Roger Clemens=the white Barry Bonds

[Skipaway]

At this moment, the "innocent until proven" guilty tag should actually apply on McNamee. Without the upcoming Congress hearing, if McNamee has been proven lying, he'd be in jail for a couple of years, because he'd had lied to past federal investigations. If Clemens has been proven lying, it'd just be bad for reputation.

[darkenigma510]

Originally Posted by Skipaway

At this moment, the "innocent until proven" guilty tag should actually apply on McNamee. Without the upcoming Congress hearing, if McNamee has been proven lying, he'd be in jail for a couple of years, because he'd had lied to past federal investigations. If Clemens has been proven lying, it'd just be bad for reputation.

McNamee might have gone to jail if he HADN'T accused anyone of steroids and worked with the Feds. Not sure of your logic here.

[BaseballMan]

Originally Posted by Skipaway

Why are you only thinking from Clemens' side? This is not like the Bonds situation, where it's general interest against Bonds.

Here we are in a situation with one person against another person. You are offering tons of reasons to doubt McNamee, without bothering to considering the alternative explanations that would favor McNamee, or casting any doubt toward Clemens. There are tons of ways to reasonably explain McNamee's actions so far, but I don't see the need to speculate, since the hearing is coming up.

McNamee is simply a worthless human being to you, while Clemens is someone you have to defend over McNamee?

And you are not doing the same with McNamee. I never said McNamee was a worthless human being. I simply dont beleive his truth is reliable. You make a case for McNamee but you havent told me explanations that Clemens could be innoncent or not guilty either. So why should i not take Clemens side if thats who i beleive is telling the truth? Are you not basically taking McNamee's side. That is speaking from what you have told me and not elsewhere on this board.

[Skipaway]

Originally Posted by darkenigma510

McNamee might have gone to jail if he HADN'T accused anyone of steroids and worked with the Feds. Not sure of your logic here.

That is false. McNamee will have to go to jail if he lied.

He told the truth about Pettitte and probably Knoblauch, didn't he?

If what he told about Clemens was proven false, he'd go to jail.

[Skipaway]

Originally Posted by BaseballMan

And you are not doing the same with McNamee. I never said McNamee was a worthless human being. I simply dont beleive his truth is reliable. You make a case for McNamee but you havent told me explanations that Clemens could be innoncent or not guilty either. So why should i not take Clemens side if thats who i beleive is telling the truth? Are you not basically taking McNamee's side. That is speaking from what you have told me and not elsewhere on this board.

And what makes you believe McNamee is not reliable? Why do you believe Clemens to be telling the truth?

McNamee has much more at stake throughout this. I am not taking his side, but I think you are taking unnecessary scrutiny toward him.

We are talking about putting McNamee to jail in all this, and we would have to be very cautious.

What Clemens has at stake isn't anything criminal.

[BaseballMan]

Originally Posted by Skipaway

And what makes you believe McNamee is not reliable? Why do you believe Clemens to be telling the truth?

McNamee has much more at stake throughout this. I am not taking his side, but I think you are taking unnecessary scrutiny toward him.

We are talking about putting McNamee to jail in all this, and we would have to be very cautious.

What Clemens has at stake isn't anything criminal.

Because McNamee did lie before. Did McNamee not make his own bed when he gave the steroids to players? So why should i feel sorry if he has to go to jail?
I just dont see this guy as a poor me scapegoat.

[Skipaway]

Originally Posted by BaseballMan

Because McNamee did lie before. Did McNamee not make his own bed when he gave the steroids to players? So why should i feel sorry if he has to go to jail?
I just dont see this guy as a poor me scapegoat.

You can choose to believe what you want to believe, and make up your mind about a person you don't really know, all based on very little facts.

I'll just see if anything new and interesting would come out of the coming hearings.

[BaseballMan]

Originally Posted by Skipaway

You can choose to believe what you want to believe, and make up your mind about a person you don't really know, all based on very little facts.

I'll just see if anything new and interesting would come out of the coming hearings.

It might but if the syringes are found to not have any of Clemens DNA would you still find McNamee credible or not?
Because i cant really see anybody tampering with it except him unless he got them confused with other syringes he might have saved but threw them out. Sounds like a reach for the truth there. Well thats the way i see the truth with McNamee.

[Skipaway]

Originally Posted by BaseballMan

It might but if the syringes are found to not have any of Clemens DNA would you still find McNamee credible or not?
Because i cant really see anybody tampering with it except him unless he got them confused with other syringes he might have saved but threw them out. Sounds like a reach for the truth there. Well thats the way i see the truth with McNamee.

Personally I don't think the syringes are important at all. Substances are really hard to date, and whatever finding on those probably wouldn't really mean anything.

[darkenigma510]

Originally Posted by Skipaway

That is false. McNamee will have to go to jail if he lied.

He told the truth about Pettitte and probably Knoblauch, didn't he?

If what he told about Clemens was proven false, he'd go to jail.

And if he didn't co-operate with the feds, he'd go to jail too. Hence, he has reasons to name names.

I think it will be more difficult to prove McNamee is lying than proving Clemens is lying. Hence, McNamee has the greater chance of getting away with stating a falsehood to save his bacon.

[Splitter24]

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.

[Skipaway]

Originally Posted by darkenigma510

And if he didn't co-operate with the feds, he'd go to jail too. Hence, he has reasons to name names.

I think it will be more difficult to prove McNamee is lying than proving Clemens is lying. Hence, McNamee has the greater chance of getting away with stating a falsehood to save his bacon.

And by co-operate, it means he has to tell the truth. Or are you implying the Feds are pressing McNamee to tell a lie, as opposed to pressing him to tell the truth? That doesn't sound right.

[Skipaway]

Originally Posted by Splitter24

In my opinion, his stats don't really mean anything when it comes to answering whether he used PED's or not.

I agree with that. There is no way to use stats to prove or disprove if any specific player used whatever substances.

Stats are good for macro level issues with large enough sample sizes. At the individual level, it's really hard to be specific about anything due to the margin of error for stats.

[BaseballMan]

Originally Posted by Splitter24

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.

And his stats are not unbelievable compared to the top players of those year.
Its not like he was the first 30 game winner since McLain and threw almost 300 strikeouts with a below 2.00 era. The stats just dont look out of the ordinary. If the stats dont mean anything then why does it even matter if a player took steroids? If the stats dont tell you anything as to whether a player took them or not then what difference do steroids really make?
If they really helped wouldnt you notice a big difference.
Then again ive never been a beleiver that steroids has much effect has the public is led to beleive.
Ten years from now if the same records are being set or broken as the ones
now will we still be using steroids as an explanation or credting the players ability, coaching, training etc. When do we get back to giving the players credit for their accomplishments? Thats all i want to see. If that means clearing Clemens or convicting him i dont care just get to the truth.

[Raidergoo]

Originally Posted by Skipaway

Personally I don't think the syringes are important at all. Substances are really hard to date, and whatever finding on those probably wouldn't really mean anything.

Well, there once was this blue dress...

[zekester91]

Originally Posted by BaseballMan

And his stats are not unbelievable compared to the top players of those year.
Its not like he was the first 30 game winner since McLain and threw almost 300 strikeouts with a below 2.00 era. The stats just dont look out of the ordinary. If the stats dont mean anything then why does it even matter if a player took steroids? If the stats dont tell you anything as to whether a player took them or not then what difference do steroids really make?

Steriods don't make you a better ball player nor will the help your stats directly, from my understand they allow you to recover fast and heal faster. For Roger it may have ment that instead of being the 6 or 7 inning pitcher he's been for the last few years that he might have started doing it earlier say between 32 to 35. Also he would have felt more fresh going out to the mound which could give him a boast pitching. For batter it allows them to train more often and get better musle tone and hit more HR.

[Skipaway]

Originally Posted by Raidergoo

Well, there once was this blue dress...

Blood and semen can be dated better, but not the substances injected. So you cannot conclude if the blood and the substances on the syringe got in there at the same time.

[1998 Yankees]

Now today comes the story that McNamee injected Debbie Clemens with HGH as well. In her case I approve of this action, however.

[Russ]

Originally Posted by 1998 Yankees

Now today comes the story that McNamee injected Debbie Clemens with HGH as well. In her case I approve of this action, however.

I'd inject her with some growth and some hormones.

For all the 12 year olds in the house.

[Jason Moyer]

Apparently McNamee is claiming that Roger was at a lunch meeting with Jose Canseco in 1998, where they discussed steroids. Jose has apparently signed an affadavit claiming Roger wasn't there, a couple sportscasters who were there made mention on broadcasts that night that it was disappointing that Roger didn't show up and mentioned that he was out playing golf, and Roger has a receipt for green fees for that time. That's not good for McNamee.