[Dakota]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

First of all the he is a government witness so he can protect his behind and not go to jail. He has every motive to tell a story that is not only hard to prove, but makes him look credible. If you know about the history of government informants, they have given information to save their skins, only to be found out later as a lie. McNamee has every motive to lie because getting a small fish does not save his behind.

His immunity is only good if he tells the truth. If he lies, he goes to jail. It has nothing to do with "big fish" - and besides, a starting pitcher and starting 2B for the yankees is pretty big fish, even if not Cy Young territory.

If I recall that Clemens never went to the party and there were even commentators that attended the party, went on air and said Clemens was not even there.

You recall? And you criticize me for referencing media reports? I was referring to Clemens himself changing his story once confronted with nannygate. First he was not there. Then, he was there to drop people off but didn't go in. Sure, Roger. Sure. His claim of not being there depended on the golf receipt. Yet, that became completely meaningless once he admitted he was actually there but just did not stay long.

Once again, you are confusing media reports, with testimony. If I recall Clemens never said that it was a lie in testimony, he said that McNamee was basically sick for involving his wife. HGH is legal and is taken by many people for youth purposes. Stallone advocates the usage of HGH.

The collossal lie was a statement made by his attorney. The collosal lie was later verified as true by Roger, only now he claims he, personally, had nothing to do with it. Sure, Roger. Sure.

A golf receipt might be held for tax purposes. I know I keep many records for years and it has nothing to do with a possible criminal protection. Holding gauze for one does not prove anything. Holding it in the basement in a freezer does not make the evidence credible. I have heard many lawyers say that it would be almost impossible to bring that into court because all the usual chain of custody rules was not followed. For all we know that information could have been doctored.

The issue is not admitting it in court, since there are no charges here. The issue is does it back up McNamee or Clemens version? If there is Clemens blood mixed with HGH or steroid remnants on the material, I would imagine a good forensic analysis could detect whether they are placed there at about the same time, or if it appears to have been tampered with. Besides, if my CSI-training is any good (that is, from watching CSI ), if the police had discovered this material in McNamee's freezer, it would be the evidence used to crack the case!

If it goes to trial does not prove that Clemens is innocent or guilty. It just means it went to trial. My point was that the media and many who accuse these players of taking steroids cannot have it both ways. Bonds and Clemens have reacted completely opposite of each other and no matter what they do, the "public" (mainly the media) still makes it seem like they are both doing the wrong things by either keeping silent or vigorously defending their truth. So they are damned if they do and damned if they don't.

Peace

And my point was I seriously doubt Clemens will carry this all the way to trial. The lawsuit was a publicity stunt, IMO, intended to have Roger viewed by the public as the aggrieved party here. It won't make it to trial unless Roger really does have an idiot for an attorney.

And, of course the media and the public can have it both ways. Because Roger tried something different than Bonds means nothing WRT their guilt or innocence. As I said before, for Clemens to be innocent here, far too many people would have to be lying, including Clemens himself (since his story has changed). Anyone willing to throw his wife under the bus to protect his own reputation is a thoroughly dishonorable man.