Roger Clemens

[gordon30307]

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.

[MCJB Ump]

Originally Posted by gordon30307

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.

He won't at the Congressional hearings.

[DonInKansas]

Originally Posted by MCJB Ump

He won't at the Congressional hearings.

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."

[ozzy6900]

Originally Posted by MCJB Ump

He won't at the Congressional hearings.

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

[UMP25]

Originally Posted by ozzy6900

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!

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.

[Dakota]

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

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

[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.

[ozzy6900]

Originally Posted by UMP25

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.

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.

[UMP25]

Originally Posted by ozzy6900

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'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.

[jimpiano]

Originally Posted by ozzy6900

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

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

[GarthB]

Originally Posted by gordon30307

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.

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.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by GarthB

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...

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

[waltjp]

Originally Posted by Dakota

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?

[dash_riprock]

Originally Posted by GarthB

Roger, most likely, is lying...

Care to share your basis for that belief?

[gordon30307]

Originally Posted by dash_riprock

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.