what do you think 'bout roger after the interview??

Roger looked pretty nervous !
Judging by all the eye blinking, I say he's lying !

Liar,Liar pants on fire....:af:

I believe him! And by the way....he can't prove his innocence any more than they can prove his guilt....its one persons word against another persons word......so let it go!:hs:

I believe him! And by the way....he can't prove his innocence any more than they can prove his guilt....its one persons word against another persons word......so let it go!:hs:



Same go for Bonds???

Do you believe Barry Bonds also???

larry- you really believe him? :doh:

larry- you really believe him? :doh:

Larry probable thinks the Pats will beat Jacksonville by 70 points next sat !

Larry probable thinks the Pats will beat Jacksonville by 70 points next sat !

Maybe not by 70..40 Probably...:wiggle:

Yeah I do! He, as he said won a Cy in 97'....a year before he supposedly took his first shot and also in 04'.....3 years after his last "alleged" shot???? Sounds pretty strange??? Bonds......well.....didn't he "claim" he may have "unknowingly":doh: been injected with steroids???? Also steroids and HGH are 2 different substances! I also do not believe Clemens would be pitching at this late date if he used them as they do wear you down physically! Oh.....and Bonds was a mediocre player until he began using steroids.....check the stats and his build.....Clemens was always Clemens and his build only gained weight...not muscle!

He was sweating bullets,kept looking at the floor and was blinking eyes like crazy. How could he have no idea about Petite?Your counsel should have advised you not to do this interview.Watch his eyes after he answers questions - straight down.Would love to have gotten the uncut version of the interview......
"I was eatin' Vioxx like it was skittles!"
He was probably eating mcnuggets like they were skittles too.
"I've trained hard my entire career" - except the last three years in Boston.

Maybe its just me but I never saw him look at the floor once......and did not notice him blinking any more than someone needs to blink?:huh: Sweating.....them lights is hot!

[QUOTE=BigFish;552929]Yeah I do! He, as he said won a Cy in 97'....a year before he supposedly took his first shot and also in 04'.....3 years after his last "alleged" shot???? Sounds pretty strange??? Bonds......well.....didn't he "claim" he may have "unknowingly":doh: been injected with steroids???? Also steroids and HGH are 2 different substances! I also do not believe Clemens would be pitching at this late date if he used them as they do wear you down physically! Oh.....and Bonds was a mediocre player until he began using steroids...



Larry,
You should invest in a fresh air respirator for when you paint your plugs !

Why Ron.....its my opinion and I am entitled to it...not to mention you asked!

Pats by 50!:kewl:

Bonds was a mediocre player before 'roids? :confused: :doh:

Did Roger actually claim he was taking lidocaine shots in the rump for pain in his knees? :rotf3:

Yeah Mike....you ever look at his Pittsburg stats? He wasn't burning it up!

"Bonds a mediocre player before he took them"

His stats were ok....I always found him talented but lazy.....he won 2 MVP awards with Pitt....33 homeruns 114 RBI and batted .301. Those are pretty lame numbers for MVP! His MVP years where he hit 49 homeruns and 73 homeruns he only had 147 hits and 156 hits respectively........RBIs 106 and 137 respectively.....pretty lame considering his homerun output!!! That adds up to steroids to me? Go study his numbers......they are slanted!

His stats were ok....I always found him talented but lazy.....he won 2 MVP awards with Pitt....33 homeruns 114 RBI and batted .301. Those are pretty lame numbers for MVP! His MVP years where he hit 49 homeruns and 73 homeruns he only had 147 hits and 156 hits respectively........RBIs 106 and 137 respectively.....pretty lame considering his homerun output!!! That adds up to steroids to me? Go study his numbers......they are slanted!

He was also stealing 30 - 40 bases a year!

Do you think he will testify in front of Congress? I believe that he would have to be under oath.

Do you think there wil be a defamation lawsuit filed this week?

He has been ordered to appear and I think he will!

My biggest question is why didn't he file a defamation of character suit against the trainer????? He defamed Rogers name first and were there a suit filed then the trainer would have to have proof of his allegations or he would lose his case? MikeP.....what do you think?

My bet is that Andy Petite knows the truth.
Maybe he will be called by congress!

Gee, does anyone think race has anything to do with why you beleive who did what? Judging by the tones of the radio voices....I think they do.

weei

Petite, Clemens and the trainor have all been ordered to appear!

Oh boy...:hidin:Guilty

Did Roger actually claim he was taking lidocaine shots in the rump for pain in his knees? :rotf3:


No he didn't say that
he answered Mike's question when he was asked if his trainer ever injected him with anything(he didn't say where it was injected )but you knew that.


Roger is in a state of denial

It sucks for me because I always liked him as a pitcher, except the period he tanked as a Red Sox, and I have his rookie card which by now has gone down in value I'm sure. :(

Gee, does anyone think race has anything to do with why you beleive who did what? Judging by the tones of the radio voices....I think they do.

weei

call radio always brings up race to everything

This country has far worse troubles and issues, but better late than never to cover moral issues in sports.

And why is the Government spending millions of dollars and untold hours on this issue????:hs:

And why is the Government spending millions of dollars and untold hours on this issue????:hs:
:splat:That's easy, to divert attention from real issues like the war and fuel costs and so many more that are dragging us down the toilet. :sick: :think: :realmad: :wall:

My biggest question is why didn't he file a defamation of character suit against the trainer????? He defamed Rogers name first and were there a suit filed then the trainer would have to have proof of his allegations or he would lose his case? MikeP.....what do you think?


What kind of assets does the trainer have? Suing someone who doesn't have money is a waste of time.

Besides, Clemens is a public figure, and as such he has a much more difficult job in winning any kind of defamation suit. As the plaintiff (the sue-er) he would have to show that the allegations were either maliciously false, or made with reckess disregard for the truth. And I'm sure that the first witness called by the defense to rebut Clemens would be Andy Pettite ;)

My biggest question is why didn't he file a defamation of character suit against the trainer????? He defamed Rogers name first and were there a suit filed then the trainer would have to have proof of his allegations or he would lose his case? MikeP.....what do you think?


Here's your answer...

Roger Clemens sues Brian McNamee for defamation

By RONALD BLUM, AP Baseball Writer
January 7, 2008

AP - Jan 7, 1:28 am EST

NEW YORK (AP) -- Roger Clemens beat Brian McNamee to court, filing a defamation suit against the former trainer who claimed to have injected him with performance-enhancing drugs.

Clemens filed the suit Sunday night in Harris County District Court in Texas, listing 15 alleged statements McNamee made to the baseball drug investigator George Mitchell. Clemens claimed the statement were "untrue and defamatory."

"According to McNamee, he originally made his allegations to federal authorities after being threatened with criminal prosecution if he didn't implicate Clemens," according to the 14-page petition, obtained early Monday by The Associated Press.

The suit, first reported by the Houston Chronicle, states that when McNamee told others that when he first was interviewed by federal law enforcement last June, he denied Clemens had used steroids or human growth hormone. The suit quotes McNamee as saying he was pressured by Assistant U.S. Attorney Matthew Parrella and IRS Special Agent Jeff Novitzky -- key members of the BALCO prosecution -- to implicate Clemens. The suit did not attribute where the quote from McNamee was obtained.

"After this exchange, and for the first time in his life, McNamee stated that he had injected Clemens with steroids in 1998, 2000 and 2001," the suit said. "Following his recantation, McNamee has relayed that he magically went from a `target' in a federal criminal drug investigation to a mere `witness,' so long as he continued to `toe the line."'

The suit said that when McNamee initially refused a request from federal authorities that he speak to Mitchell, he was threatened with prosecution. Clemens said McNamee decided only then to cooperate with Mitchell and the suit said McNamee told other the interview "was conducted like a Cold War-era interrogation in which a federal agent merely read to the Mitchell investigators McNamee's previously obtained statement and then asked McNamee to confirm what he previously stated."

Clemens asked that damages be determined by a jury.

"Clemens' good reputation has been severely injured," the suit said. "McNamee's false allegations have also caused Clemens to suffer mental anguish, shame, public humiliation and embarrassment."

McNamee's lawyers are likely to remove the case to U.S. District Court in Houston, since Clemens and McNamee reside in different states. McNamee also could ask that the suit be moved to federal court in New York.

The seven-time Cy Young Award winner, who was scheduled to hold a late afternoon news conference Monday in Houston, sounded indignant and defiant in a segment of CBS's "60 Minutes" broadcast Sunday night, his first interview since McNamee accused him. The two are approaching a potential confrontation if they testify under oath at a Jan. 16 hearing on Capitol Hill.

The most prominent player implicated in last month's Mitchell Report, Clemens steadfastly maintained his innocence and called McNamee's allegations "totally false."

"If he's doing that to me, I should have a third ear coming out of my forehead. I should be pulling tractors with my teeth," said Clemens, who wore a lavender button-down shirt during the interview, taped Dec. 28 at his home in Katy, Texas.

On Friday, when the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform invited Clemens and McNamee to testify, the pair spoke by telephone, an individual close to the situation said, speaking on condition of anonymity because public comments weren't authorized. The conversation first was reported Sunday by Newsday.

The individual would not say what was discussed.

Clemens' lawyer, Rusty Hardin, told the Chronicle that it was McNamee who arranged to talk to Clemens on Friday but instead of getting back to Clemens the conversation was leaked "with spin" to Newsday.

"We kept thinking McNamee might change his mind and come to his senses and admit he was lying," Hardin told the Chronicle.

McNamee also had been contemplating a suit.

"We welcome a lawsuit. It makes our decision easy," Richard Emery, one of McNamee's lawyers, said earlier Sunday. "If he sued McNamee, it would make things very simple."

During the "60 Minutes" segment, Clemens said he might be willing to take a lie-detector test and was "shocked" close friend Andy Pettitte used HGH. He said -- again -- that he probably will retire.

A fiery look in his eyes and stubble on his face, Clemens told CBS's Mike Wallace that he would have spoken with Mitchell had he been aware of McNamee's accusations.

"I thought it was an impassioned, disingenuous and desperate plea," said Earl Ward, McNamee's primary lawyer.

One of the few revelations in the much-hyped interview came when Clemens was asked whether he conceivably would take a lie detector test.

"Yeah," he answered. "I don't know if they're good or bad."

After Monday's news conference will come the congressional hearing. Pettitte, former Yankees teammate Chuck Knoblauch and former Mets clubhouse attendant Kirk Radomski, who allegedly supplied McNamee with performance-enhancing drugs, also were asked to appear before the committee.

Lawyers for Clemens and McNamee have said their clients are willing to testify but Hardin wouldn't commit to the date.

Emery said he wanted to hear testimony from Clemens.

"If Congress calls him, he pretty much has to take the Fifth, and if he takes the Fifth, nobody will ever believe him again and all this effort has gone down the drain," Emery said. "And if he doesn't take the Fifth, it's very hard to imagine that a prosecutor isn't going to pursue this. So I think he's put himself in a terrible corner."

Clemens said his lawyer advised him not to speak with Mitchell, who spent 20 months on his investigation.

"If I would've known what this man, what Brian McNamee (had) said in this report, I would have been down there in a heartbeat to take care of it," Clemens said.

Only two active players, Jason Giambi and Frank Thomas, spoke with Mitchell, a Boston Red Sox director and a former Senate majority leader.

In excerpts of the CBS interview that were released Thursday, Clemens said McNamee injected him with vitamin B-12 and the painkiller lidocaine. In the full 14-minute broadcast, Clemens also said he was given an injection of toradol under the supervision of the New York Yankees.

McNamee told Mitchell he injected Clemens with steroids and HGH about 16 to 21 times during 1998, 2000 and 2001 -- before baseball players and owners agreed to ban performance-enhancing substances.

Eighth on the career list with 354 wins, the 45-year-old Clemens said he was angered McNamee's accusations have been accepted as truth by some.

"It's hogwash for people to even assume this," Clemens said. "Twenty-four, 25 years, Mike. You'd think I'd get an inch of respect. An inch."

Clemens said the descriptions McNamee gave Mitchell of injections "never happened."

"If I have these needles and these steroids and all these drugs, where did I get 'em?" he said. "Where is the person out there (who) gave 'em to me? Please, please come forward."

Here's your answer...

Roger Clemens sues Brian McNamee for defamation


McNamee also had been contemplating a suit.

"We welcome a lawsuit. It makes our decision easy," Richard Emery, one of McNamee's lawyers, said earlier Sunday. "If he sued McNamee, it would make things very simple."


Precisely. The plaintiff has the burden of proof. By suing McNamee first, Roger's taken on quite a task.

I believed him. I think he had nothing to gain by going on the 60 minutes show or filing the suit if he was guilty. He would have just kept himself quiet and faded away. Now he will have to follow up on his not guilty claims and so why do it unless he was innocent.

Anyway , It may eventually come out that the trainer was spiking or substituting the B12 shots with steroids without Clemens knowing?

MikeP......if Roger is suing Macnamee for defamation.....doesn't that mean that Macnamee must prove beyond a doubt that Roger actually did use HGH??? After all....he is the one making the claim??? If he cannot prove it then he will be found liable for defaming Roger Clemens character.....right?

MikeP......if Roger is suing Macnamee for defamation.....doesn't that mean that Macnamee must prove beyond a doubt that Roger actually did use HGH??? After all....he is the one making the claim??? If he cannot prove it then he will be found liable for defaming Roger Clemens character.....right?

I think its the other way around....Roger has the burden of proof and must prove that the statements made were false. he's the one who is suing so he has to have evidence that shows that MacNamee was lying.

Well....as usual given the judiciary system, that makes no sense to me what so ever! If Mcnamee is making the statement then he should need to carry the burden of the proof of his statement!!!

Mike P's answere will be ineteresting but i would hope that if you say so and so is a thief , you need to prove it if sued for saying it. I don't believe Roger has to prove anything about the truth or not , just dispute what was said. I believe he does have to prove or give some evidence of the dollar amounts he is claiming as damages. I would also think that since its civil , not criminal , the burden is for a prepoderance of evidence , not for proof beyond a resonable doubt.

Well....as usual given the judiciary system, that makes no sense to me what so ever! If Mcnamee is making the statement then he should need to carry the burden of the proof of his statement!!!

Think about it....if someone sues you, don't you want them to have to prove your the Guilty One....Clemens is Suing MacNamee so he has to be the one that has to have the proof MacNamee is guilty....actually makes perfect sense

I think Rocket is a LIAR, why would he get Lidocaine (pain relief) shots in buttocks?


6. Can you get pain relief in your joints by injecting lidocaine into your, well, buttocks?

Dr. Dombrowski: No. Never. Unless Clemens was limited by hip pain or whatever in his buttocks, then no, that's not what you do. You use big deep muscles for injecting steroids. But you would never treat shoulder or elbow pain in that way. If what he was injected with was truly lidocaine, his butt cheek would be numb. And that's it.

Dr. Dretchen: Just a blind injection into the gluteus area, that would be a strange usage of the drug. When you go to the dentist, would you get an injection into your arm? Of course not.

the above comes from --> http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/page2/story?page=hruby/080107

Think about it....if someone sues you, don't you want them to have to prove your the Guilty One....Clemens is Suing MacNamee so he has to be the one that has to have the proof MacNamee is guilty....actually makes perfect sense


That does not make sense Kevin.......Mcnamee has gone on record as saying Clemens did use HGH, and that he himself (Mcnamee) injected it....so isn't it up to him to prove what he himself has gone on record with the Mitchell report as saying? I think so!

I agree with Saltheart!

For Example....If I say Brittany Spears is a Chitty Parent, I made a statement that makes her look bad, and then she Sues me for Defamation of Character. I did say something derogatory about that person and I said it on the record, but, Is it true or Is it False?

She's Suing me so she needs to be the one that proves that what I said about her is false and that I said it to ruin her Publically.

I think she'd lose this lawsuit....:hee:

That does not make sense Kevin.......Mcnamee has gone on record as saying Clemens did use HGH, and that he himself (Mcnamee) injected it....so isn't it up to him to prove what he himself has gone on record with the Mitchell report as saying? I think so!

I agree with Saltheart!

its pretty clear. the person doing the suing has to do the proving. it couldn't work any other way.

I have to disagree! It should be the other way around! I say...."SHOULD BE"! Why should Roger have to clear his name???? He did not bring this up...Mcnamee did.....so in my eyes.....Mcnamee bears the burden as he is the one making accusations.......you say I took HGH??? Prove it!

I think Clemens has to prove he actually said it. That should be easy. Its in the mitchell report and mitchell , etc report he said it. I think he went on tv and repeated it (didn't he?) so no problem with Roger proving he said it and said it publically enough to damage Clemens reputation which could effect his employment , endorsemenst , etc.

After that , mcnamee has to then prove what he said was true. If he can prove its true , then he cannot be sued for defamation. Truth is an absolute defense. If he can't prove its true , he should be held liable for saying it in a public fashion that damages Clemens.

Thats what I think SH!

You are a "Super Moderator"!:wave:

I have said it before, what a complete wast of time and money and it's not good for the game of Baseball or any other sport,,,,,,,
Now moving forward, just give them blood testing and their will never be any issues , How can I be the only one who is this Freakin smart!

Until Mike P tells us the real law and we find out we are both all wet! :)

I would be surprised if its any other way SH......but what do I know....it only makes sense soooooo.......you know!

Clemens is what's known as a public figure. That means he has a very heavy burden to prove a defamation case.

Us ordinary citizens have an easier job. We only have to show two things--one that a false statement was made, and two, that the false statement was "published" to a third partry. And in a case of slander (oral defamation) we have to additionally show damage to our reputation as a result. In a libel (written defamation) case, all we have to show is that the written statement was false and that it was published--damages are presumed (it's called defamation per se) The amount of damages is naturally up to the jury to decide.

The law is different with "public figures", ie, politicians and celebrities. Under the doctrine of NY Times v. Sullivan, they must go beyond showing that a statement was false. They must also prove that the person made it maliciously (knowingly false with the intent to harm the defamed party), or with what's called "reckless disregard for the truth". Part and parcel of this burden of proof is demonstrating that the statement was false to begin with.

Why is everyone living in the past :whackin:

MOVE FORWARD...........Blood testing is the only way to go,am I wrong????

Why is everyone living in the past :whackin:

MOVE FORWARD...........Blood testing is the only way to go,am I wrong????

Dam your Freakin smart!

its pretty clear. the person doing the suing has to do the proving. it couldn't work any other way.

Exactly, ZacS and that is where Roger is going to have his hands full.

What's next, suing George Mitchell?

How's about the Feds?

What about his lockerroom shower pal, Petite. Or a subpeona for his buddy ~Andy, his former team mates, coaches, the guy from the Mets.

Roger has either knowingly or unwittingly opened up one HUGE can of worms that I find it very hard to believe some lawyer advised him to do. The burden of proof lies on his side of the court and is nothing short of a litigical Mt Washington to prove. That is, unless their allegations are true and the Feds, George Mitchell, and McNamee ALL had it in for the Big Guy.

As to the interview, where was the sincerity?

All I came away with was a big steaming pile of carefully crafted LEGALESE and a response that was rife with numerous examples of plausible deniability, wrapped around several exit scenarios, enveloped by layers of heresay and bold-faced lies.

Where was the calm and steadied look,
directly into the camera categorically denying
any involvement with Mr McNamee and ped laden needles?

Instead, enter plausible deniability "He shot me with B-12 and ladocaine, to the best of my knowledge, ie 'that's what he told me it was'" Exit stategy #1.

Where was his ability to demonstrate heart-felt conviction?
I understand that one would be irate and steaming about being falsely accused, as I was wrongly accused of some domestic violence BS by a nut-job psychotic beetch in FL, some 10 years ago.

I had no team of lawyers, just one, and just before I was about to sign up for the anger mgmt courses that I had to pay $60/wk for and that would only reduce my sentence to probation and mar my record for life, I looked at the interviewer and said "NOPE! I am not signing this piece of paper that says I did this. Take me to court, call in a jury, I never laid a hand on her and I will not admit to something that I DID NOT DO!"

Instead, enter heresay and Roger's camp stating that McNamee was coerced into lying to stay out of jail. Are we to believe that the Mitchell Report is erroneous about Roger based on McNamee's false testimony and the related BALCO investigations but correct about everyone else that they implicated? Did Senator Mitchell and his staff somehow drop the ball when Roger's name surfaced? Wouldn't they be that much more vigilant full-knowing the profundity of such an allegation to an icon of Roger's magnitude and financial resources? "How do I defend a negative? I'm already guilty before I can assemble my high powered lawyers, woe is me. I get no respect, not one inch/ounce!!" Exit strategy #2.

Where is the contrition or the inkling of credibility?

When we pause to consider that HGH does not pump one up, that HGH is more supplemental than developmental, and that it is designed to be more pitcher, defensive safety, relief pitcher, and rehab/recovery friendly than say anabolics ~which would reveal "third ears on foreheads and allow for the pulling of tractors by one's teeth" as Roger so ridiculously opines~ does it not cause us to conclude that there really isn't an eye test for HGH. To even suggest the opposite and obvious, for me, proves the reverse ~or the very thing that he knows cannot be seen and will not be tested for anytime soon.

And while Roget won't be taking any lie detector tests EVER, how many of us believe that he will be submitting to any blood tests to fully and completely exonerate himself? I mean if he is TRULY innocent, why not go the follicle and blood tests routes? Or would that be too easy and too revealing all at once?

Instead enter lies, shadows of the truth, and reasonable doubt. Sure would prevent him from "spending millions upon millions" and would remove the necessity for the alleged drug dealer to "Please, please come forward." "I am the VICTIM, I have been falsely accused!!!" Exit strategy #3.

Still one helluvalot of shat to go down Regarding Roger. Sure would've been nice to see him ride off into the sunset three, four, or seven years ago, stats intact and Cy Young's untainted.............
Guess he thought there was more to prove~~~ with or without the HGH, most likely WITH.

Just doan tell me that Nolan Ryan (GPitcherOAT) was on the shat,
or then MY whole Bissball world will crumble :liquify:. I still LOVE the game, and want nothing more deeply than for everyoine to come clean and that includes MLB. At least being my age I am old enough to have known MLB before, during, and after The Steroid Era.

Is it after yet? I sure hope so, because the Olde Town Team has at least tree or four more WS Titles to WIN in the years ahead, and i sure as hell doan want us to be lumped in with tha juicer losers, yo! GO SOX!!!

Yeah I do! He, as he said won a Cy in 97'....a year before he supposedly took his first shot and also in 04'.....3 years after his last "alleged" shot???? Sounds pretty strange???

With regards to '97, that was when he was in his "prime" so the roids would be uneccessary.

With '04 if he's lying about his use before, why would he tell the truth about 2001-2004? Also "the heat" could've been awn by then, as clearly the whole "drugs in pro sports dynamic" was undergoing a major change during those times. Additionally, couldn't Roger have gone to someone else besides McNamee that has yet to be collared by the Feds or Senator Mitchell, thereby removing a piece of the discovery puzzle?

There are still way too many names on the peripheral side of this investigation for me to feel completely informed, and we won't have any info of a definitve nature until all parties are somehow allowed to come forward under some blanket umbrella of immunity that would implicate EVERYONE and FREE us ALL from this horrific stigma that just keeps getting worse and worse.

Blood tests yes, VB! Immunity, yes!! Selig, NO! Hall of Fame, NO! Chalk it up as a tainted and dark era of MLB and let's move on.

One positive that could come from this, if the research allows, is that we may have designed a newer and more effective cortzone, HGH. How many players from the turn of the century to the 60's ever thought that one day they'd be shooting cortozone into themselves to get them through an injury. Back then it was take two(10) Bufferins and grit yer teeth, or chew on some leather. Seems archaic now, and so doesn't cortozone when faced with this wonder drug, HGH when administered under medical supervision and available to all teams and all players on an equal and need to use basis? Friend or foe? Only time will tell.......................and only time will heal this current dilemma before us.

In the end, it all boils down to the question that Roger doesn't have a good answer for--why is McNamee telling the truth about shooting Pettite in the ass, and lying about Clemens?

97' was his prime but 98' wasn't?:smash:

Did you here his taped phone call with MacNamee?

McNamee: "What do you want me to do?"

Roger: "ummm, I dunno"

====> How about: "You friggin lied about me taking the crap, why did you do that???? I'm pissed off and I want you to publically acknowledge that you lied"!. Thats what I would expect from someone who was truly innocent

97' was his prime but 98' wasn't?:smash:

I haven't been as huge a Roger fan as you are, so I don't know if he did or didn't win one in '98. But until the Big Guy submits to some form of DNA testing, with the Mitchell Report staring at us point blankly, am I supposed to believe Roger ~~because he's Roger~~ and assume that Senator Mitchell and his staff got it wrong about the Rocket and got it right about everyone else? Does that really make any sense to you, Larry?

Similar to Nixon "I am not a crook", LIAR!!

"I did not have sexual relations with that woman", LIAR!!

"There ARE weapons of mass destruction in Iraq", LIAR!!

"That's all hogwarsh! I never did it, it never happened", LIAR??

Did you here his taped phone call with MacNamee?

McNamee: "What do you want me to do?"

Roger: "ummm, I dunno"

====> How about: "You friggin lied about me taking the crap, why did you do that???? I'm pissed off and I want you to publically acknowledge that you lied"!. Thats what I would expect from someone who was truly innocent

YUP!! What toonoc said!!!

Rather basic, isn't it? As well did anyone else notice the distinction between family and the alleged deeds. Notice how they kept the dirty deeds separate? More telling, for me, was how neither of the conversants on the tape went to the truth issue........................

McNamee never said, "I did tell the truth about those drugs you wanted me to inject you with".

Or, "Roger, I am so sorry but they coerced me into saying that they were looking for the biggest fish in the sea, and I HAD to throw your name out there or they were going to lock me up and throw away the key. Yep, let's both sue these lying, cheating bastages!!!"

Lastly, if that was someone 'who i treated like family' that was knowingly lying wouldn't he/she have been apologetic about the act of lying? Instead we get no mention of the alleged drug use and a sheet load of sidestepping and legal positioning. Not very convincing, for either side, imho!! Very damaging to the Clemens camp that McNamee afterwards states that Roger knows that he is lying............

I think roger has to be very careful about what he said on that phone call because he is under legal advise. For those of you who have ever been under legal advise for something at work or anything like that it really sucks because you want to just ask the question and bring it out in the open, but you can't. The lawyers don't want him to :hang: himself by doing something that could lead to obstruction of justice,l especially before a meeting with Congress.

It is very sad what people are saying and how they will not give Clemens the benefit of the doubt. Who here believes that for 10 years roger clemens has been taking performance enhancing drugs???

His lack of flat out denial and his not answering questions directly yesterday lead me to think he is guilty. I also do not understand why McNamee would lie about Roger but tell the truth about everyone else. Pettitte's admission doooms Clemens in my mind. But I honestly will never know and noone else will either except those who were in the room, Clemens and McNamee when he took the shots in the keister.

"Texas Con Man" - heh heh

Clemens got McDonough back though when he told the press that McDonough looked like someone set his face on fire and someone put it out with an icepick..

Who here believes that for 10 years roger clemens has been taking performance enhancing drugs???

Who here believes that for 10 years Barry Bonds has been taking performance enhancing drugs??

Why is it so easy to Believe Bonds did it but so hard for people to Believe Clemens did it.

I've been seeing a lot of Rookie Card to Later years comparisons....looks like Roger Bulked up a little too...

if he is innocent, why didn't he accuse McNamee of lying or ask why he lied during the recorded phone conversation. it seamed like he took more of a "how could you do this to me" (i.e. how could you rat me out like this) approach. I don't know what his lawyers were thinking playing that tape, you really have to be in Clemen's corner already to come away with anything positive out of that tape.

I think that he did it and I hope that its proven and that lots of other crap about him (adultery, etc.) comes out during the civil suite - all because he's so arrogant.

But if he is innocent, you gotta feel bad for the guy.

Kevin....take an early baseball card of Seaver or Ryan and a late career card......they all bulked up the same.....thats how power pitchers are built! That proves nothing...everyone changes over the years! Difference with Bonds is he put on muscle......and lots of it! How many players have a career year (73 homeruns?) at 38 years old??? Come on!

if he is innocent, why didn't he accuse McNamee of lying or ask why he lied during the recorded phone conversation. it seamed like he took more of a "how could you do this to me" (i.e. how could you rat me out like this) approach. I don't know what his lawyers were thinking playing that tape, you really have to be in Clemen's corner already to come away with anything positive out of that tape.

I think that he did it and I hope that its proven and that lots of other crap about him (adultery, etc.) comes out during the civil suite - all because he's so arrogant.

But if he is innocent, you gotta feel bad for the guy.

Adultery???? Where does that come from???:huh:

Kevin....take an early baseball card of Seaver or Ryan and a late career card......they all bulked up the same.....thats how power pitchers are built! That proves nothing...everyone changes over the years! Difference with Bonds is he put on muscle......and lots of it! How many players have a career year (73 homeruns?) at 38 years old??? Come on!

great point

My theory is that Macnamee probably indicated he had info on "big players" to get some deal for immunity. When all he really had was a 1 shot usage by petite with circumstances that may show medical nescessity , the immunity deal was in jeapody . he had to come up with something else so opted to make the stuff up about Roger. That was big enough new news to get him his immunity deal.

Anyway , that's how i see it right now.

My point wasn't the card, that just seems to be what people use to justify that someone used roids....that they bulked up.

My point is why is it so hard to believe that Roger did it and so Easy to believe that Bonds and others did.

Everybody says that look at Bonds he wasn't that big when he was a rookie look at the size of him now he must be juicing guilty Bastard.

But they see Roger, who was great when he was with us up until his last couple of years with us....where he became average....then he went to Toronto Met this guy MacNamee and started winning Cy Youngs again...then goes to New York takes MacNamee with him and wins another Cy Young....Now his Bestest buddy Pettite meets the guy, guy says he shoots e'm both up with the stuff. Pettite ADMITS that he was getting it from the guy....yet we still aren't supposedto believe that Roger did it.

C'mon

Dad's right. It does not look good for Roger no matter how you spin it...

But they see Roger, who was great when he was with us up until his last couple of years with us....where he became average....

C'mon

give me stats that tell me he was average and what years because they can all be argued the other way

That proves nothing...everyone changes over the years! Difference with Bonds is he put on muscle......and lots of it! How many players have a career year (73 homeruns?) at 38 years old??? Come on!


Yes we do--our once sculpted pecs become man-boobs, or even worse, merge with our expanding waistlines.

Take another look at Raw-juh. That isn't fat you see on him making up all that bulk. ;)

give me stats that tell me he was average and what years because they can all be argued the other way

His last 4 years with the Sox his record was

1993 11-14
1994 9-7
1995 10-5
1996 10-13

Not what I would Call Cy Young numbers

Here's another one.....

Clemens signed with the Yank-mees in 1999

1999 14-10
2000 13 -8

MacNamee signed on with the Yank-mees as the Strength and Conditioning coach in 2001

2001 20-3....and another Cy Young

After the 2001 season the Yank-mees let MacNamee go

2002 13-6

His last 4 years with the Sox his record was

1993 11-14
1994 9-7
1995 10-5
1996 10-13

Not what I would Call Cy Young numbers

in 94' clemens pitched 170 innings and had a 2.85 era and a whip of 1.143. Its just he was on the red sox who sucked record of 54 and 61

i'm not saying if clemens did or didn't i will give him the benefit of the doubt but if your basing it on performance you need to look at alot more than just wins and losses. :pop: That is the function of your team overall not just the individual. :huh:

in 94' clemens pitched 170 innings and had a 2.85 era and a whip of 1.143. Its just he was on the red sox who sucked record of 54 and 61

In 1994 it was strike shortened so he didn't have a full season, he may have tired out down the stretch, you never know

In 1995 he only had 140 innings...starting to show some signs of wear....granted in 1996 he pitched 240 innings....but his ERA also climbed considerably...still decent but was up almost a run per 9


you asked me to show you why I thought he was Average...this is why.

Today...if we brought in a Top Line Starting pitcher and he gave you a 40-39 record and he averaged 186 inning pitched per year for 4 years....wouldn't you consider that a dissapointment...thats pretty average stuff

Clemens career year for ERA was 2005, I see--at age 42. Pitching half of his games in the bandbox known as Minute Maid park.

My theory is that Macnamee probably indicated he had info on "big players" to get some deal for immunity. When all he really had was a 1 shot usage by petite with circumstances that may show medical nescessity , the immunity deal was in jeapody . he had to come up with something else so opted to make the stuff up about Roger. That was big enough new news to get him his immunity deal.

Anyway , that's how i see it right now.

OR..........................

What about this scenario, though it's hard to believe that MLB is this smart after a review of most of the circumstances.

Could McNamee, a former NYC cop, have been a NARC planted by the feds, with the blessing of MLB due to the Union's blatant lack of cooperation, after the Sosa and McGuire thing had reached its full potential and brought Baseball back ~as it was designed to do? Since the barn door had been flung so wide opened, how else would MLB be able to rein in what they had given the old winkwink/nudgenudge to in the first place? They were certainly being stonewalled by the player's union and handcuffed by their own complicitness during any CBA negotiations then, and subsequent talks leading us up to the current situation. Who better to reveal the wide and reaching scope of rampant Steroid and HGH use than someone on the inside, someone who could get to the likes of Radomski, Dr Horsejuice, and Players X, Y, and Z? MLB prolly knew all the names and even had dates and information, but had no way to implicate them under the protection of the players' cba.

Is it possible that MLB was trying to put a stop to this fiasco since Ueberoth? Former Olympic Chairman, home of the most stringent drug testing policies in the world, hired to "clean-up" bissball? Only now MLB has a real problem.....................

Not just sluggers were juicing, but pitchers were getting into HGH and marquis ones at that!! Marginal players were taking anabolics to 'make it to tha bigs', yer Palmeiros and yer Tejadas began juicing to enhance their game and boost their stats ~hell, everyone else was doing it, your Petites and your Byrds were HGHing to make their next start in the rotation without feeling their age or the strains of Aug/Sept/Oct, and then there are the superstars that didn't want everyone else cheating to catch them even though their natural talents still would have put them well past the lesser lights. And this is where Roger the Dodger and Barroids the Bum stick needles into such fine specimens of athleticism and ruin their already stellar careers. Butt, pun intended, hey! It's not their fault, they were just following suit!! HOGWARSH!!!

The real problem with HGH, Larry, is that there is no eye test or conclusive blood test for it and that it probably is going to be revealed as a good thing in the long run. I mean if it can help granny heal quicker and stronger from her hip replacement, why not make it available to our finest athletes under strict guidlines as something better and far more effective than cortisone that is used solely for rehab and recovery ~roughly the same purpose as the aforementioned cortisone? So long as its available for all players, what's the big woop?

Lastly, does anyone else think that a former NYPD investigator and his team of lawyers is gonna be out thunk by this Gunslinger from Katy and his 'teem' of Country bumpkins? It will be very interesting to, hopefully, hear the McNamee Camp's tape. Because if this guy is a NARC and MLB is on the ball here, then I find it hard to believe that Roger's 17 minutes are the only minutes that were shared between him and his buddy Mac. And if McNamee is working with the feds and MLB, then it is no coincidence that he was found by the Mitchell Investigation; quite the contrary, it will have been a carefully crafted plan to rid MLB of its most sordid and still festering wound, in the history of The Game.

Anybody else looking for Charlie Hustle's name on next year's ballot :humpty:?

In 1994 it was strike shortened so he didn't have a full season, he may have tired out down the stretch, you never know

In 1995 he only had 140 innings...starting to show some signs of wear....granted in 1996 he pitched 240 innings....but his ERA also climbed considerably...still decent but was up almost a run per 9


you asked me to show you why I thought he was Average...this is why.

Today...if we brought in a Top Line Starting pitcher and he gave you a 40-39 record and he averaged 186 inning pitched per year for 4 years....wouldn't you consider that a dissapointment...thats pretty average stuff

40-39 depends on the team. Johan santana's number were up this year doesn't mean anything. Just saying need to look at everything relative.

Their was a strike season then he got hurt and then he had a below average year.