Comments on: Clemens: I didn’t do it

By: Chuck

Chuck — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 16:41:12 +0000

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.

By: Unspoken Majority

Unspoken Majority — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 05:02:27 +0000

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?

By: Unspoken Majority

Unspoken Majority — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 04:58:01 +0000

Come on, if Petitte did, do you really think Clemens didn’t…

By: SAndMan

SAndMan — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 04:56:51 +0000

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.

By: Yazman

Yazman — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 04:32:24 +0000

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.

By: deadrody

deadrody — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 03:47:41 +0000

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.

By: Mr. Vegas

Mr. Vegas — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 03:40:09 +0000

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.

By: em3

em3 — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 03:24:32 +0000

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/

By: Test2

Test2 — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 03:12:49 +0000

See below: Yankees! /end test

By: Test2

Test2 — Wed, 19 Dec 2007 03:11:10 +0000

Testing again