Are you saying poor Roger got sidetracked by some city slicker reporter? Come on, he has had Rusty Hardin advising him for weeks and Roger has been following a concerted PR strategy from the get go. When you're trying to affirmatively repair your credibility, it helps not strategically omit such relevant details.
If you're right that everything has been carefully planned out then why admit it at all? It makes no sense and your argument folds in on itself. He said he never got HGH or steroid injections. He still says that. No, and you just did it again. He didn't say anything like 'I thought it was something else.' He said definitively what it was he got shots of. You can keep repeating falsehoods but it doesn't strengthen your argument.
You're right, he hasn't said he THOUGHT they were lidocaine and b12, he said that they were; But short of actually testing every single syringe I doubt that he has much basis for this judgment. It just seems like hes sliding us down the flaxseed oil path. Why admit it at all? Because Roger's whole story here is to clear his name by telling what Roger claims is the truth. When Roger omits parts of the truth that makes his accuser seem more credible, it makes Roger less so. And do you really think that everything hasn't been carefully planned out as far as Roger's defense strategy goes ? Roger hired Rusty a month ago, he probably forked over 250,000 cash retainer. If they are just winging it at this point, he should get his money back.
I'm just saying there is a BIG difference between saying 'someone gave me something - I thought it was ok' and saying 'i took a, b, and c.'
There is a BIG difference. But when you're just talking casually you can paper it over. However I wouldn't swear in a court of law to the latter statement. The last time I went to the doctors office I think I got a tetanus shot. I'll tell you that I got a tetanus shot. If I had to swear it in an affidavit within my personal knowledge under penalty of law, I'd say i went to the doctor, he prescribed a tetanus shot, and the nurse gave me what i believed was a tetanus shot. If cross examined me and asked me if there was anything else in the shot, I would say, I don't know or not to my knowledge, but I couldn't personally testify to what was there, just to what i believed it was. Roger faces the same issue here unless he's giving himself the shot - which evidently he didn't.
It was a videotaped statement placed on his website, after he hired a lawyer to help him deal with all of this. You really don't think his lawyer participated? I'm suggesting he tried to create a false impression in his first denial without technically lying. That makes me wonder why he wasn't just straight with everyone if he has nothing to hide. There's no reason to admit to B-12 unless you are trying to clear your reputation and explain what really happened.
That is all fine and good except that you are comparing it to Bonds where he knew it was steroids and said he thought it was not. That is not the same scenario at all. The argument cuts both ways - if his lawyer and PR machine carefully planned it all out then why the confusion? Because they wanted to make a clear statement in the beginning that he had taken neither HGH nor steroids. Really there was no reason at all to admit to anything. As I said before, if McNamee had steroid laden syringes with Clemens assflesh on them, there wouldn't be any debate. But he obviously doesn't, so a further explanation or clarification is hardly proof he is guilty. At most it is proof he either didn't have a PR planned agenda or that they made a mistake.
Certainly we have no idea. But maybe they expected people to believe the original statement. It didn't work, so they had to change it up and go further. I really have no idea. Whatever it is, it doesn't sound like someone who's trying to be forthright and open to clear his name. He certainly doesn't have to admit to anything - but no one really has to believe him either. If he wants people to believe him, he should be candid and open.
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/columns/story?columnist=munson_lester&id=3185262 This is odd. Three words describe Roger Clemens' lawsuit against Brian McNamee. Two of them are nouns: profile and propaganda. One of them is an adjective: proactive. The profile: What Clemens offers in the lawsuit filed Sunday night is a detailed listing of his feats as one of the great pitchers of all time. He devotes 10 paragraphs and five pages of his 14-page lawsuit to career highlights that go back to his days in high school. If he's that good as a pitcher, the suit suggests, how can anyone think he is lying about steroids? The propaganda: The suit includes both a reminder that Clemens was "raised primarily by a single mother who worked several jobs" and an attack on McNamee as a suspected rapist who could not find work until Clemens hired him. Both the detailed profile of greatness and the propaganda are highly unusual in a civil lawsuit that claims defamation and seeks money damages. Most lawyers file papers that are lean and spare in their descriptions, hoping to avoid a nasty backlash and expecting to add details as the suit progresses. But the adjective is the most important here. The lawsuit is a "proactive" strike against McNamee. Clemens filed his case in Houston, his home court, where his lawyers have enjoyed extraordinary success. When McNamee gets around to filing his countersuit, he is stuck now. He must file it in Texas, the forum selected by Clemens and his lawyers. As a profile of Clemens' greatness, as propaganda, and as a proactive strike, the lawsuit does more than seek monetary damages for defamation. It is part of a deliberate and planned campaign of defiance of the charges in the Mitchell report, a campaign that included Clemens' interview with Mike Wallace on "60 Minutes" and his press conference on Monday afternoon and that will continue with his appearance before the U.S. House of Representatives next week. The detailed description of Clemens' baseball career is very uncommon in a defamation lawsuit. Clemens wants everyone to remember how great he is. In a lengthy description of his first 20-strikeout game in 1986, it includes a quote from his manager: "I watched perfect games by Catfish Hunter and Mike Witt, but this was the most awesome pitching performance I've ever seen." The suit doesn't name the manager, keeping the focus on Clemens. (For the record, the manager of the Red Sox in 1986 was John McNamara.) It even reminds us of the statement Red Sox general manager Dan Duquette made in 1996 when Duquette failed to re-sign Clemens and let him go to Toronto. Duquette famously said he wished Clemens well in the "twilight of his career." Just in case anyone has forgotten, the lawsuit reminds us that Clemens won the Cy Young and the pitching triple crown in his first year with the Blue Jays. When he won only seven games for the Astros in 2006, the suit makes sure we know it was because of "low run support." It may be the first time in the history of American jurisprudence that "low run support" has made it into a legal document. The propaganda touches in the suit include a description of a rape investigation in Florida that involved McNamee. It is highly unlikely that any mention of the rape investigation would be made in a trial of the Clemens case; but apparently, it was important to Clemens and his attorneys to let us know that McNamee "lied to police officers and refused their requests for evidence." No charges were ever filed against McNamee. The lawsuit also accuses McNamee in dramatic terms of changing his story to federal investigators and to Mitchell. Clemens calls McNamee's decision to tell what he thinks is the truth a "recantation," and suggests that it came only after threats of jail and a "cold war era interrogation." With the profile and the propaganda come dramatic statements of what McNamee and the Mitchell report have done to Clemens. Their allegations, Clemens asserts, have "captured the attention of the nation, fueled rampant speculation and irreparably tainted the reputation of one of baseball's hardest working and most talented pitchers." If that's the damage to Clemens, the damage to McNamee is just beginning. Clemens' proactive filing leaves McNamee in a bad spot. Not only must he respond to Clemens in Texas, he is up against Clemens' formidable resources. In litigation, money matters -- and Clemens will clearly have the edge over McNamee. If there was any doubt about Clemens' rage against the Mitchell report, the lawsuit resolves them. Clemens is on a campaign of denial and defiance. It might work. But if there is a smoking syringe out there somewhere, it won't. Lester Munson, a Chicago lawyer and journalist who has been reporting on investigative and legal issues in the sports industry for 18 years, is a senior writer for ESPN.com.
Not odd to me, like i said, in my initial denial of an issuance of retraction, any monkey with a filing fee can file a suit for PR purposes. I haven't seen the complaint but judging from that story it seems like a pile of horse crap for PR and nothing more. Brillian trial lawyers like Hardin always write the crappiest pleadings, I guess out of both arrogance and laziness combined.
I'm guessing Hardin didn't actually draft that document. I'll say this...it's definitely in plain English. That does support the notion it at least has some PR bend to it. Having said that...it's a he said, he said case. You throw out everything...including anything that helps prove it's a lie (like, "i don't need steroids because i already kick ass" -- which is a defense i've heard countless times for baseball players, particularly for McGwire with relation to the fact that he was hitting HR's long before the steroid craze).
He (Roger) has to admit to some injections (B-12 or whatever) because if it actually gets to court, McNamee side can probably produce the other trainers / doctors who have injected Roger before so better say this now than in court. But it's the BBond's school of denial "I thought it was B-12" ... and all this 60minute/local news conference and lawsuit is a standard play from the lawyers handbook. Next, as mentioned before any "tough" question will be answered "I can't comment because of my lawsuit". Neither side wants to go to court because it will be nasty so some sort of settlement will probably happen where neither side admits to anything. So we are left where we started, he said/she said... And Roger will start trying to fix the PR damage...
This is interesting, could Roger actually sue MacNamee, and then pay him off as part of the suit? I mean could he negotiate a settlement whereby he loses the suite pays of Macnamee and then they both sign confidentiality agreements? Could that happen? DD
In all honesty, there is virutally NOTHING Roger could do right now that would satisfy you if you've already made up your mind. For years people said, "if people are lying about Barry, why doesn't he file a defamation lawsuit???" Roger files the lawsuit and it's assumed it's all PR posturing. He can't win. He can't prove a negative. Roger tells his story denying it...and it's assumed to all be posturing. All of it is based on the assumption that Roger is a liar and McNamee a truth-teller.
And Roger has done very little to disprove this assumption thus far, and rather has been very selective in his disclosures - while at the same time drawing attention to himself, as per usual. Not to mention that ham-handed attempt to trick McNamee with the phone taping (got to love those 1-party consent states, eh rusty?) and the fact that his best buddy Andy corroborated his accuser. His biggest problem is Hardin. He is taking Roger down perjury road. Jail is a lot to bet on legacy.
But you don't have to pay him to perjure, just to keep quiet to the media etc.... What happens if MacNamee confirms his testimony in front of Congress, and Roger says he is lying. What then? My guess is it ends there, or Roger pays off MacNamee in the lawsuit to just go away and shut the heck up. DD
this happens quite often in legal proceedings. one side has their side of the story...the other has a different version of events. a jury/fact-finder decides who is telling the truth.
Help me with the Andy corroboration stuff...my understanding is that McNamee told Mitchell that Andy used steroids and HGH. Andy said, "i've never done steroids...I did use HGH on a couple of occasions to recover from injury." As for disproving the assumption....how do you prove a negative?
