I'm saying they shouldn't bring these kinds of nonsense cases, especially with evidence that is so problematic.

I'm not commenting on whether "Clemens should still be deemed to be telling the truth." He may be lying. Who knows? To this point only he and McNamee know.

(And unfortunately, despite the near-certainty expressed by you and Snapper, neither of you know.)

I'm saying they shouldn't bring these kinds of nonsense cases, especially with evidence that is so problematic.

Fully understanding that juries aren't perfect, my view is that a conviction on the high criminal standard of proof ratifies the evidence and vitiates the propriety of dubbing it "problematic." (*)

I'd agree that the government has poured far too many resources into these prosecutions. I'd disagree that the transport and distribution of illegal drugs in interstate (and foreign -- Canada) commerce is an illegitimate subject matter for congressional investigation.

(*) Embedded assumption that the government complied with its Brady obligations to turn over exculpatory evidence.

And unfortunately, despite the near-certainty expressed by you and Snapper, neither of you know

Of course we don't know, and I'm saying he should be acquitted, unless they have very solid physical evidence linking him to McNamee and steroid use. What's the issue?

.

Fully understanding that juries aren't perfect, my view is that a conviction on the high criminal standard of proof ratifies the evidence and vitiates the propriety of dubbing it "problematic." (*)

Not at all. Contra-Andy, I don't need other people to decide for me what I can decide for myself.

I'd agree that the government has poured far too many resources into these prosecutions. I'd disagree that the transport and distribution of illegal drugs in interstate (and foreign -- Canada) commerce is an illegitimate subject matter for congressional investigation.

The problem is that it makes no sense to argue that hauling Clemens before a panel furthered any investigation into "the transport and distribution of illegal drugs in interstate (and foreign -- Canada) commerce."

In fact, he doesn't know anything about that, and his testimony had nothing to do with that.

In fact, he doesn't know anything about that, and his testimony had nothing to do with that.

Sure he does. If McNamee's and Pettitte's testimony is credible, he knows about the illegal distribution of HGH and anabolic steroids. And that's what he was questioned about.

No. If he's guilty, at most he knows he got it from McNamee. But they already know that, because that's what McNamee is saying. And they know that McNamee distributed it to Pettitte and Knoblauch. And they know where McNamee got it from (Radomski).

Even if one thinks Clemens is guilty, he adds nothing to that issue. What useful information does he provide? How is "I got it from McNamee" useful when that's exactly what McNamee is already telling them? Has Clemens studied the issue of illegal drug shipments in interstate and foreign commerce? At best he is a single data point who knows nothing that McNamee isn't already saying.

Fully understanding that juries aren't perfect, my view is that a conviction on the high criminal standard of proof ratifies the evidence and vitiates the propriety of dubbing it "problematic." (*)

Not at all. Contra-Andy, I don't need other people to decide for me what I can decide for myself.

Ray, one of these years you're going to confine your comments to addressing what people have actually said or done, but I'm not holding my breath. You've got a pet little narrative that's as tightly held to as Bryant Gumbel's, and you're every bit as vested in defending it no matter what the facts might actually be. The idea that anyone could be against steroids and yet not want players to get railroaded is a concept that's entirely alien to you.

And BTW who exactly are these "other people" who are supposedly deciding for me what I think? Novitsky? McNamee? Lupica? Henry Waxman? Obama? You throw out this sort of smarmy bullshit in nearly every goddam thread, and it just never stops.

And BTW who exactly are these "other people" who are supposedly deciding for me what I think?

Opinion polls.

And BTW who exactly are these "other people" who are supposedly deciding for me what I think?

Opinion polls.

You mean like the ones about illegal immigration? Or is it the polls about the relative merits of European vs. American health care? Or perhaps you're trying to imply that the only reason I'm against steroids in baseball is because of some poll that you couldn't cite on a bet. Anything to fit your chosen narrative.

OTOH every time one of the Koch Brothers stub their toe in the bathtub, you'll howl in agony somewhere in New Jersey. But I'm sure you're proudly independent of their influence, just as your views on steroids aren't driven by those attendance figures you love to quote.

Ray, one of these years you're going to confine your comments to addressing what people have actually said or done, but I'm not holding my breath. You've got a pet little narrative

I think one problem Andy is that you respond and rise to the bait EVERY time...

Opinion polls.

Right. He cites them so often one might think he'd remember.

Or perhaps you're trying to imply that the only reason I'm against steroids in baseball is because of some poll that you couldn't cite on a bet.

The Hall of Fame voting, with regard to McGwire et. al.

Sheesh. You've cited that so many times as validation of your views that it's hard to believe you've forgotten.

Or is it just that you misremembered?

Or perhaps you're trying to imply that the only reason I'm against steroids in baseball is because of some poll that you couldn't cite on a bet.

The Hall of Fame voting, with regard to McGwire et. al.

Of course since you can't possibly understand why anyone wouldn't want "McGwire et. al" in the Hall of Fame, I can understand your idea that I take my cues on this from Lupica and Mariotti. But then you're rather easily confused about a lot of things. And I'm sure you'll find a way to rationalize it if I wind up supporting Clemens for the Hall of Fame. "Boyhood heroes" may not work at this stage, but you can always try "Yankee fan" as a backup, and say that you'd known it all along.

Andy, have you not said previously that if the time comes when the HOF voters change their mind and vote McGwire et al in, you'll change your mind?

Your views are hinged to these polls.

Andy, have you not said previously that if the time comes when the HOF voters change their mind and vote McGwire et al in, you'll change your mind?

Your views are hinged to these polls.

Once again you're conflating agreement with respect. I've often said that if at some point known juicers were elected to the Hall of Fame, I'd respect the judgment of the voters. That does not mean that I'd agree with them. I've explained this distinction on repeated occasions, and it seems to go over your head every time, probably because you're constitutionally incapable of respecting opinions that aren't rooted in your own particular premises. It's not that you're intellectually incapable of grasping the distinction, it's just that your rigid ideological disposition** resists it.

Easy analogy: I respect the judgment of voters when they elect candidates I detest. It doesn't mean I agree with their choices, either. Is that really so hard to understand?

**so charmingly referred to as "principles" by you and your mentor

Is that really so hard to understand?

Yes.

Ray, one of these years you're going to confine your comments to addressing what people have actually said or done, but I'm not holding my breath. You've got a pet little narrative

I think one problem Andy is that you respond and rise to the bait EVERY time...

Hey, somebody's gotta keep Repoz in Big Macs while he's in between pinata posts.

------------------------------------------------------

Easy analogy: I respect the judgment of voters when they elect candidates I detest. It doesn't mean I agree with their choices, either. Is that really so hard to understand?

Yes.

Not surprising, since you don't understand anyone who doesn't buy into your simplistic reductionist premises.

THe most interesting thing about this thread is that Ray backed out of his username.

Re: #94 Clemens was subpoenaed to testify, so he didn't have a lot of choice. Also, I'm not sure if you're saying it was a bad idea because of possible legal problems or because of what it did to his reputatio

No, he had plenty of choice actually. He had the choice to take the Fifth, and he most certainly had the choice not to have a press conference prior to the testimony!

Saying he lacked a choice here is spectacularly incorrect.

THe most interesting thing about this thread is that Ray backed out of his username.

And his obsession with Andy appears to have kicked up a notch lately. I don't like the sounds of this.

And the irony is that this is in a thread where I've pretty much come around to accepting his and David's view on the substance of the Clemens case, not to mention that I've always been against the idea of prosecuting him.

But with Ray it's gotta be 110% agreement or nothing, and if you don't play along with that, then you're nothing but a puppet of "opinion polls". It's somewhat annoying, but at the same time it's kind of amusing in a weird sort of way to see such a perfect example of how a rigid ideology can lead an otherwise pleasant and reasonably intelligent person into strange obsessions.

That feigned outrage would be more compelling if you didn't admit you used opinion polls to taunt people who disagreed with them.

Only 74.8% of BTF thinks Andy ever does this, so YOU LOSE.