Roger before Congress

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by jkumpire

Folks, it was the committee who invited RC and BM to Washington, Clemans did not demand a hearing. Waxman is a publicity hound, and he started this mess. To make his regrets for having it now is almost funny if it wasn't so sad.

I agree with almost all you say here. Far be it from me to defend the prominent proboscidean pore, but apparently (?) after the depositions were taken, Waxman floated the idea of not having the live hearing and just issuing a report. Also apparently (?) Clemens attorneys (aka the idiots) demanded the hearing be held. Give Waxman props for belatedly recognizing the uselessness of the actual hearing. Give Clemens' attorneys the idiot badge for demanding the hearing be held.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Give Waxman props for belatedly recognizing the uselessness of the actual hearing. Give Clemens' attorneys the idiot badge for demanding the hearing be held.

A public citizen cannot demand anything of congress unless the congress feels the need to do something. Waxman should have had sense enough to know that this issue was not a relevant reason to have a hearing. And I do not call Clemens' attorneys idiots to want to clear their clients name.

The funny thing about all of this, it shows why Barry Bonds did not want to make any statements publicly to the media about his situation. Clemens did everything the opposite that Bonds has done and people still believe he used steroids. Clemens is suing his accuser for liable, he came out and took on his accusers in the media and he went to Congress and even was willing to go under oath. And the result is the same. Everyone still thinks Clemens used something that he may not have used at all. This is why I have always said that this probing into the past is a waste of time. All someone has to do is accuse you and you are guilty of sin, no matter the circumstances.

Peace

[Dakota]

Clemens' main attorney is a very prominent defense attorney from the Houston area. Obviously, he is not an idiot in the mental sense. But in the sense of how to handle this situation, he either gave his client idiotic advice, or his client refused to follow his advice.

The more that is revealed about Clemens (and Bonds, for that matter) in this steriod / HGH using situation, the more it hurts rather than helps.

To believe Clemens, you have to not believe:
1) McNamee
2) Pettitte
3) Clemens' nanny
4) and even Clemens himself

Why would McNamee only make up stuff about Clemens?
Why was Clemens not at the party. Then at the party but didn't go in?
Why was the accusation by McNamee that he gave Clemens' wife an injection of HGH a "colossial lie" and then the "collosial lie" is only that Roger himself was involved?
Why does any athlete take injections of B-12 in his butt?
Why is it incredulous that a person would keep gauze for years but not incredulous that a person would keep a golf receipt for years?

Roger Clemens is willing to throw friends and family under the bus to protect his public reputation. Only problem is, by doing so, he has destroyed his public reputation.

I'll place merit in the libel suit only when it actually makes it to trial. Don't hold your breath on that one.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Why would McNamee only make up stuff about Clemens?

First of all the he is a government witness so he can protect his behind and not go to jail. He has every motive to tell a story that is not only hard to prove, but makes him look credible. If you know about the history of government informants, they have given information to save their skins, only to be found out later as a lie. McNamee has every motive to lie because getting a small fish does not save his behind.

Originally Posted by Dakota

Why was Clemens not at the party. Then at the party but didn't go in?

If I recall that Clemens never went to the party and there were even commentators that attended the party, went on air and said Clemens was not even there.

Originally Posted by Dakota

Why was the accusation by McNamee that he gave Clemens' wife an injection of HGH a "colossial lie" and then the "collosial lie" is only that Roger himself was involved?

Once again, you are confusing media reports, with testimony. If I recall Clemens never said that it was a lie in testimony, he said that McNamee was basically sick for involving his wife. HGH is legal and is taken by many people for youth purposes. Stallone advocates the usage of HGH.

Originally Posted by Dakota

Why does any athlete take injections of B-12 in his butt?

I have no idea. I am not a medical expert.

Originally Posted by Dakota

Why is it incredulous that a person would keep gauze for years but not incredulous that a person would keep a golf receipt for years?

A golf receipt might be held for tax purposes. I know I keep many records for years and it has nothing to do with a possible criminal protection. Holding gauze for one does not prove anything. Holding it in the basement in a freezer does not make the evidence credible. I have heard many lawyers say that it would be almost impossible to bring that into court because all the usual chain of custody rules was not followed. For all we know that information could have been doctored.

Originally Posted by Dakota

I'll place merit in the libel suit only when it actually makes it to trial. Don't hold your breath on that one.

If it goes to trial does not prove that Clemens is innocent or guilty. It just means it went to trial. My point was that the media and many who accuse these players of taking steroids cannot have it both ways. Bonds and Clemens have reacted completely opposite of each other and no matter what they do, the "public" (mainly the media) still makes it seem like they are both doing the wrong things by either keeping silent or vigorously defending their truth. So they are damned if they do and damned if they don't.

Peace

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

First of all the he is a government witness so he can protect his behind and not go to jail. He has every motive to tell a story that is not only hard to prove, but makes him look credible. If you know about the history of government informants, they have given information to save their skins, only to be found out later as a lie. McNamee has every motive to lie because getting a small fish does not save his behind.

His immunity is only good if he tells the truth. If he lies, he goes to jail. It has nothing to do with "big fish" - and besides, a starting pitcher and starting 2B for the yankees is pretty big fish, even if not Cy Young territory.

If I recall that Clemens never went to the party and there were even commentators that attended the party, went on air and said Clemens was not even there.

You recall? And you criticize me for referencing media reports? I was referring to Clemens himself changing his story once confronted with nannygate. First he was not there. Then, he was there to drop people off but didn't go in. Sure, Roger. Sure. His claim of not being there depended on the golf receipt. Yet, that became completely meaningless once he admitted he was actually there but just did not stay long.

Once again, you are confusing media reports, with testimony. If I recall Clemens never said that it was a lie in testimony, he said that McNamee was basically sick for involving his wife. HGH is legal and is taken by many people for youth purposes. Stallone advocates the usage of HGH.

The collossal lie was a statement made by his attorney. The collosal lie was later verified as true by Roger, only now he claims he, personally, had nothing to do with it. Sure, Roger. Sure.

A golf receipt might be held for tax purposes. I know I keep many records for years and it has nothing to do with a possible criminal protection. Holding gauze for one does not prove anything. Holding it in the basement in a freezer does not make the evidence credible. I have heard many lawyers say that it would be almost impossible to bring that into court because all the usual chain of custody rules was not followed. For all we know that information could have been doctored.

The issue is not admitting it in court, since there are no charges here. The issue is does it back up McNamee or Clemens version? 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!

If it goes to trial does not prove that Clemens is innocent or guilty. It just means it went to trial. My point was that the media and many who accuse these players of taking steroids cannot have it both ways. Bonds and Clemens have reacted completely opposite of each other and no matter what they do, the "public" (mainly the media) still makes it seem like they are both doing the wrong things by either keeping silent or vigorously defending their truth. So they are damned if they do and damned if they don't.

Peace

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.

[Dakota]

One other thing... while I agree completely that Waxman is a publicity hound, that this hearing was a huge waste of time and money, that Congress should be paying attention to more important things, that the partisan taking of sides in the hearing is either sad or comical (I can't decide which), that Waxman certainly could have not held the hearing regardless of what Clemens insisted on, etc., etc.,...

I do believe that MLB and the players union would have done NOTHING, NADA, ZIP, about the juicing players without the threat from Congress to step in. Without that, Donald Fehr would not have budged and there would STILL be no testing of players.

[JRutledge]

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.

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

[GarthB]

My favorite part was Roger listing his flaws as "caring too much, giving too much and being too nice."

If his attorney scripted that, he should be fired.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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.

You conveniently neglect to address the fact that there are no criminal charges here for which the gauze, etc., are relevant. They are only relevant as a matter of witness credibility. "Chain of custody" blah, blah does not matter. Do the artifacts back up McNamee's story or not?

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

Hello??? Where is it written that an accused strategy for dealing with the accusation has any bearing on guilt or innocence? Bonds never talked with the press before OR after the accusation. Clemens is a publicity seeker and privilege seeker and professional intimidator who can't stand to have his ego attacked. Hence different reactions.

And, again, I can have it both ways on this since it has nothing to do with whether or no they juiced. The evidence is very strong that both did. Different kinds of evidence for both, but both are cooked. And, rightly so.

[CO ump]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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.

Sure you can. This is the court of public opinion not state or federal criminal court.
The media and public can have it as many ways as they want
The 'evidence' thus far presented to the public has undeniably convicted ol Roger and Barry as well as OJ

Originally Posted by JRutledge

And honestly I have yet to see the usage of steroids prove someone was a better player.

It doesn't improve their natural talent, it just makes them stronger.
A player not on the juice who hits 30 hr and 35 warning track outs in a year goes on the juice and now hits 38 hrs, 5 doubles off the wall and 22 warning track outs has just become a 'better player' by virtue of added strength. His ability to identify pitches, anticipate how he will be pitched, hand eye coordination and swing mechanics, all necessary talents to play in MLB, has not been affected but his added strength and increased durability makes a big difference.
If you don't see this you need to open your eyes.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

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

How old is Clemens? 42 I think.
How many 42 year old pitchers not on the juice are still in the game?
Not many
Maybe because:
Most 42 year old power pitchers have lost significant speed, subject to arm problems, pitch many less innings and don't have near as good a winning % as they did in their prime.

The fact that Roger has stayed consistent in these areas despite his age is just one more reason to believe he's guilty

[CO ump]

Originally Posted by JRutledge

A public citizen cannot demand anything of congress unless the congress feels the need to do something. Waxman should have had sense enough to know that this issue was not a relevant reason to have a hearing. And I do not call Clemens' attorneys idiots to want to clear their clients name.

Isn't it government "of the people, for the people and by the people"?

Although your normal joe citizen may not be able to 'demand' action by the congress, if you have enough political clout or can produce enough bad PR you can probably get most anything you want from congress.
RC attorney had enough public interest/support and media attention to persuade the folks in Washington to open the circus act another day.
So apparently a demand was made and congress succombed.

Originally Posted by JRutledge

The funny thing about all of this, it shows why Barry Bonds did not want to make any statements publicly to the media about his situation. Clemens did everything the opposite that Bonds has done and people still believe he used steroids. Clemens is suing his accuser for liable, he came out and took on his accusers in the media and he went to Congress and even was willing to go under oath. And the result is the same. Everyone still thinks Clemens used something that he may not have used at all. This is why I have always said that this probing into the past is a waste of time. All someone has to do is accuse you and you are guilty of sin, no matter the circumstances.

Peace

Fortunately for Roger he chose a profession that has made him a multimillionaire. Unfortunately, for him, his profession makes him subject to the court of public opinion.
The probing is directly related to his profession and in a time frame where he was making millions off his performance. I have absolutely no problem with public, media and MLB probing.
I have a huge problem with congressional probing, but that's a whole other issue.

[JRutledge]

Originally Posted by CO ump

Isn't it government "of the people, for the people and by the people"?

Although your normal joe citizen may not be able to 'demand' action by the congress, if you have enough political clout or can produce enough bad PR you can probably get most anything you want from congress.
RC attorney had enough public interest/support and media attention to persuade the folks in Washington to open the circus act another day.
So apparently a demand was made and congress succombed.

If the Chairperson decided not to have the hearing, there would have been no hearing. It is that simple.

Originally Posted by CO ump

Fortunately for Roger he chose a profession that has made him a multimillionaire. Unfortunately, for him, his profession makes him subject to the court of public opinion.
The probing is directly related to his profession and in a time frame where he was making millions off his performance. I have absolutely no problem with public, media and MLB probing.
I have a huge problem with congressional probing, but that's a whole other issue.

I do not care what profession he is in. And the amount of money that he makes has nothing to do with this discussion. His rights or the rights of others should not have anything to do with what they decided to do for a living. And it is not like he decided to be a professional player over being a doctor or lawyer. He had to be picked and good enough to maintain in the pros unlike most people that choose other professions. And if the public was so upset, they should have not paid money to attend a time that they think it was so obvious people were using drugs that were not considered illegal. I have attended maybe 3 major league baseball games in 25 years and I hardly watch the sport on TV except for a few post season games. I am not a person that is directly affected by what some player does in a league I hardly support finiancially. I would rather have congress investigate the billions that are unaccounted for in the war, than what one guy did 5 and 10 years ago.

Peace