then again, taping is against the rules, not illegal; purchasing illicit substances is illegal, so I'd guess that it is tax fraud. 

Dobro

  • Prime Time Player
  • Posts: 647
  • Triple Pope
    • View Profile
Re: Visual Evidence
« Reply #6 on: December 14, 2007, 09:27:18 am »
Where's the evidence that these funds were for steroids?  I write a check just like this to my personal trainer every month.
Lighten up, Francis.

Bench

  • Illuminati
  • Posts: 16476
    • View Profile
Re: Visual Evidence
« Reply #7 on: December 14, 2007, 09:41:56 am »
Where's the evidence that these funds were for steroids?  I write a check just like this to my personal trainer every month.

The evidence is the personal trainer saying that's what the checks were written for.
"Holy shit, Mozart. Get me off this fucking thing."

Dobro

  • Prime Time Player
  • Posts: 647
  • Triple Pope
    • View Profile
Re: Visual Evidence
« Reply #8 on: December 14, 2007, 09:50:41 am »
The evidence is the personal trainer saying that's what the checks were written for.

In other words, there is no evidence.
Lighten up, Francis.

Bench

  • Illuminati
  • Posts: 16476
    • View Profile
Re: Visual Evidence
« Reply #9 on: December 14, 2007, 09:55:04 am »
In other words, there is no evidence.

No, it's evidence. Determing whether or not it is reliable evidence is up to you.
"Holy shit, Mozart. Get me off this fucking thing."

VirtualBob

  • Pope
  • Posts: 5630
    • View Profile
Re: Visual Evidence
« Reply #10 on: December 14, 2007, 09:56:48 am »
No, it's evidence. Determing whether or not it is reliable evidence is up to you.

Exactly.  And "reliable" includes some questioning of the motives of the source (not implying that all sources suffer from bad motives, but the question should be asked) and also includes having more than one independent source.
Up in the Air

Fredia

  • Pope
  • Posts: 6896
  • Looking forward
    • View Profile
Re: Visual Evidence
« Reply #11 on: December 14, 2007, 10:31:17 am »
Exactly.  And "reliable" includes some questioning of the motives of the source (not implying that all sources suffer from bad motives, but the question should be asked) and also includes having more than one independent source.
the eveidence is in the body of the players . can u supeona that
forever is composed entirely of nows

Bench

  • Illuminati
  • Posts: 16476
    • View Profile
Re: Visual Evidence
« Reply #12 on: December 14, 2007, 10:47:31 am »
Exactly.  And "reliable" includes some questioning of the motives of the source (not implying that all sources suffer from bad motives, but the question should be asked) and also includes having more than one independent source.

Absolutely. And don't forget the levels of evidence. Guys like Brian Roberts (Larry Bigbie told me that Brian Roberts told him that he might have used steriods once or twice) are getting lumped in with guys like Clemens (I personally injected what I was told were steroids and were labelled as such into his ass).
"Holy shit, Mozart. Get me off this fucking thing."

Noe

  • Guest
Re: Visual Evidence
« Reply #13 on: December 14, 2007, 10:57:27 am »
Absolutely. And don't forget the levels of evidence. Guys like Brian Roberts (Larry Bigbie told me that Brian Roberts told him that he might have used steriods once or twice) are getting lumped in with guys like Clemens (I personally injected what I was told were steroids and were labelled as such into his ass).

I heard Bob Costas elloquently wax on poetically about this very thing.  The indictment of all players based on the reaction to the report is broad-brush and never the intention of the report at all.  At one point, Costas came really close to saying that the media, more than *anybody* else has been the ones who have created the importance behind steroids in baseball.  I agree to a degree with Costas, but the reality is that the law makers we sent to congress made this a front burner issue (whether it should be to this degree or not is debateable).  The media has only taken up where the Congressmen have left off.

It's a great story, full of felony offense, drug trafficing, shady characters, senate hearings, families testifying about the evil that ruined their home, some doctors talking about steriods as if it's equal to the black plague, et. al.  Can we blame the media that in today's reality show entertainment audience, that this plays well and even better than the game itself.  Fans are losing interest in the game more and more and the focus is now the peripheral.  The media just follows the story that sells.  I'm not unsympathetic towards those who feel hurt because their baseball idols are indicted and certainly not near the attitude of Barkley ("We're not role models.  You parents are the role models, don't let some athletes raise your kids!"), but not far away from it either.

Somewhere, sanity reigns in all this and rational conversations can be had about the subject and the proper perspective can come about.  Until then, guys like Brian Roberts... guilty as charged.  It's like that old Twilight Zone episode where aliens just made some lights blink on and off and then sat back and watched the hysteria of the neighborhood take over and the humans all destroyed each other.
« Last Edit: December 14, 2007, 11:06:53 am by Noe in Austin »

HudsonHawk

  • Administrator
  • High Order of the Ferret
  • *****
  • Posts: 42689
  • Gentleman About Town
    • View Profile
Re: Visual Evidence
« Reply #14 on: December 14, 2007, 11:48:47 am »
Would taking a tax deduction on purchasing illicit substances constitute tax fraud?


It would be virtually impossible to prove that the check was for illegal drugs and not for personal training.  Furthermore, the report said, at least in one spot, that Clemens supplied the drugs and needles himself.  I suppose the IRS could challenge it, and yes, lying about your deductions is tax fraud, but I seriously doubt there's anyway to make that stick.
The rules of distinction were thrown out with the baseball cap.  It does not lend itself to protocol.  It is found today on youth in homes, classrooms, even in fine restaurants.  Regardless of its other consequences, this is a breach against civility.  A civilized man should avoid this mania.

pravata

  • Guest
Re: Visual Evidence
« Reply #15 on: December 14, 2007, 11:54:57 am »
You would think they'd have paid in cash.

Kevin Brown was thinking,

"Mr. Radomski telling investigators that he once found on his porch a wet delivery package filled with $8,000 in cash from Kevin Brown,"

Fredia

  • Pope
  • Posts: 6896
  • Looking forward
    • View Profile
Re: Visual Evidence
« Reply #16 on: December 14, 2007, 03:35:26 pm »
Kevin Brown was thinking,

"Mr. Radomski telling investigators that he once found on his porch a wet delivery package filled with $8,000 in cash from Kevin Brown,"
unless it had exploding pine tar in it or was covered with sticky tape with finger prints on it .. that would not be the smoking gun needed.. it was so much more convenitent to just have checks to produce.. wonder what boras is thinking bout all this and the money he can get for future clients and therefore himself
forever is composed entirely of nows