Convicted steroid distributor Kirk Radomski handed over shipping receipts to federal investigators for a package of human growth hormone

Getting any package in the mail from a guy like Radomski is suspicious, but is there any proof that it was a pakage of HGH? He's not really writing HGH on the packing slip, is he? The only thing we know is that Radomski sent Clemens/McNamee a package.

The only thing we know is that Radomski sent Clemens/McNamee a package.

We know is that Radomski (a convicted dealer of steroids and HGH) sent a package to Clemens at roughly the same time that McNamee allegedly injected Clemen's wife with HGH. There's not much else that Radomski would likely send to Clemens, and the timing and names on the package support (at least loosely) McNamee's statements that Clemens was aware of McNamee injecting HGH into Clemens' wife.

I agree that it doesn't prove that Clemens used these substances, but it does indicate that he may have had more knowledge of and involvement in his wife's use than previously acknowledged, which would hurt his credibility on other issues - including issues around his own possible (but unconfirmed in any meaningful way) use.

I don't think it's anything relevant. You don't know what was in the package (though I agree with you getting anything from Radomski looks bad). If it was addressed to Clemens and says "in care of B. McNamee" then Clemens probably has a good case he never saw the package.

It's pretty standard for famous people to have assistants take care of pretty much anything they get in the mail. Clemens probably gets tens of thousands of items in the mail, from fan letters, autograph seekers, palimony suits, and hate mail from Kevin.

"The only thing we know is that Radomski sent Clemens/McNamee a package."

It's not very useful in a court-of-law sense, but as far as the court of public opinion... what's the counter-argument here? It was full of delicious chocolate-chip cookies? Radomski was just sending him some info on Amway?

The Daily News appears to be the Feds' de facto press agent.

It's not very useful in a court-of-law sense, but as far as the court of public opinion... what's the counter-argument here? It was full of delicious chocolate-chip cookies? Radomski was just sending him some info on Amway?

But does it matter? I mean, unless I'm drastically misreading the situation, Court of Public Opinion is already strongly aganist Clemens, and unlikely to change unless he triumphs in a Court of Law. (Which will throw everything into disarray on this issue.)

I can't imagine there's anyone, let alone any large number of people, who bought Roger's story all this time but for whom this is the final straw.

You don't know what was in the package (though I agree with you getting anything from Radomski looks bad).

I know, and that's why I made no statement as to what was specifically in the package, but only of what the likely impression would be when a package is sent by a guy who has admitted to selling HGH and steroids.

If it was addressed to Clemens and says "in care of B. McNamee" then Clemens probably has a good case he never saw the package.

From another article:

Citing unnamed sources, the Daily News reports the package was addressed to William Roger Clemens, in care of Brian McNamee, who apparently did not sign for the package.

Link

I think this is saying that McNamee was not the one who signed for the package, but it's badly phrased enough that it could also be saying that Clemens didn't sign for it. If it's the latter, then your position is strengthened. If it's the former, then Clemens' case for never having seen it is weakened. If it's neither, which is also possible, then I have no idea what it means to either.

's not very useful in a court-of-law sense, but as far as the court of public opinion

I'm not sure what you mean. The shipping receipt certainly sounds as if it is admissable. We know that Radomski has turned it over indicating it was for a shipment of Hgh. We can presume that he would testify to the same thing. That is pretty strong evidence of a shipment of hgh to Roger Clemens.

Clemens only real alternatives are to:

(1) Claim Radomski is lying; or
(2) Claim Radomski is mistaken; or
(3) Claim Radomski could be correct, but he never received any such package.

In the first case, Clemens is likely going to need to show: (a) Radomski's motive for lying and (b) an explanation for what is in the package. In the second case, Clemens is still going to need to show (b) what is in the package. In the third case, he is going to need to show (c) who had care, custody and control of the package. In all cases, he is going to need to show (d) what the hell he is doing getting packages from Radomski.

Nowing our bombastic friend Rusty, he is going to want to choose the showiest and flashiest option, namely that: Radomski is lying and Roger is going to eat his lunch. Of course after he yells for a few minutes, he is going to have to explain this vast conspiracy by Radomski and McNamee that is so perfectly orchestrated that their stories line up even with newly discovered evidence. I doubt that is going to work for most people this side of Darren.

Hopefully, Rusty will take a few minutes, think about his client instead of his own PR, and take a more level approach. That still leaves him with a problem of showing what was in the package and why Radomski would be sending it. This pushes us into Balco territory. You would need some cover story about workout programs and vitamins.

Unfortunately, that would be about as credible as the lidocaine-in-the-ass stories we previously got on 60 minutes.

For all the people that think the Union hates Barry Bonds, I am about to pay him a compliment. He has shown that he is: (a) more clever than Clemens; and (b) has much better resolve than Clemens. Bonds' has resisted the natural human compulsion to offer excuses and explanations, and kept quiet. He has kept himself from getting trapped with new evidence, and he chose an attorney that does seem genuinely interested in his client and knows the value of a subtle approach.

The report states Radomski discovered shipping receipts for a package of two kits of HGH that he sent to Clemens at the pitcher's house in Houston in 2002 or 2003.

Citing unnamed sources, the Daily News reports the package was addressed to William Roger Clemens, in care of Brian McNamee, who apparently did not sign for the package.

That makes no sense- if it was shipped to Clemens' HOUSE, it wouldn't be addressed to Clemens C/O McNamee, it might be addresed to McNamee C/O Clemens.

if it was shipped to McNamee's address then it might be addressed to McNamee c/o Clemens

If it really was mailed to Clemens' house AND addressed to Clemens c/o McNamee, that means that whoever filled out the shipping label was a moron.

Not that it matters, Clemens is screwed in the Court of Public Opinion anyway, personally I think he took PEDs, and I doubt that any court verdict is going to change my opinion at this point.

Backlasher is here and JC is on the Papelbon thread. It's the BTF version of a summer blockbuster movie sequel. Paging RETARDO.

To the best of my knowledge, the receipt is certainly relevant, at least in the following scenario:

Radomski says "I shipped HGH to Clemens"
The Feds (and eventually, the defense) ask for proof
Radomski says "Here's the shipping receipt"

Of course you can't prove that there was HGH in there, but I assume Radomski and Clemens weren't exchanging boxes every week. The proof of there being a shipment is, in the least, evidence in favor of Radomski's story. If I were a juror, my head would now be swiveling towards Clemens, wanting him to tell me what was in that package. Without the receipt and with a Clemens denial of any shipment whatsoever, my personal burden of proof would still be at step 1, on Radomski.

We know is that Radomski (a convicted dealer of steroids and HGH) sent a package to Clemens at roughly the same time that McNamee allegedly injected Clemen's wife with HGH. There's not much else that Radomski would likely send to Clemens, and the timing and names on the package support (at least loosely) McNamee's statements that Clemens was aware of McNamee injecting HGH into Clemens' wife.

Really? I don't see how they support McNamee's statements, (and certainly not how they support McNamee's statements any more than they support Clemens's statements.)

Everyone agrees that McNamee injected Debbie. The only dispute is over whose idea it was/who supplied the hGH.

Clemens says that McNamee supplied the hGH used for Debbie, while McNamee says Clemens did. But it was McNamee's dealer, not Clemens's, and the package had McNamee's name on it. According to McNamee, Clemens had some number of bottles in a travel bag. But where did the other bottles come from, if Radomski only sent one package? And how did Clemens get in touch with Radomski? And if Clemens did get in touch with Radomski, why would Radomski write McNamee's name on the package? Moreover, McNamee claims that he didn't/doesn't know how Clemens got this hGH. If his own dealer gave it to Clemens, how would he not know? Indeed, if you read McNamee's deposition, he basically says that to his knowledge, Radomski and Clemens had no contact at all.


The other explanation has far fewer holes in it: McNamee called up his supplier Radomski and said, "Send me another shipment. I'm staying at Roger's house now; here's the address." Radomski sent it to McNamee at Clemens's house, and McNamee gave it to Debbie.


(Of course, none of this has anything to do with whether Roger used per se, since even Emery admits that it was probably the stuff for Debbie. But it would go to Roger's credibility.)

It's not very useful in a court-of-law sense, but as far as the court of public opinion... what's the counter-argument here? It was full of delicious chocolate-chip cookies? Radomski was just sending him some info on Amway?

Look, there's little practical doubt that if Radomski shipped this package, that it was hGH; if Clemens tries the "We don't know what was in it; it could have been DVDs for all we know," then Clemens loses the argument.

The counter-argument is the one I outlined above: the package was for McNamee. It was McNamee's dealer and McNamee's name on the package.

That makes no sense- if it was shipped to Clemens' HOUSE, it wouldn't be addressed to Clemens C/O McNamee, it might be addresed to McNamee C/O Clemens.

Yes; I noticed that last night. Obviously people aren't going to be confused about which address it was sent to. So the two explanations are that the Daily News writers just made a minor error and switched the two names around, or that Radomski got confused.

But either way, if Radomski was sending it to Clemens at Clemens' house, there would have been no need to put McNamee's name on it at all. If you send a package to the recipient's own house, you don't write "care of" anything. You only use "care of" when the intended recipient isn't at his own address.

Debbie must be one heck of a lady, allowing them to smear her like this.

I don't see how this changes anything. We can assume that the package was for HGH, but since it had McNamee's name on it, it doesn't do much to implicate Clemens. It was McNamee's dealer, McNamee at times stayed at Clemens's house, and the package was addressed to McNamee there. Clemens not only has a very strong argument that he never saw the package, but the fair and reasonable _presumption_ is that he never saw it -- since it was essentially addressed to McNamee.

If Clemens had Radomski send him HGH, what is Brian McNamee's name doing on the package? And how did Clemens pay Radomski for the HGH? Where is the canceled check from Clemens with Radomski's name on it?

In all cases, he is going to need to show (d) what the hell he is doing getting packages from Radomski.

But "he" didn't get a package from Radomski.

McNamee did.

Debbie must be one heck of a lady, allowing them to smear her like this.

Er, if she used it, it's not really a smear to say she did. And since she's not an athlete, nobody cares if she used it.

Er, if she used it, it's not really a smear to say she did. And since she's not an athlete, nobody cares if she used it.

What a coincidence! Her husband is a world class athlete, but SHE'S the one who takes the performance enhancers! You can't make this stuff up!

Maybe they decided she would take them, too, to throw the investigators off of her hubby's trail?

Would it be better or worse for Clemens if we found out that it was a package of cocaine?

McNamee at times stayed at Clemens's house

I haven't been following this all that closely, but if that's true, I think Clemens is pretty much covered.

so what if debbie clemens used HGH?

seriously, so what? would you be screaming if she used pot?

what makes here different from all the others of people right here in houston going to the anti aging clinics?

so many people act like using this stuff is like selling crack to 12 year olds

and i STILL can't find no evidence that HGH improves any kind of athletic performance

What a coincidence! Her husband is a world class athlete, but SHE'S the one who takes the performance enhancers! You can't make this stuff up!

Maybe they decided she would take them, too, to throw the investigators off of her hubby's trail?

Er, I'm not sure if you're joking or trolling here -- sometimes it's hard to tell, given how loony some people are on the subject -- but both sides, Clemens and McNamee, agree that McNamee injected Debbie with hGH. There's no dispute about that part.


EDIT: And, of course, hGH isn't a performance enhancer, as BBC says.

I haven't been following this all that closely, but if that's true, I think Clemens is pretty much covered.

It's definitely true. From McNamee's deposition, when they're asking him about the time he injected Debbie:

"Q When did that happen?
A It was in the winter, '03, '04, maybe. No, it wasn't '04; '02 into '03. It is probably '02 into '03. The winter of '02 into '03.
Q Where were you when you injected her?
A He called me from where I stayed on his property into his bathroom.
Q So you were in Mr. Clemens' residence?
A Yes, I was on the property.
Q Which residence is this, Houston?
A The Houston residence.
Q And what were you -- you were there to train Roger?
A Yes.
Q And you stayed there for multiple days?
A Yeah, five on, seven out, five--
Q Okay. And I think you were about to get to this, but I was going to ask you sort of how that came about. How did it come that you gave an injection of HGH to Debbie Clemens?"

"injected Debbie with hGH"

Best euphemism ever, BTW.

Is it too late to mention this book I found in a bookstore entitled "HGH and Me: This Sort of Thing is My Bag, Baby!" by Roger Clemens? Talk about an orgy of evidence.

Would it be better or worse for Clemens if we found out that it was a package of cocaine?

Depends. Was it addressed to him c/o Mindy McCready?

I wish bbc would pick one wang size and stick with it.

"It's not very useful in a court-of-law sense, but as far as the court of public opinion... what's the counter-argument here? It was full of delicious chocolate-chip cookies? Radomski was just sending him some info on Amway?"

I thought about it for a while (hey, anything's better than working) and I actually came up with a marginally non-ludicrous explanation as to possible non-HGH contents of the box.

Radomski was working for the Mets as a clubhouse employee when the package was sent (2002/2003). Clemens was with the Yankees at that time, and the Yankees played a three-game set at Shea both years. Clemens could try and say that Radomski was just mailing him a ring/watch/article of clothing that he'd accidentally left behind in the locker room during the crosstown road trip (which Radomski had subsequently discovered during the course of his job).

It's obviously not true, of course, but it might be enough to establish reasonable doubt, if he wants to use the "Radomski is a big lying liar" defense.

Yeah, it's a stretch, but can you do any better?

Debbie must be one heck of a lady, allowing them to smear her like this.

Not just "them", her own friggin' husband. He was the one who first dragged her into this whole mess.

A rich man can definitely can away with a lot more than us regular guys.

well, as to my lovely wang, you best ask joey b as he is the one who spotted it in the first place.

and kevin,
so far we have got like zero scientific references that say that injecting HGH into athletes causes any improvement in any athletic feat. so if you got more, whip it out as us men like to say. lets have operation R.M - research measuring contests instead of the usual boring penises and length of urine streams on/off avodart

Not just "them", her own friggin' husband. He was the one who first dragged her into this whole mess.

McNamee was the first one to state that he injected Mrs. Clemens with HGH. Roger Clemens has since made statements to that effect as well, but disagreed with respect to his own involvement. Whether or not one believes Clemens or McNamee's version of events is another matter, but Clemens was not the first person to bring up his wife's usage of HGH.

If you mean his statement before Congress about being a good upstanding family man, then I suppose he did drag her in first, but it would be a hell of a stretch to say that qualifies as dragging her in.

It's obviously not true, of course, but it might be enough to establish reasonable doubt, if he wants to use the "Radomski is a big lying liar" defense.

Well, I seem to be one of the few who actually think that innocent until proven guilty is an important value, but even I wouldn't buy that argument. (In the abstract, that might be a plausible explanation related to a random package, but I don't think so here. And in any case, "reasonable doubt" is only the standard in a criminal case for prosecuting Clemens for perjury, not in his civil suit against McNamee.

Yeah, it's a stretch, but can you do any better?

Er, yes.

even I wouldn't buy that argument.

Once again, we agree. It's a terrible argument, which would be easily beat out by the "McNamee was staying at my place, and his name was on the package too" argument. In that case, Clemens only has to explain away whether or not he saw the package on its arrival, or who handled it before McNamee did, which is important, since it appears that McNamee did not sign for the package.

Unfortunately, current sources don't state who, if anyone, signed for the package.

Er, yes.

Then what is it?

Radomski was working for the Mets as a clubhouse employee when the package was sent (2002/2003). Clemens was with the Yankees at that time, and the Yankees played a three-game set at Shea both years. Clemens could try and say that Radomski was just mailing him a ring/watch/article of clothing that he'd accidentally left behind in the locker room during the crosstown road trip (which Radomski had subsequently discovered during the course of his job).

But why make up a ludicrous cover story when all Clemens needs to say is "I never saw the package; it was addressed to the confessed drug dealer."

?

But why make up a ludicrous cover story when all Clemens needs to say is "I never saw the package; it was addressed to the confessed drug dealer."

Because even though it was addressed to a confessed drug dealer, it also had his name and his address on it.

Now, if he just said "I never saw the package", and no one can produce any proof that Clemens signed for the package himself (a big omission in the story), then he doesn't even need to say anything about the name of the confessed drug dealer on the package. By bringing up the confessed drug dealer, he forces himself to explain away that part of things.

Unfortunately, current sources don't state who, if anyone, signed for the package.

I think we're overthinking this one; it wasn't a special state department courier. It was a FedEx or whatever. They ring the bell and hand it to whomever answers. So wouldn't the most likely answer be the nanny, or housekeeper, or maid, or whatever staff the Clemenses might have had at the time?

Er, yes.

Then what is it?

The one from post #13.

I think we're overthinking this one; it wasn't a special state department courier. It was a FedEx or whatever. They ring the bell and hand it to whomever answers. So wouldn't the most likely answer be the nanny, or housekeeper, or maid, or whatever staff the Clemenses might have had at the time?

Again, I agree. It's just annoying that the article explicitly mentions that McNamee didn't sign for it, but doesn't mention who, if anyone, did. Hell, most of the time when I receive a FedEx package, I find out when I trip over it on the front porch. If no one signed for it, why couldn't they just state that?

kevin,

YOU are the one who insists that HGH enhances baseball performance like testosterone steroids do.

so lets see evidence that HGH increases muscle strength or endurance or make more fast twitch muscles or SOMEthing - in healthy male athletes. i will even go for HGH makes tendons/ligaments/muscles heal faster when you inject it into your ass.

i couldn't find nothing on google that supports either of those 2 ideas except for "testimonials" and what is that old saying about anecdotes are not science???!!! and you know good and well i got absolutely NO idea how to use the complicated science sites.you are the scientists, so why don't YOU do something to show that HGH does anything at all?

or it is just like all the men who want to take powdered rhinocerous horn because it makes their penis larger or something. they might could THINK it makes them have a bigger dingdong but it doesn't. same thing with athletes shooting up with HGH

You're making the claim. You substantiate it.

Of course, if you were one of the things you claimed to be (in this case, scientist), you would know that the null hypothesis is on David's side.

But then, you're a mythomaniac that nobody takes seriously.

Now, if he just said "I never saw the package", and no one can produce any proof that Clemens signed for the package himself (a big omission in the story), then he doesn't even need to say anything about the name of the confessed drug dealer on the package. By bringing up the confessed drug dealer, he forces himself to explain away that part of things.

Moroever, this explanation ignores the fact that most people aren't buying the:

"I had some little fellow living at my house shooting foreign objects into my wife's ass and I didn't know a thing about it" story to begin with.

This is what has been reported:

(1) Radomski shipped two kits of hGH
(2) to Roger Clemens home
(3) with Roger Clemens name on the box;
(4) at the time that coincides with McNamee's statement that he:
(a) injected Debbie Clemens with hGH
(b) Obtained from Roger Clemens
(5) McNamee did not sign for the hGH.

So I'm fine in waiting to find out if Koby, Karl, Killer, Kookie, Debbie or Darren signed for the thing. But whoever signed for it is going to have a lot of 'splainin to do, and we still have to believe that McNamee's stories lining up so perfectly with actual evidence and Clemens stories being all over the map are a result of some conspiracy between McNamee, Nowitski, and Radomski to frame poor ol' Roger.

I think everyone's lunch is safe.

If no one signed for it, why couldn't they just state that?


They might not know. They got this from a deep throat, not a press conference. The series of questions may have been quick:

(1) Who was it addresseed to?
(2) Did McNamee sign?

Without going into the logical follow up.

I don't quite understand the hoopla. You have MORE evidence to corroborate McNamee's story that: (a) He got juice from Roger to shoot in Debbie's ass and (b) it was similar to the stuff [McNamee] got from Radomski. Each time Rusty tries to bombastically deny an element, it blows up in his face. Then, and only when, the evidence puts Roger in a bad light, do we start getting: "lidocaine in the ass" and "my wife was juicing" and "the butler did it." Hell, I'm waiting for Dodger to tell me that he bought the hGH, but didn't inhale it because the dog ate the instructions.

Again, I agree. It's just annoying that the article explicitly mentions that McNamee didn't sign for it, but doesn't mention who, if anyone, did. Hell, most of the time when I receive a FedEx package, I find out when I trip over it on the front porch. If no one signed for it, why couldn't they just state that?

Because these are Daily News reporters, who are acting as the official spokespeople for Richard Emery. They wanted to insinuate that Clemens did, without actually saying it.

BL

hi there boy!!! good to see you.

package might could have been dropped off no signature required. but me i am wondering why mcnamee's name was on the package at all if it was for roger.

another thing is doesn't HGH have to be shipped frozen in some special container? i mean so it doesn't get hot? isn't it supposed to be kept in the refrigerator? the receipt might could show that.

but it still does not mean anything - even if roger was on a road trip when it arrived and the maid signed for it or nobody signed for it, he could have used when he came back.

but seriously, i am still not getting why anyone cares if mcnamee gave debbie HGH

- oh yeah - and you dead right about barry lamar. but then again, barry is a very intelligent man and roger is most DEFINITELY not

I don't quite understand the hoopla. You have evidence to corroborate McNamee's story.

Again, how does this corroborate McNamee's story any more than Clemens's story? Based on the information we have now, it has simply no probative value on any disputed point.

Each time Rusty tried to bombastically deny an element, it blows up in his face. Then, and only when, the evidence puts Roger in a bad light, do we start getting: "lidocaine in the ass" and "my wife was juicing" and "the butler did it."

Yes, yes, the problem is that none of this is true. Obviously Clemens can't deny specific allegations before they've been made, so yes, he has denied allegations after they've been made. But "my wife used hGH" is not even in question -- that's McNamee's allegation too -- and no matter how many times you like talking about Clemens' ass, he never said he got lidocaine injections there.

Moroever, this explanation ignores the fact that most people aren't buying the:

"I had some little fellow living at my house shooting foreign objects into my wife's ass and I didn't know a thing about it" story to begin with.

Well, no, once again, that's false. False in the specifics, false in the implications. Both sides said that he injected her. And not in her ass -- admittedly, your concentration on her ass is less worrisome than your fixation on Roger's, but it's still a little disturbing -- and not some ongoing course of shots as you portray it, but once. And of course the issue isn't whether Clemens knew, but when. The only fact in dispute is who initiated the injection of Debbie -- Roger or McNamee. And I don't know where you get the idea that "most people aren't buying" that. Many people -- who don't have the facts, so their opinions aren't really important -- aren't really buying that Roger didn't use, but I haven't seen any polls on whether they think Roger supervised McNamee's injection of Debbie.

This is what has been reported:

I'll help you out a little with a few corrections, in bold.

(1) Radomski shipped two kits of hGH
(2) to Roger Clemens home
(3) with Brian McNamee's name on the box;
(4) at the time that coincides with Clemens's statement that [McNamee]:
(a) injected Debbie Clemens with hGH
(b) Obtained from McNamee's supplier
(5) McNamee did not sign for the hGH.

HTH.

(And we can certainly infer that Clemens also didn't sign for it, because that would have been the headline if he had.)

Good lord--what would it take for some of you people to think there was proof that Roger Clemens took PEDS??? What if he stood in front of you, injected himself, said "I know this injection contains performance enhancing drugs" and then you tested the syringe and found remnants of performance enhancing drugs? Would that do it for you???

I am guessing not. But you know what--for most people--a delivery of HGH to Roger Clemens house is a pretty big brick in the already substantial wall of evidence against him. And those types of people will be on his perjury jury.

2002 and 2003 are prior to January of 2005, in my experience.

BL

hi there boy!!! good to see you.


Good to see you too. I missed the story behind the name change.

package might could have been dropped off no signature required. but me i am wondering why mcnamee's name was on the package at all if it was for roger.

I think this is being looked at with the wrong POV. A certain set of people are trying to use this as a stand alone piece of evidence that is a smoking gun for Roger. That is because that has been Rusty's defense tactic all along. Threaten anyone that comes forward with evidence or testimony and then retreat into a CSIsh claim for additional evidence.

What you have is direct testimony by the person that shot hGH in Roger's ass that he shot Roger in teh ass with hGH.

That person has produced:

(a) Vivid details about the circumstances surrounding the assinjections that have been corroborated.
(b) Evidence of the instruments containing the substances and the assblood.
(c) Information regarding the supply, the source of supply and the identification of supply WHICH THIS INFORMAION CORROBORATES.

Roger's evolving story:
(a) Admits that he got jabbed in the ass;
(b) Admits that his wife was juicing like a florida orange;
(c) Admits that he toured McNamee around the world to all his stops; BUT
(d) Claims that it was injunctions of a different controlled substance;
(e) In a place where its not injected; and
(f) that he is clean unlike that wife of his.

but seriously, i am still not getting why anyone cares if mcnamee gave debbie HGH


Independently, we don't care too much. We do care to the extent that it shows that Roger and Rusty are trying to run a campaign of lies down our and Congress's throat, and to the extent it may show that Clemens was a prime enabler in the MLB steroid epidemic.

YOU are the one who insists that HGH enhances baseball performance like testosterone steroids do.

Cites, please?

JC Bradbury has been citing peer-reviewed studies showing no to little beneficial effects of HGH on athletic performance. See the link below if you're interested in more information.

http://www.sabernomics.com/sabernomics/index.php/2007/04/i-dont-worry-about-hgh-in-baseball-and-neither-should-you/

(3) with Brian McNamee's and Roger Clemen's names on the box;

Whether or not it was received by Clemens, whether or not it was intended for him, and whether or not it contained anything illicit or relevant, it still had his name on it.

Lidocaine:

This site tells how and why it should be injected.

Lidocaine injection is given as an infusion into your veins to control your heart rate. Lidocaine may also be given as an injection into the skin or around your spine to numb the area before surgery or other procedures. It is usually given by a health-care professional in a hospital or clinic setting. Your prescriber or health care professional may instruct you on how to give yourself an injection if you get certain abnormal heart rhythms. In this case, you will be given a special self-injector unit with full instructions on how to use it.

What was the "procedure", and why did he undergo it at home?

and no matter how many times you like talking about Clemens' ass, he never said he got lidocaine injections there.

You are correct, he stated "Lower back"

and not some ongoing course of shots as you portray it, but once.

And Radomski said he sent two kits to the Clemens residence.

Who takes the fall next --- Koby, Karla, Kristen, Karl, Kerry or Darren?

You're making the claim. You substantiate it.

How can I prove a negative? ;-)

What you have is direct testimony by the person that shot hGH in Roger's ass that he shot Roger in teh ass with hGH.

In other words, what you have are allegations. Granted, they were made under oath, but then so were Clemens' denials. And the fact that they were made under oath doesn't really grant them any credibility given that the accuser has been caught lying under oath about other facts.

That person has produced:

(a) Vivid details about the circumstances surrounding the assinjections that have been corroborated.

Or, rather, not. No "vivid details," whatever that means, have been corroborated.

(b) Evidence of the instruments containing the substances and the assblood.

He has? You mean the Daily News, which reports on every tidbit that makes Clemens look bad, including that he didn't have sex with Mindy McCready, forgot to report that those syringes tested positive for DNA and steroids? That was a pretty big omission on their part, don't you think?

(c) Information regarding the supply, the source of supply and the identification of supply WHICH THIS INFORMAION CORROBORATES.

It corroborates A CLAIM WHICH WAS NEVER IN DISPUTE, AND FAILS TO CORROBORATE ANY CLAIM WHICH ACTUALLY IS IN DISPUTE.

Roger's evolving story:
(a) Admits that he got jabbed in the ass;
(b) Admits that his wife was juicing like a florida orange;
(c) Admits that he toured McNamee around the world to all his stops; BUT
(d) Claims that it was injunctions of a different controlled substance;
(e) In a place where its not injected; and
(f) that he is clean unlike that wife of his.

Yes, all that's true, except for (b), and I'm not really sure what (c) means, and (e) is false, and except for the claim that the story evolved. Phrasing the facts tendentiously just makes you look foolish; it doesn't do anything to bolster your argument.

Pettitte's story evolved. He never used. He used, but only once. Well, maybe twice.
McNamee's story evolved. He never gave anybody anything. Well, he did, a couple of times. Well, a lot. And Clemens was his bestest buddy and his role model for how to raise his children. Well, except that he didn't trust Clemens at all, so he saved material with which to blackmail him later.
Clemens's story has been consistent. There's a difference between adding details and changing one's story.

And Radomski said he sent two kits to the Clemens residence.

...with McNamee's name on the box. At a time when McNamee was there.

kevin,

if the scinetific studies are equivocal and inadequate to judge whether or not HGH enhances baseball performance, then why on earth would you care if roger clemens or any other baseball player took it BEFORE t was banned by the CBA? it is no different than any other placebo.

BL,

name was changed because kevin's sock insists i am NOT no lady. so i am trying to live down to that... hehhehheh...and i was uncomfortable being a Huge G Wang, so i thought i'd try out a Bitsy one for a while. and let me tell you this tranny stuff is teh sukc because i am a piss poor excuse for a man. i mean i can't even remember ONE episode of mtsg03K let alone its name let alone lines of dialog from it. but husband was delighted to find out i am a man because now i don't have no excuse to not get pregnant NOW because then we can be millionaires from all the pics of "the Pregnant Man"

where was i?

oh yeah. roger's ass. and let me tell you speaking as a person who likes to look at men and fine men and their asses - well even thinking for a second about roger's ass is as wood shrinking as an ice water bath

where was i

oh yeah. the package. not roger's

yecccccccccchhhhhh

- but i don't get the roger being the prime enabler in the steroid epidemic stuff - seems to me it was widely used before he got near it.

yeah mcnamee was a drug dealer. no question. yeah he got drugs from another dealer. no question. but still no evidence he used the drugs on roger

and like i said before, i don't care if he used HGH or lidocaine or saline water or vitamins or anything that doesn't affect actual athletic performance in any way.

with McNamee's and Clemens' name on the box

It has been stated that both names were on the box, not just McNamee.

but i don't get the roger being the prime enabler in the steroid epidemic stuff - seems to me it was widely used before he got near it.

Don't be silly. No one has ever said the prime enabler in the steroid epidemic was Roger. By his own admission, it was Canseco. He even "wrote" a book about it.

kevin,

- i swear to GAWD you TRY to misunderstand. you are worse then my kidzzzz when they don't wanna do what they SUPPOSED to do

if HGH does not help baseball players athletically, then it is as much of a placebo FOR THAT PURPOSE as pregninalone

Don't be silly. No one has ever said the prime enabler in the steroid epidemic was Roger. By his own admission, it was Canseco. He even "wrote" a book about it

In fairness, bbc got that from me, b/c I did refer to Clemens as "a" prime enabler. There is no argument that Canseco is the Typhoid Mary of the steroid epidemic.

Nevertheless, Clemens ass-injecting, bat-throwing, 2nd life career is an enabler of the epidemic.

Or, rather, not. No "vivid details," whatever that means, have been corroborated.

McNamee has given dates, times and places of events. Roger has tried to take non-relevant portions of those details, spin the statement into something that it is not, then claim that the things he made up did not happen. Unfortunately, plenty of other people have been around to let us know that Roger is either a liar or serially "mistaken."

Obviously Clemens can't deny specific allegations before they've been made, so yes, he has denied allegations after they've been made.

Exactly, he can't make up a cover story to explain away evidence that he has not seen. He can let us know about his injections and the injections that occur in his house among his own family. He can let us know about the illicit and illegal drugs that show up at his house. He can let us know about the details of his relationship with McNamee.

Or he can wait until he gets caught with a syringe in his ass to make up a story. I'll let people decide whether they find this credible.

He has? You mean the Daily News, which reports on every tidbit that makes Clemens look bad, including that he didn't have sex with Mindy McCready, forgot to report that those syringes tested positive for DNA and steroids? That was a pretty big omission on their part, don't you think?


I don't have a NY state of mind. I don't know everything reported in the New York Times or the Daily News.

I have missed Rusty telling me how those syringes contained Pettite's assblood and hGH, or Clemens' lower back blood and lidocaine. Maybe he was too busy eating lunches.

It corroborates A CLAIM WHICH WAS NEVER IN DISPUTE, AND FAILS TO CORROBORATE ANY CLAIM WHICH ACTUALLY IS IN DISPUTE.


Excellent. We can move on then. Roger admits that his wife:

(a) Got one injection of hGH
(b) From a source originating with Radomski
(c) That was one of two kits
(d) That was delivered to the Clemens house
(e) With Roger Clemens' name on the package

We can know spend our time focusing on what happened to the other kit of hGH, and the handling trail of the package from delivery to the Clemens household to the injection in Debbie Clemens' ass.

Of course, I'm betting ol' Rusty isn't willing to concede all the details above. Instead, this "can't be right." Roger must have been at Jose Canseco's house trying on his nannies bathing suit to cover the bulbous lesion on his ass caused by lower back injections of lidocaine.

Phrasing the facts tendentiously just makes you look foolish

the backlasher like an acrobat
posts on threads
in a high wire of his own making
and balancing on eyebeams
above a sea of saberists
types his way
to the other side of the day

For he's the super realist
who must perforce perceive
taut truth
before the posting of each stance or step
in his incremental advance
toward that still higher perch
where Beauty stands and waits
with gravity
to start her death-defying leap
And he
a little charleychaplin man
who may or may not catch
her fair eternal form
spreadeagled in the empty air
of existence

bbc -

No need to explain. I'd just assumed you'd gone swimming. ;-)

It has been stated that both names were on the box, not just McNamee.

(d) That was delivered to the Clemens house
(e) With Roger Clemens' name on the package

(d) requires(e). Roger's or Debbie's, or one of their kids anyway. If the package was addressed to McNamee only, the PO wouldn't have delivered it to Roger Clemens's house.

Can someone tell me why Clemens needed lidocaine? I don't remember the excuse given.

BL

that is FABULOUS

i can't find it on google - did you write it?

You don't know what a placebo is. I can't have a conversation with you if you don't have a baseline of understanding about what the definitions you use really mean

Actually she does know what it means, perhaps you need a refresher?

What is the most commonly given placebo?
Antibiotics of course

because they are frequently given for viral infections- and since FOR THAT PURPOSE it is a placebo.

But the you knew that didn't you, since a well educated man such as yourself knows that the question of inert versus active placebos has been regarded as academic for some 40 years.

Because it's dangerous to take metabolically powerful drugs off-label without indication or need.

So what? Are you Roger's mother? Lots of things are dangerous. If they don't affect you, what possible business is it of yours, no matter how "dangerous" it is? The only way use of a PED can affect another person is this "coercion" theory. But if the PED doesn't actually enhance performance, then there's no coercive effect even under that theory.

This story in Asahi is reporting that Roger Clemens has now admitted he used HGH and steroids. It also indicates he's left his wife Debbie and he's in Rome with someone named Taylor Swift. Apparently he plans on living in Italy for some time, as they will not extradite Clemens back to the U.S. to face perjury charges. Unfortunately, my ability to read Japanese is limited, so my translation of that story might be slightly off.

McNamee has given dates, times and places of events. Roger has tried to take non-relevant portions of those details, spin the statement into something that it is not, then claim that the things he made up did not happen. Unfortunately, plenty of other people have been around to let us know that Roger is either a liar or serially "mistaken."

I believe exactly one event may have been corroborated, and that's that he and Pettitte had a conversation where Pettitte implied that Clemens had mentioned the use of hGH to him. Other than that, I don't think any "events" or any "dates, times, and places" thereof have been corroborated. We know that McNamee claims that Clemens was at a party and he knows because he saw Clemens' nanny there, except that Clemens' nanny remembers no party at all. And Canseco says Clemens wasn't there. And the Blue Jays announcers say that Clemens wasn't there.

Exactly, he can't make up a cover story to explain away evidence that he has not seen.

Right, and he hasn't seen it because it doesn't exist until manufactured by McNamee. Then he's forced to deny it. That doesn't say anything except that McNamee continues -- despite claiming to have told the whole truth a year ago -- to keep inventing new details.

If the package was addressed to McNamee only, the PO wouldn't have delivered it to Roger Clemens's house.

I believe this is incorrect. McNamee c/o "address", would be delivered.

Excellent. We can move on then. Roger admits that his wife:

(a) Got one injection of hGH
(b) From a source originating with Radomski
(c) That was one of two kits
(d) That was delivered to the Clemens house
(e) With Roger Clemens' name on the package

Well, no. Clemens admits (a). That's it. But he never denied (b-e) because either they were outside his knowledge (McNamee's supplier) or McNamee hadn't invented the facts yet.

And once again, the package had McNamee's name on it.

(d) requires(e). Roger's or Debbie's, or one of their kids anyway. If the package was addressed to McNamee only, the PO wouldn't have delivered it to Roger Clemens's house.

Over the years, I have received a fantastic number of items in the mail which bore my address, but not my name (or that of anyone else living there). Perhaps things are different in Canada.

You don't know what a placebo is either. Giving a drug that doesn't work is NOT a placebo.

Giving a drug that does work is NOT a placebo. HTH.

Over the years, I have received a fantastic number of items in the mail which bore my address, but not my name (or that of anyone else living there). Perhaps things are different in Canada.

They better be. If George W. Bush gets elected president again, I'm moving up there. You guys have a Sun Belt, right?

Since BL is here, he can explain to you for the 30009302968475th time what coercion is.

And I can explain right back that offering someone a lot of money to do something is not "coercion" in any meaningful sense of the word.

We don't know that yet and if the folk wisdom is that it works

Where "folk wisdom" means "Kevinesqe B.S.ing," I suppose. There's no evidence that ballplayers think it improves performance; from what we can tell, the c.w. in baseball on hGH is that it helps healing.

You don't know what a placebo is either. Giving a drug that doesn't work is NOT a placebo.

From Dictionary.com

Something of no intrinsic remedial value that is used to appease or reassure another.


BBC was using placebo in an acceptable way. As everybody but you knew. If an antibiotic is used by doctors for viral infections to reassure a patient, that is a placebo. If an athlete uses a drug to enhance performance that doesn't do so, but it makes him or her think that it helps, then that is a placebo.

Over the years, I have received a fantastic number of items in the mail which bore my address, but not my name (or that of anyone else living there).

Well, you're not a famous multi-millionaire athlete. I'm pretty sure that anyone who delivers to the Clemens household (PO, Fed EX, UPS...) knows who lives there and would not deliver anything without their name on it. And even if they would, why the hell would radomski take the chance? He obviously wanted it delivered and the best way to insure that is to put Roger's name on it.

That may not be the entire story, but it is the only reasonable inference that can be made without further evidence. I'll turn it around. If it was meant for Clemens, why was McNamee's name on the package?

Now you're off the wall. What the #### do they take it for, then? To groove on the room spins?

What are you freaking out about here? He wrote this below in the same entry; in the same sentence, even:

the c.w. in baseball on hGH is that it helps healing.

In my limited experience, an example of a placebo is a sugar pill, or some such substance that could not have any medicinal value or effect. As in, used in studies where half the subjects take the actual drug being tested, and the other half get the placebo. Not an anti-biotic prescribed for a virus. That's just a waste of a drug, not a placebo. To me. The layest of lay people.

Sigh. Kevin, it IS an acceptable definition. If somebody uses a word in an accepted way, you don't get to narrow the definition to only mean what you want it to mean, and then insult them for using it incorrectly. That's just being willfully thickheaded.

In my limited experience, an example of a placebo is a sugar pill, or some such substance that could not have any medicinal value or effect. As in, used in studies where half the subjects take the actual drug being tested, and the other half get the placebo. Not an anti-biotic prescribed for a virus. That's just a waste of a drug, not a placebo. To me. The layest of lay people.

Yes, but as I posted, there ARE acceptable usages of "placebo" that mean more than that, which would include prescribing an antibiotic for a virus.

If you want a longer explanation, email me. I'd be happy to indulge you.

Why? You've shown consistently that you twist things around. You insult BBC for referring to HGH as a placebo, and continue arguing that she used the term incorrectly, even AFTER a dictionary definition has been posted that shows she used the word correctly. When you should instead have been apologizing to her, and then clarifying your point.

so far we have got like zero scientific references that say that injecting HGH into athletes causes any improvement in any athletic feat. so if you got more, whip it out as us men like to say. lets have operation R.M - research measuring contests instead of the usual boring penises and length of urine streams on/off avodart

There was a study presented at the SABR convention that focused only on the players named in the Mitchell report, with everyone else as a control group. They adjusted for age.

There were some issues with the study and it was only presented in about 25 minutes, but there conclusions showed a definite boost in performance for the guys accused of steroid use, but it wasn't huge, like 5-10% in terms of RC/27. or something.

For the HGH guys there was basically no improvement at all - it was very slight less than 1% IIRC, well within the range of random chance.

Take that for whatever it's worth. I have no idea of how you can find the study, but someone might.

I also haven't read past the passage quoted, so if I'm repeating something already said, my apologies.

Pwned!

FAIL.

Classless.

GOD I can't stand this lack of class.

If the package was addressed to McNamee only, the PO wouldn't have delivered it to Roger Clemens's house.

Are you serious? The post office has no record of who lives at a house. I get crap for people that don't live there addressed to me all the time.

When my girlfriend stays at her sister's (different last name) and need to send her something, I don't address it her sister or care of. I just address it to her and she gets it.

The post office doesn't even look at the name, all they care about is the address.

The post office has no record of who lives at a house. I get crap for people that don't live there addressed to me all the time.

To clarify I meant crap for people with different names but my address all the time.

102. ntr Jose Guillen Posted: July 16, 2008 at 04:29 PM (#2861683)

Awwww man.. my HGH shipment went to the wrong house?

102. ntr Jose Guillen Posted: July 16, 2008 at 04:29 PM (#2861683)

Awwww man.. my HGH shipment went to the wrong house?

Jajajajajajaja

here's no evidence that ballplayers think it improves performance

Dave Dave Dave why do you have to offer up such a softball to Kevin?

i swear to GAWD you TRY to misunderstand

Try? He just doesn't try, he's pretty successful.

I love when DMN and Kev get into it, right before, or during, when the insults are flying, they both tend to make completely wrongheaded, but opposite assertions, and proclaim that no reasonable person could disagree.

The fact that they apparently met in person is just so....

both tend to make completely wrongheaded, but opposite assertions

That's a neat trick.

The fact that they apparently met in person is just so.

On top of the Empire State?

I love when DMN and Kev get into it, right before, or during, when the insults are flying, they both tend to make completely wrongheaded, but opposite assertions, and proclaim that no reasonable person could disagree.

It doesn't matter which side we take, our planet is doomed.

You guys have a Sun Belt, right?

We Canadians call it Florida.

We Canadians call it Florida.

Man oh man I ran into so many Quebecers my last trip to Florida, and they wouldn't shut up about the exchange rate...

For the HGH guys there was basically no improvement at all - it was very slight less than 1% IIRC, well within the range of random chance.

Regrettably, I haven't seen this study, but I would be quite interested to review it - not that I would consider myself a genius (I'll let the rest of you consider me a genius. Personally, I don't like to brag), but purely out of curiosity as to the methodology.

With respect to the HGH use, based on what we've heard to date, it appears that a significant number of players who used it did so to recover from injuries. Based on that, it wouldn't be surprising if any benefit (assuming that there is a benefit) to performance was masked by the injuries for which it was being to recover from. Of course, this is total speculation on my part, and I can't think of a good method through which one could control for the impact of specific injuries on production, so its a bit of a moot point.

Now, given the number of players who have been caught (or implicated) in using HGH, I think it is reasonable to assume that players believe the use of HGH benefits them in some manner, whether through increased performance, decreased recovery time, or whatever else. If they didn't perceive a benefit, then its highly unlikely they would be using it.

Man oh man I ran into so many Quebecers my last trip to Florida, and they wouldn't shut up about the exchange rate...

About 3 years ago, the Canadian Dollar was worth something like 65 cents US. For those of us who travel regularly to the States, on either business or pleasure (although there's nothing pleasurable about where my company sends me), it's been a godsend.

As a counterpoint, it's been hilarious to watch the shock on the faces of Americans who haven't been paying attention to the exchange rate when they find out how much the rate has changed - especially when they've already started their vacation in Toronto.

With respect to the HGH use, based on what we've heard to date, it appears that a significant number of players who used it did so to recover from injuries.

You know, I always assumed that when players say that when they get caught using PEDs (or alleged PEDs), that, well, they're lying. They are trying to portray is as, "Look I wasn't cheating, I was doing it because I was injured".

Maybe some players do use banned/ suspect substances because they are injured, and the pace of recovery is discouraging and they're desperate- but I suspect such players are in the minority. Most players who take steroids, or HGH, or amphetamines or what have you do so because they believe or hope it will give them a competitive edge.

That's just my opinion anyway

That's just my opinion anyway

And it's a perfectly valid one. I only made the observation based on the limited number of cases where guys had injuries in the same year or immediately before they allegedly used HGH - Jay Gibbons, as an example. Who really knows their motives, especially since most guys won't talk about it.

For steroids and amphetamines, I agree that it's purely a performance issue.

GOD I can't stand this lack of class.

Then do what I do, and put him on ignore.

kevin has long since stopped having anything of value to add to any conversation, and wandered off into a kind of trolldom that makes RossCW seem positively benign.

People really should also stop quoting his nonsense when they respond to him, so the rest of us are not polluted by it, like second-hand smoke.

Except he's correct regarding placebos.

Man oh man I ran into so many Quebecers my last trip to Florida, and they wouldn't shut up about the exchange rate...

Did they also mention how cheap your gas was? Because your gas is cheap, compared to what we pay.

There were some issues with the study and it was only presented in about 25 minutes, but there conclusions showed a definite boost in performance for the guys accused of steroid use, but it wasn't huge, like 5-10% in terms of RC/27. or something.

IIRC, Neyer said they found that the increase was 12% -- but if you remove Bonds, it was 7%. (That in itself is damning to the "steroids cause huge increases OH-MI-GAWD!!" crowd. Because it would mean that steroids don't have much of an effect on any player other than Bonds, which would make no sense.)

If we make the huge assumption that the study was representative of the increase steroids provide, with a 7% increase once Bonds is removed from the equation, a 16-HR guy (call him Brady Anderson) goes to 17. He doesn't go to 50.

A 36-HR guy (call him Sammy Sosa) goes to 38 or 39. He doesn't go to 66.