Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Dakota
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! |
The problem with this it is not about CSI and whether the DNA was put together or accurate. There are evidentiary rules that must be followed. Holding someone's DNA in the basement is not credible evidentiary procedures. I doubt a judge is going to accept evidence like this and later have it overturned by a higher court because they did not follow the proper procedures. Remember the O.J. Simpson trial? The issues in that case were not just about whether it was his blood or not, it was when it was discovered and the issues of chain of custody. I think you have been watching too much TV if you think that flies in the real world.
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Dakota
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.
|
You cannot have it both ways without someone pulling your card. The case that many people made in the media was the actions of how Bonds defended himself. When another person takes another route, you cannot cry foul claim "they must be guilty" if you do not have any more evidence than you had before. And honestly, this is why baseball is inept in so many ways. MLB has allowed the past of their game to be tarnished over speculation and innuendo. And honestly I have yet to see the usage of steroids prove someone was a better player. Clemens during this period his velocity did not go up, he did not change drastically in size (which is suppose to be some "real evidence") and he did not start winning games (which pitchers do not have all the control over) and he did not start pitching more innings. So if Clemens used, a lot of holes in the argument that was used against Bonds are present.
Peace