Someone lying thru their teeth....?

[BassDawg]

Originally Posted by 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???

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.

[Mike P]

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?

[BigFish]

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

[Bill L]

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

[BassDawg]

Originally Posted by toonoc

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............

[wrikerjr]

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 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???

[The Dad Fisherman]

Originally Posted by wrikerjr

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...

[BassDawg]

Originally Posted by BigFish

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

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??