A simple poll - Did Roger Clemens take Steroids/HGH

its pretty obvious, if you dont think he did it by now, you are officially an idiot

 

I'm gonna go innocent until *proven* guilty..and no, nothing has been proven. Not even close considering McNamee has been caught in lies too. So without proof, I refuse to say Yes. And somehow that makes me an idiot. "Officially".

 

Try my luck again - anyone know where I can watch the hearing in its entirety?

 

If you are asking me do I think he used steroids/HGH.. of course he did. There is little to no doubt in my mind.. IMO.

If I was on a jury in a legal matter - innocent until proven guilty.

 

You know, I really don't care if he did or not, or lied about it or not.

It does not change the fact that he has been the best pitcher of the modern baseball era.

Especially in light of the fact that performance enhancing drugs appear to be so pervasive that they do not provide any additional boost that is not available to every player.

 

Major --

I don't know what to say but that I don't like a rush to judgment. I don't like it. I'm not saying you're an awful person for making a judgment on this. I'm saying I feel it's unfair. I'm not in the business of calling people perjurers and cheaters and then making them prove themselves out of it in my head.

 

bwahahha that is hilarious. You don't have the stones to click Yes or No.

 

LOL, whats up DD. Good morning to you, always enjoy your posts!!

 

Fair enough - I would argue that you're fighting reality though. All of us do it, every day of our lives. I think the vast majority of people thought Vick guilty long before he pleaded out. I think people, after reading the story about that DC dry cleaner suit, mostly assumed he was crazy. I think when Canseco first published his book, most people thought he was doing it just for the money. When you hear the next time Britney Spears is the news for something, I'd venture to guess most people will say she's crazy. I think people make these kinds of judgments all the time - and I don't see any reason that they wouldn't in this case. It's never done with a full set of facts, and people often can change their mind, maybe even years later. I don't see anything bad about any of that.

 

I thought Vick was likely guilty because he was indicted by the feds. They don't miss. The evidence against Vick was far more than what we have against Clemens. If the feds had searched Clemens home and found evidence of illegal drug use, that would be a better analogy.

I think the other examples fall short of this one as well.

Having said that...you're certainly free to believe whatever you wish to believe.

 

Sure - but in making that decision, you're weighing the evidence you have in front of you and making a judgment. It's not all the evidence, and Vick hadn't had an opportunity to present the other side at the time. That's my only point - you may have a higher standard of what evidence is needed than someone else, or someone else may have a higher standard than you. Someone else may have argued "but it's not right to make a judgment on Vick until his side has a chance to present their full case and go to trial". But you're able to look at it and say "but this is what I *think*".

The issue there is one of degrees - how much evidence is enough. But, from your posts, I get the sense you're trying to argue more of a philosophy - that until we have a full accounting of the evidence, and until we know everything, it's not right to make a judgment, because ultimately in both the Clemens and Vick cases, we're making assumptions about the evidence. Maybe I'm misunderstanding you, but that's where I differ. I agree with the "full evidence" part in a court of law where you're taking away something from the defendant if they are guilty, but in the court of public opinion, judgments are simply made based on what we know.

 

You're right. I'm completely wrong.

I'll see if I can work up an opinion that everyone is ok with.

 

Just confess already.

 

Yeah, I feel so sorry for Clemens. He's just the victim of a witchhunt.

 

Well, he's a lot more than that, but he is that.

 

It's very much possible to abhor both the subject & the process.

 

Who else here, as Texans, don't like the way Clemens is displaying this macho, billy badass, aggressive behavior when he talks to the press and to the representatives? I really despise that kind of behavior. Reminds me of George Bush in a way. It looks bad upon all Texans.