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 2.3398 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.
This is what I mean bunyon. You can't possibly put a statement like this on par with what you are getting from Nieporent and Andy.
First, its not "correct". In fact, the Innocence Project uses DNA for its analysis of cases. I think most people want DNA to be used here (except the Clemens fanboys). Moreover, I doubt they would become involved in something that is not even a case.
Second, it presumes there is a criminal trial with depravations of liberty involved for the persons. Roger's buddy Rusty already filed a civil suit to cover any potential loss of property on this one. Or maybe that was just to "eat someone's lunch."
alleged rapist
Any potential rape charge was no pros. There is a huge, huge difference in alleging whether someone took drugs when you are trying to determine whether they illicitly used drugs and calling someone a rapist for the sole point of slandering them because you don't like what they are saying.
Which Petitte himself says he's not sure of.
Which came from McNamee.
Mitchell and the committee appear to have interviewed just about every medical professional and/or teammate that might have had knowledge that Clemens was using PEDs. Except for McNamee and Pettitte, they've all testified that they had no knowledge that Clemens ever used PEDs. That's evidence of innocence.
The second sentence is simply inaccurate. There's no purported *eyewitness* to his use other than McNamee. There's plenty of other evidence, some of which needs forensic testing, and there is the testimony of other human witnesses. Clemens's own internally inconsistent and credulity straining testimony is itself evidence.
Again, you're confusing what you perceive to be the low value of the evidence, or the proper weight/deference it should be given, with a lack of existence of evidence.
You mean Pettitte's testimony which said he was probably misremembering?
Clemens got a doctor subesquest to that to dispute what they said.
But you said no one corroborated any part of Clemens story. And that is false. These doctors did corroborate Clemens story.
The absolute dumbest argument I've heard against Clemens is "McNamee told the truth about Knoblauch and Pettitte, so we should believe him about Clemens."
Look, I've heard of the legal maxim, "Falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus," which translates as "False in one, false in all," and essentially means that if someone is caught in a lie, you can choose to disbelieve everything that person says. I've never heard of the legal maxim, "Veritas in uno, veritas in omnibus," that if someone told the truth once, you should believe everything that person says. And in particular, McNamee has a long history of lying.
He lied in the past, about his involvement in an alleged rape (*). He lied in the past about his academic credentials. He lied in the past about his drug dealing. He lied in the present about his drug dealing (*), including about the very thing you're citing him for honesty about. (That is, while he truthfully said he gave hGH to Pettitte/Knoblauch, he now admits he lied about the details.)
He lied about being pressured by the government to implicate Clemens. That is, he said the government pressured him, and then later said the government didn't pressure him. So one or the other had to be a lie.
He lied about the physical evidence against Clemens (*). That is, he denied having it, and then later turned it over to the government and claimed it was evidence against Clemens. So either he lied when he denied having it, or he lied when it claimed it was evidence against Clemens.
(*) Each of the three things I've asterisked were lies that constituted crimes. The first lie -- about the alleged rape -- was to protect himself. But the second and third lies came in a situation where he could only be punished if he lied -- and yet he lied anyway.
And note that I'm not even addressing situations like Canseco's party, where many people contradict him. All of the above examples are demonstrable lies, in which he either eventually admitted lying, or he told two contradictory stories so he must have lied.
Actually, I wouldn't mind DNA testing. Just as long as its done with the lack of chain of custody duly noted.
Ah, I see. Deprivation of liberty is far worse than defamation of character. Considering that you can at least get your liberty back if wrongly convicted, but a shot reputation is pretty much forever, shouldn't the standards of evidence be comparable?
P.S. I'm no 'Clemens fanboy,' I'm an Indians fan for cryin' out loud. I just hate witch hunts. But keep those ad hominems comin', they really bolster your argument.
*Drastically* revise is a stretch. The fundamentals of McNamee's story regarding Pettitte/Knoblach hasn't changed in the least and to the extent the story itself has, it's because McNamee was governed by many of the silly fanboy impulses we see on the board and the code of the locker room's sanctity which led to his impulse (stupid yet hardly corrupt) to cover for the players. McNamee underreporting the number of times he injected others such that the number of times he claims to have injected Clemens was relatively higher, his underreporting was actually contrary to his self-interest.
By that logic, we can show that Clemens is a liar, and therefore, we should believe the opposite of what he says.
You know it doesn't work that way. When people are searching their memories over years and years:
(1) They misremember some things;
(2) They embellish some things;
(3) They hold back some things;
(4) They lie about some things.
With Clemens, you have:
(1) His performance record;
(2) His association and continual employment and close relationship with a known hGH and steroids dealer;
(3) His closest friends using hGH from the same person which has been 100% corroborated;
(4) His statement to Pettite that he used hGH;
(5) The dialogue where Pettite asks for the same stuff Roger is using and then being told its illegal
(6) Plus all those wacky cover stories involving lidocain and b12 in the lower back, and his mother, and his wife being the only one getting the hGH, and the cover story.
(7) Possibly the physical evidence; and
(8) The portions of McNamee's story that have been corroborated.
You don't need to believe that McNamee was a saint. Roger is not going to get illicit drugs from a saint. Instead, he's going to get them from someone with connections to the underworld. You only need to beleive what makes sense, and mommy giving him b12 in the lower back doesn't make sense.
With Roger you have everything you have with Bonds, PLUS the testimony of the guy that shot him in the ass.
There is no conspiracy with Pettite, McNamee, and Nowitski. Heck, everything Nowitski has touched has been a PED abuser. The smear campaign hasn't worked, and Rusty never could eat his lunch.
It was Clemens who said Petitte was misremembering. Petitte said Clemens told him he was using hGH.
Lord.
Anyone else want to point out to kevin the relevant facts of Pettitte's deposition?
Atta boy, Andy!
Second, Clemens is a greater player than McGwire
As of right now...I would say Clemens would pull in a 40-50% HOF vote as compared to McGuire's 25%.
There are a lot of hardasses out there that are still in love with Marty Marion and until they curl up...it will take a while.
The fact that he later retained his trainer after an incident specifically involving HGH further supports the idea that Clemens was still at best non-committal about HGH and didn't truly care about his "cleanliness" or "clean reputation." (Sorry for the overuse of the word 'clean').
Now (and this is very important, with regards to the BTF discussion so far), this opinion doesn't mean anything in a court case, and it doesn't validate this whole traveshamockery of a Congressional ego-stroke, but for the public and we the fans, I think there are plenty of grounds to strongly suspect Clemens of PED use and doubt his claims otherwise.
This seems, to me, a likely reason Pettitte was "allowed" not to testify. Without him rambling and incoherent in front of the cameras, the congresscritters could "summarize" his testimony however they chose. The media could follow their lead and, voila, Pettitte's testimony is quite damaging.
----
Backlasher, I'm sorry I don't compose precise posts. I'm not putting everyone in the same category. There are thoughtless extremists on both sides and I don't give them much thought. My point was that serious, thoughtful people can look at this circus and focus on Clemens looking like a) he's guilty of PED use, b) he's an idiot and c) he's arrogant and delusional. While others can look at the same story and come away with the impression that McNamee is a) a scumbag and b) lying. All five of those points are probably true, in my opinion. I'm not trying to mediate anything. You guys can go on arguing about this until you're old men - I don't care. I was just trying to share my opinion, which is that I wouldn't care to defend the honor of any of these men (and women) (the folks on our TV). * Edit: what i mean is, would it kill the folks arguing Clemens' guilt to admit that McNamee looks terrible and Pettitte's affadavit isn't a slamdunk against Clemens? (Andy has, because he's a good guy). On the other side, would it kill the folks arguing Clemens innocence to admit there is a hell of a lot of smoke and Clemens' testimony didn't exactly clear the air?
I am just a little curious why you always seem to take such umbrage at the obviously foolish and extreme posts that come through here. It's as if you can't trust the thoughtful posters to realize that the silly arguments are just that. I'm not sorry, however, that I don't take a firm stand on the side of either Clemens or McNamee as you would have me do.
And which don't actually show anything yet.
P.S. I'm no 'Clemens fanboy,' I'm an Indians fan for cryin' out loud. I just hate witch hunts. But keep those ad hominems comin', they really bolster your argument.
The problem you have is that you don't even realize they aren't ad hominems. My argument is that you can't paint the participants with the same brush. The nonsense you are posting is not on par with the other arguments.
Moreover, I think you completely missed the fact that Clemens has filed a lawsuit for defamation of character. And that standard is not going to be the standard of proof. I'm not sure there is even a "standards of evidence" because much (but not all) of what we are talking about would come in during said trial. "Standards of Evidence" is never what you purport.
You are just taking a few phrases you have heard elsewhere and cobbling them together, completely out of place, and trying to be hip and snarky. I can't see how bunyon or anyone, can equate that with some of the other discussions taking place.
EDITED AS I JUST SAW THIS
bunyon,
First, please don't misunderstand, I am not requesting or requiring you to come to a stand with Clemens. If I intimated as much, I apologize. I have agreed more with David and Ray on Clemens and the evidence than I did on Bonds. There are some squirrley things about McNamee.
Second, I think the reason is that you have so many people that:
(a) post in these threads;
(b) then go to another thread and spew a stereotype about the people in these threads (of course, excluding themselves) that just isn't true
There is real vitriol, there is fun banter, and there is information. There are also some real wackos. If Primates can tell the difference, they aren't communicating that when they talk about the people are these threads.
Well, obviously I was a little confused and flustered. But after that, I was like, well, obviously I must have misunderstood him.
I'm 95% convinced that Roger juiced, but this whole thing is getting very out of hand. I don't want to see anybody sent to jail, even Barry. I just want Olympic style, frozen-boold sample testing grandfathered-in. Make Barry and Roger wait 10 years, and put them in the Hall, those of us that still feel the need to can hold our noses at that.
And then we move on.
To the effect that this 2005 conversation confused Pettitte, it didn't cause him to represent the 1999 one any differently.
And if they happen to show B12 or lidocaine would be pretty powerful Clemens evidence.
If they happen to show hGH and steroids, or if the labels on the roid bottles have roger's fingerprints, then they are going to be pretty powerful evidence against Clemens.
IOW, you're becoming more and more convinced that at best they're a marginal performance enhancer. And this is because ...?
I won't put myself in the serious and thoughtful category, but I've looked at this circus and hold all five views simultaneously. There's nothing inconsistent about doing so.
Also from Andy's Deposition...
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.
I mean, he says he doesn't think he misunderstood, but they he says he felt he did.
So there is that.
But BL, while this may be true in general, the fact remains that none of it helps McNamee's credibility.
And the new syringe "evidence" he came up with (for example) was not a result of him "searching his memory" and then suddenly remembering it; it was a result of him admitting he lied in not turning it over sooner.
He has told lie after lie in connection with this case alone.
"With Clemens, you have: (1) His performance record;"
BL, I don't think you would seriously claim this is part of any rational case against Clemens, and even if we assume that performance record is indicative of steroid use, there is still the matter of things like his great performance in 1997, before he's alleged to have used steroids. Some of his performance record cuts the other way; you can't just pick and choose which portions of his performance record are consistent with steroid usage (1998), while ignoring the portions that are not (2002, when McNamee now claims that Clemens gave him steroids at the end of the season because Clemens was getting on a plane).
...Which Pettitte is alternately clear that he understood and not clear that he understood.
Pettitte said in his deposition that this never happened.
Which of course raises the possibility that Andy's torn by his friendship for Roger and the facts as he remembers them. As in, I couldn't have misunderstood Roger, but he says I must've, so I must've. You know what I mean?
See that's ridiculous. Clemens is trying to prove a negative here, that something didn't happen. As is noted above, parts of his story have been corroborated. Further to that point, I don't know how you can corroborate that you didn't do something over a ten year period - all you can do is try to refute what the other guy says. For the vast majority of the allegations, it's nothing more than Clemens' word against McNamee's. Nobody corroborates either side of the story. You want to use the fact that aspects of McNamee's story have been corroborated against Clemens, when Clemens isn't offering other aspects than can be corroborated by other people. It's a dishonest argument.
To the effect that this 2005 conversation confused Pettitte, it didn't cause him to represent the 1999 one any differently.
For the benefit of today's group of readers who arguing without reading:
Review the testimony of Cummings questioning of Petitte.
Cummings was misrepresented Pettitte's deposition.
Which of course raises the possibility that Andy's torn by his friendship for Roger and the facts as he remembers them. As in, I couldn't have misunderstood Roger, but he says I must've, so I must've. You know what I mean?
This very well could be. But you have to take the testimony as a whole. Does the waffling not undermine his entire testimony?
IOW, you're becoming more and more convinced that at best they're a marginal performance enhancer. And this is because ...?
Rather than give a long-winded answer to that, just read through this rather short but important Walker thread, and make sure to click on the link to his website.
As you'll see if you look at the thread, he leaves me unconvinced about Bonds's late career spike, but his long riffs on the nature of steroids, and how they relate to specific muscle areas are well worth reading.
It still doesn't mean that there can't be problems with them.
For one thing, McNamee admits he became vindictive once Clemens played the tape of the phone call. Since people are citing made-up facts as "evidence" against Clemens, I could just as easily say -- with no evidence to support my theory -- that McNamee manufactured the physical evidence out of revenge.
Wait, are you disputing a quote from Pettitte's deposition?
what context? Read the deposition, he says he is probably misremembering.
SugarBear, I agree with this 100%.
And I suspect more people here would too, if they weren't trying to maintain the BTF steroid thread standards.
Clemens found that mcnamee injected his wife with HGH, that he supposedly encouraged his wife to use. Come on, put two and two together. Clemens knew damn well mcnamee was a drug dealer, even if we believe his bogus story that he had no clue at first that mcnamee injected his wife with HGH.
"But Clemens was alleged to have been in the so-called "Grimsley affidavit" too, and since Clemens knew that he was innocent, he knew the media reports were wrong. And then the prosecutor came out and told everyone that the media reports were wrong. So why should Clemens have believed them about McNamee?"
Clemens denied the grimsley allegations october of 2006. We didn't learn clemens wasn't on the report until over a year later. He defended mcnamee in 2006, despite knowing Mcnamee at the very least carried around with HGH, which apparently was only for Clemens wife. <eyeroll>
Andy never "accepted" that he misunderstood roger, he said it was a possibility, but later said he would have remembered if clemens said his freakin' wife was using HGH. He also said his wife would of remembered as well. Yet, all they both recall is clemens admitting his own HGH use.
Clemens has been tested by MLB for steroids and hasn't tested positive. Certainly that's evidence too, isn't it?
Of course it's plausible the conversation would end -- Clemens was saying something so incongruent and preposterous that there's nothing that can be said in response. And rather than argue about something so preposterous you "agree" and move on.
He is, where?
I'd say clemens is widely recognized as a steroid using cheat, who clearly would have been a notch behind Maddux and and perhaps pedro if not for steroids and HGH. Look at the polls on the net, read what most people are saying, Clemens is most certainly NOT "widely recognized" as perhaps the best pitcher ever. The best steroid using pitcher ever is a different story however. I'm sure he's recognized as that.
Correction, ray, it's before mcnamee's alleged to have injected clemens. Never once does mcnamee claim "In 1998, clemens used steroids for the first time". It's more along the lines of "In 1998, I injected clemens for my first time".
I disagree. My choice is Tom House.
Or, considering Clemens admits that McNamee did inject him (with B-12/Lidocaine), all McNamee would have had to do would save those syringes. He did not necessarily have to get Clemens' blood after he decided to manufacture the evidence.
And, once again, none of the physical evidence has been tested yet, so why don't we all stop makig assumptions about it and wait for the test results?
Meanwhile, according to the article:
Some artful phrasing that implies that dear old dad got all those drugs—not just the HGH Andy copped to—without coming out and actually saying so.
Pettitte says several times that he might have misunderstood; he doesn't accept that he did, but he accepts the possibility. This has nothing to do with Clemens' wife at this point. In 1999, Clemens must have said something about hGH. Either he said, "I used it" or something else that Pettitte misinterpreted as "I used it."
Then, according to Pettitte, not a single conversation about it for six years. And then in 2005, Pettitte says, "You once told me you used hGH." Clemens says, "I never told you that. My wife used it, but not me. I must have told you that." Pettitte says, "Maybe I misunderstood." Clemens isn't saying, "In 1999 I told you that my wife used."His wife does not "recall" that at all, because she wasn't there and didn't hear it. What she recalls is Pettitte telling her that, which is entirely different. If Pettitte misinterpreted, then by definition so did Pettitte's wife.
And somehow manage to clean out the traces of B12 and Lidocaine, yet preserve the blood, and then taint it with steroids?
I'm really not understanding how people don't understand this. They're acting as if Pettite's wife's testimony is, in and of itself, evidence. Yet, all it is, is Pettite's testimony, said by his wife, considering, his wife is testifying as to what Pettite told her. Jeez. Not that difficult.
Pedro? I don't think you're placing enough emphasis on playing time.
Or to put it another way Pedro + Jimmy Key gives roughly the same career value as Clemens. (It's not perfect but it's close)
Sure. Pedro's still playing. Good bet his rate stats will drop. And that's assuming he's physically able to pitch.
As for Walter Johnson and Lefty Grove, did either of them win 7 Cy Youngs? Case closed.
Who knows? Who knows what's even on these syringes? Once again, let's wait for them to be tested before making any assumptions whatsoever.
Is this a joke? This is a joke right?
The only people who have made assumptions about it are Clemens's lawyers who called it "manufactured" as soon as it hit the public. Since under Clemens's narrative, the evidence could easily exonorate him (as it could contain his blood together with B-12/lidocaine), this has always seemed very odd and, indeed, makes me very hard-pressed to believe the narrative.
I thought that was obvious..:p
LOL. When you get a little older you MIGHT realize that it is evidence (and might even be admissable in relevant trials based on the attacks of Pettite's veracity).
I'm sorry, did he clean out the traces of B-12 and lidocaine? Damn. Keep missing those headlines.
That sounds like what some of your comrades are setting up. I already told Ray. If those syringes contain B12 and lidocaine, I'm going to give Clemens story a lot of weight.
He did admit that he was injected by McNamee. He admits he was injected, asserts that it was with B-12 and Lidocaine, while McNamee asserts that it was with steroids and HGH. So, yes, Clemens did admit that McNamee injected him.
If Pettite misunderstood Clemens, then, as has been said, by definition, Pettite's wife misunderstood as well.
I would agree, except for Pettitte's testimony that he concluded he must have been mistaken. That testimony is not consistent with your scenario (which I have encountered as well).
I personally think it is more likely that Pettitte's close friednship with Clemens, along with possibly wanting to believe Clemens denial, caused Pettite to doubt himself, and at least supeerficailly believed Clemens later explanation.
It was a mistake on my part. I forgot. Still, dont you think she would of recalled if Pettitte told her clemens wife, which was supposedly her friend, or at least someone she hung out with before, used HGH?
What she remembers is what Pettitte said: That Clemens used HGH himself. The wife stuff is something Clemens himself came up with in 2005, which pettitte says MAYBE he earlier misunderstood, but feels that if clemens did indeed tell him his wife was using HGH, it would have been something he remembered.
What? That doesn't make any sense.
If you hold up a roll of undeveloped film and say, "I have pictures of David assassinating John Lennon," I don't need to "assume" that it's manufactured; I know it is, because I have an alibi for that day. (Check the attendance records at Talbott Springs Elementary.) There's nothing odd or suspicious about me immediately coming out and saying that it's manufactured. I guess it's possible that the photos actually show Ms. Terry's classroom, and thus exonerate me, but it's hardly "odd" that my first reaction would be that you photoshopped a picture to falsely implicate me when you said you had a photo that implicates me.
You are speculating. Let's stick to the facts here.
McNamee claimed to have injected Clemens in 2001 with steroids, and players have been tested since 2002 at the latest. Clemens played the retiring game a few times, but prior to the best year of his career, 2005, he avoided arbitration by signing a one year deal -- he was under the continuous control of the Astros. He couldn't avoid testing in the 2004-2005 off-season.
Most of the players who have been ensnared have never tested positive either. Not being caught doesn't mean very much.
It means that you took a drug test, and passed. We can argue over the amount of value to place on that, but you can't simply wave it away. At least not reasonably.
I'm not calling the passed tests 100% evidence of innocence, but it is a weight in Clemens' favor.
(For the record, I hate Clemens. He's one of my least favorite baseball players EVER. I think he's a thug who deliberately threw at Mike Piazza's head and then lied about it. The broken baseball bat incident was another outrageous story that's fairly unbelievable.)
The attack is not on his veracity, in the terms of truthfulness, but on his accuracy, in terms of perception.
Of course, since you have never once in your life misunderstood someone, nor been misunderstood yourself, that may be hard for you to accept as a possibility. Would that we all had your keen perspicacity, striking eloquence, clearness of expression and perfect elocution.
Sure. If you've got a DNA source (bloody gauze), clean needles and steroids/HGH (and he had both), no problem.
I know you know it's possible to accidentally contaminate something. Why wouldn't it be at least possible to do it on purpose?
If you're arguing implausible, sure. Either he ginned this up well in advance or he's stupid enough to keep steroids in his house now. (Although based on what we've seen to date that merely sounds insane, not improbable)
Point being that the presence of B12 and/or Lidocaine would be a killer to his story, but their absence leaves you not much further ahead assuming you were willing to consider the possibility of tampering in the first place.
Maddux isn't alleged to have used various & effective performance enhancing drugs in the second half of his career.
Peak. He's on the decline now, unless of-course he finds brian mcnamee of his own, and suddenly peaks again.
Wtf?
I don't know if you've read her affidavit BL, but it's pretty piss poor. Here's what it says:
Not that that's nothing but I'd like hear some more details, like (for one) whether she has any independent recollection of any of this or whether she just knows that Andy usually tells her stuff and she doesn't see why this would be any different.
That would be pretty badass on an undeveloped roll of film. Nevertheless, I would think you would say, "I don't know what's on that film but Talbott Springs Elementary School Attendance records and probably about 100 witnesses will disagree with you."
Most of the time though. I can't figure out what are the mistakes by Clemens and what are the mistakes by Rusty. In your hypothetical, I'd expect Rusty to:
(1) Personally threaten to kick the filmmaker's ass; and
(2) Sue anyone who develops the film.
And a congressmen's job is done. It's Miller Time.
Weak analogy. Here the exoneration wouldn't be by mere happenstance.
That word is even better than pronious.
striking eloquence, clearness of expression and perfect elocution.
You are welcome in the Union any time Srul. But I think you have me confused with JC, the eloquent one. I'm the "angry one"
Lennon was shot at 11 PM, so either Talbott Springs Elementary kept very odd hours or...wait a minute, I'm calling the FBI.
You forgot "creative spelling."
I may agree that it is piss poor for most uses. But now, in some threads, you are starting to hear murmurings about Pettite being a liar and throwing Clemens under the bus to take the heat off his father.
If you challenge is veracity, the fact that he contemporaneously made those statements to his wife would be both probative and admissable. This isn't just something he made up recently.
So you say.
Assuming, of course, that her affidavit is based on recollection of the conversation, and not something else. FWIW, I haven't thought through the whole throwing Clemens under the bus thing, so I'm not approaching it from that angle. I'm willing to believe that the conversations happened between him and Clemens. The natural tendency though is for his wife's affidavit to be seen as confirming that his views of the conversation were the same at the time as they are now. I'd like better evidence from her before I see her evidence as being particularly probative.
Apparently a lot of people ascribe magical powers to HGH.
I don't find it a stretch at all. I think it is more likely than not that Clemens is lying. I think it is more likely than not that Clemens used some sort of performance-enhancing drug.
I also think McNamee is a pretty scummy character, and that Congress is pretty seriously over-involved in the MLB steroids controversy.
My position really hasn't changed over the years. I have no problem with people thinking that Clemens or Bonds or McGwire used steroids. I have a serious problem with the level of certainty some people seem to have: certainty of guilt, but also the certainty of a player's production being impossible without illicit aid. I think the government is overstepping what should be its authority over private actors, whether it legally has the right or not.
I think it was closer to 9 or 10 PM. He had just returned from dinner, and chapman spoke to him on the way out. there were plenty of witnesses, and Chapman stood there waiting to be arrested.
Actually, you usually describe it as "Congress doing their job." (paraphrase). Interstate commerce rampant in the use/dealing of illegal drugs..
McNamee's Lawyer Predicts Clemens Pardon
I hate it that Congress feels compelled to waste their time on this stuff but MLB is forcing their hand by being so lax in their enforcement.
A complete 180 from what you said the other day.
Perhaps you're confusing this with the situation of someone who retires in the middle of his contract. Or perhaps you're just an idiot.
Well put, CB.
But you're dependent on George Bush's "corrupt" administration to keep its deal keeping your client out of jail even though your client may have given it enough ammo to bust the deal. And now you come out and rip that very administration?
Nothing about this makes any sense. Either that or I'm not swift enough to find it. How does it remotely help Emery's client to rip the head of government?
EDIT: I suppose it makes some sense if Emery has actual reliable intel that a pardon's on the way. That strikes me as extremely unlikely.
If you're under contract, retire, and then unretire, you're still under contract with the team you were with when you retired; you're not free to just sign with anyone. Unless of course you're a free agent. So yes, you can be a free agent and retired at the same time.
I then stayed up till about 2:00 am playing Beatles records.
The day they were going to send out copies of the allegations, the office door was locked and no one could find the key.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main