surely, i was making a joke. but, you are right, i don't trust the guy who gave a chick in a pool the date rape drug and proceeded to go to town on her. that is enough for me to say he lacks credibility...even if he has pettitte over there saying "well...he did inject me with HGH a few times to recover from injury". it doesn't help the guy's case that he reminds me of andy dick, either. i don't trust him...at all. i'm not aware of roger's history of lies outside of the retirement stuff...which he was only ever 98% or 99% sure about. maybe dada can fill us in on his history of lies?
I guess this is where we mainly differ. I don't see it being a big deal that some people think he's innocent and others think he's guilty. It happens all the time in society. Despite a not-guilty verdict, many people still think OJ is guilty - and that was after a trial with evidence. When we read a story in the paper about some guy who drowned his kid, we make judgments about them and often say how horrible they are - we don't wait until the trial and for 100% confirmation that he did it. We do it based on what we know, combined with our own prejudices and opinions. I don't see why it's so wrong to do it in this case. Our opinions of Clemens don't have any impact on anything except his legacy, which is simply a creation of people's subjective opinions anyway.
Anybody see the pics of the syringes, gauze, and even a miller light beer can from the smoking gun. You can see the pics of the evidence here http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/0207083clemens1.html
One thing from that site - it says that the evidence was turned over a month ago. I don't know that it really changes anything of substance, but it does change the timeline a bit.
Very nice. And I agree. We all thought OJ did it regardless of evidence. I always thought Clemens did it years ago when he first joined the Astros. Now it "appears" that my assumption was correct. We all have the right to have an opinion and not always say "innocent until proven guilty".
Guys, I still don't get one thing. How did this not come before the Mitchell Commission. Did they not ask him whether he had evidence? I find it hard to believe they missed such an easy question. If they did, they're a bunch of bumbling fools, and the report is worthless. if they asked, did McNamara lie and deny having evidence? if that's the case, I have a hard time believing the evidence is legit. The timing of this revelation is highly suspect. And I don't even like Roger.
Not to mention that a not guilty verdict does not mean someone is necessarily innocent... it just means that you could not conclusively prove that the person on trial was guilty.
It all had to do with the phone call. McNamee chose not to discuss the physical evidence with investigators for former Senator George Mitchell as he compiled his December report on drug use in baseball. But according to his attorneys, McNamee's mood changed when Clemens played a tape of a secretly reported telephone conversation. The conversation took place between McNamee and Clemens on Jan. 4 and was played at Clemens' Jan. 7 news conference in Houston. On Jan. 10, McNamee met with IRS Special Agent Jeff Novitzky in New York and turned over the evidence to federal prosecutors. "That was a decision Brian made because he didn't want to bury Roger Clemens," Ward said. " . . . But after that phone call on Jan. 4, which was then played on national TV, he decided there was a betrayal because Roger brought out his son's medical condition on national TV. And that point he decided it was no holds barred, and he released this information."
It got chopped off in the edit, but his lawyers said he wasn't asked for physical evidence by Mitchell's investigators. Said he didn't lie but omitted some things out of respect to Roger. Seems hard to believe, but the timeline certainly fits... phone call was playing on Jan. 7, lawyers were shown the evidence on Jan. 8, and it was dropped off to prosecutors on Jan. 10. That said, I'm not sure this will ever mean all that much, because to my knowledge there's no way to date steroids. There's no way to prove the steroids and the DNA came at the same time and weren't a result of tampering, and given McNamee's past reputation, that'll probably be enough to keep Roger out of legal trouble. At least that's my guess. Not to say I don't believe McNamee... just speaking from a legal sense.
Cat - This tells me the Mitchell folks are a bunch of bumbling idiots. What, you rely on anedcotal evidence to bury your future hall of famers? Not a single question about physical evidence. That's insanely incompetent. At this point, this must compromise the accuracy and completeness of the Mitchell report.
With a physical trainer, at that. If his lawyers are telling the truth about him not being asked, I very much agree.
Did you guys read where it said that McNamee's past as a former police officer caused him to keep the evidence, because he figured that if anyone was going to go down in a situation like this, it was the small guy like him. Perfectly sound logic. I concur but it may be enough to keep him out of the hall of fame. DD
But the Mitchell Report made it more than this. If there were no Mitchell Report...if McNamee just came out and made these claims...maybe in a book...think Roger would be forced to defend himself before Congress?? This is more than a baseball legacy...it's someone's honor. At heart he's being called a cheater. A liar. And he's being called that by someone with seriously questionable past...and everyone seems to take it as gospel. Because Mitchell put it in the report. And generally when we have these sort of celebrity "do you think he did it or not" type events, they're not played out before freaking Congress. This has all trappings of E! in a congressional proceeding, complete with pictures of needles and beer cans. And it's no longer about the greater good, Major. It's not about keeping kids off steroids...or warning them of the dangers. It's become a public opinion trial played out before Congress of whether one guy did steroids or not. That's beyond ridiculous to me.
They would have you believe that not only did the lawyers involved in the Mitchell Report failed to ask teh question...but also that federal prosecutors who questioned him when he cracked on Clemens the first time never asked for any backup proof. That he never offered it, despite his ass being on the line.
Gammons was on ESPN this morning talking about how incomplete the Mitchell Report was. How it made such a show of naming names that it never discussed the real issues it was set to address...like how the drugs infiltrated the sport to begin with. He went on to say that Selig likely regrets it all now...because the focus of this entire offseason has been about events that transpired 8 years ago WITH ONE PLAYER. As an aside, the law firm that compiled the Mitchell Report is very well respected. Very sharp lawyers. I doubt seriously that they didn't inquire as to physical evidence.
