What kind of blows my mind is that it took him 16 days to check and make sure that no one had any kind of case against him.

If he was innocent, wouldn't he kind of know right away that no one had any evidence against him otherwise?

Just ask Raffy Palmeiro about how to claim innocence with style.

IF he was innocent he would KNOW that no one had any evidence against him??? and he would be stupid beyond belief to assume something like that.

cuz don't work like that. this is how things work -

they got evidence.
they think they can USE it against him. it don't matter to them if he REALLY did, because once they decide who they "like" they try to prove how they are right, not how he might could be innocent.

big difference.

all kinds of people use fake names for ALL kinds of things. so its gotta be proved that
1 - GMJ his own self is the one who ordered stuff (good luck on THAT one)
2 - GMJ actually used what he DID buy
3 - he used it AFTER mlb AND the players union said it was against mlb rules

That's what MLB has to prove. If the Feds can prove that it really was GMJ who ordered the stuff, isn't that enough to get him in some pretty serious legal trouble? Actually I've been wondering how this all works...was the act of ordering HGH via the Internet illegal in and of itself, meaning that whether he used it himself or not a guy could get in trouble just for having ordered? Does a person have to use or sell it to be in any legal trouble? Or does the list of customers only matter to the leagues the guys play in?

I don't think there will ever be any charges filed. Nor any punishment from MLB. But Matthews is already convicted in the court of public opinion and that's what counts most. The Angels are already an innocent vitim in that they can't market their 50 mil new acquisition and fans already angry at team management for squandering scarce resources. As always, winning might change that.

Matthews is perhaps also an innocent victim (less likely) but will need a very thick skin at home and away this season. Fortunately, he plays CF.

Josh,

The feds don't seem interested in going after users. I'm also not sure that HGH was banned in 2004, so there might not be much MLB can do unless they find more recent evidence.

"The feds don't seem interested in going after users."

That's what I thought. But it'll be interesting if they or MLB manage to do step 1. of Lisa's list but fail in the final two. Given the government's continued threats with regard to baseball and steroids, you have to wonder if there will be a push to make an example of GMJ if it becomes possible to prove that he purchased HGH, but not to show conclusively that he actually used it after the ban was in place.

If I were Matthews (or his lawyer), I'm take my time and make sure anything I claimed in a public denial wouldn't be contradicted later. Weeks/months/years from now, no one's going to remember or care that it took two weeks to issue a statement.

"But Matthews is already convicted in the court of public opinion and that's what counts most."

Yes, it does. And God bless the court of public opinion. MLB won't do anything unless forced, because it will hurt their bottom line.

If it were up to the armchair lawyers here (I'm talking to you, Lisa), we'd be awaiting a confession from him and all the other guys, like Bonds, who used. Unless you believe that garbage about someone else using his name. Who might that be? Some 16 year old high school wrestler? Don't ya think the investigators would have figured that out before going public if that were indeed the case, to, oh I don't know, avoid being embarrassed and perhaps getting sued???

Something tells me the steroid apologists are the same people saying there is no civil war in Iraq. Once again, the fans are left holding the bag here, as Gary the Cheater walks away with 50 mildo in his pocket. And you and I pay higher ticket prices, or Extra Innings prices, or prices for the products advertised by MLB, etc... But Lisa apparently won't feel bad about paying these prices, because she's seemingly convinced of their innocence...

1) I don't hold Matthews' silence against him. ANY lawyer would insist on it.

2) The evidence I've seen isn't enough for this member of the court of public opinion to convict him.

3) Under my understanding MLB didn't ban HGH at the time, and the catchall ban on illegal substances wouldn't seem to apply if Matthews had a prescription.

4) The truth about both MLB and the Union and the court of public opinion is that for the most part none of the cared about steroid / HGH use, and the owners actively turned a blind eye to it, and thats why the self-righteous reaction to those whose names become, almost randomly, public strikes many of us jurors as not worth the candle. Take effective prospective action sure, but leave the past lie.

5) Steroid use has extremely limited effect on ticket prices. Salaries have none.

5) There is at least one civil war in Iraq.

well rosie,

no i don't think anyone really bothered to PROVE that GMJ his own self actually ordered it. or USED it. because they don't HAVE to. you ever noticed there are NO libel suits in this country against the media? because you can NOT win one, that's why.

i'm real sorry that you believe absolutely ANYthing that gets reported about some person.

me, i want evidence. and i'm sorry you don't.

and far as i'm concerned, using any chemical that is not banned by MLB in the cba is not cheating. that is not apo0logizing, far as i'm concerned. and by the way, hgh is NOT a steroid.

if you wanna think it is that's your right.

The "feds" in this case are not DEA. They are the federal courts because it is an interstate case.

This is a New York prosecution (and apparently Rhode Island) of internet pharmacies.

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/news/story?id=2797864

The specific charge (doesn't apply to patients) is:
"part of a scheme to provide prescriptions over the Internet to clients who never actually met with the prescribing physicians."

This is because NY has a law (and assuredly other states have the same) that require face-to-face visits with physicians so drugs aren't prescribed to people's dogs and dead relatives. It was meant to stop dealers of pain killers and tranquilizers. Those who set the scheme up are in jeopardy (again, only maybe, because the physician was out of state and perhaps not subject to the same law), not the patients.

More than anything, this is grandstanding and busybodying by the Albany DA. If it were just a bunch of grannies in his district ordering the supposed fountain of youth, he wouldn't have given it a second thought. But, because of baseball, he can get his name all over the country.

Also, hGH was not banned in baseball in 2004. Matthews, if it was him who ordered it, had a prescription that very likely complied with the issuing state's (Florida) law. Bell said he had a prescription. Grimsley said he did. Segui said he did (and still does). Stallone certainly had one from one of the Hollywood clinics that has about 4000 patients. The doc's rationale is that the patient has low levels of hormone.

I think it's hilarious the uproar this is in baseball. March Madness is arriving and I wonder how many college basketball players have statures aided by hGH. These enhanced players are just arriving the past few years. I'm suspicious of any rich kid.

Anyone willing to GMJ word on this probably still believes the war in Iraq was about WMD and 9/11 .The fact that he could come out with this denial and not even to attempt to explain why he ordered the HGH, or come out and say he never ordered HGH, is proof his claim of not using HGH is bogus. PED's have become the issue it has become because those in the game, and those reporting on the game, all put their head in the sand and ignored it. GMJ is not getting a Pass from me and any other rational fan of the game. I believe the use of HGH may be far more prevalent than even steroids are or were, so every player in this era is tainted by suspicion. It does not prevent me from enjoying the game, it does prevent me from getting worked up about guys like Bonds, Palmeiro, etc, as they just had the misfortune to get caught. The system encourages players to use PED's, and there are obvious financial benefits to performing above your natural ability, so it is a slam dunk players will use it when there is little chance they will get caught, and when they do they know reporters are willing to give them the benefit of the doubt when they say they did not use it, they just ordered it.

I'm curious why people insist on referencing the war when discussing this matter.

Richard-
Maybe it has to do with the fact that much like the people that have supported and still support the war, PED apologists continue to keep their head in the sand about the realities of their rampant use and the negative effect it's had on the game (escalated salaries, expansion, etc.). And much like the vindication of people who were labeled "non patriotic" for questioning the mistaken decision to put the troops in harm's way, watching these juiced up players squirm while issuing up lawyered up non-denial denials gives people on that side of the debate some sense of vindication. This happens in spite of apologists acting as if they are legal counsel for people (all millionaires, btw...) who see it as beneath them to explain their actions to the American public with any shred of honesty.....Right, wrong, or otherwise, I think that's why analogies get drawn....

It is interesting Rosie - I think one could just as easily argue, from an anti-Iraq war perspective, that the furor over steroids/hgh and the willingness to
1) blame all of baseball's ills on their use, and
2) find any allegation of their use to be conclusive proof of the allegation

is like the pro-Iraq warrior's

1) linking of the war to the entire fight against terrorism and the clash of civilizations, and
2) believe each accusation of wmds and links to 9/11.

To me the scepticism that you apparently applied to claims that the war was necessary to US interests would be better applied to the widespread hysteria over steroid use (which in some cases come from the same legislators who thought Iraq was necessary, e.g., John McCain) than applied to the statements of individual ballplayers. How in the world do you blame escalated salaries and expansion on steroid use? And how have you cared about baseball at all over the past, oh, 100 years, if you can't care about people compensated more highly than anyone other than the market thinks they should be?

But really -- I think the two issues have nothing to do with each other, and I'm not interested in debating the war in Iraq here. I like the ability to talk baseball issues here without having to worry about whether I agree about the Iraq war with the person too.