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 2.5578 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.
"[Peralta] goes 'You have two strikes against you to go to jail. You have one more strike.'...So then, they recapped what we talked about that day and then - the day before. And then, right away, 'So what about Clemens?'...Novitzky went on this big tirade because 'it was the biggest embarassing thing I've ever heard from anybody.' He's trying to tell me that I -- that how can I tell him that I don't know anything about steroids and Clemens with, first of all, what they know and I also must not be good at what I do because I stretch him and I train him; so if I put my hands on his body, how can I not know that his body's changing by taking steroids. And then, he threw a piece of paper at me and he goes, 'Do you know how many people we've talked to?' Peralta jumped in. He goes, 'We know more about you than you know about yourself.' He goes 'You're going to jail.' My attorney just sat there.
But whether Knoblauch's DNA is present on the items or not, McNamee admits he did not save separate submissions for the other two. Just for Clemens.
You're wrong here. He told incomplete truths, not lies. What he said was accurate. Legally speaking, that's a major difference.
Geez, didn't take him long to start lying, did it?
You can believe whatever you want, but the fact still remains: Mcnamee said he injected pettitte and knoblauch, and both have confirmed this to be true.
To me, it can be read just as easily to suggest that they have other info which will expose McNamee as a liar for not naming Clemens (and thus send him to jail) as it does to say they are telling him to name Clemens or else.
And the fact still remains that McNamee apparently kept used needles and stuff from Clemens but not the others, suggesting that there was already a difference between the cases.
The thing to remember here is that McNamee apparently correctly assessed which of his clients would be honest and which would lie and try to screw him over when the time came. I have a hard time criticizing him for that, though I certainly thought it curious initially that he had kept this stuff
If you read it the first way, that puts McNamee in an awful position if he actually knows nothing. It's tantamount to them telling him that they don't believe him that he knows nothing, that they have evidence that Clemens is guilty and that he's going to jail if he doesn't 'fess up to Clemens. Even if he subjectively believes that they have Clemens on other evidence and he knows nothing about it, he still thinks he's ###### if he doesn't tell them something.
I'd be interested to know at what point he gave up Pettitte to the feds. On my quick gloss of that transcript, it seems that he gave up Pettitte first.
Are you claiming that's exactly what he said? I hope not.
I think if you want to make up fake testimony and talk about it would be interpreted that's fine; I am not interested in that exercise, though
Are we citing random facts now, or are we trying to make a point?
This from the guy making up fake hypothetical testimony to obscure a mistake on the actual testimony
Sure, that's the argument. The other argument is that they knew he knew and called his bluff and he caved.
Given the other facts we now know I think that's a pretty defensible description, but sure...it's possible that the AUSA and Novitzki didn't have the evidence, were simply bluffing the whole time, and happened today to pull a stright flush on the river card, too.
Where's this other evidence then? You'd think that that might have come in handy or that they would have let Mitchell see it, given that they were forcing guys to talk to him under penalty of criminal prosecution.
How does Clemens denying that he took steroids screw over McNamee?
You missed the filing of the libel suit, perhaps? McNamee didn't give that stuff over the Feds intially...it was only after Clemens filed the lawsuit and then played their personal call on TV.
When you evalute the collection of missteps and bad judgments that is Rusty Hardin's work here, that one appears to have been the worst of a bad lot.
I don't think we'll know exactly what they have until they finish what they are doing and start prosecuting people. They may have nothing; it's just not clear.
I don't think they actually gave Mitchell everything they have, though, nor do I think that has been suggested. I do think that it's pretty common for crim prosecutors to suggest they have the goods on someone they suspect to have info in order to see if they cough it up. The question you have to ask is whether McNamee is more likely to have done that than to have stuck to his denial. I don't know the answer there; he's a scumbag, seems to me, but Clemens has been exposed to be even less credible and ultimately the only reason to think McNamee is not telling the truth is Clemens' own denial here.
If the AUSA did what you are suggesting it's not only an ethical violation it's a criminal one. So while I don't deny those things happen in fed crim matters, I think a little bit of a showing is needed before I swallow that as an explantion, too
If Clemens denies it and McNamee shuts up is there a libel suit?
I guess I don't see how Clemens has been exposed to be even less credible.
I imagine McNamee as the proverbial guy at a bar, telling the disinterested woman of loose morals that he worked in major league baseball, that he traveled frequently, and (when those failed to get her attention) that he would give her a million dollars to go home with him. Sure, the first two were true, but she only ever seemed interested about money, so...
Now it's entirely possible that McNamee is telling the truth about Clemens as well, but I don't think we can just conclude that it's true, especially when we know that McNamee has lied in the past.
If Clemens denies it and McNamee shuts up is there a libel suit?
There was here.
Clemens sued him and engaged in an extensive round of character assasination. Including recording a phone call with McNamee where he discussed his son's health and other personal matters and playing that for the national media. To this point, it appears that Clemens was lying the entire time, lacks a credible basis for the suit, and badly miscalculated by playing the phone call.
That, to me, makes him a jackass trying to ruin someone's life. Maybe you want your friends digging up your criminal history and having their lawyers talking about it on national TV like Clemens' did? Or paying investigators to dig around in your trash?
Well, the "two", plus Pettitte and Clemens' special relationship that was hyped relentlessly for half a decade, plus Pettite throwing Clemens under the bus yesterday.
BTF lawyers (understandably) love to complicate things. For the rest of us, Pettitte was Clemens' bff; Pettitte said Clemens used. And that was that.
"Truth", or evidence to the standard of a criminal trial, has never meant much in the proverbial court of public opinion.
Except that he didn't.
If I lie about them I certainly don't expect them to be cool about it.
Why are we talking about anybody ruin someone's life at all?
It looks to me to be everyone for his own, rats jumping ship, cockroaches suddenly coming under light, &c;. Neither McNamee or Clemens comes off sympathetic here. The stink taints almost all the other players--Pettitte, Debbie Clemens, the Feds, Mitchell. Congressmen came off like blockheads, as usual.
Clemens strategy of attacking McNamee's character is coming dangerously close to some mafia trials. If McNamee was such a reprehensible fellow and Clemens knew it (he certainly did after the 2003 Debbie HGH fiasco), why did he keep McNamee as a friend and an employee?
Simple reminder; You are commenting in a thread titled "
The problem is that the thread's title is also wrong; Pettitte actually told Congress that he may have heard Clemens say that he used... or he might have misunderstood.
Stop with all your darn factual talk. Steve Phillips said today was bad for Clemens. The inquiry ends there.
Clemens has lied and contradicted himself as well. The difference is mcnamee admitted to it, clemens avoided the questions entirely.
That's pretty ####### dishonest, even by your standards.
But at the end mentions that he most certainly would have remembered if roger told him that his wife took HGH. He said his wife would have remembered as well.
Yet, neither remember.
I fail to see the connection between your first sentence and your second. Specifically, I'm not sure how you can say "it appears that Clemens was lying the entire time". It might be your opinion that he was lying the entire time, which is fine, but I think any fair minded person has to acknowledge that there's evidence both ways on that point. It appears that Clemens was lying the entire time if you choose not to believe what he's saying. There's not a hell of a lot other than that.
This is exactly what his affidavit said: "In 1999 or 2000, I had a conversation with Roger Clemens, in which he told me that he had taken human growth hormone."
No "may haves" or "might haves" in that. It's entirely unambiguous.
I can't imagine the balls it must take to write things like this having either failed to read Pettitte's testimony, comprehend Pettitte's testimony, or both. From Pettitte's testimony:
Unless clemens is a complete naive idiot, he damn well had to know about mcnamee's shady past. Despite all of mcnamee's flaws, clemens still trained with him all the way through the 2007 season. mcnamee was alleged to have been on the grimsley report, what does clemens do? defend mcnamee.
E., Hinske just did!
1. They all repeated the idea that this hearing should not be taking place, because the committee is for government oversight and this quasi-courtroom trial was definitely not "government oversight."
That strikes me as a reasonable stance. If they made that plain and withdrew from the hearing, their opinion would have carried weight.
2. They did not stop with point one and seemed to invalidate it by their line of "non-government oversight" questioning toward McNamee and thier fawning speech-making in defense of Roger Clemens. They came across as giddy fans, eager to defend Roger The Titan of Baseball, rather than interested in pursuing the truth. "Which hat will you wear in the Hall of Fame, Roger?"
If the hearing was invalid, because it was not government oversight, then say so and walk away. But they wanted to play defense counsel for Clemens, perhaps because the other party was attacking his credibility with their inquiries.
3. McNamee was worse than I expected. He does come across as a sleeze and in parts he is hard to believe. Certainly, the crux of the case lies on his allegations. If they were not supported by Pettitte, I would say the burden of proof was not met.
4. Clemens allegation that Pettitte misremembers comes across as a total load of bull.
5. It doesn't matter much... However, the fact that Clemens seems to have tried to interfere with the testimony of the former nanny makes me think he probably was at that meaningless party at Canseco's. My guess is that Rocket played golf, as he said, got to the party late and didn't stay long. As such, some people who were there thought Roger was never there.
Make it stop, make it stop!!!
Since you ask so nicely, sure.
1. Well, obviously I was a little confused and flustered. But after that, I was like, well, obviously I must have misunderstood him.
2. I'm saying that I was under the impression that he told me that he had taken it. And then when Roger told me that he didn't take it, and I misunderstood him, I took it for that, that I misunderstood him.
3. I don't think I misunderstood him. Just to answer that question for you when it was brought up to me, I don't think I misunderstood him. I went to Mac immediately after that. But then, 6 years later when he told me that I did misunderstand him, you know, since '05 to this day, you know, I kind of felt that I might have misunderstood him.
(Those are only the times he actually used the word "misunderstood;" I wasn't going to look for every possible synonym for that word, in which case I might have come up with more than three examples.)
A bunch of posters denying that Bonds used PEDs...
Until they realized that they were wrong.
The same thing will eventually happen with Clemens.
Except Clemens knew that McNamee had HGH to give his wife. He knew that McNamee was carrying illegal drugs with him. Unless he was delusional, which is possible according to Neyer, Clemens should have put two and two together.
Neyer's quote
Dog bites man when it comes to baseball players.
I'm up to page 57 of Pettite's testimony, and I must say that up to that point, at least, it's less damning than the summaries seem to indicate. That excerpt from p. 28 of the Committee website's transcript, quoted by E., Hinske above, could easily back Clemens' interpretation of a misunderstanding on Pettitte's part. I don't see any smoking gun here on either side, at least up to this point. But I doubt if I'll make it through the second half of it before tomorrow. It's been a long day.
Lots of kids try to walk on your lawn today?
So now we are pulling stuff completely out of our asses. He did not "try to interfere" with anything; go read the Nanny's testimony and you'll see that. Canseco denies he was there. Clemens denies he was there. The nanny denies he was there. The Jays' broadcasters deny he was there. Other than Clemens, people with no possible motive to lie. (I assume that not even the Keviniest conspiracy theorist argues that Clemens clairvoyantly bribed the Jays' announcers in 1998 to state that he wasn't at Canseco's house, just to set up an alibi for 2008.)
The only way Clemens gets into the HOF, like the rest of us...
Lots of kids try to walk on your lawn today?
Yeah, a bunch of f*ck*ng Aztecs. I told them to put on some clothes and go pester you instead.
And this was a weird thing for Clemens to say.
He couldn't tell his nanny to tell the truth on the phone???
Also this could be tampering with a witness.
He was telling her that he wasn't there.
A bunch of posters denying that Bonds used PEDs...
Until they realized that they were wrong.
The same thing will eventually happen with Clemens.
It's following the script pretty close I agree. Basically, no one involved looks good, the government is overreaching and abusing it's power, the player looks like a liar and a cheat who is arrogant and delusional, friendships are ruined, marriages called into question. Yep. Pretty much the same.
Basically, I think the reason the pro-Clemens and anti-Clemens side keep talking past each other is they are right on the points they raise.
Perhaps Waxman should find McNamee and call him this morning, to make sure David Cone did not hurt his feelings when he said he was full of ####.
Well, you can start with the observation that his narrative of events is utterly without credibility as to almost every particular -- he didn't learn about B-12 from his mother, he didn't take B-12 because his mother told him it was a good idea, he didn't learn about McNamee and HGH because his wife was injected by McNamee without his knowledge, he wasn't referring to his wife's use of HGH in his discussions with Pettitte, he didn't use McNamee instead of a doctor for B-12 shots because he trusted McNamee was a doctor, etc. None of these things ring remotely true to anyone with an objective mind and understanding of baseball's recent past and athletes and people and indeed some are internally inconsistent, as is the wife's use/Pettitte affidavit timeline. McNamee isn't alleging that Clemens committed independent bad acts, he's merely claiming that Clemens participated in activities wide swaths of his peers participated in -- a simple observation seemingly lost to practically everyone.
And move from there to the observation that he tampered with a witness to a tangential and immaterial fact, which is what the Canseco party is. It's utterly irrelevant to the fundamental issues involved, a complete sideshow.
Now these assertions of course can't be "proven" with the Cartesian exquisiteness some on the board demand, and maybe not even to the level of proof required for criminal conviction, but the decision to have the debate revolve around whether that level of proof is present is a decision, not a mandate. As is the idea we can't speak ill of fanboys' heroes without such levels of proof.
Very disturbing.
Yes. Very.
If the hearing was invalid, because it was not government oversight, then say so and walk away. But they wanted to play defense counsel for Clemens, perhaps because the other party was attacking his credibility with their inquiries.
News reports tell us Waxman was willing to just do a report with the staff evidence and scrap the hearing, but that Clemens wanted the hearing. Your insightful comments tell us the reason why.
If you thought Clemens was innocent, you still think that way.
If you thought Clemens was guilty, you're really thinking that now.
Sign me up for this. It's ridiculous that there was a public hearing structured this way about this matter. I'm accepting on faith the idea that Waxman didn't want a hearing, but acceded to Clemens's desire for one, which makes sense.
Basically, I think the reason the pro-Clemens and anti-Clemens side keep talking past each other is they are right on the points they raise.
Sign me up for this.
Didn't Clemens lawyers deny this?
Maybe. But it doesn't ring true, as Clemens's case isn't fact-based, it's PR-based.
I'm able to make judgments independent of Rusty Hardin and Lanny Breuer.
And, of course, the nanny makes clear that he didn't tamper with her at all. Clemens has both contemporaneous and present evidence that he wasn't there, from people with no reason to lie. McNamee has... McNamee.
Clearly it's not an "utterly irrelevant" "sideshow," or Mitchell wouldn't have included it in the report. It's the key to McNamee's version of events: Clemens held a meeting with the steroid evangelist and then immediately brought some steroids over to McNamee and asked him to start giving him steroids. If the meeting in question didn't take place, then McNamee's story is undermined. Of <u>course</u> that doesn't prove that Clemens didn't use steroids. But there's no evidence he used, except McNamee's word. So if McNamee's story doesn't hold water, then we're back to mere prejudice as our anti-Clemens argument.
Fixed it for you.
But I see you're back to the "If I mock the idea of having high-quality evidence, I can disguise the fact that I have no evidence" school of <strike>reasoning</strike>argument.
That's not the argument. The argument is that it's false because it's internally inconsistent, doesn't ring true given what we know and can observe, and is self-serving. All of which are perfectly valid ways of evaluating witness testimony, notwithstanding the Cartesians on the board.
And, of course, the nanny makes clear that he didn't tamper with her at all. Clemens has both contemporaneous and present evidence that he wasn't there, from people with no reason to lie. McNamee has... McNamee.
The current state of the evidence on the matter has nothing to do with whether Clemens tampered with the witness. Nor does McNamee have anything to do with it.
McNamee misunderstanding of or even lying about how Clemens came to want to get injected with steroids has nothing to do with whether or not McNamee in fact injected him.
But I see you're back to the "If I mock the idea of having high-quality evidence, I can disguise the fact that I have no evidence" school of reasoningargument.
You're confusing two different concepts. Pointing out the myriad alternative explanations the evidence does not (and can not) explain away is not the same as "high-quality evidence." And the Cartesian levels of proof people want includes irrefutable proof that alternative explanations did not and could not have happened. That's not how the real world -- or the world of evidence -- works.
I want a congressional hearing. Can I have one? If I think real hard, I'm sure that I could think of a way that Congressmen could use it to grandstand.
Who needs the Innocence Project? Circumstantial evidence and presumption of guilt are good enough for me!
Next up: the "fascist" accusation.
It doesn't help his credibility. At all.
In fact, it really really really hurts his credibility.
Not that he had much to begin with.
I was thinking "mob mentality," actually. I'm a social libertarian, not a propertarian or minarchist.
In fact, it really really really hurts his credibility.
Not that he had much to begin with.
Not really.
He doesn't need much credibility given the accusations he's making, which are merely that Clemens engaged in the exact conduct scores of his industry peers and contemporaries engaged in. Missing this simple point takes you far afield, as we see in much of the commentary here.
Really? Suppose I am late for a meeting. Some time later, I tell you its because of a traffic jam due to a large accident on a bridge. But it turns out that there was no such accident. Do you believe my story about being stuck in traffic?
I agree in theory that the issue of how Clemens came to want to receive PEDS is not all that relevant to whether McNamee gave Clemens injections. But the apparent inaccuracies of McNamee's story hurts his overall credibility, even though not fatally. I just don't see how that could not have caused some harm.
To put it another way, if Canseco and the nanny all agreed that Clemens was at the party, would that have helped McNamee's credibility, at least some? It would have for me.
The problem with this, for me, is that it's binary. I don't think we can say that Clemens is "innocent" or "guilty," as a matter of fact. There's some evidence that he's guilty; there's some evidence that he's innocent. This isn't the OJ case where there's no doubt, and I think that far too many people are making asses of themselves by pretending that it is.
The evidence against Clemens is:
McNamee says so.
Pettitte says he had a conversation with Clemens in 1999/2000 during which Clemens said he used HGH, but -- despite the new hero of Clemens-haters, Elijah Cummings, dishonestly pretending otherwise -- Pettitte was not sure throughout the deposition that he understood the conversation properly.
McNamee says so.
Pettitte says he had a conversation with Clemens in 1999/2000 during which Clemens said he used HGH, but -- despite the new hero of Clemens-haters, Elijah Cummings, dishonestly pretending otherwise -- Pettitte was not sure throughout the deposition that he understood the conversation properly.
....
The preponderance of players who did what McNamee said Clemens did
The credulity straining story Clemens told
McNamee's similar activity with Clemens's peers
....
Huh? You're arguing that Roger Clemens used steroids because other players used?
You mean, like keeping needles used by Player X for 7 years, and doing so for Player X but not for Players Y and Z?
Like telling several different versions of the same story?
But as long as we're not citing actual evidence, I contend that McNamee saved the needles in order to blackmail Clemens later.
Having finished wading through that Pettitte testimony, I agree that it's hard to say with the sort of certainty I earlier felt that Clemens is guilty. That said, my needle's moved from 99% to about 90%, not any lower than that. Because even though there have been reasons given for why McNamee would be lying about the core of his testimony against Clemens, I still have a hard time squaring that thought with the fact that both Knoblauch and Pettitte backed up everything McNamee said about them. And the supposed "benefit" that McNamee would gain by inventing a story about Clemens seems farfetched at best, being founded on a totally unproven theory of undue pressure brought upon him by investigators to help bring Clemens down by making false charges against him. A theory which itself rests on an implicit yet unproven assertion that unnamed prosecutors were somehow out to "get" Clemens.
But putting a lot of emphasis on Pettite's testimony about Clemens is not all that smart, since as others have pointed out, that testimony is far more fraught with ambiguity than the headlines would suggest. This in itself has nothing to do with the truthfulness of McNamee's testimony, but it does make the forging of Pettite's testimony about Clemens into a smoking gun a bit farfetched, to say the least. And if the government tries going after Clemens for perjury, I don't think you have to be a lawyer to recognize the improbability of a conviction. On what I've learned so far, I wouldn't vote for conviction myself.
And as for the Hall of Fame, I'm glad that the vote on that's a good five years away.
I certainly wouldn't need five years to decide that, or even five seconds. I'd put him in now. I'd put him in a year from now. I'd put him in five years from now.
Clemens version of the MRI was corroborated by several doctors.
Clemens wife also backs up his story, wife of the accused is usually not the most solid alibi, but it isn't "none."
I strongly disagree, and I think one of the problems are these attempts at mediation.
For instance, Ray and Nieporent are pro-Clemens. I don't see where most of the other people are talking past them, are they are talking past us. That is real discussion.
But when you have some teenagers calling McNamee "a rapist"; a fanboy that insults anyone that besmearches there hero; and a handful of others that use the most convulated logic imagineable to come up with baseless conclusions, they:
(1) Aren't talking past anyone. They are just being silly fanboys.
(2) We aren't talking past them. We are occasionally laughing at them.
(3) They aren't right about what they say.
Its insulting to paint all the people with teh same brush. Its also insulting to say that everyone is stuborn, when you can IN THE COURSE OF THIS THREAD ALONE, see nuance and change to people like Andy, Nieporent and Ray's points.
Let's assume he used steroids/HGH 20 or so times over a four or five year period, as McNamee alleges.
Serious question: What would your reason for keeping him out of the Hall be? That the steroids/HGH made him into a HOF pitcher? Or is it just a general "he cheated" rationale?
OK, how about everyone agree to refer to Clemens as an "alleged PED user" and McNamee as an "alleged rapist"?
agreed?
No.
You mean, like keeping needles used by Player X for 7 years, and doing so for Player X but not for Players Y and Z?
Like telling several different versions of the same story?
But as long as we're not citing actual evidence, I contend that McNamee saved the needles in order to blackmail Clemens later.
These are part of *McNamee's* story. Why would you talk about McNamee in response to a question about the internal consistency of Clemens's story and Clemens's demeanor/overall believablity?
"alleged rapist and convicted drug dealer"
Whoops, sorry about that Mr. Waxman.
The only "evidence" he's guilty is McNamee's testimony.
The only evidence that we currently have is what each side has said.
Well, first, we haven't seen anything "happen" to McGwire yet. We saw 2 voting cycles out of 15 potential voting cycles. Now -- it seems clear to me that McGwire would have gotten more votes were it not for this silly controversy; but it's far from clear to me that McGwire will never get in.
Second, Clemens is a greater player than McGwire, widely recognized as perhaps the greatest pitcher ever. Nobody would ever make an "oh, really he's just one-dimensional after all" argument with respect to Clemens as they did, after the fact, with respect to McGwire. Moreover, like Bonds, Clemens is widely accepted as a HOFer before and without steroids.
There are huge differences between the two.
First, that is not an alibi. She is not saying Roger was somewhere else during all the alleged ass injections. She is saying that she is an assinjector.
From Pettite we know that Roger began setting the wife as a cover story by using the jedi mind trick on Pettite back in 2005.
Of course that doesn't prove that Clemens didn't use steroids. But there's no evidence he used, except McNamee's word. So if McNamee's story doesn't hold water, then we're back to mere prejudice as our anti-Clemens argument.
Putting aside the handful of jihadists like Kevin, no person would think Clemens used steroids without McNamee's testimony. (Think it's possible Clemens used? Sure. It's possible any player used. But think it definitely happened? No.) So if McNamee's a liar -- and McNamee is demonstrably a liar -- then we're left with nothing.
On the state of the evidence now, I agree. I need to hear the forensic conclusions re the physical evidence before I finalize this conclusion, though. Nothing Clemens or his lawyers have done leads me to think they hold out the slightest hope that B-12/lidocaine will be found anywhere within that evidence ... another reason I find Clemens's tales unpersuasive.
Let's assume he used steroids/HGH 20 or so times over a four or five year period, as McNamee alleges.
Serious question: What would your reason for keeping him out of the Hall be? That the steroids/HGH made him into a HOF pitcher? Or is it just a general "he cheated" rationale?
The latter. I'm becoming less and less convinced that steroids are more than a marginal performance enhancer, though the case of Bonds's power rate stats still gives me pause. But in the case of Clemens, I see little more benefit than added longevity, which to me is a perfectly legitimate and benign form of enhancement.
This is not an easy issue, and I think that the more you try to learn about it, the more you realize how much you don't know. You want a level playing field, and you want to be fair to individuals who are accused of trying to tilt that field. And how to reconcile these two equally legitimate wishes is more than a little complicated in cases like this.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main