31 Jan 08
Originally posted by poundleeOf course it's a statement consistent with innocence esp. when combined with Clemens' repeated statements that someone needs to tell the truth; you people are really ridiculous. And why didn't McNamee respond, "I already told the truth, Roger?". Mcnamee had ample opportunity to say he told the truth in the conversation, but he never did. Roger Cossack the legal consultant on ESPN acknowledged that the tape was "good" for Clemens and McNamee's lawyers were pissed about it. What does that tell you?
I can't understand why you would tell these people I used steriods is not a statement consistent with innocence. It is a statement of "why did you turn me in" If he though McNamee was lying, he would have said (and probably in a more animated way) whay are you lying about me using steriods. The only explanation I can come up with for Clemens did not say ...[text shortened]... to scored more runs. They probably battered crappy relief pitchers in games that were over.
Clemen's ERA in 1997 was only marginally better than in his "awful" 1994. Toronto's better run support was a big factor in his improved W-L over his last few years in Boston, though I wouldn't discount the motivational factor to show Duquette and the rest of the Red Sox losers that he had plenty left (which everyone but Red Sox Nation knew anyway).
31 Jan 08
Originally posted by PhlabibitSee my repond to poundlee; Clemens' haters are deluded if they think that tape helps McNamee and hurts Clemens.
Point me to where he says, "You lied about me."
He skirts it over and over... he's trying to get his way, without incriminating himself.
Otherwise, right when it came up he should have yelled, "lies!"
He did not, he began to consult with lawyers.
You're very gullible if you think he never did it.
P-
Clemens played it right; rather than making immediate denials that no one would believe (how many others have denied it but are assumed guilty anyway?) he went about trying to prove his innocence using the best help he could get. Good for him; so far his legal team and Hendricks have done a fine job in an almost impossible situation.
I'm not "gullible" at all but I do insist on more evidence than the claims of an admitted felon with a history of credibility problems and a strong incentive to finger Clemens whether the Rocket was guilty or not. Lacking any such evidence, I say that Clemens, like anybody, is entitled to the benefit of the doubt.
31 Jan 08
How in the world does a tape of Clemens talking to his drug dealing buddy McNamee help him? Either get some sort of admission that McNamee's testimony was false (which he did not) or not emphasize that you hired a felon who distributed performance enhancers to your buddy and who said he also distributed them to you.
31 Jan 08
1 edit
Originally posted by poundleeYou keep scornfully referring to McNamee as a drug dealer, yet accept his unsubstantiated, unsupported claims 100%!🙄 Of course, he avoided going to prison as a drug dealer by accusing Clemens though why federal prosecutors think that finding out what baseball players supposedly did steroids 5-10 years ago is more important than imprisoning drug dealers is an interesting question.
How in the world does a tape of Clemens talking to his drug dealing buddy McNamee help him? Either get some sort of admission that McNamee's testimony was false (which he did not) or not emphasize that you hired a felon who distributed performance enhancers to your buddy and who said he also distributed them to you.
McNamee is the one who initiated the call for whatever reason. The tape strongly supports Clemens and McNamee appears to be fishing for extortion money. Only in the minds of Clemens' haters could it be possibly construed as helping McNamee's version of events; I guarantee you that Mcnamee's lawyers will fight against its admission as evidence in the defamation trial.
31 Jan 08
Originally posted by no1marauderThere is nothing wrong with saying NO! right away. He was testing the water to ask a filthy lawyer how many lies he can get away with legally.
See my repond to poundlee; Clemens' haters are deluded if they think that tape helps McNamee and hurts Clemens.
Clemens played it right; rather than making immediate denials that no one would believe (how many others have denied it but are assumed guilty anyway?) he went about trying to prove his innocence using the best help he could get. ...[text shortened]... ny such evidence, I say that Clemens, like anybody, is entitled to the benefit of the doubt.
McNamedMe told the truth to stay out of jail, he did not lie to stay out of jail... that's just stupid. Giving Andy's name was enough, there was no need to name Clemens unless it was true.
The phone conversation was song and dance, and helped him in no way.
P-
31 Jan 08
Originally posted by PhlabibitWho's being gullible now? Do you think that the feds would have believed him if he didn't name Clemens?? The fact that they were willing to give a drug dealer immunity to pursue non-criminal allegations shows where their priorities were i.e. to grab some headlines. Your naivete is pathetic but I've heard the same BS from about 100 sportswriters all of whom are woefully ignorant of how this immunity game gets played. The "truth" the feds expect is what they've already decided is the truth (and that usually is what helps their career the most).
There is nothing wrong with saying NO! right away. He was testing the water to ask a filthy lawyer how many lies he can get away with legally.
McNamedMe told the truth to stay out of jail, he did not lie to stay out of jail... that's just stupid. Giving Andy's name was enough, there was no need to name Clemens unless it was true.
The phone conversation was song and dance, and helped him in no way.
P-
Also, Clemens declined to rehire McNamee to help train him from his comeback in May 2007. Oddly, only one month later, McNamee was telling the feds and Mitchell FOR THE FIRST TIME (he had denied it vehemently in the past) that he injected Clemens with steroids. Coincidence?
31 Jan 08
Originally posted by no1marauderThread 86345
Who's being gullible now? Do you think that the feds would have believed him if he didn't name Clemens?? The fact that they were willing to give a drug dealer immunity to pursue non-criminal allegations shows where their priorities were i.e. to grab some headlines. Your naivete is pathetic but I've heard the same BS from about 100 sportswriters all of wh ...[text shortened]... had denied it vehemently in the past) that he injected Clemens with steroids. Coincidence?
31 Jan 08
I can't see why you believe Clemens but not McNamee and the feds.
To me McNamee has a lot of credibility when it (1) matches circumstancial evidence (2) he was accurate when discussing Pettitte and others.
Furthermore there is absolutely nothing in the tape that suggests extortion.
31 Jan 08
Originally posted by poundleeThere is no "circumstantial evidence" that supports McNamee's version. The stats don't support the claim at all and neither has there been any radical change in Clemen's body type; this distinguishes Clemens' case from Bonds for example.
I can't see why you believe Clemens but not McNamee and the feds.
To me McNamee has a lot of credibility when it (1) matches circumstancial evidence (2) he was accurate when discussing Pettitte and others.
Furthermore there is absolutely nothing in the tape that suggests extortion.
When accessing McNamee's credibility, the only thing that is positive is the fact that Petitte admitted use of HGH. Against that, we have multiple reasons to doubt McNamee's credibility; his apparent false statements regarding a rape in 2001, the fact that he is an admitted felon, the fact that he had an incentive to name Clemens regardles of the truth, the fact that he also had a reason to be angry at Clemens in June 2007, the fact that he claimed for years he knew nothing about steroid use in baseball, etc. etc. etc. Weighing all this and considering that Clemens, like everyone, is entitled to the benefit of the doubt, I say the accusation isn't particulary credible. I don't "believe" Clemens; I merely say that I can't accept his guilt based merely on McNamee's say so.
McNamee in the call constantly whines about his financial situation and repeatedly says "What do you want me to do?" It doesn't take a Rocket scientist to figure out where he wanted Clemens to go.
31 Jan 08
Originally posted by Red NightSince that's true for everything, do you feel that all the forums at RHP should be abolished?
I'm sure that the truth will come out eventually.
I'm even more certain that arguing about it here won't affect that outcome or lead us any closer to the real truth.
Besides, your second statement is untrue; if more facts are made available, then we'll have a better chance to evaluate what the truth is.
01 Feb 08
Originally posted by no1marauderYou've already made up your mind.
Since that's true for everything, do you feel that all the forums at RHP should be abolished?
Besides, your second statement is untrue; if more facts are made available, then we'll have a better chance to evaluate what the truth is.