The Rocket is falling
by DJ4508 on Feb 13, 2008 12:34 PM EST
72 comments
It is looking like Clemens lied in his hearing. I can't say I'm surprised but did he think that they would just drop it. I understand the investigation into PED's but is this really something that needs to be a federal issue? Why couldn't MLB look into this on their own and save the tax payers some money. I am not against going after some one who is a criminal but this just seems to far out of the realm of what Congress should be spending time on. Wouldn't that time be better spent on real issues like health care and veterans benefits?
http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,330530,00.html
0 recs |
72 comments
Email
Print
Comments
heard a great comment on thi committe
it is no extra cost to taxpayers, we already pay 4 it..thanks for the diary..
by punchinjudy on Feb 13, 2008 1:01 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Aside from whether congress should be involved
by joker24 on Feb 13, 2008 1:12 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
why?
one of these two is getting in trouble and it's the "wait til your father gets home" kind of trouble.
by birdsonthebat on Feb 13, 2008 1:18 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
To protect his reputation
"Finally, Rep. Waxman went through a long list of areas in which Clemens' account was "in direct conflict" with the testimony of McNamee and Pettitte. Waxman particularly singled out Clemens' alleged conversations about HGH with Pettitte -- one in 1999 or 2000, the other in 2005. In the first, Pettitte testified that Clemens told him he'd used HGH. In the second, Clemens claimed Pettitte had misunderstood and that he'd actually said his wife had used HGH. Waxman said Clemens and McNamee agreed that McNamee had injected Debbie Clemens in 2003. And that, Waxman said, "makes it impossible" that Clemens could have told Pettitte three or four years earlier that his wife was the HGH user, not him."
by joker24 on Feb 13, 2008 2:59 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
On the contrary,
by Ray Lankford on Feb 13, 2008 6:20 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Did I miss something in that story?
by BTown Birds fan on Feb 13, 2008 1:20 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Or is it that he "sounded guilty"
by BTown Birds fan on Feb 13, 2008 1:24 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Pettitte and Knoblauch too
Plus, McNamee's story has been corroborated by Chuck Knoblauch, who also admitted to receiving HGH from McNamee.
Another problem: Pettitte and McNamee have no motive for lying about this. Clemons does. Not just to save his reputation, but possibly he's lying so that he can get another contract this season. So add a few million to his motive.
Clemens also has fallen into several contradictions. For example, he said that Petitte was mistaken, and that rather than telling Petitte that Rogert Clemens was taking HGH, Clemons suggested that Clemens actually told Petitte that his wife was taking HGH, and Petitte simply misheard him. The problem is, Clemens would not have made this statement in 1999, because his wife wasn't taking HGH until 2003. The explanation simply isn't possible. (I've read about other contradictions, but don't have time to delve into them right now.)
But here's a larger problem from Clemens. McNamee was Clemens' trusteed trainer who gave HGH to Clemens' close friend Andy Pettitte AND to his wife, and Clemens wants the public to believe that he didn't also take the drug and didn't know this stuff was going on? Why is everyone around Clemens doing HGH, and is it likely that he's at the center of all this HGH, yet not doing it himself?
Bottomline: Clemens' story is improbable, it doesn't make sense, and you would need to explain why these other people are lying to believe that Clemens' improbable story is true.
Did I mention that Clemens is one of the oldest pitchers in baseball to have a ERA under 3?
Clemens is taking us all for a ride.
PS. Does anyone know why Clemens' wife was taking HGH? This is really strange.
by Titus Pullo on Feb 15, 2008 1:13 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Clemens' Wife
by Elvis on Feb 15, 2008 3:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
regarding
Pettitte isn't lying, he's just not got a very good memory and is not really saying what you think he is saying. This is what I was referring to below, CLEMENS never said Pettitte was mistaken, at least during the course of this show trial. PETTITTE said he might have been mistaken, and Clemens quoted him. You'll only find that out if you read the testimonies, since the media reported it the way you describe, which was unfactual. The congressional inquisitors also (imho deliberately and maliciously) misquoted pettitte on a number of occasions, adding to the confusion.
It's clear in the document I linked to below that McNamee thought that Roger had admitted to the Feds that he had been given HGH by McNamee. Since McNamee's immunity to prosecution for drug dealing required he not withhold any information, if McNamee didn't testify to giving it to him, whether he gave it or not, he'd lose his immunity. Once he lied to the feds, and then found out that Clemens did not, in fact, sell him down the river, he was forced to stick to his story because now he's lied to the feds under oath and if he tells the truth now he'll go to jail for lying to the feds.
That is by far the strongest motivation to lie out of any of the participants in this deal (IMO "going to federal pound me prison" trumps "not making hall of fame"), and to perpetuate the meme that "McNamee had no motivation to lie" is unfair.
by SleepyCA on Feb 15, 2008 4:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I heard the opposite
Personally, I'll withhold my own judgement until I see it, but thought it was interesting that the first two accounts I've heard about this are completely opposite.
And whatever anyone thinks about whether he did PEDs or not, unlike Bonds, Clemens has publically defended himself. Bonds has done nothing which tells me he can't refute any of his alligations.
I don't know if Clemens is guilty or not, but he sure is acting like an innocent man, and for that I think he at least deserves the benefit of the doubt.
by Big Red on Feb 13, 2008 1:25 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Interesting
- Someone is clearly lying
- When Feds of any type get involved, the stakes change dramatically
- The Clemens/Pettitte angle is very odd
- Someone is gambling very poorly here
- The story ain't going away
by Hinkster on Feb 13, 2008 1:31 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
I do not know now
by ridgesee on Feb 13, 2008 1:49 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
DNA
I certainly am not trying to defend clemens with that statement - but I don't think that there is any way to obtain conclusive evidence. The fact that Pettite and McNamee have similar stories, coupled with dirty syringes is rather damning, but I don't think that 10 year old dirty syringes are going to offer conclusive evidence either way.
by cdb on Feb 13, 2008 2:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
You know
by ridgesee on Feb 13, 2008 2:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
you both make good sense
you make good points about Roger's options - innocent or guilty - its the same strategy
at the risk of moving into political discussion....I won't watch the pol posturing hearings either....on a totally unrelated congressional hearing of a few years, I noticed a grandstanding pol who I thought had retired. When I asked someone in his home state about that appearance, he replied, "Oh yeah, so and so (the pol) is retiring this year and he knows this is his last shot at CNN"
by Hinkster on Feb 13, 2008 5:42 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Why Congress is Doing This
And once Clemens started challenging the findings of the Mitchell Report, he really forced Congress' hand. If Congress did not deal with his denials, the Mitchell Report would be under a perpetual cloud, and honest reporters would feel compelled to say, "many of players named in the report have attacked its conclusions."
Now, I don't think many will take Clemens' denials seriously.
In a strange sort of way, I think McGuire ends up looking a little better now. Though he should have just admitted his cheating (as Clemens also should have done), at least McGuire had more integrity than to baldly spew lies in Congress' face. The bad choices Palmeiro Clemens, and, of course, Bonds, make Big Mac's "I'm not here to discuss the past" look somewhat better by comparison
by Titus Pullo on Feb 15, 2008 1:22 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Pettitte
Pettitte has no reason to lie so there isnt any reason why not to believe him...
And Clemens outright lied when they asked him three times whether he EVER discussed HGH with Mcnamee he said no...........then later he said he had a detailed discussion with Mcnamee about his wifes use of HGH..........he is such a liar..........
Also Clemens looks so freaking guilty LOL..... but thats just my opinion.....
by Calhoun on Feb 13, 2008 1:40 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Me Too
by That's a Winner on Feb 13, 2008 2:26 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
do we even know
I haven't been able to watch any of this, but from what I can gather reading about it none of the people questioned have any credibility whatsoever. They're all lying, especially Andy "I took HGH, but only two times" Pettitte.
by SleepyCA on Feb 13, 2008 2:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The depositions
by cardsrul on Feb 13, 2008 2:58 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
help me out...
by SleepyCA on Feb 13, 2008 3:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
ok, got it
As I suspected, "what he actually said" is not nearly as damning as the inquisitors/media made it out to be. Imagine that.
JC Bradbury has a good take on it at his sabernomics blog.
by SleepyCA on Feb 13, 2008 6:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
What's not damning about this?
This last point is especially damning, because if Pettitte had simply "misheard" why would McNamee admit, back in 1999, to giving Clemens' HGH? Regardless of whether you think McNamee is lying now, he certainly had no reason to lie to Pettittee in private back in 1999.
All of this pretty much undermines Clemen's assertions that he never did HGH. So what's not damning about it?
by Titus Pullo on Feb 15, 2008 1:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
"no reason for lying"???
- McNamee was a drug dealer, not some disinterested third party. It seems fairly obvious to me that there is at least some possibility that McNamee used Roger Clemen's name to sell drugs to Andy Pettitte. Not "McNamee "admitted" to giving"; McNamee had a very expensive product to sell, he saw a potential customer with extensive means, and he used the name of the best pitcher in baseball to help sell to the customer.
- Clemens wife definitely used HGH. There is nothing wrong with that; HGH is perfectly legal for personal use and only illegal to distribute, so there is no "throwing the wife under the bus" like some people are claiming.
- the fact that his wife used HGH is certainly not evidence that Clemens used HGH himself
Andy: "Hey, rog, ever hear anything about HGH?"
Roger: "Works pretty good, from what I hear, wink wink nudge nudge"
Andy: "Oh, really"?
[hot chick on TV distracts them and they don't think about it again for a couple of years]
From that, Pettitte would conclude that Roger used it, even though roger was talkign about his wife's usage of the drug.
If you think about it, if Roger was such a close friend of Andy, and McNamee was really giving HGH to Roger, wouldn't it have made sense for Roger to say something like "Dude, yeah, HGH rocks, call my boy Brian M, here's his card, he'll hook ya up"? That's how I'd treat MY friends...
Anyway, I have thought that Roger was guilty of something for years, but this show trial did not get us any closer to proving anything.
by SleepyCA on Feb 15, 2008 4:30 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Mrs. Clemens and HGH
And although I might be mistaken, I thought that HGH was not "perfectly legal for personal use." I think HGH was legal with a doctor's prescription. Big difference. I'm not saying I think its inherently wrong -- just that its a slightly bigger deal than perfectly legal.
by Ray Lankford on Feb 15, 2008 6:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The point
The best hitter (Bonds), the best pitcher (Clemens), and the best team (Yankees) of the past 2 decades are neck deep in this thing. I hate when congress gets involved with anything, but it is 100% obvious that baseball wouldn't have done jack sh@t if congress hadn't stuck their noses in this. They haven't caught 10% of the people who were guilty of doing this stuff. I am amazed at how little guilt that management, ownership, and the commissioner are taking for this. $20,000,000 for the Mitchell report??? Based on the substance, that payment was for a cover-up, not an investigation...write it down.
by Elvis on Feb 15, 2008 6:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Nope, HGH is certainly legal
That's why prosecutors etc have had to go after the pharmacies, instead of the players; the players aren't doing anything illegal until they actually give the drug to someone else, which is much harder to prove. I've posted links to the actual laws a number of times and am not going to bother to do it again, but you can find it out by googling easily enough, or going back to the Ankiel threads and reading it there.
WRT debbie clemens, all the source docs are here. I think what you are saying is pretty far from what was said in court but my memory is already hazy. Feel free to post a document and page number to reference if you can find anything to back up what you are saying.
by SleepyCA on Feb 15, 2008 7:06 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
actually, what i said above
It is not a scheduled substance in Texas, which is all that matters for Mrs Clemens.
by SleepyCA on Feb 15, 2008 11:04 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Debbie's prepared statement
"Mr. Clemens says that Mr. McNamee injected Mrs. Clemens without his knowledge. Mr. McNamee says that Mr. Clemens asked him to inject Mrs. Clemens. What they do agree upon, however, is that these injections occurred in 2003. That makes it impossible that Mr. Clemens, when he spoke to Mr. Pettitte in 1999 or 2000 could have been referring to these injections of Mrs. Clemens."
So no, I do not agree with you that my contention is "pretty far from what was said."
But even before I looked at the information you provided in your link, I saw this being reported in various AP articles. Here is a paragraph from Mike Lupica:
"The only way you can believe Clemens is completely different already is if you watched Wednesday and believe that McNamee made it up and Andy Pettitte made it up. And that Debbie Clemens got HGH from Clemens' trainer and didn't tell her husband about it. And that it was the fault of Clemens' agents that he didn't talk to Sen. George Mitchell."
http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/yankees/2008/02/15/2008-02-15_roger_clemens_should_look_l ike_barry_bon-1.html?ref=rss
by Ray Lankford on Feb 16, 2008 12:34 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
somehow i missed that
FWIW, McNamee also said in his deposition that he hasn't injected anyone since 2002 (prelim p92) and then later says he "injected Debbie Clemens in 2003" and then later when caught in this lie he reverts to [paraphrased] "I instructed Debbie on how to inject herself" (prelim p93), though earlier he had gone into graphic detail about how he injected her, talking about getting on his knees in front of her with Roger watching, squeezing her belly etc (mcnamee dep p120). This isn't proof one way or another that Roger is telling the truth, since Debbie was certainly injected in both stories and the devil is in the details, but McNamee has been inconsistent WRT this issue; one of his statements about this is already guaranteed to be a lie. He also lied to the investigators when he said "I injected 3 people", those 3 being knoblauch, pettitte, and mr clemens (prelim p30), not mrs Clemens.
BTW the link above has McNamees side of the story at p119 in his interview and Clemens at p179. It's also all in the prelim transcript (just d/l the pdf and search for 'deb"). Roger reads Debbie's written statement on page 166 of the prelim transcript.
The 1999 pettitte-clemens conversation is the real sticking point, since 1999 is obviously before 2003 so Clemens could not have been talking about Debbie unless Debbie was using HGH acquired somewhere other than McNamee, which is possible but doesn't jive with other things Roger and Debbie have said.
however, HGH was neither illegal or against the rules of baseball in 1999, so it's very possible that Andy asked a question about HGH and roger (who honestly did not know what HGH was) misunderstood him, thinking it was some kind of fancy creatine or Met-Rx etc, and then Roger completely forgot the conversation or made it into something it wasn't in his mind. Later on, when HGH acquired stigma, that conversation meant a lot more to andy than it did to roger. I'm not saying it's probable, but it's certainly possible.
FWIW I wrestled my way through college and took a number of legal supplements over the years. I couldn't tell you what supplements I took then (I graduated in 1998) and I didn't have a personal trainer to pick them out for me. I also remembers standing around in the locker room with other member of the college wrestling team talking about stuff and trading stuff before workouts, etc; it was and most likely still is part of the culture. The only reason I know I didn't take HGH is because of the price, and the fact that you had to get a shot, but when you make $xxM/year and apparently get vitamin shots regularly a ~$500 shot doesn't have the same emotional impact as it does to a college student, ya know?
by SleepyCA on Feb 16, 2008 4:35 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I have to take issue with your first paragraph,
The entire point of my posts has been that Roger Clemens' story is unbelievable; McNamee is simply not a credible witness. Roger is asking America to believe that his wife took HGH from his personal trainer without his knowledge in order to get ripped for a photo shoot. Why does it have to be without his knowledge? Does he really expect people to believe that his personal trainer and wife know enough about HGH, where to acquire it, and how to administer it such that they orchestrated this all without his involvement at all? I guess from all his intimidation tactics, I find it hard to believe that Roger Clemens is a victim of his own ignorance and his trainer's and wife's independent involvement in HGH.
When I think about this, I think Debbie's sworn statement (and Roger's reading of it) is complete bullshit. Therefore, I disagree with your dismissal of the issue by saying that "Both sides of the story sound plausible and it really doesn't make that much difference." It does make a difference -- if Clemens knew about his wife being injected with HGH from his own trainer, then I think that's pretty damned good circumstantial evidence that Roger knew more than he lets on about HGH, and how to obtain and administer it.
This is exactly the kind of thing Roger would want to lie about, because he has taken the high road and defiantly barked to Congress that "you can tell your boys that I did it the right way." If it begins to look like Clemens knew about HGH, that his trainer knew how to obtain it and administer it, that his wife knew its effects and felt comfortable enough having it injected into her, then it looks like Clemens knew and dabbled more than he let on. Where there's smoke, there's at least reason to believe there's fire . . . when someone stands on a moral high ground and declares that no smoke exists, then it makes me wonder what the fuck the grey rising clouds are, and where they are coming from.
by Ray Lankford on Feb 17, 2008 1:48 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The thing I keep going back to
What would Brian McNamee gain by creating a story of injecting Roger Clemens with PEDs? In other words, what good would it do him to commit perjury and put his freedom on the line?
The only answer I've been able to even come up with to that question is just for the publicity and the fifteen minutes of fame that would come with it. Judging by his body language and his statements today, this could be totall legitimate for McNamee, but it just doesn't make much sense.
On the other hand, Roger Clemens would lose everything if he did do PEDs. He has plenty of reason to try and lie (IF he did the PEDs).
It's definitely a strange case.
by Mr Redbird on Feb 13, 2008 2:01 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
They are both lying
The most interesting part of the whole hearing was when the DC Congresswoman told Roger he "was going to heaven".
Awesome!
by Hardcore Legend on Feb 13, 2008 2:02 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
I agree
by Mr Redbird on Feb 13, 2008 2:07 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
The afterlife is secure!
by Hardcore Legend on Feb 13, 2008 2:25 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Roger
IF ROGER IS INNOCENT, WHY DID HE IGNORE MULTIPLE REQUESTS BY CONGRESS TO COME SEE THEM PRIOR TO THE MITCHELL REPORT. I GUESS CONGRESS HAD NAMES OF A HANDFULL OF PLAYERS ACCUSED OF USING PED'S AND CONGRESS INVITED THEM TO COME SEE THEM ABOUT THE CLIAMS AND HELP REFUTE THEM.
I am listening to 670 the score out of Chicago and they have been playing the hearing pretty much all morning. Each show host just lets the tapes play and comments from time to time. I would say Mcnamee sounds like he has a hole or two in certain points but nothing that is really a major thing by any means.
I would say there are a lot more "wow" moments with Clemens than Mcnamee. Clemens looks really bad.
by ICbirdfan on Feb 13, 2008 2:35 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
clemens and nanny
if steroids were not mentioned at joses party why do they care who was there?
at any rate if this were a court hearing thats called witness tampering
by punchinjudy on Feb 13, 2008 2:49 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
no, it's not.
by SleepyCA on Feb 13, 2008 2:55 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
It's not tampering
by joker24 on Feb 13, 2008 3:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
ah
by punchinjudy on Feb 13, 2008 4:41 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Selective Quote
You left out the rest of the statute.
This law is much broader than your link suggests. Section (b) says that you can violate the law by attempting to "corruptly persuade" with the intent to influence their testimony. Other provisions are broader still.
The point is: We could see a prosecution here.
Here's a portion of 18 USC 1512(b):
(b) Whoever knowingly uses intimidation, threatens, or corruptly persuades another person, or attempts to do so, or engages in misleading conduct toward another person, with intent to--
(1) influence, delay, or prevent the testimony of any person in an official proceeding;
To see the rest, click here.
by Titus Pullo on Feb 15, 2008 1:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Bad link
by Titus Pullo on Feb 15, 2008 1:47 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
"corruptly persuade"
If Clemens was not at the party, then there is nothing wrong with meeting with the witness before hand and showing her the tape of the broadcasters etc, as long as he didn't knowingly ask her to lie about it.
by SleepyCA on Feb 15, 2008 2:29 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
My take
by DD502DK on Feb 13, 2008 2:57 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
shelly duncan's take:
Lol. link
by SleepyCA on Feb 13, 2008 3:08 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
I think
As for the Nanny situation...ESPN's Roger Cossack said that it looked a lot more improper than it really was. Apparently its not uncommon for lawyers/defendants to meet with potential prosecution witnesses before hand.
I watched about 45 minutes or so of the hearing, and really all it was was a bunch of Congressman kissing Roger's ass OR calling him a lying jerk, just as I predicted it would be. A whole lot of talking, but not very much speaking. Seriously, this whole shenanigan isn't about public health or the state of America's drug war, its just a pathetic attempt for a bunch of old white dudes to pander to their constituents and say "We're taking a stand!" It was rather pathetic. If this is really a big deal than the Justice Department needs to take control of the whole thing and tell elected officials with axes to grind to get the hell out of the way. I would have no problem with that at all.
by redbirdnation8206 on Feb 13, 2008 3:46 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
The Hearing
Clemens came off looking like a scumbag liar also and Pettitte coming out against Clemens just seals the deal.....
Also I believe that the Pettitte-Clemens conversation took place before Clemens wife used HGH.......
So him explaining it away as Pettitte misunderstanding that he was talking about his wife`s use of HGH is ridiculous.........
And how did Clemens wife know McNamee dealt drugs if Clemens didn't tell her about it? that's something I want to know.....
by Calhoun on Feb 13, 2008 3:55 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Curious
There is no incentive for McNamee to lie. In fact, his plea deal is terminated if he is caught lying. Why risk jail time by fabricating stuff that you know Clemens won't admit to. He is in trouble, why throw more dirt on himself? Clemens, on the other hand, has every reason to lie.
Clemens should have paid him off like Bonds did with his trainer, if he wanted to get out of this. McNamee goes to jail and comes out a rich man. Clemens gets to keep up the charade.
This is a posturing thing that will likely end up with no real results except Clemens chances for the Hall of Fame are evaporating.
My opinion, McNamee is a sleezeball, but he is telling the truth about Clemens usage. Roger is trying desperately to get out of this and from the tale of the tape has been on some sort of juice for at least 10 years. He knows that 7 year old evidence wouldn't likely be enough to prove his guilt and is willing to take the risk. He knows it is too late to back off now...he is prepared to go down with the ship.
The real victim here is society. Every sport has cheating at the forefront. NBA has referee gambling scandals, NHL has gambling scandals that Gretzky threw his wife under the bus for, Football named a PED user defensive MVP last year and their dynasty football team has been cheating via videotape for at least the past 6 years. Tennis even had something come up lately.
Our kids are leaning about lying, cheating, and stealing at an early age and it is time to make the punishments actually deter someone from cheating.
by Elvis on Feb 13, 2008 4:45 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
i've been defending him in this thread,
I also believe there are a large number of media jackals seeking personal gain by writing about this, and to get noticed they are having to become more and more sensational, in many cases blatantly disregarding the truth; those people should also be punished. This of course won't happen, because sensationalism sells and the people who can do something about it stand to gain from it as well.
That said, if you read the source documents instead of the misleading, sensationalist AP articles, you'll see that McNamee was led by the prosecution to believe that they had evidence that he injected Clemens. Therefore if he DIDN'T say that he injected him, then he'd be arrested and lose his immunity to prosecution for trafficking drugs.
There's some tremendous discussion here, in the BTF thread. Skip to page 7 for the real dirt, since most of the early pages were basically live blogging the proceedings this afternoon (although a lot of common myths, propagated by the media flat out lying, were addressed there as well; there are some very smart people contributing).
by SleepyCA on Feb 14, 2008 12:34 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
biggest turd
Just look at that guys past, he has no right to call people out for "moral" or "questionable" acts.
Mcnamee and Clemens are both scumbags, and I am not going to say either one is better than the other. I think there is no doubt that Clemens used HGH & Roids, it is just a question of how often did he use.
I would say of course Mcnamee lied earlier, duh! He was trying to protect Clemens and his other clients. He did not start telling the truth until he realized he would go to jail if he lied.
by ICbirdfan on Feb 16, 2008 12:24 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I've got the answer
And while we're at it, can we make Elizabeth Taylor young and beautiful again?
by giveml on Feb 14, 2008 12:56 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
And...
by flynn on Feb 15, 2008 4:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I guess I forgot to add
by giveml on Feb 15, 2008 11:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
man
If both knoblauch and pettite both said that McNamee was telling the truth, i don't believe that he would try to lie about clemens.
sure McNamee has lied before, but he wasn't facing jailtime for it, and lied so that other people wouldn't get hurt. Gotta remember being clemens trainer for basically 10 years, that's basically a work-related friendship for a long time, but if i was facing prison time, i'd start telling the truth, no matter who i'd hurt.
by cardwash on Feb 13, 2008 5:01 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
on pettitte
"for two days [in 2002] I tried human growth hormone. Though it was not against baseball rules, I was not comfortable with what I was doing, so I stopped.... "This is it -- two days out of my life; two days out of my entire career"... "I have tried to do things the right way my entire life, and, again, ask that you put those two days in the proper context. People that know me will know that what I say is true." (15 Dec 2007)
"In that affidavit, Andy informed the committee that in addition to the two shots a day of HGH he took for two days in 2002, he also took HGH for a one-day period in 2004, shortly preceding season-ending elbow surgery" (13 Feb 2008)
Inquisitor Waxman:
"Mr. Pettitte's consistency makes him a role model, on and off the field." (13 Feb 2008)
I love it.
by SleepyCA on Feb 13, 2008 5:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
odd
Wow, some of these guys are unbelievable!
Despite all the guys who have obviously lied around Roger Clemens it still does not mean he is innocent. Of course all these guys are shady! They all cheated and knew there were cheating or if you are a trainer you were helping guys cheat.
Roger Clemens is guilty! He is just as guilty as Bonds, and all the other guys who used this stuff. Sorry Big Mac, Sorry Rick Ank (like you ordered HGH and did not use it. Come on who you crappin!)
by ICbirdfan on Feb 13, 2008 5:51 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
I watched
by mynameistyler on Feb 13, 2008 5:13 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Smelling Nice?
McNamee is a scumbag, but that doesn't make Roger any less guilty.
by Elvis on Feb 15, 2008 3:37 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
If you think shit smells nice
by Ray Lankford on Feb 15, 2008 6:23 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Now what
I wonder if he gets in on a first ballot?
by ICbirdfan on Feb 13, 2008 5:24 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
universally
by sdesserman on Feb 14, 2008 11:14 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
If Clemens can stop the bleeding
by ridgesee on Feb 13, 2008 5:38 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
My Turn to Rant on Roids
Steroids and PEDs come into various forms - heavy usage and one time mistakes, legal at the time or illegal, 5 year ago or yesterday, he said she said, proven or not, etc, etc. But one over-riding truth cannot be escaped - MLB and the players union knew for a very long time, perhaps from the beginning, that there was a problem and they chose to look away.
Watching Selig and Fehr attempt to speak with credibility turns my stomach. These two guys wagging their finger is like a father who ignored lying in his home for ten years now deciding to lecture his teenagers on integrity.
The first step in the right direction would be to fire the two shameful men - Selig and Fehr - who were at the helm watching this mess unfold from their luxury boxes. They should also be banned from MLB activities just like Pete Rose. They were the closest thing we had to someone in charge of the national treasure known as MLB and they blew it - big time.
So fire them, bring in new leadership, accept that scrambled eggs cannot be unscrambled and move forward with integrity. Or as another VEB poster notes - "Bury the dead, feed the survivors and rebuild the city".
And now we will offer an altar call, pass the offering and have a closing prayer. Amen.
by Hinkster on Feb 14, 2008 9:16 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
...an altar call
"Yessir, let them players do what they want so long as we put butts in the seats Don!"
"So right Bud, but too bad about Gywnn and Williams and that Griffey boy!"
by cardschinmusic on Feb 15, 2008 5:03 AM EST reply actions 0 recs
more fictional discourse from Bud and Don
by Hinkster on Feb 15, 2008 8:58 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
if roids were really as common as everyone says
The good thing about these hearings and such is that finally the WWE made their own wellness policy, MLB got one, and then several orginizations donated money for the research of detectin HGH. So I'd call this a little progress, do we actually have to say thank you JOSE? Even if alot of his facts were wrong he got them looking into it, and Balco helped as well.
by punchinjudy on Feb 15, 2008 12:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs
Jose had an axe...
...and he was running out of cash. Ken Cam is the legacy.
It is progress, agree 100%, but the lords of baseball should have cared more about the kids that played the game than the gate money. Yeah, I know...!
All the variables that created the PED problem added up to dollar signs in everyones eyes, from Selig, Fehr and the PU, right on down to the third string catchers trying to grab a million dollar contract before the dream disappeared.
Then people and careers died in the backwash.
by cardschinmusic on Feb 16, 2008 7:10 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs
some would say
that Ken Caminitti was number 1 with more to come -
by Hinkster on Feb 15, 2008 4:12 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
If Mike Stanton says...
heh.
by joeyart on Feb 15, 2008 5:46 PM EST reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
