Is Rocket lying?

Isn't ill temper a side effect of Steroid use?



DD

 

i didnt read the thread from the beginning (too lazy right now)

i saw his 60 minutes interview and press conference. he gives a convincing legal argument and the taped conversation makes mcnamee look shaky.

with that said...

1) isnt lidocaine a prescription drug? did clemens have a prescription?

2) if he did have a precription, why would he have it in liquid form where he would need to inject it.

3) if he didnt have a prescription, how did he obtain it?

4) shouldnt you get an MD or nurse to inject you w/ anything? (except for insulin)

 

In his press conference they asked him this question and he answered, a little hesitantly mind you but answered nonetheless, that he was under the impression that McNamee was essentially certified to administer those injections; that he had the necessary credentials or whatever. In my mind that seems pretty ignorant on his part, if that indeed was the truth.

 

Uh oh...Clemens is wavering on going before Congress...

After saying repeatedly that Roger Clemens will answer any questions Congress wants to ask him, a source familiar with the inquiry said Saturday night that attorney Rusty Hardin is hedging over the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee's request to depose Clemens under oath next week because it might interfere with his defamation lawsuit against personal trainer Brian McNamee.

The source said Hardin is also making "noises" about not turning over a taped conversation between McNamee and two investigators for Hardin's office recorded Dec. 12, the day before the Mitchell report was released.

A segment of the tape was detailed in Clemens' complaint, describing McNamee as saying he was pressured into naming Clemens as a steroid user to federal investigators. Unlike the Jan. 5 phone conversation between Clemens and McNamee that was made public, however, Hardin has refused to release that tape and said it would come out in the discovery process of Clemens' lawsuit.

McNamee's lawyers said the Hardin's investigators tried to get McNamee to recant his story, a charge Hardin denies.

The source said that nothing has been decided and it's premature to say whether the committee will be forced to subpoena Clemens to testify before the committee. The source said all the issues will be raised Monday when Hardin meets with committee staffers in Washington, D.C., to discuss Clemens' cooperation.

Clemens, former Astros teammate Andy Pettitte and Houston-area resident Chuck Knoblauch have been asked to testify Feb. 13 before the congressional committee. The much-anticipated hearing was postponed from Jan. 16 so lawmakers can gather evidence and coordinate their investigation with the Justice Department.

Asked Saturday night whether Clemens will agree to a deposition or whether he will seek to limit the scope of committee investigators' questions, Hardin said in an e-mail response, "Great questions, and all appropriate things to discuss with the committee staff if they desire. We will be there to listen and address their concerns. The agenda is totally up to them."

Hardin's hesitation is the first hiccup in his no-holds-barred defense of Clemens. Hardin and Clemens have said categorically that Clemens never used steroids and that McNamee is lying. They filed a defamation lawsuit against Clemens' longtime trainer Jan. 6, but Hardin said at the time the lawsuit would not prevent Clemens from testifying before Congress in an open hearing.

T. J. Quinn is a reporter for ESPN and can be reached at tjquinn31@yahoo.com. Information from The Associated Press was used in this report.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3194113

Clemens and his crack team would be utter fools to not go before Congress and answer any and all questions, especially after they've said time and time again that they would be more than willing to and that it wouldn't affect the defamation lawsuit. You want the benefit of the doubt Roger? Then don't pull this bulls**t...we've been down this road before with McGwire.

Well I take that back slightly, his team of lawyers would be wise not to go before Congress and answer direct questions if in fact Clemens is lying, because then it becomes a criminal matter. Right now he doesn't go to jail if he's lying. But the path he's taking, if telling the truth, is further deteriorating his reputation, which is something he seems to covet.

 

It was obvious to me from a mile that Clemens and his people want to use the "lawsuit" to avoid saying anything in front of congress.

Even legal amateurs saw this all the way.

Roger Clemens is not a good person - I do not see any remorse with the way he is going about this. I do not want him anywhere close to me..

 

Looks like Clemens' big beef should be with the MLBPA, if anything:

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3195721


Former U.S. Sen. George Mitchell twice tried to talk to Roger Clemens about his alleged steroid use included in his report before its release, USA Today reported Monday.

Mitchell twice sent letters to the Major League Baseball Players' Association requesting to speak to players who would be mentioned in his report into illegal use of steroids and other performance-enhancing drugs in Major League Baseball. The letters included the dates of their alleged steroid use and the teams they played for when they allegedly used performance enhancers.

In an e-mail sent to USA Today, Mitchell said he sent letters to the players' union in the summer and in October, requesting to talk to players named in the report.

In the October letter, Mitchell wrote: "During the course of any such interview, I will inform the player of the evidence of their use, including permitting him to examine and answer questions about copies of relevant checks, mailing receipts, or other documents, and give him an opportunity to respond."

In the first letter sent to the union, Mitchell told the newspaper that he provided detailed information regarding players who would be named in the report.

"We identified the year(s) during which the alleged use had occurred and the club(s) with which the players were then affiliated," Mitchell wrote to USA Today. "Roger Clemens was one of the players listed in those letters."

Last Monday, Clemens claimed he did not know that he was going to be named in the Mitchell report and that Mitchell wouldn't disclose the nature of the allegations to his agents.

"They wouldn't respond to what it was about," Clemens said. "Obviously if I had known what Brian McNamee was saying about me I would have been there."

McNamee, Clemens' former trainer, told the Mitchell Commission that he injected the seven-time Cy Young Award winner with steroids and human growth hormone 16-21 times in 1998, 2000 and 2001. Clemens asserts that the trainer injected him with only the painkiller lidocaine and the vitamin B-12.

Clemens has denied the allegations and has filed a defamation lawsuit against McNamee.

Clemens and McNamee have been asked to testify Feb. 13 before Congress. Andy Pettitte, who has admitted to HGH use, and Chuck Knoblauch also have been asked to testify, along with Kirk Radomski, the former New York Mets clubhouse attendant who pleaded guilty to distributing steroids to major league players.

Mitchell, baseball commissioner Bud Selig and union boss Donald Fehr will testify before Congress on Tuesday, Jan. 15.

Information from The Associated Press was used in this report.

 

Innocent men don't hesitate. He's guilty.

 

When you're accused of doing something that's nearly impossible to prove you didn't do, of course you are careful about what you say and who you say it to.

 

Really? Is that why Dave Justice immediately went on the air to challenge the allegations against him? I believe Justice is innocent, frankly because of how he reacted. If Clemens was so pissed off at being accused and he's innocent, why did he have to consult an attorney of what to say? Why do you have to be counseled if all you're doing is telling the truth? If Clemens wanted a shot at clearing his name, he should have been protesting this hours after it became public. And if he didn't know he was IN the report, why did he hire Rusty less than a week before it was published?

 

Then why does anyone ever hire defense attorneys? If they're telling the truth, that's all they need, right? Do you believe that every person who hires an attorney only does so because they are guilty?

 

Probably because they are being charged with a crime. That's a completely different situation. Roger Clemens was simply listed in a report. Rusty is there to try to salvage his HOF chances, plain and simple.

 

The could be any number of legal implications from this report and its aftermath. It's a huge stretch to say he's guilty because he's taking advice from counsel.

 

I've seen nothing indicating that players in the report would face legal implications, save those who may have lied under oath. So that argument is pretty shaky, though it could be a possible reason. With that said, don't you think it's absurd how long he took in proclaiming his innocence? You said he had to be careful about what he said and to who - my question is why? If it's me and I'm innocent, I'll tell anyone who will listen. What do I have to be careful about if I didn't do it? Clemens hid behind his attorney, then released a pre-recorded statement before finally agreeing to an interview where basically no new light was shed on the case. I'm interested in the phone call, but other than that, he's absolutely guilty in my mind. His reluctance to comment initially, added to Pettite's corroboration, makes it hard for him to ever defend himself. And even you have to admit the man's career was suddenly rejuvenated at a late age - suspicious at the least.

 

Pettite didn't corroborate McNamee's allegations about Clemens and his career wasn't suddenly rejuvenated at a late age, lol - that's absurd. What you're really basing your decision on is that he got his legal counsel to...give him legal counsel.

 

Uhh.. Pettite gave McNamee's allegations a leg once he admitted to what McNamee accused him of. I think you knew what I meant, but just wanted to nitpick to save face for the argument. If not, well now you know. So what you're saying is that McNamee told the truth about Andy, but lied about Roger - unlikely considering the circumstances he was under. And the resurgence I was referring to was when the Red Sox let him go because they felt he was in decline, and he pretty much dominated the league in Toronto. Yeah, his seasons in Boston could just have been a string of bad luck - but the evidence is stacked against him. Canseco said he had several conversations with Roger on the positives of steroids and how to cycle and stack steroids. If Roger truly did NOT do steroids, then he's lying his ass off about never considering them. At this point, you just have to chose which lie you want to believe.

 

Pettite gave McNamee's allegations about himself legs. It really doesn't prove anything about any other allegations he's made. Your logic is the equivalent of saying since McNamee was told the truth about Pettite then he is probably also telling the truth that he didn't rape that woman in Florida. That's silly. The fact is we don't even know if Pettite actually took HGH or got rock solid PR advice that if he said he did for his elbow it would blow right over him (which is pretty much has).

Again, now you're just rehashing the same argument that's already been gone through. There is certainly an incentive for McNamee to give up Clemens name, whether because he's a bigger fish or because the prosecutors already thought Clemens was and so McNamee was pressed for his name. The ONLY situation where McNamee risked anything was by NOT naming Clemens. Clemens can't prove a negative and the feds can't say McNamee is holding out.

Again look at the stats instead of reading sportswriters editorials. His last four years in Boston he had a 3+ ERA and his last half season with the Sox was identical to his second half in his first year with Toronto. The only differences were his run support and the Cy Young he won. Explain to me how a guy who is 6-2 with a 2.09 ERA and a 1.29 WHIP in his last ten games with the Sox is 'in decline.' Please explain that. Or you can explain how the same guy has a sub TWO ERA almost ten years after said player was 'in decline' even though at that time players were being tested for steroids.

He won three Cy Young awards and an MVP in Boston. Not too many people would call that bad luck. He had a winning record and a 3+ ERA in his last 4 years in Boston. The only bad things were playing on crappy teams with no run support and a couple of injuries.

This is the sad part - there is not one single piece of hard evidence supporting McNamee's claim. There is no evidence Clemens ever took steroids or HGH. The 'evidence' you claim is 'stacked' consists of one paper thin sheet of testimony by McNamee. That's it.

Now you're extrapolating off of alleged conversations from Conseco. If you want to be easily convinced then no one can stop you. But that's a long way from a reasonable or rational argument.

 

Uhh okay, if you want to believe that be my guest. All you're believing is he lied about one guy and not the other. Andy would've made Clemens' and his case pretty strong if they both denied. In my mind, I can't justify McNamee lying about one and telling the truth about the other - if you can, by all means believe it. But you can add Chuck Knoblauch to the list of names McNamee did not lie about - or maybe he has the same PR people as Andy.

I'm no legal expert, but I'm pretty sure McNamee put his ass on the line for every name he gave up. Proof of that is Clemens' countersuit, which calls into question his honesty. To say McNamee had everything to lose by not adding Clemens name into the mix is an error in judgment, in my opinion of course.

I didn't dig too deep into the stats, so I'll concede this point in the argument. Clemens has been a beast his entire career, and I'm sure the Red Sox GM's comments gave him some extra motivation for the Blue Jays. I only brought that up because of his statistical dominance in Toronto (4.46, 2.85, 4.18, 3.63 ERA last four years in BOS - 2.05, 2.65 ERA in TOR) and that's when McNamee said he first began injecting Clemens.

Canseco was the one who STARTED the steroid scandal by naming players. No one believed him and said he just wanted money - count me among those who have a slightly different opinion of his statements now. If you chose not to believe what was testified to, that is your right. However, with Canseco's and McNamee's allegations, along with Pettite and Chuck Kn. giving credence to McNamee's general accusations, I believe he's guilty. But you're right, there is no hard evidence - people are forced to be on the fence and see it through their own eyes.

 

So if this was the first public litmus test of whether elected officials and baseball officials believe Clemens' attempt to deflect these charges, the clear verdict is:

They don't. Emphatically.

From Jason Stark's blog of the hearings: http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/blog/index?entryID=3197192&name=congressional_hearings