Roger Clemens

[gordon30307]

Originally Posted by Dakota

From MLB.com (and dozens of other news outlets)

Report: Clemens sues McNamee. Pitcher claims defamation on part of former trainer

It would be great if he can prove that he has been clean. However, why would his Trainer lie? I understand to avoid prosecution he had to "tell the truth". He threw Pettet under the bus and he fessed up. Why claim Roger did it if in fact he's clean? Unless Roger figures his Trainer can't provide a paper trail or Roger never took performance enhancing drugs.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by gordon30307

It would be great if he can prove that he has been clean. However, why would his Trainer lie? I understand to avoid prosecution he had to "tell the truth". He threw Pettet under the bus and he fessed up. Why claim Roger did it if in fact he's clean? Unless Roger figures his Trainer can't provide a paper trail or Roger never took performance enhancing drugs.

He has a lot of motive. The bigger the names, the better they let you off. If you claim you really were involved in something, they might give you a reduced sentence. It is no different in any Federal case. They do not want small people, they want the big fish. And if you can claim that your illegal dealings involved the biggest of names, the better. Just like the IRS does not go after people that owe a $100 on their taxes. But if you owe thousands and blatantly are avoiding filing, they go after you.

Peace

[etn_ump]

The Vols beat yall by 4 touchdowns in '01 so shut up!

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

He has a lot of motive. The bigger the names, the better they let you off. If you claim you really were involved in something, they might give you a reduced sentence. It is no different in any Federal case. They do not want small people, they want the big fish. And if you can claim that your illegal dealings involved the biggest of names, the better. Just like the IRS does not go after people that owe a $100 on their taxes. But if you owe thousands and blatantly are avoiding filing, they go after you.

Peace

The flaw in this explanaton is that McNamee was granted immunity in exchange for telling the truth and, according to his lawyer, was told that if it turned out he lied he stood to lose his immunity.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by GarthB

The flaw in this explanaton is that McNamee was granted immunity in exchange for telling the truth and, according to his lawyer, was told that if it turned out he lied he stood to lose his immunity.

Of course he was. That is why he has a motivation to give them what they want. Either way it goes, none of us know the truth. But to make it sound like he could not be lying because he does not have a motive is silly. When you are given immunity, it is done so the government gets what they really want. McNamee is not who they are going after.

And if you listened to the phone conversation, it was clear McNamee was trying to apologize to Roger for what he had done. If you are telling the truth, why apologize?

Peace

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

Of course he was. That is why he has a motivation to give them what they want. Either way it goes, none of us know the truth. But to make it sound like he could not be lying because he does not have a motive is silly. When you are given immunity, it is done so the government gets what they really want. McNamee is not who they are going after.

And if you listened to the phone conversation, it was clear McNamee was trying to apologize to Roger for what he had done. If you are telling the truth, why apologize?

Peace

If you listened to the phone conversation, at no time does McNamee say he lied, misled or did anyting but tell the truth....and he was not aware that Roger was taping.

Why apologize? He has caused a friend distress. Even when telling the truth, when one see the result has hurt someone close, they often apololgize. They are apologizing for the pain, not for saying what they said.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by GarthB

If you listened to the phone conversation, at no time does McNamee say he lied, misled or did anyting but tell the truth....and he was not aware that Roger was taping.

You are right, he was apologizing and asking Roger what he wanted him to do. He even talked about how grateful he was and how he was treated. And all Roger kept asking him was to tell the truth. In no way did McNamee say you took steroids or implied that he took any steroids. That does not sound like a person that is telling the truth in a conversation about the situation both men are in.

Originally Posted by GarthB

Why apologize? He has caused a friend distress. Even when telling the truth, when one see the result has hurt someone close, they often apololgize. They are apologizing for the pain, not for saying what they said.

I guess we all can look at it any way we like. But when someone is telling the truth, I tend to not believe people that are apologizing for it. Or at the very least say you told the truth the entire time. He even asked Roger, "Do you want me to go to jail for me?" Why would you ask that if you are telling the truth. That sound like his word is up for sale to me.

Peace

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

...And all Roger kept asking him was to tell the truth. ...

And, of course, Clemens knew he was acting for the recording. McNamee thought he was talking to a friend in distress. Clemens knew he was laying a trap. Of course Clemens would say what he said, but McNamee didn't respond in any way that would indicate he was lying, even though he had every reason to believe the conversation was private.

He said he would go to jail for his friend, which to me means he was saying he would be willing to NOW lie, refuting his earlier testimony and giving up his immunity. At least that is an equally plausible way to interpret the conversation.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

If you are telling the truth, why apologize?

Because they were friends and he regretted hurting his friend (with the thruth). Well, it is as plausible an explanation as the spin Clemens was putting on it. Besides, he (Clemens) broke Texas law by making the recording without someone on McNamee's end knowing the call was being recorded.

[BigTex]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Because they were friends and he regretted hurting his friend (with the thruth). Well, it is as plausible an explanation as the spin Clemens was putting on it. Besides, he (Clemens) broke Texas law by making the recording without someone on McNamee's end knowing the call was being recorded.

You are half right.

Saying you are sorry is sometimes just that, not an admission of responsibility. ("I am sorry your dog died." That doesn't mean I killed your dog and I am sorry I did it.)

In the state of Texas, only one of the parties in the conversation need to know about the recording.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by BigTex

In the state of Texas, only one of the parties in the conversation need to know about the recording.

OK.

Where was McNamee during the conversation?

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by BigTex

You are half right.

In the state of Texas, only one of the parties in the conversation need to know about the recording.

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't it when the conversation is between two private citizens, as in this example, that you need just one of the parties' consent; but when the government is involved, (unless acting under a warrant) both parties must consent?

[Cub42]

The problem here is that this man has had his name included in a report that is based solely on hearsay. The people who are giving the information on who was involved in this activity are either granted immunity for their testimony, or also have an axe to grind against their former employers.One point RC made at his News Conference was that it will take years to clear his name with the public. Once labeled, whether you are cleared and exonerated, your reputation is damaged for good. When deciding on who is more credible in this matter, it is a no brainer for me.