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????

Dam your Freakin smart!

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!!!

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

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??

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 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!

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

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...

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

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. ;)

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

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 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.

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:?

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.