Clemens/McNamee... the fallout [Archive]

Warthawg1

01-08-08, 01:37 PM

I find it hard to believe that Clemens has been able to maintain... some would even say improve.. his abilities has he as advanced in age. I find it difficult to understand why if no criminal charges are looming that he automatically refuses to take a lie detector test. (It's one thing in a criminal case, but another entirely if it's not.) His accuser has not been proven to be a liar either. In fact, the admittance by his buddy Andy P lens credibility to his statements. I have yet to hear of any explanation as to why the guy would tell the truth about some people, but choose to lie regarding Clemens.

So if I was a betting man... I would bet that Clemens is either lying, or that at best he might have thought he was being injected with something other than steroids or HGH. ("It's not a lie if you believe it" and "don't tell me what you are giving me because if I don't know, then I have plausible deniability".)

Just an opinion.

Tater

01-08-08, 01:42 PM

I have yet to hear of any explanation as to why the guy would tell the truth about some people, but choose to lie regarding Clemens.without Clemens on that list you lose your one truly big name... if the trainer was threatened with jail time if he didn't serve up Clemens on a platter.....

it is not out of the range of possibilities

and let us not forget the lesson of the Duke laccrosse team

Zaphod of Whiskers

01-08-08, 01:47 PM

Good point WH. I am assuming what the trainer indicates he injected Clemens (the steroids and/or HGH) is something that does not come up on the screening test. Okay, so based on Clemens own belief, go ahead and take the lie detector test then. Take whatever tests they WANT you to take to prove you are telling the truth. If you are, fine. If you aren't, you are busted. How in the hell does it harm you to take the tests if you are innocent? Hurt your pride?? Boohoo. You are hanging out in a crowd known for taking the injections, so of course you are going to be suspected. You want to prove your claims, step up and take the lie detector tests. Crooks lie under oath all the time, I don't think it means squat being under oath anymore.

And while Mike Wallace might be a good interviewer, I don't believe he's a good interrogator. You want the truth, get some CIA guys in there to hook him up. Where's the waterboard??? Break out the lie detector. You want the multi-million dollar contract, fine - just pass this test and we'll be square.

LPU

01-08-08, 01:48 PM

I don't blame him about the lie detector test. Those things prove nothing. For instance, he could pass that and I still wouldn't believe word that he says.

Tater

01-08-08, 01:51 PM

http://www.losttv-forum.com/forum/image.php?u=19442&dateline=1199668168

Cowboy Curtis!!!!! Awesome av!!! :D

sorry lol... [/endthreadjack]

Tater

01-08-08, 01:52 PM

whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty in this country?

LPU

01-08-08, 01:54 PM

So you believe that OJ was innocent?

Zaphod of Whiskers

01-08-08, 01:55 PM

hahaha thanks Tater. I love the smirk he's wearing.

So I'm guessing there is NO definitive way to tell if someone's lying? Any drugs that guarantee to compel the truth? I thought courts use lie detectors as those were currently the most accurate predictors (unless you are nutso, which I don't believe Clemens is. He may believe he wasn't being injected with st/hgh, unless he saw the trainer specifically load up the syringe, how would he know?)

Wait I know....someone find Sayid.....

Warthawg1

01-08-08, 01:56 PM

without Clemens on that list you lose your one truly big name... if the trainer was threatened with jail time if he didn't serve up Clemens on a platter.....

Do you.. (anyone else for that matter) really believe that someone was threatened with jail time if they didn't falsely accuse someone?

it is not out of the range of possibilities

No it's not out of the range of possibility... but I think it's highly unlikely.

and let us not forget the lesson of the Duke laccrosse team

Totally different situation. In the Duke case, the accuser testimony was proven to be highly suspect. In this case... very little has come out to prove the trainers testimony as being false. When and if it does, then I might change my opinion. Right now I can only base my opinion on what is known.
Plus.. it's just an opinion. I was also of the opinion that credibility issues made the continued pursuit of the criminal complaint against the Duke players a very poor decision. If there was that sort of credibility problem right now with the testimony of his accuser, then I might be more willing to believe Clemens.

Tater

01-08-08, 02:00 PM

isn't this America?

I was under the impression "innocent until proven guilty" was supposed to be a right...

LPU

01-08-08, 02:01 PM

I don't think that applies to the court of public opinion.

blue sunrise

01-08-08, 02:04 PM

isn't this America?

I was under the impression "innocent until proven guilty" was supposed to be a right...
Your question was "Do you believe Roger Clemens?"

My answer is no.

Zaphod of Whiskers

01-08-08, 02:06 PM

Yes, innocent until proven guilty, we all agree on that. There's no argument there.

The problem arises when we are attempting to take legal steps to prove guilt, and you balk at taking them. The obvious question then becomes if you are innocent, why are you balking at taking the test? Is a lie detector so invasive as to damage your physical or mental wellbeing that it is not a viable route to proving your innocence? Begs the question if you are innocent, you wouldn't be refusing to take it. Or worse still, if it's unreliable and you know you can beat it, go ahead and take it and beat it, and the controversy is over.

Tater

01-08-08, 02:08 PM

I love playing devil's advocate lol...

So you believe that OJ was innocent?

what I believe and what can be proven ain't the same thing... he was acquitted

So I'm guessing there is NO definitive way to tell if someone's lying? Any drugs that guarantee to compel the truth? I thought courts use lie detectors as those were currently the most accurate predictors (unless you are nutso, which I don't believe Clemens is. He may believe he wasn't being injected with st/hgh, unless he saw the trainer specifically load up the syringe, how would he know?)

what are we coming to as a country when we start deminding someone be drugged to find out the truth?

and lie detector tests have long been proven to be unreliable and in many cases someone can be telling the truth and have it show up as a lie just because they are nervous

Do you.. (anyone else for that matter) really believe that someone was threatened with jail time if they didn't falsely accuse someone?

maybe not that exact scenario but all kinds of fishy business can go on behind closed doors...

Totally different situation. In the Duke case, the accuser testimony was proven to be highly suspect. In this case... very little has come out to prove the trainers testimony as being false. When and if it does, then I might change my opinion. Right now I can only base my opinion on what is known.
Plus.. it's just an opinion. I was also of the opinion that credibility issues made the continued pursuit of the criminal complaint against the Duke players a very poor decision. If there was that sort of credibility problem right now with the testimony of his accuser, then I might be more willing to believe Clemens.that's not the point... the point is, everyone crucified these guys as guilty right out of the gate because of someone's false testimony... if it can happen once, it can happen twice

just because some trainer says he used them doesn't mean he did... and with no proof other than just some guys word I am not seeing any way you are proving that he did

show me the man who sold him the steriods and the hgh

Warthawg1

01-08-08, 02:08 PM

isn't this America?

I was under the impression "innocent until proven guilty" was supposed to be a right...

Never said anything about proving anyone guilty of anything. An opinion was asked for, and an opinion was given.

Anyone who believes the trainer is lying is doing the exact same thing.. formulating an opinion of his guilt without "proof".

Tater

01-08-08, 02:09 PM

Your question was "Do you believe Roger Clemens?"

My answer is no.

conversations raise more than one question ;)

Warthawg1

01-08-08, 02:11 PM

I love playing devil's advocate lol...

what I believe and what can be proven ain't the same thing... he was acquitted

what are we coming to as a country when we start deminding someone be drugged to find out the truth?

and lie detector tests have long been proven to be unreliable and in many cases someone can be telling the truth and have it show up as a lie just because they are nervous

maybe not that exact scenario but all kinds of fishy business can go on behind closed doors...

that's not the point... the point is, everyone crucified these guys as guilty right out of the gate because of someone's false testimony... if it can happen once, it can happen twice

just because some trainer says he used them doesn't mean he did... and with no proof other than just some guys word I am not seeing any way you are proving that he did

show me the man who sold him the steriods and the hgh

I like playing devil's advocate as well, but you're wrong about everyone crucifying the Duke players. I seem to remember that the only people who crucified the Duke players was an agenda driven prosecutor and a few race warlords.

Tater

01-08-08, 02:11 PM

Tater

01-08-08, 02:13 PM

I like playing devil's advocate as well, but you're wrong about everyone crucifying the Duke players. I seem to remember that the only people who crucified the Duke players was an agenda driven prosecutor and a few race warlords.

what about Duke kicking them out and turning it's back on them? I find that a major university doing something like that to be a big deal...

if the guy did steroids and hgh there would be more proof than just some trainer saying it happened

blue sunrise

01-08-08, 02:15 PM

conversations raise more than one question ;)
True. No argument there.

Personally, and on an idealistic level, I think the whole steroid situation is sad, with so many athletes being called out and caught in lies. Children's role models, the sanctity of sport, blah blah blah.

But do I think Roger Clemens' trainer injected him with an illegal substance while telling him it was actually vitamins or lidocaine? No. And if he did, I think it was with a knowing wink given in the spirit of plausible deniabilty.

My answer is still no, I don't believe Roger Clemens.

LPU

01-08-08, 02:15 PM

if the guy did steroids and hgh there would be more proof than just some trainer saying it happened

And there probably would be if MLB would hold onto the urine samples until testing caught up to the drugs being used.

Warthawg1

01-08-08, 02:16 PM

what about Duke kicking them out and turning it's back on them? I find that a major university doing something like that to be a big deal...

if the guy did steroids and hgh there would be more proof than just some trainer saying it happened

I've smoked pot. You might be able to find someone who will testify to that fact, but I defy you to find more proof than that.

Tater

01-08-08, 02:19 PM

I don't think that applies to the court of public opinion.

you are correct... but I ask, why is the court of public opinion so quick to judge him guilty?

it's like the majority want him to be guilty because we as a people would rather see someone go down than hear about a good story...

ever wonder why the only thing ever on the news is bad news?

Zaphod of Whiskers

01-08-08, 02:21 PM

"what are we coming to as a country when we start demanding someone be drugged to find out the truth?"

I take drugs when I have a headache. People take drugs to treat mental conditions. People take drugs to treat cancer. Is the question under what conditions is it okay to drug someone, or that drugs in general are bad? Assuming the former, IMO I have no problems drugging someone to find out the truth if it doesn't damage them mentally or physically, as long as the results are accurate. Otherwise we're in the same problem as with lie detectors. I guess the problem is because your physical person is being invaded when drugged, as opposed to lie detectors have no lasting effects.

This is turning tangential, I'll shut up now.

LPU

01-08-08, 02:22 PM

I never said I wanted to see him "go down." The whole era has been proven to be dirty IMO, so to me an asterisk just has to be put over the entire thing. Just because I believe that Clemens, Bonds, etc are dirty doesn't mean I believe that they should be excluded from the HoF.

Tater

01-08-08, 02:22 PM

True. No argument there.

Personally, and on an idealistic level, I think the whole steroid situation is sad, with so many athletes being called out and caught in lies. Children's role models, the sanctity of sport, blah blah blah.

But do I think Roger Clemens' trainer injected him with an illegal substance while telling him it was actually vitamins or lidocaine? No. And if he did, I think it was with a knowing wink given in the spirit of plausible deniabilty.

My answer is still no, I don't believe Roger Clemens.

according to the Mitchell report Clemens was the one who gave the trainer the steroids to inject into him

where did Clemens get them?

blue sunrise

01-08-08, 02:23 PM

it's like the majority want him to be guilty because we as a people would rather see someone go down than hear about a good story...
I would much rather find out he DIDN'T take the steroids.

Warthawg1

01-08-08, 02:26 PM

I don't want to see Clemens go down.

I have nothing against the man, and I don't really care if he used steroids. The testing by baseball was a joke, and as noted by LPU.. the entire era is suspect. I'm just giving an opinion based on circumstantial evidence. I was asked for an opinion, and I gave it.

Tater

01-08-08, 02:28 PM

I would much rather find out he DIDN'T take the steroids.

so would I... and I am just having a hard time convicting the guy in a he said/he said situation

that's it... that is all they've got... some guy said so

I think we have proven many times over how much, as a species, we lie

the trainers word shouldn't be held in any higher regard just because he is the accuser and not the accused

LPU

01-08-08, 02:30 PM

Isn't his word kinda bolstered by Pettite's admission that he used steroids?

Tater

01-08-08, 02:33 PM

I never said I wanted to see him "go down."

I would much rather find out he DIDN'T take the steroids.

I don't want to see Clemens go down.

well good...

but do none of you see what I am talking about?

how our society has a bloodlust for this kind of thing?

I think people secretly enjoy seeing someone high up on their pedastel come crashing down, whether or not they are willing to admit it...

Tater

01-08-08, 02:33 PM

Isn't his word kinda bolstered by Pettite's admission that he used steroids?

are you saying someone should be guilty simply by association?

Zaphod of Whiskers

01-08-08, 02:34 PM

I would much rather find out he DIDN'T take the steroids.

I know I said I'd shut up, but I was lying. But you can't prove it :)

I so agree with Blue Sunrise on this. The point is, we WANT him to be clean. It'd be fantastic if out of all the accused-guilty guys, one of the bigger names actually was able to become a big name without juicing. That's why we want him to clear his name as quickly as possible. Take whatever tests they throw at you, prove your innocence in taking the tests, and we'll love you all the more for it. Baseball will love you for it because it'll show the public 'hey not all these guys are juicing'. It'd be great PR.

Now I will pipe down.

LPU

01-08-08, 02:35 PM

Not even close to what I said.

blue sunrise

01-08-08, 02:38 PM

well good...

but do none of you see what I am talking about?

how our society has a bloodlust for this kind of thing?

I think people secretly enjoy seeing someone high up on their pedastel come crashing down, whether or not they are willing to admit it...
I haven't read the Mitchell report. How many of the athletes named have been proven to be falsely accused so far?

Tater

01-08-08, 02:40 PM

Not even close to what I said.

then what are you saying?

it sounds like you are saying Clemens is more likely to be guilty because he was friends with someone who admitted to it... that's the definition of guilty by association, Pettite admitted it, Pettite and Clemens are friends, so Clemens must be guilty too

if I have misinterpreted please explain

LPU

01-08-08, 02:41 PM

No. Pettite's admission makes the trainer more credible. That's all.

Tater

01-08-08, 02:41 PM

I haven't read the Mitchell report. How many of the athletes named have been proven to be falsely accused so far?

I don't think it's been long enough for any of that to take place... it's only been a few weeks now since the report came out

Tater

01-08-08, 02:44 PM

No. Pettite's admission makes the trainer more credible. That's all.

ah... okay

so follow this thought through... you've got dirt on a bunch of small fish... but what you really want is a big fish... so you use the real proof you've got and twist it to make that big catch and haul in that big fish

Zaphod of Whiskers

01-08-08, 02:53 PM

Tater

01-08-08, 02:58 PM

Re the pedestal idea: so the ones being built up on the pedestal are to be absolved of ANY responsibility for their actions, because society as a whole built them up? When the person being built up knowing full well and taking all steps to BE built up was acting of their own accord?

No. They want the fame, the big contracts, the big money. You want to become popular, YOU made the choice. No one made you pick up a baseball, or act in a film, or pick up a microphone. Being popular doesn't absolve responsibility, unless that popularity is thrust upon you without your active involvement. Then it's just effed-up. :)

that's not fair to the athlete at all... we are the ones who put that on them... is someone not allowed to play for the love of the game with "wanting" all the fame and money?

and I never said anything about it absolving his guilt... I was talking about the people who are so quick to judge him guilty and their reasons for doing it

Zaphod of Whiskers

01-08-08, 03:00 PM

ah... okay

so follow this thought through... you've got dirt on a bunch of small fish... but what you really want is a big fish... so you use the real proof you've got and twist it to make that big catch and haul in that big fish

You have to first ask yourself why you want the big fish. What is the trainer's motivation to include Clemens in with the 'small fish' as you say. Does he:

1. want to make a name for himself by bringing down Clemens
2. think that a big name implicated somehow lessens any possible jail time he might have to serve
3. want to bring down as many baseball players he has worked with as possible

Number 1 I doubt, as what sort of fame is that to have. It gives you nothing.

Number 2 presumes there is some sort of witch hunt to hurt MLB by the feds. While some might believe this, I don't, as it serves no purpose to the feds to eliminate MLB. In fact, eliminating it reduces a large tax-paying revenue source.

Number 3 again begs motivation for doing so.

While the fish argument holds true for other crimes, I don't believe it holds as valid for the baseball scenario.

Zaphod of Whiskers

01-08-08, 03:08 PM

that's not fair to the athlete at all... we are the ones who put that on them... is someone not allowed to play for the love of the game with "wanting" all the fame and money?

and I never said anything about it absolving his guilt... I was talking about the people who are so quick to judge him guilty and their reasons for doing it

Of course they can play for the love of the game. I think the actual good players are doing so for that reason. But no professional player works within a vacuum, and knows that when he/she goes into signing a professional contract. 'Putting that on them" (the fame and notoriety) is part of the understanding of the venue of the business (the game.) IE they sign the contract, they know they will be on tv, and one of the consequences of being on tv is a lot of people see you and you might get popular. When I take a job, I can't dictate how my bosses will lay out the office. If I don't like the fact there are a lot of windows so everyone can see, I can't say I will take the job and you must remove all the windows. The employer will just not hire me. I must accept the terms or not take the job. Same for the professional athletes.

Ah. So the question what are the reasons for judging people?

Tater

01-08-08, 03:09 PM

You have to first ask yourself why you want the big fish. What is the trainer's motivation to include Clemens in with the 'small fish' as you say. Does he:

1. want to make a name for himself by bringing down Clemens
2. think that a big name implicated somehow lessens any possible jail time he might have to serve
3. want to bring down as many baseball players he has worked with as possible

Number 1 I doubt, as what sort of fame is that to have. It gives you nothing.

Number 2 presumes there is some sort of witch hunt to hurt MLB by the feds. While some might believe this, I don't, as it serves no purpose to the feds to eliminate MLB. In fact, eliminating it reduces a large tax-paying revenue source.

Number 3 again begs motivation for doing so.

While the fish argument holds true for other crimes, I don't believe it holds as valid for the baseball scenario.

your argument is based on the assumption you know all the different scenarios... we have no idea why they may want Clemens or what they may have on this trainer or what they promised him or if the trainer has his own reasons...

their motivation is all speculation at this point

Tater

01-08-08, 03:13 PM

Of course they can play for the love of the game. I think the actual good players are doing so for that reason. But no professional player works within a vacuum, and knows that when he/she goes into signing a professional contract. 'Putting that on them" (the fame and notoriety) is part of the understanding of the venue of the business (the game.) IE they sign the contract, they know they will be on tv, and one of the consequences of being on tv is a lot of people see you and you might get popular. When I take a job, I can't dictate how my bosses will lay out the office. If I don't like the fact there are a lot of windows so everyone can see, I can't say I will take the job and you must remove all the windows. The employer will just not hire me. I must accept the terms or not take the job. Same for the professional athletes.

just because they know what they are getting themselves into doesn't mean you can blame them for what we put on them though...

Ah. So the question what are the reasons for judging people?I'm trying to think of who would get the benefit of the doubt...

if Tiger Woods was accused of using steroids by his trainer would we believe him when he told us it never happened?

Tom Brady?

Michael Jordan?

Roger Clemens was pretty liked and respected... just who do ya gotta be to get some benefit of the doubt in this country?

blue sunrise

01-08-08, 03:29 PM

I'm trying to think of who would get the benefit of the doubt...

if Tiger Woods was accused of using steroids by his trainer would we believe him when he told us it never happened?

Tom Brady?

Michael Jordan?

Roger Clemens was pretty liked and respected... just who do ya gotta be to get some benefit of the doubt in this country?
It sounds like you're saying he should be given the benefit of the doubt just because he seems to be a good guy.

Zaphod of Whiskers

01-08-08, 06:13 PM

Again, we are back to motivation and likelihood. What is 'their' motivation, meaning prosecutors or investigators? The prosecutors' motivation would be perjury to a grand jury, which is against the law. The investigators' motivation is to explore the facts of a case which they've been given to reach a conclusion of whether or not a law has been broken. If I understand your reasoning correctly, yes there is a slim possibility the trainer is just a jerk and lying to bring down Clemens in addition to the other guys for some purpose of his own. We now have to examine likelihood. The guy is a professional baseball trainer. He is already putting his career and reputation in jeopardy by his actions by participating in the juicing. To perjure himself and knowingly lie in implicating Clemens, an extremely high profile player, serves no purpose as it entails additional penalties/jail time plus whatever countersuits Clemens wants to bring back against him (nevermind the fact of how deep Clemen's pockets are compared to the trainer's). Now suppose Clemens was a douche to this guy at some point, nailed his wife, shot his dog, whatever. Now he does have motive to want to go after Clemens, implicate him in the juicing scandal at the risk of the penalties mentioned previously. But that's a pretty high price to pay for undertaking those actions - giving up a career, gaining publicly the reputation of someone trying to taint the reputation of a highly respected athlete wrongly, plus all the legal penalties involved. That's where the likelihood factor comes in. What is the likelihood a rational person would risk all that over some need for personal vengeance? IMO it's not very likely.

Zaphod of Whiskers

01-08-08, 06:28 PM

blue sunrise

01-08-08, 06:32 PM

Ditto Michael Jordan - if he used a pair of shoes with flubber in them that allowed him to do those amazing high dunks. Unless the NBA rules allow flubber, if possible evidence of flubber in his shoes came to light, you betcha they'd investigate.
OMG Flubber... :rotfl:

Tater

01-08-08, 06:56 PM

It sounds like you're saying he should be given the benefit of the doubt just because he seems to be a good guy.

huh? I don't see where you got that from lol...

I was speculating if someone like Woods or Jordan would be given the benefit of the where Clemens wasn't...

To perjure himself and knowingly lie in implicating Clemens, an extremely high profile player, serves no purpose

you can't say that it serves no purpose if you don't know all the facts...

Tater

01-08-08, 07:07 PM

For benefit of the doubt. Depends on the circumstances, not on the personality involved (correct me if I'm wrong, but it sounds like you are implying people like the athletes you listed more than they like Clemens, and for some reason are "out to get him".)

I am not implying anything or trying to debate different circumstances... I mean exact same circumstances. I am not saying people like Woods and Jordan are more well liked. I am asking if you Woods and Jordan would get the same treatment Clemens is getting... automatic assumption of guilt by the public

I think Michael Vick was pretty well liked by the public judging by his fantastic salary and numerous endorsement deals, before the dog scandal occurred. Circumstances arose that indicated he might have been participating in wrong doing. He was investigated and found guilty.in no way can you compare killing dogs to steroids so I am keeping Vick out of this conversation

If a caddy for Tiger Woods came forth and indicated to the PGA that he was using a material for his clubs that was outside the rules of PGA, yes I believe he would be investigated. We would not assume guilt on the part of Woods, correct. Now if Woods refused to allow anyone to examine his clubs, would you suggest that we just give him the benefit of the doubt? No. The sponsors of the events of the PGA expect the rules of the PGA to be followed by its participants, and would require the PGA to investigate. Otherwise the integrity of the game is potentially compromised and their sponsorship means nothing beyond giving money to whoever wins regardless of the rules. you say you would not assume guilt of Woods... but yes to Clemens? Clemens never refused to let his body be examined... meaning he never failed a drug test

Ditto Michael Jordan - if he used a pair of shoes with flubber in them that allowed him to do those amazing high dunks. Unless the NBA rules allow flubber, if possible evidence of flubber in his shoes came to light, you betcha they'd investigate. this is not about the investigation itself... of course MLB should investigate... but I don't think we should automatically assume Clemens is guilty just because some guy said so

I think anytime you have significant salaries or significant power involved in a case, there will always be an investigation, regardless of who it is. I don't think anyone gets a benefit of the doubtwhy? why does someone not get the benefit of the doubt just because a lot of money is involved? is someone less likely to be guilty if lots of money is not involved? I wouldn't think so...

Tater

01-10-08, 09:26 PM

Clemens meeting with congress is now not happening next week, it has been pushed back a month

Tater

01-28-08, 10:02 PM

http://www.rogerclemensreport.com/

TheBigCat

01-29-08, 01:43 PM

So?

Tater

01-29-08, 05:31 PM

the guy is doing what he can to prove a negative... not the easiest thing to do

I applaud his efforts... whether or not they be in vain

TheBigCat

01-30-08, 04:47 AM

Well his technique involves shining mirrors and blowing smoke, something I never applaud. He's trying to make a case for Clemens' not using drugs by comparing his career with "typical" pitchers who last into their 40s, never mind that there is no such thing. A pitcher who can maintain effectiveness at the major league level that long is rare enough as to be "atypical", meaning that each case is different, although there will be certain similarities.

Warthawg1

02-01-08, 09:24 PM

When has anyone said that Clemens statistics are the only proof he used performance enhancing drugs? Had people been running around shouting that his statistics were the proof, then this might mean something.

As it stands right now, the only substantial evidence is someone else's sworn testimony. The statistics just prove that Clemens fits into the atypical category when it comes to performance past the age of 40. I don't think anyone places any credibility in the statistics alone being sufficient evidence.

Being that is atypical (not impossible) combined with the fact that there is sworn testimony, is what makes people think it might be true.

A note about the sworn testimony: People like to mention a motivation for the testimony was promised immunity. While true.. it's not quite completely accurate. He was promised immunity if he answered all questions, and answered them truthfully. If at some time it is proven the trainer lied, then the immunity is off. So I think McNamee had substantial motivation not to lie.

Tater

02-07-08, 12:47 AM

well... he's done it

he has now gone before congress and given sworn testimony that he never used steroids or hgh

if he's telling a lie he better not get caught... cause now we are in the land of perjury

TheBigCat

02-07-08, 03:36 PM

Yup.

Warthawg1

02-07-08, 03:50 PM

And now McNamee says he has proof. Something about syringes with traceable Clemens DNA and steroid residue. Clemens representatives have responded that if true, the evidence must have been manufactured.

All one can say to that is wow... that McNamee guy must have it in for the guy.

It'll be interesting, but I don't know where it will go. I can see what will happen next. If the evidence is credible, the next step will be that Clemens will say he thought it was B-12 and lidocane. That may or may not be true (if it goes there), but I don't know how that can ever be proven or disproven.

Lawboy

02-07-08, 08:59 PM

NcNamee is covering his own hide, and I do not blame him. He has his own perjury/court charges to protect against, and Clemens is a means to an end here. Roger has made his own bed here, just like Bonds did. Deny, deny, deny, even against evidence not in your favor. I find it hilarious that the Clemens camp is now saying that NcNamee manufactured the DNA evidence to smear Clemens. Which begs the question, what does NcNamee have to gain here by smearing Clemens? The answer is nothing. So for that reason, I buy what the trainer says. Add it to Pettitte, Giambi, Sheffield, etc., and it is clear that the Yankees had a culture there that McNamee and Clemens were a part of.

'Stoon

02-07-08, 08:59 PM

mcnamee + pettite > clemens

sorry rodger, thanks for playing

Zaphod of Whiskers

02-07-08, 11:06 PM

Agree with Warthawg, and callback to my earlier statement on what McNamee 's motivation in trying to 'get' Clemens. It just doesn't follow,short of some circumstance directly involving the two that we aren't aware of, and that Clemens is not forthcoming about.

If I understand your reasoning correctly, yes there is a slim possibility the trainer is just a jerk and lying to bring down Clemens in addition to the other guys for some purpose of his own. We now have to examine likelihood. The guy is a professional baseball trainer. He is already putting his career and reputation in jeopardy by his actions by participating in the juicing. To perjure himself and knowingly lie in implicating Clemens, an extremely high profile player, serves no purpose as it entails additional penalties/jail time plus whatever countersuits Clemens wants to bring back against him (nevermind the fact of how deep Clemen's pockets are compared to the trainer's). Now suppose Clemens was a douche to this guy at some point, nailed his wife, shot his dog, whatever. Now he does have motive to want to go after Clemens, implicate him in the juicing scandal at the risk of the penalties mentioned previously. But that's a pretty high price to pay for undertaking those actions - giving up a career, gaining publicly the reputation of someone trying to taint the reputation of a highly respected athlete wrongly, plus all the legal penalties involved. That's where the likelihood factor comes in. What is the likelihood a rational person would risk all that over some need for personal vengeance? IMO it's not very likely.

Tater

02-08-08, 02:01 AM

Tater

02-08-08, 02:09 AM

I find it hilarious that the Clemens camp is now saying that NcNamee manufactured the DNA evidence to smear Clemens.Did anyone forget the advanced society we live in that it is completely in the realm of possibility that the so-called evidence is manufactured?

I mean come on... I do not find it very hard to believe at all that some of Clemens dna could have been taken and put on a dirty needle... the guy is an athelete with trainers, I bet there is Clemens dna floating around alllllllll over the place.

Maybe it is real, I have no way of knowing that yet, it just pisses me off so bad that so many people are accusing him guilty until proven innocent.

Warthawg1

02-08-08, 03:04 PM

I don't care how guilty the guy looks... it just makes me sick that we as a country are so eager and willing to hang someone as guillty until proven innocent!!

If it was your ass in the hot water, you'd be wanting some of that whole innocent until proven guilty action, but no, in the court of public opinion, even IF he gets proven innocent, most people are still going to lump him in with the ones who actually were guilty.

Tater.. I for one am certainly not eager and willing to hang someone. I personally don't care. If however asked for an opinion as to guilt or innocence based on what we know, I will give that opinion. To always assume not guilty is commendable to a degree, but quite naive. I am many things, but naive isn't one of them. Especially when all we are talking about is an opinion. If I was a judge getting ready to take this case I would have to set aside my opinion, but I am not a judge. I'm just a Joe Schmo who has an opinion. Have you never had an opinion that someone is guilty based on what you know? I completely disagree with you that if he is PROVEN innocent, that most will still think he was guilty. I think if he can prove he is innocent, then most people will think he is innocent.

Did anyone forget the advanced society we live in that it is completely in the realm of possibility that the so-called evidence is manufactured?

I mean come on... I do not find it very hard to believe at all that some of Clemens dna could have been taken and put on a dirty needle... the guy is an athelete with trainers, I bet there is Clemens dna floating around alllllllll over the place.

Maybe it is real, I have no way of knowing that yet, it just pisses me off so bad that so many people are accusing him guilty until proven innocent.

I'm sorry it pisses you off that I have opinions on guilt or innocence that exist
without definitive proof, but with all due respect.. don't expect an apology or any guilty feelings on my part. It's just a personal opinion and it means little... lighten up for heavens sake.

Tater

02-08-08, 03:52 PM

hey baby it's cool :D

just fired up over some sports talk ;)

Warthawg1

02-08-08, 04:06 PM

I know Tater, but it comes across as you think everyone should always assume complete innocence even when they are just rendering an opinion based on what is known at this time.

That's true if you are a judge, or about to sit on a jury.. but it's not when
you are just asking about general opinions. If Clemens went on trial for perjury or for taking steroids, I would assume innocence for the basis of the trial and render a verdict based only on what was presented in the trial as factual evidence beyond any reasonable doubt, but my opinion here on a message board is a different situation. That's the only point I'm making.

LPU

02-08-08, 04:10 PM

I think the guy is more than likely guilty, but the new McNamee "evidence" did not persuade me. Too many things about that don't pass the smell test, and somehow I doubt that he followed COC procedures to the satisfaction of the law. No court would even admit it into evidence, is my guess.

Zaphod of Whiskers

02-08-08, 04:12 PM

If it were my ass in the hot water, I'd take whatever stupid tests they suggest I take to prove my innocence to get past the matter. What is so offensive about being asked to take a test, lie detector or otherwise? For a job I have to take a pee test, I do not balk at that though one could argue that is the most 'humiliating' of procedures.

Tater

02-08-08, 04:13 PM

LPU do you watch Mike and Mike?

Tater

02-08-08, 04:14 PM

and let's not forget the lesson of the Duke lacrosse team...

LPU

02-08-08, 04:15 PM

Usually, missed it this morning though. Why?

Warthawg1

02-08-08, 04:17 PM

I agree. I have felt this way all along, so the evidence is intriguing and interesting but I'm not more convinced now than I was before. Shoot, I'm not even convinced with my opinion.. it's just a strong lean in that direction until valid "McNamee motive for lying" evidence is presented. I just don't buy any motive I've heard.

Plus, I'm not sure anything will ever be proven beyond a reasonable doubt either way, so all we will ever have is debate over differing opinions.

Warthawg1

02-08-08, 04:20 PM

and let's not forget the lesson of the Duke lacrosse team...

Yes let's not. In that case the prosecutor had political motive, and evidence proved the players innocence beyond a reasonable doubt.

Zaphod of Whiskers

02-08-08, 04:30 PM

Exactly WH. What gain is there for McNamee in this case? None that I can see.

Tater

02-08-08, 04:31 PM

Usually, missed it this morning though. Why?

"doesn't pass the smell test"

those were Greeny's words ;)

Tater

02-08-08, 04:36 PM

Yes let's not. In that case the prosecutor had political motive, and evidence proved the players innocence beyond a reasonable doubt.

you missed the point... you cite facts that were found out after the fact...

the point is... there were many a people who tried, convicted and hung them as guilty at first and they ended up being not guilty... I mean come on, they were kicked out of school and the university turned it's back on them

we live in America, where we are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty... I know it doesn't apply to the court of public opinion, but I think it should... we'd live in a better country if it did

Exactly WH. What gain is there for McNamee in this case? None that I can see.

we have no way of knowing what they have on MacNamee... they could have his boys in a vice in any number of ways we don't know about lol... jus' sayin' ;)

Warthawg1

02-08-08, 04:45 PM

you missed the point... you cite facts that were found out after the fact...

the point is... there were many a people who tried, convicted and hung them as guilty at first and they ended up being not guilty... I mean come on, they were kicked out of school and the university turned it's back on them

We've discussed this before, and I didn't miss the point. Here is where we have a major disagreement. The "many" people who rushed to judgement were racially motivated. We need to be careful talking about that, but it's fact. Race was involved in the Duke case, and that's just a fact.. a fact not present here.

Oh and as far as the University was concerned... sorry, but I never heard a bunch of University officials screaming they were guilty. Just didn't happen. They suspended them because it was the politically correct thing to do, and that too was motivated by race and political correctness issues.

These two cases are as different as apples and oranges my friend, and shouldn't be compared imho.

Tater

02-08-08, 05:00 PM

they didn't suspend them... they kicked them out and turned their backs on them... politically correct my ass, they could've chose to stand by them in their time of need, and when they were proven innocent the university would have looked like saints for standing by them

I'm not trying to argue the Duke lacrosse case... it's a simple point I am trying to make here... innocent until proven guilty

even if Clemens name is vindicated his name has still been dragged through the mud... and some of them stains never come out

Tater

02-08-08, 05:02 PM

addendum to my innocent until proven guilty pov:

although I believe we should give people the benefit of the doubt when first accused... if someone IS found to be guilty on down the line, bring down the hammer of god on their asses

Warthawg1

02-08-08, 05:28 PM

I'm not trying to argue the Duke lacrosse case... it's a simple point I am trying to make here... innocent until proven guilty

No, you are not trying to argue the Duke Lacrosse team case. What you are trying to do is comparing two completely different situations, one where the was an obvious motive, and one where there is no obvious motive.

You are ignoring the differences in the two situations that make them hardly comparable.
You are inferring those who are saying they believe Clemens is guilty are just like those who believed the Duke players were guilty, with no substantiation of that claim.

Let's take everyone else out of the equation and I'll just talk about me.

I never thought there was enough evidence to think the Duke players were guilty. As a result, I was of the opinion they were innocent based on what I knew at the time. Turns out I guessed right.

In this case, I think there is enough evidence for me to lean towards an opinion that Clemens is guilty. I think I've guessed right here, but who knows if we will ever find out. He is "officially innocent" until proven guilty, and my opinion is far from "official".

The end, and I'm done with this. Not because I'm angry, upset, or for any other reason other than it's pointless to continue down this path.

Tater

02-08-08, 05:57 PM

okay

*nods*

good discussing with you as always Warty

TheBigCat

02-09-08, 10:35 PM

*a la Church Lady*

Well wasn't that special?

Tater

02-13-08, 02:36 PM

the big Clemens/McNamee DC showdown is today...

no Pettite, no Knoblauch, no whatever that other guy's name is, Radmonski or something lol...

just Roger... and Brian

Tater

02-13-08, 02:45 PM

oh hell... it's on live!!!!!!!!

McNamee is up there talking RIGHT NOW!!!

Tater

02-13-08, 02:53 PM

Pettite incriminated Clemens...

Clemens' excuse... he misheard

Tater

02-13-08, 02:56 PM

Andy "disremembers" :rotfl:

LPU

02-13-08, 02:58 PM

You realize that this would fall under the umbrella of "reality" television, right?

Tater

02-13-08, 03:00 PM

I do not think live coverage from congress is considered reality tv...

sports and politics are not under the same umbrella as such shows like The Biggest Loser and Wife Swap

LPU

02-13-08, 03:02 PM

No, because of course there's no soap opera element to these proceedings. :rolleyez:

Tater

02-13-08, 03:04 PM

lol... I can't help it that congress has made a soap opera out of this...

things are looking pretty bad for Clemens

Warthawg1

02-13-08, 03:19 PM

things are looking pretty bad for Clemens

INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY!!!!!!
REMEMBER THE ALAMO!!!!!!...

...REMEMBER OJ!!!

LPU

02-13-08, 03:20 PM

Remember The Cautionary Tale of the Duke LaCrosse Team!!!

Tater

02-13-08, 03:23 PM

Tater

02-13-08, 03:24 PM

is anybody else watching this?

Tater

02-13-08, 03:41 PM

ooooooooohhhhh..... Dan Burton (R-IN) is ripping McNamee a new :censored:

TheBigCat

02-13-08, 03:42 PM

No, and I am sorry I missed it. :(

Tater

02-13-08, 03:46 PM

TBC it is on live NOW!!!

I am watching it ESPN

Tater

02-13-08, 04:05 PM

wow... they are really tearing into McNamee... all of his lies are coming back to haunt him

LPU

02-13-08, 04:07 PM

Sucks for everyone involved. I never would have gone. You wanna try me publicly? TAKE ME TO TRIAL. Come and get me Congress or just stfu.

Warthawg1

02-13-08, 04:09 PM

hey I never said I thought Clemens was innocent lol...

I am just an advocate of due course

if... IF... he is innocent... he has done everything one would ask of him

he has screamed it from the mountain tops... I am innocent!!! They are lying!!!

do I think he is innocent?

*chuckles*

no... not really

but he is getting his chance to prove his innocence... and I think every man deserves that chance

Yeah but Tater... my point was never that he was definitely guilty, and never would I have said he doesn't deserve a chance to prove his innocence. I was just of the opinion that it seemed to me like he might be guilty.

Your responses to that were a lot of posts where you kept saying "innocent until proven guilty!!" which was totally irrelevant to my posts, as my opinion was never that he was guilty because I thought he very well might/could be.

Don't make it sound like I am not, or was not an advocate of due course. When you make the statement "I am just an advocate of due course", some might read into it that you are trying to differentiate yourself from other people who have posted in this thread.

We completely agree on his right to defend himself, and definitely due course of justice if any is forthcoming. I don't think anyone here doesn't believe in due course, so we are all probably advocates of due course.

Plus... if he is at sometime is able to prove his innocence, I'll be the first to admit that my opinion was wrong.

Tater

02-13-08, 04:28 PM

once someone's reputation is ruined publicly... even if he is proven innoecent he will still never get that back

Warthawg1

02-13-08, 04:30 PM

I'm not taking it personally Tater. People do disagree, and that's great.

See.. here's an example...

I disagree that the Duke lacrosse team case had any relevance to my opinion in this case, and/or posts I made in this thread.
Now don't take that personally.

ETA: Just joking around people. Nothing to see here other than two people with too much free time on their hands randomly sniping at one another regarding differing opinons, as headstrong friends sometimes do.

Tater

02-13-08, 04:44 PM

:D

agreed

I will give congress this... they are ripping into Clemens and McNamee evenly... they do not seem to be showing favorites

Warthawg1

02-13-08, 04:53 PM

McNamee's problem is that he is a liar.

Clemens problem is just because someone has lied in the past, it doesn't mean everything they say is a lie.

Tater

02-13-08, 05:24 PM

That's a very good point... McNamee has been busted on many lies and that gives no reason to believe him now... it doesn't mean he isn't telling the truth now... it just makes him look very unbelievable.

We are back live again.

'Stoon

02-13-08, 07:24 PM

who's the idiot that thought admitting that clemen's wife took hgh was a good idea...

cmon people...so ridiculous

Tater

02-13-08, 07:32 PM

the entire damned thing is a circus... I think everyone is guilty of something... there are no innocent parties here

'Stoon

02-13-08, 07:35 PM

yeah, im not sure what really to believe...imo clemens is guilty, but then the trainer guy seemed like he got tore apart and admitted to lying under oath...then the mri guy kinda shot down clemens abcess thing and it relating to b12 etc

i dunno...its all very sketchy

Tater

02-13-08, 07:37 PM

no matter if Clemens is guilty or not he certainly has done everything an innocent man woulda done... and McNamee couldn't have made himself look like more of a liar so...

the whole damned thing stinks

'Stoon

02-13-08, 07:39 PM

and has done about everything a guilty egotistical man would do lol

Tater

02-13-08, 07:47 PM

he has done nothing but scream it from the mountain tops... I am innocent!!!! They are lying!!!

McNamee has been busted in lie after lie...

All I am saying is that McNamee is making himself look bad no matter if he's now telling the truth or not

Warthawg1

02-13-08, 07:54 PM

and has done about everything a guilty egotistical man would do lol

:yeah:

Plus everyone needs to understand that (I think it was Henry Waxman that said it today) Clemens has lied as well. I think the exact words were something about significant inconsistencies in his testimony as well as that of McNamee.

So both have lied to some degree, and those are facts.. not opinions. (unless I read something wrong)

I just wish the whole circus would end. There was a steroid era in baseball... it happened. We will never know for sure a list of every name who ever took PHD's. Just fix the problem, and move on.
Tell the players union that opposed truly random and effective testing to go to stuff it... Do whatever is needed to bring the steroid era to an end... and let it go. No * by anyone's name... just say there was a problem... we are doing are best to make sure the problem goes away... and get on with life. Oh and btw.. tell congress to get back to doing what they should be doing... ya know.. gridlock and pork barrel spending.

Tater

02-13-08, 08:06 PM

:rotfl: @ pork barrel spending

'Stoon

02-13-08, 08:06 PM

i'm more worried about its going to continue in the upper echelon if the owners and league babies continue to nurture their star players to promote the sport...not saying it is corrupt now but it has been in the past and without major changes it will go back or is back to that now...

oh well, ill watch no matter what happens, love the game to much not to

LPU

02-13-08, 08:07 PM

Again, Clemens never should have gone. There was absolutely nothing to be gained by going to speak to these clowns.

Warthawg1

02-13-08, 08:16 PM

Again, Clemens never should have gone. There was absolutely nothing to be gained by going to speak to these clowns.

Yep.. this is almost as humorous as Goodell going to talk to Inspector Detector Specter because the good senator is a huge Eagles fan who is still upset that Philly lost to NE in the Superbowl.

Tater

02-13-08, 08:22 PM

all we needed were clowns and dancing monkeys...

and don't forget the peanuts!!!!!!!!!!

'Stoon

02-13-08, 08:24 PM

mmmmm....salted peanuts

Tater

02-13-08, 08:27 PM

I think OJ and Vick should be cellmates

'Stoon

02-13-08, 08:33 PM

who would be the b*t*h

Warthawg1

02-13-08, 08:39 PM

who would be the b*t*h

Probably Vick.

O.J is much more likely to get his way because he's so skilled and threatening with a shank.

LPU

02-13-08, 08:42 PM

Yeah, but even in a jail cell I bet Vick is one elusive mutha'.

Warthawg1

02-13-08, 08:49 PM

True.. but man.. it would especially hard on OJ if he had to be the <snip>

I mean what with his bad knees and all...

'Stoon

02-13-08, 08:57 PM

id go with oj being the b*tch...i mean he is the heisman winner and vick would be mad at him about that and would take his "frustrations" out on him

wait....why the heck am i thinking about this?

Zaphod of Whiskers

02-13-08, 09:00 PM

RC = lies all around. you lie you lose.

TheBigCat

02-14-08, 01:49 AM

all we needed were clowns and dancing monkeys...

and don't forget the peanuts!!!!!!!!!!

How about a juggling cat? I learned how to juggle back in HS and can still maintain a three ball cascade until my arms get tired.

Tater

02-14-08, 06:54 AM

How about a juggling cat? I learned how to juggle back in HS and can still maintain a three ball cascade until my arms get tired.

the more the merrier!!! I lined up some Hawai'ian fire dancers and some of them hula girls too :hula:

Warthawg1

02-14-08, 03:24 PM

Someone on FoxSports radio said it best last night... This entire fiasco was little more than congressional and major league baseball porn, and I had to bathe 3 times to wash away the dirty feeling I had after watching it.

Now everyone here knows I am of the opinion and have been of the opinion for a long time that Clemens knowingly took PHD's, but what purpose did this hearing serve? What public good was done here? Why was Clemens forced to testify in this format where their was no real due process?

It was sickening in my humble opinion, and it only served as a vehicle to have a few congressman (who have no right to preach to anyone else about morality issues) grandstand. It was a vehicle to even further humiliate one of our era's greatest pitchers for no real purpose.

Don't get me wrong now.. I think Clemens is guilty of lying about his use of HGH and steroids, and he brought a lot of this on himself with his George Costanza like "You wanna get crazy? I'll get crazy.. We'll drive all the way to the Hamptons" attitude. He went all in, and his bluff got called. Regardless... what purpose did any of this serve?

This was an issue with a private company... MLB, and it should have ended with the Mitchell report and MLB. Sure it involved illegal distribution of drugs, but congress isn't supposed to get involved in these type of things. If there is something criminal here that needs to be pursued, then let the justice department have a go at it. Of course now the statute of limitations has expired on most of this stuff, and being it really comes down to he said, he said; any attempts to bring criminal charges are probably futile and would really serve no purpose.

The only thing that needed to come from all this is MLB cleaning up their act, not the tar and feathering of a single player during a public circus. As much as
I think that Clemens was guilty, he does not need to be misremembered for this crap. I doubt the stuff he took did anything other than help him recover from the wear and tear on his body, and didn't really have much to do with his more than blatantly obvious skills that should have made him a hall of fame pitcher. I want no * by his name, and the thought that this will tarnish
his legacy forever is sad more than anything else. What is even more sad is that this is what congress saw fit to tackle right now.

SpidermanHouston

02-15-08, 07:27 PM

I think he is guilty of using HGH. I hope they prove it someday. I never liked Roger Clemens. Even when he was the Astros, I thought he was very selfish by not wanting to go on road trips so he can stay in town and play golf. Actually, he's employed by the Astros this season but I'm hoping they let him go.

Lawboy

02-19-08, 06:09 PM

The interesting thing in all of this is that steroids are illegal typically, but HGH is not when prescribed by a doctor. And that is happening more and more for over 40 men to help them feel and seem younger physically. Of course, it violates the spirit of athletics for younger men to use them with the intent of gaining a physical edge. But when used solely to assist with rehab of a serious injury, I have zero problem with it. And by serious, I mean season ending type. In other words, the world of sports needs to adjust and monitor the appropriateness of using this rather than banning it outright 100%. But it will never happen. Easier to monitor when no one can use it, than when those with a doctor's note should.

TheBigCat

02-20-08, 02:23 AM

Let's stop and consider the real problem with steriods. It's not guys breaking hallowed records or getting a paycheck with a few more zeros. It's the guys who will never see a paycheck, the literally tens of thousands of young athletes dreaming of the big time who think that the edge needed to attain that dream can be found in a syringe with a substance which can prematurely damage joints and possibly cause cancer, and feel that the risk is worth the possible reward. But it's a numbers game so far as that goes. For every youngster who is going to earn a roster spot on a major professional sports team in the next ten years there are a thousand who won't, despite their best efforts to do so. Add to that all the youngsters competing in sports in which there will never be a paycheck, just an expenses-paid trip to some exotic foreign city with a place on a podium and some guy in a gold blazer hanging a medal around their neck and if they are lucky a few thousand dollars from General Mills for putting their face a Wheaties box.

Barry Bonds said a few years ago that the hand-eye co-ordination needed to be a good home run hitter can't be gained from steroids. If course, he was trying to make the point in order to "prove" that he hasn't been juicing, but he was right. He omitted that the strength necessary to turn a good home run hitter into a great home run hitter can be, just as the strength to turn a player with "warning-track power" into a good home run hitter can be...if they apply themselves and hit the weight room. But steroids and HGH will never turn an ordinary joe with average skills into a superstar.

The interesting thing in all of this is that steroids are illegal typically, but HGH is not when prescribed by a doctor.

There are legal steriods, controlled, only by doctor's prescription, of course.Prednisone (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prednisone) is one. Some years back it was prescribed to me following a severe respiratory attack to help heal my lungs. Even anabolic steroids can have medical indications. According to Wiki most of the anabolic steroids used for performance-enhancement in the US are made legally in Europe and a fair portion of those are veterinarian-grade with lower manufacturing standards.