Roger Clemens
 

Heard part of a discussion on local talk radio. One of the partcipants was a PR guy who advises "public figures" on damage control. Depending upon circumstances he advises:

1. Say nothing. If you think the furor will die down.
2. Call a Presss Conference. Danger here is that the questions are unpredictable.
3. Release info in a controlled situation.

Roger has chosen #3 using 60 Minutes. Apparently questions are submitted to Roger before hand and he either agrees to answer them or he does not. The point is Roger knows the questions before hand and knows how to respond.

It will be interesting to watch the interview.

He won't at the Congressional hearings.

No it won't.

Wallace, an old friend of Roger's, will, at nearly 90 years of age, be pitching softballs...underhand. Even an aging pitcher will be able to hit them.

Roger, most likely, is lying, and for a "good" reason. At this point, there is nothing to his advantage in 'fesssing up. When he finally has to face the truth, he'll be as much old news as Mark McGwire with little left of his baseball days but the money he saved.

And if he thinks this "problem" will go away after his televised denials, he should call Barry Bonds.

You mean "60 Minutes" is not the paragon of unbiased investigative journalism??? I'm shocked. Shocked, I tell you!

Could you provide a few examples of unbiased jouralism?

He wasn't subpoenaed, he was just asked to appear. How many people think he's really going to show up? He's got a celebrity charity golf tourney scheduled that day.

"Sorry Congress, I got a prior engagement."

Congressional hearings - now that's a joke! To start with, the Congress is not the Judicial System. In reality, they (the Congress) have no power to force anything on anyone. According to the Constitution, they are the Representatives and voice of the people not judges and magistrates! I don't know where this all came about (Congressional Hearings) but it is nothing but pure BS!

If there is a charge on these baseball players, then let the Judicial System handle it and tell the Congress to go back to sleep until election time! All of this "investigating" costs money -- OUR MONEY! Who really gives a hoot if Clemens used steroids, anyway? Is it going to affect your life? Why doesn't baseball just enforce it's policy 9if there even is one) as of Jan 1 2008.... "If you are caught with steroids, your are out of baseball" and be done with it all!

Regards

Care to share your basis for that belief?

I'm just guessing here. Had his best years in his late 30's onward. Pretty good indicator that more likely than not he was a user of something besides flintstone vitamins.

I think he's being dishonest as well. If he was having joint pain why wasn't the Lidocain injected into the joint rather than being injected into his arse? That's what's not adding up to me.



Tim.

He's a rat, and he got caught.

You are incorrect. Congress has the constitutional authority to compel Roger to testify if they so choose. Moreover, Congress has a lot more authority than you think. In our 3-branch government, the balance of power does tip slightly in favor of Congress, as it should.

Congress can, at any time, revoke MLB's antitrust exemption. If Congress sneezes while talking about baseball, MLB catches a very bad cold.

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

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

To start with, Congress is only supposed to call tribunal hearings inferior to the Supreme Court. It was originally supposed to be a way to acquire information. It was never supposed to be the high and mighty proceedings that we have seen since the 1950's! They were never supposed to have any "power" other that acquire information. Remember, this was before the days of the FBI, US Marshals and Police agencies. Gathering facts for a National problem in those days was very difficult. Today, the Congress chooses to "investigate" anything it pleases with no regard to the cost either monetary or other! Leave this BS to the Judicial System.

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.

It's not the job of the judicial system to investigate anything. The judiciary has way too much power as it is. Also, your allusion to tribunals inferior to SCOTUS is a falty analysis; that's irrelevant here. Congress has the ultimate authority, even over SCOTUS in certain respects. Congress cannot eliminate SCOTUS, or change SCOTUS's original jurisdiction authority--that's specified in Article III. However, it can remove SCOTUS's power to review any area of law it chooses (except, of course, those specifically permitted via original jurisdiction).

Congress can subpoena witnesses, or force them to testify under oath, before its committees. This authority comes from the Constitution's grant to Congress of “all legislative powers” (Article 1, Section 1). Witnesses are subpoenaed to provide information that will assist committees in preparing legislation. In the case of Mc-Grain v. Daugherty (1927), the Supreme Court recognized that Congress could subpoena even private citizens to testify. The Court noted that since not everyone would volunteer needed information, “some means of compulsion are essential to obtain what is needed.” Witnesses who refuse to respond to a congressional subpoena, or refuse to give information (unless they invoke their 5th Amendment protection against self-incrimination) may be found in contempt of Congress and sent to prison.

Nothing in the Constitution declares the rulings of the SCOTUS as "the law of the land." SCOTUS has the power it currently dictates onto the people because it declared that power for itself (otherwise known as "The Divine rights of Justices"). SCOTUS continues its slow gathering of power to itself while neither of the other two branches have had the rocks to defy the Supreme Court's self-declared supremacy.

Since the executive is the only branch with police powers, and the legislative is the only branch with taxing / purse powers, either or both could legally and easily (theoretically) curtail the out-of-control (IMO) federal judiciary.

They (executive and judiciary) have failed to adequately put the SCOTUS and the federal judiciary in general back in line as a co-equal branch, preferring to operate as subservient while trying to stack the court so the dictates of the court would agree with the politics of those currently in power in each branch.

JMO, and only JMO.

That would be because of Marbury v. Madison. Regardless, decisions of SCOTUS are, indeed, the law of the land and cannot be altered unless by an act of Congress (if it's not a constitutional "right") or by a constitutional amendment or by a future SCOTUS reversal.

I won't deny this, and it's something that ought to bother all Americans, not just conservatives (who seem to be the ones doing the most complaining about this).

The Executive Branch can't curtail judicial rulings, save perhaps to defy them, which I do not support at all. Congress, on the other hand, has the final say over both the Executive and the Judiciary, which is at it should be.

Roger the Dodger in a BAD Spot
 

Roger lied when he stated he hoped to play another year. He's lied about that at least 3 times.:D
Roger named at least 5 drugs he injested. How many more hasn't he fessed up to taking? :(
Anyway, Roger better hope his training partner didn't leave a paper trail.
Oops, his training partner was caught and plead guilty for having one.
Any bets MLB and the government will lose some of the evidence? :eek:
Phone call, for Mr. Jason Grimsley!
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/column...son&id=2474247
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=2609002

Wow. I went to law school and spent 3 years and tens of thousands of dollars studying Constitutional Law (yeah, I was a constitutional law nerd)...but if I had just been patient I could have learned it all here. (sigh)

Is it too late to get a refund?

I would. Lawyers make terrible constitutional law experts. :p

Does there even exist a single constitutional law professor anywhere who disagrees with the slow march of where Marbury v. Madison has taken us?

I didn't think so. Constitutional law's objective is to teach the status quo, not to defy it. Turning out cookie cutter "experts."

Thanks. I didn't remember the case, and was too lazy to look it up.

I agree, and am constantly amazed at the left's willingness to be ruled by a judicial monarchy.

Agreed, again. There have been some rulings the executive should have defied (refused to enforce, etc.). The press would go wild with screaming headlines of "Constitutional Crisis", but without some push-back, the march keeps moving forward to where the SCOTUS has become our own politburo. The constitution places most power into the hands of "the people" and Congress (as the representatives of the people). The Founders were very wary of a powerful central monarchy, hence the limitations on the Executive and in general on the Federal Government. However, with the self-serving cooperation of the SCOTUS, these limitations have been "interpreted" into near meaninglessness.

Stick around and other people will claim they know more than folks that have expertise in other fields. Law is just one of the expertises of this board. Do not discuss cultural things either; they think if they read something, it must be true.

Peace

Been to law school? If so, I'm sorry you feel that way. Maybe you need the refund. Certainly not the case with my various Constitutional law professors. (And, yes, I took courses led by true "liberals" and some led by true "conservatives".)

BTW, do you want nestle's toll house or oatmeal?

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

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

Guilty until proven Innocent
 

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

OK.

Where was McNamee during the conversation?

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?

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...

Not anymore!

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?

Usually, but it is not required.

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.

I had heard reports that in order to agree to the 60 Minutes interview, Clemens had to approve in advance all of the questions Mike Wallace was intending to ask. Wallace, BTW, apparently has been a longtime fan of Clemens.

That makes sense. You have to come out right away and say something without protecting yourself legally. That makes perfect sense. Tell me anytime someone comes out and holds a press conference immediately saying they are innocent even though there are legal issues at stake. Then again, we live in a guilty until proven innocent mentality. I would think some people would like more evidence than just an accusation that is only a he said, he said kind of situation.

I think Clemens made a great point in the 60 minutes interview. If he used steroids, where is the paper trail? Where is the dealer that gave them to him? Where are the other players that know Roger used steroids? There would have to be more than just these two people that knew this was going on. Even in the Peterson case in Illinois, there are other people that saw things and had things said to them about the missing woman. There is more evidence than "this is what I saw."

Peace

Great Logic
 

So lets get this straight, RC is presumed guilty because he didn't scream, rant and rave SOON ENOUGH ? Furthermore, that pillar of truth and character Mcnamee wasn't challenged in the phone call? I forgot that you have to prove yourself innocent against charges leveled by a wannabe never was while he makes deals to stay out of jail. Well thought out.

There is no presumption of innocence in the court of public opinion.

They all lack credibility. As for the truth of the matter, I personally reserve judgment.

Is it expected that athletic performance will improve as they approach there late 30's and 40's? I'm not an expert but based on past history I say no. There are exceptions to the rule. Sure are a lot of exceptions as of late.

As to the Rockets reputation if he's innocent it's unfortunate that his reputation takes a hit. When you're a high profile "celebrity" it comes with the territory.

I don't know who is telling the truth here, but I do observe this:

Who had the most to lose by lying about it (either way)? McNamee. (prison)

Who had the most to gain by claiming the steroids were not used? Clemens. (protect reputation)

So, if we assume both were acting in their narrow best self-interest, McNamee is telling the truth and Clemens is lying.

If we want to base things on past history, people are living longer than they did 50 years ago. There was a time when people would get a knee injury and their career would be over. Now if a player tears major ligaments, they are able to come back within a year. Diets have changed drastically. People in all sports are bigger and stronger and faster because they train year-round. Do you ever watch old NFL Films and the players talked about how they drank and boozed all night, and then played a game. Max McGee the night before the Super Bowl broke curfew and stayed out all night and he had the best game of his career. Guys do not do that anymore or to the level it was once talked about. I think these guys take care of themselves much better than that and that is why you have older players in all sports playing at high levels.

It might come with the territory, but if this can happen to them, it can happen to you. All of us are an accusation away from having our lives affected greatly. And you do not have to be famous to have the right person accuse you of something and you life is turned on its head. I tend to want more evidence than a person going to jail trying to tell the Feds things so he will not go away for a longer time. And when people say he has nothing to gain, that is just funny.

Peace

Regardless of the outcome the baseball players have themselves to blame.

Football had a problem too but there were no names mentioned by the then Commissioner Pete Rosell. The players worked with ownership to clean up the sport. Are football players still using steroids? - Of coarse but they pay a hefty penalty if they get caught (just ask Shawn Merriman of the Chargers) which as an organization is all you can really do.

For years baseball had a problem but neither the players union or ownership did anything about it. MLB was embarrased in front of Congress, hence the Mitchell inestigation so that Bud could save "face" in front of Congress.

Is there actual porof that Roger took the stuff - NO , but IMO, one can judge that beyond a reasonable doubt Roger took the stuff. Just look at his record in the beginning of 1998 when he was with the Blue-Jays then "presto" he goes on to win 20 games and capture the CY young award.

Also, for the most part the other names (Petit comes to mind) on the list already admitted to taking the stuff so there is credibility in what Mcnamee said.

Bottom Line- Roger need only look to his own union which is the major cause for his hardship now not Mcnamee.

Pete Booth

"Just look at his record in the beginning of 1998 when he was with the Blue-Jays then "presto" he goes on to win 20 games and capture the CY young award."
Now I'm left with a question or two. Did Clemens' speed/power pitching increase at this time? Did his size increase. I don't see where he increased speed and I don't see that he increased size - as is expected and noticed in other users. I also don't see how increased strength is going to do anything but make him less accurate, so - did his walks and HBP increase?

I will take it a step further. The size of a person is also a bad judge of who took a drug or not. Change your diet, lift more weights, you will get bigger in many ways over a period of time. Heck people that are getting paid millions work out more than most of us.

Also pitching is about control more than speed. There are players that can hit 100 but cannot get the ball over the plate. Remember Matt "Wild Thang" Williams when he played for Philly and the Cubs? He could throw really hard but he could not get the ball over the plate. And he had trouble at critical times. I think pitching can benefit from steroids the least. Steroids does not help you control the ball or tell you when to go inside on a batter like Roger has done well most of his career. And Clemens the last several years would hardly go longer than 5 or 6 innings. I am not seeing this drastic jump in his ability in the latter years as compared to even Bonds. Roger basically did less year in and year out. The last two years Roger did not even play a full season because he waited until almost a 3rd of the season was over then he decided to come back and play.

The bottom line is we have a bunch of people that never did anything athletic (the media) telling the public that steroids are so bad and help performance based on size of players (alone) and we think it helped players enhance their performance.

Peace

All Bowl games results under Lloyd Carr's regime. SEC who???

2008 Michigan 41, Florida 35
2002 Michigan 38, Florida 30
2001 Tennessee 45, Michigan 17
2000 Michigan 31, Auburn 28
1999 Michigan 35, Alabama 34 (OT)
1998 Michigan 45, Arkansas 31

BTW, Ohio State is 0-10 against the SEC in Bowl Games. Great way to represent the Big Ten OSU.

You forgot the 17-14 loss to Alabama in the January 1997 Outback Bowl.
This is still a more than respectable Lloyd Carr record against the SEC of 5-2 which leads to the rocks, scissors, paper of SEC beats Ohio State, Jim Tressel beats Lloyd Carr and Carr beats the SEC.

Tressel, by the way, has a 4-2 record in BCS Bowls so his Ohio State teams do represent the Big Ten very well.

Ohio State Bowl History

Ohio State beat teams like Oklahoma State, Kansas State and Texas A&M. OSU played South Carolina two years in a row and that was pre-Spurrier era and lost both times. These are not even top programs year in and year out. Part of the reason the Big Ten gets crap is because OSU when they have had success cannot beat one SEC team. Michigan has historically has beaten up on the SEC even before Carr was a coach. If we are going to talk about domination, I have a name for you, John Cooper. How did that work out for you? :D

Peace

Guilt by Association
 

Clemens played for the Yankees. How many Yankee teammates were reportedly using steroids during that time? Half of the entire Yankee line-up has already admitted to using "something" and suspicion of other Yankees; including Roger's success cannot be overlooked. The steroid pipeline from CA to NY was exposed. When 2 to 3 more former Yankee pitchers were caught and/or fessed up after initially saying they had not used steroids; the gravity of the problem became too difficult for the Rocket to escape.

John Cooper worked out just fine for OSU. His Michigan and Bowl records were not very good, but he sent more players to the NFL than any other big ten school during his career including Heisman Trophy winner Eddie George, 1996 Outland Trophy winner Orlando Pace, Alonzo Spellman, Robert Smith, Dan Wilkinson, Joey Galloway, Terry Glenn, Mike Vrabel, David Boston, Shawn Springs, Antoine Winfield, Ahmed Plummer, Na’il Diggs, Nate Clements, and Ryan Pickett. For the most part his Ohio State teams were fun to watch. Cooper had a won-loss record of 111-43-1 second only to Woody Hayes. During his tenure the Athletic Department raised the money to expand Ohio Stadium to 106,000 seats.

But I am not into a OSU/Michigan rivalry contest. I only pointed out the error in your Michigan/SEC listing and that OSU under Tressel has represented the Big Ten very well. Lloyd Carr, likewise, was one of the best coaches the Big Ten ever had and under his tenure Michigan became the all time leader in wins and winning per centage.

His retirement officially ends the Schembechler era at Michigan with a legacy of 33 straight bowl appearances. It could have been 39, the same number as the years of the Schembechler era, had the Big Ten allowed teams to go to more than just the Rose until 1975.

[QUOTE]The Big Ten is down. I will give you this: Tressel and his AD are smart as year in and year out (sine the Big Ten does not have a Conference Championship Game) sit back and wait for the SEC or the "other" conferences to "knock themselves out" and thus get into the National Championship game as evidenced by this year.

They were 10 and 1 but IMO that's not impressive because there out of conference schedule was a joke and the BIG Ten was down. Michigan was all "banged up" when they played them. They lost to Illinois who in turn got "manhandled" by USC.

The Championship Game should have been LSU vs. USC but that's another discussion (The BCS Fiasco)

Personally I am tired of seeing Ohio St in the Champoinship game each year. They did not deserve to go this year. The BIG Ten is down. Also, let's face it they got a REAL generous call when they beat Miami to win the Championship years ago.

Next year we will see what happens when the Buckeyes travel to USC. Finally a decent out of conference opponent.

Pete Booth

[QUOTE=PeteBooth]I don't know what you mean by sit back in wait. In 2002 the Buckeyes were undefeated going into the Fiesta Bowl and last year were also undefeated before facing Florida. This year they had one loss prior to the Championship game. In all three years they were ranked number one in the BCS.

Ohio State has home and homes for the next ten years with Southern Cal, Miami, Virginia Tech, California, and Oklahoma. And prior to this year played Texas home and away. This year Ohio State did, indeed, benefit from a down year for Washington of the Pac Ten and a number of Big Ten teams who had key injuries. But the Buckeyes did not lose to the likes of Appalachian State, Stanford, or Pittsburgh and therefore wound up playing in the BCS Title game, even though it was a rebuilding year, simply because all of the other contenders lost two or more times. A healthy LSU probably goes undefeated and WAS healthy in the title game. OSU will lose some juniors to the NFL, they always do, but returns almost everyone on offense.
They are already fifth in some preseason polls. The difference next year is Southern Cal and a stronger big ten, especially at Illinois, Wisconsin,Penn State and Michigan State. If Rodriguez gets his wide open offense going at Michigan, 2008 will be a great football year in the Big Ten.

Good Point
 

Pete makes a good point. The players didn't do themselves any favors by stonewalling the issue for years. But the MLB Grand Poohbah's seemed to turn a blind eye to this as long as TV ratings and record revenue poured in. My point is that you can't convict all of the players. This Mcnamee is less than a credible witness.

Accomplices, why didn't I think of that?
 

The next investigation will seek players who knew of steroid use and didn't report it to their superiors.
Mr. Torre, I would like to ask you some questions about the bad things that took place while you were in command.
I can't explain why MLB owners can't take responsibility, but Mr. Steinbrenner (Sp?), thank you for stepping down.
Duty, honor, courage. ;)

Less credible than Clemens?

McNamee had a strong self-interest in telling the truth, whatever the truth may be.

Clemens has a strong self-interest in denying taking steroids, whatever the truth may be.

So, which is less credible?