Before the first hearings, though, most people had this same opinion - why is Congress getting involved, this is a ridiculous dog & pony show, nothing will come of it, it's just a bunch of grandstanding, etc. As it turned out, it had huge benefits. Until AFTER the hearings happen, there's no way to know what the benefits might be. It may very well be worthless - but you can't know that until after it happens.
This place is a zoo today. McNamee is in the back room here on the first floor giving his deposition. Meanwhile, on the second floor, Clemens is meeting with the committee members one by one (unscheduled and requested by him, not the committee) to proclaim his innocence. There are 41 folks on the committee... he already has meetings with 13 and counting. Roger's certainly one for drama... media folks are literally sprinting down the halls trying to flag him down. If nothing else, this certainly breaks up what would've been an exclusive spotlight on McNamee and puts it partially back on his denial.
Major - I think my bottom line is it comes off very self-important and silly TO ME. I don't get the great interest that Congress has in holding multiple hearings on the issue over and over. Baseball is a product to be bought or rejected by the American public. There are issues as they relate to amateur sports and kids that are important...and that was the justification for the first round. But Congress, in my view, isn't the proper forum for a witch-hunt of who did what 8 years ago. If it's illegal, then prosecute him. If he perjured himself earlier, prosecute him. Otherwise, they have little interest but publicity in moving forward with this on such a grand scale.
But Max, there are anti-trust exemptions that Baseball enjoys. Congress is already involved in most every facet of MLB. I agree it is a waste of time, but perhaps some good will come out of all this. What I don't understand is why it bothers you so much that Roger is being called into question. Yes, the guy saying he did steroids is a low life, but that does not mean that Roger is innocent...far from it. I just want to know if the guy that I considered the greatest pitcher I have seen in my lifetime (since JR Richard at least)....is a cheat or not. DD
i'm not bothered that Roger is being questioned. i'm bothered that people take every inference to assume that he's guilty. with no trial...no real proceeding. i was bothered by the mitchell report naming names. i see no reason for it. if the problem is the big picture and testing, naming names does nothing for me. particularly when the nature of the allegations are so he said/he said...and even those who showed up to argue they didn't do it had the allegations published. being named in that report was treated as damning evidence in and of itself...no matter how substantive the underlying allegation really was. come on, dada. it doesn't matter what happens...you've already made up your mind, as have countless others. that's what bothers me most. and no matter how many times he testifies under oath to the contrary you will still believe what you choose to believe...because he's already a liar in your book. you've said that over and over and over again.
Max, I do believe that Roger is lying, yes, but I am not 100% convinced. All of this will allow myself and others to make a more clear judgement on him and his career. If guilty, I would like him to be made an example of to discourage others from doing the same thing. I agree about the Mitchell report naming names without evidence, that is pretty dog gone weak.....it is like the Duke Lacrosse team all over again..... If Roger did it.... I want is a Marion Jones moment from Roger...and then for him to be appropriately punished for any laws he broke. As you know this is a court of public opinion not a jury trial.....and the same rules do not apply, now if he goes to trial, he will get his day in court.....and all of this will help establish him as a credible or non-credible witness. DD
but it apparently did NOTHING for you that Roger has gone before the press, 60 Minutes and subjected himself to a 5 hour deposition. there's not much more any person can do to prove a negative. all they can do is deny it. and denying it under oath is about as strong as it gets. what in the hell else would you have him do?
Because they want him to be guilty. I don't understand why this is hard for you to understand personally. All of these people WANT Roger Clemens to be guilty. Locally it's mostly because he went back to NY and wasn't flattering when he left and because he "kept the Astros waiting." They have wanted his blood for a long time. Heck, Matt Jackson has basically said on the radio that Roger fakes injury to leave games early when he doesn't have good stuff.
I completely understand it. I just want it said. It's the pretense of being objective that I think is funny. Pretending to just want the truth. There is absolutely zero Clemens can do to convince otherwise. What's funny to me is I don't like Clemens at all! I was one of the ones b****ing when he left for NY. I think he's a hired-gun with zero loyalty. Not my sort of person at all.
So do I, but people struggle with admitting bias. There is no objectivity with regards to Roger on any of this. If Roger's name was Nolan Ryan or Hakeem Olajuwon, the perception of all that has happened would be totally different. The best part is when people say things like, "Stop defending him, you know he's guilty." Really? You do? I do? How? Because a broken down, lonely, emotionally disturbed, rapist with the feds breathing down his neck gave his name to avoid jail time? OH OK!
I think all names should be named, that alone (the fear of getting caught and having your image ruined) will make folks think before they cheat. I also think based on Rogers past that he just does not get it. I remember when on live tv I watched him trow a bat at Piazza and then clain he did not do it. wtf is that about? we all saw it dude, I can't stand Roger I never could stand him and I am glad he is going down. I feel dirty becuase I was forced to root for that douch for three seasons
ummm...they already were before the report. there's been testing for years before the report. names are named and there's suspension periods. ask palmeiro if names were named when he tested positive.
And that adds credibilty in my eyes to his case. However the very fact that he is SKIRTING the issue and always leaves a semantics area open...like saying on that phone call to MacNamee. "I want someone to tell the truth Mac." Instead of..." I want you to tell the truth Mac" or when he says " I did not use steroids or performance enhancing drugs" which leaves him an out by saying "I" did not do it....but someone else might have injected them. Let's see how his deposition was handled, when I read the transcripts (as I hope the senators ask the tough questions) it will add even more to his credibility. As for the evidence by MacNamee...that will be pretty damning too....right? Just got to see it all and make a judgement.....but Roger is being hurt by the Barry Bonds and Marion Jones denials.......his case sounds very familiar. And Roger has a history of lying..........as well. DD
God..I know. How many times has he told us he is retired now? I guess he wants to deny that he ever retired as well. lol
Changing your mind about retiring is far different from lying under oath where jailtime would be involved. If you want to compare which out of the two are more likely to lie, I'm probably going to pick the guy who's been under investigation for rape.
