User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Buy MLB playoff tickets, plus 2011 World Series, 2011 ALCS tickets and NLCS game tickets. We also have Texas Rangers playoff schedule, tickets to Red Sox games and Yankees game tickets. Plus, buy Phillies baseball tickets, Tigers playoff tickets and the biggies like ALDS baseball tickets and 2011 NLDS tickets. |
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
Page rendered in 2.1003 seconds
40 querie(s) executed
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Welp, that clears Clemens. Who doesn't remember bleeding through their pants? I tore my pants bowling what I was 8, and I still remember the pain and humiliation. And I didn't have to carry around bandaids for years afterwards.
Admittedly, it's unlikely that this ends with Clemens getting frog-marched out of Congress in handcuffs, but I can always hope.
HARDBALL!
What about McNamee? How would you feel about that? Are you just in it to get the steroid "evildoers", or are you in it for a show?
No True Scotsman?
Anyway, I can sort of relate. Clemens did pitch for the Yankees. They're all filthy scumbags, the whole lot o' them.
(Except maybe Jeff Nelson. I like my middle relievers freaky tall and butt-ugly, just like Jon Rauch.)
Maybe he was hoping they'd cancel the whole thing and just throw him a huge parade and award him use of Debbie Clemens for a night.
I love the game of baseball, and I hate what has happened to the game in recent years. I remember in my youth we used to be a country that would laugh at people like the Russians and the East Germans for sporting such a bunch of 'roided up freaks at the Olympics. Funny TV commercials were even made lampooning this very thing. Now, we have become what we used to despise.
But in my opinion, loving the game should never be taken to the level where we worship the athletes to a degree that is disproportional and unhealthy. Because it should be obvious to anyone who has followed sports seriously over the last 10-20 years that not only are most of these guys emphatically not heroes, a lot of them are just outright bad guys. And I'm sorry, but I just don't like guys who think they're better than the rest of us, lie to our faces, insult our intelligence, and break the law.
Wait, didn't you support Bush?
I don't think these positions are necessarily inconsistent.
I provided my statement of reasons.
Let me introduce you to my good friend Chad Curtis.
On-topic, Stark's blog is great. I love the entry about Rep. Mica and the colors of the Crayola spectrum.
I'll second that, he is doing a great job.
And from what's in the blog, it sure looks like Clemens has screwed himself over, big time. He's going to need more lawyers, and I'd recommend better ones than this guy Hardin, because he sucks.
I can't say I'm following this with great attention to detail, but I'm not sure how accurate this claim really is. Clemens seems to have multiple sympathetic ears on this committee. (Granted, its chairman is not among them.) The nightly news and sports radio now have both anti-Clemens and anti-McNamee (and, in a couple of bizarre instances, pro-Clemens) clips to play. So the perception will be mixed, which is likely a win of some sort for Clemens.
If this was India, I would suspect significant bribing!
Clemens isn't going to win his civil suit, barring some new revelations, but that doesn't put him any worse off than he was before. He's certainly not going to be criminally convicted based on this traveshamockery.
Exactly. And unless and until some enterprising journo writes "Game of Shadows II: Nothing Butt the Truth," Clemens hasn't reached Bondsian status in the public eye, since Clemens' primary accuser is a seedy little mole from the Correspondence College of Tampa as opposed to the Game of Shadows guys and all that.
If you simply act like a man, you still have a chance to salvage your rep...
Some of these congressmen should be ashamed as well...
EDIT: Oops, he actually has no choice but to continue with this charade, I guess he goes to jail if tells the fans what 99.9% already know thanks to Pettite...
Not a chance in hell of that now, it's much too late.
Speaking of acting like a man, I can't imagine what his poor wife must be feeling like, now that he's hung her out to dry at the very same time he's desperately trying to save his own sorry ass. I'm guessing she is one pissed-off woman!
David, was Claire Boothe Luce your grandmother?
This strikes me as weak. As a MLer, he had access to doctors. Dontcha think you'd check with the doc? Questions like:
Hey Doc, what does B-12 do to you?
Is it even legal? (Hey, two BTF cliches in one post!)
Is is allowed?
You know, questions found in the "Idiots Guide to Being a Major Leaguer".
Dan Burton is a clown. The other Congressman from Indiana, Mark Souder, did a very good job.
I agree, and it shows that not all Republican congressmen from Indiana are flaming idiots.
In what way? He decried trial by media, yet in 1993, he alerted the media to his bizarre stunt of shooting into a melon in his backyard to prove that Clinton killed Vince Foster.
What's that got to do with whether he did a good job today?
It goes to credibility and bias. IMO, his career demonstrates that he lacks the former and is steeped in the latter, and today's performance was yet one more indication of that.
The hearing was intended, at least theoretically, to be a fact finding process. Burton's questions did nothing to shed any new light on the topic. Instead, he appeared to have an agenda to act as Clemens's defense attorney. That impacts the credibility of everything he said.
Why is congress even involved with this stuff? Don't they have more pressing issues to deal with? I'm not belitting the importance of baseball, but geez you'd reckon the government of the most influential democracy on the planet would have its hands full with some other stuff?
Lots of Americans are asking the very same question. Of course, asking why Congress does anything is pretty much useless.
Unfortunately, he was sick the day they taught social studies in social studies.
McNamee had a few elected officials in his pocket as well. (I am super duper sorry we called you a drug dealer even though you admitted dealing drugs, Mr. McNamee) Waxler was just as shameful as anyone on that committee.
Since he kept bringing up his former police assignment, was he ever asked why he left the force?
Cummings doesn't get to unilaterally decide. The committee does.
Waxman as the chair, and Davis as the ranking Republican, would probably have to sign off on any perjury referral, and they both shied away from it in their initial post-hearing press conference. I think Davis even said at one point in answer to a reporter's question that just because there are conflicting stories doesn't mean there's perjury.
Please explain? My basic understanding is that congress should be enacting laws which govern the country as a whole...like women can vote, shooting your neighbor is against the law etc.
Hearings about trying to find out whether there was PED usage in baseball seems extreme. I can see them enacting laws against the usage of PED's by the citizens as a whole, but specifically targeting baseball seems quite narrow in its approach.
I'm not trying to be narky or snide, I just like to understand.
http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/newsstand/discussion/ny_times_pettitte_asks_to_be_excused_from_hearing_rr/
So why didn't Pettitte testify today? Clarification please.
It has to do with baseball's anti-trust exemption, from what I've been led to believe. Because Congress granted the exemption and can revoke it at any time for any reason if it sees fit, it more or less gives them license to look into all of MLB's operations.
Then again, I'm no law-talking guy, so maybe someone else has a better answer.
It has to do with baseball's anti-trust exemption, from what I've been led to believe. Because Congress granted the exemption and can revoke it at any time for any reason if it sees fit, it more or less gives them license to look into all of MLB's operations.
Thanks heaps, that makes sense.
Still, its a sad day for baseball on the whole. Gee, Bonds has been quiet the past few weeks. With Clemens being so high profile right now he seems to have been forgotten(well almost) in all this mess.
There was already an extremely long debate on this issue.
http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/newsstand/discussion/ny_times_congress_calls_clemens_and_trainer_to_testify_rr/
To get on TV.
Don't they have more pressing issues to deal with?
Yes.
I'm not belitting the importance of baseball, but geez you'd reckon the government of the most influential democracy on the planet would have its hands full with some other stuff?
I actually don't have enough confidence in our government to reckon that.
Geez mate, that's pretty harsh.
Great thing about a democracy though is that you get to pick a new group soon, who knows maybe the next group will be better(hopefully wishes the rest of the world....)
Its easy to be cynical though as from my standpoint the terms government and works together is an oxymoron. With hugh trade and fiscal debts and an economy that will get worse before it improves, its easy to be negative.
But hey, the yanks(not the baseball team) always pull out of the sh*t eventually.
Because you can be a fan of the sport and the competition and the atmosphere and the history and the stories and the things that are written about it and box scores and all the rest, and at the same time be of perfectly sound mind regarding the people who happen to play the game at any particular time.
Roger Clemens cheating and lying about it has essentially no effect on any of baseball's underlying appeal. Personally, I've never cared for him and part of baseball's appeal is liking some guys and not liking others.
Well, to be fair the Senate just yesterday passed a law that gives the president authority to conduct wiretaps without any judicial oversight.
They asked questions based on depositions, affidavits, and extrinsic evidence to adduce facts, i.e., fact finding.
Incisive, fact based questions are necessary for answers to shed any light.
Burton used McNamee's quotes from newspaper interviews (without identifying them as such) rather than those made under oath in an attempt to undermine his credibility. The effect was to undermine his own.
Waxman/Cummings introduced actual facts, e.g., the statement from the nanny who remembered Clemens being at Canseco's party, and his wife and kids sleeping at Canseco's home that night (as well as the fact that Clemens recently met with her, which at the very least raises appearance of impropriety problems and at worst witness tampering); the statement from the impartial medical expert who believed that the abscess could have been caused by steroids; the statements from Petttitte, and contemporaneous corroboration from Pettitte's wife, that contradicted Clemens's denials about PED use. That's wholly different from anything that Burton asked.
It's not Waxman/Cummings fault that the facts they introduced transformed the situation from a "he said, he said" to a "he said, they said."
I think the trial analogy is inapt, but juries assess the credibility of parties, witnesses, and attorneys.
Did they burn the constitution and bill of rights in one go? Isn't this similar to the patriot act, which was also unconstitutional? I reckon James Madison and Thomas Jefferson would be rolling over in their graves over this stuff.
And if you had included the rest of my post, I did say that you yanks always pull out the sh*t eventually. I have no doubt that things go in troughs and peaks, but to totally absolve this administration from running up huge fiscal debts is plain wrong.
It all boils down to judicial interpretation of the constitution. Even if something does violate the bill of rights, it can still be allowed if Judges determine it represents a "Compelling government interest" and is "narrowly tailored" to suit that interest. As for the Patriot Act, i would argue that some aspects were unconstitutional (National Security Letters, for example), but the majority of the provisions were fine. Many of them were just making inter-agency cooperation easier.
I guess I don't see what McNamee gains by lying. Anybody see anything that Clemens could possibly stand to gain by lying?
As for Mr. Burton, where the hell was McNamee's attorney? I kept expecting the transcript to say: "Objection. Badgering the witness!"
NYCfan, thanks for the clarification, my understanding of constitutional law would be best described as basic.
Nah mate, I get that and know the branches are seperate. Somehow we got into a cross discussion between Congress, debt, Bush and everything U.S. government, including illegal(whoops, now legal) wiretapping.
BTW, sunnyday2, I think Clemens is lying through his big, fat roided up head. No proof here, all personal opinion.
Sometimes it amazes me that Congress can be both craven and power-mad all at once.
1. Congress does indeed pass laws and stuff. In a perfect world, the laws would be based on a real understanding of the problem they're trying to solve. Hearings are a valid way to get a better understanding of the problem, and of whether there is indeed a legislative solution that might have merit.
2. The larger problem is not that MLB players use steroids, it is that millions of kids have used or are using steroids. Hopefully that's the issue Congress is focused on. Don't know if it is or not, hope it is. But getting MLB cleaned up is a legit means toward that end.
So I think the hearings are perfectly legitimate in any theoretical sense.
The question is whether this particular Congress (these particular Congressmen and women) at this particular time are capable to doing more good than harm out of it. That would be the question to focus on rather than whether these hearings make theoretical sense (which they do). Frankly, Burton's attitude would cause me personally pessimistic on that score. He seemed more interested in scoring debate points than getting at the truth. I mean, I think his mind was made up when, let's be honest, none of us knows right now what the hell happened between McNamee and Clemens.
If that sounds like I'm arguing both sides of the issue, well, you know, whatever. Seriously, it makes sense for Congress to hold these hearings, but there's every chance they could screw it up, that's all.
Since Antonin Scalia thinks the Constitution is mute on the subject of pain, we have (ahem) a rather tortured rendition of that document being read by the Supreme Court.
That doesn't necessarily justify these specific-player witch hunts, of course, but the general idea that government has no interest in MLB, or that their only interest should be "protecting the youth of America", is false, IMHO.
More like it's pretty cynical. And out of touch with how the government actually works.
I'm out of touch because I don't have a lot of confidence in my federal government? Okay.
I don't see how that's justification at all - it enables government to use the public wallet to "buy out" people's freedoms. A lot of public dollars flow into roads, but that doesn't mean that the government can search anyone that drives on a public road, probable cause be damned. A lot of public dollars flow into subsidized student loans, but that doesn't mean that any person that had a Stafford loan that commits a crime signs away their rights against self-incrimination.
In any case, the public subsidy is given to the owners of these teams, not the players, so even if one accepts the line of reasoning, that's an argument to hold hearings on the illegal activities of owners that received the public subsidies, not the players.
All I ask is let law enforcement be law enforcement. If such-and-such player is using drugs and the police have probable cause, let them go through the standard procedures like they would if anyone is using drugs as long as those laws are on the books. Frankly, the danger that this could lead to legislation with chilling 4th amendment repercussions isn't worth this.
Have some respect - Kevin bravely fought for this country in order to give the government the power to take rights away from you.
Cut the flat out lie ####, dude.
She believed that Clemens was there. If I am mistaken about the fact of a party, bfd.
Congress asked him to not testify... I thought Pettitte asked out, ah whatever.
he doesn't contradict Clemens enough,
From ESPN, "Pettitte told congressional lawyers that Clemens informed him nearly a decade ago he had used human growth hormone and said McNamee let him know in 2003 or 2004 that Clemens had used steroids."
Why didn't congress want this tidbit put forth for debate today with Pettitte present?
They don't need to meet some artificial standards set by you.
That's not an artificial standard. It's common practice for congressional committees to let informed staffers conduct questioning, especially because most committee members themselves are rarely present for an entire hearing. They have other hearings on committees they belong to, they have votes, they have meetings with constituents, meetings with lobbyists, etc. All happening at the same time.
The only time it tends not to be common practice is when networks other than C-SPAN start carrying proceedings, as happened today. Because it's a rare opportunity for the members themselves to preen in front of a larger audience, so they wrest the questioning away from the professionals.
I have witnessed congressional committees in which Congressmen, who have had experience in, for example, criminal prosecutions, ask questions of witnesses. It is just not accurate to argue that the questioning must be done by staff in order to constitute fact finding.
Like I said, Dan, the "public stadium subsidies" thing doesn't really justify this kind of grandstanding superstar witch-hunt, but rather it justifies the general idea of government having an interest in the MLB business and its policies.
(Unless, of course, you concede the end result of this grandstanding superstar witch-hunt will probably be a change of policy for the MLB and MLBPA, but even I admit that's a terrible way to go about it, as the more immediate result will be a bastardization of justice and the massaging of some congressional egos.)
Perhaps, but I'm more interested in the law enforcement branch of government being involved here (so long as the laws on drug use are on the books, I'm not a fan of them).
As I said, it's a good thing Congress has no reason to summon me because I'd end up being found in contempt of Congress pretty damn quickly.
(Quick glance seems to show that a few of these guys are former trial lawyers, but I don't see any with a criminal background. *)
* Except, of course, that them persecuting baseball players is criminal. But that's a different kind.
How often? How many? What percentage of the questioners appeared competent?
Please provide dates, times, names of questioners and subjects, and subject matter of the hearing.
And don't let me hear you say you can't recall. Everybody knows that people who say that aren't being honest.
Her story doesn't come close to matching McNamee's. McNamee claims Clemens, Canseco, and some person unknown to McNamee met in Canseco's house in the afternoon during a party. She says that the only time Clemens was there was when Clemens and his family -- in other words, all people McNamee knows -- got a tour of the house from Canseco at night. And she doesn't remember McNamee being there.
Although fact finding is an essential part of civil litigation, I think it's fair to argue that perhaps these particular Congress(wo)men, or at least many of them, are not skilled at fact finding, but a lack of competence or training does not ipso facto mean that fact finding didn't take place, however inefficiently.
And the topic wasn't whether fact finding took place, but whether fact finding was the <u>purpose</u> of the hearings. And we know that if that were the purpose, they would have structured it differently, with actually competent people asking questions.
Fixed
Not sure if he's a lawyer or not but you won't find many people any better than Elijah Cummings at doing cross-examination did it today.
As to rest of them, well, yeah, they pretty much suck at it.
To chime in from the peanut gallery, if I recall correctly, I believe that basically all of the Iran-Contra questioning was conducted by staff counsel.
Please provide dates, times, names of questioners and subjects, and subject matter of the hearing.
And don't let me hear you say you can't recall. Everybody knows that people who say that aren't being honest.
So may questions, so little time...
She said that Clemen's wife and kids slept over, and that Clemens was there.
So it certainly doesn't match Clemens's.
Watergate, too. Fred Thompson, IIRC, got a boost to his early political career as minority staff counsel to the Watergate committee.
The Whitewater hearings weren't, and for example, Jim Nussle, then a Congressman from Iowa, and now OMB Director, did a very good job (and I say that as a person who thought the hearings were a political witch hunt).
Why didn't congress want this tidbit put forth for debate today with Pettitte present?
Did Pettitte actually say that or is it just what ESPN reported Pettitte said?
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main