[LA Times] "Clemens, Others Implicated in Banned Drug Case"

VINDICATION.

 

Suprise, suprise. I can't say definitely whether or not Clemens or Pettite ever did anything, but I don't believe they did. And in this instance, they have been proven innocent. Again, I will not believe it until I see hard evidence.

 

That's great reporting by the LA Times.

Source: Grimsley said 'never in a million years would Clemens or Pettite use performance enhancing drugs.'
LATimes: So Clemens and Pettite were definitely using performance enhancing drugs. Wow. This is gonna be a great story.
Source: Wait, he said the would never use PE drugs.
LATimes: Right, right. Got it. Thanks for the tip. This is HUGE. (click)

 

grimsley needs to be killed!!!
dont forget that david wells brought craig biggio into the steriod discussion

 

actually the bad guy here is the guy who decided to run with the story at the LA Times. grimsley never implicated clemens or pettitte.

 

And that guy probably shouldn't be killed either.

 

Good to know the journalism code of ethics is alive and well at The LA Times. Freaking hack.

 

yeah...probably not.

 

The Times is standing by its story... very strange situation! It seems like a clear-cut thing - it either was in the affidavit or it wasn't.

 

There's a good chance that their names *are* in fact in the affidavit. The main point of contention is how they got there: implicated by Grimey, or brought up by the agents.

Although it is odd that the Times stands by this when the US Attorney involved says that there are "significant inaccuracies" in the piece.

 

grimsley hasn't said anything, other what he said to the feds or what his attorney says he said. they are probably still in negotians and at this point he doesn't want anyone to know who he has snitched on. so I don't undertand why everyone says this story is put to rest.

the attorney says the report contains inaccuracies, he didn't specifically say roger clemens was or was not in the report.

 

grimsely's attorney says that neither roger nor andy are in the report.

 

so what? and the times stand by their story.

 

the attorney didn't say they aren't in the report, he said the feds brought them up. other than that, they specifically mention steroids, wasn't grimsely caught with hgh?

 

the attorney said that grimsley told him they wouldn't take performance enhancing drugs "in a million years."

 

grimsley is a criminal and a snitch. he'll say anything at this point, which he hasn't in my mind, only his attorney and friends.

 

so what???

so let's dance!!!! -- rodney dangerfield in caddyhack.


actually the so what is this...grimsley knows who he named. he can't change it because it's recorded in an affidavit. he's saying now that those guys weren't on that affidavit. the only group saying otherwise is a newspaper who claims they've seen it.

 

what does he stand to gain???

he's already snitched...he's already thrown out the names.

 

he was probably under the impression that the names would not get out until he either went to trial or made a deal.

 

ok..but they're already recorded now...under oath. so why say now that those weren't the names if he's already sworn they were???

i'm not saying your'e wrong...i'm saying i don't get it.