In Defense of Clemens and Bonds

[kflo]

Originally Posted by nanwynnfan

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.

if clemens is indeed lying, he doesn't seem to care that his lies could result in mcnamee ending up in jail.

clemens knows exactly what game he's playing here, and what the risks are. i'll certainly take no joy if he ends up in jail. but i'll have little sympathy either.

[nanwynnfan]

Originally Posted by kflo

if clemens is indeed lying, he doesn't seem to care that his lies could result in mcnamee ending up in jail.

clemens knows exactly what game he's playing here, and what the risks are. i'll certainly take no joy if he ends up in jail. but i'll have little sympathy either.

C'mon - the self-same things can be said of his accuser.

[bedir than average]

You feel that a congressional perjurer doesn't belong in jail?

[kflo]

Originally Posted by nanwynnfan

C'mon - the self-same things can be said of his accuser.

well, nan - one is telling the truth, the other is lying. what do you think should happen to the one who is lying?

[Zen653]

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.

Yes, we should punish people for lying under oath. We've had presidents get away with perjury, but most other people would be punished for deceiving the justice system and making libelous accusations that could land an innocent person behind bars.

I'm not saying Clemens should be sentenced to 20 years in a maximum security facility, I just think we should stop making exceptions for celebrities. A couple months in jail plus thousands of hours of community service would probably be enough to send the message that rich people have to pay for their crimes too.

[nanwynnfan]

bedir/kflo/zen:

During this entire messy collision among MLB, players, agents, trainers, owners, Congress and lawyers, I have repeatedly argued, ad nauseam, what I consider "givens," that many here have challenged, but none [as I see it] has refuted:

1. MLB has some very clearly defined [and understood by anyone literate] rules that have been enforced, at some considerable cost to known violators;

2. MLB is a business, profit oriented, that has undergone within a single generation, strikes and diverse player headline stories that have been less than praiseworthy [Canseco, Belle, Bonilla], resulting in a recession that need an economic stimulus to get fans back to the game;

3. Home runs put fannies back in seats, eyes back on tv sets [often on paid services], cars in the parking lots and lines at the concession stands; renewed product endorsements; in-house media networks, and an aggregate sacred cash cow that would make a Hindu evaporate in awe;

4. MLB players, having survived, LL, parents, wild-eyed coaches, college dorms, minor league buses, and whimsical trades, make it to the Big Show for decidedly limited openings and into decidedly brief career longevity;

5. MLB is ultra-competitive for open slots in this very restricted universe; and competition is unrelenting;

6. Training, conditioning, nutrition and supplementation are all aids to give a competitive edge in strength, resilience, healing and overall physical "soundness," with physicians, nutritionists, trainers, and pharmacists expected to "do no harm" to therir clientele ... some items having side effects that couls abbreviate or end already limited career opportunities;

7. Fans, being human, love the guy who tries, and adore the guy who excels [if he's playing for the fan's team]; and, historically, fans have always flocked to guys who are, like them, human, flawed, and given to getting an edge by whatever means - on, or off the diamond: Ruth, Rose, Stanky, Perry, Ford ..... up to a point McGwire and Sosa];

8. Referring back to #1 and #2 above, MLB has also had a "wish list" of rules, memo distributions [heeded or not], inspired by headlines in other, individualized sports, drug and supplement categorization laws [in flux and ever-changing], NOT OFFICIAL and therefore not taken much to heart, in a climate of spinning turnstiles and tremendously improved cash flows;

9. We moralize over [essemtially] a generation of play [1988-2007], 20 year span, wherein Congress, MLB, the law, the players, the tests, the RULES became formalized @ 2003; and human nature and implementation being what they are, could reasonably be enforceable starting in 2004.

My bottom line: Start with April, 2004 and do not look back for retroactive penalization of activities prior to that date for any kind of retribution or penalty exacted for behaviors during the preceeding periods. You have no legal or moral leg to stand on.

Bringing in Congress, witnesses, players, studies and lawyers to nail "criminals' for perjured testimony for anything prior to April, 2004 is a massive Siberian cluster#$@* that is tragically laughable.

One more human time: I'd rather support a player with a Spartan workout ethic, who supplements those rigors with enhancements [vitamins, minerals, chemicals, muscle enhancers, mixed supplements - name it] than a sleazeball administrator who wants credit for "cleaning up the game;" an owner who "exacts proper penalties from cheaters;" a trainer who turns on his client when he should have been protecting him in the first place, and any others [including rabid fans] whose heroes are noe felons.

Even Mitchell exhorts us to move on.

You want to punish these guys? Here's my penalty: 360 logged community service hours of talking to kids [and prospective athletes], 10-21, on the issue of illegal supplements, the dangers, penalties, and risk-reward involved. the 360 hours is based on 2 academic years, 180 days in session/year, an hour being determined by standard length of a scheduled class [40 minutes, 50 minutes, etc.].

I would think that a tour, where two such classes per day were covered @ 10 hours/week, could be satisfied within a year.

[Zen653]

Nan, I agree with most of what you said, but it's not relevant to the point that we're making, or at least the one I'm making, which is that there should be consequences for committing perjury.

I don't care that Clinton lied about sex. I don't care that Clemens lied about HGH use. I care that they committed a crime by lying under oath. They could have lied about the color of socks they wore yesterday. Doesn't matter. The government should not tolerate people willfully lying under oath.

The entire justice system would collapse if we never punished anyone for perjuring themselves. There is no incentive to tell the truth if you know that there's no consequence for framing someone (in this case, McNamee) and not telling the truth. That's why Roger Clemens needs to spend some time in jail - not because he took steroids, but because he lied, under oath, to the government.

I don't care how famous he is, how scapegoated he feels, how complicit Major League Baseball is in his downfall. No one forced him to commit a crime by lying under oath. He did that all by himself and must pay a price for it.

[kflo]

nan - what does all of that have to do with lying to congress while under oath, with full knowledge of the risks and consequences?

and what responsibility did mcnamee have to protect clemens? his responsibility to his family far outweighs his responsibility to protect clemens' image and legacy.

[nanwynnfan]

Originally Posted by kflo

nan - what does all of that have to do with lying to congress while under oath, with full knowledge of the risks and consequences?

Right. Then sentence Clemens, please, the very day after you sentence William Jefferson Clinton.

and what responsibility did mcnamee have to protect clemens? his responsibility to his family far outweighs his responsibility to protect clemens' image and legacy.[/quote]

McNamee, as I really did not expect to spell out for you, was Clemens' personal trainer, a rather intimate relationship, in that it involves ups and downs, good days and bad, quite probably training regimine and supplement recipes not divulged to competitors and private conversations that expand beyond the training routine.

That's why I deliberately toosed in the "First, do no harm" reference, because trainers, like bartenders and confessors, are privy to personal communication not intended for public broadcasting. More imprtantly, the trainer's profession is basically health-and-wellbeing related; so you look out for the best interests of the client.

It is disingenuous to attempt engaging McNamee's responsibilities to wife and kids as a reasonable defensse of his unprofessional conduct. Noone suggested he abandom them to protect Roger Clemens.

The whole thing in so tawdry, including the reaches for arguments right here on this board, that Mitchell is right: Move on.

[kflo]

Originally Posted by nanwynnfan

Right. Then sentence Clemens, please, the very day after you sentence William Jefferson Clinton.

is perjury no longer a crime? can all perjurers use the but clinton defense? does it work?

Originally Posted by nanwynnfan

McNamee, as I really did not expect to spell out for you, was Clemens' personal trainer, a rather intimate relationship, in that it involves ups and downs, good days and bad, quite probably training regimine and supplement recipes not divulged to competitors and private conversations that expand beyond the training routine.

That's why I deliberately toosed in the "First, do no harm" reference, because trainers, like bartenders and confessors, are privy to personal communication not intended for public broadcasting. More imprtantly, the trainer's profession is basically health-and-wellbeing related; so you look out for the best interests of the client.

It is disingenuous to attempt engaging McNamee's responsibilities to wife and kids as a reasonable defensse of his unprofessional conduct. Noone suggested he abandom them to protect Roger Clemens.

The whole thing in so tawdry, including the reaches for arguments right here on this board, that Mitchell is right: Move on.

his unprofessional conduct was being a 'roids dealer. clemens unprofessional conduct was being the roids user. a freakin personal trainer has no professional duty to keep information from authorities as he's being criminally charged. he has no obligation to protect the user. it's like saying a drug dealer has an ethical obligation to protect his user clients. the guilty need have a code to protect the guilty.

as for moving on, if everyone tells the truth, noone faces criminal charges. pretty simple.

[nanwynnfan]

Originally Posted by kflo

is perjury no longer a crime? can all perjurers use the but clinton defense? does it work?

Why are you asking ME that question? I don't get the Oreo Defense or the Clinton Defense or the Clinton re-definition of "IS;" yet here we are as a nation, possibly asking Bill for an encore as FIRST FIRST HUSBAND ... and you're asking me to explain human nature?



his unprofessional conduct was being a 'roids dealer. clemens unprofessional conduct was being the roids user. a freakin personal trainer has no professional duty to keep information from authorities as he's being criminally charged. he has no obligation to protect the user. it's like saying a drug dealer has an ethical obligation to protect his user clients. the guilty need have a code to protect the guilty.[/quote]

You don't really enjoy reading what others write, do you? You seem much to prefer responding to what you feel like posting. My allegation of McNamee's responsibilities as a professional trainer addressed the CORE of his profession, not the incidentals of his timeline with Clemens.

Originally Posted by kflo

as for moving on, if everyone tells the truth, noone faces criminal charges. pretty simple.

At the bottom line, all this garbage is far more important to you than it is to me. I believe there are much more critical issues confronting us these days, than the enforcement on non-rules; retroactive swearing in of the cast of characters to play gotcha with perjury. It keeps the attorneys off the streets and in spending money; so maybe there is a value in that.

[kflo]

Originally Posted by nanwynnfan

You don't really enjoy reading what others write, do you? You seem much to prefer responding to what you feel like posting. My allegation of McNamee's responsibilities as a professional trainer addressed the CORE of his profession, not the incidentals of his timeline with Clemens.

the core of his profession is to provide training assistance and advice.

i read exactly what you wrote. you seem to think a trainer has some ethical obligation to protect his clients from the police. that's far from the core of his profession. his job is to train.

incidentals of his timeline with clemens? i really don't understand. all that matters is some hallowed intimate nature of a trainer/trainee relationship? illegal activity is secondary? jailtime is secondary?

if the cops ask who did you provide steroids to, the correct answer for any trainer is i can't tell you? that's confidential? i'm bound by trainer/trainee confidentiality?

[nanwynnfan]

Originally Posted by kflo

the core of his profession is to provide training assistance and advice.

i read exactly what you wrote. you seem to think a trainer has some ethical obligation to protect his clients from the police. that's far from the core of his profession. his job is to train.

Stop it. A trainer has a definite [not "some"] ethical obligation to see to the nutritional and physical well being of his clients, especially a high priced personal trainer at elite levels, as opposed to a trainer with 3 - 6 clients per day at various gyms and in various types of condition and needs. Even then there is much ethical obligation for trainers beyond the grunts and groans. ANY trainer worth his/her salt plans, guides, assists and floows up on each client's progress and well being.

Originally Posted by kflo

incidentals of his timeline with clemens? i really don't understand. all that matters is some hallowed intimate nature of a trainer/trainee relationship? illegal activity is secondary? jailtime is secondary?

No, you don't understand, because to do so would require some effort on your part to look at all sides of a story. If McNamee suggested to Clemens some really good "stuff" to keep him ageless and strong, that "hallowed" and intimate relationship was already violated before Clemens knew what he was talking about. If Clemens raised the subject first, then McNamee had an obligation to at least ask what Clemens initial motivation was and/or where it came from.

Originally Posted by kflo

if the cops ask who did you provide steroids to, the correct answer for any trainer is i can't tell you? that's confidential? i'm bound by trainer/trainee confidentiality?

There may be no such confidentiality guaranteed by law; but moral law might dispute the fact.

So, you defend the pusher for spilling the beans to save his own skin by tossing clients under the legal bus. How noble and just of you.

[kflo]

Originally Posted by nanwynnfan

Stop it. A trainer has a definite [not "some"] ethical obligation to see to the nutritional and physical well being of his clients, especially a high priced personal trainer at elite levels, as opposed to a trainer with 3 - 6 clients per day at various gyms and in various types of condition and needs. Even then there is much ethical obligation for trainers beyond the grunts and groans. ANY trainer worth his/her salt plans, guides, assists and floows up on each client's progress and well being.

the core of his profession is to provide training assistance and advice. not to babysit. not to ensure they eat their veggies. not to listen to their problems. to help them meet their fitness goals. they have their own ethical obligation to act with integrity, something mcnamee certainly lacked.

Originally Posted by nanwynnfan

No, you don't understand, because to do so would require some effort on your part to look at all sides of a story. If McNamee suggested to Clemens some really good "stuff" to keep him ageless and strong, that "hallowed" and intimate relationship was already violated before Clemens knew what he was talking about. If Clemens raised the subject first, then McNamee had an obligation to at least ask what Clemens initial motivation was and/or where it came from.

no, i don't understand because it's unclear what point you're making.

in either case above, mcnamee acted in an unethical, unprofessional and illegal manner. and ultimately, so did clemens. clemens wasn't some naive waif at the mercy of his experienced trainer. he was a long-time professional athlete. and responsible for whatever he put into his body.

Originally Posted by nanwynnfan

There may be no such confidentiality guaranteed by law; but moral law might dispute the fact.

no such moral law exists.

Originally Posted by nanwynnfan

So, you defend the pusher for spilling the beans to save his own skin by tossing clients under the legal bus. How noble and just of you.

mcnamee didn't toss clemens under the legal bus. clemens legal problems are his own doing. mcnamee used his knowledge of clemens use to lessen his own penalty. at the expense of clemens reputation. clemen's isn't an innocent victim. if faced with jail time, or tarnishing clemens reputation by telling the truth, would it be easy for you to simply protect your prized client? maybe do an extra couple years to save your clients reputation and protect some moral code of trainer ethics? clemens is possibly facing jail time ONLY because he possibly perjured himself.

clemens went down a path. he's really got noone to blame but himself.

[nanwynnfan]

Originally Posted by kflo

no such moral law exists.

End of discussion, for me.