Rocket says he didn't take no steroids. <object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/vD0GHx980CU&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/vD0GHx980CU&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object> That's enough for me.
Its enough for me until someone comes up with somthing credible. Right now its a he said he said. Mitchell and Co. have proved that they are not above unethical behavior so I will stick with the Rocket.
Not really much of a football fan, though I do root for the Steelers. Honestly unless the Steelers meet the Pats in the AFC championship game I am rooting for them to go undefeated.
I'm not at all of the belief that this will become a blotch on the career of Mr. Mitchell. Further, I'm not convinced that it should ever become one. He was asked to do a job and he did it. Could it have been done better? In hindsight, virtually everything could have been done better and this is no exception. The fact is that this report is good for the game of baseball and the recommendation that baseball move forward without concerning itself with punishment is truly commendable. I'm sure that some (maybe many if not most) players who used steroids, HGH and god knows what else were not named. I'm not so well convinced that any who were named are, in fact, named wrongly, though I leave open that possibility, to be sure. If you choose not to believe this report as truth, that's certainly your perogative. I'd like to think he didn't as well, but that's not the direction the results of this exhaustive investigation lead me to believe. I'm reminded of the legend of the young boy with tears in his eyes pleading, "Say it ain't so, Joe! Say it ain't so..." to Shoeless Joe Jackson about the Black Sox Scandal. If Clemens actually did say he didn't take steroids, that would be one thing. The fact of the matter is that Roger Clemens has yet to personally, publicly say that he never used steroids or other performance enhancing drugs. He has issued a statement through his attorney denying the allegations, but that is a totally different thing. His attorney has stated that anyone who accuses his client of having taken steriods had better have a good lawyer, but that's only posturing. It's been challenged by an ESPN reporter/commentator who said many times in a broadcast I heard that he welcomes a suit from Clemens because that will place Clemens in the position of having to give sworn testimony that will be subject to investigation and cross-examination and that he "know(s) Clemens won't want to go there." Thus far, Clemens has not sued him nor even challenged him nor has he EVER personally, publicly, categorically denied the allegations in the Mitchell report. This isn't a "he said, he said," at all. It's a "the exhaustive investagation results say, named party instructs his attorney to say" at best. If you want to make a believer out of me, just say it ain't so, Roger. Say it ain't so...
Gary I am very disappointed in you. I believe you try to post things that are fair and balanced but what you wrote above is patently false and was so at the time you wrote it. Celemens has made two very specific denials. He has agreed to sit down and take questions from 60 mins. around these allegations. What make your post most troubling is that all of these things were known prior to your posting and given how closely you follow things I cannot believe you did not know. I am deeply disappointed. As to Mitchell, he was a partisan hack and from what I can see the label sticks. Mark my words, this will become a blight on his career as it should. I prefer to listen to Mr. Celemens until someone, without an axe to grind, comes forward with something better.
Chacifer sorry - Brady is a bigtime Yankee fan. Do a quick google search and you will see that Brady is a lifelong Yankee fan. Not only are the photos not doctored but he wears that beautiful hat in the Patriots locker room. For that, I may even root for them against my beloved Giants this weekend. BTW he is a good looking guy and I am comfortable with that--with the Yankee hat on he is quite stunning.
First, let me make on thing perfectly clear lest there be any misunderstandings whatsoever. I would very much like for Roger Clemens to clear his name in this. That having been said, thus far, I'm not seeing it happening. The denials to which you refer were, if I'm up on this, statements released by his agent, his attorney and, most recently, a video that I see was release on his web site a couple days before Christmas (that I haven't seen). Something else I haven't seen is Roger Clemens in public stating categorically that he never used steroids, HGH or any other performance enhancing drug at any time during his Hall of Fame career. Unfortunately, those "statements issued by" things don't carry nearly the weight of a personal statement because of their inherent deniability. I want to see Roger Clemens deny this conduct (not allegations, but conduct) in a press conference followed by him taking questions. I want to see Roger Clemens sue and win a defamation of character suit. I want to see him testify under oath or give a sworn deposition. I want to see him prove that his former personal trainer, Brian McNamee, perjured himself under oath in testimony he gave under the condition of immunity. What I've seen so far (and I may well have missed something because I live in Indiana and it's basketball season... 'nuf said?) have been what I might call non-denial denials from third parties. I just found this on a web site (East Coast Bias) and, while I don't agree with all of it or it's tone, I still think it's a good read; "1) Roger Clemens vehemently denies allegations...that he used. Which allegations? All allegations? A couple allegations? Is there a little detail that the report didn't quite get perfectly accurate? One would think a big-shot attorney knows the differences between denying vaguely-defined allegations and denying conduct. "2) Roger has been repeatedly tested. Yeah, but the report alleged use in 1998 and 2000. Certainly Roger could have moved on to HGH before steroid testing began. "3) [No] shread of tangible evidence. So? That's true, at least from what we know now. These guys were allegedly engaged in an illegal conspiracy. They probably were careful to limit tangible evidence. Plus, maybe Roger wasn't dumb enough to use personal checks when obtaining his raw materials." To be fair, after this was written, a stronger denial (this one denying conduct) was released. Still, it wasn't Roger saying the words. Now he's going on '60 Minutes' to be interviewed by octogenarian friend and noted Yankee fan Mike Wallace a few months before he turns 90. Even so, I'll look forward to seeing that January 6. I'm not passing judgment here. I'm just hard pressed to see what possible motive Brian McNamee would have had to falsely name Clemens and risk his immunity and, thus, risk trial, prosecution, conviction and imprisonment. I just can't come up with an answer to that one, as much as I'd like to. That would have to be, to use your words, one huge "axe to grind" for him to put his freedom at risk like that.
I am completely incensed by this whole thing and it has nothing to do with Roger Clemens. It is simple, people such as yourself, good decent people, are now repeating this as if the Mithcell report were the bible. The witnesses are dirty, they were all looking for deals and they all wanted to save their own skin. Hey, we shouldn't be suprised because its the same in the judicial system. Generally you have somewhere between 9 and 12 jurors and half work for the post office (no offence to postal employees.) Here is the problem, Clemens never got to put on his case. He never got to cross examine the witnesses and he never had the opportunity to make sure exculpatory material was presented. Already the L.A. Times has had to apologize to him publicly for what they wrote last year and I would bet more will be coming. Finally, Clemens attorney's had presented names of people to Mitchell for them to interview. These people would have contradicted the former trainer but they were not interviewed. These individuals supposedly could also offer insight into why this person would in fact lie to hurt Clemens, but again they were not interviewed. I don't know if Clemens did or did not. I just haven't seen a shred of evidence that doesn't come from someone with an easily identifiable agenda.
Flug that was hilarious. I don't even want to know how you found it. Where do you get the Robe---I could have put that on my Christmas list.
OK, I've seen the home made video, I've seen the 60 Minutes segment and heard the press conference and all of the subsequent sabre rattling and filing of suits in different venues. I've even heard the surreptitiously taped telephone conversation between Clemens and McNamee. I like Roger Clemens. I wanted this to be a mistake. I wanted to believe him. In good conscience, I just can't do it. I'm sorry, I'm sad and I'm disappointed. I feel as though I gave Roger Clemens every benefit of every doubt and every opportunity to convince me (and I was very open to being convinced) that he is innocent of ever having used steroids, HGH or other PED's. Through it all, he has not only failed to do so, but also actually made me less and less convinced of his innocence and more and more convinced of his full knowing complicity in this. Still, he was one heck of a pitcher in the years before he met McNamee and that's the Roger Clemens I'll try to remember.
Not sure if I want to believe him because he is the greatest pitcher in the last however many years and one of the greatest of all times. I saw him pitch and rooted against him a few times in the 80's and I was working at Shea wen he pitched game 6. he pitched well and looked great and all of us Yanks fans know what happened in the 9th . Oh and I was also at the game when he almost killed Piazza. But my reasons for believing him is watching him talk about it and he is seriously putting his ass on the line by filing a lawsuit and going to testify. He is not a dummy and knows what is happening to Bonds for lying, I can't see him lie to congress. If he did them and just ignored it it might tarnish his image but he would still get into the hall and wouldn't risk jail for saying he didn't do them. BTW Who's hat does he wear when he goes into the Hall?
Whether Roger Clemens is innocent or guilty is not the issue. We should all be pissed that a memeber of the board of the Red Sox was on the committee handling the investigation. We should be incensed that the names were leaked and that witnesses who would have contradicted McNamee were not interviewed. To the question of his innocence I don't see how you can say this: "I feel as though I gave Roger Clemens every benefit of every doubt and every opportunity to convince me (and I was very open to being convinced) that he is innocent of ever having used steroids, HGH or other PED's." Read your previous posts,you convicted him before he had a chance to speak. You were stating that he failed to take the very actions he was taking (as he was taking them) and did not give him the chance to be innocent before being proven guilty. In the tape with McNamee he continually and repeatedly says: "I need someone to tell the truth." McNamee says, "tell me what to do." Clemens repeats, "I need someone to tell the truth." McNamee never says, "I did." I don't know, but I am certainly willing to give Clemens the benefit of the doubt. I can see reasons for both people to lie, but Clemens has never been called a liar by anyone and his whole personna is contrary to that.
