I think you already "know" for yourself. Actually, I'm pretty sure that Andy said part of what Mac said about him was true and some of it was bogus. There is a reason it would be unreliable in a court of law. The fact you can see something that a court was say was unreliable says more about you than it does about the evidence. That doesn't do anything to validate the evidence though. How so? He's flatly denied everything countless times. I don't recall a question that he skirted. Maybe you can give me an example? It seems to be is has boldly challenged EVERYTHING that has been thrown out there, going as far as to spend 5 hours in deposition with Congress.
Wasn't he told repeatedly to "dismount" by security at the hotel and by staff members and still refused until it was "finished?"
In the recorded phone conversation, McNamee repeatedly said "What do you want me to do?" And Roger always said " I want someone to tell the truth Mac" Not...." I want YOU to tell the truth Mac" No....because that would clear all this up...... As for the pool incident, do you know all the facts? Why wasn't he charged? You call him a rapist, yet he was not charged, isn't that sort of the same thing that others are doing by calling Clemens a cheater? Double standard much? DD
What???? How does this make any sense whatsoever?? If the truth isn"t good for Clemens...why would he want anyone to tell it? da da -- that's reaching...big time. in the face of testimony under oath and repeated denials...that's the thing that damns him in your mind???
Max, I do think he did it, I am not hiding that fact, but I also have my doubts. What would go a long way towards Roger clearing his name (with me at least) would be direct answers to direct questions. Not "I need someone to tell the truth" but "I want you to tell the truth Mac" Not... "I never used performance enhancing drugs" but "I have never had steroids or HGH injected into me" That would help a lot in my eyes. DD
Your using this one conversation to sustain this point while ignoring repeated denials in the press and testimony under oath.
Max that is NOT reaching at all, it is telling half truths and not being direct, any good lawyer would ask DIRECT questions....not ones that can be interpetted in many different ways. And if he indeed is denying it in front of congress, then it does say a lot about it....but I would need to read the testimony because so far there are a lot of outs in everything he says.... A lot of them. Every single denial I have read has an out.....every one of them.....very contrived, IMO. It is like watching Bill Clinton deny he had sex with Lewinsky only to say "Well a hummer is not really sex" I mean come on ....... DD
I'm too lazy to do it for you, but if you go read his statements he HAS denied ever using, but also ever being injected with substances. He's then gone even further to say what he actually has had injected in his body. I'm not sure what more he can say. I think you're grasping now.
What are you talking about??? http://www.courant.com/sports/baseball/hc-baseup0206.artfeb06,0,2631995.story Roger Clemens spoke under oath for about five hours to congressional lawyers Tuesday, then said he told them he did not use performance-enhancing drugs. "I just want to thank the committee, the staff that I just met with. They were very courteous," the seven-time Cy Young Award winner said. "It was great to be able to tell them what I've been saying all along — that I've never used steroids or growth hormone."
Used.....used.......he has never USED......which leaves an out for him actually being the one injecting or USING them. Do you see how this could be read as an out? It reads like he is playing semantics. Not that he did not have them injected into him by a 3rd party, but that he HIMSELF has never used..... That is exactly what I am talking about. Now, if the testimony gets released and we get to read it, and he directly answers questions rather than this wishy washy mealy mouthed crap he is dancing with these days...it could go a long way to swing public opinion. DD
I don't personally care to be honest. The only way that evidence means anything to me is if there is a way to validate the stuff as authentic. How easy would it be for a personal trainer who has access to steroids to simply stick the needle into a steroid vial now that he wants to create physical evidence.
Keep ignoring the data - it will never be enough. Come on Max, that is just silly......the ball was tossed out yesterday.....should we just ignore it? I mean, you are right to question his motivations for releasing it.... But why not test it to validate whom is actually telling the truth here? Don't you want to know? Personally, I am enjoying the entire thing.......it is like watching a train wreck, you know it is bad, but you can't help watching it. What is not? The testimony will not be released? Someone will file an open records act against it.... DD
This is a great point, and I have no idea, but it will be interesting to find out. What if there IS a way to validate the vials and blood, to date it etc..... Like how quickly the stuff mixes together somehow shows the age etc.... It sure makes the story interesting though, doesn't it? DD
This is a totally bogus post by you. You think by saying "I never used steroids" that leaves an out for "I never used them but someone else injected them into me." That's unbelievable. It doesn't make any sense. But, just for your peace of mind:
1. I'm not saying Roger didn't do steroids. I can never know that for sure. I'm saying I don't assume someone is guilty because some yo ho says he is to save his own ass; 2. It would be interesting to learn...but I don't want Congress convening witch hunts to work through this. I think train wreck is an understatement. 3. It's not going to change minds if he keeps denying it. If it turns out there's no DNA to be had from those needles or there's not a match, it doesn't mean Roger didn't do steroids. And I have no doubt that it wouldn't change your mind despite your pleas to "know the truth."
If they can validate the evidence and it does turn out to prove his guilt, then he's guilty. Like I said, I'm not debating his innocence (because I have know way of knowing one way or the other) just the merit of the allegations against him.
Didn't say what I thought about that; just brought it up in the context of someone saying that the local media is out to get Roger, using that as an example. I will take back the "20 years" part. It's been around since he was at UT. And it's not just injuries, a lot was made of his ejection in the '90 ALCS, that he was trying to get tossed. I don't care one way or the other.
