If there's an advocacy topic you want to see discussed, or about which you wish to contribute, contact one of the blog administrators - see the list on the right side of this page. Lonely thinking changes nothing, sharing your thoughts may start a trend.

Monday, December 10, 2012

The Steroid Era of Baseball and Rule 404(b)

From Wes Porter at Golden Gate University School of Law:

Call it exam grading procrastination or alternative scholarship - it's always a fine line.  But I thought [our blog audience] might have an interest in this piece I wrote for MLB Reports re: voting on this year's class for the baseball hall of fame.  We analogized to preliminary determinations and Rule 404(b) to advise the 537 baseball writers voting on the HOF on what level of proof (or mere suspicion) they could consider re: cheating and use of performance-enhancing drugs (PEDs), or not.

--Wes Porter

1 comment:

  1. Dear Blog readers,

    If you haven't yet had time to read Wes Porter's and colleague's highly readable analysis of the dilemma facing baseball writers as they vote for new members of the Hall of Fame then this season of over eating and sitting around provides the opportunity.

    Wes and his co-author posit a jury trial analogy and then evaluate the different weight to be given to allegations of 'performance enhanced by drug use', depending upon the source of the allegation and what, if any, action followed the allegation.

    At the very least the article is a great resource for teaching evidence with a class. The content can be stretched even further. For example, the article seems to assume a criminal standard of proof. Is that appropriate? If the voters (jurors) believe on the civil standard that the player has used performance enhancing drugs should that debar entry to the HOF?

    Alternatively, if there is a prima facie case of drug use should a prospective member of the HOF have to prove on the balance of probabilities that there was no drug use or that such use was, in all the circumstances, reasonable ( ie. analogy to a self defence argument).