Baseball for the Thinking Fan

Login | Register | Feedback

btf_logo
You are here > Home > Baseball Newsstand > Baseball Primer Newsblog > Discussion
Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Monday, June 11, 2012

Asleep at the Roger Clemens Trial

Salon reporter visits the Roger Clemens trial….

pthomas Posted: June 11, 2012 at 04:18 PM | 36 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
  Tags: clemens

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.

   1. Monty Posted: June 11, 2012 at 05:14 PM (#4154141)
FTA:
The ladies and gentleman of this jury have been carefully selected on the basis of their ambivalence toward the nation’s pastime. That’s why witnesses must pause to define elementary baseball nomenclature like “foul pole.” To clarify what it means for an athlete to be “in the zone.” To explain that the game is played both indoors and outdoors, and that Fenway Park is home to the Boston Red Sox.
   2. Bob Tufts Posted: June 11, 2012 at 05:30 PM (#4154154)
"You've got to remember that these are just simple farmers. These are people of the land. The common clay of the new West. You know... morons."
   3. base ball chick Posted: June 11, 2012 at 07:18 PM (#4154210)
bob darling boy

you'd be surprised how many people have absolutely NO idea what a foul pole is - i've met moren a few guys at the BALLPARK who didn't know and couldn't figure out how to score the touchdowns there

i can't believe how many people go to baseball games who have not remotely the faintest idea how the game is played - not even how many outs or innings
   4. ajnrules Posted: June 11, 2012 at 08:21 PM (#4154247)
As an autograph hound I'm kind of sad the trial is ending. I'll be in the DC area next week and I was hoping to go down to the courthouse and score a free autograph from Clemens. After the trial he'll go back to charging $250 a pop for them.
   5. McCoy Posted: June 11, 2012 at 08:39 PM (#4154253)
If a guy is charging to $250 a pop for his autograph and you don't like that then why do you want his autograph anyway?
   6. Tripon Posted: June 11, 2012 at 09:01 PM (#4154269)
So you can sell it on Ebay for $300 a pop.
   7. dr. scott Posted: June 11, 2012 at 09:35 PM (#4154290)
hes simply hoping to exploit inefficiency in courthouse autographs for future fellons.
   8. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: June 11, 2012 at 10:11 PM (#4154324)
you'd be surprised how many people have absolutely NO idea what a foul pole is - i've met moren a few guys at the BALLPARK who didn't know and couldn't figure out how to score the touchdowns there

i can't believe how many people go to baseball games who have not remotely the faintest idea how the game is played - not even how many outs or innings


My wife and I went to the Wilson Alvarez no-hitter in Baltimore back in 1991, and she couldn't figure out why everyone was so excited once the game was over----"Big whoops, I've seen plenty of games where a team doesn't get any runs."
   9. Ray (RDP) Posted: June 11, 2012 at 11:31 PM (#4154376)
My wife and I went to the Wilson Alvarez no-hitter in Baltimore back in 1991, and she couldn't figure out why everyone was so excited once the game was over


Neither can I.
   10. Greg Schuler Posted: June 12, 2012 at 09:57 AM (#4154517)
Wait until those jurors catch the "it's really a fair pole" argument.
   11. Jolly Old St. Nick Is A Jolly Old St. Crip Posted: June 12, 2012 at 10:14 AM (#4154526)
My wife and I went to the Wilson Alvarez no-hitter in Baltimore back in 1991, and she couldn't figure out why everyone was so excited once the game was over

Neither can I.


Well, considering that the only two things that would excite you would be the newest coolstandings.com post and a 1% lowering of the capital gains tax, I guess I shouldn't be too surprised at that response.
   12. Blubaldo Jimenez (OMJ) Posted: June 12, 2012 at 10:47 AM (#4154555)
My wife and I went to the Wilson Alvarez no-hitter in Baltimore back in 1991, and she couldn't figure out why everyone was so excited once the game was over


Neither can I.


Nice Ray parody.... Oh wait....
   13. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: June 12, 2012 at 01:40 PM (#4154759)
FTA:
During cross-examination, the prosecution tries to prove that Clemens’ need for late-season stamina is a result of the heat and humidity by asking inane questions like “In the summer, would you agree, the temperature rises?” Prosecutor Gil Guerrero thinks he’s landed a punch when he points out that Clemens’ innings pitched fell off in 1994, but unfortunately he seems unaware that a strike in 1994 resulted in the season being canceled. At last, flummoxed, he asks the witness: “You understand he’s not on trial for how great he was in baseball?”
   14. Alex meets the threshold for granular review Posted: June 12, 2012 at 01:58 PM (#4154780)
“You understand he’s not on trial for how great he was in baseball?”


How I would like to believe this.
   15. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: June 12, 2012 at 02:13 PM (#4154794)
Hey, the prosecutor can say it; he's not under oath.
   16. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: June 12, 2012 at 03:10 PM (#4154868)
Starting next week: the $55 million Edinson Volquez trial!
   17. Rants Mulliniks Posted: June 12, 2012 at 03:50 PM (#4154918)
Well, considering that the only two things that would excite you would be the newest coolstandings.com post and a 1% lowering of the capital gains tax, I guess I shouldn't be too surprised at that response.


I'm glad I waited til 90% of my coworkers went home to read this Andy, because I just let out one of the loudest LOLs in history.
   18. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: June 12, 2012 at 04:30 PM (#4154960)
And of course the Daily Emery sums up the trial this way:
WASHINGTON — Was Roger Clemens the victim of a vast and diabolical conspiracy to frame him as a doper and trap him for perjury? Or did the former Yankee pitcher simply lie under oath to protect his myth because he was unable to accept responsibility for using banned drugs?
A "vast and diabolical conspiracy" by one person?

The government was apparently reduced to calling its own witness -- Pettitte -- a liar.

EDIT: And, of course, this argument designed to convince jurors beyond a reasonable doubt;
“If Brian McNamee had been trying to manufacture evidence don’t you think he would have done a better job than that?” Guerrero said.
So the bad quality of the evidence is actually an argument that it's reliable?
   19. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: June 12, 2012 at 04:37 PM (#4154962)
Best argument by Hardin:
He outlined the scope of the government investigation – 179 interviews, 93 agents, 65 interview locations – and pointed to its subsequent inability to find any evidence stronger than Brian McNamee’s testimony. Over four and a half years, Hardin said, there’s nothing tying Clemens to performance-enhancing drugs other than statements from a shady witness.
They couldn't find a single other person -- and not from lack of trying -- to testify about Clemens' use of PEDs.
   20. dlf Posted: June 12, 2012 at 04:41 PM (#4154967)
So the bad quality of the evidence is actually an argument that it's reliable?


If I recall the prosecution's testimony from roughly seventy two million weeks ago ... one of the people who examined the needles and cotton swabs said that the tiny amount (7 cells) of Clemens DNA was evidence that it wasn't faked and that had McNamee faked it, the needle would have had a larger tissue sample.

And of course the Daily Emery sums up the trial this way


There have been a lot of news organizations going far out of their way to spin any testimony in an anti-Clemens fashion. An example is ESPN's article when Debbie Clemens testified. The author (Lester Munson?) went on for paragraphs criticizing Hardin's decision to put her on the stand with pictures of the palatial house, a description of the number of bedrooms, and discussion of her and Roger's golf handicaps, then, as an almost forgotten aside, mentioned that she completely contradicted McNamee's testimony.
   21. Fanshawe Posted: June 12, 2012 at 04:41 PM (#4154968)
So the bad quality of the evidence is actually an argument that it's reliable?


He might be right. McNamee has a lot of experience manufacturing evidence, he's probably pretty good at it by now.
   22. Jose Is The Most Absurd Thing on the Site Posted: June 12, 2012 at 04:47 PM (#4154972)
So the bad quality of the evidence is actually an argument that it's reliable?


For what it's worth I was on a jury about five years ago in a case where 3 early-20s guys were suing an insurance company over lack of payment on a car accident. The insurance company wasn't paying because they were saying the guys were lying. We were pretty much ready to come back with a verdict for the insurance company in five minutes but the only thing that gave us even the slightest pause was that the three plaintiffs were so monumentally stupid that there was no way they would come up with a scheme to try and screw an insurance company.

Eventually we found for the insurance company but the idea that a jury could find that "stupidity=honesty" is not that far fetched to me.
   23. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: June 12, 2012 at 04:57 PM (#4154983)
There have been a lot of news organizations going far out of their way to spin any testimony in an anti-Clemens fashion. An example is ESPN's article when Debbie Clemens testified. The author (Lester Munson?) went on for paragraphs criticizing Hardin's decision to put her on the stand with pictures of the palatial house, a description of the number of bedrooms, and discussion of her and Roger's golf handicaps, then, as an almost forgotten aside, mentioned that she completely contradicted McNamee's testimony.
I really wouldn't say "news organizations." The Daily News made themselves the house organ of the Emery law firm, but for the most part, it's individual reporters one way or the other. ESPN's coverage is generally okay -- except for Lester Munson's. (This is the article to which you refer.) Munson is a complete hack who has been pretty much wrong about every law-sports story he has ever covered. He's not a media legal analyst because of his career success. I never heard of him until his incompetent (and completely wrong) analysis of the Duke lacrosse case, but since then I've read him on other cases like Bonds -- he got everything wrong there -- and Clemens, and he is just awful.
   24. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: June 12, 2012 at 04:59 PM (#4154986)
Eventually we found for the insurance company but the idea that a jury could find that "stupidity=honesty" is not that far fetched to me.
Oh, I can see that. But this is more like an argument that "incompetence=honesty," and that doesn't exactly seem compelling.
   25. Ray (RDP) Posted: June 12, 2012 at 06:44 PM (#4155056)
The Daily News desperately wants to see Clemens convicted. They're basically a cheering section that advocates/spins for the government/McNamee.
   26. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: June 12, 2012 at 10:33 PM (#4155227)
The Daily News desperately wants to see Clemens convicted. They're basically a cheering section that advocates/spins for the government/McNamee.
If you read their latest article, and I don't really recommend that, they were already planning their next campaign: oh-so-he-was-acquitted-but-he-still-has-to-face-a-defamation-suit-by-McNamee.
   27. Ray (RDP) Posted: June 12, 2012 at 11:03 PM (#4155249)
David, I just tried to get through Lupica's latest and I couldn't. But I liked this part of their generic I-Team article you reference:

Durham will also bring up the fact — bizarre but undisputed — that Clemens continued to employ McNamee long after the trainer injected the defendant’s wife Debbie with human growth hormone.


I'm sorry, but did McNamee sneak into Debbie's bedroom one night while she was sleeping and inject her with HGH without her consent, or did Debbie ask him to inject her? Why would Clemens not continue to employ him because of this? Did McNamee stick his penis into her when she wasn't looking? What are we talking about here?
   28. Ray (RDP) Posted: June 13, 2012 at 07:42 AM (#4155382)
Clemens was using McNamee, Guerrero argued, as his source of performance-enhancing drugs and "to inject him and to keep his mouth shut." When Clemens no longer needed McNamee, the prosecutor suggested, he "tossed him by the wayside."


"When Clemens no longer needed McNamee?" Odd. I thought the relationship broke down because McNamee, in Clemens's version, started lying that Clemens had used steroids.

Kind of funny, though, how the prosecution has multiple lawyers working on an allegedly minor perjury case, as if this were the OJ trial.
   29. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: June 13, 2012 at 04:43 PM (#4155957)
Kind of funny, though, how the prosecution has multiple lawyers working on an allegedly minor perjury case, as if this were the OJ trial.
Or the John Edwards case, which the DoJ has now dropped. I don't want to turn this into a politics thread, so I am not commenting on anything here except the federal government's incompetence and overzealousness at prosecuting high-profile cases.
   30. Ray (RDP) Posted: June 13, 2012 at 09:33 PM (#4156203)
Right. They flock to high-profile defendants like moths to a flame. Celebrities have a rap of getting preferential treatment, but in many cases it seems to be the exact opposite. Who but a high-profile figure would find himself in the particular mess that Clemens is in?
   31. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: June 13, 2012 at 09:49 PM (#4156222)
Maybe it happens ALL THE TIME, scores and scores of times, 365 days a year. And we just don't hear about it because the Daily News I-Team™ has limited resources in these end times for newspapers, and can only cover the celebrity cases.

I'll bet that at 9 o'clock tomorrow morning, in whatever courthouse is nearest to your home, a non-famous drug supplier will be answering tough questions under oath about whether he attended 0% or 5% of somebody's pool party.
   32. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: June 14, 2012 at 01:52 PM (#4156868)
I'll bet that at 9 o'clock tomorrow morning, in whatever courthouse is nearest to your home, a non-famous drug supplier will be answering tough questions under oath about whether he attended 0% or 5% of somebody's pool party.
...fourteen years ago.
   33. Rants Mulliniks Posted: June 14, 2012 at 02:04 PM (#4156882)
Right. They flock to high-profile defendants like moths to a flame. Celebrities have a rap of getting preferential treatment, but in many cases it seems to be the exact opposite. Who but a high-profile figure would find himself in the particular mess that Clemens is in


Has anyone read Conrad Black's new book? He's basically an insufferable, entitled prick, but I've heard his book is a good commentary on the sensational nature of the US Justice system.
   34. Ray (RDP) Posted: June 14, 2012 at 02:07 PM (#4156887)
Where would Clemens go to get his reputation back after being found guilty of showing up for a pool party as it was winding down fourteen years ago?
   35. Bob Tufts Posted: June 14, 2012 at 02:10 PM (#4156889)
Where would Clemens go to get his reputation back after being found guilty of showing up for a pool party as it was winding down fourteen years ago?


Backyard BBQ with Ray Donovan?
   36. zenbitz Posted: June 14, 2012 at 04:41 PM (#4157062)
As long as he kept on point while answering questions, I guess I could forgive him.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

 

 

<< Back to main

BBTF Partner

Support BBTF

donate

Thanks to
Adam S
for his generous support.

Bookmarks

You must be logged in to view your Bookmarks.

Hot Topics

NewsblogNo, Alex Gordon wouldn't have scored an inside the park home run
(97 - 12:15am, Oct 31)
Last: SuperGrover

NewsblogMadison Bumgarner, World Series legend - McCovey Chronicles
(103 - 12:15am, Oct 31)
Last: SoSHially Unacceptable

NewsblogNewest Hall of Fame Candidates Announced
(50 - 12:15am, Oct 31)
Last: Howie Menckel

NewsblogSend Alex Gordon! | FiveThirtyEight
(74 - 12:15am, Oct 31)
Last: Lance Reddick! Lance him!

NewsblogOT: Politics, October 2014: Sunshine, Baseball, and Etch A Sketch: How Politicians Use Analogies
(4784 - 12:02am, Oct 31)
Last: The Yankee Clapper

NewsblogFull Count » Red Sox sign Koji Uehara to 2-year contract
(8 - 11:44pm, Oct 30)
Last: the Hugh Jorgan returns

NewsblogOT: Monthly NBA Thread - October 2014
(623 - 11:37pm, Oct 30)
Last: Howie Menckel

NewsblogFielding Bible
(2 - 11:24pm, Oct 30)
Last: Russlan is fond of Dillon Gee

NewsblogOT: NBC.news: Valve isn’t making one gaming console, but multiple ‘Steam machines’
(1020 - 11:23pm, Oct 30)
Last: DJS and the Infinite Sadness

NewsblogAngell: The Best
(16 - 11:21pm, Oct 30)
Last: Jarrod HypnerotomachiaPoliphili(Teddy F. Ballgame)

NewsblogOT:  October 2014 - College Football thread
(544 - 11:11pm, Oct 30)
Last: Lance Reddick! Lance him!

Hall of MeritMost Meritorious Player: 1960 Discussion
(9 - 10:22pm, Oct 30)
Last: Chris Fluit

Newsblog2014 WORLD SERIES GAME 7 OMNICHATTER
(1442 - 10:22pm, Oct 30)
Last: S.F. Giangst

NewsblogThings we learned from the 2014 playoffs
(10 - 10:18pm, Oct 30)
Last: Walt Davis

NewsblogA Visit to Madison Bumgarner Country, and a Proud Father's Home - NYTimes.com
(1 - 10:06pm, Oct 30)
Last: The Anthony Kennedy of BBTF (Scott)

Page rendered in 0.4464 seconds
52 querie(s) executed