In Defense of Clemens and Bonds

[bedir than average]

A law breaker has a moral obligation to continually break the law forever?

[kflo]

Originally Posted by nanwynnfan

End of discussion, for me.

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?

[kflo]

i could see if we were talking about a trainer selling his story to the media by selling his client out. but we're talking about a criminal investigation. prison. illegal activity. there's no don't snitch code. none worth protecting. if you don't want to face the consequences, don't do the act. again, ncnamee has responsibilities that come before roger clemens.

[nanwynnfan]

Originally Posted by bedir than average

A law breaker has a moral obligation to continually break the law forever?

What does the above have to do with anything being discussed here?

I have been discussing trainer-client relationship on an elite and personal level.

The morality involved is a certain expectation of confidence, trust, even a degree of confidentiality as to methods, regimines, training secrets, etc.

IF the relationship is on a sound basis, the trainer, IMO, should "first do no harm." The trainee, on the other hand, should be expected NOT to undermine the professional standing of the trainer as well.

The involvement of illegal, illicit, or inadvisable uses of supplements is a two way street based on mutual respect and above board professionalism. If either violates that caveat, he has breached an implicit contract.

My huge gripe here is based on:

1. expense and legal involvement determining retroactive guilt based more on perjured testimony than on "cheating" and rule breaking;

2. retroactivity predating any reasonable start date for punitive enforcement of enforceable rules;

3. emphasis on gotcha as a priority > rule implementation, dissemination, broadcast, penalty definition, all of which would contribue to ending the problem once and for all. [Instead, costly looking into the rear view window continues the focus on the problem, not the correction].

Then comes the element of common sense. If you nail a Clemens, and a few others, and thirty-seven stars or lesser known players who have cheated fall through the legal cracks, what have you gained? Headlines? A few ruined reputations?

Justice? Hardly.

One last attempt at this admittedly failed distinction: A dedicated athlete [disregarding any less than angelic personality traits], who has a disciplined work ethic, discipline, Spartan routine, exhibited sound condition and level of performance, deserves better treatment than being generically treated as a "felon."

I am not condoning lawlessness; but, being human myself, can [and gladly] make an acute distinction between getting an edge when slovenly "rules" are wobbling about, undefined, uncertified, and unenforceable, and felony crime.

Punish the players when you punish the Commissioner and owners, as accessories, to the alleged crimes. Then you may have a degree of justice being served.

[kflo]

Originally Posted by nanwynnfan

The involvement of illegal, illicit, or inadvisable uses of supplements is a two way street based on mutual respect and above board professionalism. If either violates that caveat, he has breached an implicit contract.

and then what? from here, you seem to make the leap that the trainer, regardless of circumstances, is bound by moral code to protect the trainee, regardless of what's at stake to either party. that his primary duty is to protect his trainee.

Originally Posted by nanwynnfan

Punish the players when you punish the Commissioner and owners, as accessories, to the alleged crimes. Then you may have a degree of justice being served.

i can see arguing that the commissioner and owners were complicit in the prevelance of steroids in baseball. but the only crime clemens faces possible prosection on is perjury. and in no way are the above parties complicit in that.

[nanwynnfan]

Originally Posted by nanwynnfan

IF the relationship is on a sound basis, the trainer, IMO, should "first do no harm." The trainee, on the other hand, should be expected NOT to undermine the professional standing of the trainer as well.

What part of that did you not understand?

[kflo]

Originally Posted by nanwynnfan

What part of that did you not understand?

i still don't know what that means in the context of mcnamee providing information to the authorities on clemens steroid use.

you've said things like:

a trainer who turns on his client when he should have been protecting him in the first place

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.

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.

so, based on this, what part of what i wrote in the prior post do you disagree with?

[Wiggen]

I like the sacred nature of the trainer-trainee relationship. It's right up there with the hairdresser-hairdressee relationship as far as those holy alliances that should be beyond mere laws.

[nanwynnfan]

What possible secrets could you have that can be shared only with your hairdresser, Wiggen?

[Nat]

Well, one only has to point out the hairdresser who caused the Junior Soprano vs Tony Soprano War of Season 1...

[shake&bake]

Originally Posted by djwhokid

I find this witch hunt against Barry Bonds and now Roger Clemens DISGUSTING.

We are we becoming such a bitter society? Why do we want to screw each other so badly? Whatever happened to compassion and understanding?

Let us get some factoids straight:

(1) We are accusing players of breaking rules that never existed in MLB. Now ask, why didn't baseball have strict rules? Maybe because the owners, not the players, benefitied the most from roids.

You really think the owners/GMs were completely in the dark? They gave these roided players millions of dollars (and continue to do so) to sell tickets and make $.

(2) Players like Roger Clemens and Barry Bonds are victims/scapegoats of this war on steroids. How many athletes (pro, college, high school) actually take steroids? A LOT! And assuming Clemens and Bonds' name/legacy are disgraced further, how many will continue to use steroids? A LOT!

It would be like forcing a shock jock radio host out of job for saying a offensive three-letter word that millions of rappers use in their songs.... oh wait, that actually happened.

This notion that if we set an example to high-profile athletes, that it will somehow make baseball a steroid-free sport is quite.... silly. It only distracts us from the real problem.

This indeed is a witch hunt and Roger Clemens is in a no-win situation.

If Roger Clemens pulls a Andy Pettitte or David Justice, do you really think the media will let it go? Hell no. Maybe for a lesser name, but not someone like Clemens.

If Clemens admits he used steroids or HGH, well, he becomes someone like Steve Bartman and he and his family would have to go in hiding for at least 10 years or until ESPN finds another story to cover.

And why can't Clemens just defend himself? Well, we know that's not how our society works. Look at child custody hearings and rape allegations. If a women accuses you of rape and is pressing criminal charges, try talking to her and see if that helps your case. If people could address problems one-on-one we wouldn't need lawyers or the court system.

We have to stop this nonsense and stop being so damn hypocritical. The majority of us would stick a needle in our butt if we were in the same situation.

Players like Roger Clemens and Barry Bonds are not the problem. Maybe we should target, I don't know, the supplement manufacturers?

The difference is that Bonds was on steroids and Clemens wasn't.

[nanwynnfan]

Originally Posted by shake&bake

The difference is that Bonds was on steroids and Clemens wasn't.

Let's all join hands & take that pronouncement to the bank.

[hookahman]

The only thing that Bonds or Clemen have done illegaly is maybe lie underoath. There was NO steroid policy in baseball at the time they were supposedly using. And there is nothing wrong with taking steroids if you take them correctly.(most people don't). The USA is the only country in the world that steroids are illegal. My last point is if your going to jump all over athletes for taking steroids than all other professional entertainment industries should be under the same scrutiny. Actors, singers, Professional Wrestling already banned steroids, Professional body building, etc. Professional sports are a job just like all of these other professions they should all be treated the same way. Im gonna smoke my hookah, who wants to join me.

Hookah -Do You Hookah? - hookahs, shisha and hookah products - Sahara Smoke Co.

[bedir than average]

The only thing that Bonds or Clemen have done illegaly is maybe lie underoath.

That and the whole use of a prescription substance without a prescription.

You do realize that Federal Law trumps MLB rules? Do you also realize that the policy since 1995 has stated that any controlled substance was against MLB Rules?

[Wiggen]

Technicalities, Bedir, mere technicalities. We don't let little things like violating federal laws get in the way of our hero-worshipping.