In Defense of Clemens and Bonds

[kflo]

the biggest problem with the interview is wallace really push the question of why mcnamee would lie. he actually cut roger off, if i remember correctly, as he was about to respond to bring up pettitte.

either roger's lying or mcnamee's lying.

mcnamee not injecting roger with steroids in other seasons doesn't mean he was clean in those seasons.

“If he’s doing that to me, I should have a third ear coming out of my forehead. I should be pulling tractors with my teeth,” said Clemens

this statement in particular made no sense. is he this dumb, or does he think we are?

he also waffled quite a bit on the idea of a lie detector, although that's a bit understandable.

[nanwynnfan]

Originally Posted by kflo

the biggest problem with the interview is wallace really push the question of why mcnamee would lie. he actually cut roger off, if i remember correctly, as he was about to respond to bring up pettitte.

I thought Clemens was pretty clear on that. He said he knew absolutely nothing about Pettitte's alleged steroidal injections. As I recall, they numbered less than a handful and were allegedy ad hoc recovery aids. If it was two or three [as I recall hearing], why would Clemens be expected to know of them, or even moreso, why would Pettitte tell him, unless both were openly using 'roids and chatting it up between them?

Originally Posted by kflo

mcnamee not injecting roger with steroids in other seasons doesn't mean he was clean in those seasons.

No. But what it emphatically DOES mean that, if Clemens was not on steroids in the 2004 Cy Young season, it does blow up the "incredible" concept of a 41 year old performing way above age expectation, without using.

Originally Posted by kflo

“If he’s doing that to me, I should have a third ear coming out of my forehead. I should be pulling tractors with my teeth,” said Clemens.

Do you really believe that the talk about Barry Bonds' hat size or Sosa's incredible hulk body or the echoes of Jose canseco's body morph escaped Clemens' notice? In the context of the media and public depictions of "users" I though Clemens' imagery was a solid down-home metaphor.

Originally Posted by kflo

this statement in particular made no sense. is he this dumb, or does he think we are?

No. He made it clear that many are close-minded and have already decided guilt or innocence on the question. He's right. [And, maybe some of "us" are?]

he also waffled quite a bit on the idea of a lie detector, although that's a bit understandable.[/quote]

He didn't waffle at all. He calmy and directly asked Wallace twice as to how reliable they were. He had just, with some emphasis, addressed the allegations themselves convincing some that accusations were being taken to the bank by many. He expressed willingness to take a test and to testify. As to the test, he was concerned whether [in terms of infallibly clearing him] it was worth the effort if results carried no guarantee of exoneration.

Seemed fair enough to me. There are many who put little credibility in lie detector tests.

[kflo]

Originally Posted by nanwynnfan

I thought Clemens was pretty clear on that. He said he knew absolutely nothing about Pettitte's alleged steroidal injections. As I recall, they numbered less than a handful and were allegedy ad hoc recovery aids. If it was two or three [as I recall hearing], why would Clemens be expected to know of them, or even moreso, why would Pettitte tell him, unless both were openly using 'roids and chatting it up between them?

the question was why would mcnamee be lying. i didn't really care about what he had to say about pettitte.

Originally Posted by nanwynnfan

No. But what it emphatically DOES mean that, if Clemens was not on steroids in the 2004 Cy Young season, it does blow up the "incredible" concept of a 41 year old performing way above age expectation, without using.

i don't think anyone has implied that it's not possible to perform way above age expectation. it's still rather unlikely to have the greatest single seasons in history.

Originally Posted by nanwynnfan

Do you really believe that the talk about Barry Bonds' hat size or Sosa's incredible hulk body or the echoes of Jose canseco's body morph escaped Clemens' notice? In the context of the media and public depictions of "users" I though Clemens' imagery was a solid down-home metaphor.

instead of attributing supernatural aspects to use, how about reality? he's trying to establish his own credibility. mocking the benefits of steroids as if he doesn't understand isn't a good strategy.

Originally Posted by nanwynnfan

No. He made it clear that many are close-minded and have already decided guilt or innocence on the question. He's right. [And, maybe some of "us" are?]

some have an opinion on guilt or innocence. that doesn't mean people won't change their mind given new evidence.

Originally Posted by nanwynnfan

He didn't waffle at all. He calmy and directly asked Wallace twice as to how reliable they were. He had just, with some emphasis, addressed the allegations themselves convincing some that accusations were being taken to the bank by many. He expressed willingness to take a test and to testify. As to the test, he was concerned whether [in terms of infallibly clearing him] it was worth the effort if results carried no guarantee of exoneration.

Seemed fair enough to me. There are many who put little credibility in lie detector tests.

does he want 100% approval? he may never get that. will a lie-detector test carry weight in public perception? of course. he's no under criminal investigation. his "fight" is with the public. that's who he needs to sway. having an interview denying isn't likely enough. he questioned the public and the test more than he showed a willingness to prove his version of the truth, imo.

but roger taking this to the courts via a defamation suit at least shows a willingness to continue to take on mcnamee's version. we'll see how he responds to the congress request.

[nanwynnfan]

Originally Posted by kflo

the question was why would mcnamee be lying. i didn't really care about what he had to say about pettitte.

Really? I only responded with reference to Pettitte because YOU raised that subject yourself.

Originally Posted by kflo

i don't think anyone has implied that it's not possible to perform way above age expectation. it's still rather unlikely to have the greatest single seasons in history.

That would imply that you haven't been reading the posts on these threads with very much attentiveness. The point has been raise so often that I have twice enumerated outstanding seasons by aged players [1901-Present] which have been blithely ignored by the age-performance census takers. I would suspect that's because: 1. you can't dispute facts; 2. anomalies are hard to squeeze into forms for predetermined templates.

Originally Posted by kflo

instead of attributing supernatural aspects to use, how about reality? he's trying to establish his own credibility. mocking the benefits of steroids as if he doesn't understand isn't a good strategy.

I see it quite the opposite. He's taking the morph imagery and tossing it right back into the faces of the facile cartoonists who see their observations of grotesquerie as proof of their cleverness and the infallibility of their position.

Since the critics, detractors and condemners here, in the media and among fandom are all trying to "establish" their pwn "credibility, seems to me that Roger has every right to do so, in-kind, and in imagery of his own.

Originally Posted by kflo

some have an opinion on guilt or innocence. that doesn't mean people won't change their mind given new evidence.

This may be true; but from what I've read and seen in the media and on these boards, Clemens seems justified in having his doubts.

Originally Posted by kflo

does he want 100% approval? he may never get that. will a lie-detector test carry weight in public perception? of course. he's no under criminal investigation. his "fight" is with the public. that's who he needs to sway. having an interview denying isn't likely enough. he questioned the public and the test more than he showed a willingness to prove his version of the truth, imo.

The entire tone of the interview from the Clemens side indicated that Clemens has a strong enough ego to respect his own efforts and accomplishments, with no need to be stroked with 100% approval ratings.

He has no 'fight" with the public, only those elements of the public who have both gobbled up the accusations as proof and made up their minds on the subject. From what I saw, he has no innate need to sway anyone, as far as his aggregated accomplishments and contributions to the game are concerned.

As to lie detector tests and bringing suits against detractors and/or Vioxx manufacturers, Clemens made it very clear that litigation costs money, time and effort ... and he's disinclined to line the pockets of lawyers with his hard-earned money. Can't say I blame him.

Originally Posted by kflo

but roger taking this to the courts via a defamation suit at least shows a willingness to continue to take on mcnamee's version. we'll see how he responds to the congress request.

First part covered by above comment. Second part, agreed.

At this point, I'll sum up my own "gut" position on this entire topic. I have gotten to the pont where I am past caring who used and/or did not use steroids; who did or did not "defile" the "sanctity" of MLB record book entries; and who did or did not play with absolute truths in testifying before Congress:

1. the American sports ethos has always had a not-so-secret admiration and respect for those who exploit every advantage: scuffed, spit, slippery elm, Vaseline, K-Y jelly, honed belt buckles, sharpened spikes, dugout chatter etc.;

2. guys who work out with punishing Spartan routines, weight training protocols, nutrition supplements, are, at the very minimum, projecting a positive [if not over-the-top] work ethic, far more desirable than coach choking, "Pwactice?" laments, wife-beating, rape, boozing and drugging, brawling, DWI, Lamborghini daredeviltry and a host of other "fun" dxploits by the uneducable, spoiled, and senseless sports "heroes;"

3. guys who take supplements, at a minimum, whether for team benefit or personal glory, are attempting to give fans the ultimate-effort bang-for-the-buck of which they are capable ... not all bad;

4. rules not formally imposed with authority to exact punishments are rules not obeyed. [That's human nature in action].

Crack down, relentlessy, ruthlessy, unforgivingly and hard as you like - effective 2004 [I believe it was Fall, 2003 where enforcement activists earned their "bones"]. Just make clear, up front, in writing, how harsh the penalties will be. Heck, have players, agents, owners, managers, coaches, trainers all sign off on it - just do it right.

[nanwynnfan]

Just now, 5:31 PM EST, Wolf Blitzer, CNN: Roger Clemens will sue former trainer for defamation.

[kflo]

Originally Posted by nanwynnfan

Really? I only responded with reference to Pettitte because YOU raised that subject yourself.

i said "the biggest problem with the interview is wallace really push the question of why mcnamee would lie. he actually cut roger off, if i remember correctly, as he was about to respond to bring up pettitte." i had no interest in discussing pettitte. i wanted to know why mcnamee was lying.
[/quote]

Originally Posted by nanwynnfan

That would imply that you haven't been reading the posts on these threads with very much attentiveness. The point has been raise so often that I have twice enumerated outstanding seasons by aged players [1901-Present] which have been blithely ignored by the age-performance census takers. I would suspect that's because: 1. you can't dispute facts; 2. anomalies are hard to squeeze into forms for predetermined templates.

bonds didn't perform above age expectation. he had the greatest single seasons in league history. and has acknowledged using clear and cream substances. those are the facts, but facts for a different thread.

Originally Posted by nanwynnfan

I see it quite the opposite. He's taking the morph imagery and tossing it right back into the faces of the facile cartoonists who see their observations of grotesquerie as proof of their cleverness and the infallibility of their position.

Since the critics, detractors and condemners here, in the media and among fandom are all trying to "establish" their pwn "credibility, seems to me that Roger has every right to do so, in-kind, and in imagery of his own.

i don't see how what he said accomplishes any of the above.


This may be true; but from what I've read and seen in the media and on these boards, Clemens seems justified in having his doubts.

Originally Posted by nanwynnfan

1. the American sports ethos has always had a not-so-secret admiration and respect for those who exploit every advantage: scuffed, spit, slippery elm, Vaseline, K-Y jelly, honed belt buckles, sharpened spikes, dugout chatter etc.;

i don't think there's much admiration for those who secretely try and cheat.

Originally Posted by nanwynnfan

3. guys who take supplements, at a minimum, whether for team benefit or personal glory, are attempting to give fans the ultimate-effort bang-for-the-buck of which they are capable ... not all bad;

they are doing it for themselves. and only themselves.

[nanwynnfan]

[QUOTE}: i don't think there's much admiration for those who secretely try and cheat.[/quote]

Oh, I think fans do respect those who try. The "cheating" part is more open to discussion: depends on the who [fan favorites get a pass]; the how [nature and method of the cheating and relative harm done and to whom]; and even the why [recovery from injury, easing of pain, heightened performance].

Other sports at various levels of competition have, whether fairly or not, rather individual protocols for dealing with "cheating;" and maybe that's as it should be.

However, those who have been banned, barred, suspended or otherwise punished quite publicly for "cheating" offenses, have pretty much admitted guilt and repentance, or have been up against such rigoros rules and enforcement where denials might only serve to make them look worse.

I got none of that vibration in MLB until well after records in attendance, profit and statistics were clearly rung up - KUH-TCHING!

[bigheadache]

In Clemens' press conference, they played a tape Clemens made over the weekend where he talked to McNamee. McNamee was not aware he was being recorded and said some things that damages his credibility. While Clemens doesn't say anything that would get him in trouble, it doesn't put him in a very good light. I'll be interested to see how this plays before Congress next week.

[Zen653]

Brian McNamee looks increasingly credible as a witness. This cannot be good for Clemens:

A meeting in 2004 between Roger Clemens' former trainer and a representative of the pitcher's agents could have implications in the back and forth claims about steroid use that came out of the Mitchell report, according to published reports.

Jim Murray, who is employed by Clemens' agents, met with the pitcher's former trainer Brian McNamee in 2004, near Clemens' New York apartment, according to McNamee's attorney Earl Ward.

Ward said that at the time, McNamee was concerned that some steroids may be lingering in Clemens' system that could result in a positive test in Major League Baseball's first round of steroid testing.

"He did speak to Murray about his suspicions, his concerns that Major League Baseball had implemented testing and that Roger could have a problem," Ward told the New York Times after speaking with his client Friday night.

McNamee said Murray took detailed notes about the meeting.

"Brian wanted to let them know Roger had some problems," Ward told the New York Daily News. "They discussed steroid use."

ESPN - Reports: Murray meeting with McNamee in 2004 may raise questions - MLB

I don't see how Clemens can win a defamation suit. Unless he wants to meet the same fate as Barry Bonds, he should drop the claim and avoid being placed in a position where he might commit perjury.

[bedir than average]

Well, he's about to wind up like Miguel Tejada. Because when he goes before Congress he will either commit perjury to win his defamation suit, or be honest and lose the suit.

[rrandom]

You are missing the most logical outcome bedir- he is filing his defamation suit specifically so that he can legally avoid answering any questions before congress. He can now claim that he cannot answer due to pending litigation. This is the perfect out for him.

[Zen653]

More bad news for Clemens:

New York, NY (Sports Network) - The Roger Clemens steroid controversy has reportedly taken another turn that could damage the star pitcher's claims that he has never taken performance-enhancing drugs.

According to a report by the New York Daily News, Brian McNamee, Clemens' former personal trainer, has turned over physical evidence to federal investigators that could support the findings in the Mitchell Report.

"This is evidence the government has that we believe will corroborate Brian in every significant way," McNamee lawyer Earl Ward told the Daily News.

McNamee's attorneys did not tell the paper the exact nature of the evidence, but the Daily News cited a source close to McNamee as saying investigators are now in possession of vials with traces of steroids and growth hormone, as well as blood-stained syringes and gauze pads that may contain Clemens' DNA.

Clemens gave a closed-door deposition to Congress on Tuesday, in preparation for next Wednesday's public hearing, and emerged from the five-hour session by saying "it was great to be able to tell them what I've been saying all along -- that I never used steroids or (human) growth hormone. I look forward to being here, I guess, in this room next week."

The Sports Network - Major League Baseball

Why would McNamee preserve old syringes with Clemens' DNA still on it? Does anyone else find that a bit creepy? Did McNamee intend on extorting Clemens at some point, or did he foresee all of the eventual fallout and decided to document and preserve as much as he could?

[bedir than average]

Clemens is going to jail.

[Zen653]

Clemens is a complete fool for doing this, especially if McNamee's evidence contains Clemens' DNA. Let's hope Clemens does go to jail.

[nanwynnfan]

Originally Posted by Zen653

Clemens is a complete fool for doing this, especially if McNamee's evidence contains Clemens' DNA. Let's hope Clemens does go to jail.

Yeah, right. Let's toss Clemens into a cell that might better be occupied by a child molester, drug trafficker, spy, terror suspect, rapist, wife beater, or other scum.

Sometimes the level of high-minded [or simple-minded] righteousness and quick-gavel rendering of "justice" here is simply, and mind-numbingly astounding.