NBA embarassment

[Adam]

Originally Posted by NYBLUE

If he's lying and if he makes these exact same claims under oath, he's committing perjury. Although he's a felon and has lost almost all credibility, I think he's being truthful.

He only risks perjury if he actually goes to court to testify about it; and if his testimony is demonstrably false.

By making claims that amount to his word against someone else's, for which there is no documentation either way, he's not really risking perjury charges.

There is no reason to believe him; unless you really want to.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

...By making claims that amount to his word against someone else's, for which there is no documentation either way, he's not really risking perjury charges....

Probably what Roger Clemens thought, too.

[Adam]

Originally Posted by Dakota

Probably what Roger Clemens thought, too.

The better analogy is to Mcnamee. His credibility is limited. He's made accusations that are refuted by the accused, in what started out as mere "he said, he said."

The difference, though, is that there may in fact be evidence which supports his accusations. I think it's a stained dress or something.

If Donaghy is able to provide evidence, or gets lucky enough to have someone else find some, that supports his acertion; all bets are off.

[Raymond]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

The better analogy is to Mcnamee. His credibility is limited. He's made accusations that are refuted by the accused, in what started out as mere "he said, he said."

The difference, though, is that there may in fact be evidence which supports his accusations. I think it's a stained dress or something.

If Donaghy is able to provide evidence, or gets lucky enough to have someone else find some, that supports his acertion; all bets are off.

Jose Conseco?

[Adam]

Originally Posted by BadNewsRef

Jose Conseco?

Might even be a better analogy if Donaghy comes out with a book.

[Dakota]

Originally Posted by Snaqwells

The better analogy is to Mcnamee. His credibility is limited. He's made accusations that are refuted by the accused, in what started out as mere "he said, he said."

The difference, though, is that there may in fact be evidence which supports his accusations. I think it's a stained dress or something....

Not to chase this rabbit trail, but McNamee's credibility is actually higher than Clemens' IMO.

For one thing, McNamee did not have to name Clemens. For another, he was given immunity ONLY IF he told the truth, so the penalty for McNamee to falsely accuse Clemens is much higher than a mere perjury charge.

And, third, Clemens has been caught in several lies already associated with his denials.

I'm not sure what to think about Donaghy or the NBA. I'm not a fan of the NBA and therefore don't follow it closely at all.