ADVrider

Go Back   ADVrider > Fluff > Sports
User Name
Password
Register Inmates Photos Site Rules Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 2 votes, 5.00 average. Display Modes
Old 01-15-2008, 10:15 AM   #2521
Gary in Indiana
Big Bike Rider
 
Gary in Indiana's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, IN
Oddometer: 580
Quote:
Originally Posted by RichBeBe
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?
Actually, Roger is solely and totally responsible for a rule change by the Hall of Fame. Forever before, players who had played for more than one team in their careers were given the opportunity to choose which hat they would wear in the Hall.

In what I considered a real slap in the face to the Hall of Fame and to the Boston Red Sox, then New York Yankee Roger Clemens SOLD the right to choose which hat he would wear in the Hall of Fame to George Steinbrenner. Upon learning of this, the Hall of Fame changed their long-standing tradition of extending the courtesy of making that choice to the inductee and now maintains that right as their own to decide.

I sincerely believe that he'll be inducted wearing a Boston Red Sox hat. I think that he would have been wearing a Boston Red Sox hat before he sold out to Steinbrenner. I believe he would have been inducted wearing a Boston Red Sox hat before this current controversy. With those two things having happened, I'd say it's an absolute lock that he'll be wearing a Boston Red Sox hat in the Hall of Fame.

I'm going to be very attentive to his appearance before Congress. Is he going to sit there by himself and answer everything coolly, calmly and openly? Is he going to be handled there by his attorney? Is he going to be totally candid or is he going to use what I call 'weasel words' in his replies? Is he going to express anger and outrage to try to deflect from the issue at hand?

I still think he was a great pitcher and one who is deserving of a place in the Hall of Fame and I don't see anything that will change my mind on that.
__________________
Only bikers understand why dogs like to ride with their heads out the car window.
Gary in Indiana is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-15-2008, 02:37 PM   #2522
Gary in Indiana
Big Bike Rider
 
Gary in Indiana's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, IN
Oddometer: 580
Quote:
Originally Posted by G-man17
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.
Actually, his guilt or innocence IS the issue here so far as what I've been reading and writing.

That said, I'll grant you that I wish there had been someone else not connected directly with any individual team involved in the investigation so as to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. One could easily argue that Mitchell's known position on the Red Sox' board precluded him from giving them any breaks because of the attention it would have drawn. I honestly don't know how much actual investigation he did but I'd think very little. My concern would be more that some underling might have steered away from something having to do with the Red Sox in order to curry favor with his boss (Mitchell). Either way, it's not a good situation.

As far as your red herring about "witnesses who would have contradicted McNamee," I have to ask why I haven't seen them at a press conference or on 60 Minutes or with some reporter telling their story? I can't believe that no one is interested. There must be some other reason.

Your comment to me about my convicting Clemens is ludicrous on many levels. I never convicted him or anyone. I don't have that power. As to your allegation that I did so as he was answering the charges, that's simply not true. I did it after he FAILED to do that very thing, after he hid behind non-denial denials read by his attorney and read by his agent before issuing a stronger denial which was also read by his attorney. I did it after he FAILED to appear live to deny the charges to the media and chose instead to do a sub-three minute home movie and play it on his web site. I did it AFTER he disappointed me and many other fans by doing what he did instead of going out the very next day and standing up personally at a press conference and saying, "I have never, ever taken any steroids, HGH or any other PED at any time in my entire life. Any questions?"

THAT would have put me on his side from that day forward.

As to your comment about lying not being a part of his "persona," I agree. The problem with that is what a "persona" actually is - a carefully crafted and maintained public image. Who would ever craft and maintain a public persona as a liar? That's ridiculous!

Please understand, I'm not saying that there's nothing wrong with having a public persona that holds one in a good light. We all have them to one degree or another, famous or not. I just think that we ought to recognize it for exactly what it is.

As to Roger Clemens never having been called a liar, I have to take exception to that. There was mention here in the last few posts about the subway series against the Mets and the Clemens/Piazza incident with the broken bat. Do you really mean to tell me that you don't think that ANYONE called him a liar when he claimed that he was just tossing that broken bat head off the field to save a bat boy a few steps and that he never even saw Piazza there until after he'd released it? This is a man who gets paid millions of dollars based on his ability to see where he wants to throw something and to throw it there and you are telling me that NO ONE ever said he was lying about that? Please!

I'll readily buy that he doesn't have an overall reputation as a liar but for you to say that "Clemens has never been called a liar by anyone" is more than a little ridiculous.

Lastly, let's address that famous unilaterally recorded telephone call. Clemens had McNamee call at a particular time and place where he had not just one, but two different attorneys at his side listening in and telling Roger exactly what to say the whole time. McNamee virtually worships Clemens and even still he couldn't say what Roger wanted. He even said he'd go to jail for Roger if that's what Roger wanted. For McNamee to have lied to the Mitchell investigators would have put him in jeopardy for criminal prosecution in California. To avoid that, all he had to do was to tell the truth and I believe now more than ever that telling the truth is exactly what he did.

Please understand, this isn't a situation where the prosecutor had some agenda to 'get' Roger Clemens and told McNamee that if his testimony aided in that goal that he wouldn't get any jail time. This was, "We'll give you immunity from criminal prosecution in exchange for full and forthcoming testimony to the Mitchell Commission regarding any and every thing about which they ask you. Anything short of full and candid testimony and your immunity is revoked. If anything in any testimony you give is ever found to be false, your immunity will be revoked and you'll go to prison."

I see McNamee with everything to gain and absolutely nothing to lose by being forthcoming and honest with the Mitchell investigators. I also see him as having everything to lose and absolutely nothing to gain by being anything less than that with the Mitchell investigators. While I don't like McNamee at all (and I really, really don't for a number of reasons), I don't see any reason that he would have lied and I see a big reason for him not to.

The hearings have begun and I look forward to reading those transcripts as they become available as I do the deposition that Roger Clemens is now scheduled to give prior to his testimony. Of course, that is assuming that the deposition will be made public. If it isn't, I'll have to wonder why.
__________________
Only bikers understand why dogs like to ride with their heads out the car window.
Gary in Indiana is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-16-2008, 03:44 AM   #2523
G-man17
The Devil Drives!
 
Joined: Nov 2005
Oddometer: 2,532
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary in Indiana
Actually, his guilt or innocence IS the issue here so far as what I've been reading and writing.

That said, I'll grant you that I wish there had been someone else not connected directly with any individual team involved in the investigation so as to avoid even the appearance of impropriety. One could easily argue that Mitchell's known position on the Red Sox' board precluded him from giving them any breaks because of the attention it would have drawn. I honestly don't know how much actual investigation he did but I'd think very little. My concern would be more that some underling might have steered away from something having to do with the Red Sox in order to curry favor with his boss (Mitchell). Either way, it's not a good situation. Agreed

As far as your red herring about "witnesses who would have contradicted McNamee," I have to ask why I haven't seen them at a press conference or on 60 Minutes or with some reporter telling their story? I can't believe that no one is interested. There must be some other reason. I am sure that today Clemens does not want them talking because people in your camp will attack them based on "friendship," "employment" or some other bias. He is now in a situation where they potentially will be called as Federal witnesses.

Your comment to me about my convicting Clemens is ludicrous on many levels. I never convicted him or anyone. I don't have that power. As to your allegation that I did so as he was answering the charges, that's simply not true. I did it after he FAILED to do that very thing, after he hid behind non-denial denials read by his attorney and read by his agent before issuing a stronger denial which was also read by his attorney. I did it after he FAILED to appear live to deny the charges to the media and chose instead to do a sub-three minute home movie and play it on his web site. I did it AFTER he disappointed me and many other fans by doing what he did instead of going out the very next day and standing up personally at a press conference and saying, "I have never, ever taken any steroids, HGH or any other PED at any time in my entire life. Any questions?" This is just completely untrue. He was doing exactly these things as you "convicted him" (that's a euphimism foir what you were writing). Who would he have held that press conference with, ESPN? CNN? Fox? Come on he needed a solid forum where he would not be accused of ducking the real issues. He went on 60min. and people such as yourself still accused him of taking softballs.

THAT would have put me on his side from that day forward. Nah, I am seeing Red Sox bias. I believe most of the people who root for Boston are dying to see Clemens go down.

As to your comment about lying not being a part of his "persona," I agree. The problem with that is what a "persona" actually is - a carefully crafted and maintained public image. Who would ever craft and maintain a public persona as a liar? That's ridiculous! Clemens persona carefully crafted---don't think so. Not the guy I watched for multiple decades. Also, one thing I have from this whole process, Clemens isn't the smartest guy. No crime. He is much less savvy then people like you would have the world believe. Much of your "expectations" work for a worldly well educated guy but Clemens is a bit of a naif.

Please understand, I'm not saying that there's nothing wrong with having a public persona that holds one in a good light. We all have them to one degree or another, famous or not. I just think that we ought to recognize it for exactly what it is.

As to Roger Clemens never having been called a liar, I have to take exception to that. There was mention here in the last few posts about the subway series against the Mets and the Clemens/Piazza incident with the broken bat. Do you really mean to tell me that you don't think that ANYONE called him a liar when he claimed that he was just tossing that broken bat head off the field to save a bat boy a few steps and that he never even saw Piazza there until after he'd released it? This is a man who gets paid millions of dollars based on his ability to see where he wants to throw something and to throw it there and you are telling me that NO ONE ever said he was lying about that? Please!

I'll readily buy that he doesn't have an overall reputation as a liar but for you to say that "Clemens has never been called a liar by anyone" is more than a little ridiculous.

Lastly, let's address that famous unilaterally recorded telephone call. Clemens had McNamee call at a particular time and place where he had not just one, but two different attorneys at his side listening in and telling Roger exactly what to say the whole time. McNamee virtually worships Clemens and even still he couldn't say what Roger wanted. He even said he'd go to jail for Roger if that's what Roger wanted. Because it is clear, if you listen to the tape, McNamee lied. What he lied about I don't know, but he lied. Clemens repeatedly says, "I need someone to tell the truth." Remember Clemens has to be very careful, he can't say "you need to go say this, because he is open to Federal witness tampering charges if he does. Clemens says "I need someone to tell the truth." McNamee never says, "who are you kidding, I already did that." Never says, "I am sorry that is all I did" or "Roger you know I did." Please don't give me this worshipping Roger thing. He coughs the guy up then uses him to get things from him after giving his "testimony" that is an absolute joke. Oh, by the way, you don't think that McNamee's attorney's told him Clemens might call and tape a conversation? You don't think that McNamee knew that call was being taped? Really?


For McNamee to have lied to the Mitchell investigators would have put him in jeopardy for criminal prosecution in California. To avoid that, all he had to do was to tell the truth and I believe now more than ever that telling the truth is exactly what he did.

Please understand, this isn't a situation where the prosecutor had some agenda to 'get' Roger Clemens and told McNamee that if his testimony aided in that goal that he wouldn't get any jail time. This is where you just plain just don't know the facts. It was very clear that they were specifically after Bonds, Clemens or any other top name. By the way, here is where the Mitchell thing is really bad. For years Big Poppy has been a rumored roid user. Career was slightly better than average in Minnesota and then he "explodes" in Boston. Now just a few years later his body is breaking down. Sound like Gagne? Sound like Roberts? So the comment they weren't out to get "Roger" is absurd. They wanted big names. Give me a bigger name?


This was, "We'll give you immunity from criminal prosecution in exchange for full and forthcoming testimony to the Mitchell Commission regarding any and every thing about which they ask you. Anything short of full and candid testimony and your immunity is revoked. If anything in any testimony you give is ever found to be false, your immunity will be revoked and you'll go to prison." Do a little investigation and see how many people are actually tried when given immunity and give false testimony. None! The only time the Feds would even think of bringing you to trial is if it helped someone get off. McNamee says he did it. Clemens says he didn't. McNamee is not going to be tried even if Clemens were to go to trial and found not guilty. Because our system does not declare you innocent it declares you not guilty. Hence McNamee says--look I told the truth you didn't prove it. This is just a really weak argument.

I see McNamee with everything to gain and absolutely nothing to lose by being forthcoming and honest with the Mitchell investigators. I also see him as having everything to lose and absolutely nothing to gain by being anything less than that with the Mitchell investigators. While I don't like McNamee at all (and I really, really don't for a number of reasons), I don't see any reason that he would have lied and I see a big reason for him not to. Ever been near a prison? Generally speaking that experience is enough for most people to give false testimony on their mother. You can't even admit that McNamee may have lied to stay out of prison. McNamee was arrested and charged with trafficking in steroids. Everyone knew he trained Clemens, that was his high profile client. Who do you think they wanted him to cough up? Really who? What is really hilarious about the accusation and your assessment is one central issue. McNamee was the trafficker but Clemens brought him the drugs? However nobody (not a teammate or anyone else) has come forward and said I gave the drugs to Clemens. Hmmmmmm. Also, don't forget that McNamee probably thought Clemens would be retired by now. McNamee thought that giving "info" on Clemens would be a safe bet. Keeps him out of prison, Clemens is retired and life is good for everyone.

The hearings have begun and I look forward to reading those transcripts as they become available as I do the deposition that Roger Clemens is now scheduled to give prior to his testimony. Of course, that is assuming that the deposition will be made public. If it isn't, I'll have to wonder why.
This is why I say you have already convited him. Look Clemens is the one who just could let this go. Clemens is the one pushing to clear his name and put himself on a collision path with hearings and the law. You don't think his attorneys have warned him that if he has anything to hide he should just ride this storm out? McNamee had every motivation to lie and Clemens, if guilty, has every motivation to lay low. But you see the motivations going the other way. Hmm, sounds really biased. I stick with my initial take. You don't like Clemens and you have convicted him without hearing the evidence.

G-man17 screwed with this post 01-16-2008 at 03:54 AM
G-man17 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2008, 01:33 AM   #2524
Gary in Indiana
Big Bike Rider
 
Gary in Indiana's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, IN
Oddometer: 580
Without quoting and picking things apart as you did, I'll just hit your high points.

Do we have any credible evidence about these Clemens witnesses or are they kind of like the communists that McCarthy had on his list? Why doesn't he trot them out now? Because people will challenge them?? Puh-leeze! What are they witness to, anyhow? Are these people who watched Clemens' butt 24/7 and can testify as to what went in it?

On a personal note, I'd really appreciate it if you would stop lying about me and what I have done. I never "convicted" Clemens of anything, nor do I have the power to do so, as I said. For you to claim that saying that is a euphemism (I spelled it correctly so you can look it up) for what I wrote is totally false. I suggest you look up the meaning of that word. What you are doing is exactly the opposite of what you claim. If you're going to use a word like that, please learn what it means so you can use it correctly and not insult me by doing what you have done. You owe me an apology. You got personal and you lied about me, whether you knew it or not because you didn't know what the word means.

As to my suggestion of a press conference, again, I meant exactly that-a conference open to ALL members of the media regardless of affiliation. I wanted him to give his side of the story and open the floor for questions within 24 hours of the release of the report. Plain & simple. As I said, if he'd done that, I'd have been on his side right then and since. Again, when I wrote that you went personal and implied that what I said was untrue, instead claiming that my doubts of his veracity are somehow based on my being a Red Sox fan. Hell, he's going into the Hall of Fame wearing a Red Sox hat. Why would I want that sullied? Geez!

Your conspiracy theories about taped conversations, prosecutors after "bigger" names, and other players not accused don't bear comment. They're wandering, meandering tales with no relationship to the case at hand. You're grasping at straws.

Many people are tried for perjury every year. Don't take my word for it. Ask Chacifer. She's in law school and can document it for you.

Your argument that McNamee chose to name rich, powerful, popular, lily-white Roger Clemens when Clemens is totally innocent begs the one question you're not successfully answered. Why? Why would he do that? Why would he risk prison by putting his immunity in jeopardy?..He had his immunity deal signed BEFORE he named Clemens.

I have to say one thing about this turn in the thread. While I still like Clemens (yet another example of you lying about me), I've certainly come to have a diminished opinion of some of his other fans now.
__________________
Only bikers understand why dogs like to ride with their heads out the car window.
Gary in Indiana is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2008, 02:09 AM   #2525
Dr. Horrible
easy to make
 
Dr. Horrible's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2006
Location: Hamilton, MA
Oddometer: 2,789
Quote:
Originally Posted by G-man17
This is why I say you have already convited him. Look Clemens is the one who just could let this go. Clemens is the one pushing to clear his name and put himself on a collision path with hearings and the law. You don't think his attorneys have warned him that if he has anything to hide he should just ride this storm out? McNamee had every motivation to lie and Clemens, if guilty, has every motivation to lay low. But you see the motivations going the other way. Hmm, sounds really biased. I stick with my initial take. You don't like Clemens and you have convicted him without hearing the evidence.
I know you have a tough time with logic and reason, G-man, but let's try it one more time...

Scenario One: Clemens Never Knowingly Took Steroids.

If McNamee tells the truth, he stays out of jail and enjoys life as a free man.
If Clemens tells the truth, his record remains untainted.

Scenario Two: Clemens Knowingly Took Steroids.

If McNamee tells the truth, he stays out of jail and enjoys life as a free man.
If Clemens tells the truth, he is ruined as an athlete and risks losing the respect of his family and his peers.

Who does the truth benefit most?
Dr. Horrible is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2008, 05:12 AM   #2526
G-man17
The Devil Drives!
 
Joined: Nov 2005
Oddometer: 2,532
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Horrible
I know you have a tough time with logic and reason, G-man, but let's try it one more time...

Scenario One: Clemens Never Knowingly Took Steroids.

If McNamee tells the truth, he stays out of jail and enjoys life as a free man.
If Clemens tells the truth, his record remains untainted.

Scenario Two: Clemens Knowingly Took Steroids.

If McNamee tells the truth, he stays out of jail and enjoys life as a free man.
If Clemens tells the truth, he is ruined as an athlete and risks losing the respect of his family and his peers.

Who does the truth benefit most?
Horrible logic??? The problem is that your premise and your conclusion are exactly the same, hence you never actually derive a conclusion but merely state one.

Both you and Gary suffer from the same problem. You have never spent much time in the criminal justice system--most would consider that a plus for you by the way.

There is an old, and overly quoted adage, that a prosecutor can get a ham sandwhich indicted. Perhaps a bromide but still very true. Without giving up bigger names, McNamee simply goes to jail as a drug trafficker from what I see for evidence he probably would have gotten no less than 20 and was substantially at risk for going away for life. Remember this is high profile he was going to take it on the chin.

One thing you should realize is without coughing up a bigger fish the federal system is pretty brutal to traffickers they just don't negotiate deals without giving somebdoy up meaningful. Although the feds can't tell you who to give up, they definitely negotiate the immunity. Meaning, they were not giving McNamee immunity if he dished on say the equivalent of Alex Cora. In order to get the immunity they wanted names--big names. So Pettite is good, but Clemens is so much better. The feds, Congress, baseball owners and unions wanted big names. The biggest name McNamee could give was Clemens. I am sure they pushed hard on McNamee for Clemens. Maybe its the truth, but you haven't been there so you don't know what that is like. Someday go visit even a county lock up in a well populated area and see if, even, as a visitor, you don't get a little nervous. When McNamee was in there they told him how he wasn't going to see his children, how they would put him some where in the federeal system far away from family and friends (by the way, that is what they do--you don't go to prison in your home town) and how he was going to go in with "real" drug dealers and how much fun that was going to be for him. You think that stuff is all in the movies, huh? He figures, hey Clemens will be retired, they aren't going to do anything to him, so I will just cough up that name. Now he gives up a name they really want and are willing to give immunity for. Sure they tell him he has to be telling the truth and all that stuff. His lawyer is saying, don't worry about that because unless the government can prove without any doubt at all--not reasonable doubt--without any freaking doubt what so ever--they will never bring that case. Why? Because a first year law student can beat the government in that case, he just says my client told the truth and you just didn't like the results your prosecutors were able to get. If you think that is far fetched you just haven't been there.

Does Clemens have a reason to lie--of course. But McNamee is now a proven liar, he has admittedly given contraditory testimony. Clemens has provided consistent denials. They don't saitisfy Gary, but you would need Clemens to rejoin the Red Sox for his denials to satisfy Gary. McNamee on the other hand is free walking around town and could possible have spent life in prison--you tell me who has more reason to lie.
G-man17 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2008, 10:44 AM   #2527
Gary in Indiana
Big Bike Rider
 
Gary in Indiana's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, IN
Oddometer: 580
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Horrible
Scenario One: Clemens Never Knowingly Took Steroids.

If McNamee tells the truth, he stays out of jail and enjoys life as a free man.
If Clemens tells the truth, his record remains untainted.

Scenario Two: Clemens Knowingly Took Steroids.

If McNamee tells the truth, he stays out of jail and enjoys life as a free man.
If Clemens tells the truth, he is ruined as an athlete and risks losing the respect of his family and his peers.

Who does the truth benefit most?
Concise and to the point. Great post. Thank you.
__________________
Only bikers understand why dogs like to ride with their heads out the car window.
Gary in Indiana is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2008, 11:27 AM   #2528
Gary in Indiana
Big Bike Rider
 
Gary in Indiana's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, IN
Oddometer: 580
Quote:
Originally Posted by G-man17
Gary...never spent much time in the criminal justice system--most would consider that a plus for you by the way.
Would you care to share what you seem to imply is your vastly superior knowledge into the inner machinations of the criminal justice system so we might more accurately compare it with our own?

Quote:
Originally Posted by G-man17
There is an old, and overly quoted adage, that a prosecutor can get a ham sandwhich indicted. Perhaps a bromide but still very true.
Actually, that's not even an accurate quote, much less an old, tired one. Nonetheless, this inaccuracy is amazingly consistent with most of your other statements here.

The old saying is, "A good prosecutor can get a Grand Jury to indict a ham sandwich," and it's used as an indictment of the Grand Jury system and how it's often misused by prosecutors who don't want to have to bear the responsibility for charging a crime themselves. Of course, this is only from what you perceive to be my relative lack of knowledge of such things.

Quote:
Originally Posted by G-man17
(Clemens' denials) don't satisfy Gary, but you would need Clemens to rejoin the Red Sox for his denials to satisfy Gary.
Let me say this again. I like Clemens. I think he's been a great pitcher deserving of induction into the Hall of Fame. I believe that will happen and also believe that it will be with a Red Sox cap on his head. He will be remembered as a Red Sox pitcher. If he had pitched for Boston last season or for the last two or three seasons (which I assume is what you mean) it wouldn't change my opinion of his veracity in this today.

For me, his denial... when it finally was a denial and came from him directly with someone asking questions of him... was simply too little, too late, especially with all of the non-denial denials issued by others on his behalf so as to give him plausible deniability even on those.

You seem to think that, for me, this has something to do with where he was playing when it happened (New York). It doesn't. It has solely to do with the issues at hand. I'd feel the same way if he was still pitching in Toronto, Texas or, yes, in Boston. I'd feel the same way if he was a tennis star playing Wimbeldon or a biker in the Tour de France.
__________________
Only bikers understand why dogs like to ride with their heads out the car window.
Gary in Indiana is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2008, 11:28 AM   #2529
G-man17
The Devil Drives!
 
Joined: Nov 2005
Oddometer: 2,532
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr. Horrible
Scenario One: Clemens Never Knowingly Took Steroids.

If McNamee tells the truth, he stays out of jail and enjoys life as a free man.
If Clemens tells the truth, his record remains untainted.

Scenario Two: Clemens Knowingly Took Steroids.

If McNamee tells the truth, he stays out of jail and enjoys life as a free man.
If Clemens tells the truth, he is ruined as an athlete and risks losing the respect of his family and his peers.

Who does the truth benefit most?



Concise and to the point. Great post. Thank you.

"What if I should fall right through the center of the earth... oh, and come out the other side, where people walk upside down.
G-man17 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-17-2008, 07:01 PM   #2530
Gary in Indiana
Big Bike Rider
 
Gary in Indiana's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, IN
Oddometer: 580
Quote:
Originally Posted by G-man17
"What if I should fall right through the center of the earth... oh, and come out the other side, where people walk upside down.
The beer's on me!
__________________
Only bikers understand why dogs like to ride with their heads out the car window.
Gary in Indiana is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-18-2008, 06:12 PM   #2531
G-man17
The Devil Drives!
 
Joined: Nov 2005
Oddometer: 2,532
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary in Indiana
The beer's on me!
No thank you there Gary, I believe you and Dr. Horrible need to lay off the stuff for a while--you guys have obviously had enough.
G-man17 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-18-2008, 06:29 PM   #2532
LongWays
Skiing up a hill...
 
LongWays's Avatar
 
Joined: Sep 2005
Location: City of Subdued Excitement.... no really it is!
Oddometer: 5,148
For a supposedly Red Sux thread you boys are spending a lot of time talking about........







































wait for it................























A Yankee



Is it April yet?

PLAYBALL!
__________________
If you don't like my sig line - don't read it.
LongWays is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2008, 12:00 AM   #2533
Gary in Indiana
Big Bike Rider
 
Gary in Indiana's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, IN
Oddometer: 580
Well, at this point with no contract in place, he's no more a Yankee than he is a Ranger, Blue Jay or member of the Red Sox. I think he'll always be thought of and tied to the Red Sox in the minds of many if not most baseball fans. Going into the Hall of Fame with the Boston hat would only reinforce that.

__________________
Only bikers understand why dogs like to ride with their heads out the car window.
Gary in Indiana is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-19-2008, 03:18 AM   #2534
G-man17
The Devil Drives!
 
Joined: Nov 2005
Oddometer: 2,532
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gary in Indiana
Well, at this point with no contract in place, he's no more a Yankee than he is a Ranger, Blue Jay or member of the Red Sox. I think he'll always be thought of and tied to the Red Sox in the minds of many if not most baseball fans. Going into the Hall of Fame with the Boston hat would only reinforce that.


I think we can share Roger. There is enough of him to go around.





I know that was a bad fat joke.
G-man17 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-21-2008, 10:18 AM   #2535
Gary in Indiana
Big Bike Rider
 
Gary in Indiana's Avatar
 
Joined: Apr 2007
Location: Fort Wayne, IN
Oddometer: 580
Quote:
Originally Posted by G-man17
I think we can share Roger. There is enough of him to go around.

I know that was a bad fat joke.
Well, after all, Roger did hire the same attorney who represented Anna Nicole Smith. Now I'm not saying this guy specializes in stocky clients with illegal substance problems...

This attorney has somehow convinced Congress to allow Roger to be deposed. I wish I was rich and famous so the rules didn't apply to me.
__________________
Only bikers understand why dogs like to ride with their heads out the car window.

Gary in Indiana screwed with this post 01-21-2008 at 10:43 PM
Gary in Indiana is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Share

Thread Tools
Display Modes Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


Times are GMT -7.   It's 09:40 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ADVrider 2011-2014