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 0.4522 seconds
55 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.
As does Bernal.
And even if the context were different, why should it have been asked directly? It's a silly question. Clemens isn't a research chemist and even if Clemens were, he didn't test the substance in a lab; the only way he can know is if someone told him.
EDIT: Now, back to work; I'm kind of buried in documen right now.
(So I guess when he lied to investigators in the rape investigation, he was only lying to protect the girl.)
Stranger and more illogical things have most surely occurred. Humans, you know.
Right. And in baseball clubhouses, if you believe Palmeiro and Bonds, players (a) take syringes thinking one thing's in it, when another is; and (b) players take substances without really knowing what's in them. Yes, if a person goes to a real doctor, the real doctor says, "I'm going to prescribe X for you, it's administered by injection" and the doctor proceeds to inject the person, it's reasonable for the person to assume he was injected with X.
That, however, is not this case -- far from it. McNamee and Clemens agree on the fact of injections, the only dispute is what was in them. McNamee was in a position to know; Clemens really wasn't. So the question remains: How is Clemens certain the injections were B12? (**) Did McNamee ever tell Clemens "This is a B12 shot"? Did Clemens ask to be injected with B12? How did the subject of injections arise in the first place? How was Clemens certain every injection was B12? If McNamee's word was his only basis, why did he (and why should we) trust the word of a drug-dealing rapist with a record of lying?
Etc.
(**) Clemens, IIRC, hasn't even allowed for the possibility of a Palmeiroesque "tainted" shot.
Well, I would say two things:
1. They trust the person telling them what it is.
2. They have no way of actually knowing/testing what it is.
I agree that this particular line is shaky, but I also don't think it's impossible that this type of scenario could occur, if only to create a pretext for some sort of "plausible deniability."
I think this is exactly what was going on. If you want B12, you go to a real doctor -- there's no reason not to. If you want "B12," you go to a hack like McNamee. Then when you test positive, or your hack comes clean about "B12," you can fall back on, "But, but, but, but, but ... I only wanted B12."
That may be what YOU would do, but you can't assume that everybody sees it the way you do.
If a trusted long-time personal trainer and friend/lackey/confidant/servant (say, the guy who is doing time in jail to try to protect you) says to a jock, "This is great stuff; it's going to help you, bro", I can see said jock not saying, "I want independent corroboration of what this is before I use it."
Also, I can see a jock saying to the trusted servant/lackey, "You hook me up, bro, and if anyone asks, I'll just say it was a "supplement" 'cuz that's all I'll know. Got it?"
I see this, not the previous explanation. I can't see a jock not asking for corroboration. As dumb as they seem, they're sophisticated about training.
As for SBB's "why would he trust a drug dealer/rapist?", if you believe him he didn't know about any of that at the time.
I think you may be underestimating the trust factor that some of these guys have in their key people in their entourages/posses.
I'd invite anybody wondering about that to look into the Agricola (Juventus team doctor case)
To summarize:
Initial court finds that Agricola administered EPO to players without their knowledge. It's strange from the beginning. Italian police raid Agricola's office. No EPO found (and very few banned substances) but the sheer quantity of stuff found (281 types of drugs) told the magistrate investigating the issue that he was on the right track.
The only evidence of EPO injections comes from the testimony of a haematologist who said it was "practically certain" that two players were given epo and was "very probable" that several others were. (After the trial some EPL managers who had former Juventus players commented that they thought something was up in Juventus -- that their blood work came back "strange"). Before it went to trial commentators said the EPO administration was the weakest part of the case, but it was the only thing Agricola was convicted of.
Appeals court says you have to prove that it's performance enhancing. (The fact that one of the documented side effects of EPO is death in otherwise healthy athletes in their prime is not an issue here)
High court says Appeal Court is wrong but statute of limitations has expired. (Meaning that Agricola walks. And was still Juventus team doctor as of a few years ago)
Meaning that as far as I can tell it's an example of athletes (probably) being administered (potentially) performance enhancing drugs without their knowledge.
Almost nobody doubts that the athletes thought they were getting vitamin shots (specific to each player). To my knowledge nobody's called for disciplinary action against the players (and some of the biggest names in the game from a decade ago were involved)
Another somewhat related case is Greg Rusedski. Tested positive for Nandrolone. Was able to demonstrate that the source was tainted supplement.
Supplied by ATP trainers. The ATP being the body that conducted the tests and was trying to suspend him. If you can't trust the sanctioning body who can you trust?
"100% sure" isn't a literal term. In this particular context, an athlete wanting a B12 injection can be sure he's getting a B12 injection by going to a doctor and asking for one. Not metaphysically sure, but sure.
As for SBB's "why would he trust a drug dealer/rapist?", if you believe him he didn't know about any of that at the time.
Do any of the shots postdate the amp McNamee "surreptitiously" gave Clemens? If so, the amp alone is reason to discredit Clemens's supposed trust.
It remains perfectly valid to wonder why, if Clemens wanted B12 and not "B12," he didn't simply ask a doctor. Teams employ real doctors, after all.
Did he actually claim to be certain of such a fact? I thought he claimed he asked for B12 and believed he was receiving B12.
Did Clemens ask to be injected with B12? How did the subject of injections arise in the first place?
This question was asked and answered. From page 1 of this thread:
"The Witness: Yes, a B12-shot. And the same way McNamee after a game, and I am passing the room, and I told him, you know, that I need a B12or the doctor, whatever, and there is four or five needles already lined up ready to go."
If McNamee's word was his only basis, why did he (and why should we) trust the word of a drug-dealing rapist with a record of lying?
Because in 1998, Clemens might not have known that McNamee was a drug-dealing rapist (the alleged rape took place in 2001). What he would have known was that McNamee was officially employed by the Blue Jays as their strength trainer. It wasn't like he was giving out B12 shots from the back of his van.
Clemens, IIRC, hasn't even allowed for the possibility of a Palmeiroesque "tainted" shot.
Why should he? Palmeiro tested positive, so he had to come up with an explanation. As far as we know, Clemens has never tested positive for anything, and we have no reason to believe that the shots weren't really B12 other than McNamee's word.
EDIT: Yes, I know he'd moved on from Boston by then.
He professes certainty that he's never taken HGH or steroids. He really has no way to know that, given what Palmeiro and Bonds say about B12, the cream, the clear, and the freewheeling ingestion of things layman provide.
and I told him, you know, that I need a B12or the doctor, whatever, and there is four or five needles already lined up ready to go."
That's a mealy-mouthed, noncommittal answer. "I need a B12 ... or a doctor?" Huh? The follow up question should have been, "Did you ever ask McNamee to inject you with B12?" That's the question.
Why should he?
Because he was injected by a hack under uncontrolled circumstances. Once the timeline's confirmed, it may very well be that the hack had already provided Clemens with an amp he never asked for and was shocked to receive.
Please. The notion of "tainted" supplements is a red herring. Who is the "someone else" an elite athlete (or a reasonable person)should "rely" on? A sketchy "trainer" injecting you and your wife in your home? Your teammate injecting you in the ass in a toilet stall?
We're not talking about Clemens seeking out a licensed medical doctor practicing in an office, are we?
I think you have this exactly backwards. It should be unless I am an elite athlete (at least during a time in which there was no testing, so I didn't have to worry about false positives). It's pretty clear that the culture in major league baseball is to get shots all the time (cortisone, B12, etc.) from team doctors and trainers -- yes, from trainers. Pettitte testified in his deposition that he received numerous B12 injections over the years from the Yankees' trainer.
Athletes trust these people. (Note how Clemens calls everyone by a nickname, "Mac" or "Geno" for Gene Monahan.) Perhaps they shouldn't, but they do. As to McNamee, Clemens's stated reasoning is that he trusted McNamee since McNamee had been employed by two major league clubs (the Yankees and Blue Jays) at the time Clemens met him, and that McNamee held himself out as having some sort of degree (it turned out from a diploma mill, but there's no reason to believe Clemens knew that). Pettitte's deposition: "All I can say is Brian McNamee was on staff with Toronto, on their medical staff. So I have no idea. But I would think that Brian maybe administered B12 shots to players in Toronto." (For full context Pettitte does say he has no personal knowledge that McNamee ever did.)
Bottom line: I'm not taking anything unless I know what it is, either. But it would be pretty silly to apply my perspective on this, as a non-athlete, to the culture of major league baseball.
Right. Like Juventus employed Agricola.
It really sucks having to give people the benefit of the doubt. Especially if those people are world class jerks. But sometimes you just have to hold your nose and do it.
a) Clemens is not claiming anything was tainted.
b) Read #119.
Besides McNamee, who else is part of this conspiracy?
We're going to disagree here. The perspective being that I don't want to take anything that will either harm me physically or keep me from making the most money I can, by getting me suspended.
Agreed. The post to which I responded mentioned tainted supplements in a general context.
b) Read #119.
Are you saying that one unproven possible case of medical malpractice justifies trusting no doctors, ever? Many athletes seek out their own doctors instead of team docs.
No, I'm saying that one proven case of a tainted supplement blows the "red herring" label out of the water (and there have been several proven cases), even though we would probably agree that the Palmeiro defense is a crock in the vast majority of cases where it is offered.
EDIT: I was referring to the Rusedski part of 119 rather than the Agricola part.
Re-posting #130 after editing:
Pettitte's deposition is instructive in regard to the trust factor. Pettitte does say that McNamee never gave him lidocaine or B12 (keep in mind that Clemens only says he got lidocaine once and B12 four to six times, total, so it's not like we're talking a shot a week here). Nevertheless, Pettitte says this about the trust he had in McNamee:
---
As to the question of whether elite athletes are careful to know the source and origin of what they are putting into their bodies, here Pettitte notes that he never questioned McNamee as to whether McNamee was careful where he got the HGH from and whether the HGH was ok:
The point is that he asked for that substance and he trusted he was getting that substance.
Pettitte says McNamee never gave him B12 or lidocaine, but do you believe, given Pettitte's comments above in #133 about how he trusted McNamee, that if Pettitte had asked McNamee for B12 and McNamee said "sure, here's B12" that Pettitte would have suddenly questioned whether it was B12?
So if one guy can trust him to administer hGH instead of snake oil, then another guy couldn't possibly trust him to administer B12 instead of winstrol?
Look, you don't believe Clemens. We get it. But there's a huge gulf between thinking someone is probably lying about whether he used PEDs and claiming that absolutely nothing he says is even remotely plausible. "I trusted my trainer" is perfectly plausible, even if you don't think it's true.
If they start doing a bunch better, then they know that something's fishy, but they also know not to ask questions they don't want the answer to. You're talking about people who might not change their socks when they're on a winning streak.
Let me be clear, I think that Clemens used. But the sad part is that part of the reason why I, and most other people, think that Clemens used was his performance. He was so good in Houston, at such an advanced age, that is why everyone thinks he's guilty. Not because of McNamee, or testimony or Pettitte. Because he was too good in Houston.
I neither trust nor distrust Clemens. He might well be lying, or he might well be telling the truth, so I accept either as a possibility.
I definitely don't trust McNamee, who comes off as a much worse human being than Clemens in this whole affair. I also don't trust the government's judgment in this case. This is a very vindictive move on the part of the government, in my opinion. It's not like they pursue every possible perjury case.
Let's be clear. I'm a Met fan, and Roger Clemens is one of my least favorite players. I'm not saying he deliberately hit Piazza in the head, but I think he threw recklessly close enough that he probably wasn't concerned about the possibility. I'm not at all suggesting that Clemens is some saint. I'm just thinking that some of other parties seem to be going out of their way to make him look good.
Quoting now:
But this is all repetitious. I don't believe athletes when they say they don't know what they take. They know, but by saying they don't, they get to avoid scrutiny from people who will believe what they say at face value.
But when Pettitte made that statement, he had already admitted that McNamee gave him HGH. It's not like he was claiming he asked for B12 and McNamee gave him HGH. He had already admitted to doing something Bad. There was nothing left for him to "dodge." He wasn't saying he didn't know what was going on; he said he did know.
They're jocks. The trainer says, here drink this. He says, well, what is it? They say, it's to help your body recover after you pitch. He says, Oh okay.
It's that simple. I don't think the trainer is spiking his protein shakes with steroids, but that's how the conversation goes. These guys aren't doctors, or chemists. They believe in all kinds of homeopathic nonsense.
But Clemens isn't even saying this! His argument isn't "my trainer lied to me about what he was giving me", it's "my trainer is lying to you about what he gave me".
Yes, you've stated this belief. But you've presented no evidence for it other than faith. At least I presented as an example statements from a real athlete - under oath, no less - and I don't see that Pettitte's approach is uncommon.
From everything I can tell, both of these situations are common:
* Athletes trust what trainers give to them, at least for low level GNC type stuff, even if they don't know exactly what it is. ("Here Andy, this is a protein shake." Andy drinks.)
* Athletes "know" what they are taking in the sense that they surround themselves with people they trust (or they trust the people around them), and then they trust when those people say "Here is X."
Is it plausible that some athletes use "B12, wink wink" as code for steroids? Sure. But the above two situations are ALSO plausible, and you have no idea how to tell the situations apart without the whole of the evidence suggesting which situation occurred.
No, but it does mean it's irrational to claim near certainty as to what has gone on here w/r/t Clemens and McNamee, i.e., which of the two is lying about the central claim.
Who has said they don't know what they take? Other than Pettitte.
Well, then you get it wrong. My position is the same as Crosby's 139.
Well, there's this from David Ortiz:
And, as far as non-MLB players (a.k.a. everyday people) go, there's this:
DB
George W. Bush famously called his advisors by nicknames, as in his clueless Hurricane Katrina response assessment: "You're doin' a heckuva job, Brownie."
So much for Lanny Breuer putting a stop to this now that Breuer is in the Justice Dept.
How many times did people say that these were the reasons Clemens hadn't been indicted yet?
Not quite. He's saying he doesn't know if anything he took was tainted.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main