So it means something when Kruk dispenses his legal opinions. To wit:
But you can't prove that they took anything! Just because you have 'em doesn't mean you took 'em. Now, common sense tells you if you're purchasing them you're probably going to use 'em also, but -- if there's no drug test, no failed drug test, how can you suspend anyone by hearsay? I mean, that's like arresting someone at 12 o'clock in the afternoon, saying, "About a week ago, you had a couple drinks and you were driving, so we're going to arrest you now." You can't do it unless you prove it.
Alcohol is not illegal. Many steroids are, when obtained the way these dudes often obtained them, I think. Also, in many cases, there is substantial corroborating evidence in the form of eyewitness testimony and credit card receipts and the like. To say nothing of the circumstantial evidence of: the users' injuries' healed quickly and they got better at baseball. But again, I'm no expert.
I also look forward to any of the named players stepping forward and claiming that they purchased, but did not use, steroids. Forgetting the validity of the legal arguments set forth by John D. Kruk, Attorney at Law, I just don't think the "I never injected" arguments would hold up that well in a MLB hearing (which is very different from a like Federal grand jury).
Labels: john kruk, mitchell report, steroids
