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 1.8771 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.
But Srul, what's worse than people not remembering things from 5-10 years ago is that people often do remember them, but incorrectly. As Elizabeth Loftus's work shows, memory just doesn't work the way people think it does.
Veronica Mars reference!!!!
Yeah, they need to get Ronnie up in this joint. She'd solve this in a two-episode mini-arc
Cummings was one of the hardest hitters during the morning session. He had first crack at Clemens w/r/t the Pettitte stuff.
Yes, Cummings was the only one who went after Clemens really hard.
I agree, although many of the questions he was asking this morning, IMO, were pretty good questions.
I don't get this, do you think McNamee's claims do not need to be investigated?
Yes, judging from your previous posts, it must have taken a lot to convince you that Clemens might be guilty.
Yeah, I really hate Clemens, all right. I've only rooted for him in every game of his life other than the ones where he pitched against the Yankees. I've said many times that I admire the way he hasn't ducked questions a la McGwire. And I'm still hoping to see him exonerated, since he embodies everything I like in a player.
It must have taken a lot to convince you otherwise. You might have actually bothered to get to the "y" in "Andy" before jumping in with that bullshlt.
Andy,
You immediately believed McNamee from the outset. To pretend that you are somehow now coming around to his side of the story doesn't hold any water.
And I still believe McNamee, but not because I want to believe him. I believe him because his testimony about Pettitte and Knoblauch have been backed up, and because I still haven't heard any credible reason why McNamee would want to lie about Clemens. Whereas there are many very good reasons for Clemens to lie, reasons that would probably serve to make many of us here (me included) do the same thing in his place.
And this saddens me a lot, because Clemens has long been one of my favorite players. But to hear you say it, you think I'm taking some sort of sadistic pleasure in his plight, which is complete and 100% bullshlt.
Rep. Waxman cuts off Rep. Foxx, saying that it’s unfair for her to take additional time because people only get one round of 5 mins . . . then goes back to Rep. Cummings for a second round of questioning.
I'm not watching on t.v. - is the documentary evidence the nine-year old golf receipt I've heard about? Aside from scatology, is it any more strange to keep a golf receipt for nine years than gauze pads and needles?
"That's your opinion" LOL
Rep: "Are you a drug dealer?"
McNamee: "Thats your opinion."
What credible reason was there for Jayson Blair and Stephen Glass to make stuff up, or for Kevin Hart to go through all the motions that he was a big-time recruit? Sometimes people just make stuff up to get out of a jam or to fluff themselves up - then one lie leads to another, then another, then suddenly you have a bad sitcom episode.
McNamee: "Thats your opinion."
i think the correct answer to that question is:
"depends. what are you looking for?"
Wait until he announces his book deal, probably sometime before Opening Day.
Has he answered any question today?
Andy, are you still on this kick? Please with this. This has been asked and answered (and ignored) many times over.
(And are you moving the goalposts with the word "want"? Before your question simply was, why would McNamee tell the truth about Pettitte and lie about Clemens? Not "want" to lie.)
As near as I can tell, the Pettite/McNamee has names, dates, meetings, physical evidence, and a pretty good match to the performance record.
The Clemens Apologists have: "they are all lying" (and this doesn't include Dave and Ray who I don't agree with, but aren't so over the top).
The big name calling I see is a few teenagers on this site that are slandering someone by calling them a rapist.
learn .. same place
Nah, I made that one up all by myself.
Nobody gives a F!@# about the children.
Clearly, he can't get the image out of his head of a pink bikini on a nanny.
Pitchers and catchers report today, right?
The club might keep it too.
THERE IS NO SUCH GAME AS HARDBALL!!!
The big name calling I see is a few teenagers on this site that are slandering someone by calling them a rapist.
St. Petersburg FL detectives also believe he was lying. Charges were not pressed.
Wexler is an ass. Where is the apology to Roger Clemens? Congressmen Wexler?
And if you ignore that almost all of that is circumstantial, unproven, and coming from unreliable and spotty sources, you may just have a case. Someone call Mike Nifong!
You're joking, right? McNamee himself admitted he lied in his testimony about Pettitte and Knoblauch.
Well, he testified that Pettitte and Knoblauch used PEDs, and Pettitte and Knoblauch backed him up. Clemens is the odd man out here.
and because I still haven't heard any credible reason why McNamee would want to lie about Clemens.
Yes, you have. Many many many many many times.
Credible as in likely or believable, David, not credible as in hypothetically possible. And in this case, the distinction between a search for reality and a criminal indictment is one that has to be made.
I think that with the session concluding, we can say that both of them did what they had to do, that McNamee isn't the world's greatest person, but that Pettitte's testimony is going to carry a lot of weight with the public.
And I'd also add that even though I'm not sure that this hearing was all that necessary, I'm still glad that it was held in order to give both Clemens and McNamee a chance to present their cases to the public. I thought that overall it was well worth watching.
This didn't help Clemens at all.
Nor McNamee.
After that closing statement, why would she have too?
Were you listening today BL? I have no idea what the reference to names is - names of who? McNamee got raked over the coals because his dates on the TB thing didn't correspond with when the Jays were there. He has evidence of meetings at parties. Parties that numerous other people say Clemens wasn't at and the one other person who confirms he was at the site of the party doesn't think that there was a party. He alleges that he has physical evidence with Clemens blood on it. I'll give him the benefit of the doubt and believe that he does. He wants the inference to be drawn that the reason he has the blood is because he was injecting Clemens with steroids and not B-12. That leaves the performance record, which again requires drawing inferences one way or another. The case against Clemens requires a) drawing an awful lot of inferences and b) assuming that Pettitte correctly understood a conversation from nine years ago and correctly remembers it now.
The dates and meetings sort of foundered on this imaginary Canseco party.
The 'physical evidence' could indeed be damning -- but right now, it doesn't exist. Let's see those DNA results before we actually assume they match.
Well, he hasn't confessed to that, but he has confessed to lying to the police when they were investigating the rape.
The big name calling I see is a few teenagers on this site that are slandering someone by calling them a rapist.
You can't honestly think that McNamee ISN'T a scumbag.
If it was Roger vs. McNamee, Roger has a chance. But if Pettite corroborates McNamee's story, Roger is basically screwed.
Are you arguing that Waxman was being too solicitous towards Clemens, or towards McNamee?
"We have hearsay and conjecture. Those are kinds of evidence."
/Lionel Hutz
Schoenfield said that he can just use anything he finds in this thread.
What credible reason was there for Jayson Blair and Stephen Glass to make stuff up, or for Kevin Hart to go through all the motions that he was a big-time recruit? Sometimes people just make stuff up to get out of a jam or to fluff themselves up - then one lie leads to another, then another, then suddenly you have a bad sitcom episode.
Great analogy between two guys whose careers took off as a direct result of their lies, and a third guy who almost bluffed his way into a big time Division I school, versus a guy who's now likely to be facing a slew of lawyers' bills and the end of his career as a trainer. All this for what? A book deal in which he wouldn't have anything particularly new to say, and which would further damage his credibility, since he said that no such book is forthcoming.
And that does not put a date on the actual chemicals on the syringes.
I am referring to "I am sorry you were called names, Mr. McNamee" portion of the closing statement.
as far as I can tell, he was only called a drug dealer. And, well, by his own admission...
For someone wants to be known as tough on drugs, Waxman is being a little lax here.
The federal government had already caught him as a drug dealer. I don't think his "career as a trainer" was going anywhere.
Immunity. We've covered this already.
If? He did.
McNamee's career as a trainer was already shot the instant Radomski fingered him. Now he can look forward to a parade of green rooms and Behind The Lines shows as The Guy Who Roided Roger. Money is fleeting, fame is forever. As for the book deal, his credibility isn't looking that good as it is. I would be totally not surprised if he came out with one within the next couple of years.
If? He did.
BUT ANDY MISHEARD!!!
I wish I had a rep that could get in on stuff like this instead of quixotic campaigns for President.
Glass, yes. Blair, no. Blair was just being lazy; he didn't advance further with his lies than if he had just done the work. And as for Hart, what are you talking about, Andy? Hart didn't "almost bluff his way into a big time school." He didn't invent his being recruited to get a scholarship from some other school; he did it to impress girls, or get attention, or whatever.
Well, if Blair had turned in his actual work, his career would have sunk like a lead balloon, so the (temporary) result of his lying was a definite career advancement.
As for the other guy, I guess I should have googled his name. I thought that the reference was to some high school player who'd inflated his high school career in an attempt to get recruited by Southern Cal. If that's not the case, I plead guilty to not paying much attention to the fascinating details of college football recruiting scandals. But the other two cases that were cited (Blair and Glass) were farfetched enough. They have nothing to do with the circumstances surrounding McNamee.
it's supposed to be
Sure he did. He would probably have still been a New York Times reporter in either case, but he was a star national New York Times reporter rather than a worthless New York Times reporter who would have been covering school boards in Brooklyn if not in actual danger of getting fired.
Sure. If you have complete and utter faith that McNamee couldn't have tampered with the evidence.
But couldn't I take a syringe used to pump Clemens' arse full of B12 in 2000, and drop a little winstrol in it?
I know that if I were a publisher I wouldn't be interested in it, as a reader I'd wait for it to be remaindered, and as a former used book dealer I can guarantee that it'd wind up on the $2.98 Barnes & Noble bargain table within less than a year. In a few crucial ways he may wind up being the Whittaker Chambers in Roger Clemens' life, but I doubt if his literary talents would likely produce anything quite on the same level as Witness.
It doesn't have to, but a good criminal lawyer will be able to generate reasonable doubt pretty easily if there is no scientific way to show that the drug is of the same vintage as the dna when this stuff has been sitting in McNamee's basement for years.
Personally I'd hope that members of Congress would be above name-calling. But I know they're not. And I'm not disagreeing with Shays' characterization of McNamee. But a Congressional hearing is not the appropriate place to handle it, in that fashion, IMHO. And in that regard, I felt the apology was surprising, but appropriate.
However, Foxx immediately running over to the witness table just struck me as weird and too familiar.
I know that technically I guess he was, but when most people say drug dealer they think of some guy on the corner selling crack vials on "The Wire". I don't think that him objecting to that language is much evidence of anything. It seems like people are willing to nit-pick at everything McNamee has said while ignoring the volume of evidence that seems to contradict Clemens.
It is explained by Virginia Foxx being a senile old bat with a grandma complex.
Well, that's what lawyers do, and Clemens has got a lot of good lawyers right here on BTF. Nothing wrong with that as long as you see it for what it is.
By putting steroids on a syringe that had Clemens blood?
Clemens doesn't deny that McNamee injected him. He flat out says that McNamee did inject him, just not with steroids. So, McNamee having a sample of Clemens blood is not out of the question. And it's also not out of the question that McNamee could mix steroids with the blood on a syringe.
Haven't we been over this in multiple other threads?
Would that it were so. In the original white woman vs. black man race, North Carolina 005 proved it wouldn't vote for a black man. It was almost - almost - enough to get them to consider a democrat.
Of course, I have no problem believing that he fabricated that evidence.
We don't need no stinkin' evidence.
Indeed she is. There is a rumor - second hand, but reliable, for me - that she had a meeting with some big shots at WFUBGSM. She was co-sponsoring a bill that would cut off funding for research into drug addiction. They had to call her in and point out that they have a center that gets multiple millions of dollars per year to study just that. I'm not sure if NC005 actually includes BGSM or not, but certainly most of their employees live in her district. She ran against Vernon Robinson in her first election. He won the Winston-Salem bit of the district by a landslide. She won the rest by a landslide. NC012 (Mel Watt's snake like district) runs adjacent to much of 005 and the R/D line in town pretty much defines its border. So long as they remain scandal free, Foxx and Watt will be re-elected, with the only serious challenge possible in the primary. She's an idiot, but she has a safe job. Ah, democracy.
Clemens' friend used HGH. His wife used HGH. His teammates used HGH. His trainer said he used HGH.
But we are supposed to believe that Clemens never used? Ha.
He refuted Waxman's statement that Roger's lawyers insisted on the hearing.
1. Andy Pettitte's old recollections of a single conversation from a decade ago. Not long discussions about whether to use, not witnessing anything. Just a single conversation. That's the only time Pettitte, as far as we know, remembers Clemens saying he used.
2. Brian McNamee's allegations.
What else is in this mountain of yours?
As for "nitpicking" McNamee:
1. He's an admitted criminal.
2. He's an admitted liar.
3. He's not just an admitted liar in the distant past about things like rape or his fake college degree; he's an admitted liar as recently as a month or so ago to both Mitchell and the federal government about the very subjects we're discussing.
4. He made a big deal about a meeting at a party that we're pretty sure didn't happen.
There's no way on earth that Pettitte's testimony is sufficient to say anything about Clemens, which means it all relies on McNamee's statements. You can't just handwave away his credibility issues when his credibility is the whole case.
So McNamee got nothing in return for naming Clemens, Andy?
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main