Just to confirm your point of view: It would have been better if the accused player DIDN'T say anything in their defense? Damned if they do, damned if they don't. Grum, What i'm saying is that since mitchell stated up front that no one named could be conclusively found out, then why should Roger be working so hard to defend himself? If Clemens calls a press conference and says: "i deny every using peds, and since Mitchell himself admitted that i cannot be found guilty, i will not address the matter further" then what can the media/public do? Demand that he defend himself against a charge that the investigator already said he couldn't be found guilty of? If you are in the report, there is nothing you can do. You are guilty in the eyes of the public and you can't possibly defend yourself. That's exactly my point grum. Since some people will think what they do no matter what, how is Clemens helping himself right now? The more publicity on this, the worse. With every word, people are dissecting his body langauge and story, trying to find an inconsistency. Plus, the more he defends himself, the guiltier he looks to many, simply b/c they'll assume (incorrectly perhaps) that he is trying to protect himself. To me, pointing out the obvious (that mitchell admitted he couldn't conclusively prove Clemens used) and then laying low is a better alternative. Everything Clemens does adds more fuel to the media machine. I'm sure many do think he's guilty, but at the end of the day, is what joe bob in Yucatan thinks really that important? I would like to think not. There is so little to gain by allowing this to become a national story, and so much to lose (family, friends, etc). I don't know if he did it or not, but i highly doubt that the high level of publicity is helping his cause.
I'm just a little sick of McGwire and Sosa getting all this love for personally "saving" major league baseball. That being said, even back then I remember fully believing, in my own mind, both players must be taking some sort of drug to enhance their strength, size, etc. I doubt seriously I was the only one with those beliefs, and I dare say many, many fans thought this. Same goes for Barry Bonds. Who thought he never utilized some sort of PED to morph into the body type he did in the past several years? My point is people, many of them fans of the game, thought they were using PEDs but wanted (or chose) to look the other way, just like major league baseball. Sure McGwire and Sosa was fun to watch, and people ate it up, just like they ate up Bonds hitting so many homers a few years back, Ripken breaking the consecutive game streak, etc. It's only lately we're having these steroid issues shoved down our throats to where we, the fans, are made to feel we need to now shun the players that have been the most exciting to watch over the years. And it's become, "Screw the masses of marginal (at best) players who used these drugs, let's jump all over the BIG names. Just because Clemens or Bonds, two of the best players in baseball history, may have used they are bigger pieces of shit than the hundreds of crappy players who used also? Baseball was all too happy to reap the rewards of Clemens, Bonds, etc., but now want to sit back and let them crash and burn because they (MLB) were too gutless and greedy to strictly outlaw these substances from the game. I don't buy it and I'm not going to fall in line with this steroid witch hunt.
is what joe bob in Yucatan thinks really that important? Well, he is the guy paying for the games and buying the merch, for what it's worth. You lose enough Joe Bobs, your sport starts to go South. (Further South than Yucatan, even.) The thing is, Clemens couldn't stop talking if he wanted to. He doesn't sound so much like a guy who's been wronged as a guy who can't believe there's someone in the universe who doesn't adore him. Even McNamee, as his main accuser and primary witness for the prosecution, clearly still worships him, if that phone call is to be believed. "Whaddya mean, you don't love me?" is the only reaction I'm hearing from Rocket here, and he's going to need a stronger defense than that if he wants to win a lawsuit. (None of this has anything to do with whether he did PEDs or not, and neither will the lawsuit.)
To me, pointing out the obvious (that mitchell admitted he couldn't conclusively prove Clemens used) and then laying low is a better alternative. Everything Clemens does adds more fuel to the media machine. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. If Clemens is innocent, it would be extremely hard to watch his legacy in baseball be completely trashed by a false accusation and do nothing in response. Especially since he has money to burn and a surplus of free time on his hands. During his last several retirements, Clemens was going into that good night as the greatest pitcher in the game. Now he's a cheater under a cloud. That's gotta hurt. I don't think there's anything Clemens can do here, short of getting his accuser to publicly recant, that helps him.
is what joe bob in Yucatan thinks really that important? Well, he is the guy paying for the games and buying the merch, for what it's worth. You lose enough Joe Bobs, your sport starts to go South. (Further South than Yucatan, even.) Not to be a jerk, but what does that matter to Clemens at this point?
Oh, it doesn't matter to Clemens at all at this point, of course (or at any point in the past, going back to the Pliestocene Era, when the tar pits first began to cool and the resulting smoke was first blown up Rocket's butt, setting the precedent for a million acolytes and pundits to follow). I was just talking about the external viewpoint, where, say, some kind of governing authority might want to maybe make some kind of statement to assure the rank and file that all this legal foofaraw is going to help clean up the sport and admonishing everyone involved to get to the truth and stop pfutzing around with this schoolyard bullshit. (Golly gosh, if only there was some kind of head person in charge of administration for Major League Baseball who had the authority and backbone to help this along to a less acrimonious and more decisive conclusion, some kind of ... I don't know, Commissioner or something.) (Nahhh.) I'm fully aware of the fact that everyone in this discussion's back is up on this one already, so I'll get out of the kitchen.
Oh, it doesn't matter to Clemens at all at this point, of course (or at any point in the past, going back to the Pliestocene Era, when the tar pits first began to cool and the resulting smoke was first blown up Rocket's butt, setting the precedent for a million acolytes and pundits to follow). chico for the win!
I think Clemens is employing a different strategy - perhaps after seeing what slience did for Mark McGwire and Bonds. Frankly, I'm seriously impressed. He's planted a couple seeds of doubt with his throw-it-all-against-the-wall-
and-see-what-sticks approach. You can sense them growing. The taped conversation, lawsuit, 60 minutes interview and constant denials will work on a whole bunch of people - some of them HoF voters, I'm sure - regardless of validity. All he needs is some benefit of the doubt. Is more crafty than I would have given him credit for. He looks so... dumb. The man has an aggressive group of handlers. I think this can pay big dividends for him. Of course - it could all hugely (and wonderfully) blow up in his face - but I admire the balls.
I admire the balls. After all those years of steroid abuse, how can you be sure he has any left? After all, it's been a few years since he sired another child that he could use for his catchy I-name-them-all-starting-with-
Ks-for-strikeouts-because-it-
reminds-me-of-myself ploy.
His other body parts may be telling part of the story as well.
To me, pointing out the obvious (that mitchell admitted he couldn't conclusively prove Clemens used) and then laying low is a better alternative. Everything Clemens does adds more fuel to the media machine. Pre-Pettitte, sure. But after Pettitte said the accusations were correct there's no way that defense would work. He would have been buried. I think his defense has been pretty bad, but I give him credit for coming to strong when he finally decided to come out of hiding. I'm seriously impressed. He's planted a couple seeds of doubt with his throw-it-all-against-the-wall-
and-see-what-sticks approach. You can sense them growing. Looking at surveys, reading what's being said, I'd say you're in the minority. He's done a terrible job in my opinion, and this is with handlers telling him what to do. There are so many holes in his story. From the interview. Body hasn't changed / yes it has. Why don't I have an ear coming out of my head / That's dumb. Why haven't I been injured? / well, he has been injured. His excuse is B12/ ever heard of B12? Said he had never been injected by his trainer / changed story in interview. His press conference. Talked about a dying kid, answered a few questions, left the stage in a huff. All predictable. His lawyer gave him a 20 minute intro. The had a call that they taped and thought would be huge and not only was it not many people actually believes it hurt him. I simply don't see how clemens has changed the opinion of very many people. I don't see how anyone that actually has examined what he said can't see that a lot of it is anger and bluster. He looks so... dumb. He is. Even now I think Clemens will get in the hall (and should), but the only way he's going to be respected as he was before (and of course he wants that) if he's guilty is to hope McNamee cracks and recants. If clemens is not guilty he still needs Mcnamee to recant. And listening to the phone call McNamee doesn't sound very stable.
Looking at surveys, reading what's being said, I'd say you're in the minority. He's done a terrible job in my opinion, and this is with handlers telling him what to do. There are so many holes in his story. Oh, I agree - but I think some hay can be made.
Does anyone have any ideas or opinions as to why no one else on the list has come out and fought so vehemently in their own defense? Bonds also tried a defamation suit and lost, but never used the media to his advantage, like Clemens did. As I see it the only one standing to make a gain on this is good ole Jose Canseco, New book , new names, maybe new investigation? Just makin some hay, LOL.
Oh, I agree - but I think some hay can be made. I think what I was trying to say is that by throwing everything at the wall and seeing what sticks he also opens himself up to everything that does not. So while I'll give you that I'm impressed with his mode of attack I wonder if in the long run it will come back to bite him.
One great advantage to Clemen's using McNamee is that Clemen's via the 'discovery' process will get to see exactly what McNamee has for evidence. And if there is a smoking gun, that will have to be declared in the discovery process. Not that the discovery/depositions will be made public... but Clemen's then will know for sure... and not have a doubt. So it will be put up or shut up to McNamee.
So it will be put up or shut up to McNamee. and Clemens too, if McNamee files suit in return which I can only imagine he will. Clemens insinuated that McNamee was trafficking drugs on 60 Minutes.
As I see it the only one standing to make a gain on this is good ole Jose Canseco, New book , new names, maybe new investigation? he's got to get himself a new co-author first.
OK, just for arguments sake how do you prove you shot some guy in the butt with steroids. And he willing bent over and accepted the fact that it was steroids, knew it and took the shot. Unless there are some audio tapes of him accepting steroids haow does McNamee prove his client knew what he was getting? I mean you had Bonds at one point saying he got some stuff just walking by somebody locker and decided to take it. How does a multimillion dollar athlete come to that decision?
The bending over and taking the shot in the butt part is agreed by both parties, volfire. Rocket isn't arguing that McNamee did that to him. He's just claiming that was how he was getting his daily vitamin intake. Take that how you will. And McNamee's lawyers have already indicated they fully intend to countersue. Strap in, Rocketeers. This is going to get uglier. One other thing. If the Mitchell report is a lie, why isn't Rocket suing Mitchell as well?
I thought the whole 60 minutes interview was very poorly done, almost as if they let Roger off the hook, when they could have basically proven him guilty. Clemens' response of, 'If I'm taking all of these drugs, why don't I have a 3rd eye growing from my forehead? Why arent' I pullin' tractors with my teeth?' was idiotic. I haven't noticed a 3rd eye on Pettite or Palmiero. Clemens' repsponse of, 'If I'm taking all these drugs, where did i get them from?' makes about as much sense as Whitney Houston saying you can't prove she's on drugs unless you show her a receipt from a drug dealer. "crack is whack." Clemens' response of, 'After 25 years why would I want to take the stuff?' Well, because you love the sport, the fame, the money and the adulation and you don't want it to stop, you know that your glory days are nearing an end and you want a few more. Clemens' response of, 'I don't know if a lie detector test would help me, or not.' If you're innocent, say Hell Yes, hook me up to the damn machine right now. I thought the whole interview made him appear more guilty, not less. I recommend a book by Malcolm Gladwell called, Blink. It helps in the identification of inauthenticity when it presents itself.
OK, just for arguments sake how do you prove you shot some guy in the butt with steroids. how does McNamee prove his client knew what he was getting? That's the exact reason I think Clemens will beat this thing, and the reason I think McNamee has the real problems. He's the moronic strength/conditioning coach who wanted to play physician and stick needles in someone. All Clemens has to do is continue insisting he was under the assumption it was anything else but a product containing a illegal substance. I thought the whole interview made him appear more guilty, not less. Unfortunately, how he "appears" has nothing to do with it. It's all about what can be proven, period.
Moronic doesn't equal wrong, any more than sycophancy or hero-worship does. McNamee is a stooge, but he was right every other time, and most importantly, his testimony under oath is already on public record. Clemens hasn't said a word under oath yet. All we have is a Youtube clip, a puff piece by a personal friend on 60 Minutes, and a few statements from his attorney. In other words, in legal terms, absolutely nothing whatsoever. He could claim he heals the sick and shits candied yams if he wants, but put his right hand on a bible and that changes everything. Put Rocket in a place where lying is a felony, and then ask him all these questions again. Then and only then will I believe one word of his babble.
All Clemens has to do is continue insisting he was under the assumption it was anything else but a product containing a illegal substance. To what end though? That's all he has to do to do what? Get into the hall of fame? Or help his public image? And if it ever gets to the point where rogers only defense is "if it was steroids I didn't know that" then he will lose all support except his biggest fans. That's basically bonds defense, and most people don't buy it. The bending over and taking the shot in the butt part is agreed by both parties, volfire. And from what I've read getting a shot in the butt with Lidocaine doesn't help the joints as clemens said. Just another way the interview let him off the hook. Put Rocket in a place where lying is a felony, and then ask him all these questions again. Then and only then will I believe one word of his babble. See, I think clemens will do that no problem if he knows there's no smoking gun. What I want to see is clemens cross examined by someone who knows what the hell they're talking about. Not his media friend, and not a joke press conference where he can leave in a storm at any time.
Agreed. Here's hoping McNamee's people are doing their homework, and that Rocket will have to actually tell the truth instead of bullshitting his way through the conversation and trying to coast on money and smarm, like he has in every other situation in his life.
That's the exact reason I think Clemens will beat this thing, and the reason I think McNamee has the real problems. He's the moronic strength/conditioning coach who wanted to play physician and stick needles in someone. All Clemens has to do is continue insisting he was under the assumption it was anything else but a product containing a illegal substance. Well, let's clarify. In the context of the defamation suit, Clemens isn't trying to beat anything -- he's the plaintiff, the accuser; he stands accused of nothing, as far as that suit is concerned. Now, I'm not so sure that claiming he didn't knowingly take PEDs is enough for him to win his suit -- he claims that McNamee's statement that he injected Roger with PEDs is defamatory, and I don't believe you can claim a statement is defamatory if you don't somehow establish either that it is untrue, or that the person making it has no basis for knowing one way or the other. In the context of being dinged by MLB over PED use, it might be sufficient for Roger to claim that he didn't know. I took a quick look to find the actual regs in question, and couldn't find them. I'm pretty sure the MLB regs are soft on both enforcement and consequences when compared to WADA or any of the federations that kowtow to it...but are they soft enough to give a player a free pass for simply not knowing what it was he was taking? Not so sure there. I know that if it were WADA and co., it doesn't matter how it got there, having it in your bloodstream is enough. Lotta different "courts" here, lotta different standards of proof, and I'm not sure Roger's actions make sense to me according to any of 'em.
All Clemens has to do is continue insisting he was under the assumption it was anything else but a product containing a illegal substance. "It's not a lie if you believe it's true" George Costanza
WOW! This thread is starting to sound like a mix of chemistry class and second year law and all we have to do is consult lil_brown_bat because it is apparent she knows everything. Must have gotten an A on the thread entrance exam.
Or maybe I just took the extra fifteen seconds to read what I'd written and thought about whether it made any sense. Chacun a son gout, sportnut. Oh, I'm so sorry...was that latter too highbrow for you?
This thread is starting to sound like a mix of chemistry class and second year law Geez, sorry we can't have more knuckle-dragging and screaming of unfounded opinions.
Sorry to rough your feathers, I was just pulling your chain. I guess that is ok for you to do because I forgot you are all knowing. LIGHTEN-UP
"It's not a lie if you believe it's true" George Costanza Ridiculous as that sounds, it's true. Without substantial proof, a guy like Clemens can lie and only lingering doubt will remain. Oh yeah, and flawed as the entire testing system is, he still never had a positive test for PEDs. Without proof he absolutely used these substances, knowingly took them, or ever tested positive, I actually believe Clemens will make the Hall of Fame eventually. It's not like McGwire, who was as one-dimensional as any player there ever was; Clemens has a long career as one of the most dominating pitchers the game has ever seen.
WOW! This thread is starting to sound like a mix of chemistry class and second year law and all we have to do is consult lil_brown_bat because it is apparent she knows everything. Must have gotten an A on the thread entrance exam. And you must have gotten an F on this site's membership guidelines. This isn't a place to take cheap shots at members and then tell them to "LIGHTEN UP." Stick to the issue or get lost.
Oh yeah, and flawed as the entire testing system is, he still never had a positive test for PEDs. Without proof he absolutely used these substances, knowingly took them, or ever tested positive, I actually believe Clemens will make the Hall of Fame eventually. It's not like McGwire, who was as one-dimensional as any player there ever was; Clemens has a long career as one of the most dominating pitchers the game has ever seen. Someone correct me if I am wrong, but Clemens never has been given a test for PEDs. How can he pass or fail something that he never experienced? Maybe if he had been given surprise tests over his career, there will be no need for a discussion on whether he did or did not take PEDs. We should let the Congressional investigation play out and see who blinks.
Oh yeah, and flawed as the entire testing system is, he still never had a positive test for PEDs. Neither did just about everyone on that list. Neither did pettitte. I think the 'never failed a drug test' time has passed. It means you've never failed a drug test, but certainly that you've never taken drugs. I don't think I've even heard clemens use it over the past few days.
I actually believe Clemens will make the Hall of Fame eventually. It's not like McGwire, who was as one-dimensional as any player there ever was; What? If you "one-dimensional" you mean "hit for power" (one of the greatest of all time) + "gets on base" (league leader) + "fields his position well" (Gold Glove + well-above average fielding numbers for a career), then sure. And we aren't talking about regular "hit for power", we're talking "legendary hit for power", from the moment he entered the league as a rookie, until injuries finally ended his career. If there wasn't the taint of not testifying in front of Congress, he would have been in the HOF on the first ballot. Someone correct me if I am wrong, but Clemens never has been given a test for PEDs. How can he pass or fail something that he never experienced? I'll correct you, since you are wrong. Clemens has been tested as a player since 2004, including off-season testing for the World Baseball Classic.
Someone correct me if I am wrong, but Clemens never has been given a test for PEDs. How can he pass or fail something that he never experienced? Technically Grums correct. But the accusations against clemens are all well before 2004, so he wasn't tested. And there was no test for HGH. So in dealing with the charges, you're correct.
If there wasn't the taint of not testifying in front of Congress, he would have been in the HOF on the first ballot. OK, your probably right, and the past 500 plus homer players made it all on first ballot, with exception of Eddie Matthews (who made on the third, I think). But, McGwire was one dimensional player albeit with great power (some of his shots were lengendary). In my opinion, he should not get into the Hall of Fame until his nomination goes to the veteran committe. He was a adequate first basement- nothing special. On base pecentage had a lot do do with walks. Which is not common with power hitters (see Bonds walks stat). If, McGwire did state one way or the other, if he used PED'S (at congressional hearings), not so sure if he would have gotten in on the first ballot. Take Dave Kingman another one trick pony. Although he didn't hit 500 home runs. I see the same problem for McGwire as Kingman.... Clemens is a different story. The statistics are there and no one is going to argue his validity to be inducted. The steriods scandal is the only thing hanging over his head.
I actually believe Clemens will make the Hall of Fame eventually. It's not like McGwire, who was as one-dimensional as any player there ever was; What? McGwire was a .263 career hitter, seven seasons of over 100 RBI, and won a gold glove in '90, mainly because Mattingly missed half the season. If McGwire deserves to be in the Hall, Rafael Palmiero should be in before him. Better hitter, fielder, and all-around player.
Someone correct me if I am wrong, but Clemens never has been given a test for PEDs. How can he pass or fail something that he never experienced? I'll correct you, since you are wrong. Clemens has been tested as a player since 2004, including off-season testing for the World Baseball Classic. posted by grum@work at 6:01 PM CST on January 8 I posted a timeline of MLB PED drug testing below. By that guideline if Clemens had taken PEDs during the time that he was alleged to have taken them, he would not have been identified as having taken PEDs. Mandatory testing did not start until 2004, that would have been after Clemens was alleged to have taken PEDs. PED Testing Timeline for MLB: Aug. 7, 2002: Players and owners agree to their first joint drug program since 1985, calling for anonymous testing to begin in 2003. If more than five percent of the steroid tests are positive in 2003 or 2004, players would be randomly tested for a two-year period. Players won't be punished for testing positive. Feb. 17, 2003: Baltimore Orioles pitcher Steve Bechler collapses on the field during a workout in Florida and dies from heat exhaustion. The medical examiner finds ephedra in his system. The league places ephedra on the list of banned drugs at the minor league level. Oct. 29, 2003: Less than two weeks after the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency says several track athletes tested positive for tetrahydrogestrinone (THG), baseball places the drug on its testing list for 2004. The league is barred from retroactively retesting 2003 urine samples by its own agreement. Nov. 13, 2003: The league announces that of 1,438 anonymous tests in the 2003 season, between five and seven percent were positive, triggering the start of random testing with penalties in 2004. A first offense will lead to counseling and a second offense to a 15-day suspension. December 2003: Ten players, including Bonds of the Giants and Jason Giambi and Gary Sheffield of the Yankees, are called to testify in front of a grand jury investigating the Bay Area Laboratory Co-Operative (BALCO), founded by Victor Conte. Feb. 12, 2004: Bonds' personal trainer, Greg Anderson, Conte, BALCO vice president James Valente and track coach Remi Korchemny are charged in a 42-count federal indictment of running a steroid-distribution ring that provided performance-enhancing drugs to dozens of athletes. April 12, 2004: The Food and Drug Administration bans the sale of androstenedione, the steroid precursor used by Mark McGwire while setting the home run record in 1998. The FDA action automatically triggers a ban by baseball. June, 2004: The league begins testing major leaguers. Punishment for a first offense includes counseling, and names of offenders are to be kept anonymous.
On a related note, McNamee does not seem to be a boy scout. The press is reporting a rape allegation (with what appears to be solid physical evidence taken at the scene of the alleged rape) against him in Florida in 2004. The Yankees fired him after the issue surfaced, but Clemens hired him as his personal trainer. At the least, Clemens is blind to bad character.
Mandatory testing did not start until 2004, that would have been after Clemens was alleged to have taken PEDs. The original question statement was: Someone correct me if I am wrong, but Clemens never has been given a test for PEDs. The statement was wrong. I stand by my answer. If other people want to extrapolate from it, they are free to do so.
The original question statement was: Someone correct me if I am wrong, but Clemens never has been given a test for PEDs. The statement was wrong. I stand by my answer. If other people want to extrapolate from it, they are free to do so. posted by grum@work at 10:22 PM CST on January 8 Show me his test dates. He was not tested during the time that the allegations cover. BTW, do you believe Bonds never took PEDs? Bonds has not tested positive by MLB either. Some information on Bonds indicated that he was notified of upcoming test periods. Would it not be reasonable that a player of Clemen's status also get the same information that Bonds got? The Congressional investigation should uncover answers to questions that exist.
Wait, are you suggesting neither Bonds nor Clemens was tested in 3 seasons? That would be a bit of an oversight on MLB's part. Beyond simply gainsaying others, what's the point you're driving at?
I think you're confused cave man. 1. The question was originally asking if clemens had ever taken a drug test. 2. Grum said that he had. 3. I said Grum was technically correct but that the allegations from his trainer were before testing began, and never included HGH, so it's basically meaningless. Someone might claim that Clemens has been tested recently and come up clean, to which I would say A. He very well could have stopped and B. it's been proven time and time again that drug test can be beat. As I said before, even clemens seems to realize that since it hasn't been a big part of his defense (I haven't heard him say it at all, but I might have missed it).
McGwire was a .263 career hitter, seven seasons of over 100 RBI, and won a gol
