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 0.6771 seconds
54 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.
Lie detector test - Clemens did not say yes, he wondered if they worked, it sounded to me as though he was dodging it
Would he sue someone - No, that costs money, another dodge
Diversions - a couple, one he didn't grow extra body parts, well who did. Second the Vioxx thing.
I don't think he helped himself. He did come across as angry but not "my name has been damaged unjustly and I will do everything I can to clear my name" angry.
If Clemens took a polygraph, and it said he was truthful, then I think just about all Americans would side with him. He knows that... but STILL is afraid to take the test.
He's afraid they might ask whether he meant to throw the bat at Piazza.
But I still can't see any logical reason that McNamee would be lying.
Everything you just described about Clemens is a description that fits Greg Maddux much better, IMO. Clemens is just as much of a scumbag as Bonds in my book.
As someone who feels that Clemens is lying, only a stupid person would sign up for a polygraph test unless as a last resort.
No one said Clemens is in a court of law. Clemens is only in the court of public opinion.
"As someone who feels that Clemens is lying, only
a stupidan innocent person would sign up for a polygraph test [strikeunless as a last resort."Fixed.
Then you're the one who's on drugs.
And that's why Clemens is angry. I don't know whether he did or didn't, but I will give him the benefit of the doubt. The most disappointing part of the interview was that Mike Wallace seems to be the guy that has lost his edge. He used to be the toughest interviewer around - that was pretty E!. Chris Wallace takes the crown of toughest interviewer... He reamed Mitt Romney this morning.
You honestly have 100% faith in polygraphs, Rich?
To explain once again: if Clemens took a polygraph, and the operator -- not the machine -- said he was lying, which the operator could easily do even if Clemens is telling the truth, then no Americans would ever believe him. Why would Clemens take that kind of gamble? He has no more reason to trust a polygraph than a phrenologist.
1. A stupid person who didn't know what a polygraph was.
2. A guilty person, because he's got nothing to lose. If he passes, he wins public support; if he fails, he's no worse off than if he hadn't taken it.
Everything you just described about Clemens is a description that fits Greg Maddux much better, IMO. Clemens is just as much of a scumbag as Bonds in my book.
Well, perhaps, but I wasn't addressing his personal qualities, only his athletic ones.
And I'd say exactly the same thing about Barry Bonds---you take away his juicing, and I admire the hell out of him, too. You can be as outraged as you want about a character flaw that distorts the whole idea of a level playing field of competition, and at the same time not be too overly worked up about character flaws that don't affect the game itself. IMO professional jocks are as a class no more or no less solipsistic and shallow than most of us here would be if we'd been sucked up to by most everyone we'd met after the age of ten, and were being paid millions of dollars to play a boy's game.
Athletes owe us but two things: Their best effort, and an honest effort, which includes no juicing. Anything beyond that is great, and appreciated, but on my part at least it's neither expected nor required.
Would he sue someone - No, that costs money, another dodge
Diversions - a couple, one he didn't grow extra body parts, well who did. Second the Vioxx thing.
I don't think he helped himself. He did come across as angry but not "my name has been damaged unjustly and I will do everything I can to clear my name" angry.
And I had the opposite reactions.
Lie detector...he said he'd take one, but would it help? He didn't know.
The lawsuit "dodge"...would it be worth the headaches? I can understand that pov.
I think he brought up Vioxx to illustrate how he would only put prescribed meds in his body...and now he's worried because Vioxx has been shown to do damage, and his explanation of why he wouldn't do steroids...because they are a "quick fix" and do damage in the long run is consistent with his concerns about Vioxx.
I was ready to hang the guy. Now he gets the benefit of the doubt until I hear McNamee's side of it.
He kind of said yes, though he was not firm about it. In any case, he's apparently more intelligent than you are, since he knows enough not to simply assume that they work.
He also made the point -- and Wallace agreed -- that he didn't know if passing a lie detector test would even help prove his innocence.
He didn't say no. He said it costs money but that he is going to explore what he can do and see if it would be worth it (both in money and in hassle).
And he made a good point. I love how people who know nothing about the law think he should just lay out wads of cash in order to sue. As if trials are a search for the truth.
Athletes owe us nothing; they don't work for us. They owe their employers - the owners - their best effort, in accordance with the terms of their player contract.
-- MWE
Isn't that true regardless, Andy?
He made a very good point in bringing up Vioxx. A fundamental tenet of this entire debate is that one of the main reasons steroids are illegal is that they are Bad for you. That's the American groupthink, with the corollary being that a drug must be good for you if it's legal. So Clemens is taking Vioxx believing that it's not harmful since it's legal and prescribed by a doctor -- and then all of a sudden the drug is pulled from the market for causing heart attacks. Clemens is right to be upset about that.
(Of course, a little independent research on a drug before you take it -- even if it is prescribed by a doctor -- is a smart thing to do; this at least enables you to ask the right questions.)
Nonsense. They owe us as well as their owners. First, not all obligations are set by contractual relationships; second, aren't we paying for their services?
Ah an insult, way to misunderstand what I said and lower the tone of the conversation at the same time.
I was looking tonight for an innocent man who wants to do anything he can to clear his name. I didn't see that. I saw someone who was talking about being angry but who wasn't willing to do everything he could to clear his name. Roger has millions of dollars, if keeping his good name is the most important thing for him, I want to see him show it with more than an "I didn't do it".
I dunno, Monty. It didn't help the old Philly Mayor Frank Rizzo when he failed a lie detector test and reacted by saying "the lie detector lied."
Athletes owe us but two things: Their best effort, and an honest effort, which includes no juicing.
Athletes owe us nothing; they don't work for us. They owe their employers - the owners - their best effort, in accordance with the terms of their player contract.
(Sigh.)
Okay, Mike, then the f*ck*ng OWNERS owe their PAYING CUSTOMERS (AKA "us") a team of athletes who give their best effort, and an honest effort. Jesus, talk about hair splitting.
EDIT: I see JC beat me to the punch here. MWE should leave this kind of nonsense to a pro like Nieporent.
Totally dedicated, willing to put in all the work, willing to sacrifice for the good of his team by pitching hurt, the swagger, the whole nine yards---and he's a Yankee.
Isn't that true regardless, Andy?
It is indeed, VoodooR, but if he juiced, that trumps, if not negates, his athletic virtues.
Not at all. What makes you think this?
Or does Roger Clemens call up JC in DC when his direct deposit isn't showing up in his bank account?
They'd make this money without us fans watching their games on TV and at the stadiums?
Not at all. What makes you think this?
They'd make this money without us fans watching their games on TV and at the stadiums?
JC, Nieporent Lite probably thinks that the stork brings them their money. Or maybe it's a secular version of the Virgin Birth.
Not an insult at all; simply an assumption from your remarks that you don't understand that polygraphs are worthless (while Clemens at least knew more than that). Nobody who understands that polygraphs are useless (or worse than useless) would accuse Clemens of "dodging the question" simply because he wondered how reliable they are instead of flat agreeing to take one.
Once more: a polygraph isn't a path to clearing his name. Assuming he's innocent, he either passes the worthless test, in which case few people are convinced, or the Examiner fails him, in which case the magic polygraph has screwed him.
If you watched the interview, you should know that he did show more than that. In any event, welcome to the real world, where money isn't magic, and doesn't "clear one's good name" just because one spends a lot of it.
And here again, Clemens seems smarter than you, since he understands that he likely will not be able to prove his innocence. No matter how much money he spends.
So stop watching if it bothers you so much.
If you are still watching, it clearly doesn't bother you enough.
"I thought it was an impassioned denial," attorney Earl Ward said, "but it's not true."
Ward said he had not spoken to McNamee all day, not even to ask him about a Newsday report that said McNamee and Clemens had an "emotional" one-hour telephone conversation.
"It was news to me," he said. McNamee did not return a call to his mobile phone last night.
Ward said he was disappointed that Mike Wallace did not press Clemens further on how he could not have known that his close friend Andy Pettitte used human growth hormone or that McNamee had been dealing steroids and HGH while working for Clemens.
"I just didn't think it was a very hard-hitting interview," Ward said.
Ward also said that Clemens' two-step on the question of whether he would submit to a lie-detector test was damning to the seven-time Cy Young winner.
As for whether McNamee will pursue a slander or libel suit against Clemens, Ward said he, attorney Robert Emery and McNamee would wait until Clemens' expected appearance before Congress on Jan. 16, when he would testify under oath, to make their decision.
"He certainly didn't come out and call him a liar," Ward said. "He didn't use those words. I think he was careful."
So stop watching if it bothers you so much.
If you are still watching, it clearly doesn't bother you enough.
Try that logic on Nieporent come April 15th. And then be prepared to duck.
The point was that they owe the fans a clean and honest effort because we ultimately pay their salaries, not a lament or threat to stop watching.
Congress doesn't give us a choice, unfortunately. That -- not people taking steroids -- is what coercion looks like.
Ray, does this mean that you don't believe that the money players are paid ultimately comes from baseball fans? If there were no fans at games or watching on TV they'd still be paid the same? Or at all?
Did I claim they work for me?
If the GM worker comes to work drunk/stoned and produces enough bad/dangerous cars as to make enough people buy cars elsewhere he'll be out of a job as a consequence of our decisions. People who sell services or goods do best when they feel like they do work for the customers that purchase wares.
3. Someone who knows there are ways to reliably beat the polygraph and is counting on people's ignorant acceptance of the results as if there weren't. See: Aldrich Ames.
Clemens will likely be unable to prove his innocence. If it were me I would want to go on the record early, often and loudly with my claims of innocence. Not responding to Mitchell, waiting for weeks to speak to a reporter about it, and then talking to a friendly face doesn't cut it for me.
You and I saw two different interviews, I saw a guy protesting his innocence and that was about it, what else did he do, or say he would do, other than words, to show the viewers that he was serious about clearing his name?
You'll have to forgive David for his confusion, Brian. His point of reference for owner-worker-customer relationships is the health insurance companies, AKA Pay 'n' Pray.
Tonight's episode of The Wire taught me that photocopiers can be used to detect truthfulness and that they issue clear yes/no verdicts. Funny that Mike Wallace made no mention of all that.
If we were talking late Red Sox era Clemens, the McDonalds trick would be more appropriate.
Um, he did "go on the record early, often and loudly" with his claims of innocence. Have you been living under a rock for three weeks?
First, "Other than words"? What could he have done "other than words"? He did offer to testify in front of Congress. He did say he would consider a lawsuit. He did say he'd consider a polygraph. What more could he have done? Was he supposed to tell us that he was going to torture Brian McNamee until McNamee told the truth?
Second, as for the "words," he offered these arguments:
1) He made the point that it's difficult for one to prove his innocence in a situation like this.
2) He refuted the specific allegations of the Mitchell Report, line by line as Wallace read them to him.
3) He asked where he is supposed to have obtained the steroids, and he invited the person who allegedly supplied him to come forward.
4) He asked why he would have stopped using steroids if they worked so well for him.
5) When Wallace argued that his Cy Young award in 1998 looks suspicious, Clemens countered that he also won Cy Youngs in 1997 and 2004, which were before and after the time period in question.
6) He stated that he didn't know what was going to be in the Mitchell Report, that his lawyers advised him not to speak to Mitchell -- same as all the other players -- and that he'd have spoken to Mitchell if he'd known in advance what was going to be in the report.
7) As to why McNamee would be telling the truth about Pettitte and lying about Clemens, Clemens made the point that these are two separate cases; he also offered the information that he didn't know Pettitte had taken anything.
8) He made the point that McNamee had contacted him days before on an unrelated matter (to ask a favor, no less) and yet McNamee never mentioned to Clemens that McNamee told XYZ to Mitchell.
9) He was upset that he wasn't being given the benefit of the doubt, and lamented that it seems to him that he's being presumed guilty before innocent. (Of course, the presumption of innocence is a legal presumption.)
I think there were some others (along with, mentioned above, his apparent willingness to testify in front of Congress, his consideration of a lawsuit, and his consideration of a polygraph).
So obviously he did more than merely "protesting his innocence and that was about it."
Non-responsive.
Hey, goddamnit, no spoilers.
TITTWL
Roger Clemens is retired!!!!!
(most likely, if he had to say right now, assuming he doesn't change his mind later.)
I guess you haven't seen The Simpsons.
You are misunderstanding the tool, clearly. There are many issues with them, the operators being human obviously being one, but it is also a far more useful device than you seem to understand.
I'm shocked, shocked that you think it was necessary, Ivan.
Without snark, that's not what the owners owe you. They owe you entertainment for your entertainment dollar. Since the steroid era began, revenue is at pretty much an all-time high, so it looks like they've done their job pretty well.
It's fine for you to feel the competition isn't on the square and that it is somehow cheapened. But if the idea that professional athletes will do everything imaginable, legal or illegal, to be better at sports, is a new one to you, you haven't been paying attention. For as long as there has been competition, it's been there.
So, employees never owe paying customers anything? That's a pretty poor attitude to have if one works for a living.
It's "useful" only -- as I mentioned in the last thread -- in that it may allow police to trick ignorant people into confessing by telling them they failed. But it isn't accurate. And -- like psychics who excuse their failures by claiming that doubters prevent their abilities from working -- whenever polygraphs fail, the pro-polygraph crowd says, "Well, it wasn't administered correctly."
He does not misunderstand the tool. Most people misunderstand how the accuracy of the tool is determined by polygraphers. If a machine predicts rain with 90% accuracy, that sounds impressive but not so much if you could choose to answer inconclusive on any question about rain in a location that is not Seattle or Death Valley. That's what polygraphers do. When you cite studies that in double blind tests with 50-50 questions that *must* be evaluated the average polygrapher is no better than someone without a machine, they will say well, those aren't real questions and there are better operators. (Sounds like clutch hitting...)
That's why practically no one outside of the US uses them (maybe because there is no Polygraphers society outside of the US as a lobby group) and few courts accept them.
Polygraphs are very useful in coercing confessions from ignorant criminals; but as far as discerning truth from lies, tea leaves and tarot cards are at least as effective.
I saw a guy protesting his innocence and that was about it, what else did he do, or say he would do, other than words, to show the viewers that he was serious about clearing his name?
I personally was hoping Clemens would plead his case using interpretive dance.
For the record, I personally don't care what Clemens or any other professional baseball player injects into his rear end; but it seems quite obvious that:
1) Many other people do care; and
2) Clemens could produce affidavits from Jesus, Moses and Mohammed stating that he never took PEDs, and many of those many other people still aren't going to believe it.
The fact is, Clemens has no legal jeopardy. His only thing to lose or preserve is his public reputation. If he is in fact completely innocent, then he should be out in front of this story, talking to anyone and everyone, answering all questions. As I said, he came across well. Hiding behind one's lawyers looks like guilt (and looks are what counts, here). Coming out before the public and the press is what an innocent person would do, should he want to clear his name. And with the money Roger has, he should sue anyone who claims Roger took steroids, if he in fact never took them. (His weakest moment on 60 Minutes was the suggestion that suing McNamee would be too expensive.) Whether his case in court is particularly strong is actually not the most important thing, in terms of public perception. What counts is that this guy would be making the statement that "I am innocent and I am going to fight anyone who suggests I did anything wrong."
My dad's a retired Chicago Detective and he said that's all they really used them for. They tended to scare the crap out of people, and were thus an excellent interrogation tool. That said usually they only used them this way when they had already deep suspicions to begin with, which of course interferes with accuracy tests for lieboxes "in the field."
In other words, if someone has made it all the way to a polygraph test in the course of an actual investigation, the test administrator can pick "he did it" across the board and do much better than 50/50.
2) Lawyers give legal advice. We don't give PR advice. That's not our job or our area of expertise.
3) There's no reason to think that if Clemens had just said, "Nuh-uh, it ain't so" to the Mitchell people, that anything would have been different, so I'm not sure why it's "bad advice."
Are you offering to pay the legal costs for Clemens if he adopts the ludicrous "sue anyone who claims he took steroids" strategy?
That was on Homicide 10 years ago....David Simon is obviously just ripping this crap off from David Simon.
I bet Clemens used PEDs for a couple of seasons, maybe 2, perhaps 4. I feel he thinks that since he had a 20 year career, and +75% of the time he was "clean" and did just as well, then everyone should get off his back.
Of course I don't know what he thinks, but this seems possible, for what its worth.
You believe all polygraphs are worthless?
Or just some poorly run polygraphs are worthless?
And if your basis for claiming that they are "worthless" is simply because they are not used in court, that claim lacks merit as this is not a legal question at all. It is a PR question.
If your basis for claiming that polygraphs are worthless is due to the fact that the error rate is greater than zero, then you would have to say that almost all human institutions are worthless under that criterian.
The fact is, the FBI and virtually all well run police agencies make use of polygraphs. They don't believe they are worthless. They don't claim that a polygraph alone proves innocence or culpability. But it is a useful tool in combination with other evidence.
And besides, the Maury Povich Show would be far less interesting if Maury didn't hook people up to a lie detector now and then.
I don't know anything more about this than what Mitchell wrote in the report, but from what he wrote it seems that he did not advise Clemens of the substance of the allegations -- or even that there were allegations at all.
Quoting now:
"In order to provide Clemens with information about these allegations and to give him an opportunity to respond, I asked him to meet with me; he declined."
From my reading of that statement, Mitchell simply asked Clemens to meet with him and nothing more, and was going to provide Clemens with information about the allegations during the meeting. That would be consistent with Clemens saying to Wallace that he had no idea that the allegations were going to be in the report.
Regardless, if Clemens was incorrect on this point, I'm sure Mitchell will point that out no later than tomorrow.
Yes, and yes. Worthless in the sense that they're not accurate. They don't detect lies.
I was told by a neighbor (who is an FBI agent in Sacramento) about 5 years ago that a polygraph, properly run, is "very accurate." He said the FBI has done trials to show this. And if what I was told is true, and I believe it is, then it must "detect lies" (or "deception," which I think is the term they use).
Funny; I was told by a neighbor (who works as a scientist in New York) that cigarettes, properly smoked, "don't cause cancer." He said his lab has done trials to show this. And if what I was told is true, and I believe it is, then, yes, cigarettes don't "cause cancer."
Seriously -- this is the basis upon which you've spent the last several weeks insisting that polygraphs are accurate??
That having been said, Clemens denied the accusations right away, the day it came out. Yes, through his lawyers, but he didn't decline to comment.
You mean his lawyers advised him not to comment specifically on the report until he had actually read the report?
Shocking.
We should presume from this that he was guilty. Hell, he should have commented on the report even before it was released; that he did not do so speaks volumes.
No, it detects changes in the physiology of the person.
Yes, exactly what are you basing your opinion on,
GodRay?I don't think most polygraphers believe they are pulling a scam. Most polygraphers likely believe they can do what they say they can do. But the best evidence on the polygraph is extremely shaky, and, as I said, for the things they are generally used for, that doesn't cut it.
In a matter of public perception, speaking through one's attorneys is a bad idea. If it were a legal question, or if he were in legal jeopardy, then I could see being cautious. But -- Ray "You mean his lawyers advised him not to comment specifically on the report until he had actually read the report?" DiPerna obviously is too dense to get this -- this is a question of public relations and public opinion. It is not a legal matter for Clemens: unless he slanders someone.
not to mention he made a frickin' 'you tube' video ..
And hunters are still not happy, imagine that ..
I thought the interview was solid and they weren't watered down questions at all.
I can't imagine how anybody could think he is lying after watching that. I am kind of surprised though that Wallace didn't follow it up, with Senator Mitchell or somebody else, maybe a surprise video feed to MnNamee's front hedge.
Maybe next week, or sweeps week.
Clemens has little to gain and a lot to lose by suing McNamee. Shyster wrote an excellent article on the subject.
Roger, Barry, and Sammy should all go play in Oakland for the minimum, while Beane's new kids get another year under their belt.
I researched the issue for an assignment we were given in a scientific evidence class I took in law school.
As for whether his passing a polygraph would cause a sea change in the way he's viewed by the public on this issue... I'm doubtful. He's taken a number of reasonable steps to this point (frankly he's gone further than I thought he would), and it hasn't seemed to sway the general perception of him in the slightest. And while the public generally misunderstands the value of polygraphs -- generally putting too much stock in them -- the public also believes that one can "beat the test." (Sound familiar?) That's why I'm skeptical that even passing a polygraph would do him much good.
I think there are only two (realistic) things that would sway public perception of him: (1) if McNamee admitted that he lied; or (2) if George Mitchell expressed the opinion that he now thinks Clemens is innocent.
I'm not even sure how much his testifying in Congress would help. For one thing, we've already seen people state that he'll just lie to Congress. For another, the Wallace interview brought out a lot of people who are apparently auditioning for the job of Bill O'Reilly's body language expert. In a lengthy interview, there will always be certain behavior that people will take as indicative of lying (not enough eye contact, too much eye contact, looked down, looked up, raised his voice, lowered his voice, took a drink of water at a certain time, etc.).
Clemens is right: such a large segment of the public has judged him guilty that it seems almost impossible to convince them otherwise.
Not necessarily, Ray. Let's see how that defamation suit of Clemens plays out. It may turn out to be nothing but a desperate bluff, but right now it's certainly a step in the right direction for him to regain his reputation. Just because people begin with an opinion---even a strong opinion---doesn't always mean that it's their final one.
Andy, did you read the Houston Chronicle piece? It claims McNamee was pressured, just like us theorist were theorizing :)
.. probably by Novitzy.
If I'm innocent, "very accurate" is just not high enough of a standard for me to volunteer for the test.
Missed that one, GR. Re-link it and I'll give it a look.
in the lawsuit ..
RE: POLYGRAPHS -
THERE ARE NOT A MAGIC BINARY BOX, NO... THEY ARE ANOTHER PIECE OF DATA TO BE INTERPRETED LIKE JUST ABOUT ANY OTHER DATA WE MIGHT HAVE... THERE IS SOME AMOUNT OF UNCERTAINTY REGARDING THE MEANING OF THE INFORMATION THAT WE MUST ACCOUNT FOR!!!
THOSE OF YOU INTO STATISTICS, PROBABILITY THEORY, AND THE LOGIC OF SCIENCE, WHO WANT TO BE OBJECTIVE ABOUT SUBJECTIVITY, AND WANT TO KNOW MORE ABOUT UNCERTAINTY IN DATA MAY LIKE THE FOLLOWING POST:
http://www.overcomingbias.com/2008/01/gray-fallacy.html
We'll see what happens if and when it comes to trial. Obviously the Chronicle piece gives only one side of the story.
But if Clemens was telling the truth when he said that he was eating Vioxx "like they were Skittles", well, then he isn't nearly as intelligent as some people here would apparently like to believe.
Just because 100 milligrams of a certain drug can be beneficial doesn't mean that 5000 milligrams is absolutely wonderful; quite the contrary. I doubt there's a single licensed doctor who advised him to eat Vioxx pills like they were Skittles. Do you really have to be that much of a genius to understand the concept of doses, and to simply listen to the advice of a competent doctor?
Apparently you do have to be a genius to understand the concept of doses, though, because lots of the anti-steroid crowd think that anybody who took steroids is going to die suddenly, just because they can think of some guy who put on 200 pounds of muscle so he could look like a bodybuilder who did.
I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main