January 07, 2008

Good luck, Roger. Here's hoping that your telling the truth and that your name will be cleared. /crosses fingers

posted by texasred at 10:23 AM on January 07, 2008

I'm with you on this, brainofdtrain. This might be the first time that anything negative about Rocket has reached his ears. He's long had more money than any of his teammates (or many deities, for that matter), and he's never been one to shy away from surrounding himself with sycophants and fartcatchers. Seriously, this might be the first time he's not getting his own way, and that's why he's throwing a very unbecoming tantrum. I truly believe he feels he can bluff his way out of this one, because he has never, not once, not been able to bluff his way out of anything in the past. The concept of him being wrong about anything is inconceivable to him, which is where all the why-me and after-all-I've-given-you histrionics come from. He spoke the night before with McNamee, and I'd bet a dollar that Rocket only heard what he wanted to. I'd bet that Rocket tried to throw a large financial under-the-table offer at McNamee to hush him up, and that McNamee turned him down. (Perjury's a bitch, bro, and not everyone has a friend like Greg Anderson.) Rocket's not going to win this case. Even if he gets a settlement out of it, which I doubt, it'll be merely a technical and pyrrhic victory. And I never want to hear Rusty Hardin speak again. Whatever he says, I find myself believing the exact opposite.

posted by chicobangs at 10:39 AM on January 07, 2008

If it is a bluff, it might work. Where exactly is the burden of proof in a defamation suit, and what is the standard of proof, anyway? Truth is obviously a defense, so if McNamee can prove the truth of his allegations in court, Clemens is completely sunk -- but what if he can't?

posted by lil_brown_bat at 11:53 AM on January 07, 2008

I thought we lived in a country where you are innocent until proven guilty. As I see it nobody has proven anything on either side of the fence yet. And by the away, Rusty Hardin is paid to speak out. All I have heard from Rusty is him defending his client, maybe someone has heard more than that. Ithink that is earning his retainer fee. There were countless numbers of players in MLB not on the Mitchell report that we all know were juicing. Why is nothing said about that? I have not heard anybody bad mouth the Mitchell report as false, even knowing the guy that put it together was on the board of the Boston Red Sox, and made big,big money for authoring the report. I suppose he was paid by Bud and the boys. And I'm sure you all trust big Bud, HA HA! I'm not defending anybody in this circus, but lets face it, it is all crap. And the SAD, SAD true fact of the matter is MLB would be dead without performance inhancing drugs. Maybe someone should put big Bud in front of a Grand Jury and ask him for the truth, and watch his nose grow then. One more thing, isn't Bud affiliated with some team in MLB ? iT'S ALL A BUNCH OF CRAP. I guess my question to all is can MLB ever recover again and be the sport it once was, I don't think so. I would like to hear some opinions on that.

posted by sportnut at 12:06 PM on January 07, 2008

Explain Classic Doc, I'm confused.

posted by sportnut at 12:40 PM on January 07, 2008

One of the main reasons why i posted this is that everyone said that if clemens was truly innocent he would have sued mcnamee. I think that argument is bull Everyone? I think that's bull. That would be number 100 on why I believe he's guilty. Not to mention we'll have to see where this goes before giving it any great weight. It depends on whether Clemens drops the suit or not. If he allows it to get to depositions, where McNamee's attorneys will be able to question him under penalty of perjury, it's time to start considering the possibility that Clemens is telling the truth. I hate the guy, and I think he's guilty, but I think there's a possibility he's not guilty. And if he's not guilty, I wish that would come out so we could move on to other topics like his record in decisive playoff games /snark. And just as I'm willing to consider the possibility that he didn't do it now I disagree with the idea that if he testifies under oath it changes everything. If he truly believes that there's no hard evidence that can back up the charges, no way to prove he's not lying, then he's hard headed enough to go through with it.

posted by justgary at 12:45 PM on January 07, 2008

If anyone watched the 60 Minutes interview,it seemed to me that he answered some of those questions in a round about way trying to avoid some of the questions such as the one about the lie detector test.I personally think Clemens is as guilty as anyone else mentioned.He went out and filed a lawsuit and is trying to clear his name in that form of way.I guess they are all innocent until proven guilty,but this has tarnished the game of baseball and all the players mentioned to the point where it'll be hard to clear not just Clemens' name,but all that have been mentioned.

posted by Ghastly1 at 12:52 PM on January 07, 2008

I thought we lived in a country where you are innocent until proven guilty. [...] There were countless numbers of players in MLB not on the Mitchell report that we all know were juicing. Practically in the same sentence you declare innocent until proven guilty, then in next breath, you say, I know there are players using steriods. If, you know these players, give names and proof.

posted by Nakeman at 12:58 PM on January 07, 2008

able to question him under penalty of perjury, it's time to start considering the possibility that Clemens is telling the truth. That possibility did not stop Bill Clinton from lying. And the SAD, SAD true fact of the matter is MLB would be dead without performance inhancing drugs. Nothing could be farther from the truth. Baseball, like any other sport draws it's appeal from competition (i.e, teams struggling as equals to produce a final, decisive result). If a team of juiced up roid freaks beat up on everyone else, no one would want to watch - or - if they did watch, it would be to witness a David take down a giant. have not heard anybody bad mouth the Mitchell report as false, even knowing the guy that put it together was on the board of the Boston Red Sox, and made big,big money for authoring the report. I suppose he was paid by Bud and the boys. How can you believe that Clemens would be a fool to risk everything to support a lie yet believe that Mitchell would be such a fool? Mithcell would stand to destroy himself and everthing that he has worked for over a lifetime by producing a report that he had good reason to know was false. Why would he take that risk? Concerning Mitchell's association with the Red Sox, the fact of the matter is, if Mitchell wanted to help the Red Sox by setting up Clemens, he would have completely left Clemens' name out of the report and later strongly suggested in public that Clemens resign with the Yankees and play 2008. Clemens, on balance, was as much a distraction for the Yankees in 2007 as AROD was, plus Clemens with something like 6-6 with an ERA over 4. As far as wealth is concerned, my guess is that Mitchell is a multi-millionaire several time over since leaving the US Senate given all the corporate boards that he has served on and investments in some companies that have done well - again, a basic question is why would he risk losing that and going to jail to bag Clemens? You also failed to mention that Mitchell fingered a pitcher for the Red Sox in 2007 and a player that played on the 2004 team. Wouldn't those disclosures produce some form of risk to the Red Sox's reputation as a team and potentially cast clouds over some players not mentioned in the report? My feeling on the Clemens versus McNamee saga is that it is going to come dowm to what the Mets trainer and Andy Pettite say under oath. The Mets trainer supposedly gave McNamee the PEDs that McNamee used to inject Clemen with, if the Mets trainer confirms McNamee's dates under oath, Clemens is probaly sunk and would either have to counter that information under oath (either lying or telling the truth when doing so), or take the Fifth. If the Mets trainer's account conflicts with McNamee's account, Clemen's case will be stronger. The best and potentially worst case scenario for Clemens would be if the Mets trainer or McNamee saved a used syringe or two, because that would potentially connect contents in the syringe to Clemens' genetic material. The most intriguing person in this sage is Pettite. Pettite is close to Clemens and trained extensively with Clemens under the watch of McNamee. Pettite probaly spent time at Roger's apartment, where McNamee claims the injections were done and may have witnessed something that would support either Clemens' or McNamee's version of accounts. Pettite probaly also shared personal secrets with Clemens and McNamee. What comes out of Pettite's mouth under oath, assuming he does not take the fifth (can he do that if the questions being asked do not pertain to his personal wrongdoing?) will loom large. My sense of Pettite is that he is basically an honest, decent person and would fall toward being truthful, especially if he is under oath.

posted by Cave_Man at 01:12 PM on January 07, 2008

A lawsuit is not a bad move by Roger's legal team it will limit what if anything either side can say to Congress. Strike one for team clemens.

posted by evil earl at 03:10 PM on January 07, 2008

A lawsuit is not a bad move by Roger's legal team it will limit what if anything either side can say to Congress. Strike one for team clemens. How does this work?

posted by yerfatma at 04:01 PM on January 07, 2008

One of the main reasons why i posted this is that everyone said that if clemens was truly innocent he would have sued mcnamee. I think that argument is bull Everyone? I think that's bull. That would be number 100 on why I believe he's guilty. Not to mention we'll have to see where this goes before giving it any great weight. Gary, sorry there. Poor word choice. Obviously i don't agree with that view. I should have probably said something like: "most who argue that he is guilty do so on the grounds that he would've sued Mcnamee for defamation if he was really innocent." Hopefully that makes better sense. Thanks for catching that.

posted by brainofdtrain at 04:34 PM on January 07, 2008

How interesting it will be, on the other hand, if it is shown that McNamee did lie - or cannot prove his claims. That would undermine the Mitchell report's credibility significantly in my opinion. This thread has drifted from the defamation suit to the Mitchell committee and back again, so I'm not sure which you're referring to when you talk about McNamee proving his claims (or failing to do so). The question, in either case, is: does he even have to?

posted by lil_brown_bat at 05:40 PM on January 07, 2008

This is the public disgrace of Roger Clemens we see. He is heading to where we see Pete Rose and Shoeless Joe Jackson.

posted by Joe188 at 06:08 PM on January 07, 2008

And by the way, just today there are rumors are flying that the fine up standing Mr. Mitchell threatened Mcnamee if he did not mention Clemens when he was being questions for his input to the report. It's very strange that you demand a positive test for a player but then just throw out that line as a 'rumor' about mr. mitchell. There is no consistency in your view points.

posted by justgary at 06:20 PM on January 07, 2008

Source: Roger Clemens' private eyes asked Brian McNamee to recant "He told them they were in the report," said a source in the McNamee camp who asked not to be identified. "And he told the (private) investigators he had told the truth to the feds and couldn't change his story." It was unclear if that conversation with the private investigators was taped or not, but Earl Ward, one of McNamee's attorneys, called for the release of the full contents of the tape this afternoon, if one exists. "It appears that these investigators may have recorded the interview," Ward said. "And we hearby demand the tape be released in its entirety immediately." If true, that would make things interesting.

posted by justgary at 06:27 PM on January 07, 2008

I was one of those people who thought that Clemens should have sued right off the bat to try to clear his name. I thought that's all he could do to attempt to clear his name -- BUT I think he should have done it immediately, right out of the gate. Why? So much has transpired over the course of the last 24 hours: the 60 Minutes interview, the press release, the taped conversation...and now, finally, the lawsuit. All this weeks after the Mitchell Report. The timing and orchestration of these events doesn't bode well for him IMO. In the court of public opinion, this is so messy now that there's no way he'll ever definitively clear his rep., even if he's telling the truth.

posted by diastematic at 07:15 PM on January 07, 2008

Technically, he's right. Technically, he isn't. If he'd said, "It wasn't against the rules," he would have been. The difference is significant.

posted by lil_brown_bat at 08:01 PM on January 07, 2008

Answer me this how can anybody take any kind of actions against something that was not illlegal at the time. There was and still is no test, unless muscel tissue is taken to prove a player is taking HGH. I don't think juicing is right but I also don't think a player should be crucified for something that can't be tested, or something he may have done when there were no rules against it. posted by sportnut at 6:11 PM CST on January 7 Hall of Fame voters will be hard on Clemens, if the allegations against him are proven (they have not yet and he can show that they are lies). Mark McGwire supposedly did not take anything that was illegal at the time, but he most likely will not be voted into the HOF. Your attempts to blacken Mitchell are unseemly. If it is proven that he slanted things against Clemens, that will come out. A logical person likely will see no reason why Mitchell would risk his wealth and good standing as a person to bring down a spent pitcher.

posted by Cave_Man at 09:46 PM on January 07, 2008

Technically, he isn't. If he'd said, "It wasn't against the rules," he would have been. The difference is significant. If he has a doctor's note for the prescription, then he didn't break the law either. If he doesn't have a note, there is nothing illegal about RECEIVING the injection. Acquiring it for the sake of distribution would be illegal. Giving it to someone else would be illegal. Based on that, i think that Roger Clemens should have repreatedly pointed that out, and refused to try to defend himself further. Frankly, i'm a bit surprised that none of the players implicated have used this important admission by mitchell as a basis to refuse trying to get into defending themselves (whether truthfully or by lying, whichever the case may be). Am i missing something here? Just to confirm your point of view: It would have been better if the accused player DIDN'T say anything in their defense? Damned if they do, damned if they don't. Essentially, it comes down to this: If you are in the report, there is nothing you can do. You are guilty in the eyes of the public and you can't possibly defend yourself. Heaven forbid that it is determined later that there is no evidence against you, don't expect the media to immediately raise the same ruckus to defend you. Remember that report a year ago about Jason Grimsley, and the "names" on his list? The L.A. Times published an article that said Clemens' name was on that "list". However, it came out later that Clemens' name WASN'T on that list. Did anyone else remember the big stink in the media when that was found out? No? Here is the retraction, more than 14 months later. Surprisingly, it came out at the same time as the Mitchell Report, so it kind of got lost in the news cycle, which was dominated by (of course) accusations against Clemens. Nevertheless, I still see people on other sports chat boards that refer to the Grimsley story as "more evidence against Clemens".

posted by grum@work at 11:52 PM on January 07, 2008

Based on that, i think that Roger Clemens should have repreatedly pointed that out, and refused to try to defend himself further. Frankly, i'm a bit surprised that none of the players implicated have used this important admission by mitchell as a basis to refuse trying to get into defending themselves I have no idea why players were so quick to admit guilt. Why did pettitte cave so quickly? Why didn't he deny, deny, deny? Maybe he felt guilty? Maybe he's trying to just get it out in the open and get it over with. Maybe he knew that by saying he didn't do it there would be more searching for the smoking gun and if found he'd look worse? But what it did do is put clemens in a position where he couldn't just ignore it. To me, that was where everything went wrong for clemens up to this point. I'm still trying to figure out, if not guilty why Roger when asked by McNamee "what do you want me to do" didn't say "come to the press conference and tell them the truth, that you never injected me with steroids". Maybe I'm missing something, but that amazes me.

posted by justgary at 12:23 AM on January 08, 2008

If he has a doctor's note for the prescription, then he didn't break the law either. If he doesn't have a note, there is nothing illegal about RECEIVING the injection. Acquiring it for the sake of distribution would be illegal. Giving it to someone else would be illegal. That's true, but not really relevant. PED regulation in sports has never depended on, or really been connected with, whether possession or use of the drug is illegal. It's perfectly legal to use Sudafed, for example -- it's just that the substances in Sudafed are banned as PEDs in a number of different sports. Now, possession and/or use of a PED could be illegal as well as against the rules, but that confuses an issue that IMO suffers most from confusion on this very point. I believe that the biggest problem with PED regulation in sports today is that so many of those concerned seem to have forgotten the reasons behind the regulations. Unless those reasons are clear -- and legality is not one of them -- the regulations and their enforcement will most likely do more harm than good.

posted by lil_brown_bat at 07:51 AM on January 08, 2008

I'm just a little sick of McGwire and Sosa getting all this love for personally "saving" major league baseball. That being said, even back then I remember fully believing, in my own mind, both players must be taking some sort of drug to enhance their strength, size, etc. I doubt seriously I was the only one with those beliefs, and I dare say many, many fans thought this. Same goes for Barry Bonds. Who thought he never utilized some sort of PED to morph into the body type he did in the past several years? My point is people, many of them fans of the game, thought they were using PEDs but wanted (or chose) to look the other way, just like major league baseball. Sure McGwire and Sosa was fun to watch, and people ate it up, just like they ate up Bonds hitting so many homers a few years back, Ripken breaking the consecutive game streak, etc. It's only lately we're having these steroid issues shoved down our throats to where we, the fans, are made to feel we need to now shun the players that have been the most exciting to watch over the years. And it's become, "Screw the masses of marginal (at best) players who used these drugs, let's jump all over the BIG names. Just because Clemens or Bonds, two of the best players in baseball history, may have used they are bigger pieces of shit than the hundreds of crappy players who used also? Baseball was all too happy to reap the rewards of Clemens, Bonds, etc., but now want to sit back and let them crash and burn because they (MLB) were too gutless and greedy to strictly outlaw these substances from the game. I don't buy it and I'm not going to fall in line with this steroid witch hunt.

posted by dyams at 08:15 AM on January 08, 2008

To me, pointing out the obvious (that mitchell admitted he couldn't conclusively prove Clemens used) and then laying low is a better alternative. Everything Clemens does adds more fuel to the media machine. Damned if you do, damned if you don't. If Clemens is innocent, it would be extremely hard to watch his legacy in baseball be completely trashed by a false accusation and do nothing in response. Especially since he has money to burn and a surplus of free time on his hands. During his last several retirements, Clemens was going into that good night as the greatest pitcher in the game. Now he's a cheater under a cloud. That's gotta hurt. I don't think there's anything Clemens can do here, short of getting his accuser to publicly recant, that helps him.

posted by rcade at 09:14 AM on January 08, 2008

Oh, it doesn't matter to Clemens at all at this point, of course (or at any point in the past, going back to the Pliestocene Era, when the tar pits first began to cool and the resulting smoke was first blown up Rocket's butt, setting the precedent for a million acolytes and pundits to follow). I was just talking about the external viewpoint, where, say, some kind of governing authority might want to maybe make some kind of statement to assure the rank and file that all this legal foofaraw is going to help clean up the sport and admonishing everyone involved to get to the truth and stop pfutzing around with this schoolyard bullshit. (Golly gosh, if only there was some kind of head person in charge of administration for Major League Baseball who had the authority and backbone to help this along to a less acrimonious and more decisive conclusion, some kind of ... I don't know, Commissioner or something.) (Nahhh.) I'm fully aware of the fact that everyone in this discussion's back is up on this one already, so I'll get out of the kitchen.

posted by chicobangs at 10:19 AM on January 08, 2008

I think Clemens is employing a different strategy - perhaps after seeing what slience did for Mark McGwire and Bonds. Frankly, I'm seriously impressed. He's planted a couple seeds of doubt with his throw-it-all-against-the-wall-and-see-what-sticks approach. You can sense them growing. The taped conversation, lawsuit, 60 minutes interview and constant denials will work on a whole bunch of people - some of them HoF voters, I'm sure - regardless of validity. All he needs is some benefit of the doubt. Is more crafty than I would have given him credit for. He looks so... dumb. The man has an aggressive group of handlers. I think this can pay big dividends for him. Of course - it could all hugely (and wonderfully) blow up in his face - but I admire the balls.

posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 11:05 AM on January 08, 2008

His other body parts may be telling part of the story as well.

posted by yerfatma at 12:15 PM on January 08, 2008

Looking at surveys, reading what's being said, I'd say you're in the minority. He's done a terrible job in my opinion, and this is with handlers telling him what to do. There are so many holes in his story. Oh, I agree - but I think some hay can be made.

posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 12:42 PM on January 08, 2008

Oh, I agree - but I think some hay can be made. I think what I was trying to say is that by throwing everything at the wall and seeing what sticks he also opens himself up to everything that does not. So while I'll give you that I'm impressed with his mode of attack I wonder if in the long run it will come back to bite him.

posted by justgary at 01:31 PM on January 08, 2008

So it will be put up or shut up to McNamee. and Clemens too, if McNamee files suit in return which I can only imagine he will. Clemens insinuated that McNamee was trafficking drugs on 60 Minutes.

posted by jerseygirl at 01:40 PM on January 08, 2008

OK, just for arguments sake how do you prove you shot some guy in the butt with steroids. And he willing bent over and accepted the fact that it was steroids, knew it and took the shot. Unless there are some audio tapes of him accepting steroids haow does McNamee prove his client knew what he was getting? I mean you had Bonds at one point saying he got some stuff just walking by somebody locker and decided to take it. How does a multimillion dollar athlete come to that decision?

posted by volfire at 01:46 PM on January 08, 2008

I thought the whole 60 minutes interview was very poorly done, almost as if they let Roger off the hook, when they could have basically proven him guilty. Clemens' response of, 'If I'm taking all of these drugs, why don't I have a 3rd eye growing from my forehead? Why arent' I pullin' tractors with my teeth?' was idiotic. I haven't noticed a 3rd eye on Pettite or Palmiero. Clemens' repsponse of, 'If I'm taking all these drugs, where did i get them from?' makes about as much sense as Whitney Houston saying you can't prove she's on drugs unless you show her a receipt from a drug dealer. "crack is whack." Clemens' response of, 'After 25 years why would I want to take the stuff?' Well, because you love the sport, the fame, the money and the adulation and you don't want it to stop, you know that your glory days are nearing an end and you want a few more. Clemens' response of, 'I don't know if a lie detector test would help me, or not.' If you're innocent, say Hell Yes, hook me up to the damn machine right now. I thought the whole interview made him appear more guilty, not less. I recommend a book by Malcolm Gladwell called, Blink. It helps in the identification of inauthenticity when it presents itself.

posted by Bill Lumbergh at 01:57 PM on January 08, 2008

Moronic doesn't equal wrong, any more than sycophancy or hero-worship does. McNamee is a stooge, but he was right every other time, and most importantly, his testimony under oath is already on public record. Clemens hasn't said a word under oath yet. All we have is a Youtube clip, a puff piece by a personal friend on 60 Minutes, and a few statements from his attorney. In other words, in legal terms, absolutely nothing whatsoever. He could claim he heals the sick and shits candied yams if he wants, but put his right hand on a bible and that changes everything. Put Rocket in a place where lying is a felony, and then ask him all these questions again. Then and only then will I believe one word of his babble.

posted by chicobangs at 02:05 PM on January 08, 2008

Agreed. Here's hoping McNamee's people are doing their homework, and that Rocket will have to actually tell the truth instead of bullshitting his way through the conversation and trying to coast on money and smarm, like he has in every other situation in his life.

posted by chicobangs at 02:54 PM on January 08, 2008

All Clemens has to do is continue insisting he was under the assumption it was anything else but a product containing a illegal substance. "It's not a lie if you believe it's true" George Costanza

posted by Nakeman at 03:17 PM on January 08, 2008

Or maybe I just took the extra fifteen seconds to read what I'd written and thought about whether it made any sense. Chacun a son gout, sportnut. Oh, I'm so sorry...was that latter too highbrow for you?

posted by lil_brown_bat at 03:44 PM on January 08, 2008

Sorry to rough your feathers, I was just pulling your chain. I guess that is ok for you to do because I forgot you are all knowing. LIGHTEN-UP

posted by sportnut at 04:05 PM on January 08, 2008

WOW! This thread is starting to sound like a mix of chemistry class and second year law and all we have to do is consult lil_brown_bat because it is apparent she knows everything. Must have gotten an A on the thread entrance exam. And you must have gotten an F on this site's membership guidelines. This isn't a place to take cheap shots at members and then tell them to "LIGHTEN UP." Stick to the issue or get lost.

posted by rcade at 05:01 PM on January 08, 2008

Oh yeah, and flawed as the entire testing system is, he still never had a positive test for PEDs. Neither did just about everyone on that list. Neither did pettitte. I think the 'never failed a drug test' time has passed. It means you've never failed a drug test, but certainly that you've never taken drugs. I don't think I've even heard clemens use it over the past few days.

posted by justgary at 05:43 PM on January 08, 2008

Someone correct me if I am wrong, but Clemens never has been given a test for PEDs. How can he pass or fail something that he never experienced? Technically Grums correct. But the accusations against clemens are all well before 2004, so he wasn't tested. And there was no test for HGH. So in dealing with the charges, you're correct.

posted by justgary at 06:26 PM on January 08, 2008

I actually believe Clemens will make the Hall of Fame eventually. It's not like McGwire, who was as one-dimensional as any player there ever was; What? McGwire was a .263 career hitter, seven seasons of over 100 RBI, and won a gold glove in '90, mainly because Mattingly missed half the season. If McGwire deserves to be in the Hall, Rafael Palmiero should be in before him. Better hitter, fielder, and all-around player.

posted by dyams at 08:25 PM on January 08, 2008

On a related note, McNamee does not seem to be a boy scout. The press is reporting a rape allegation (with what appears to be solid physical evidence taken at the scene of the alleged rape) against him in Florida in 2004. The Yankees fired him after the issue surfaced, but Clemens hired him as his personal trainer. At the least, Clemens is blind to bad character.

posted by Cave_Man at 10:16 PM on January 08, 2008

The original question statement was: Someone correct me if I am wrong, but Clemens never has been given a test for PEDs. The statement was wrong. I stand by my answer. If other people want to extrapolate from it, they are free to do so. posted by grum@work at 10:22 PM CST on January 8 Show me his test dates. He was not tested during the time that the allegations cover. BTW, do you believe Bonds never took PEDs? Bonds has not tested positive by MLB either. Some information on Bonds indicated that he was notified of upcoming test periods. Would it not be reasonable that a player of Clemen's status also get the same information that Bonds got? The Congressional investigation should uncover answers to questions that exist.

posted by Cave_Man at 10:39 PM on January 08, 2008

I think you're confused cave man. 1. The question was originally asking if clemens had ever taken a drug test. 2. Grum said that he had. 3. I said Grum was technically correct but that the allegations from his trainer were before testing began, and never included HGH, so it's basically meaningless. Someone might claim that Clemens has been tested recently and come up clean, to which I would say A. He very well could have stopped and B. it's been proven time and time again that drug test can be beat. As I said before, even clemens seems to realize that since it hasn't been a big part of his defense (I haven't heard him say it at all, but I might have missed it).

posted by justgary at 12:48 AM on January 09, 2008

If anyone still believes McGwire's huge build and strength was the result of using performance-enhancing drugs, then he is a player who utilized that strength as HIS only real strength in the game. This is what bothers me about him as a potential Hall of Fame inductee. He hit homers, and his OBP benefited from so many walks (many of the intentional variety). Even though Jose Canseco is a jackass and an embarrassment (both categories I'd never place McGwire in), McGwire's game wasn't all that much different. McGwire could field better, but Canseco could steal bases. I think the thing McGwire benefits most from is the feel-good moments he and Sosa get credit for during their pursuit of Maris' single-season home run record.

posted by dyams at 07:44 AM on January 09, 2008

He hit homers, and his OBP benefited from so many walks (many of the intentional variety). But isn't that also true of your man Raffy? McGwire: 1317 BB, 150 IBB (11.3%) / career OBP .394 Palmeiro: 1353 BB, 171 IBB (12.6%) / career OBP .371

posted by Venicemenace at 09:02 AM on January 09, 2008

The bending over and taking the shot in the butt part is agreed by both parties... Clemens claims it was B-12 and Lidocaine. Lidocaine is a numbing agent that is supposedly injected to relieve pain in the joints. Injecting Lidocaine into one's butt will have the effect of enabling one to sit for a really long time without feeling it. In other words, it won't do too much good for a sore arm, hamstring, or whatever. I do not know the effect of vitamin B-12, but it could be that it is usually injected into the butt.

posted by Howard_T at 09:14 AM on January 09, 2008

He hit homers, and his OBP benefited from so many walks (many of the intentional variety). But isn't that also true of your man Raffy? McGwire: 1317 BB, 150 IBB (11.3%) / career OBP .394 Palmeiro: 1353 BB, 171 IBB (12.6%) / career OBP .371 True, but Palmiero's base-on-balls came throughout 10,472 at-bats, compared to McGwire's 6187. Palmiero also made it to that 500 homer plateau, as well as getting over 3000 hits. He had a positive steroid test, but Canseco claims he injected McGwire with steroids. It comes down to what criteria involving PEDs you want to require before giving a player credit for a career of accomplishments. Is is positive drug tests? The word of someone else (Canseco or McNamee, for example)? I agree McGwire was a great power hitter, but it remains likely he was a power hitter who acquired that power largely by artificial means.

posted by dyams at 10:00 AM on January 09, 2008

All I know, grum, is that Canseco has said quite a bit about both he and McGwire using steroids together, talking about steroids, and Canseco having injected McGwire a couple of times with steroids, all, according to him, in the '80s. That encompasses practically McGwire's entire career. Even though McGwire, as you point out, was destined to be a power hitter in the majors, I fully believe he did produce much of what he did largely due to strength enhanced artificially. After his big rookie season he began a gradual decline in production, hitting .201 in '91. After terrible, injury-plagued seasons in '93 and '94, he reemerges and begins pounding homers on a record pace? I really only bring him up because there are similarities between McGwire and Clemens (even though Clemens, in my mind, is head-and-shoulders beyond McGwire as far as accomplishments). Both had/have substantial claims regarding steroids made against them, and both have not truly helped themselves by the way they chose to handle those allegations. McGwire's brief statement in front of Congress about not wanting to talk about the past seems to be a sort of admission of guilt without actually admitting anything. McGwire was fun to watch, I'll admit, but I will always view him as a poster child for how steroids can turn a one-trick pony into a potential Hall of Famer.

posted by dyams at 12:08 PM on January 09, 2008

I really only bring him up because there are similarities between McGwire and Clemens (even though Clemens, in my mind, is head-and-shoulders beyond McGwire as far as accomplishments). That's true - and I agree that Clemens is ahead - but it's closer than you think. Clemens may be the best righty of the last 50 years - but McGwire's numbers would suggest he is one of the top 5 power hitters of the same period.

posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 03:34 PM on January 09, 2008

Grum and I are in the same camp. If sticking a needle in your butt made you a hall of famer then we'd see more of them. Baseball isn't all about higher/faster/stronger Baseball has a code of conduct clause, written or otherwise, that is the problem for Big Mac (oh, did I spell that right?). Steroid use potentially (get that, I said potentially) extended McGwire's career, why should he sit in the HOF with players that retired when their god given ability was diminished by advanced age and/or injury? In Roger Clemens' case, if allegations against him look to be true to a reasonable person after all information is in and analyzed, he should be completely denied enshrinement in the HOF. You are right. Most of us were not born to turn on a 95 MPH fastball, but try cheating at your day job and see how far you will get (that is assuming you and I work day jobs that require ethical conduct).

posted by Cave_Man at 04:13 PM on January 09, 2008

"The hardest thing to do in baseball is to hit a round baseball with a round bat, squarely." - Ted Williams I agree. There's no question McGwire can hit a baseball. I'm not questioning that. My only question is where do people draw the line with regards to PEHs that supposedly give players an unfair advantage. McGwire, I'm sure, saw his opportunity for a long career in the game as being a big, imposing power hitter since he was obviously never going to be able to hit for average, like, for example Albert Pujols. That being said, he had to make sure he stayed stronger by any means possible, and that likely meant steroid use. This is the same problem people had with Bonds, that he developed into some huge muscle-freak and started hitting balls out of the park like crazy. Is it OK or isn't it? If McGwire used steroids to better himself, to make himself into a potential Hall of Famer, is that acceptable? If so, let's stop getting worked up over McNamee, Clemens, Bonds, Balco, etc. Just because Bonds was a much better all-around player than McGwire shouldn't mean he's a cheat/fraud for using and McGwire's not.

posted by dyams at 04:45 PM on January 09, 2008

My only question is where do people draw the line with regards to PEHs that supposedly give players an unfair advantage. I'm not condoning the use of PEDs. I'm simply agreeing with Weedy that McGwire had skills that no PEDs can give you. As do Bonds and Clemens. All three were exceptional athletes before they every used PEDs. If I have more sympathy for McGwire, it is because, as TBH pointed out, my perception is that McGwire is a much better human being than Bonds or Clemens. I was particularly impressed by his charity work with Children. That being said, if McGwire is a sacrificial lamb to the war on PEDs and forever denied induction to the HOF, I can live with that. I would, however, expect the same treatment for Clemens and Bonds.

posted by cjets at 06:26 PM on January 09, 2008

So which story are we going with? That he's always been on steroids, or he used them around the time of his monster home-run season? I realize you were being funny while making a point, grum, but I do believe after truly bursting on the scene as a rookie, then falling off in both production and health the next few years, McGwire probably did dramatically turn his training regiment up. How that worked in relation to any illegal substances he may have used, and why, I can't really say (I'm obviously no expert). But increasing his use/reliance on certain steroids would enhance his body's healing as well as increase the strength he accumulates from his workout routines. As with Clemens, I'm sure he put in hours and hours of diligent, strenuous training. Even though McGwire was always a very large person, he did increase his size and muscle mass dramatically following the early years of his career. And even though I may not fully support McGwire's spot as a historical player in the game, I don't condemn him (or any athlete) at all for doing what he/they do in order to stay in the game and keep making a phenomonal living for as long as possible.

posted by dyams at 07:29 AM on January 10, 2008

McGwire probably did dramatically turn his training regiment up. How that worked in relation to any illegal substances he may have used, and why, I can't really say (I'm obviously no expert). Steroids, without an increase in physical workout, will not produce any results. It's not a magic pill. Sitting on your ass all day while popping steroids isn't going to do a damn thing. In fact, you pretty much have to push your body even harder than you normally would in order to see results. Without the steroids, your body wouldn't recover from the workouts fast enough. With the steroids, you can workout longer and harder as your body will recover (faster).

posted by grum@work at 06:09 PM on January 10, 2008

I doubt any pitcher the game has ever seen, or will ever see, has worked harder (and worked out harder) than him. And for me, this is the only solid argument on his behalf. If he did all this working out while taking steroids, where are the muscles? Yes, Rogers a big, solid guy, but have look at his arms. There's nothing special in muscle definition or bulk. Granted, working the arms with weights is probably not a priority for pitchers, but come on. His upper arms look average at best. Now, of course he has the big butt, child bearing hips and big thighs, but there's nothing particularly muscular in all that....area. So, where's the beef?

posted by Texan_lost_in_NY at 07:54 PM on January 10, 2008

Now, of course he has the big butt, child bearing hips and big thighs, but there's nothing particularly muscular in all that....area. I think you'd better look again, especially considering those are the source of his fastball's speed.

posted by yerfatma at 06:21 AM on January 11, 2008

I doubt any pitcher the game has ever seen, or will ever see, has worked harder (and worked out harder) than him. posted by dyams See, this is where clemens' fans lose me (and generally, not you specifically). Clemens certainly has that reputation, enjoys it, and isn't shy about sharing it. And it's certainly true that he works out hard. Plenty of people have said that he works as hard as anyone. I'll take their word for it, since I've never seen him workout. But worked harder than anyone? Probably not. I'm sure over the history of pitching someone has worked harder, or at least as hard. Probably someone who had to work hard just to stay in the game. Clemens has the advantage of also being super talented, so it's easier to say 'wow, he's such a hard worker' because the results are so great. But this whole "he works harder than anyone EVER" shtick has been repeated so often everyone believes it on face value. It reminds me of the satirical piece ESPN did several years ago about Clemens work habits. Pretty funny, though I can't find it now. And for me, this is the only solid argument on his behalf. If he did all this working out while taking steroids, where are the muscles? Yes, Rogers a big, solid guy, but have look at his arms. There's nothing special in muscle definition or bulk. As you said, his arm workouts would be very specialized. Bulk wouldn't be the goal. Strength and flexibility would be. As far as his legs, they're tree trunks. Again, he's not going for a ripped look. I'm sure he's not going for defining exercises, nor the type of diet he would need to achieve a muscular look. But I assure you his legs are super strong. That's what his chiropractor from his Toronto days said as well. (I'm not saying it exonerates Clemens, I just thought the article sheds a bit more light on "Dr." McNamee) I read that article earlier and its certainly one-sided in Clemens' favor. But that's fair, because I've read a multitude of articles unfair to clemens. That said, the Doctor said in two years he didn't see any muscle/body change. And in times when Clemens had come back he still hadn't seen any. Now take a rookie card and compare it to now. Compare his latest yankee season to his years in toronto. There's big changes. So when did it happen? What he's saying makes no sense. His body has changed significantly. (and I say this as someone that thinks the whole "look at his body", for any player, one of the weakest accusations. I don't think it proves anything. But I'd have to be blind to not say it exists.) That doctor is basically telling me water isn't wet, at least when he's touched it. The trainer saying he would be huge if he took the steroids mcnamee said he did? Mcnammee has also stated that clemens did not "abuse" steroids, only taking them a couple of months a year. I don't think the trainer realized that. So I disagree with him because of that. As far as mcnamee's credibility with his history yes it's sketchy. But his being correct in other cases certainly gives some of that back. The big question for me is did the prosecutors pressure him on clemens, or was it simply tell the truth and you'll be a free man. That's a huge difference. As someone who dislikes clemens, I'd like to dislike him for what is true, not made up. With mcnamee's history I'd give clemens the benefit of the doubt if it wasn't for the interview and then 'wrestling style' press conference. If anyone was swayed by either I'd love to hear what clemens said that added to his case. For me he came off badly and answered not a single key question (he can't even tell us where the prescriptions came for the drugs he says mcnamee DID inject him with). To sum up, if Clemens had answered questions in a real interview instead of insulting the audience with 'I'd have an ear coming out of my forehead' nonsense and Wallace following up Clemens' denials with the comical "swear", and had a real press conference where he actually answered questions before storming off, if Clemens answered questions without the whole 'how dare you question me' attitude I'd tend to believe him. While I can understand someone claiming they believe Clemens over Mcnamee, I can't understand someone not at least giving the chance that Clemens is lying, unless one believes anger and bitterness = innocence.

posted by justgary at 10:18 AM on January 11, 2008

It is impossible to say or know how many pitchers from the past or in the present work out harder than Clemens. I just remember stories in the past of different people who have participated with Clemens in his workouts, even during the season and on days when he pitches, and claim it's extremely difficult to keep up with him. Oh I know. Like I said, it wasn't really towards your comment. I understood what you were saying. Elsewhere I've read that clemens didn't do steroids, didn't need them, because he works that much harder than everyone else, and that was what I was referring to. I'm sure these substances enhanced Clemens' conditioning, play, recovery, etc. But the combination of baseball never taking strict action to ban these substances, along with me knowing Clemens is one of the individuals who is insanely dedicated to his craft, I just don't find myself angered by his possible use of these substances. Agreed. I think baseball would be better off just noting that steroids was a problem during this 'era' instead of this wild goose chase of finding a few players to take the fall. And as much as I dislike clemens, I'd vote for him for the hall of fame even if it's proven true he took steroids.

posted by justgary at 01:04 PM on January 11, 2008

I agree with you. If peds are half as widespread as many think they are, i don't see how else you can maintain the integrity of any win or loss unless you wipe the slate clean and give everyone a pass. I know that this seems like giving in, and i guess it is. However, this train has already left the station, and i'm not sure how baseball can ever catch up. But maintaining the integrity of the wins and losses isn't the point. Maintaining the purity of baseball isn't the point. It has never been the point where PED regulations are concerned. The point is to try and avoid a situation where athletes feel that in order to be competitive, they must take a harmful substance for a short-term gain. The problem is a simple one; it isn't an easy one. It becomes a lot harder when it gets confused with this notion of purity, because what does that mean, anyway? A player who takes ginseng has an advantage over one who doesn't; is the "integrity of the wins and losses" shot if one player can afford to buy ginseng and another one can't? Maybe, and if you like that kind of philosophical argument, more power to you. If you want to create baseball regulations aimed at maintaining (or restoring) some standard of "purity", go for it. I think it's a waste of time, myself; furthermore, I say that arguing the purity-and-integrity line is likely to do fatal harm to the cause of ever creating sensible, workable PED regulations in baseball or any other sport.

posted by lil_brown_bat at 02:39 PM on January 11, 2008

Now take a rookie card and compare it to now. Compare his latest yankee season to his years in toronto. There's big changes. I hate, hate, hate that argument. From rookie to now, he's aged twenty-three years. I challenge someone to find me a baseball player that is in the same shape he was twenty years after he started playing.

posted by grum@work at 09:14 PM on January 11, 2008

me: Now take a rookie card and compare it to now. Compare his latest yankee season to his years in toronto. There's big changes. grum:I hate, hate, hate that argument. Did you actually read my entire post grum? It wasn't an argument for anything other than the bluejays doctor saying clemens body "had not changed", when of course it's changed. He said he had seen no muscle increase. Which means roger has gotten really fat (which couldn't be since he works out constantly) or he had an increase in muscle. Did you also miss the part where I said it was a weak arguement and proved nothing (body changes)? Please don't just pick out a sentence here and there and present it as my argument.

posted by justgary at 01:35 PM on January 12, 2008

No problem grum. I just don't want to be listed in the camp that points to before and after pictures as proof of anything. I'm in your camp. It doesn't.

posted by justgary at 06:20 PM on January 14, 2008