Clemens: I didn’t do it
-
-
- December
- 18
-
Via agent Randy Hendricks, Roger Clemens has issued this statement:
“I want to state clearly and without qualification: I did not take steroids, human growth hormone or any other banned substances at any time in my baseball career or, in fact, my entire life. Those substances represent a dangerous and destructive shortcut no athlete should ever take.
“I am disappointed that my 25 years in public life have apparently not earned me the benefit of the doubt, but I understand Senator Mitchell’s report has raised many serious questions. I plan to publicly answer all of those questions at the appropriate time in the appropriate way. I only ask that in the meantime people not rush to judgment.”
——————
Clemens is not dancing around the subject as Andy Pettitte did, give him credit for that. But why didn’t he meet with George Mitchell when offered the opportunity?
It’ll certainly be interesting if Clemens goes to court on this.
This entry was posted
on Tuesday, December 18th, 2007 at 4:41 pm by Peter Abraham.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Print This Post
| 
Email This Post
Chad Jennings
Sam Borden
Josh Thomson
coughbullshitcough
I don’t think he met with Mitchell because the union recommended against it.
Even if he is guilty there’s no way to definitively prove it. If I were Clemens I would deny, deny and then deny some more.
You know what they say, “Denial is not just a river in Africa”
are you serious? pettitte dancing around the issue? pettitte came out and said he did it. what are you talking about? if anyone is “dancing around the subject” it’s clemens.
So there you have it. He MUST be innocent now…
This is getting very interesting. He will only look worse if there is any truth to the report.
How was pettitte dancing around the subject?…..stop making irresponsible comments pete!!!
From the Rafael Palmeiro School of Defense.
Denial is a sign of addiction.
Pettitte will not face MLB sanctions, according to Buster Olney of ESPN. Remember, Pettitte took two injections in 2002, that’s all. He was wrong but he’s not a habitual user.
Olney’s report:
Major-league players mentioned in the Mitchell report who are found to have violated the sport’s drug-testing agreement after the 2003 season — after baseball first instituted penalties for positive steroid tests — are likely to face the most scrutiny by Major League Baseball.
The league in all likelihood will request meetings with all active players mentioned in the report, but will apply standards — when it deems it necessary — according to the year of the alleged violation. Baseball has changed its levels of penalties twice since the 2004 season.
In a reading of the Mitchell report, there are at least 14 players who are connected either through interviews or through other evidence with performance-enhancing drugs beginning in the 2004 season and into 2006.
Those players are Rondell White, Larry Bigbie, Ron Villone, Ryan Franklin, Cody McKay, Stephen Randolph, Jerry Hairston Jr., Paul Lo Duca, Bart Miadich, Eric Gagne, Matt Herges, Brandon Donnelly, Howie Clark and Nook Logan.
Active players such as Yankees pitcher Andy Pettitte and Orioles second baseman Brian Roberts, who have acknowledged use prior to when the penalties were instituted, may not face suspension, because no rules were in place at the time of use.
Major League Baseball effectively laid out a blueprint for how it may handle the Mitchell report cases with its handling of the suspensions of Kansas City Royals outfielder Jose Guillen and Orioles outfielder Jay Gibbons. Earlier this month, MLB suspended each for the first 15 days of the 2008 season. Those penalties matched what a second offense would have drawn under 2003-04 rules. Gibbons has accepted his penalty; Guillen has filed a grievance through the players association.
I believe the MLBPA instructed all members not to cooperate with the investigation.
If that is the case, Clemens had no choice as to meet with Mitchell or not.
And for the record I believe clemens did juice up….otherwise why would his trainer lie?…I think clemens is in big trouble he better find a way to get out of it…he better confess soon. Anyways it was a lot of rumors about him using roids even before the mitchell report.
It’ll certainly be interesting if Clemens goes to court on this,,,,,,,,,,,, he will never do it he knows he is guilty
“Denial is a sign of addiction.”
Or it’s a sign that you’re telling the truth. If someone accused you of doing something you didn’t do wouldn’t you keep denying the allegation?
C’mon Pete, you’re better than that.
Why would any current player speak to Mitchell unless they had a solid reason to? Giambi only did because his back was against the proverbial wall…
It’ll be interesting to see what happens.
Because in the American court system you only need to prove a reasonable doubt to exonerate yourself, Clemens stands a very good chance of clearing his name.
It does not, however, mean he’s innocent or guilty.
It’ll be interesting to see what happens.
Lets say Clemens didn’t do it. Does this make Andy more of a villain in the public opinion. Until now I have the feeling that Clemens started taking steroids, HGH or what ever first and Andy followed suit even if he too it only once(which I believe is not true). In this case did Andy rush to make an apology.
And if Clemens goes to court Andy will be asked to testify about Clemens steroid use. This is a really risky mess for Clemens if he goes to court. So, I definetly don’t think Clemens will ever go to court on this one.
Whoa and co.:
This from Andy’s statement:
“If what I did was an error in judgment on my part …”
That is dancing around the topic. Obviously it was an error, otherwise why would be apologize?
I’m on the record saying Andy should not be suspended but his statement was anything but straightforward.
Pettitte issued a lawyered-up statement full of ifs and buts that wasn’t half as direct as Clemens’. These two statements that Roger has released leave absolutely NO wiggle room, which gives me more reason to believe them.
CW:
being innocent seems like a good reason to meet with Mitchell. If I called you and said “I have evidence you’re a crook” and offered you a meeting, you’d turn it down if you were truly innocent?
The only way this goes to court is if Clemens sues Mitchell for libel. That would be a very tough case for Clemens to win. This is more likely going to result in a steady stream of denials from Clemens until it all blows over. I would be absolutley shocked if this even came within a Sammy Sosa steroid-propelled home run of a courtroom. Oh wait… Sosa is clean according to Mitchell.
If Andy is asked to testify under oath WILL he be risking it all to save his BEST HGHed & STEROIDED BUDDY.
Rebecca,
If it was a criminal prosecution against Roger, he would only need reasonable doubt. However, if he brings a civil suit, the standard is preponderance of the evidence, plus he would have the burden of proof.
Plus, as has been discussed earlier, there is a very steep standard for public figures to bring defamation of character or libel/slander suits. So, I don’t see Roger suing even if he never did steroids. I suspect that’s what the “appropriate way” bit was in his statement.
If Clemens says he didnt do it, I have to give him a chance and trust him on this one. And I cant turn my back on Pettitte either.
Reminds me when BJ Clinton made the “I did not have sexual relations with that woman…” statement 10 years ago…
I’m confused. Just the other day people were calling out Roger for speaking through his attorney instead of speaking for himself. Now Pettitte, who already issued a personal statement, has danced around the issue? Well, this isn’t Jeopardy. You don’t have 30 seconds to answer one of the more serious allegations you will ever address in your life. These are grown ups and the answers have grown up consequences. It took Mitchell 20 months, I think Pettitte is entitled to a couple of days.
As for Clemens, there is a chance that this might just be saber-rattling and that he’ll back off eventually saying his family asked him to.
Oh wait… Sosa is clean according to Mitchell.
Mitchell report is not the Encyclopedia of who used steroids and who didn’t use them. Mitchell report clearly states that. If somebody’s name doesn’t appear in the report that doesn’t mean that somebody is CLEAN.
Clare–You have a point; it’s been a few years since my mock trial days =)
It will be interesting to see what happens…we can try to guess what Clemens’ ultimate goal is, but the fact is, we’re not him, so we don’t know–is he really looking to clear himself, or is he simply looking to clear himself to the point that he’ll get voted into the hall of fame, etc.
A lot of this is not fun to think about, but you have to, to some degree.
It’s difficult to say anything about Clemens, but, what’s more likely to be believed…that Pettitte used HGH 2-4 times and Clemens didn’t or that Clemens had been using for years and Pettitte only a couple of times. The investigators wanted a name…they wanted THE NAME. Clemens is an easier name to sell. I’ll wait to see what happens. Right now, there’s only one person that’s selling a friend down the river to stay out of jail. Rodamski had no friends, only clients. McNamee has a sterling character anyway. He’s scared to death of going to jail. He’s been in and out of trouble for years. He was an undercover cop, then suddenly fired. Charges of rape. The university he was teaching at let him go after 1 year.
I’m certain that Rocket’s lawyers and his Union advised him not to meet with Mitchell and his goons. Mitchell did not tell Rocket what he was going to claim in his report, so Rocket did not know the extent to which he would have to defend himself against the shaky charges.
Peter, as the ladies at Salem would have told you, you don’t speak to a witch hunt. They want to find witches, and they’ll burn you no matter what you say. Nothing Rocket could have said to that slug Mitchell would have altered the report.
“If somebody’s name doesn’t appear in the report that doesn’t mean that somebody is CLEAN.”
And it means that the report was irresponsible for not drawing a complete picture, just a partial picture. And thus, a player like Sammy Sosa can keep saying that he has never tested positive for steroids and that he is not in the Mitchell Report.
Why was Clemens and, later, Andy hanging with such a creep?
To Thomas: Why would his trainer lie? Well, for starters he was facing a mega-sentence for hard drug distribution and money laundrying and was told that if he gave mitchell’s investigation team information–this is lawyer-speak for names, the bigger the better–his sentence would be reduced. Sonny boy, I worked in the legal system for 30+ years, and I tell you that in no uncertain terms that all drug dealers are low-life rat finks; and, facing long sentences, would give up sister Teresa to have those sentences reduced a day.
Southron
“If someone accused you of doing something you didn’t do wouldn’t you keep denying the allegation?”
Pete Rose:
“I didn’t do it!!” “I didn’t do it!!” “I didn’t do it!!” “I didn’t do it!!” “I didn’t do it!!” “I didn’t do it!!” “I didn’t do it!!” “I didn’t do it!!”"I didn’t do it!!” “I didn’t do it!!” “I didn’t do it!!” “I didn’t do it!!” “I didn’t do it!!” “I didn’t do it!!”
“Errrr ummm well see” sign ” ahh Ok, ok I did it”
Didn’t the MLBPA tell the Players not to cooperate with Mitchell??
Is McNamee the only source of info on Clemens steroid use? For Mitchell report it is. What abt the Jason Grimsley document that listed Clemens and Pettite? If Clemens goes to court don’t u think all these things will become public.
You don’t meet with Mitchell because he would ask questions about who DID use steroids. Clemons would come off looking bad if he refused to cooperate with Mitchell on those questions.
In addition, meeting with Mitchell would not guarantee that he would learn of the source of the allegations against HIM.
Not much to gain by the meeting, and a fair amount to lose.
If anything, a close judgment call either way.
How cynical people are. I trust Clemons’ denial. Why don’t we put the burden on those who are making the allegations?
Sigh…..
PA, your only problem is the same as every other writer, and, I’m sorry, but that puts you in the same boat as that malignant dwarf, Lupica. You’re hung up on that word “IF”. Pettitte’s not a public speaker and he’s not a writer. He’s a ball player. I’ve things written by journalists that looked worse than that.
I did not have sexual relations with that woman.
mel December 18th, 2007 at 5:07 pm
Why was Clemens and, later, Andy hanging with such a creep?
Hmm. Why would Clemens bring him to New York from Toronto? Why would he insist on making him the Yankees trainer? Don’t u think there is something fishy abt Clemens carrying his trainer everywhere with him? Don’t u think Clemens is trying to hide his steroid use by pampering the guy who knows all about it?
jk: Which woman?
Clemens didn’t go talk to Mitchell for the same reason that 700 other ball players didn’t go….because their union had no say in who did the investigation and because they weren’t given the same pass that two slimebags got. It would be interesting to see what would happen if you went against your union on something they didn’t have faith in.
Monica Lewinsky
Peter…you are OUT OF YOUR MIND,,,if you think it is a good idea for ANYONE besides that Jack@$$ Canseco to meet with Mitchell….He was on a hunt for NY Yankees in particular and he got what he wanted,,,didn’t he ?
“jk: Which woman?
”
Jeter
well said, GB7. saved me typing…
The problem with all of this is that people take bits and pieces of rumors and info and try to turn them into facts. Or, misstate facts altogether.
Roger Clemens and Andy Pettitte were NOT named in the Grimsley affidavit.
That was an erroneous report, corrected by the US Attorney in that case.
Unfortunately, people only hear the allegation and assume its true.
Its the problem with irresponsible reporting.
Regardless of what is going on here, you can’t just take allegations and decide they are facts. Some proof is needed.
Why would McNamee lie? Oh, I don’t know, how ’bout the government telling him they are going to prosecute him on a drug distribution charge if he doesn’t cooperate with them?
He got immunity for his testimony. He wouldn’t be the first guy to stay out of jail based on a lie.
Does that mean he is lying here? No.
All I am saying is, don’t fall into the talk radio trap of hearing allegations, then determining one’s guilt.
If you read the testimony outlined in the Mitchell Report,
its clear, Mitchell wanted a “big” name. Roger Clemens is about as big as it gets.
Andy Pettitte? Not as big and even McNamee’s testimony seems to back up Pettitte’s claim that he didn’t use HGH except for the period of time in 2002 he was on the DL and McNamee was assisting in his rehab. There was no further discussion or evidence Pettitte used PED’s (according to McNamee) since 2002.
There is more detail to the Clemens testimony. Meaning, if Clemens didn’t take PED’s, he needs to be aggressive in his defense.
He definitely hasn’t given himself any wiggle room here.
It will be interesting to see his next step.
SJ,
What’s your guess as to Roger’s next step?
If I called you and said “I have evidence you’re a crook†and offered you a meeting, you’d turn it down if you were truly innocent?
Stick to baseball, brother. If you ever get a call like the one you described, I like you enough to hope that you use your head and call a lawyer first.
First of all, your suggestion is not fair. The accused has no burden whatsoever. When a person is accused of a crime, that’s pretty serious stuff and you have every right to remain silent. Second, if you are calling to tell me that you have evidence I am a crook, you’ve already made up your mind. The only reason the investigator calls a person in at that point is to try to get them to incriminate themselves and maybe, only secondarily, to make sure the investigators haven’t missed anything. Thus, it would not be a meeting with someone who is keeping an open mind. Why would anyone go to that meeting and give up all control over what is happening?
A defense lawyer is going to go in and do a little digging to find out what the case is all about before the client goes in. That’s the way it’s done. If Mitchell wouldn’t allow that, he’s being a hump. Then maybe, if it looks like there is a reasonable explanation THAT THE MITCHELL FOLKS ARE LIKELY TO ACCEPT, maybe the client goes in to plead his case.
But if Mitchell really wanted someone to come in, and he just wanted the truth, instead of looking to hang something on the person, Mitchell would have made some arrangement to get the person immunity from prosecution, because even if Clemens or anyone else is as pure as the driven snow, no lawyer is letting him take any chances with an investigator who already thinks he is a crook, as you put it, so that the investigator could pick and choose which words of the client to hear and which to ignore.
Investigators get smitten with their theories and views of the evidence after 20 months and don’t derail long term investigations just because a target says the investigators are wrong. (What else is the bad guy going to say?) There’s a huge risk that the investigators will go ahead regardless of what the target says and let the courts or MLB sort it out later.
GreenBeret: You honestly think Andy wrote that without his agents? C’mon.
And I don’t care what my union tells me, if I’m innocent and somebody accuses me of cheating, I work to clear my name before the world finds out. The report says one player implicated did just that and was cleared and went unmentioned in the final draft.
Read the report.
This is the problem with that report as I see it….
It is a damned if you do, Damned if you don’t senario.
I understand that there needed to be some kind of panel that would seek a way to provide clarity into the situation of drugs and doping in Baseball. However….as far as I can tell there are some very weak “cases” that have been blasted through every communication channel that there is. The problem here is that it is essentially one or two people’s version of the truth. Is that enough to tell the world that a person or people are guilty of a crime? It seems to lack a lot of credibility and frankly it seems a bit irresponsible. Doesn’t the Report have to substanciate its claims beyond a couple peoples version of the truth? I would expect that someone will be sued for slander in this case because of all the people that say they are being falsely accused. And if there aren’t any lawsuits, then are we to believe that these athletes are guilty? Doesn’t it all seem a little bit unprofessional and ameturish way to conduct a a report? I just feel that if this were a college paper, the professor would have called it inconclusive.
Yes Pete but do you think the Mitchell people said this guy implicated you or we just want to speak to you?
Murph is exactly right. No lawyer was going to let their clients talk to the Mitchell people.
You have two, open and ongoing criminal investigations (one in NY and one in CA) on this issue.
Simply put, no immunity, nobody is talking. If a ballplayer talked to Mitchell without being given immunity, he puts himself right in the crosshairs of the Feds.
As Murph said, if Clemens or anybody else for that matter is accused of a crime, the burden of proof is on the accuser, NOT on Clemens.
His next step? Good question, Clare.
For all these folks saying “sue”, its not so easy.
First off, suing is expensive. Second, who do you sue? McNamee, who is making the allegation? He doesn’t have anything so, its a waste of time.
Mitchell? Can’t be sued under his indemnity deal with MLB.
MLB? Sure, and it will cost you 10-20 million to try and clear your name. Maybe more. It also could go on for years.
Not exactly easy and clearcut.
I guess the best thing Clemens can do is review the testimony and see if he can rebutt it. For example, if the testimony says McNamee injected him at a certain place and time, he has to rebutt it by saying he wasn’t there and offer proof to that effect.
If he can do that, then it calls McNamee’s entire testimony into question.
Just looking at if from the outside, it seems to me that’s his best chance to rebutt the allegations.
Hall of Famer and Braves broadcaster Don Sutton was once asked if he applied a foreign substance to a baseball. He replied, ” That’s not true at all. Vaseline is manufactured right here in the United States “.
Pete,
The only problem with that is, you put yourself right in the crosshairs of two ongoing criminal investigations.
For example, what if the Clemens Camp knew McNamee was cooperating with the Feds? There is no way a lawyer advises his client to get involved in that voluntarily.
If they make an allegation, prove it.
That’s the problem with the Mitchell Report.
It really isn’t “anything”. It certainly isn’t the penultimate report on steroids in baseball because its so incomplete.
It isn’t a legal document so the burden of proof is non-existent.
So, how exactly does one go in and talk to Mitchell under those circumstances?
Its not an easy question.
In criminal cases, the defense has the benefit of discovery. Which is, being able to see the evidence the government has against your client.
In this case, you are driving blind into this thing.
I know if I was representing someone fingered in the Mitchell Report, the last thing I would do is have them talk to him, given the limitations he had to get testimony.
Someone posted on here that because the MLBPA said not to talk to Mitchell, Roger had no choice. Of course he has a choice. Maybe a tough one, but a choice nonetheless. SDid you ever see On the Waterfront?
I haven’t had the chance to read through all the posts on this yet, though I did skim through some.
A couple of things stand out. First, Rebecca had said about Clemens needing to only supply reasonable doubt. That is wrong in this case. With the laws that surround libel and slander they are by design to make it difficult for public figures to prove their case. It was to protect reporters even to the detriment of the public figures. The public figures must prove malice on the part of the reporter, in this case that would be Mitchell. Mitchell knows this well, as he is a former US attorney and judge and Senator.
The last part of the statement though gives more than a clue as to Clemens intentions.
“I plan to publicly answer all of those questions at the appropriate time in the appropriate way. I only ask that in the meantime people not rush to judgment.â€
Appropriate time and way is in court, regardless that it is very difficult for the accused.
I can see this turning into a large case with a lot of ramifications. If Clemens wins this case, it will also mean that those laws that give extraordinary protection to those whose business it is to slander or libel public figures will need to be revisited. It should be anyway, as freedom of the press should not be a license to defame anyone you please.
In order for Clemens to make this statement, it means that either he is figuring on going for broke with a roll of the dice and hoping that there is no evidence on him, or it means he is innocent of the charges that Mitchell accused him of. In the end, Clemens will still have a tarnished reputation, and Mitchell could very well have his shown to be not such a sterling one.
That is two very strong statements that Clemens has made. Seems to me that he must feel he has a strong case, and it could mean that he is innocent of the alligations against him. If he is a past user of steroids, and it comes out, his reputation is totally gone. If he didn’t use these drugs, then his anger over this is justified.
With the way he has been trashed by ESPN and just about every single media outlet, and yet he is still maintaining he didn’t use, either he is extremely stupid or he is innocent. Yet, these reporters will have nothing done to their reputations.
The problem with the Mitchell Report on Clemens is the claim of injecting Clemens and showing an immediate improvement during the second half of the season. Steroids don’t work that way, they are not the miracle drug that will turn you into superman over night.
What if this whole thing is about this drug-pusher trainer having a grudge against Clemens?
The next announcement from the Clemens camp will more than likely be that they have filed court papers.
Do I think that Pettitte wrote that without help? Yes. It sure as Hell wasn’t something written by a lawyer/agent or the Steibrenner mouthpiece. It looks like somebody who sat down and wrote what he felt. Let’s say I tell an off color joke on here, and you don’t delete it, and after a couple of comments or, just thinking about it, decide it was improper, being just an ordinary person, I’ll type how I talk…
“If I have said anything to offend the ladies or the overly sensitive owner of this blog, I apologise.”
The point is, Pettitte’s name was out there already when Grimsley put it there. Nobody forgot that. No “I’m sorry, but the report was wrong” BS took that away. Pettitte is a union man…and a team mate. He’s the guy that you want with you when there’s trouble. The union says don’t cooperate, he’s not going to cooperate. It would be interesting to know whether he discussed this with Fehr and Orza and when it was and their advise to Pettitte. Frank Thomas has been a player everyone has always thought was on something for years. Thomas has also never been much of a team mate. Thomas looks after Thomas.
I want to believe him but he’s going to have to get on a lie detector test pumped full of truth serum for me to do it. Sorry Rocket.
GB,
Andy didn’t write that report without the help of the Hendricks Brothers. I am 100% sure of it.
To follow up on A-Points comments, most of the guys in the Report were guys who weren’t stars.
Meaning, this wasn’t the magic potion the media wants you to believe it is.
Its why all these, “before and after results” posted on websites and on Sportscenter, are comical.
There are guys on that list who couldn’t hit .250. How ’bout the before and after numbers on them?
I think this entire issue is an overcompensation by members of MLB and the national media, who slept on the story when it was happening.
Now, everybody wants to be CSI and put on the front that they are “on top of things”.
To me, if they truly were interested in change, Mitchell would have called for the immediate resignations of Selig and Fehr for their complicity on this issue.
He didn’t do anything of the sort. Instead, this was a, “name the players and let them twist in the wind” deal, thereby saving Bud’s legacy.
Its another reason why the report is so incomplete.
None of the players wanted to meet Mitchell. They are in a union and breaking ranks and speaking to him wold have been a dodgy move and other players wold have resented it.
The one thing I’d say about the impact Pettitte’s situation has here is that nobody is saying Pettitte took anything while he was pitching. It wasn’t part of the routine and it wasn’t part of their gym culture, so as much as it doesn’t help that the trainer didn’t lie about Pettitte, he clearly also wasn’t pushing them onto Pettitte and probably not onto Roger either. Also Roger can’t have been taking them in his last few years with all the testing. If he could still compete in his 40s without them, why not earlier in his career?
I also wonder how taking steroids fits with Clemens ego. Would it be a way for him to stay at the top, or wouldn’t he see it as a shameful defeat to himself? Wouldn’t it take away the competition?
His statement is something he will probably be asked about in court. Sounds like congress will be calling his name for sure.
If he really didn’t do it – he should sue MLB and Mitchell for slander. It is the only way people will believe him. As Pete has said the evidence was flimsy and from an unreliable source. Publishing names was irresponsible and unnecessary.
Also, let’s get this straight. Pettitte’s “dancing” was about his apology: “if blah blah then I apologize.” He didn’t dance around the fact that he did it.
Clemens, on the other hand, is being direct. He also is almost certainly lying.
I prefer the hedged apology with the truth about the HGH to someone lying to me, but being direct about the lie.
You have the word of someone, a direct witness, who said something similar about Pettitte, which Pettitte now corroborates. And he was Roger and Andy’s trainer, and they trained together. In addition to all the other circumstantial evidence. But McNamee’s testimony isn’t circumstantial or hearsay, but direct eyewitness testimony, albeit testimony that hasn’t been subject to cross-examination, but this isn’t court. You can always discount a witnesses testimony, and in the law being able to see him testify is part of seeing if you think he is telling the truth. But come on. Roger did it.
Now, as to him only needing a reasonable doubt in court, wrong. This isn’t a crinminal case. If he sues MLB, Mitchell, whatever, the standard is not a reasonable doubt. Libel is not a question of Roger’s guilt or innocence in a criminal case.
Not necessarily Peter. With the way this thing was set up, there was no sworn testimony, no legal process or protections, and yet because of what is said by the people, it becomes a record that can be used against you.
This whole investigation was a terrible one. No one was under oath in giving their statements, yet there are legal ramifications that the players would face if they met with him. What if he were asked point blank about a fellow player? There was also no way to know what was going to be asked, no way to protect against faulty evidence being brought in that you had to defend against.
That is the trouble with the media in this case. They look at Clemens and pronounce him guilty because he wouldn’t talk to Mitchell, when no one except Thomas (whom I feel was the one he refered to that he “believed” threw away the drugs- in other words paid off), would talk to him.
Mitchell could produce a check, as he did apparently in a couple of instances, and ask “what is this for”. If you didn’t know, or couldn’t remember what it was for, it could be used against you as you covering up for buying drugs.
There is no means of checking the validity of the evidence in this “investigation”, no chain of command.
Plain and simple, Mitchell acted as Judge, Jury and Executioner in this whole thing, and the one who has the protection of the law on his side, regardless of his being right OR wrong, is Mitchell.
Mitchell and major league baseball can be sued for the report.
In fact they were anticipating the possibility. This is why Mitchell got MLB to sign that indemnity clause before he took the responsibility of doing the investigation.
The Mitchell group can be sued but MLB has agreed to accept responsibility for the suit – this means paying for all of Mitchell’s legal expenses and also covering any monetary award handed out against mitchell.
If Clemens wants to sue MLB/ Mitchell he’s free to as far as I can tell.
I don’t know what he’d sue for? Libel? Not easy but he can sue.
A-point, I thougt the report said Clemens claimed it had an effect. Even if the drug wouldn’t work that fast, he still might have thought it was working, like a placebo effect.
The comments on this issue reflect are generally jaded and cynical.
Clemens has categorically denied steroid and hgh use. Yet most of you wish to believe a compromised witness whose testimony was obtained under threats.
Lynch mob thinking is the rule of the day on this blog. Shameful
OK, this might get me banned here. But, here is a video representation of much of the argument made here against the Mitchell report.
http://www.adultswim.com/video.....8dfd0d0003
Enjoy! It’s a joke, OK, everyone?
Southron: So McNamee is a drug-dealer low life rat-fink who would sell out his mother for a reduce sentence, and since you have worked in the legal system 30 years you are sure of that? What kind of drugs were the dealers you talk about dealing? HGH? And, uh, this was Roger’s trainer. Not good company. And, you say he is a drug daler, because, uh, he dealt drugs to baseball players, right?
Admittedly, we don’t know if McNamee is telling the truth. Pettitte, who most people feel is a stand up guy, said, yes, he told the truth about me.
Brad in Boston and its hilarious
Migames, no report is going to be able to tell for sure for every single player if he is guilty or not. They didn’t have enough evidence on Sammy, evidently.
And, someone else posted a statement that implied somehow it is easier to believe Pettitte used twice and Roger not at all then that Andy used twice and Roger did all the time. That doesn’t follow logically.
Sorry, but, I just can’t see a lawyer writing an apology to family, friends fans and baseball, and using the words “If I did” and “if” that many times. Not saying the didn’t read it over. I’ve seen enough legal military documents come across my desk to know that’s not a lawyer’s work, even a Texas lawyer.
No, it was McNamee who claimed it had an effect. McNamee used the better performance after the injection as his “proof” that Clemens used and the steroids worked. Clemens didn’t talk to Mitchell, and McNamee didn’t quote Clemens.
vrsce, why would the guy tell the truth about Andy but lie about Roger. He doesn’t have to lie to cooperate with Mitchell once he has truthfully provided names. Mitchell would be doing a bad job to lean on him to lie about Roger if Roger didn’t do it.
And Roger lie? Like he is retiring, or money isn’t the issue? OK, cheapshot.
It’s quit possible that a class action suit against Mitchell and baseall could be filed by the players in the report for which there is no proof, and, there seems to be a lot of that. Depends on whether the players want to hire a high profile attorney to take on baseball or go it alone. F. Lee Bailey might be available, as long as the trial isn’t held in Mass or Florida.
Hendricks is not a lawyer. He is Pettitte’s agent. He isn’t a lawyer.
Its why the statement came from his agents office and not his lawyer’s office.
I know this is beating that poor, dead horse, but the focus seems to have tightened a bit.
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/.....id=3159943
Good for Andy, bad for Ronnie Villone.
There were no protections given to any who came before Mitchell. If he asked questions, those answers could be used against those who met with Mitchell. There was no chain of command of the evidence, how do you know these weren’t doctored up?
The Players Union advised the players to consult their attorneys on this. That is different from them telling them not to meet with the players.
Again, regarding Thomas, Mitchell had stated that he let off one player who he met with who demonstrated that they threw the drugs aways. With the few players that met with Mitchell, it leaves Thomas as the most logical choice as to the identity of the person who Mitchell bought off the report. Maybe he named some names for Mitchell. Otherwise, how the heck do you prove you threw the drugs away? Witness? How do they know what you threw away unless you say “here, watch me throwing away these steroids so you can testify later that you saw me do it.”
A point:
http://www.google.com/search?h.....+an+effect
McNamee told them that is what Roger told him. In a court of law, that isn’t hearsay either, if Roger was a party. It would be deemed a party “admission.” No, not an admission of guilt, but something a witness says a party said to him is a hearsay exception. And yes, McNamee could be lying.
Just one little clarification:
Read the memo from Fehr to the players. It does not tell them not to cooperate with Mitchell. It tells them to make their own decision, but to consult with their own attorney. But then it goes on to state all the possible ramifications of cooperation.
So, it does not explicitly say not to cooperate, but it suggests that cooperation may not be in a player’s best interests. A technicality, but an important one, I think.
hughman, I asked this earlier. Who are you most likely to believe did this? Pettitte alone and not his best friend Clemens, who’s been thought to be on something for years, or Clemens as the big catch and they netted Pettitte as a bonus.
Mitchell is lying about corroboration.
In his Q&A with the NYTimes, there is this exchange:
NYT: Was there any possible corroboration of what Brian McNamee said about Roger Clemens?
MITCHELL: Yes, it’s in the report. He told Kirk Radomski contemporaneously to these events what he was doing. So it’s a contemporaneous statement made to another person and each of them told us that separately not knowing what about the other person’s statement.
However, what the report actually says is: “Although McNamee never told Radomski the performance enhancing substances obtained were for anything other than McNamee’s personal use . . .” and that McNamee “never explicitly told Radomski that either Clemens or Pettitte was using steroids or human growth hormone.” (Mitchell Report p. 222) The report says that Radomski knew who McNamee trained and suspected they were using, and that McNamee “dropped hints”. That’s a far cry from what Mitchell told the NYTimes.
Is there any evidence such as cancelled checks or proof of receipt that can be irrefutably connected to Clemens?
Suzyn Waldman will breathe a little easier and sleep a little sounder tonight.
Story in Sunday NY Times regarding Frank Thomas: I didn’t think it sounded like he “gave up” anything. It could be another player, you know? Or maybe I’m just naive.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12.....5talk.html
Sorry, I lost my formatting instructions, again.
Story in Sunday NY Times regarding Frank Thomas: I didn’t think it sounded like he “gave up” anything. It could be another player, you know? Or maybe I’m just naive.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12.....5talk.html
Sorry, I lost my formatting instructions, again.
Drive 4-5
Not in the Mitchell report. There is documentation between Radomski and McNamee, but it’s all from after the time period when Clemens and Pettitte allegedly took PEDs.
This report is a partial list with many important names not listed. Yet, the constant refrain in mass media is 1. if only the player had gone to Mitchell when asked, 2. If a player admits 100% of what the report has accused them of, that’s not good enough. The media-the definer of public opinion- says, well he must’ve done a lot more, it couldn’t be just that one time. I found out from a NY Times article that David Justice actually did meet with the Mitchell group prior to the report. They asked for a second meeting,and that’s the one he didn’t go to for whatever reason.
Also, someone above said Radomski’s names were “clients” but all throughout the report you have instances of Radomski saying that this or that player and he had become “friends.”
Actually, SJ44, Randy Hendricks is an attorney.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Randy_Hendricks
I think the clumsiness of Pettitte’s statement suggests that it was not the product of a lawyer. Maybe an agent but not a lawyer. A lawyer would have made Pettitte sound a lot more sympathetic.
I don’t blame Clemens for declining to speak with Mitchell. What could he have gained? Mitchell would have named Clemens no matter what Clemens said in an interview. A mention in the report that Clemens met with Mitchell would only have raised more questions. Plus, Mitchell could have pursued Clemens for information about teammates who used drugs (e.g., Pettitte) which would have put Clemens in an extremely difficult position. Or Mitchell could have flat out misunderstood or misquoted Clemens, making the report more damaging than it already was.
Not to mention the valid points made here about what every player must fear the most: becoming the target of a criminal investigation, especially since we all know that a baseball player’s grand jury testimony quickly becomes public knowledge.
Instead, Clemens played it safe by avoiding Mitchell and denying the report’s allegations afterward.
Is Clemens clean? I sure don’t know. All I can say is that his actions concerning the Mitchell report aren’t evidence of anything.
SJ44 –
Do I have this right?
Luxury tax – based on payroll; tax is used for such as player pension fund; not shared with the league(s).
Revenue sharing – based on earnings received from television, merchandise, the like; distributed in the league from the richer teams to the poorer teams.
The Yankees, while building the new stadium will have their revenue sharing eased (or eliminated?), but the luxury tax will remain the same.
A-ROD SIGNS WITH MADONNA’S MANAGER…
MAYBE THAT’S WHAT STUFF CANSECO HAS ON A-ROD…CANSECO DID DATE MADONNA
I thought the Yankees could deduct stadium costs from the luxury tax they owe?
Its McNamee’s words, if its a lie, which it could be, then they are all his, Hughman.
You also ask why he would not lie about Pettitte and lie about Clemens?
Lets think about that. He is no longer a trainer for Clemens, and while he had followed Clemens from Torronto to NY, the relationship ended. Do you know if it ended nicely or was it a melt down? What if Clemens found that McNamee was stealing stuff from him or if he found out that he gave Pettitte HGH? There are thousands of reasons why McNamee could lie about one and not the other. If he had a grudge against Clemens, why not lump him into the whole thing.
Here’s another point to chew on. With Clemens, McNamee gave a lot of detail. Most times, when I have caught my kids in a lie, its because they over talk it. They have more “facts” and instances to prove they are not lying. Clemens dominated the report compared to every other player that was talked about. All based on this trainers accusations. McNamee claiming that Clemens “felt it right away” seems quite fishy to me. Placebo effect or not, it doesn’t ring true. It seems to me more of the means of showing the time frame – shot and improvement – that a liar would make.
Notice that it was stated that McNamee first stated that Clemens’ performance showed remarkable improvement, then he throws in the “quote”.
Its very suspect.
Jeremy -
No, the cost of the building the stadium comes off the revenue sharing, not the luxury tax.
In theory, the amount the Yankees pay to revenue sharing will go down, but this article below states how, since the new stadium will have more luxury boxes and more opportunities to collect more revenue, the Yankees revenue sharing bill could possibly stay the same as it is now or go even higher. Interesting perspective, I thought, since everything I’ve read or heard says that the Yanks will be saving some money for a few years. The fact is, they won’t know. But it is the revenue sharing that is affected by the new stadium, not the luxury tax.
http://www.usatoday.com/sports.....dium_x.htm
Doreen, that was me that referred to Radomski as having no friends, only clients. I wouldn’t think that many of these players, whether they had lunch with him or not, went clubbing or had him over to the house for supper. They may have been friends in a business sense. LoD?uca might be that exception.
Doreen, here’s a little supposition, what if Mitchell said to Thomas if you talk to me then I will drop you from the report? Thomas is one who has had rumors about him and PEDs also.
The terrible thing is any player who does well is a target for being painted as a cheater. More often, as was seen in this report, its the lesser players who allegedly use PEDs at a higher percentage than the better players do.
“But why didn’t he meet with George Mitchell when offered the opportunity?”
shilling swears up and down that he’s never touched steroids or hgh, yet even he refused to speak with mitchell. it’s clear the mlbpa thought the mitchell report was up to no good from the start. why cooperate with a private investigative venture when it’s motives are not clear to everyone?
itis naive to think that talking to authorites when you are accused of something is always the right thing to do. it is naive to think investigative bodies are without bias and prejudice. it is naive to think truth always wins out.
it is the other way around. always question authority.
GB7 -
Regarding Radomski – I highly doubt many, if any, of the players were actually his friends; but he seemed to think so. That was my point.
A-Point -
Absolutely anything is possible. If that’s the case, Thomas had some nerve doing such an interview. Just throwing the other side out there.
Mel -
SAHM – StayAtHomeMom.
It will be interesting to see what becomes of Radomski if he hits the streets again. I don’t think he’ll survive long. Right now, his suppliers may be looking to get to him.
Apropos of nothing:
For those of us with the Saturday Season Ticket “D” Plan, the schedule in ‘08 isn’t nearly as sexy as it has been the last couple of years.
2 games with Seattle, 2 with Kansas City, 2 with Tampa Bay,1 each with Mets, Reds, Boston, Oakland, Toronto and Baltimore.
At least the Tier Reserved prices only went up $2.
Roger Clemens was a juicer the last 10 years of his career. Anyone with a sense of smell knows that. Hopefully at least 26% of the Hall of Fame writers will see this and Clemens will be left out of Cooperstown.
Curt Schilling refused Mitchell’s request to meet with him. Does that mean Curt Schilling was guilty too?
This is what happens when McCarthyism takes over. Mitchell should not have named ANYONE unless he had irrefutable proof. He put people’s names on a document where the evidence is the testimony of a convicted felon.
What a sad way for Mitchell to end an otherwise meritorious career. The fact that he wasn’t smart enough to divest himself of his tied to the Red Sox shows that he is slipping.
Jim Clark, lets see the proof that you have. That is all that is asked of you. Prove it.
Doreen,
Ahh. Well if that’s the case, you’ll never “retire”. I’ve heard that you never stop worrying about your kids, even after they leave the house.
Does Roger’s sweat smell more like Giambi’s or A-rod’s?
I don’t know why but I believe Clemens that he never took any human growth hormone or steroids. I really think that if Pettite just came out and admitted to it then Clemens would have done the same…if he was guilty. I’m not saying he did or didnt take drugs because he could be lying, but I honestly think he didnt.
Wait, so let me get this straight. Now we’re giving Clemens credit for being direct in his deceit, as opposed to Andy not deserving credit because he qualified his confession and honesty with the word “if?”
Yeah Clemens is much more straight-up then Pettitte. What next, Chris Britton is much skinnier than Edwar? Come on now!
Let’s be clear about one thing: If Clemens were to sue for defamation, it would be IMPOSSIBLE — not merely “difficult” — for him to win. Clemens is a public figure, which means he would have to prove Mitchell published the defamatory statements with “actual malice.” But Mitchell has McNamee’s direct testimony to the effect RC used steroids. Even if Mitchell was wrong to believe McNamee, the fact that he had this evidence would make it impossible for Clemens to win in court.
Since Clemens CAN’T win, he WON’T sue, regardless of what the truth is. Suing would mean losing, which the public would construe as a finding of guilt. Even assuming he’s innocent, he would be insane to go down that road.
Mitchell, BTW, knows this, so he pretty much had free reign to include Clemens in the report, regardless of the actual truth of the matter.
BBB,
I agree about Pettitte. All the righteous writers couldn’t see past the wording of the confession, to see that it was indeed a confession.
Greenberet, I misunderstood, sorry. A-point, I still think if McNamee told the truth about pettitte, he probably told the truth about Clemens.
I also think even if he took hgh, it may not have been a huge part of his late success. Some power pictchrs can last a la Ryan.
Now, why would clemens lie now? I don’t know, pathological? “I’m retired.” “It’s not about money.” OK, cheap shots.
Mel -
Hence, no Movado.
Doreen,
That’s o.k. What you have is way more valuable than a Movado.
Besides, who needs a watch? Just look at the alarm clock, stove, cell phone, and car. lol.
What I love the most is when people that have no clue talk as if they do as if they are an expert or somebody thats in the know on a subject when they there info from the media which they usually butcher let alone from the shady and unconfirmed sources in the first place.
So people like Jim Clark here need to wake up because you guys have no clue what your talking about.
As someone who was once a top notch athlete before injuries got the best of me as well as being from a family in athletic training, physical therapy, personal trainer as well as being connected throughout pro sports especially baseball and I can tell you that I know much more of about steroids/HGH than most of you guys.
That said Clemens doesn’t show signs at all of being a user. Does that mean he hasn’t at one time at least tried it or used it for a while in the past?No but thats not the point the point is that people like Jim Clark who think they know what there talking about says it obvious and it’s not.
I don’t know if he did or didn’t but the consensus is that if someone gets big they must be a juicer and thats just not the case but yet some will say look at him when he was a rookie look who thin he is and the answer to that is that they are young, people they’ve yet to fill out and haven’t been on MLB level work regimen for years to add mass so that one can hold up longer and put up better numbers. Without question during these years some aid there workouts with roids but not all and not even half are users.
There is no doubt that many more than half have tried roids/HGH but that doesn’t make them users no does it or as I’ve said elsewhere do you consider the kid that tried smoking cigarettes once when they were young to never touch them again to a guy that was a 20+ year 2 pack a day smoker who quite so I guess the question is would you consider them ex-smokers?
Mel,
I know.
My nephew told my mom (his grandma) not to get him a watch for his h.s. graduation because he didn’t need one – he had his cell phone. I can’t go out without a watch — I feel underdressed. Generational thing for sure.
But years ago, when I was working I would take the NJ Transit from lower Manhattan into NJ and I used to walk through the WTC and there was this jewelry store that sold Movado watches, and every single night (unless I was in a hurry) I would ogle those watches. Well, maybe for my 30th wedding anniversary in a few years. I can dream, can’t I??
Ricochet-
Can you name another player (outside of the steriod age) who’s career got THAT much better as he got THAT much older?? Without throwing stats out there, you should consider how much better he got. His head seems to have gotten bigger, and it gives a little bit of reason as to why he would have thrown the bat at Piazza. One thing I have noticed from steriod users more than anything else is their roid rage.
Clemens and Bonds were both great players who “supposedly” took PED’s, and they played outrageous baseball after “supposedly” taking them. What other generation has seen production like that in the late stages of players careers?
Pete,
Clemens (and the other named players) did not know what Mitchell was going to put in his report. Mitchell did not provide details to players before he released the report. Mitchell said that the players had to come in and talk to him and he would then confront them with the allegations against them. The union advised all players to stay away from the witch hunt (even those players that may actually have been witches). The procedure followed was set up to fail.
What could have been done? I believe that Mitchell should have given all the players listed in the report a final opportunity to respond by sending each of them a draft of the information he was going to disclose about them. If he had done that, the players could have been blamed for not confronting them before the report was published. Without knowing what Mitchell had — whether truthful or fabricated — they could not agree to come in for an ambush. Instead, Mitchell opened himself up to more criticism and an appearance that he was being unfair.
C
Spike: When did Roger’s numbers get THAT MUCH better? Not when it is alleged he used steroids and HGH — the biggest improvement is when he went to Houston — which is the National League. Otherwise, Clemens had a bad year his last year in Toronto, did better in Toronto, and went down again in New York…
Spike Owen…how about Warren Spahn. he was 39 and 40 when he threw his no hitters in ‘60 and ‘61. He was 43 when he won 23 games in ‘63. Hank Aaron was 39 and 40 when he hit 40+ homers. I can go more, if that doesn’t satisfy you. .
Looking at Clemens career, I see fairly consistent numbers through out. Some years were not so good, some were very good.
I work out harder now than I ever did when I was young. I can work out with heavier weights than I did before. It comes from hard work at a steady pace. Why can’t Clemens be of similar make up?
Mr. Vegas:
Can’t say you are wrong about “actual malice,” but look up the cases on “reckless disregard of the truth.”
Reckless disregard of the truth, as in ignoring some facts, or turning a blind eye to other reasonable inferences.
Doreen
for $20.
No need to dream. A quick trip to Canal Street in NYC and you can have a “Movado” watch
Pat -
To go with my “Coach” bag!
This statement makes me cringe. I can handle Roger being a juicer (I know it’s wrong but I can understand the pressure), but I can’t handle him being an all-out-in-your-face-doesn’t-blink-an-eye liar. I really hope he is telling the truth, and I know he should be innocent until proven guilty, but somehow my gut just tells me his innocence is highly unlikely. Sorry Roger, I really hope you’ll have more evidence to prove us doubters wrong. I’m waiting.
Pat and Doreen,
Forget Movado, you can even get a “Rolex” with “diamonds” for 20 bucks down there!
Everybody ganging up on Roger a little too much.Andy Pettitte not that much of a cheater but he is a cheater who was a “True Yankee” who should have known better.
McNamee was quoted in a December 10, 2006 news article on steroids as reportedly having said: “I never, ever gave Clemens or Pettitte steroids. They never asked me for steroids. The only thing they asked me for were vitamins.”391 McNamee told us that he was accurately quoted but that he did not tell the truth to the reporter who interviewed him. He explained that he was trying to protect his reputation.
PAGE 173…THIS GUY IS NO GOOD
Murph-dog: How can it be reckless disregard if Mitchell has a live witness saying Clemens juiced and there’s no countervailing proof he didn’t juice?
Mr. Vegas: reckless disregard for the truth can come in many forms; it is a case-specific exercise. If, for example, the person making the statement has a tarnished reputation for truth-telling (or prior bad acts) there may be an obligation to dig deeper or to verify statements. As a prosecutor, when you are using the testimony of a snitch, you have to anticipate that the cross-examination will emphasize that the witness has a motivation to lie; the testimony is more suspect if the witness has has prior brushes with the law that go to his veracity.
It’s not limited to the lack of ‘countervailing proof.’
testing
Testing again
See below:
Yankees!
/end test
he’s such a liar. i’m so sick of him. did you guys see this “rocket man” parody by boston dirtdogs:
http://mlbfleecefactor.com/200.....peaks-out/
Ellen: I’m still at a loss to understand how, under the circumstances of THIS case, Mitchell could possibly be found to have puclished false information in reckless disregard for the truth. Mitchell has a witness who was indisputably Clemens’ trainer who evidently had a side business that involved obtaining and selling steroids who has made a sworn statement that he supplied Clemens with steroids. Given all this, what could Clemens possibly point to that would make the claim utterly implausible to Mitchell?
I get that, IN THEORY, a public figure can win a defamation case. In this particular instance, however, I don’t see any basis on which Clemens could meet his burden of showing actual malice.
Insanity. Abject insanity. That is the only possible explanation. Pettitte “danced around it” ??? He flat out admitted to using HGH. He may have offered up rationalizations and an explanation of how and why, but the LAST thing he did was dance around the topic.
Seriously, get a grip.
Pete clarified that the subject Andy was “dancing around” was the apology, not whether or not he used HGH. The admission was crystal clear and straightforward (and I believe in good faith). In response to the media frenzy following the Mitchell Report, I can also understand why Andy chose something other than a straight apology — partly because he never did most of the things people have been saying.
Even today, Chris Russo on the radio (sans Mike) TWICE said Andy admitted to using steroids. Sad.
THe problem with Pettitte is he might not have ever admitted he took HGH if it wasn’t for the Mitchell report.
And I bet if Pettitte wasn’t in the Mitchell Report everytime Bonds was in the news everybody here including me would have said “At least great Yankees like Pettitte don’t take HGH”.
Glad Pettitte won’t be our Ace because I couldn’t take a World Series MVP of Pettitte and hear how our World Series will be tainted…lucky we are getting Santana.
Come on, if Petitte did, do you really think Clemens didn’t…
Pete said Andy was dancing around, because Andy said HGH wasn’t banned from baseball. But it was, just not specifically.
Even if it was just 2x to recover from injury quicker, thats the whole point of it isn’t it?
Unspoken Majority: It wasn’t banned from baseball specifically or generally. This is not a dance. Mitchell rests his opinion on a single memo circulated by the commissioner of baseball nearly forty years ago. Pete bases his opinions on Mitchell’s faulty argument. There is no reason to believe this memo has any force given the far more detailed policies adopted in the last 20 years that do not incorporate it.
HGH was illegal to use without a prescription. Pettitte broke the law in a manner that is equivalent to underage drinking or speeding — he did not violate the rules of baseball.