I didnt know dianabol was illegal defense worked?
- 09-01-2004, 05:51 PM
I didnt know dianabol was illegal defense worked?
I cant believe he got off with that. Sounds like the problem runs deep in the academy.
- 09-01-2004, 06:41 PM
09-01-2004, 06:48 PM
copy and paste it and it will show up, yea and im kinda surpirsed he got off just basically by sayin he didnt know it was illegal. since when was ignorance of the law a way out? lucky guy for not bein smarter about it
09-01-2004, 06:55 PM
AIR FORCE ACADEMY, Colo. -- Air Force linebacker Overton Spence was found innocent of drug charges Wednesday after telling a court-martial he thought the steroids he had taken were legal.
Spence wept and hugged teammate Jon Wilson when the verdict was read. He declined to speak to reporters, but his civilian attorney, Serge Herscovici, said Spence hopes to return to the academy football team.
Prosecutor Capt. Garrett Condon had accused Spence of engaging in "a locker room drug deal" that went bad.
Spence had signed a statement admitting he bought and used the steroid methandrostenolone but testified that he did not know he had broken the law.
"I never intended to possess or had knowledge of possession of illegal steroids. I only intended to possess legal steroids that you could buy" in any health specialty store, Spence said.
His defense lawyers accused investigators of jumping to conclusions and interrogating Spence before lab tests showed the steroid was illegal.
Air Force coach Fisher DeBerry testified that when Spence told him he was being investigated, the cadet said he thought the supplements were legal.
"He maintained his total innocence as to his not knowing what he was taking," DeBerry said.
Spence, 20, a junior from Jacksonville, Fla., was a backup who played mostly on special teams last season. He was suspended from the team after the charges were filed. It was not immediately clear whether he would be reinstated.
Herscovici said Spence could face a one-year suspension from the NCAA.
Neither the Air Force athletics department nor the NCAA immediately returned phone calls.
Spence faced up to 10 years' imprisonment if he had been convicted.
Three other cadets, including running back Matthew Ward, still face steroid charges. Ward's court-martial is scheduled for next month.
Also Wednesday, Air Force said its athletics director will report directly to the school's top officer instead of the second-in-command, reversing a reform imposed after a sexual assault scandal last year.
The reversal was recommended by a panel that reviewed the athletics department, the academy said in a statement. Academy spokeswoman Pam Ancker said she did not know the reason for the recommendation.
The change, one of 15 suggested by the panel after a five-month study, was effective immediately.
Last edited by Boss_K; 09-01-2004 at 06:59 PM. Reason: all fuxed up
09-01-2004, 06:57 PM
Wow that didnt turn out so good....I wanted to point out that this guy DIDNT KNOW WHAT HE WAS TAKING!!!!! I mean this is total ignorance...he was sold dbol as M1T is what I am guessing, but this dumbass took it not knowing what it was, now thats smart!
09-01-2004, 09:09 PM
09-01-2004, 10:17 PM
09-02-2004, 08:37 AM
I've never taken Dbol.....but I know what it is and what it looks like. lol.Originally Posted by glenihan
I guess the 'ol "deny, deny, deny" worked this time for him.
09-02-2004, 02:27 PM
Besides he was tried in a military court where the rules are different in many cases than a civilian court
I don't know what they are i DO know, however, that in civilian court ignorance of the law is no excuse and there are many cases that establish that
i'm in law school so i get to read all these fun cases
09-02-2004, 05:55 PM
It's the same in military court, which is why this is confusing that he got off. In fact the military is much more harsh on you, and they don't have to prove beyond a reasonable doubt.Originally Posted by glenihan
09-05-2004, 01:51 PM
First off not one person ever in the history of law has been found innocent. There is "not guilty" and "guilty". The article starts off found innocent.
09-05-2004, 02:46 PM
09-05-2004, 02:58 PM
Not neccessarly the case, specily in a military court. LIke Ryansm said military courts are more harshOriginally Posted by Matthew D
09-05-2004, 11:26 PM
'Innocent until proven guilty' just reflects that the burden of proof is on the prosecution to show enough evidence for a conviction, otherwise the defendant walks free. The actual verdict, though, will be 'guilty' or 'not guilty'. I believe this is true for court-martials as well.Originally Posted by Matthew D
Similar Forum Threads
- By just93 in forum Forum Suggestions and NewsReplies: 31Last Post: 12-10-2008, 04:15 PM
- By TexasLifter89 in forum SupplementsReplies: 14Last Post: 02-23-2008, 04:21 PM
- By jas123 in forum MMAReplies: 36Last Post: 12-07-2006, 12:59 AM
- By chainsaw in forum SupplementsReplies: 3Last Post: 08-04-2005, 10:22 AM
- By windwords7 in forum General ChatReplies: 6Last Post: 11-29-2002, 11:28 AM