Someone lying thru their teeth....?

[afterhours]

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

[Raider Ronnie]

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

[Squid kids Dad]

Liar,Liar pants on fire....

[BigFish]

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!

[Raider Ronnie]

Originally Posted by BigFish

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!

Same go for Bonds???

[afterhours]

larry- you really believe him?

[Raider Ronnie]

Originally Posted by afterhours

larry- you really believe him?

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

[BigFish]

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" 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!

[BigFish]

Originally Posted by Strike_King

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? Sweating.....them lights is hot!

[Squid kids Dad]

Do you believe Barry Bonds also???

[Goose]

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

[BigFish]

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

[Squid kids Dad]

Oh boy...Guilty

[Slipknot]

Originally Posted by Goose

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.

[BigFish]

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

[ThomCat]

Originally Posted by BigFish

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

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.

[Saltheart]

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?

[BigFish]

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?

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by BigFish

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.

[BigFish]

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!!!

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by BigFish

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

[Saltheart]

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.

[The Dad Fisherman]

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....

[Saltheart]

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.

[BigFish]

Thats what I think SH!

You are a "Super Moderator"!

[vineyardblues]

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!

[Saltheart]

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

[BigFish]

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

[Mike P]

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.

[vineyardblues]

Why is everyone living in the past

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