So, what would you ask Clemens?
-
-
- January
- 3
-
Mike Wallace doesn’t need our advice. Let’s hope not, anyway. But a reader e-mailed last night and suggested a post on what would be good questions for Roger Clemens on 60 Minutes on Sunday.
In the interest of brevity, here are the three questions I’d want answered:
1. Why did you turn down the opportunity to meet with Sen Mitchell when asked? A player of your stature seemingly has little to fear from the Players Association.
2. If not steroids, what accounted for the remarkable turnaround of your season in 1998?
3. Andy Pettitte admitted Brian McNamee told the truth about his use of drugs. Why, then, did McNamee lie about you as you claim?
So what are the three questions you’d want asked?
————
The Clemens interview will be televised on Sunday night. He will hold a press conference in Houston on Monday at a location to be determined.
This entry was posted
on Thursday, January 3rd, 2008 at 1:21 am 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
Pete UMass beat another top 35ish team 11-1 Houston tonight.
Go Minutemen
Go Yanks
i would definitely want question #3 answered, cause that’s the first question that popped into my head when Clemens denied all of the allegations. Clemens says that everything in there about him are lies, but it certainly doesn’t help when other players’ admit that their stories in the report are true.
Are you more of a fraud or more of a cheat ?
Question 3 is a little unfair. Assuming for the moment that Clemens didn’t use, that doesn’t mean he can suddenly read minds. He wouldn’t know why McNamee lied and any reason he might give would just be speculation.
Roger, how many years have you been wearing a bro?
Did I miss something or did Roger Clemens play the majority of his career with the Boston Red Sox.Just because the Theo Epstein report said he began using PEDs conveniently after his tenure with Boston, doesnt mean he wasn’t on the juice when he made Fenway fans wet.
I’d like to see Kevin Youkilis pee in a cup, that roidhead could turn a solo cup into a nuclear weapon. and lets not even bring up davey ortiz.Boy youve grown since wearing a twins uni and wow how your homerun power has grown as well.what a joke.
if kurt radamski started folding towels in Worcester instead of flushing there’d be a whole lot of boston fans blaming jason giambi for introducing the juice to mankind.
I don’t know why everyone keeps harping on the fact that Clemens didn’t speak to Mitchell. I’m guessing a lot of people don’t belong to any type of Union or understand how they work. When you join a Union, you stand by their line. If they tell you don’t talk to Mitchell, then you don’t talk to Mitchell. If you’re Roger Clemens, one of the biggest figures in the game, why would you go against the Union’s request?
Unions are only as strong as their members. You don’t want to be the person who breaks away.
butterball:
~~ He wouldn’t know why McNamee lied and any reason he might give would just be speculation. ~~
because there is no reason, Clemens lied and Andy Didn’t! It’s just that simple…
btw… the only way Clemens could prove his innocence is to sue, that is the only way…
The Hills,
Die in a fire. You deserve nothing better.
Pete:
The second question makes no sense and it reflects a common misconception about Clemens since the Mitchell Report was released. Clemens turnaround season occurred in 1997, his first year in Toronto when he went 21-7 and with a 2.05 ERA. If steroids were the reason for his resurgence then why did he have such an incredible year in 1997, the year before McNamee said he fist injected Clemens with steroids? It seems like the media has overlooked this fact because I have heard multiple media outlets report that Dan Duquette must have been right after all when he said Clemens was in the “twilight of his career” after the 1996 season because steroids were the real reason Clemens returned to his old form. This obviously isn’t true if you look at his statistics from 1997.
Tony, I thought you were a reporter. Looks more to me like you\’re unemployed. Why else are you up at 3:30 in the morning?
You\’re just jealous of Mike Edelman because he\’s more involved in the media than you\’ll ever be. He wrote for the Times. What have you ever done?
Get a life. And a job while you\’re at it.
Stop playing around on here.
Tony, I thought you were a reporter. Looks more to me like you’re unemployed. Why else are you up at 3:30 in the morning?
You’re just jealous of Mike Edelman because he’s more involved in the media than you’ll ever be. He wrote for the Times. What have you ever done?
Get a life. And a job while you’re at it.
Stop playing around on here.
MelkMan28:
If McNamee did say the truth, which I strongly believe after Andy coming forward, what difference did it make whether Clemens pitched well in 1997?
Because the point is whether he used drug or not! If he did use it, then he is a liar! Nobody uses drug for fun…
DInABox & YootZoo:
~~ Tony, I thought you were a reporter. Looks more to me like you’re unemployed. Why else are you up at 3:30 in the morning? ~~
and you??? it’s 4:16 now…
Stop playing around on here.
I’d ask Clemens 1. Why does he think he’s being picked after all he was planning on retiring 2. What got him all those wins in all the years he ‘maybe’ took steroids 3.Does he plan on pitching next year to prove he’s good at this age without using steroids
I’m home from college. I’m not the one here claiming to be a college graduate with a job.
OK, I’ll bite.
#1. Because by subjecting myself to an extrajudicial proceeding run by MLB I had absolutely nothing to gain and much to lose. My lawyer told me to STFU and I listened to him because I am not stupid.
#2. Punt.
#3. You are asking me for someone else’s motivations. How would I know. Perhaps I was the big fish that the prosecutor insisted on as part of his plea agreement. Ask him why he lied.
Come on, Peter. You are usually better than this.
Whoever posted the blog stating that Jon Lester faked having cancer is truely an ignorant person with no taste. It is one thing to joke about Bucholtz and the laptops but it is a whole different thing to accuse Lester of faking a life threatening disease.
I would ask Roger “what have you told your children about the Mitchell Report and it’s findings?”
I would ask Roger why he kept Macnamee as his trainer for so long in Toronto and New York.
I’m not saying Roger did it, but there are ways to make it look like he did. You cannot go head-on with a guy like Roger, and try to get a KO with two or three direct questions because Roger is intelligent. He will see where you are going and dance around you. So you nibble on his credibility with a series of smaller, oblique issues and ask him the big question last only after no one believes him anymore. It’s called “Death by a Thousand Cuts.” Two examples of the oblique questions:
1) “Did McNamee ever inject you with a legal substance, like B12?” (If he says “no,” that doesn’t sound too credible. If it’s a legal substance like B12, why wouldn’t Roger have done that? If Roger says “yes,” then Clemens admits being injected and then all we are arguing about is what was he injected with. That’s a very small leap to make as opposed to swallowing the whole allegation in one bite).
2) “McNamee helped your close friend and much younger training partner, Andy Pettitte, obtain and use HGH. Did you know about that?” (If he says, “No,” he sounds less than credible. If he says, “Yes,” that pretty much makes Roger look guilty. If Pettitte would do it with McNamee’s help, why wouldn’t Roger).
SANTANA UPDATE:
Not to hijack this post – but the Daily News reports that Hank says we’re still in the Santana race. And after two weeks, they’ll decide one way or another to maintain pursuit or call it quits. McCarron reports that the Sox, Yanks and Mets basically have their best offers on the table and now it’s up to the Twins. Carfardo of the Boston Globe says Santana wants a 7 yr $140 mil contract and the Sox are willing to meet that. McCarron thinks the Yankees final package is Hughes, Melky, Marquez and a 4th prospect (lower level – Hiligoss?).
http://www.nydailynews.com/spo.....ntana.html
Thanks sunny615 for that post.
thats great news. i really think the Saux are still bluffing, and that the mets dont have the real pieces to compete, as long as Hughes is still on the table.
I wonder if Mike Cameron is waiting to sign elsewhere until he knows the Yankees would be in or out for a possible Melky replacement. At this point, he could prob be had on a reasonable one year deal.
save phil hughes.
save phil hughes.
It really is getting ridiculous when people start posting as other people,and lead others to believe lies,that can then be spread to others.
And then we have a poster who likes to cut/repost in quotes a sentence made by others,and then annalyze it to death.
Surprised no one hit on the obvious…what did Big Stein tell him that was “going to reveal later”?
TurnTwo
Not a bad guess…..I had heard of that mentioned,back in early December….about Cameron…..1yr deal.
“If steroids were the reason for his resurgence then why did he have such an incredible year in 1997, the year before McNamee said he fist injected Clemens with steroids?”
i’d take that one step further and say that Clemens was also great in 1996, his last year in Boston. the perception is the he was bad in 1996, which is not true. it’s simply that his W-L record did not reflect his true performance and he was playing in front of a terrible defense.
You say you did not use hgh or steroids while playing in Toronto and NY, how about in the off-season?
sunny615, thanks for the update, but i would read that as absolutely nothing has changed on the Santana front.
1. During your 11 some-odd year relationship with Brian NcNamee, did he ever offer to procure PEDs for you, or did it ever come to your attention that he was procuring PEDs for others? If so, why would you continue to associate with him?
2. Clearly, PED use has been fairly widespread in the sport during your career. Do you think that players who used have a fair argument when they claim that they were only trying to keep up with the opposition?
3. Have you ever purposely struck an opposing batter with a pitched baseball?
How about asking Clemens why baseball fans should believe him when his credibility is already tainted after the charade he pulled in 2003 on his “retirement” tour?
I would ask Roger:
Do you like Kansas City or North Carolina style BBQ?
Nice questions, randyhater. I’d go along those lines, too.
If I were interviewing Roger, I would focus much of my interview on why Roger showed such an unusual, powerful allegiance to McNamee from Toronto to NY to Houston. I’d research (prior to the interview) if any other professional athletes have ever worked so hard to keep the same trainer across national borders and time zones. I’d also research if there is anything about McNamee’s non-PED skills that might have earned him such allegience.
On the other hand, I’d also try to figure out why there is no evidence against Roger when there seems to be so much evidence against Bonds.
I’d ask Roger if he knew Andy did HGH, and if he knows about other players, too.
If the milkman is traded. I say, bring up Brett Gardner. His numbers, except for power, are almost as good as milky’s. He gives the team another disruption in the line-up, why not try it on for size?
I emailed Pete this question already, but I’ll post it here.
Why did you stop working with Mcnamee?
I had a second one but I don’t recall it, I”ll have to check thru my sent emails.
hmmm, agreed. i think its really steady as she goes as far as Johan is concerned. I dont think any of these 3 teams are going to change their deals at this point, and at some point, the Twins just have to make the move that best suits them.
i found it kind of interesting that in the article, Hank mentioned that he knows the fans dont want to see Hughes leave…
i would not be opposed to letting Gardner audition for the CF job in spring training, but I dont think the Yankees would go into Spring Training with that as their first option… a little too much of an unknown.
Nice job, Randyhater. That’s the way I’d go.
I would focus much of my interview on why Roger showed such an unusual, powerful allegiance to McNamee from Toronto to NY to Houston. I’d research (prior to the interview) if any other professional athletes have ever worked so hard to keep the same trainer across national borders and time zones. I’d also research if there is anything about McNamee’s non-PED skills that might have earned him such allegience.
On the other hand, I’d also try to figure out why there’s no hard evidence against Roger as there seems to be with Barry.
Lastly, I’d ask Roger if he knew Andy did HGH, if he knows of any other players who’ve used, and what’s his opinion of those who did.
“On the other hand, I’d also try to figure out why there’s no hard evidence against Roger as there seems to be with Barry.”
i’d say that the degree of evidence is roughly the same, no?
in both cases, there is testimony from a 3rd party. what “hard evidence” am i missing in Bonds’ case?
“2. If not steroids, what accounted for the remarkable turnaround of your season in 1998?”
as someone pointed out , clemens had a great ‘97 season before the ‘98 season. also if you look at clemens whip over his time with the red sox,toronto, and the yankees, his whip was actually worse at times with the yankees than it was with the red sox the last few years when he was supposed to so bad.
he actually won a cy young with the yankees with a 1.25 whip and his last year with the red sox was a 1.32 whip. my conclusion is that it’s a myth that clemens was really bad his last few years with the red sox and great in his years after that “down period” . as far as whip goes it wasn’t a “down period”.
anyone that looks at his stats can easily see this:
http://www.baseball-reference......ro02.shtml
Huh? Murphydog you’re usually better than this but come one. Is McNamee a doctor? Would you allow a non-qualified person inject you with anything whether it was legal or not? I sure as hell wouldn’t.
“or did it ever come to your attention that he was procuring PEDs for others? If so, why would you continue to associate with him?”
this one bothers me too, but mcnamee was hired by the yankees and toronto predating clemens so a lot of other people made a bad decision to associate with mcnamee.
in our own lives, would we be guilty by association if we knew someone who ,for example, was a spouse beater? isn’t that something the person would hide. how would we know? just knowing someone who does something wrong doesn’t mean the first person is guilty by association.
there has to be something beyond that to implicate someone.
randy l. – figures. There are a lot of fakes around here nowadays.
Ask Clemens whether he is willing to take a polygraph test.
Ask Clemens whether he has any objection to 60 Minutes contacting Clemens’ former teammates and other clubhouse personnel and asking them if they’ve ever seen Clemens using or possessing steroids or HGH. (And ask Clemens whether he’s willing to instruct his former teamates to cooperate with 60 Minutes and answer honestly.)
Ask Clemens how much money he’s given to Brian McNamee.
raymagnetic-
yeah ,it totally sucks because it often brings the serious blog discussion to a grinding halt or at least muddles the conversation. another reason for registration.
UtilityMan -
Why does it bother you so much that I respond to your comments? It’s a conversation. I quote so that it’s clear what I’m talking about. hmmm does it too.
You say something I disagree with. So, I put together a reasoned counterargument. I try to back it up with facts. Why does that irritate you so much? I mean…are you on here just to have people hear your opinion or to discuss baseball?
Jay Destro – Better not ask him that….KC and NC (and SC) are RIBS. In Texas BEEF is king. So we’re talking brisket and hot links….right from Kreutz’s Market in Lockhart.
Yes I’m a BBQ nut!
Is Hank serious? He needs to stop talking! BEST pitching in the league by far in 2-3 years?? haha They kinda give to him here a bit here:
http://mlbfleecefactor.com/200.....ade-talks/
Well, I guess we’ll find out in two weeks whether or not anything will change. The Yanks can’t make a deal unless the Twins agree to it so it sounds a lot like Hank’s throwing around another deadline ulitmatum. I wonder if he means it this time?
Personally, I’m torn. I would love to have Johan as the ace of this staff for the next 4 or so years but I’m also really really curious as to what Hughes can do. Either way, I guess I’m fine with it.
randy l. – hopefully Pete will get registration here sometime this year.
“1. Why did you turn down the opportunity to meet with Sen Mitchell when asked? A player of your stature seemingly has little to fear from the Players Association.”
A: You do not talk to a witch hunt. No matter what you say, they’re going to want to burn you.
If McNamee and Mitchell want to charge me with something, I’ll see them in a real court.
question 3 is more than a little unfair. How could he possibly speculate as to why Macnamee lied, if indeed he did?
Maybe if you asked him, “if he told the truth regarding Andy, do you know of any reason why he may have lied about your usage of PHD’s?”
The Hills…
Cancer is neither a joke nor part of a joke. It’s a very real disease which can destroy or even kill, and the treatment is unnatural.
It’s neither fun nor funny, and you are something of a [deleted].
randy l.,
You really think it’s possible that Clemens is clean, knew McNamee was a PED dealer, and continued to use him as his personal trainer? Why would he do that? With all his money he can’t find a straight-shooter to stand there and say “C’mon Rocket, one more sit -up!”
Did you know that Pettitte took HGH?
AND
If you really didn’t take PEDs, why won’t you find a forum to say it under oath?
I’m all for giving Roger the benefit of the doubt but no one should really believe that he didn’t use PED’s. He has to come out against the charges and say Mcnamee is lying. He is already guilty in the court of public opinion and if he gets caught lying, nothing has really changed and he is still a millionaire.
I don’t think it is a fair question to ask Roger if he knew Pettitte used PED twice. That does not put him in a good spot. Becuase than they can ask if he knew of any other teamates who took ped’s.
I think the gloves should be off for this interview, if he really wants to clear his name, then he should be able to answer any questions that are thrown at him. Mike Wallace better not be easy on him. I don’t think a program like 60 minutes would let Roger put any restrictions on the interview, but you never know.
http://bats.blogs.nytimes.com/.....ex.html?hp
“Roger Clemens told Mike Wallace in an interview for “60 Minutes,†scheduled to be broadcast on Sunday, that he never took injections from his former trainer, Brian McNamee, Wallace said.
Some athletes, confronted with evidence that they were injected with performance-enhancing drugs, have admitted they took injections but have said they did not know that they were for banned substances.
“He says what he has said before and has said all along,†Wallace said Thursday in a telephone interview. “He said he never took injections from McNamee. He says he didn’t take the stuff. Nothing different.â€
…“He was first rate and forward with me,†Wallace said. “There isn’t a whole lot I can say about the interview; I wouldn’t want to spoil it.—
Randy 1 – You’re right about Clemens last (contract) year in Boston. His peripherals were excellent, he was injury-free, but had tough luck with Wins and Losses. His turnaround started then.
McNamee doesn’t claim to know where Clemens got his PEDs, and, by extrapolation, when he started to juice. I am convinced that Clemens started to use PEDs in Boston in order to salvage his FA marketability. I think we can all agree that there’s nothing Roger likes better than making a buck, and the approach of free agency was probably more of a motivator than the pursuit of baseball immortality.
P.S. I wonder who’s financing McNamee’s lawyer? Either Clemens (and others) paid him a hefty salary, or there’s an anonymous litigator at work. After all of Clemens’ posturing, it will be pretty funny if McNamee sues Clemens (and not vice versa).
The entire 60 Minute segment is taped and there’s still time to edit, add, or subtract if CBS wishes to extend some courtesy to Clemens.
1. What took you so long to make a personal response?
2. How was McNamee’s training regimen different from others?
3. When did your professional relationship end with McNamee and why did it end?
======================================================
btw: Everyone points to the body breaking down as a sure sign of PED use. Does the fact that Roger’s only had hamstring problems work in his favor?
I like Pete’s questions 2 & 3.
The first question can be asked, but I have no problem with Clemens (and all the others) not talking to Mitchell. Mitchell screwed this up. Mitchell told the players nothing about the allegations against them when asking for the meetings. He was looking to sandbag them and catch them unprepared. That is just not the way to conduct a fact finding investigation — and once his tactics failed, Mitchell should have disclosed what he had and told Clemens (and others): “Come in now or never.”
Also, unions are about unity. The big guys in the Union are supposed to lead and not say, “I have little too fear from the union, so let’s screw the young guys!”
What can Mcnamee sue Clemens for? For telling the “truth”. Or for bringing back to light an accusation against Mcnamee. That was public knowledge when it happened. Mcnamee doesn’t have a leg to stand on as far as suing Roger. Roger on the other hand, can sue Mcnamee for slander.
jennifer,
ha ha. That’s a good one. He’s going to sue Roger for saying that McNamee did not inject him with a banned substance.
mel, that is what I read.
Jennifer-
I believe McNamee can sue for defamation of character, if Clemens says McNamee lied.
Question number 2 is stupid. It’s called variance. There doesn’t have to be a ‘reason’ for everything.
I’d ask Roger about the fact Paul Byrd did not deny injecting HGH up to and including his appearance in the 2007 post season against the Yankees. Does Roger wonder why the ALDS championship hasn’t been taken away from the Indians as a result? Does Roger wonder about the timing of the revelations about Paul Byrd, ie being made by ESPN employees in the SF Chronicle on the eve of a must-win game by the Red Sox? And just a few days too late to have helped the Yankees?
Buddy, it is one mans word against another. If Mcnamee had proof that Roger used roids, than where was it? I don’t see how Mcnamee’s case would stand up in court, unless he had a smoking gun.
If Roger’s telling the truth, then McNamee’s defamation of Roger is far more egregious.
Just one question:
How do you respond to people who look at your bizarre response to Mike Piazza’s broken bat in the 2000 WS as a textbook example of “roid rage”?
BTW, I ask this as someone who wants to believe he was clean.
Jennifer-
Totally agreed, maybe one of the attorney’s that post here could better answer your question.
hmmm(my mentor) good to see you here on a regular basis. That tells me that we finally have more to talk about than movies,clothes and actors.
Mel, good seeing you here as well. Hope you had a good New Years. Im expecting to have a few laughs from you today.
In regards to the Santana deal, I could care less now if we get him or not. But what i think we need to do no matter what happens in those discussions is find a taker for Melky. I feel he is not going to get better and his value is at its highest its going to get. Last year he seemed more impatient at the plate than the year before(which was his strength). Maybe hanging out with Cano has something to do with that. Lets see if the Pirates will trade Marte or Laroche for Melky and prospects.
S.o.S,
Happy New Year to you, too.
Thats easy. He was TOSSING the bat to the batboy and Piazza happened to be passing by.(similiar to how he responded to it)
Will the lawyers here please comment on whether or not you can sue because you deny something somebody says about you?
Rephrase:
Can someone sue you because you deny something that person said about you in the first place?
On questions 2, the 1998 “remarkable turnaround,” I think you need to break down the season into smaller pieces. Consider this:
Clemens started the season great. After 8 games, Clemens was 4-4 but his ERA was 2.19 — the Jays scored two or less runs in each of Clemens losses. (And Clemens actually pitched BETTER than this ERA. In his second game of the season, he left with an injury in the first inning and was charged with two earned runs and no outs.)
The next 3 games were a bad stretch for Clemens with 15 earned runs in 20 innings. His next five games were better, but not great. He went 3-0 with an ERA around 4 1/2 and his season ERA had climbed to 3.77.
At that point Clemens got in a groove and ripped through two months with unbelievable stats.
Looking at the full season, it looks like Clemens had a great April, went through a slump in May, climbed out of it through June and then returned to his earlier season form. Could Clemens have used steroids in his recovery? Certainly. Can that explain his unbelievable performance (including three straight shut outs in mid-August)? I really doubt you can draw a direct line. His total stats were very similar to his 1997 stats (actually, 1997 was better). 1999 and 2000 stats with the Yankees (when Clemens was allegedly “using”) were much worse.
S.O.S. 27,
Sorry I don’t buy it. If you watch the tape and read his lips, (I’m getting better at this as I age for some reason) he says ” I thought it was the ball”, meaning he caught the bat because, to him, having not seen many baseballs in his life, a piece of wood looked the same as a piece of leather. I’m not making any accusations, but it has always bugged me because his story makes no sense.
I’ll be curious to see if Mike Wallace makes any reference to Mitchell’s ties to Boston as a director.
questions 2 & 3 are ok. question 1… who cares? rocket doesn’t have to answer to anyone. i give him the benefit of the doubt.
i personnally don’t care for mitchell’s report… it’s all based on 2 people’s word. LOL. period.
1. How do you feel about the response by others in the game?
a. The media assuming guilt
b. Goose Gossage ripping you a new one
c. Associations thinking twice about speaking engagements
d. Derek Jeter supporting you
e. No response from Andy Pettitte
f. Joe Torre refusing comment on the situation between you and a former trainer that worked on his club
Beef Brisket for mr. clemens
I could of swore he said that he was just throwing it(the bat)out of play and didnt realize that he came close to hitting him. I never heard him say anything about it being a ball.
Keep in mind Piazza had owned him at the plate. If im not mistaken he also drilled Piazza that year in the head and they kept talking about it all season.So if he was lying about just throwing it out of bounds. He probably was frustrated at Piazza’s success vs. Clemens. I am one who thinks he did it. But in this case i think its purely his competitive juices that took over.
RE: Bonds evidence.
I’m not an expert on this. But my sense is that neither Clemens nor McNamee could win a law suit against the other. It seems that whoever had the burdon of proof will lose (there is no proof).
But the Feds felt they have enough evidence to convict Bonds on perjury, despite having the burdon or proof to prove he lied. That’s why I assume there’s hard evidence against Bonds.
Chuck
I agree it is stupid for someone to say because Roger threw 3 straight shut outs that he was on roids. Would they than say the same for Webb)(?) because he had a similar streak?
mel:
Rephrase:
Can someone sue you because you deny something that person said about you in the first place?
– If I said something about you that you denied, I couldn’t successfully sue you unless your denial went past a denial and into libel or slander again. If you just said “what rb15 said about me isn’t true,” I can’t sue you. If you said “what rb15 said isn’t true, and rb15 is an etc etc etc,” I might be able to sue you. The thing is that once I sue you, there’s a good chance you’ll turn around and sue me back (counterclaim) for the original thing I said about you.
Libel and slander get complicated becuase a lot depends on the truth of the accusation, and whether the person being accused of something is a public or private figure. Here, Clemens is a public figure and McNamee’s arguably not, so there’s a tightrope Clemens needs to walk. I think it will be interesting to see how far he goes in saying that McNamee is a so and so.
why have so many people brought up the broken bat thing? is it a matter of roid rage speculation?
if i’m not mistaken (and i know i’m not) almost all studies suggest roid rage to be a myth. the very few studies that suggest otherwise are super-flimsy.
“You really think it’s possible that Clemens is clean, knew McNamee was a PED dealer, and continued to use him as his personal trainer?”
mcnamee himself said he never injected or knew clemens to use steroids or hgh after 2001. nor was it ever mentioned again.
here’s the problem. let’s say that we assume mcnamee was telling the truth about clemens being injected by mecnamee. if this really happened , why would they continue to work togeather for 6 more years and never bring it up even in casual conversation again.
yet , this is what mcnamee is said in the mitchell report. 6 years of silence on something they did that they knew was illegal. it makes no sense.
here is mcnamee’s testimony in the mitchell report:
“McNamee was not retained by the Yankees after the 2001 season. After that
season, Clemens never again asked McNamee to inject him with performance enhancing
substances, and McNamee had no further discussions with Clemens about such substances.
McNamee stated that Clemens did not tell him why he stopped asking him to administer
performance enhancing substances, and McNamee has no knowledge about whether Clemens
used performance enhancing substances after 2001. ”
2002,2003,2004,2005,2006, and 2007. no mention of it if it had happened as mcnamee said? come on. this makes no sense. to me it’s an inconsistency in mcnamee’s story.
a.jelous and needs something to write about.
b.jelous Clemens is going in H.O.F. and he still hasnt got in.
c.embarrassed and scared that Clemens would beat up a high school kid for bringing up the subject.
d.Jeter being Jeter. Supporting a teammate he went to war with.
e.Clemens gave him an offer he couldnt refuse.
f.He’s not in Torre’s circle of trust.
I still think he did it.
Why as his trainer would you never ask him if he is still using it? It makes no sense.
Everything but McNamee’s claims are circumstantial and are actually a bit of a reach.
Exhibits:
A. Piazza bat incident.
B. Ability to pitch at an advanced age (o.k. he’s old)
C. Low ERA at certain points in his career
D. Media assertions that he’s guilty
E. Different body than the one on his rookie card
I never thought Clemens tried to hit Piazza with the broken bat. I thought he was just clearing it from the field. If he meant to hit him, he would have thrown it harder (and likely wouldn’t have missed). Just my humble opinion.
The real question is who is backing McNamee financially? I think the lawyer he has hired is a very good one, who will not be cheap. Where is McNamee getting the money to pay for him/
rb,
Thanks. So as long as Roger doesn’t call McNamee a “liar” or call him a a$$wipe or something like that there’s no case?
Didnt Mcnamee have an aggreement that if he ratted people out, that he couldnt be sued? You would have to sue M.L.B. instead.
I think Roger took steroids, but there is no proof here. No test, no corroborated testimony. Just some guys word. So even though I think he did it, I think he’s getting a bum deal.
I think it was Mitchell who couldn’t be sued.
I agree with you, Mel.
Using Clemens’ late-in-life success as “evidence” is crazy. Are these guys juicers too?
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/.....id=1798885
The fact that McNamee told the truth about some people means nothing (liars tell the truth most of the time).
For me, it’s Clemens’ dogged allegiance to McNamee that is most disturbing. I hope Wallace spends time there.
(btw, sorry for the double post above)
I’d ask him why he still frosts his hair.
Steve,
That’s not frosting, it’s a little known side effect of steroid use.
Afternoon, everyone
Peter, here are the answers you would get to your questions:
1. What does my “stature” have to do with the players association?
2. Hard work.
3a. Ask Andy. 3b. Why are you asking me why another person lied?