The LoHud Yankees Blog

A New York Yankees blog by Chad Jennings and the staff of The Journal News


Another fastball from Clemens

Posted by: Peter Abraham - Posted in Misc on Dec 20, 2007 Print This Post Print This Post | Email This Post Email This Post

In October of 2006, the Los Angeles Times reported that Roger Clemens was one of the players implicated by Jason Grimsley in a federal affidavit. Clemens denied it at the time and was vindicated yesterday when the affidavit was unsealed and Clemens was not on the list.

Roger’s attorney, Rusty Hardin, issued this statement tonight:

“When this grossly inaccurate story broke in October 2006, Roger said it was untrue and the Los Angeles Times chose not to believe him. As the record now clearly proves, Roger was telling the truth then, just as he continues to tell the truth today. Roger Clemens did not take steroids, and anybody who says he did had better start looking for a hell of a good lawyer.”

This would seem to imply that Clemens plans to go to court. Now that would be interesting.

 
 

Advertisement

129 Responses to “Another fastball from Clemens”

  1. kasey December 20th, 2007 at 9:26 pm

    That statemant is straight out of a movie. you tell em rocket’s comin, and he’s bringin hell with him.

  2. Phil December 20th, 2007 at 9:28 pm

    On what grounds would he sue? A civil case charging slander? I’m not sure he has true legal recourse here.

    Of course, you can always sue for anything…but I don’t se a clear choice here for Clemens.

    Sue Mitchell? No. Sue his “trainer” and “injector?” Maybe.

  3. Blondie (has more fun) December 20th, 2007 at 9:29 pm

    WOW

    I mean that was the LA Times, one of the leading papers in the country, if not the world, and yet Roger was right.

  4. Blondie (has more fun) December 20th, 2007 at 9:33 pm

    In keeping with our recent theme of favorite movies, two classics, “Absence Of Malice” and “The People vs Larry Flynt” make it clear, suing a newspaper is nearly impossible.

  5. yanksfan89 December 20th, 2007 at 9:36 pm

    i dont know why but i believed clemens when he said he never used steroids and maybe this story proves something….

  6. jonnycat December 20th, 2007 at 9:40 pm

    yes, but this statement is worded so as not to include HGH

    ps blondie- nice catch on the previous thread about citizen cane. One wonders where your mind is at :)

  7. A-Point December 20th, 2007 at 9:43 pm

    jonnycat, just because this one didn’t state HGH doesn’t mean a thing, the last statement did include HGH.

  8. Jennifer - Save Phil Hughes! December 20th, 2007 at 9:45 pm

    Like I said this is going to get very interesting. And one person that should be looking for a pretty damn good lawyer is Curt.

  9. A-Point December 20th, 2007 at 9:46 pm

    I can see Clemens suing McNamee and Mitchell. While he might not win the case with Mitchell, though I think even with that one he can make some headway, if he wins the McNamee case it throws out Mitchell’s claims in the report.

    Mitchell is in a tight one if Clemens sues. It will adversely reflect on his reputation, which may be payment enough for the Rocket.

  10. Dan December 20th, 2007 at 9:50 pm

    don’t mess with the rocket, or else you’ll get F’d up…

    Piazza with the bat, any batter who looks at him wrong at the body…. don’t mess with the rocket

  11. J-Dawg December 20th, 2007 at 9:50 pm

    I guess that “Tough All Day” not only refers to Roger’s approach on the mound, but also his approach to these allegations. Whether you like him or not, he is definitely doing an admirable job of facing the PED allegations head on and drumming up some support. His determination to fight is drawing notice and probably making some people doubt that he ever used steroids. I just don’t know.

  12. Rob December 20th, 2007 at 9:51 pm

    I would be surprised if he didn’t use steroids. The guy didn’t really have any incentive to lie. If he’s innocent, he should do more than talk through his lawyer, IMHO. It sounds like he is preparing a statement.

  13. Alan December 20th, 2007 at 9:55 pm

    As much as I would love to see that phony, George Mitchell, get his faced rubbed in it again, I’d sooner see Johan Santana pitching the home opener against the always-pathetic Jays. If not Santana, I’d still be pleased to see Wang open the season.

    Five months is an eternity, but not with Spring Training and all the stuff which comes with that.

  14. SAndMan December 20th, 2007 at 9:59 pm

    With all this Clemens talk I have to always put Andy Pettitte is a Cheater too.Just to keep the updates.

  15. Drive 4-5 December 20th, 2007 at 10:02 pm

    For the record, I took Pete’s poll and voted that Clemens did not use steroids. I didn’t vote that way out of any loyalty to him. I voted that way because I don’t believe he would have been as adamant in his statement unless he was to be believed.

    People should learn from the Grimsley situation that these players are innocent until proven guilty. Good for Clemens that he’s won Round 1.

  16. whozat December 20th, 2007 at 10:03 pm

    Sandman…why do you hate Andy so much?

  17. Blondie (has more fun) December 20th, 2007 at 10:05 pm

    Whozat-

    that’s not hate, that’s love.

    clearly sandman doesn’t spend all that energy for nothing, s/he has a crush on Andy.

  18. Buddy Biancalana December 20th, 2007 at 10:14 pm

    Sandman is Sam, so could be a he or she. He/She has zero love for Andy.

  19. BBB December 20th, 2007 at 10:14 pm

    Right on Blondie! Sandman has a case of Andy Envy that can only be rivaled by 38donuts.com’s raging case of Clemens Envy!

  20. ben December 20th, 2007 at 10:15 pm

    piazza could have killed clemens….

  21. whoa December 20th, 2007 at 10:17 pm

    Clemens has a cognizable cause of action for defamation IF he is willing to submit himself to pre-trial discovery, and he has the evidence to prove that any prospective defendants acted with malice (i.e., knowing that the alleged statements were false, or demonstrating reckless disregard for the truth or falsity of the statements in question).

    Those are formidable hurdles to overcome.

    I wouldn’t be surprised if Clemens initiates a suit for PR purposes, and then withdraws it before he actually has to go under oath.

  22. BBB December 20th, 2007 at 10:19 pm

    Anyway, regardless of what Clemens’ lawyer says, years of journalism classes and hearing about NY Times vs. Sullivan over and over and over still lead me to believe that he will not win a lawsuit against Mitchell or MLB. I mean how could he prove that Mitchell showed reckless disregard for the truth? Or actual malice in printing the statements?

  23. Rory December 20th, 2007 at 10:19 pm

    It could be very interesting to see what the wrath of Clemens could do to a horse’s a$$ like Schilling.
    If I were Hank Steinbrenner, I could be tempted to arrange seats for Roger Clemens direcly behind home plate at the Stadium for when big mouth pitches for Boston.
    Clemens should just sit in his seat with a sly smirk and watch Fat Schilling self destruct.

  24. Buddy Biancalana December 20th, 2007 at 10:21 pm

    Forget about Clemens juicing, where can I get a Wii?

  25. BBB December 20th, 2007 at 10:22 pm

    Whoa, I think that’s exactly how things will shake out. Lots of public figures *start* defamation/libel suits, or threaten them, but I can’t remember the last time such a case was actually *finished.* I remember the one a few years back with Jennifer Aniston regarding the press taking photos of her sunbathing topless at home, but I think she lost, and that was a privacy suit anyway. When is the last time a celebrity actually won a libel case?

  26. whoa December 20th, 2007 at 10:23 pm

    BBB December 20th, 2007 at 10:19 pm

    Anyway, regardless of what Clemens’ lawyer says, years of journalism classes and hearing about NY Times vs. Sullivan over and over and over still lead me to believe that he will not win a lawsuit against Mitchell or MLB. I mean how could he prove that Mitchell showed reckless disregard for the truth? Or actual malice in printing the statements?

    McNamee is a much more appealing target.

  27. BBB December 20th, 2007 at 10:23 pm

    Rory: He could also bring a whole case of Krispy Kreme to his seat with him. I bet that would distract 38donuts pretty good!

  28. murphydog December 20th, 2007 at 10:25 pm

    Mitchell knew, or should have been able to discover with due diligence, that McNamee several times previously had denied Clemens used PEDs (“Were you lying then Mr. McNamee, or are you lying now?”). Add to that the fact that McNamee lied to cops investigating the 2001 Florida rape allegations, plus the fact that the statements he made to Mitchell were given in return for reduced jail time, an attempt to benefit himself at someone else’s expense. Is that a basis to argue that Mitchell evinced a reckless disregard for whether McNamee’s most recent statements about Clemens were truthful?

    Mitchell already has denied that he had any actual doubts about McNamee’s accusations, but based on the above, is that really credible coming from a former judge and prosecutor?

    Analyzing McNamee’s reckless disregard or actual malice might be another story. He has a track record of lying, and had a very good motivation to lie to Mitchell, regardless of Mitchell’s automatic reliance on the fact that McNamee wouldn’t lie because he was advised that false statements could lead to new charges. (If that warning was really so powerful and its effect so automatic, we wouldn’t need trials, now would we?)

    It’s a very heavy burden of proof for a public figure, but by filing suit, at least Roger gets to lay it all out and get some discovery from Mitchell, MLB and McNamee before motions to dismiss. Maybe MLB and Mitchell really don’t want to have to turn over their files. It could be interesting. As much as Roger has to lose at at rial, maybe Selig and MLB stand to risk more if they lose. This is why lawyers almost always encourage clients to negotiate because nobody knows what will happen at trial.

  29. whoa December 20th, 2007 at 10:26 pm

    BBB December 20th, 2007 at 10:22 pm

    Whoa, I think that’s exactly how things will shake out. Lots of public figures *start* defamation/libel suits, or threaten them, but I can’t remember the last time such a case was actually *finished.* I remember the one a few years back with Jennifer Aniston regarding the press taking photos of her sunbathing topless at home, but I think she lost, and that was a privacy suit anyway. When is the last time a celebrity actually won a libel case?

    I know Carol Burnett won one years ago.

    Tony Parker is now suing a website that alleged an affair with a model.

  30. theo Epstein December 20th, 2007 at 10:27 pm

    Hey Rory.Is that the same fat Schilling the holder of two world titles with the Red Sox and a third with the Diamondbacks while your team, the Stanks, won nothing withoutr cheaters and juicers like Rogerk Pettitte,Justice.knobhead,Naulty etc etc and about half of your 2000 team?? Is that the Schilling you refer to????? Your team not only attempts to but every championship they cheat for it as well.

  31. Buddy Biancalana December 20th, 2007 at 10:28 pm

    Well said Murph.

  32. whoa December 20th, 2007 at 10:29 pm

    murphydog December 20th, 2007 at 10:25 pm

    Mitchell knew, or should have been able to discover with due diligence, that McNamee several times previously had denied Clemens used PEDs (”Were you lying then Mr. McNamee, or are you lying now?”)

    Mitchell has the federal government’s corroboration on his side. McNamee reached an agreement knowing that he could go to jail if was found to have lied. That totally insulates Mitchell.

  33. Fan December 20th, 2007 at 10:32 pm

    I simply cannot fathom anyone with half a brain calling the man who brokered the Northern Ireland peace agreement, one of the most respected minds in worldwide legal and diplomatic circles, a “phony.” Mind-boggling.

    It’s easy for Clemens to talk about suing. Good luck proving slander in this day and age.

    Reading over the last post, it seems there are a lot of people questioning whether Buchholz is “the real thing,” especially in comparison to Hughes. Perhaps someone can provide info on Hughes, but here’s a snippet from Baseball Prospectus on Buchholz:

    Year In Review: After finishing the previous year on such a strong note, the Red Sox surprised some by starting Buchholz off at Double-A this season, but he blew away hitters at two levels before throwing a no-hitter in his second big league start, and establishing himself as the top pitching prospect in the game.

    The Good: Buchholz is the total package with outstanding stuff, outstanding command and control, and outstanding mound presence. His four-seam fastball sits at 92-94 mph, can touch 97, and features excellent movement. It also isn’t even his best pitch. His plus-plus curveball is a true 12-6 breaker, and multiple scouts relay stories of batters falling down while trying to hit it. His changeup is also an above-average offering that features a late and heavy drop. He also mixes in a solid slider, and a two-seam fastball with some sink. His mechanics are smooth and sound, and he pitches with a fearless intensity.

    The Bad: Anything here is nitpicking. At times, Buchholz becomes a bit too enamored with his secondary offerings, and needs to focus more on setting everything up with his fastball. Some felt this was solved at the big league level when Jason Varitek called all the pitches. Buchholz was shut down at the end of the season due to minor arm soreness, but it was done purely on a precautionary basis, and there are no long-term concerns.

    Perfect World Projection: Buchholz is one of the few pitching prospects around with true ace potential.

  34. Sparky O FROM THE 'VILLE December 20th, 2007 at 10:35 pm

    SOMEBODY SUE 38PITCHES PLEASE….SEND HIM BACK TO THE NEW BRITAIN RED SOX

  35. Giuseppe Franco December 20th, 2007 at 10:42 pm

    Hey Fan,

    When MLB needs someone to facilitate player/owner peace talks down the road, we’ll know who to call.

    I really don’t blame Mitchell for this garbage – I blame Bud Selig.

    Honorable man or not, he was not a good choice because it certainly posed as a conflict of interest due to his ties with the Red Sox.

    Not surprisingly, Selig screwed this thing up from the get-go.

    Plenty of honorable men, especially politicians, have been involved in scandal in our nation’s history.

  36. A-Point December 20th, 2007 at 10:44 pm

    Rob
    December 20th, 2007 at 9:51 pm
    I would be surprised if he didn’t use steroids. The guy didn’t really have any incentive to lie. If he’s innocent, he should do more than talk through his lawyer, IMHO. It sounds like he is preparing a statement.

    There was an article about McNamee being dismissed by the Rocket, which McNamee denied. What if they had a falling out? It wouldn’t be the first time a business relationship soured and it turned ugly.

    How can you speak to McNamee’s motivation to lie or tell the truth? If he gives up enough truth and decides to slip in someone he has a grudge against, what does he have to lose?

    Thing is, Clemens going after McNamee would be one thing, to bring a suit against Mitchell then could force Mitchell to offer public appology if McNamee folds. It may be tough to win a suit, but it isn’t impossible.

    Funny, Canseco even made a public statement that he would be surprised if Clemens used, while the Mitchell report seems to make it that Clemens is accused by Canseco.

    While Clemens might not prove that there was actual malice (legal version) on Mitchells part, a court case that loudly announces his ties to the Red Sox, the access he would have as number 5 man in their organization, his getting a WS ring a couple of days after the report, the Byrd leak before game 7, all looks bad enough that it might convince a jury. It would hurt Mitchell in the public oppinion arena at the very least, and Mitchell has an ego the size of Ireland.

  37. Truck December 20th, 2007 at 10:45 pm

    A thing about slander cases…

    The burden of proof, when you charge someone’s statement is slander/libel is NOT on the plaintiff. It is on the issuer of said statement.

    So if I say “Roger Clemens Took Steroids!” on the news (or other public forum where people took me seriously) and Roger sued me for slander, I would then have to PROVE that my statement was true, or protected under free speech (ie: I was on Saturday Night Live as an actor and pretending to be an announcer or something.)

    Roger does not have to prove the statement false.

    However, I can run around all day saying “I think Roger is a big fat steroid freak” or even just saying some insulting things (but be careful, some words are trouble, like “crook” and “cheat” (ie: You can’t say “LOCAL FORD DEALER IS A CROOK!” without proof to back it up.)

    Go around saying “I think the local ford deal is a crook” and you’re fine. YOU think it. You’re expressing opinion.

    Opinion is protected speech.

    So if Clemens goes to court over this, the ones who made the statement that they injected him, or watched him being injected or bought steroids/HGH for him will have to PROVE that the statements they made were TRUE, or will have to try to argue that they were stating opinion. But from what I read, it doesn’t sound like OPINION.

  38. john December 20th, 2007 at 10:46 pm

    Clemens absence in the Grimsley affidavit is not insignificant. After all, of those named, Canseco, Knoblauch, Watson and Hill were all teammates of Grimsley during the 2000 season. Roger Clemens was also on that team. Wouldn’t it then make sense that if Clemens was doing steroids as alleged, Grimsley would have at least had suspicions?

    Does Grimsley’s failure to implicate Clemens prove he is innocent? No, but it should give pause to those leading the lynch mob. After all, it would seem that Grimsley would be an ideal person to substantiate McNamee’s claims.

    If Clemens did juice, shouldn’t at least one piece of corroborating evidence exist? Do McNamee or Radinksi have a canceled check? No. Is there one person in whom McNamee confided who has stepped forward? No. Have other named teammate impicated him? No. It really defies logic that Clemens used steroids for so long, yet no evidence exists beyond the wavering testimony of one man. I guess Clemens could be a master at covering his tracks, but still, you’d think one other piece of information would have come forward by now.

  39. Sparky O FROM THE 'VILLE December 20th, 2007 at 10:47 pm

    I want to see Mitchell Report II: Mitchell takes on the evil Russian Ivan Drago in a head to head showdown…..to be continued

  40. Blondie (has more fun) December 20th, 2007 at 10:49 pm

    Fan-

    George Mitchell is a corporate tobacco lobbyist.

    look it up. then put it in your pipe and smoke it.

    Game, Set, Match!!

  41. whoa December 20th, 2007 at 10:51 pm

    Blondie (has more fun) December 20th, 2007 at 10:49 pm

    Fan-

    George Mitchell is a corporate tobacco lobbyist.

    look it up. then put it in your pipe and smoke it.

    Game, Set, Match!!

    The last time I looked, tobacco was legal.

    What was the game? Making an irrelevant point?

  42. Rich December 20th, 2007 at 10:54 pm

    “And one person that should be looking for a pretty damn good lawyer is Curt.”

    good thinking- clemens should sue everybody that posted on the internet that said that he should forfeit his personal achievemnt awards if he took roids. he’d be suing alot of people… the garbage that people spew onto keyboards amazes me. considering peoples complete lack of understanding of the law, its no wonder that lawyers make so much money.

  43. A-Point December 20th, 2007 at 10:55 pm

    All that needs to be said about Mitchell is that he is a politican. While they might be needed, they should never be fully trusted.

  44. Ban Bud December 20th, 2007 at 10:56 pm

    “George Mitchell is a corporate tobacco lobbyist.”

    Big deal, it isn’t like tobacco causes cancer or anything.

  45. Fan December 20th, 2007 at 10:58 pm

    //Do McNamee or Radinksi have a canceled check? No.//

    All that proves is that Clemens wasn’t dumb enough to leave a paper trail.

    //Is there one person in whom McNamee confided who has stepped forward? No.//

    Would YOU step forward, probably implicating yourself, if you didn’t have the threat of jail time hanging over your head?

    //Have other named teammate impicated him? No.//

    The only guy who’s willingly implicated a teammate is Jose Canseco. Do you think Pettitte is going to finger Clemens?

    //It really defies logic that Clemens used steroids for so long, yet no evidence exists beyond the wavering testimony of one man.//

    That, plus physical growth, increased domination on the mound, and stunning and unprecedented improvement as he aged. Not to mention staying out of baseball for months at a time, then coming back. And we won’t even mention the persistent injuries, commong among PED users. Nope, nothing to see here.

    //I guess Clemens could be a master at covering his tracks, but still, you’d think one other piece of information would have come forward by now.//

    This isn’t over.

  46. Sparky O FROM THE 'VILLE December 20th, 2007 at 10:59 pm

    I confess i drank in high school and was underage….

  47. whoa December 20th, 2007 at 11:01 pm

    “Everything gives you cancer.” – Joe Jackson

  48. Blondie (has more fun) December 20th, 2007 at 11:02 pm

    Whoa-

    Maybe Mitchell can lift the ban on cigarette smoking ban at ball parks. Remember the good ole days when Bart Giamatti would sit in the stands at Shea and smoke on camera with his clubbed fingers.

    Perhaps Mitchell could shill for Halliburton and Blackwater, too.

  49. Hell on Earth December 20th, 2007 at 11:03 pm

    Because of the Mitchell Report Debacle, I have lost all faith in–and respect for–the American justice system.

  50. Rich December 20th, 2007 at 11:06 pm

    “Because of the Mitchell Report Debacle, I have lost all faith in–and respect for–the American justice system.”

    maybe you should move to saudi arabia where gang rape victims get sentenced to 100 lashings… puts into persepctive when these “poor” millionaires get nothing more than their reputations hurt…

  51. black_tiger December 20th, 2007 at 11:10 pm

    “theo Epstein
    December 20th, 2007 at 10:27 pm
    Hey Rory.Is that the same fat Schilling the holder of two world titles with the Red Sox and a third with the Diamondbacks while your team, the Stanks, won nothing withoutr cheaters and juicers like Rogerk Pettitte,Justice.knobhead,Naulty etc etc and about half of your 2000 team?? Is that the Schilling you refer to????? Your team not only attempts to but every championship they cheat for it as well.”

    Didnt epstein admit to acquiring both Gagne and Donnelly knowing they had used PED’s? Are you really so naive to not see that nixon, varitek, garciaparra, lowell and drew (and possibly ortiz and ramirez)have all been spared due to the red sox coverup king, Mitchell?

  52. Brandon (Proud supporter of "ALEX BEING ALEX") & dammit SAVE HUGHES !!! December 20th, 2007 at 11:12 pm

    what’s this about Mitchell Report part II that you people are talking about ?

    ok help me pick the title

    MR II Non-Judgement Day

    Return of the Mitchell Probe

    Boston Non-Public

    The Mitch

    Don’t Be A Menace In Your Hood w/ Mitchell Finding The Juice That You Took

    Mitchell Returns

    HGH the sequel

    … any suggestions ?

  53. whoa December 20th, 2007 at 11:12 pm

    Blondie (has more fun) December 20th, 2007 at 11:02 pm

    Whoa-

    Maybe Mitchell can lift the ban on cigarette smoking ban at ball parks. Remember the good ole days when Bart Giamatti would sit in the stands at Shea and smoke on camera with his clubbed fingers.

    Perhaps Mitchell could shill for Halliburton and Blackwater, too.

    So your point is that adults should not be permitted to engage in any potentially deleterious activity? Do you propose a federal law to accomplish that?

    Personally, I think adults, as opposed to children, should be permitted to drink and smoke (in their own homes, or in designated public areas).

    As for Blackwater/Halliburton, it is the MLBPA who is trying to cover up illegal activity (PED usage), which is what the two aforementioned corporations are attempting to do with regard to their potential crimes in Iraq.

    So being faithful to your analogy, the shilling job would be more suited for Fehr and Orza (and Selig, just because he is a used car salesman).

  54. Blondie (has more fun) December 20th, 2007 at 11:12 pm

    Rich-

    Saudi Arabia is medieval or something. Halliburton is far more enlightened, they only destroy evidence and imprison gang-rape victims in make-shift dungeons, without food or water, until they sign away their rights.

  55. BBB December 20th, 2007 at 11:14 pm

    “Don’t Be A Menace In Your Hood w/ Mitchell Finding The Juice That You Took”

    LMAO!! We have a winner right here!

  56. Jim Clark December 20th, 2007 at 11:14 pm

    Clemens, the tough talking but cowardly bully, is hiding behind his lawyer. What a surprise!! Just like he hid behind the DH to throw at Mike Piazza’s head and let his enabler Clueless Joe Torre change the rotation so he wouldn’t pitch at Shea in 2001.
    By the way, has anyone asked Clueless Joe what he knew or suspected about Clemens and his supplier who ended up with a Yankee job? What was the nature of the talk in 2000 that turned Clemens’s Yankee career around?
    Go ahead Roger..sue for slander and prove yourself to be a crook just like Alger Hiss did 60 years ago. Testify in Congress and see if you can speak English better than Sammy Sosa.

  57. whoa December 20th, 2007 at 11:15 pm

    If Clemens sues, rest assured that Pettitte will be deposed and likely be compelled to testify at trial.

    I wonder if Clemens looks forward to what he has to say.

  58. Buddy Biancalana December 20th, 2007 at 11:16 pm

    whoa-

    “deleterious” well done with your choice of words.

  59. john December 20th, 2007 at 11:18 pm

    Fan…you didn’t explain why the only evidence against Clemens is McNamee’s testimony…a man who repeatedly claimed Clemens didn’t take steroids in the past. I guess I am a cynic, but McNamee wouldn’t be the first criminal who lied in order to get a favorable plea bargain. Your anectdotal evidence of Clemens getting better and bigger also doesn’t wash. For starters, Clemens doesn’t have a Bonds-like body builder body. Secondly, he has been great throughout his career. He doesn’t have extreme peaks, but rather great years spread among very good ones. Finally, on that basis, everyone who has gotten better and bigger is a suspect. In that case, the accusations are meaningless anyway because you could argue everyone was doing it.

    Again, I find it amazing that Clemens, being high profile and alleged to have taken steroids for so long, has left behind one piece of evidence. Again, he must be a master at cover his tracks. If, as you suggest, that evidence is coming…let’s see it. At that time, you can convict him. Until then, the only reason to condemn him is personal dislike.

  60. ray December 20th, 2007 at 11:20 pm

    Drive 4-5
    December 20th, 2007 at 10:02 pm
    “For the record, I took Pete’s poll and voted that Clemens did not use steroids. I didn’t vote that way out of any loyalty to him. I voted that way because I don’t believe he would have been as adamant in his statement unless he was to be believed.”

    Drive 4-5……didn’t you think that Palmeiro was pretty adamant when he testified before Congress and yet it turned out that had indeed “juiced”. Clinton was very adamant that he “did not have sexual relations with that woman” and we all know how that turned out. Sometimes I think the more adamant a person is denotes how much they are covering up.

  61. BBB December 20th, 2007 at 11:21 pm

    “I simply cannot fathom anyone with half a brain calling the man who brokered the Northern Ireland peace agreement, one of the most respected minds in worldwide legal and diplomatic circles, a “phony.” Mind-boggling.”

    I think it’s mind-boggling that you think it’s mind boggling to call a politician a phony! This is only my opinion, and I’m sure others’ beliefs have different structures, but as far as I am concerned all politicians are scum at worst, phony at absolute best. And whether you view politics with the same kind of cynicism or not is up to you, but come on, it’s hardly beyond the realm of comprehension that someone would call a politician a phony.

    And that’s only Mitchell’s political integrity. His integrity as a baseball man is an entirely seperate issue, and as far as I’m concerned he compromised THAT integrity the moment he accepted this assignment. Whether he did give his own players a free pass or not, it’s still a ginormous conflict of interest for him to be “investigating” them. And if you can’t see that because you’re a fan of his team, that’s just sad. Hell, I’m a smoker, but if the government selected Marlboro to head a study on cigarettes causing cancer, I certainly wouldn’t take their findings at face value…

  62. Hell on Earth December 20th, 2007 at 11:22 pm

    If these poor millionaires don’t have a chance, what’s the masses with but a few dollars in their bank accounts to do.

  63. A-Point December 20th, 2007 at 11:23 pm

    Jim Clark, you must be on some kind of good chemicals to equate Clemens with a communist spy. Wow. Brilliant! :roll:

  64. Rich December 20th, 2007 at 11:23 pm

    “Saudi Arabia is medieval or something. Halliburton is far more enlightened, they only destroy evidence and imprison gang-rape victims in make-shift dungeons, without food or water, until they sign away their rights.”

    i wasnt talking to you and your response really has nothing to do with my statement but let me take this opportunity to reposnd by saying that the halliburton thing is F’ed up if true but i dont how you could compare it with public lashings of rape victims permitted by an actual govt. there may some some f’ed up conduct by a company thats happening in the wild west desert to the east, but our system of govt and legal system is leaps and bounds over the ass backwards justice in the land of the religious fundamentalists.

  65. Blondie (has more fun) December 20th, 2007 at 11:24 pm

    Whoa-

    I’m Libertarian.

    I having nothing against the common customer/smoker.

    Big Tobacco is as corrupt and as abusive as any defense contractor (See Jeffrey Wigand).

    Mercenaries are legal, but I wouldn’t lobby for them.

  66. A-Point December 20th, 2007 at 11:25 pm

    so ray, what then would YOU do if you were accused of something you didn’t do? Would you say you did it or would you deny it? How much would you protest about being wrongly accused?

  67. randyhater December 20th, 2007 at 11:26 pm

    John,

    How can you or any other reasonable person possible believe that McNamee was not supplying and administering PEDs to Clemens?

    McNamee is a notorious,admitted PED dispenser, his activities corroborated by Pettite and Radomski. He’s had a 10 some-odd year intimate relationship with Clemens during which he’s spent hundreds (thousands?) of hours alone with him. He’s slept at his house on numerous occaisons, and Clemens has repeatedly and publicly credited him with being directly responsible for his conditioning.

    To believe that McNamee is lying you would have to believe one of the following:

    A. McNamee never offered Clemens (his biggest client) PEDs, although he clearly believes they improve performance, has no compuction about procuring or administering them, and wasn’t shy about offering them to straight-arrow Andy Pettitte.

    or

    B. McNamee offered them to Clemens and Clemens declined. Yet Clemens continued to closely associate himself with a known PED dealer, thereby risking his reputation, legacy, and livelihood.

    Notice that neither Pettitte nor Clemens has directly attacked McNamee. Probably because both know that he gave Mitchell a lot less than he could have, and still can. One thing is for sure, Clemens will never sue McNamee directly.

  68. Brandon (Proud supporter of "ALEX BEING ALEX") & dammit SAVE HUGHES !!! December 20th, 2007 at 11:28 pm

    wait I got a couple of more

    When Mitchell Got His Groove Back

    Big Mitchell’s House

    Mitchell’s List (sorry for that one)

    Curious George

    Deliver Us From Mitchell

    Mitchell’s Paradise

    10 Tings I Hate About Mitchell

    2 Years Later

  69. Rich December 20th, 2007 at 11:29 pm

    “If these poor millionaires don’t have a chance, what’s the masses with but a few dollars in their bank accounts to do.”

    im sorry, but this collection of words makes no sense…

  70. dadofjft December 20th, 2007 at 11:30 pm

    The Grimsley affadavit is pretty depressing. Grimsley, Knoblauch, Canseco, Allen Watson & Glenallen Hill, all teammates on the 2000 club. Add David Justice, Clemens (and Andy?) and you’ve got an awful lot of guys on that team not on the up and up.

  71. Rich December 20th, 2007 at 11:31 pm

    randyhater- good post. people get so caufght up in the “bias” and “innocent until proven guilty” fog they ignore logical reasoning. i have a wide stance!

  72. Sparky O FROM THE 'VILLE December 20th, 2007 at 11:33 pm

    Cheaper by the 9 dozen….lol

  73. Rebecca--Optimist Prime--Save the Three Musketeers! December 20th, 2007 at 11:34 pm

    I don’t really believe Clemens when he’s said he’s never used, but, if Clemens really is clean, I would love for him to clear his name.

  74. whoa December 20th, 2007 at 11:34 pm

    Blondie (has more fun) December 20th, 2007 at 11:24 pm

    Whoa-

    I’m Libertarian.

    I having nothing against the common customer/smoker.

    Big Tobacco is as corrupt and as abusive as any defense contractor (See Jeffrey Wigand).

    Mercenaries are legal, but I wouldn’t lobby for them.

    The negative impact of disproportionate power and wealth in this country is so pervasive that it transcends big tobacco.

    I’m not saying that I support it, because I don’t, but Mitchell’s role for them is relatively fungible. If he doesn’t do it, they will hire someone else. On balance, however, I believe that Mitchell has made a positive contribution with his life.

    PED using players don’t have a particularly positive impact on America’s youth either. Fehr and Orza are playing analogous role to the one Mitchell is playing for the tobacco companies. There are no heroes in this dispute.

    btw, I read a Civil Action.

  75. Sparky O FROM THE 'VILLE December 20th, 2007 at 11:34 pm

    Mitchell and the Chipmunks

  76. ray December 20th, 2007 at 11:35 pm

    A-Point

    I suppose only time will tell whether Clemens is telling the truth. I find if interesting even the results of Peter’s poll reflect that nearly three times as many people reading this blog think Clemens did take steroids. Out among the rest of the baseball public it would be safe to assume that the percentage is even higher.

    You make a very valid point that if I was accused of something I didn’t do I would be quite vocal about it.

  77. Sparky O FROM THE 'VILLE December 20th, 2007 at 11:37 pm

    The Nightmare Before Christmas

  78. Blondie (has more fun) December 20th, 2007 at 11:37 pm

    Rich-

    You and I probably agree on alot. I came hard at you waving a finger. I appreciate your comments. While SA is horrible (public executions, etc.) don’t let your guard down, our current government extended blanket criminal immunity to US contractors, not Ike Clanton (they can literally rob banks with impunity in iraq).

  79. Brandon (Proud supporter of "ALEX BEING ALEX") & dammit SAVE HUGHES !!! December 20th, 2007 at 11:39 pm

    Mitchie Rich

    Robosox 2

    Teenage Mutant Ninja Mitchell

    Scream 4

    The Blair Mitch Project

    The Mitchell Diaries

    Are We There Yet ? Part 2

    Dude Where’s My File ?

  80. Sparky O FROM THE 'VILLE December 20th, 2007 at 11:40 pm

    Transformers…I kill myself get it?

  81. A-Point December 20th, 2007 at 11:41 pm

    randyhater, then you believe in guilty by association? According to McNamee, in each case the player asked him about them. You also forget that the first statement was a slap at McNamee and his credibility.

    Canseco said that he didn’t think Clemens did them, and figured he would have known. This same Canseco who had no compunction about naming other players wouldn’t finger Clemens and add on a chapter in his book?

    But by your “logic” he is guilty because he retained him as trainer. Fine, then what about C.J. Nitkowski, is he guilty too because of using McNamee as a trainer?

  82. dadofjft December 20th, 2007 at 11:44 pm

    Oops. Forgot Mike Stanton. That gets us up to nine in 2000.

  83. Yazman December 20th, 2007 at 11:44 pm

    I also voted “no” about RC’s steroid accusations, though the true answer is I don’t know. But for lack of proof, I err on the side of believing innocence.

    Some great posts here have made it clear that Clemens, D. Justice, and anyone else in the report who claim innocence would have little chance of success in a lawsuit against Mitchell and MLB.

    But what about a lawsuit against McNamee?

    No deep pockets, but that’s not the point.

  84. Blondie (has more fun) December 20th, 2007 at 11:45 pm

    Whoa-

    I believe that Mitchell has made a positive contribution with his life.

    I agree.

    It’s not like he’s Paris Hilton or Trent Lott. That’s why I’m mad. I’m mad at him for not sticking to the high standard he set for himself and for us.

  85. pat December 20th, 2007 at 11:45 pm

    Any lawyer will tell you that whether you are guilty or innocent the stupidest thing you can do is be vocal.

    Even worse for public figures whose every word is recorded whether it be in print, audio or video.

    Everything you say can be used against you either in a court of law or more importantly in this situation, the court of public opinion.

  86. Terry December 20th, 2007 at 11:53 pm

    NYPOST

    December 20, 2007 — Derek Jeter wants everybody to wait until all the facts are in before declaring Roger Clemens guilty of using performance-enhancing drugs.

    “It seems right now people are rushing to judgment,” Jeter said of his pal, whose name headlined the Mitchell Report last week thanks to the testimony of former personal trainer Brian McNamee. “You have to let it play out a little bit before you say he is guilty or not guilty.”

    Jeter talked tonight before hosting a Turn 2 Foundation night at the movies for 500 children at the Ziegfeld Theatre.

    Jeter never has disguised his feelings for Clemens. When Clemens joined the Yankees in 1999, Jeter, who wasn’t a fan when Clemens pitched for Boston and Toronto, gravitated toward the legendary pitcher. During the 2006 World Baseball Classic, they shared a house in California.

    Jeter lauded Andy Pettitte for admitting last weekend that he used HGH in 2002 to help a balky elbow heal quicker. McNamee said in the report he injected Clemens and Pettitte.

    Clemens has twice vehemently denied he used performance-enhancing drugs at any time of his life.

    “I talked to Andy and he knows how I feel about him,” Jeter said. “He came out and was honest about it and it’s time to move on.”

  87. Blondie (has more fun) December 21st, 2007 at 12:01 am

    Whoa-

    “btw, I read a Civil Action.”

    That was a good book. Nice compliment to the movie.

    but cut me a break, I’m blonde, remember – what did your bon mot mean >??

  88. whoa December 21st, 2007 at 12:12 am

    Blondie (has more fun) December 20th, 2007 at 11:45 pm

    Whoa-

    I believe that Mitchell has made a positive contribution with his life.

    I agree.

    It’s not like he’s Paris Hilton or Trent Lott. That’s why I’m mad. I’m mad at him for not sticking to the high standard he set for himself and for us.

    Seventy four year old fathers of six year olds who have spent their lives in public service probably feel compelled to make a whole lot of money very quickly because he could be dead before his daughter turns 15.

    bon mot?

  89. randyhater December 21st, 2007 at 12:16 am

    A-Point,

    You really think that it’s possible that Clemens, or any other reasonably intelligent athlete in his position, would continue to use a known PED dealer as his trainer, and make such a public show of their association, if he wasn’t himself using PEDs? A guy with Clemens’ money can’t find someone clean to hold his ankles while he does situps?

    Clemens didn’t carry this degenerate from Toronto, to NY, to Houston because of his flair with a medicine ball. You get a good dealer, you stick with him, or so I hear.

    If not, let’s see Clemens sue McNamee, or even attack him publicly. What’s he waiting for?

  90. george December 21st, 2007 at 12:16 am

    regarding this Mitchell-worshipping from “Fan”

    >>I simply cannot fathom anyone with half a brain calling the man who brokered the Northern Ireland peace agreement, one of the most respected minds in worldwide legal and diplomatic circles, a “phony.”

  91. george December 21st, 2007 at 12:17 am

    regarding the Mitchell-worshipping from “Fan”, the real Mitchell is a total phony insofar as the report’s great concern for the public-health risk to children of steroids and HGH. Yeah, he makes these grand-sounding statements in the report. But then you find out that he’s been humping his connections and legal talents on behalf of other great things for kids such as polluted rivers and tobacco proliferation. Various journalists have covered this. For example, Baseball Think Factory had a link to this article:

    http://www.counterpunch.org/zirin12192007.html

    GE, one of his clients, is always trying to evade responsibility for cleaning up their pollution of common resources such as the Hudson River. Give me a break – what, did Saint Mitchell say “GE isn’t powerful enough to fight those green groups alone, I’d better pitch in.”

    I’m not saying Mitchell is all evil or has never done anything good; the report makes some hits too, like any fishing expedition would. However, when we peek behind Mitchell’s curtain into his record, it seems realistic to view him as a career politician whom Bud paid to deal with Congress and the Player’s Union, not some disinterested, Solomon-like figure.

    But i guess I must have less than half a brain because I’m aware of these unpleasant facts! honestly, While we’re on the subject of diminishing brain matter, my own opinion is that people who proclaim that the burden of proof is on Clemens here apparently find Civics 101 and Civilization 101 too challenging.

  92. Buddy Biancalana December 21st, 2007 at 12:18 am

    I believe bon mot is in reference to deleterious, fungible etc… A compliment to you, whoa!!

  93. Blondie (has more fun) December 21st, 2007 at 12:18 am

    ray-

    You make a very valid point that if I was accused of something I didn’t do I would be quite vocal about it.

    Not necessarily the best course of action – remember Shakespeare’s counsel “me thinks thou dost protest too much”

  94. Blondie (has more fun) December 21st, 2007 at 12:21 am

    Whoa-

    yeah, bon mot (it’s french – Ooh Là Là)

    I thought you refences to “A Civil Action” was a witticism, which I couldn’t identify.

  95. Blondie (has more fun) December 21st, 2007 at 12:22 am

    Buddy-

    I love ya bubble-gum!!!

    you know how to blow, doncha, Budda..

    you just put you lips together and, um, blow ;)

  96. whoa December 21st, 2007 at 12:23 am

    Here’s my test for a politician: Were they against invading Iraq? If so, they can’t be all bad.

  97. Bruce Dickinson December 21st, 2007 at 12:25 am

    hello communists, sure why not convict Clemens on pure hearsay. Better yet, let’s do away with the presumption of innocence and shift the burden on Clemens to prove he is not guilty.
    Kuddos to the Captain this evening for defending the Rocketman.

  98. Giovanni Franco December 21st, 2007 at 12:27 am

    I commend any player who would sacrifice his body and take steroids for the good of the team.

  99. Michale December 21st, 2007 at 12:28 am

    You are correct Giovanni. To the extent that we want to persecute steroid abusers, we should look in the mirror – it’s the fans that want to see the home runs and are mesmorized by the radar gun.

  100. Phil December 21st, 2007 at 12:28 am

    Clemens is gonna own the LA Times.

  101. Adam Lazaria December 21st, 2007 at 12:31 am

    I took roids when I played ball for my highschool team – best move I ever made. It enabled me to recover from fatigue and I made it to college on a full scholarship. I never made it past college ball but did get a a great college degree and now own my own investing firm.

  102. Phil December 21st, 2007 at 12:31 am

    All Clemens has to prove in court against the LA Times is that he is not in the Grimsley affidavit. They assured the public he was. This is open and shut.

  103. frank p December 21st, 2007 at 12:31 am

    Adam: did you suffer any side effects?

  104. A-Point December 21st, 2007 at 12:31 am

    “Innocence most often is a good fortune and not a virtue.”
    Anatole France

    “He that is conscious of guilt cannot bear the innocence of others: So they will try to reduce all others to their own level.”
    Charles James Fox

    “A boaster and a liar are cousins”
    Proverbs

  105. Mike Mussina December 21st, 2007 at 12:32 am

    Someone please fill me with roids – i can’t hit 79 on the gun.

  106. Adam Lazaria December 21st, 2007 at 12:34 am

    Phil: No side effects. You need to talk to your doctor if you want to do it the right way. I would take tamoxifen to couterbalance any potential side effects.

  107. Phil December 21st, 2007 at 12:34 am

    Thanks Adam.

  108. randyhater December 21st, 2007 at 12:34 am

    Bruce,

    McNamee’s testimony isn’t hearsay, it’s an eyewitness account from a trainer with whom he had a well-publicized, decade-long relationship. A guy who he allowed to sleep in his home on a number of occasions. A guy who’s related testimony has already been corroborated by Clemens’ best friend. I think the burden of proof has been shifted.

  109. Blondie (has more fun) December 21st, 2007 at 12:35 am

    Adam-

    forget about ‘roids – got any stock tips?

  110. Adam Lazaria December 21st, 2007 at 12:36 am

    randyhater stick to your dayjob and stop playing lawyer. Of course it is heresay, it is an out of court statment offered for the truth of the matter asserted.

  111. Adam Lazaria December 21st, 2007 at 12:38 am

    Bondie: Bet the house on Onyx Pharmaceuticals and First Solar

  112. Phil December 21st, 2007 at 12:38 am

    McNamee’s testimony against Roger has not been corroborated by anyone. Pettitte said McNamee was correct about HGH, Justice says McNamee was incorrect and that McNamee just put the stuff in his locker with needles.

  113. Adam Lazaria December 21st, 2007 at 12:39 am

    I do not condone steriod use without the approval of a physician

  114. Adam Lazaria December 21st, 2007 at 12:40 am

    Phil – you are making a ton of sense. Good man.

  115. Phil December 21st, 2007 at 12:48 am

    Which Phil is making sense? There are two of us here. Btw, next time I’ll log in as PhilW.

  116. whoa December 21st, 2007 at 12:54 am

    If the LA Times did not act with malice (defined above) whether or not the reporting of the Grimsley affidavit is accurate has no effect on their potential liability. Newspapers get things wrong all the time.

  117. Ed December 21st, 2007 at 12:59 am

    To the people claiming the burden of proof is on Clemens: What could he possibly do to prove it? The only way to prove he didn’t take steroids is to invent a time machine and video tape every moment of his life in the years in question.

    And to the people claiming the 2000 team was loaded with steroid users: Of the evidence we have, the majority of the players in question didn’t have anything to do with steroids/hgh until later years. Clemens, Grimsley and Canseco were the only players using at the time. And Canseco was a pinch hitter only on the roster because of a waiver claim that wasn’t expected to go through. He wasn’t wanted or in any way significant to the team.

  118. whoa December 21st, 2007 at 1:00 am

    Ed December 21st, 2007 at 12:59 am

    To the people claiming the burden of proof is on Clemens: What could he possibly do to prove it? The only way to prove he didn’t take steroids is to invent a time machine and video tape every moment of his life in the years in question.

    In a court of law it is, in the court of public opinion, that’s up to each individual.

  119. rbizzler December 21st, 2007 at 1:25 am

    Why won’t people realize that the Mitchell “Report” is just proof positive that there were users on all teams? I don’t get it. I know that Yankee hating is good for business, but to hang all of this on their doorstep is ridiculous.

    Personally, I made peace with the fact that MLB was infested with rampant steroid use years ago so I am not disappointed in the report in the slightest. I will, however, enjoy Roger’s defense…

  120. Phil December 21st, 2007 at 1:40 am

    the bargained for standard of proof between MLB and the MLBPA is a positive test.

    And Clemens is gonna own part of the LA Times and his lawyers should be able to find out during discovery where the LAT got the idea that Clemens name was in the affidavit. It could turn out that there was malicious intent from the party whose info they used.

  121. whoa December 21st, 2007 at 2:03 am

    Read New York Times v. Sullivan. Once you do you will understand that the chances that the LAT published that report knowing it was false or with reckless disregard for the report’s truth or falsity is about as likely as pigs flying.

    Also, if Clemens were to bring a lawsuit, he would open himself to discovery on his possible PED usage.

    It will not happen.

  122. smoke December 21st, 2007 at 2:43 am

    I fail to see how this helps Clemens in anyway. So he wasn’t named By Grimsley, yet his trainer yet again was named as a guy who refers players to sources where they could obtain illegal drugs.

    If Roger Clemens didn’t use steroids ( and that is VERY unlikely at this point ), he kept a criminal who was HEAVILY involved with steroids and HGH, and was referring players to roid sources, as his trainer for ten years, and as randy said, a man he let sleep in his home. It’s amazing how Clemens trainer, the man he took with him from Toronto, to newyork, to Houston, and apparently injected Clemens good buddy Pettitte with HGH, and was referring various players to roid sources, yet somehow Roger Clemens never dabbled with a ped himself. It’s truly amazing that Clemens can resist such tempation like that when MLB didn’t ban the substances, and they weren’t testing for them. Yeah right, and O.J was innocent too.

    Clemens is a fraud, he’ll never sue.

  123. smoke December 21st, 2007 at 2:47 am

    “Canseco said that he didn’t think Clemens did them, and figured he would have known. This same Canseco who had no compunction about naming other players wouldn’t finger Clemens and add on a chapter in his book?”

    Uh, Clemens was in Canseco’s book. Canseco claims he discussed steroids multiple times with Clemens, and that Clemens discussed stacking them and whatnot. He also mentions Clemens success starting in 1997 was extremely suspicious. He never SEEN clemens use roids, but he certainly hints at clemens cheating in his book.

  124. whoa December 21st, 2007 at 3:13 am

    You are correct smoke. It doesn’t do Clemens any additional damage, but it doesn’t help him either.

  125. vrsce December 21st, 2007 at 8:05 am

    Will anyone care to wager against Clemens clearing his name?

    It may be that we will all be (pleasantly) surprised.

    In any event he is not going down without a fight.

  126. jon December 21st, 2007 at 8:20 am

    Suing a newspaper is hardly impossible. It’s just that most of the times – especially the high-profile times – the newspaper is telling the truth.

  127. whoa December 21st, 2007 at 11:04 am

    You can sue anyone you want. The problem is that NYT v. Sullivan has made it virtually impossible for public figure to prevail in a defamation suit. Occasionally, a reporter’s source has bad info. That entitles a plaintiff to…wait for it….NOTHING!

  128. Raven December 22nd, 2007 at 1:09 am

    Alright.
    Let’s throw the Rocket into Guantánamo Bay and soon he’ll talk.

  129. Apologistfornoone December 22nd, 2007 at 7:14 pm

    “I took roids when I played ball for my highschool team – best move I ever made. It enabled me to recover from fatigue and I made it to college on a full scholarship. I never made it past college ball but did get a a great college degree and now own my own investing firm.”

    “Phil: No side effects. You need to talk to your doctor if you want to do it the right way. I would take tamoxifen to couterbalance any potential side effects.”

    “I do not condone steriod use without the approval of a physician”

    ———————

    I hope you characters posting here have the sense to realize Adam Lazaria is either seriously pulling your leg, or he’s just a whacko.

    Tamoxifen is a cancer treatment used for women who’ve suffered breast cancer. Its side effects are just as horrendous as the documented side effects of prolonged anabolic steroid use.

    No reputable physician would “approve” anabolic steroids for the uses Adam Lazaria confessed to, or those MLB players who’ve used.


Sponsored by:
 

Search

    Advertisement

    Follow

    Mobile

    Read The LoHud Yankees Blog on the go by navigating to the blog on your smartphone or mobile device's browser. No apps or downloads are required.

Advertisement

Place an ad

Call (914) 694-3581