Roger Clemens

[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?

[TussAgee11]

Let me start by saying I don't blame Clemens if he did use steriods, nor do I blame anybody else that used pre-testing or pre-ban. I think we should just move on and forget about it, big names, small names, everybody. It is just as disappointing to me that Clemens may have used as it is Julio Lugo.

This Clemens story gets sketchier everyday. Listening to the phone conversation McNamee seems underconfident. Roger says "I'm trying to figure out why you would say this" and McNamee responds "I understand that".

Why wouldn't he reply "because you did"?

I'm not saying I'm 100% that Clemens is guilty, nor am I 100% that he is innocent. I am sure 100% that it doesn't mean that much to me.

Let's just move on...

[waltjp]

Originally Posted by GarthB

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?

Not anymore!

[BigTex]

Originally Posted by GarthB

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?

Same rules apply to recordings without a warrant. Police record conversations all the time without the consent of the subject. Only one side needs to consent. If there is a warrant, neither side needs consent or knowlege of the recording.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by BigTex

Same rules apply to recordings without a warrant. Police record conversations all the time without the consent of the subject. Only one side needs to consent. If there is a warrant, neither side needs consent or knowlege of the recording.

Doesn't the "beep" you hear when calling the police (for example) constitute a "notice" that the conversation is being recorded?

[BigTex]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Doesn't the "beep" you hear when calling the police (for example) constitute a "notice" that the conversation is being recorded?

Usually, but it is not required.

[SanDiegoSteve]

I would love to believe Clemens didn't ever use steroids. But....?

Clemens sure waited a long time to become outraged about the accusations. If it were an innocent person, they would more likely have began vehement protestations immediately upon being accused. It's all way too orchestrated.

When I saw the 60 Minutes story, His eye movement and evasive answers screamed, "liar, liar, pants on fire."

And when given the chance by Wallace to say something to McNamee, he chose to go with something like, "why did you do this after all I did for you," which is like saying "after all I did for you, why did you rat me out." Why didn't Clemens ask McNamee why he was lying about the steroid use? He never challenged McNamee on that, and it seems rather odd to me.