McNamee to Submit Physical Evidence

The most honest and reasonable point you've made in this discussion.

 

No, it is just how I have always felt......everything else is just hot air. Things in the press are meaningless because lying to them is not illegal.

I never said there was no way he would have a press conference, but I am surprised that he has agreed to testify before Congress...and it adds a ton to his side of the argument in my eyes.

You know what MSN, I really don't care one way or the other, I just want a resolution - either McNamee goes down or Clemens....

I just like a good drama.

DD

 

oh, i get that big time. that's my point in sum total.

 

LOL - and honestly I don't care who it is...Roger or Brian....but now that the drama has started, there HAS to be a conclusion......otherwise it was a waste of time, and tax payers money.

DD

 

No one who's read your takes will believe this statement. It is less credible than McNamee or Clemens. Or Clinton.

 

No, it's already a waste regardless. An utter waste. You want "drama", watch those ridiculous entertainment "news" magazines on the low-budget UHF television stations late at night.

I'd prefer Congress do its actual job--all of them.

 

it still will be. determining if someone did steroids is not exactly a constitutional congressional purpose. that's what this has seemingly been reduced to.
if it's against the law, prosecute him. it would belong in court. if there's enough evidence, gear it up.

 

I do have a bias, I think Clemens is guilty, but am open minded enough to watch it unfold and adjust my opinion based upon facts as they come up.

Fair enough, let's see what happens...


DD

 

There. Fixed that for ya.

 

Now you are just playing hard to like.


What are you afraid of? Finding out the truth? What is wrong with that?

What if Clemens cheated and was thus able to extend his career 4 or 5 years and many more wins?

Shouldn't that be considered when discussing his legacy?

I want to know.

As I think he is the 2nd best pitcher I ever saw, right behind JR Richard and just ahead of Nolan Ryan.

DD

 

I'm not the one who keeps changing his mind as to what he wants to see from Clemens. That would be you. Take it personal if you must, it's what you're doing and multiple people have pointed it out.

Aaaahhhh, that one is as old as dirt itself. Just because I disagree with *you* does not make me "afraid of" anything.

Again, you're the one whose standard keeps shifting. Yet, I haven't asked you if you're afraid Roger's innocent--although that question would certainly be more appropriate aimed your direction than mine.

What if he was? Do you consider spitballs when discussing Gaylord Perry's legacy? Do you consider uppers for, well, everyone in the 80s and 90s? Do you consider steroids when you think of Chuck Noll's amazing Steelers?

We live in a witch-hunt society now. Somehow, steroids is more evil now than it was for guys who were just as guilty of it 20, 30, and 40 years ago. It doesn't make sense to me, and I don't have to align my thinking with this kind of drivel.

And for the record, that's been my opinion since 1998 when they found Andro in Big Mac's locker. I've greeted this whole fiasco with a roll of the eyes, because all of this grandstanding and pious, lofty moralizing by the mediots and by Congress looks awfully stupid when viewed in a historical perspective.

 

I am being consistent, I want Roger to answer direct questions IN FRONT of congress...nothing at all has changed in that regard.

Yes to both.

Fair enough, I just find it interesting.

DD

 

What in the world do you think he did earlier this week when he testified for five hours under oath?

 

Give him time; he's planning his next shift.

 

Isn't that how Sosa, McGwire, Palmeiro, etc. ended up before Congress?

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't Players Union opposition the reason MLB didn't test for steroids for so long? Please correct me if I'm wrong on that. If that is the case, were there ever any players that ever came out in public and pressured the Union to allow testing?

 

I don't KNOW what he said under oath, do you?

I am impacted by him going there and speaking but until we know WHAT he said.....it will be up in the air.

That is why I am waiting to read what he said. And as I said earlier, what he says in CONGRESS under oath is much more important and impactual than Roger working the press...

DD

 

So you really believe that he would come out after five hours of sworn testimony and lie about what he said? Or are you just laying the groundwork for your ridiculous semantics argument?

 

Sworn testimony is what I value not BS said to the press corps.

DD

 

So, you really believe that someone would testify under oath for five hours, then come out to the press and immediately lie about what he testfied about?