Roger Clemens is a Disgrace!!!!

[Purple Reign]

WHAT AN EMBARRASSMENT!!! Did anybody see that performance on 60 Minutes last night!!!

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/01/03/60minutes/main3671585.shtml

If you keep answering questions with a questions, you are evading the truth. I personally saw nothing but deception in his voice, eyes and body language. AND THEN to file a bogus law suit against McNamee this morning, further perpetuates the cover up. This law suit is to avoid having to go up on the hill to testify before Congress.

Listen, if you did steroids, whatever!!! We all know that performance enhancing drugs was, is and hopefully will not be an issue in sports. But the more Clemens talks, runs his mouth and puts his foot in it....the more Clemens attempts to besmirch Senator Mitchell's report, the more Congress is going to come after him and drag his aspirin up to the hill to testify. I am sure politicians do not look kindly upon this "country, redneck" jock spitting on them or their own.

Look for the Congressional Hearing scheduled for next week to be indefinately postponed.

 

[uolj]

I thought he did pretty well for someone I believe to be lying.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

Clemens should have done the same thing all the smart people did and claimed he took HGH in 2002 or before (when it wasn't illegal) once or twice and that was that.

But he has too much foolish pride. He was my hero once way back when, but I can't even be remotely objective on the guy.

 

[Monty'sBiggestFan]

Man, I'm sorry I decided to not waste mniutes of my life that I will never get back watching that. I might have found Roger funny. Since most of the prominent guys who had their hands caught in the cookie jars chose to wag their fingers and swear they never did it or tell someone they thought someone gave them stuff tainted with something or the ever popular...'what I really took/thought I was taking was...." it hasn't really mattered to me what they say. The Mitchell Report being besmirched? It was besmirched the minute it was commissioned, the problem is more pervasive than baseball wants to admit and this was the bone tossed to Congress and the lambs sacrificed to make it seem like something is being done now to correct it.

Having said that, when the congressional hearings start, don't think I won't be in front of CSPAN watching THAT train wreck because that's just too good of unintentional comedy for me to miss. Selig is always especially clownish, and that will amuse me.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

I agree the Mitchell Report itself is something of a joke, I mean a lot of people took stuff when MLB had no firm policy against taking it. That's on MLB, not the athletes as far as I'm concerned. It was very wise of MLB to finally take firm stances on drug testing and punishment, and I think their current penalties are pretty good. I do not know how sufficient the testing is, but the obvious drop off in certain athletes' performance and body mass is evidence that many prime suspects are now clean or at least have moved on to something else.

That said, I always felt the Mitchell report is like lowering the speed limit today and then going back and sending everyone a ticket for how fast they were driving yesterday.

 

[Monty'sBiggestFan]

That's why Mitchell was very pointed in saying that baseball (read: dumb*** Selig) should think hard before it (read: dumb*** Selig) doled out any punishment based on the findings in his report.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

I also need to say that as much respect I have for Mitchell, I know that he is on the Red Sox board and as a Sox fan I was shocked that no major Sox names came up in the report. Pleased, but I'm not buying it.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

Poll question: Do You Believe Roger Clemens is Telling the Truth about Steroids Usage

Citrus' answer: I believe that everybody in professional sports who says that they haven't taken steroids is lying, until proven otherwise.

 

[allrightythen]

Poll question: Do You Believe Roger Clemens is Telling the Truth about Steroids Usage

Citrus' answer: I believe that everybody in professional sports who says that they haven't taken steroids is lying, until proven otherwise.

Definitely feel that way about baseball. Not completely sure about the other sports, but baseball is just silly at this point. I don't read the stories, watch the games or otherwise associate myself with it anymore. Other sports I'm still undecided on though.

 

[C Diddy]

His performance on 60 Minutes was bad. I loved the question about whether he would take a polygraph. He stumbled pretty badly over that one.

At this point, the only thing I am unsure of is whether Roger Clemens is a Big Fat Liar, or a Dirty Old Liar.

 

[VF21]

There should have been one more selection for response to the poll:

3. I don't care.

That's my response.

 

[LPKingsFan]

Baseball from 1994-2003 was steroid laden. Get over it. The players, owners, and commissioner's office all were part of it--they helped rescue the sport after the strike ruined their fan support. Agree with Slim and pdzkingsfan here.

But I do think the players, owners, and commissioner's office should just come out and admit it. Look at Giambi. The guy came clean and now nobody cares. I hoped that after the Mitchell report people would just realized that baseball (not to mention the Olympics, Tour de France, etc) was juiced and moved on. No more Congressional hearings wasting taxpayer time and money.

 

[Mr. S£im Citrus]

Baseball from 1994-2003 was steroid laden. Get over it. The players, owners, and commissioner's office all were part of it--they helped rescue the sport after the strike ruined their fan support. Agree with Slim and pdzkingsfan here.

You don't agree with me... that's not what I said...

 

[AleksandarN]

opps pressed the wrong button. change mine to no. He used riods.

 

[Purple Reign]

Look for the Congressional Hearing scheduled for next week to be indefinately postponed.

BINGO!!!!!

Wednesday, January 9, 2008
Hearing featuring Clemens, McNamee, Pettitte postponed

Associated Press

WASHINGTON -- The congressional hearing involving Roger Clemens, Andy Pettitte and former trainer Brian McNamee was postponed Wednesday until Feb. 13 so lawmakers can gather evidence and coordinate their investigation with the Justice Department.

The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform was informing witnesses that the Jan. 16 session is being pushed back.


Plans are still in place for the Jan. 15 hearing before the same committee about the Mitchell report on baseball's Steroids Era. The witnesses that day are commissioner Bud Selig, union leader Donald Fehr and former Senate majority leader George Mitchell, the report's author.



At the end of last week, Congress asked seven-time Cy Young Award winner Clemens, teammate and friend Pettitte and their former trainer, McNamee, to testify under oath. Also invited were former Yankee Chuck Knoblauch, and Kirk Radomski, the former New York Mets clubhouse attendant who was one of the main sources of evidence for the Mitchell report.


Radomski pleaded guilty in April to federal felony charges of distributing steroids and laundering money, and he is scheduled to be sentenced Feb. 8.

"The Justice Department told the committee it would be helpful if we waited until after Radomski is sentenced," the committee's minority staff director, David Marin, wrote in an e-mail to The Associated Press. "This also gives us more time to delve into more recent developments, gather more information, and depose all witnesses before they testify in public."

 

[Superman]

There should have been one more selection for response to the poll:

3. I don't care.

That's my response.

I like this poll. No room for straddling the fence. So far, only one person believes that Clemens is clean. That's telling.

 

[Superman]

I should mention that the reason I don't believe Clemens is because his name is in the Mitchell report. It has little to do with his dominance, which is not entirely impossible without the use of illegal PEDs, though highly irregular. I mean, Clemens was always a dominant pitcher. It's not hard to believe that he could win 350 games cleanly. (Nolan Ryan was dominant, threw his last pitch at 98MPH with a torn ligament in his arm, and was 46 years old. I don't think he was using illegal PEDs.)

But when your name is used in a report like this by a public figure who would be careful not to libel another public figure (notice Clemens defamation lawsuit is against McNamee, not Mitchell). It's not like he was asked to compile a comprehensive list of people who used illegal PEDs. Why would he put anyone's name in that report unless he was 100% sure that his information was trustworthy?

I don't hear anyone stepping up and saying "hey, I used steroids, too, why isn't my name in the Mitchell report?" Everyone that we hear is either admitting to what the Mitchell report said, or denying it to save their reputation. I tend to believe that the Mitchell report is pretty accurate. Not that it's a complete chronicle of the whole PED problem, but that the information that's in it is correct.

If proof comes out that Clemens is innocent, then I'll be the first to admit that I was wrong, and then I'll be skeptical about the Mitchell report. But for now, I have to take it at face value.

 

[pdxKingsFan]

Why do we need more congressional hearings exactly? New rules are in place, they seem to be working, do we need to rehash the past and if so why?

Here's some Roger Clemens youtube fun:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L40r1XKtgrk

 

[Monty'sBiggestFan]

Why do we need more congressional hearings exactly? New rules are in place, they seem to be working, do we need to rehash the past and if so why?

Precisely because they are fun is why! If a bunch of big name guys didn't make @$$es of themselves last time, there probably wouldn't be any hearings right now. But beyond the humor, congress probably wants to paint baseball (read: dumb*** Selig) into a corner to get better about its process. Do we know its working? Not really, since the report still came with recommendations.

I hope Pettite and Clemens are on the same panel....since I don't think McNamee and Clemens will get within 100 feet of each other. I want high drama and theater by golly! And Clemens better show up and get sworn under oath!

I don't think Raj would have much standing to sue Mitchell, since Mitchell was only saying this is what this guy said he did to this list of guys. The real actor against Clemens is McNamee, who I also think has now effectively been precluded from doing anything to gain anything from his having made that claim. Mitchell certainly isn't the one who had anything to benefit financially or otherwise from "defaming" Clemens.

 

[JoMama]

He was very unconvincing on "60 Minutes," especially when he hedged at a lie detector test. Should have just said, "strap me up and let 'er rip."

 

[VF21]

I like this poll. No room for straddling the fence. So far, only one person believes that Clemens is clean. That's telling.

I don't believe he's clean; I don't believe he's dirty. I honestly don't know what to believe. The only thing I know for sure is that cows will fly over Plumas Forest in massive herds before I waste any time watching baseball.

 

[RKid]

I don't believe he's clean; I don't believe he's dirty. I honestly don't know what to believe. The only thing I know for sure is that cows will fly over Plumas Forest in massive herds before I waste any time watching baseball.

With the teams you have in NoCal, I dont blame you.

Go Angels!

 

[Superman]

I don't believe he's clean; I don't believe he's dirty. I honestly don't know what to believe. The only thing I know for sure is that cows will fly over Plumas Forest in massive herds before I waste any time watching baseball.

So you didn't vote. That's why I like the poll. If there had been an "I don't care option," or "I don't know" option, or both, there probably wouldn't be 21 votes for yes.

I just like the black and white of the poll. No middle ground.

 

[VF21]

So you didn't vote. That's why I like the poll. If there had been an "I don't care option," or "I don't know" option, or both, there probably wouldn't be 21 votes for yes.

I just like the black and white of the poll. No middle ground.

Um, there aren't 21 votes for "yes"... There are 21 votes for NO.

As far as it being "black and white," that's the problem. The Bonds apologists will tell you he shouldn't be condemned because there's no evidence, just like with Barry Bonds. At least they should say that, but I'm not seeing them rally around Clemens like they did around Bonds.

The people who were convinced that Bonds was indeed lying, which is the group in which I belong, cannot possibly say they believe Clemens without being accused of being hypocrites because of the Bonds situation.

If I had to vote, I would vote "Yes" for the simple reason I cannot recall any time when Clemens exhibited the telltale characteristics of steroid use. But I honestly do not know - and NONE of us know.

I think the poll would be more telling if there was a way to gauge how many people just don't know. As it is you only have the few on each side and not the number who I suspect don't have any idea any more what to believe or how to react.

 

[uolj]

Actually, there are 22 votes for "no", AleksandarN clicked the wrong choice on accident.

I think the poll would be more telling if there was a way to gauge how many people just don't know. As it is you only have the few on each side and not the number who I suspect don't have any idea any more what to believe or how to react.

Perhaps it would be more telling, but it's still a different question.

I'm personally ok with the lack of the I don't know option. I rarely feel sure about anything, so I might be inclined to vote "I don't know" because I don't really know. But without it I voted "no" because that's the way I'm leaning (pretty heavily in this case).

 

[Superman]

Um, there aren't 21 votes for "yes"... There are 21 votes for NO.

That's what I meant.

As far as it being "black and white," that's the problem. The Bonds apologists will tell you he shouldn't be condemned because there's no evidence, just like with Barry Bonds. At least they should say that, but I'm not seeing them rally around Clemens like they did around Bonds.

The people who were convinced that Bonds was indeed lying, which is the group in which I belong, cannot possibly say they believe Clemens without being accused of being hypocrites because of the Bonds situation.

If I had to vote, I would vote "Yes" for the simple reason I cannot recall any time when Clemens exhibited the telltale characteristics of steroid use. But I honestly do not know - and NONE of us know.

I think the poll would be more telling if there was a way to gauge how many people just don't know. As it is you only have the few on each side and not the number who I suspect don't have any idea any more what to believe or how to react.

I understand what you mean about the Barry Bonds situation, but I don't think it has anything to do with the poll question, which was "Do you believe Clemens is telling the truth..." You're right, Bonds and Clemens are two completely different people and the circumstances are also completely different. That's why I believe that you can believe Clemens and not believe Bonds, and not be a hypocrite. There was "proof" against Bonds well before the Mitchell report.

And about the poll question, it forces you to choose sides. As uolj mentioned, a lot of people who don't believe Clemens would probably fall in the "I don't know" category because they don't know. But that's not the question. The question was "Do you believe". And there's a simple answer to it. No one is asking for a conviction. Either you believe him or you don't. It doesn't have to be beyond a shadow of a doubt for you to vote no. And it doesn't have to be unequivocal for you to vote yes.

And I think it's telling that only one person believes him enough to vote yes.

 

[VF21]

I just voted, bringing the "yes" total to 3...

And if I draw flak from the Bonds crowd, I'm going to hide behind you.

 

[uolj]

I just voted, bringing the "yes" total to 3...

And if I draw flak from the Bonds crowd, I'm going to hide behind you.

Err... 2 (AleksandarN clicked the wrong button).

By the way, I can sort of understand your reasoning, I just don't buy it at all. It just seems way more likely that Clemens isn't telling the truth to (attempt to) save his reputation rather than McNamee lying and risking going to jail for it.

 

[VF21]

Actually, there are 22 votes for "no", AleksandarN clicked the wrong choice on accident.


Perhaps it would be more telling, but it's still a different question.

I'm personally ok with the lack of the I don't know option. I rarely feel sure about anything, so I might be inclined to vote "I don't know" because I don't really know. But without it I voted "no" because that's the way I'm leaning (pretty heavily in this case).

I just changed the totals to accurately reflect AleksandarN's vote. I cannot, however, move his name.

 

[Superman]

I just voted, bringing the "yes" total to 3...

And if I draw flak from the Bonds crowd, I'm going to hide behind you.

I wasn't trying to force you to vote. I was just saying that anyone who does vote is forced to answer the question directly, instead of straddling the fence.

But don't worry about the Bonds people. He's in enough trouble as it is.