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 2.1012 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.
you kidding? did you hear the way he ended it? everyone had an angle
Didn't some nanny say clemens was there?
It was clear right from the beginning that Waxman's mind had already been made up, and his closing statement further solidified that.
"1999 or 2000"
She said that she didn't remember a party. But I'm a bit vague on that, so I'll let somebody with a better recollection of what she said answer that better.
So both pettitte and chuck corroborated mcnamee.
Did my own research: Clemens was hobbled in '99, he only made 189 innings with a 4.60 ERA.
I wonder: Maybe Pettite is right, and McNamee is still a serial fabricator. What if Clemens was only a once or twice HGH user too?
So in 2005 Pettitte asks Roger what he would say if he's asked if he's ever taken PEDs. According to the affidavit, Roger says you must have misunderstood a previous conversation we had, I never took PEDs.
If Clemens had trusted Pettitte enough to tell him in 1999 that he used PEDs, why would he then turn around and pretend he hadn't six years later? Wouldn't it have made more sense for Clemens to say something like "I'm just going to deny everything," if he's already given himself up to Pettitte and they're such good friends?
She 'remembers' Clemens being at Canseco's house one time, and even spending the night -- but she doesn't remember there being a party.
No one wants to be underground during an earthquake.
That torpedo did not self-destruct. You heard it hit the hull. And I... was never here.
That's not why they didn't build the subway down Wilshire. They built the subway, it just goes to Hollywood. The "excuse" that Waxman was looking for was the "gas pockets" in the earth. The ####### went to Congress and rammed through legislation that prevents federal money being used to build a tunnel that might come into contact with a gas pocket (that's not exact, but look up the LA Weekly article on the topic).
The LA subway is reinforced to withstand earthquakes. Unfortunately, they were building it when the Northridge earthquake happened and everyone questioned the subway. In fact, and you can look this up, since earthquakes are a surface phenomenon, a tunnel is actually not a bad place to be.
There's a rather significant difference between "corroborated McNamee" and "corroborated McNamee on the issues in dispute". Pettitte kind of did the second, in a general sort of a way.
So in 2005 Pettitte asks Roger what he would say if he's asked if he's ever taken PEDs. According to the affidavit, Roger says you must have misunderstood a previous conversation we had, I never took PEDs.
If Clemens had trusted Pettitte enough to tell him in 1999 that he used PEDs, why would he then turn around and pretend he hadn't six years later? Wouldn't it have made more sense for Clemens to say something like "I'm just going to deny everything," if he's already given himself up to Pettitte and they're such good friends?"
he claims he was talking about his wife.
Everyone wants to be underground during an earthquake.
So McNamee got nothing in return for naming Clemens, Andy?
You tell me. Other than possibly avoiding a perjury charge, I can't see what he's gained. I doubt if he'll be doing many card shows or getting any book deals, certainly not after today. According to the lastest (i.e. today's) ESPN poll, 69% of the public believes he was telling the truth, but that's a long way from saying that 69% of the public has any particular love for him, or any particular interest in shelling out money for a book that either won't tell us anything new, or OTOH might open him up to charges that he'd held back evidence in order to save it for his book. In either case it's a very risky business.
He got his 15 minutes.
The entire Clemens-Pettitte angle is odd. Most people assumed that Clemens and Pettitte -- close friends who trained together and vacationed together -- would have talked with each other about anything PED-related. But it turns out that over a decade's time they had just two PED conversations relating to personal use. This means that Pettitte decided to take HGH in 2002 and in 2004 without once consulting with Clemens -- who Pettitte thought was an HGH-user himself -- about it.
And Clemens apparently took steroids and HGH several times over a four-year period and, yet, mentioned it to Pettitte maybe one time.
Just odd.
Subways are pork for construction unions. It's far more cost-effective -- though less sexy for politicians who want to be seen as Building Things and Having A Legacy -- to spend money on buses. And buses don't depend on ridiculously inflated ridership projections which never come to pass.
Oh, and even if it weren't simply pork for construction unions, he did the right thing because there's no excuse for Congress paying for a local subway. That's a state matter, not a federal one. (He didn't ban the subway line; he just banned the use of federal dollars to build it.)
Could he technically be correct if the shots were given to him and he didn't give (take) them (to) himself?
Earth to ronh: Clemens is denying using steroids or HGH.
I'm not sure what to make of the people who still need to be clued in to the fact that Clemens is denying McNamee's charges. Clemens might be lying; but what is 100% clear is that he's denying the charges, and denying that he ever took/used/got injected with/whatever steroids or HGH.
Huh? The public can't possibly have seen the hearings, or even highlights of the hearings yet, so how could they have done a poll? Do you mean some sort of online poll? That doesn't tell us anything about what any percent of the public believes. It could be anywhere between (rounding) 0-100% that believes him.
Of course it was an online poll taken at the hearings' conclusion, and of course it's scientifically meaningless. But its percentages were consistent with every other poll that ESPN has taken on Clemens' believability ever since the Mitchell Report came out. The only thing it might show is that the hearings changed few minds.
I automatically discount any poll that allows for multiple voting (let alone controlling for demographics, etc.), and I imagine any sane person would as well.
you would think it would be more cost-effective, if only people would get the #### out of their cars and ride the bus. a subway is not just pork, it takes cars off the road. congestion in los angeles is a nightmare. the road system is AT CAPACITY, it simply can't take more cars. the bus system in los angeles is already an award-winning system, and is in fact a model system for cities across the nation. buses in los angeles average 15 MPH while buses in other cities (notably new york and boston) average 5 mph. and the bus rider's union has sued the city and won a consent decree that requires the city to add a new bus to a route if more than half of the bus passengers are standing at any given time. what this has meant is MILLIONS of wasted dollars, with half-empty buses following each other down wilshire (sometimes you'll see 2 and up to 4 buses on the same route following each other). this is only making the problem worse.
the bus system can't handle more capacity unless people stop driving. people will take the comfort of their own car if it means that they have the choice of spending 1 hour in their car or 1 hour on the bus. a subway from santa monica to downtown could get their in 10 minutes. it's a no brainer to put in a subway.
waxman folded to the pressure of BEVERLY HILLS, who didn't want a subway stopping at rodeo drive because they're trying to keep all of the vagrants and homeless people out. that means that they're spending tax dollars on having police pick up the homeless and vagrants and driving them downtown and dropping them off. if you don't believe me, watch the local news in los angeles.
putting in a subway in los angeles is good for so many reasons. i suppose you also think the silver-line in boston is a good idea as opposed to a subway. they had to spend billions of dollars to build a tunnel when they already had a subway tunnel built and ready to use.
i'm all for buses. in fact, i sold my car and ride the bus exclusively. but the bus is not the best solution for los angeles's transportation crisis. we need a subway AND a reduction in car traffic.
Well I agree generally, however when the federal government collects taxes from the general public with the stated premise of assisting for the provision of infrastructure (which is the current scenario) they have an obligation to spend the revenues in that fashion. If you want to eliminate the practice, I'm all for it but "they" have to stop collecting first.
Likewise your concerns about subways are generally accurate but inapplicable in the Waxman case. He didn't prevent the subway from being built, he simply stopped the contractors from finishing it, huge amounts of money had already been spent, Waxman simply insured that it was all wasted.
Of course, most people won't actually USE buses, so if one goal is to decrease the number of cars on the road, it's not going to help much (the exception being if you're willing to actually make roads with dedicated lanes and the occasional underpass of major intersections, but I haven't seen that work too well in action either). Buses will transport people who don't have cars, but when you factor time into the equation, there's almost universally too much lost opportunity cost for a car driver to take the bus instead of driving.
Exactly -- the Wilshire bus lines are ridiculously overcrowded -- even the Express is overwhelmed. Plus, in very light traffic, the bus ride is about 45 minutes compared to what would have been a seven minute subway ride.
Then later the nanny said the family slept over at Canseco's house around that time. Again I am not sure how specific the questions of Clemens and Canseco about the alleged meeting were and whether Clemens and Canseco denied they were ever in Canseco's house or just not at the party.
If you are a Clemens supporter you claim Clemens was never at the party and the discussion didn't happen as described by McNamee. If you are a McNamee believer you say McNamee was probably right about the discussion at Canseco's house but maybe got the details about the day wrong.
Of course, if you have a crappy subway system, people won't use that as much as they should either. See DC's subway system, which outside of rush hour seems chronically underutilized. The problem with that one is that the stuck the damn subway stations nowhere near where people would actually want to go, outside of about 10 stops in downtown. I live 2 subway stops from Silver Spring. I'd love to take the train there instead of driving, but they stuck the durn station a half mile walk from where anything actually is.
I have no doubt that in the next few days we're going to hear that not only does McNamee have a book proposal circulating, but that there's interest in it. The high profile of these hearings pretty much guarantees it.
And in Virginia, they underestimated the length it needed to be. Yellow should go to Ft Belvoir, Blue should go to Woodbridge, Orange should go to Dulles. All the stations outside of the beltway should have parking.
the Clarendon stretch of the Ornage line isn't bad (courthouse to Ballston) its in the middle of everything.
Busses are also on the roads, and subject to traffic issues. Trains are exempt from these things fender benders, truck spills, road construction. And trains can move a shitload more people at once.
I have no doubt that in the next few days we're going to hear that not only does McNamee have a book proposal circulating, but that there's interest in it. The high profile of these hearings pretty much guarantees it.
You never know, but if that happens it's sure won't help his credibility, seeing as how he explicitly denied any such prospective deal during today's hearings. He'd be absolutely torched for such a turnaround, and justifiably so.
He'll just say he had no interest in a book deal until an agent approached him wanting to shop it.
And the issue isn't whether trains "can" move more people, but whether they do.
The real story of the day is the number of other felonies Clemens may have committed in addition to the lies regarding the core issue including, most notably, the witness tampering. The number of potential perjury charges alone is probably three-fold beyond simply telling the lie that McNamee never injected him with 'roids.
It's barely three blocks from the Metro stop, to the AFI Silver Theater and the "downtown" development. What else is there in Silver Spring to go visit?
Which happens more often, trains having power problems, or traffic on the highway? The trains ran fine in DC yesterday, and it took me 2 hours to go 8 miles.
Also, a commute from downtown DC (metro center), lets say, Vienna, is 29 minutes on the train. Its 2 hours and 6 minutes by bus.
And thats why people prefer trains.
They couldn't even get an indictment, let alone a conviction, on witness tampering wrt the nanny.
Also true, in my professional (and personal) experience.
It would only be slander if it is not true. The facts as they were reported sure as hell look like rape.
What do you know about it, that makes it slander?
Then you have WAY too much free time on your hands.
I thought it was mainly a matter of self-promotion.
They couldn't even get an indictment, let alone a conviction, on witness tampering wrt the nanny.
You seem to think that having arguments against a charge means that a charge can't be brought and carried. There are potential pitfalls in some of these charges. I can come up with them, too. We get it.
Tilt at windmills all you want, but it's incontrovertible that the number of potential felony investigations/charges/indictments Clemens opened himself up to with his strategy and actions is now way beyond the core "substance of the assinjection" he started with.
And if you don't think personally meeting with a witness you haven't seen in years and discussing the substance of her recollection about the events you know she might be asked about after the committee has indicated an interest in her testimony doesn't open you up to a potential witness tampering/obstruction of justice charge, I suggest another review of the statutes.
It isn't like her testimony was even that important. It'd be nice to show Clemens wasn't at the party, but just his being there is not a big deal.
Also, the whole thing Cummings was pouncing on Clemens about -- about what Pettitte says about Clemens admitting hGH use -- is a lot murkier than it was portrayed at the hearing. Now it's clear why they didn't want Pettitte testifying. He changes his story back and forth on whether he thinks he could have misunderstood Clemens. Had he been there, Cummings wouldn't have been able to keep going after Clemens like that, because someone would have asked Pettitte about it.
You and I don;t agree much but we agree on this. Surreal.
Isn't Hillary Clinton's latest slogan, "I'm tested, I'm ready, Let's Make It Happen", the sort of thing the boozy grandma at the end of bar shouts at closing time?
Very disturbing.
No, the exchange can easily be read to support Clemens' side of events.
The dispute is over the 1999 conversation, in which Clemens says they just generally talked about HGH, and which Pettitte says Clemens confessed that Clemens used HGH.
The 2005 exchange apparently went something like this:
P: Hey, did you read about the congressional investigations of PED use. Man, we're screwed. What are you going to tell them?
C: I'm going to tell them the truth- I never used PEDs.
P: What are you talking about? You told me you used HGH.
C: No- my wife used HGH, but not me.
Assume that Clemens is telling the truth, Pettitte misunderstood the 1999 conversation, and Clemens never used PEDs. You can explain his response as follows- he has no idea that Pettitte is referencing the 1999 conversation (why would he, would you remember a random conversation you had six years ago with a friend about steroids?) Presumably confused by Pettitte's comment, he thinks maybe Pettitte is referencing a 2003 conversation about his wife's usage (perhaps he thinks he told Pettitte about this previously).
Lending support to this interpretation is the fact that Pettitte apparently bought into it himself- Pettitte concluded that he must have been mistaken about Clemens' 1999 confession, and let the thing drop.
1999: Clemens says something about using hGH. Pettitte thinks he said that he used. By his own admission, Pettitte no longer remembers any details about the conversation.
2003: Clemens' wife uses hGH.
2005: Pettitte says, "Hey, what are you going to say if a reporter asks you about hGH?"
......Clemens says, "Huh?"
......Pettitte says, "Remember that you told me one time that you used hGH?"
......Clemens says, "No, you must have misunderstood me. I may have mentioned that my wife used hGH, but I never did."
Pettitte doesn't follow up on this; it was just a brief exchange at the end of a conversation. Now, Pettitte isn't really sure whether he might have misunderstood or not.
Is that really such an inconceivable sequence of events? That in two brief conversations that took place six years apart, there might be some confusion or miscommunication?
The pdf of the Murray/McNamee conversation is right here. Everyone who thinks that the feds were the ones who came to McNamee with the idea that Clemens and Pettitte were juicing...congrats, you're right.
Worth reading.
Could have, but it makes Clemens a bizarrely bad liar. This is a well-below replacement level lie. If Clemens wanted to lie about the 1999 confession, why wouldn't he just say something like, "You misunderstood me. I've never used HGH."
David:
That's my impression as well. Pettitte can't really remember much of anything about the 1999/2000 conversation, except that it was a short conversation and that he came away from it thinking Clemens had told him he used HGH. Pettitte can't really even remember telling his wife, except that he said he must have since he tells his wife everything.
Pettitte said that Clemens did not discuss the pros and cons of HGH with him in that conversation. Pettitte also said that he didn't even remember that Clemens had used, and didn't remember the 1999/2000 conversation, in 2002 when Pettitte used HGH.
Pettitte goes back and forth on whether he believes that he misunderstood Clemens. At one point he says he doesn't think he misunderstood Clemens; at another point he says that from 2005 until now, he has simply figured that he misunderstood Clemens. That is a far cry from the way Cummings portrayed Pettitte's testimony this morning when I heard the exchange.
Had Pettitte been present today, it would have been pretty powerful when he testified "You know, it's certainly possible I misunderstood him; in fact, that's what I have thought for the last three years."
Guapo:
This was my reaction as well when reading Pettitte's deposition. It seems to make sense as to why Clemens responds, in 2005, "Huh? No, that was my wife." He may have just figured that he'd told Pettitte in 2003 about his wife taking HGH.
One other thing from Pettitte's deposition: Pettitte does not support McNamee's story that one day Pettitte and Clemens were training, had a conversation, and then Pettitte came running over to McNamee asking why McNamee isn't giving him the stuff he gave Roger. Pettitte said this never happened (or said he didn't remember it; I forget which).
Pettitte also confirms Clemens's story that Pettitte never told Clemens he had used HGH.
"You might also say, Brian, that our intent, C.J. as we move forward, is to work to see if this transcript can remain anonymous, if that is -- confidential, if that is possible. So to the extent, you know, you have information that you are more comfortable sharing in a confidential -- on a confidential basis, you know, if you would let us know, you know, that will help us moving forward."
So they have their information wrong?
I believe him. It certainly wouldn't be something you'd forget if your best friends wife was using a substance like HGH, and that your best friend told you that from his own mouth.
According to Pettitte's narrative, Clemens doesn't even use the term "misunderstood." That's Pettitte's term, not Clemens's.
Or, if HGH was anywhere and everywhere in baseball, as seems likely, a revelation about someone using HGH wouldn't be all that shocking. And if my best friend told me something about his wife that was truly shocking to me, I think I'd talk to him about it more often than every 5 years for a couple of minutes.
So if your best friend comes out for whatever reason and tells you that his wife used a substance like HGH, you would not remember it? And how is HGH being rampant in baseball relevant to whether or not clemens WIFE was using HGH?
Ah. That's what I wondered last night.
That issue is a red flag when you read the Mitchell Report. McNamee claims to have given this bottle of steroids to Canseco, and the Mitchell Report also claims that members of Mitchell's staff interviewed Canseco. So where was Canseco's reply to this in the Mitchell Report? Answer: Canseco says neither Mitchell nor anyone from his staff ever contacted him in an attempt to corroborate anything that McNamee said.
This was an odd move by Mitchell; it would have been so simple to ask Canseco about this to find out, before including the fact in the report, if Canseco would dispute the fact later.
He's saying that if his best friend told him that his wife was using HGH, he'd have more than two conversations 5 years apart about it with him...
I must be blind...
Maybe.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main