Someone lying thru their teeth....?

[Mike P]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

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.

[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!!!

[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]

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

[fishsmith]

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...e=hruby/080107

[BigFish]

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman

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!

[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....

[zacs]

Originally Posted by BigFish

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.

[BigFish]

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!

[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????

[eastendlu]

Originally Posted by vineyardblues

Why is everyone living in the past

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

Dam your Freakin smart!

[BassDawg]

Originally Posted by zacs

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 . 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!!!

[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 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??

[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???

[boot man]

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..

[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...