Quote:
Originally Posted by BaseballMan
Then it would be said that Clemens told him to say he didnt use steroids. Not that he is saying it because its true.
So i should be suspicious if a player over 35 has a good season? Yes he has the best stats of his generation. But take away the years that he was suppose to be doing steroids he is still the best pitcher of his generation.
His stats were just as good in Houston if you take in the fact he didnt start to pitch till like June. Hes been known for his training all his career. So why should i be suspicious?
I dont really beleive the physical signs prove anything but that if it works for hitters then shouldnt pitchers should show some kind of sign even if its small?
When would they release the results of tests on the evidence? Would we know before any trial? I think McNamee must be reaching because theres only to ways this could come out. Either it shows it wasnt used on Clemens or it does in which it will be said its tampered with. If i wanted to make sure another guy took the fall with me i think i would keep some copies of checks and prescriptions or something like that not syringes from 7 years ago.
But why would he think i have to save these syringes cause Clemens might denie it. Why did he beleive Clemens would be accused back in 2001. Oh wait thats right hes the one that is accusing him. Why not other players he may have given steroids too? Why only a player who most likely has a lot more money than most players.
|
Let me reiterate that I have no opinion on whether Clemens used PED's, nor do I care.
But you were the one who said that his stats "were not unbelievable for a player without steroids." And I simply am still asking you what would be? What level would a starting pitcher's stats have to be to get you suspicious?
In my opinion, his stats don't really mean anything when it comes to answering whether he used PED's or not.