For those not following, the Sportswriter Elite has deemed Clemens "arrogant" for showing up in court early, going through the booking procedures, entering his plea, and continuing on with his life afterwards.

Oh, and he didn't just _say_ "Not guilty, You Honor." According to the Daily News, he "barked" it.

He might really be not guilty!

He might really be not guilty!

Oh, don't be ridiculous. They're trying him, aren't they?

I think Shooty's point is, he might very well have taken steroids, he's just not guilty about it.

My only comment is that if I were a multimillionaire athlete being charged with perjury and making my first court appearence, I would have sprung for a nicer tie than that one Clemens had. That was shockingly ugly.

Hey give Clemens a break. He's retired now, on a fixed income, and doesn't yet qualify for senior citizen discounts.

My only comment is that if I were a multimillionaire athlete being charged with perjury and making my first court appearence, I would have sprung for a nicer tie than that one Clemens had. That was shockingly ugly.

He had to wear that one. It was a gift from his girlfriends.

From the CNN story:

He said the shots he received from his trainer were vitamin B12, which is an allowed substance. But according to the indictment, the trainer never had access to B12 and never injected Clemens with such supplements.

Much like the trainer "never had access" to illegal substances, I suppose.

Anyway, the indictment doesn't say that.

For those not following, the Sportswriter Elite has deemed Clemens "arrogant" for showing up in court early, going through the booking procedures, entering his plea, and continuing on with his life afterwards.

While the BTF Elite has accused Pettitte of everything this side of bungholing babies. So I guess we're in for a long stretch of trench warfare.

the trainer never had access to B12

This seems bizarre. Is B12 somehow restricted Stateside? I can buy it at Shopper's in the overpriced hippy pills section, in cash, nobody knowing who I am.

While the BTF Elite has accused Pettitte of everything this side of bungholing babies.

What, pray tell, is on the other side?

What, pray tell, is on the other side?

What's grosser than gross?

Gerry Callahan of the Boston Herald:

Clemens already has thrown his buddy Pettitte under the bus, and his personal trainer, and of course, his poor wife Debbie. She let that creepy Brian McNamee inject her in the Clemens’ master bedroom. That’s what Roger said. No one is safe when Roger is trying to save his skin.

I still don't understand how Clemens is supposed to have thrown these people under the bus.

For players like Clemens, the fix was in for more than a decade. Life was good. They had a clueless commissioner, an immoral union, an ignorant media and a handful of useful idiots on Capitol Hill.

But no more. We’re all skeptics now, and we know a liar and a cheat when we see one.

Apparently we can now not only identify steroids users by sight, but liars and cheats as well.

And for our next witness, we call Mr. Roger Clemens... I mean, B-12, Roger? Is that really going to be your defense? Your personal trainer and friend, McNamee, injected Pettitte, Chuck Knoblauch and your own wife with performance-enhancing drugs - they all admit it now - but when he pulled out your syringe, you said, “Just B-12 for me today, Mac. Steroids would be wrong.

Ah, the convincing "other people did something, so you must have too" line of argument.

While the BTF Elite has accused Pettitte of everything this side of bungholing babies. So I guess we're in for a long stretch of trench warfare.

What has the "BTF Elite" accused Pettitte of?

What has the "BTF Elite" accused Pettitte of?

#### that, I want to know who the BTF Elite are.

What has the "BTF Elite" accused Pettitte of?

Changing his story, bad memory, selling out his teammate for leniency, probably using HGH over a much longer timeframe than he's admitted to, etc.

And BTW who falls under your definition of "Sportswriter Elite," other than any MSM writer who simply disagrees with you? You throw that "Elite" term around fairly indiscriminately. I don't know too many newspapermen who would ever refer to the Boston Herald as an "Elite" paper, but then I guess our standards for "Elite" may vary, and for all I know yours may also include the Daily News and the Murdoch Post!

#### that, I want to know who the BTF Elite are.

Since Andy directed the comment to me, I think I get to be included.

Nyah, nyah, Shooty!

#### that, I want to know who the BTF Elite are.

Why, obviously, any BTF Primate whose opinions I disagree with.

Hey, I'm only using the BTF standard definition, as practiced by Ray & Co. Anytime Dan wants to put that meaningless word on the verboten list, I'm all for it.

One of the weirdest linguistic developments of my life is the word "elite" becoming pejorative.

One of the weirdest linguistic developments of my life is the word "elite" becoming pejorative.

Precisely what I was getting at. The indiscriminate use of "Elite" is one of the many common linguistic devices that connect the Yahoos from all points along the spectrum.

Changing his story, bad memory, selling out his teammate for leniency, probably using HGH over a much longer timeframe than he's admitted to, etc.

The first two are fact. The second two are probable but since I think HGH is snake oil I couldn't care less about that though the selling out his FRIEND (not just his teammate) was pretty weak. I'd say there's only a 10% chance he bungholed any babies.

Nyah, nyah, Shooty!

I didn't want to be an elite anyway!

One of the weirdest linguistic developments of my life is the word "elite" becoming pejorative.

For me it's guys calling other guys their b!tches and it not starting fights.

This seems bizarre. Is B12 somehow restricted Stateside? I can buy it at Shopper's in the overpriced hippy pills section, in cash, nobody knowing who I am.

B12 vitamins are not restricted; injectable B12 is. But as you can imagine, it's about as high a law enforcement priority as jaywalking is; if you want to get it 'under the table,' you're not exactly taking a big risk.

And, obviously, McNamee was by his own admission illegally getting hGH, so it's not too big a stretch to think he might have gotten B12...

I didn't want to be an elite anyway!

That's a relief, because you're common as dirt.

What has the "BTF Elite" accused Pettitte of?

Changing his story,

Well, gee, Andy. He did change his story.

bad memory,

Here again, he admits he may have had a bad memory. Beginning in 2005, after talking with Clemens about the 1999/2000 conversation, he accepted that he may have misremembered the earlier conversation.

selling out his teammate for leniency,

Nobody accused him of this, and the claim makes utterly no sense anyway.

probably using HGH over a much longer timeframe than he's admitted to, etc.

People have noted that he's admitted only what he was caught with, and no more. That doesn't mean he "probably" did something else. In any event, is that an unfair observation?

That's a relief, because you're common as dirt.

I'm just folksy.

That's a relief, because you're common as dirt.

Can you set up a live camera so we can watch the tropical birds attacking you and pecking your eyes out for sullying their King?

I still don't understand how Clemens is supposed to have thrown these people under the bus.

What's totally bizarre is the idea that he threw Pettitte under the bus. Perhaps I missed something, but I don't remember Clemens accusing Pettitte of doing anything except misunderstanding a conversation that had taken place several years earlier.

To take a step back, Pettitte is really the dog that hasn't barked in all of this, isn't he? He trained with Clemens for years, practically living with him, but he had no personal evidence of Clemens using anything illegal except for that one half-remembered conversation about HgH. Pettitte would know more about Clemens' potential PED use than anyone other than McNamee, and has been shown to be willing to throw Clemens under the bus, but he's never said a word about any use of steroids.

People have noted that he's admitted only what he was caught with, and no more. That doesn't mean he "probably" did something else. In any event, is that an unfair observation?

Not necessarily, but if you're looking at the case from another perspective, one that assumes that Clemens is merely stonewalling, neither is this:

For players like Clemens, the fix was in for more than a decade. Life was good. They had a clueless commissioner, an immoral union, an ignorant media and a handful of useful idiots on Capitol Hill.

or this:

And for our next witness, we call Mr. Roger Clemens... I mean, B-12, Roger? Is that really going to be your defense? Your personal trainer and friend, McNamee, injected Pettitte, Chuck Knoblauch and your own wife with performance-enhancing drugs - they all admit it now - but when he pulled out your syringe, you said, “Just B-12 for me today, Mac. Steroids would be wrong.

As the saying goes, YMMV or whatever. AFAIC I'm willing to see how the trial develops, but that won't be until next April. I hope that Clemens is 100% exonerated, though at this point I'm not betting on it.

But to return to the only point I was trying to make in the first place: What in the hell is an "Elite Sportswriter"? Have you ever used that term to describe, say, Posnanski, or Roger Angell? And if all you mean is "a sportswriter who writes for an Elite Newspaper," shouldn't your standard there be somewhat higher than trash tabloids like the Boston Herald or the New York Daily News? AFAICT you use it in precisely the same way as Sarah Palin, as a shorthand method of identifying anyone with a college degree whom you're trying to discredit.

What's totally bizarre is the idea that he threw Pettitte under the bus. Perhaps I missed something, but I don't remember Clemens accusing Pettitte of doing anything except misunderstanding a conversation that had taken place several years earlier.

Yes, that's the sum total of what Clemens has said about Pettitte.

The thing is that they both could be telling the truth and Clemens could still be innocent, because Pettitte for years accepted that he may have misunderstood the conversation. (He didn't think that he did, but he accepted that he may have.)

And not that I subscribe to this (no sane person would blame Pettitte for deciding to tell the truth under oath), but if either of them "threw the other under the bus," it was Pettitte, when he said he thought Clemens told him in 1999/2000 that Clemens had used hgh. The logical conclusion of people thinking Pettitte's testimony is damning to Clemens is that Pettitte essentially snitched on Clemens, ratted him out, once placed under oath -- but yet these same people think it was _Clemens_ who was doing the under-the-bus throwing?

The argument for Clemens throwing Pettitte under the bus is irrational: "Andy misremembered the converstation" accuses Pettitte of nothing other than having a misunderstanding -- not even of being dishonest.

To take a step back, Pettitte is really the dog that hasn't barked in all of this, isn't he? He trained with Clemens for years, practically living with him, but he had no personal evidence of Clemens using anything illegal except for that one half-remembered conversation about HgH. Pettitte would know more about Clemens' potential PED use than anyone other than McNamee, and has been shown to be willing to throw Clemens under the bus, but he's never said a word about any use of steroids.

Yes, I've made that point before. That's what strikes me the most about Pettitte's testimony -- the lack of bite in it. Everyone thought Pettitte would be able to tell story after story of Clemens's alleged usage; instead, Pettitte witnessed nothing, saw nothing, knew nothing except one half baked conversation from almost a decade earlier.

But to return to the only point I was trying to make in the first place: What in the hell is an "Elite Sportswriter"? Have you ever used that term to describe, say, Posnanski, or Roger Angell? And if all you mean is "a sportswriter who writes for an Elite Newspaper," shouldn't your standard there be somewhat higher than trash tabloids like the Boston Herald or the New York Daily News? AFAICT you use it in precisely the same way as Sarah Palin, as a shorthand method of identifying anyone with a college degree whom you're trying to discredit.

You're hung up on this for some bizarre reason, but I typed the phrase without thinking about it for more than a split second, if at all. If you don't like the term "Elite Sportswriter," I'll change it and call Callahan an "Idiot Sportswriter." Happy now?

If you don't like the term "Elite Sportswriter," I'll change it and call Callahan an "Idiot Sportswriter." Happy now?

You're excused on the grounds of being a Daily News reader who doesn't know any better, but don't let me see you do it again.

Ray, you devote an awful lot of your time an energy defending Clemens.

Ray, you devote an awful lot of your time an energy defending Clemens.

He should spend more of his time learning what a real elite looks like.

Here again, he admits he may have had a bad memory. Beginning in 2005, after talking with Clemens about the 1999/2000 conversation, he accepted that he may have misremembered the earlier conversation.

Does someone have a link for this? I was telling someone at work about this yesterday and when he challenged me on it I was unable to provide a link. A quick look at Wikipedia doesn't help.

Ray, you devote an awful lot of your time an energy defending Clemens.

Nobody else is going to call out these idiot sportswriters.

It's not the amount time he spends defending him, but the encylopedic knowledge about every detail of the Clemens case at his fingertips that impresses me. And, quite frankly, frightens me a little bit too.

Roger Clemens is one of the most downtrodden athletes of modern times.

Does someone have a link for this? I was telling someone at work about this yesterday and when he challenged me on it I was unable to provide a link. A quick look at Wikipedia doesn't help.

It's in Pettitte's commitee deposition. Link here. Don't bother with media reports; better to go straight to the source.

I can't seem to cut and paste for some reason, but the discussion about the 1999 conversation starts on page 20. The part you're looking for starts on page 25. Basically, Pettitte says that when Clemens told him during the 2005 conversation that Clemens never told Pettitte he had used HGH, Pettitte's reaction was:

"Well, obviously I was a little confused and flustered. But after that, I was like, well, obviously I must have misunderstood him... The conversation wasn't very long. That was really the end of the conversation. Just when he said that, I was like, oh, just kind of walked out. I wasn't going to argue with him over it. You know."

Also:

Question: ... Do you think it's likely that you did misunderstand what Clemens had told you then?...

Answer: I'm saying that I was under the impression that he told me that he had taken it. And then when Roger told me that he didn't take it, and I misunderstood him, I took it for that, that I misunderstood him.

On page 98, later in the deposition, Pettitte seems a little more certain:

Question: You recollect a conversation with Mr. Clemens in 1999. Your recollection is that he said he was taking human growth hormone?

Answer: Yes.

Question: And you have no doubt about that recollection?

Answer: I mean, no. I mean, he told me that.

By the way, as to the 1999 conversation, it (like the 2005 conversation) was very short. Basically, Pettitte can't remember any specifics about the conversation, other than he came away from it thinking Clemens had told him he took HGH.

During questioning this is as much as Pettitte could half remember about the 1999 conversation (during which he thinks Clemens told him he had used HGH). Most of this was brought out from leading questions:

* He thinks the conversation took place at Clemens's house.
* He wasn't surprised to hear Clemens say it (or, rather, surprise wasn't an emotion that went through his head) - he was just curious.
* Clemens had never told him that before.
* He doesn't think Clemens was suggesting it would be a good idea for Pettitte to use it.
* Clemens didn't tell him where he had gotten it from.
* He doesn't remember whether Clemens told him why he was using it, or what it did for him.
* They were just talking. They weren't joking or anything at the time.
* Clemens never told him the pros and cons of using it.
* He "wants to think" (he is completely unsure) that all Clemens said was that Clemens had heard that it helped your body recover.

Several times Pettitte repeats that he has such a vague recollection of the conversation that he is afraid he's saying more than he remembers.

Thanks Ray

It's not the amount time he spends defending him, but the encylopedic knowledge about every detail of the Clemens case at his fingertips that impresses me. And, quite frankly, frightens me a little bit too.

Or as the kid in the famous New Yorker cartoon said in his oral book report to his sixth grade class, "This book tells me much more about penguins than I really cared to know."

But hey, this is BTF, and we've all been guilty of that sort of thing more often than we'd like to admit. And besides, penguins are our first line of defense against an ICBM from Red China.

In any event, is that an unfair observation?

. . .neither is this:

For players like Clemens, the fix was in for more than a decade. Life was good. They had a clueless commissioner, an immoral union, an ignorant media and a handful of useful idiots on Capitol Hill.

An immoral union? For sticking up for the players and not caving in to owners who had illegally colluded against them and proved to be completely untrustworthy?

A handful of useful idiots? There are more than a handful, and they are essentially useless.

In any event, is that an unfair observation?

. . .neither is this:

Srul, why did you omit the full context of what I wrote? Why the three dots instead of the 21 words? Were you running out of virtual ink?

People have noted that he's admitted only what he was caught with, and no more. That doesn't mean he "probably" did something else. In any event, is that an unfair observation?

Not necessarily, but if you're looking at the case from another perspective, one that assumes that Clemens is merely stonewalling, neither is this:

Plus this:

As the saying goes, YMMV or whatever. AFAIC I'm willing to see how the trial develops, but that won't be until next April. I hope that Clemens is 100% exonerated, though at this point I'm not betting on it.

Again, my only real objection was to the tiresomely phony use of "Elite" to describe sportswriters who don't share Ray's perspective. It wasn't because I'm assuming that those perspectives are correct. Time will tell who's right or wrong about their assumptions in the Clemens case.

Andy, why is it that you're the person here who most complains that he's been taken out of context? I suppose someone has to be the one to most complain, but you're forever going back to post entire sections of a discussion, with highlights. As if we can't read for ourselves.

Again, my only real objection was to the tiresomely phony use of "Elite" to describe sportswriters who don't share Ray's perspective.

As I said, I used the word without much of a thought. In any event, if you'd like me to expand on my comments here, what I was trying to get at with my use of "elite" was the smug, holier-than-thou attitude exhibited by many sportswriters.

I didn't defend my usage of "elite" when you challenged me since I'm not sure that's the right word; I see nothing wrong with elitism. Though it helps if one actually is superior somehow; sportswriters generally are not.

Time will tell who's right or wrong about their assumptions in the Clemens case.

I haven't made any conclusion about whether Clemens is guilty, so I don't know what "time" will "tell" about anything I've written. All we can do is examine the facts we have at our disposal. My position is simply that the case against him, based on what we know now, is not nearly as strong as almost everyone believes. People think it's 99.9% that he's guilty. Based on what I know now I wouldn't say he's been shown guilty by even a preponderance. Virtually the entire case, as far as we know it, rests on the word of a self-confessed multiple liar.

And besides, penguins are our first line of defense against an ICBM from Red China.

penguin:China::Palin:Russia?

I clerked for the judge presiding over this case. He's extremely smart and fair, and can be counted on to run the proceedings conscientiously. He is, however, self-admittedly tough on criminal defendants at the sentencing phase, so if Clemens is found guilty (or pleads) I wouldn't expect particular leniency.

Andy, why is it that you're the person here who most complains that he's been taken out of context? I suppose someone has to be the one to most complain, but you're forever going back to post entire sections of a discussion, with highlights. As if we can't read for ourselves.

Well, if you'd always respond to the full context of what I write the first time around, it wouldn't be necessary. I do notice that it's only a handful of people who seem to regularly cherry pick the parts to respond to, and I also notice that the two greatest offenders are lawyers. And when the shoe fits, wear it.

Look, when someone knocks what I've said in good faith, I take it that way, and will try to answer them in a similar manner. And if someone simply wants to make a one line snark, that's OK, too, since snark is a part of the game here. All I object to is when someone either deliberately or inadvertently seizes upon a part of what I wrote, when quoting the larger part would have given my words a different implication. You may notice that when I respond to others, I'm careful not to cherrypick their words myself, because all it does is to lead to a whole bunch of extraneous back-and-forth. Much better to respond to the full context the first time around; do that and I won't feel the need for all those copy and paste jobs.

I didn't defend my usage of "elite" when you challenged me since I'm not sure that's the right word; I see nothing wrong with elitism. Though it helps if one actually is superior somehow; sportswriters generally are not.

I don't disagree with that at all, and in fact one of my underlying objections to your initial statement is that it was factually incorrect. I haven't seen any of the truly "elite" writers like Posnanski or Angell using the sort of rhetoric that you quoted from that Boston tabloid writer. And in general, my point is that these days "elite" is little more than a perjorative, pidgin populist term which means nothing more than "you don't agree with me, so you're fair game."

I haven't made any conclusion about whether Clemens is guilty, so I don't know what "time" will "tell" about anything I've written. All we can do is examine the facts we have at our disposal. My position is simply that the case against him, based on what we know now, is not nearly as strong as almost everyone believes. People think it's 99.9% that he's guilty. Based on what I know now I wouldn't say he's been shown guilty by even a preponderance. Virtually the entire case, as far as we know it, rests on the word of a self-confessed multiple liar.

I hope you're right, and hell, I hope you're right about Bonds, too. One can be a steroids hardliner and still not get any real pleasure out of seeing some of the greatest players of our era succumb to the temptation of the needle.

He is, however, self-admittedly tough on criminal defendants at the sentencing phase, so if Clemens is found guilty (or pleads) I wouldn't expect particular leniency.

Yeah, IIRC, federal sentencing guidelines for Libby were 15-21 months, and he threw 30 months at Libby.

And besides, penguins are our first line of defense against an ICBM from Red China.

penguin:China::Palin:Russia?

Yes, and in more ways than one.

Yeah, IIRC, federal sentencing guidelines for Libby were 15-21 months, and he threw 30 months at Libby.

Untrue, actually, although popularly misreported. Without getting into too much detail (I was there for the Libby case, and I worked on the sentencing stuff), 30 months was at the bottom of the applicable sentencing guideline range (30-37 months). See here, here, and here.

Thanks, Ace.