If it's not admissable, it's not valuable to anyone. And I don't think you're naive (to borrow your word) enough to believe that McNamee couldn't have created evidence - he had access to DNA, he had access to steroids, all he had to do was put them together. If I'm trying a case with DNA evidence but I don't establish chain of custody, then it's worthless to me.
I've never arrived at an opinion whether Roger did it or not (though I hope he didn't)--in fact I've said at one point he wasn't looking very good. "Attack?" Is lying OK or isn't it? I don't know what you think I'm "trying". I just pointed out the delicious irony of a guy sitting on his high horse screaming how he "just wants the truth" now saying lying is OK as long as it's to the press, or not under oath, or to defend his livelihood, or whatever the latest excuse you type is.
This is exhibit "A" in my case that it doesn't matter what Clemens does to defend himself, because people will assume. That the damage is done, and there's no way he can prove a negative. Every assumption taken in favor of McNamee.
Max, I have also been watching and it seems like these congress reps have caught both Clemens and the trainer in lies. I vividly remember the rep noting how Clemens deposition conflicted with what he told reps in his trip down Capital hill. Let’s not act like either one is without holes in their story. Yes, Roger’s story has not changed. Clarification, his BS, highly unbelievable (IMO) story has not changed. Well actually it went from he never injected me with anything to he shot me with some B12..and I can’t believe paid professionals couldn’t come up with a better excuse that that. Yes, Roger showed up, visited with reps and told the same story. Why do you act like just because a person testifies for 5 hours that they couldn’t be lying for 5 hours? Didn’t Marion Jones deny, deny, deny? Or Palmiro (I believe)? Who doesn’t when they are busted? No real proof can come against Clemens, so why not keep denying? From my understanding Andy went in and basically told them of more incidents because he wanted to be completely honest. He gave them the info on the 2004 injections. Someone tells on themselves when they don’t have to (very rare) and you think that makes their testimony less believable? Andy had no reason to divulge that information. He already admitted to using and no one else was going to come after him (IMO). You can say he was under oath and had to tell the complete truth…but the congress rep said they had no idea of the 2004 injections. Roger lost me when he said his momma told him to take B12 and that it seems to work for him, lol. You know guilt is there when dudes start putting it on momma!!!! Is it just me, or does it seem like these Congress reps have picked sides? Edit: And just because a man has a shady character doesn’t mean he can’t be telling the truth.
1. because it's perjury. 2. there is the threat that there will proof. 3. why is, "i didn't do it" unbelievable??
Im with DaDa on this one (thats rare). IMO, intially McNamee appeared to do what he could to protect himself and Clemens, but when confronted w/ the prospect of perjury, he had no choice but to tell the truth. So when he is telling the truth (allegedly), he is accused of being a liar because he didn't tell the truth to begin with? Its an interesting dilemma there.
It would certainly be brought up by any attorney in a court of law. It goes to his veracity. It goes to whether you can trust a guy's testimony when he changed his story so many times. He can explain it away, and maybe those explanations are believable. But when a guy is on the record changing his story, it's not a good spot to be when you want people to believe you.
Thats exactly what was going through my mind when that ignorant Rep was trying to discredit MAC. I would do the same thing, why not, its like writing a statement of being guilty before you are having a trial.
Clemens again says that the lidocaine was injected into his back and not his buttocks. I was trying to find the transcript from the original press conference where he cleared this up first, but couldn't, so now we have this testimony (under oath).
I don't believe for one minute that manufactured evidence would stand up to scientific testing. For instance, if the needles themselves have Roger's DNA and HGH/Steroids and NO B12 or Lidocaine...I think that nails him then and there. DD
If Clements is not guilty he is doing the right thing. His association with the sleezy trainer though is the wrong thing. The fact that Roger associated with McNamee until 2007 is just wrong. (Especially with all the steroids in baseball in the media) Roger disappoints me he didn't ditch McNamee, protecting people like that is wrong. I can believe Roger didn't cheat. I can believe he possibly did. What they should do is go after MLB. MLB has gotten off the hook and they should have made sure their game was clean. Clements never pitched an illegal game all of his records were sanctioned completely by MLB. Same goes for Bonds. The guilty ones are the commissioner and the rest of the league for not getting in and cleaning up the game. Maybe the real problem is that the players assoc. is just too strong for the league. Anyways all we have here today is a possibility of clearing somewhat public perception towards Clements or damning it further.
