PDA

View Full Version : Clemens found not guilty on all counts



Chip R
06-18-2012, 04:49 PM
http://twitter.com/intent/user?screen_name=TJQuinnESPN

WMR
06-18-2012, 04:51 PM
How much money was wasted on this frivolousness?

Sea Ray
06-18-2012, 04:54 PM
Does he think the writers will vote him into the Hall now?

I don't see how they can say he didn't lie since his trainer had DNA evidence

oneupper
06-18-2012, 05:08 PM
Clemens is a liar and a juicer. THAT is the truth.

TeamBoone
06-18-2012, 05:26 PM
I'm stunned. This is sooooooooooooo wrong.

_Sir_Charles_
06-18-2012, 05:30 PM
If the glove doesn't fit.....

Ooops, sorry. Wrong decade.

Edskin
06-18-2012, 05:42 PM
Everyone involved in this thing is a slimeball. Probably didn't have quite enough evidence to convict in large part because McNamee is hardly credible himself. Hopefully, this story can go away now and jurors can stop falling asleep...I don't blame them...this was a tired story two years ago. Clemens did it, we all know he did...whatever. Glad it's done.

RedsManRick
06-18-2012, 06:00 PM
He's already guilty in the court of public opinion; this won't affect that.

757690
06-18-2012, 06:17 PM
Perjury is one of the hardest convictions to get in court.

Celebrities are nearly impossible to convict in court, especially by a jury.

Everyone knows he's guilty, this should have been expected, and doesn't change a thing.

Yachtzee
06-18-2012, 08:19 PM
How much money was wasted on this frivolousness?

Hardly frivolous. If it were, the judge would have thrown it out at the first chance. Judges have way too many cases on their dockets to worry about cases with no chance of winning. I think the problem with the prosecution's case was that, when you have a case where the defendant and the prosecuting witness are both dirtbags, the jury will side with the defendant, just because the burden of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt. If it were a civil case, the jury might have gone the other way, ruling against the bigger dirtbag.

I once helped out an attorney defending a child rape case. The victim's family was basically running a flophouse for all kinds of unsavory characters and were downstairs drunk and high playing video games when the incident occurred. The defendant was found guilty, but only because, on the night before the last day of trial, he admitted on the jail phone to his mom that he did it and it was recorded by the sheriff's department. The jury told us that, had he not admitted it on the phone, they would have acquitted him because all the prosecution's witnesses were dirtbags who they couldn't trust. So just because the jury doesn't pass down a criminal conviction doesn't necessarily mean Clemens didn't do it.

I think it's likely that Clemens juiced, just because Andy Pettite indicated as much in his testimony to Congress, corroborating some of McNamee's testimony. While I don't think much of McNamee, I think Pettite is a stand up guy and wouldn't make up that kind of stuff to take down Clemens, whom he considered a friend.

Sea Ray
06-18-2012, 10:42 PM
I think it's likely that Clemens juiced, just because Andy Pettite indicated as much in his testimony to Congress, corroborating some of McNamee's testimony. While I don't think much of McNamee, I think Pettite is a stand up guy and wouldn't make up that kind of stuff to take down Clemens, whom he considered a friend.

I think Pettitte kind of weaseled out on this one because under cross examination by Clemens' attorney, Pettitte said that he was 50% sure his recollection was correct. That's weak and makes it sound like he was afraid Clemens might not speak to him again

WMR
06-18-2012, 11:20 PM
Hardly frivolous. If it were, the judge would have thrown it out at the first chance. Judges have way too many cases on their dockets to worry about cases with no chance of winning. I think the problem with the prosecution's case was that, when you have a case where the defendant and the prosecuting witness are both dirtbags, the jury will side with the defendant, just because the burden of proof is beyond a reasonable doubt. If it were a civil case, the jury might have gone the other way, ruling against the bigger dirtbag.

I once helped out an attorney defending a child rape case. The victim's family was basically running a flophouse for all kinds of unsavory characters and were downstairs drunk and high playing video games when the incident occurred. The defendant was found guilty, but only because, on the night before the last day of trial, he admitted on the jail phone to his mom that he did it and it was recorded by the sheriff's department. The jury told us that, had he not admitted it on the phone, they would have acquitted him because all the prosecution's witnesses were dirtbags who they couldn't trust. So just because the jury doesn't pass down a criminal conviction doesn't necessarily mean Clemens didn't do it.

I think it's likely that Clemens juiced, just because Andy Pettite indicated as much in his testimony to Congress, corroborating some of McNamee's testimony. While I don't think much of McNamee, I think Pettite is a stand up guy and wouldn't make up that kind of stuff to take down Clemens, whom he considered a friend.

Exactly why I found it frivolous. Using one known liar to try and convict another known liar. Waste. of. time.

I'm guessing the judge felt immense pressure from certain entities to make sure this case was heard after the gov't already had wasted hundreds of thousands if not millions trying to nail Clemens to the wall.

Cooper
06-19-2012, 12:49 AM
I thought i read it cost the government close to 120 million, but when i read that figure i thought it was a mis-print.

Yachtzee
06-19-2012, 02:05 AM
Exactly why I found it frivolous. Using one known liar to try and convict another known liar. Waste. of. time.

I'm guessing the judge felt immense pressure from certain entities to make sure this case was heard after the gov't already had wasted hundreds of thousands if not millions trying to nail Clemens to the wall.

If prosecutors only used squeaky clean witnesses, there would be a lot more criminals walking around on the street. The unfortunate reality we live in is that dirtbags hang out with dirtbags. In a substantial portion of criminal cases, the prosecution's main witness is someone involved in criminal activity themselves. Why? Because those are usually the only other people in a position to know details about the crimes committed. Look at Pete Rose. When he got banned for betting on baseball and then sent to prison for tax evasion for failing to report his earnings, who were the witnesses? Paul Janszen, a steroid dealer, Ron Peters, bookmaker and cocaine dealer, and Tommy Gioiosa, Rose's runner who went down for transporting cocaine and tax fraud. Does that mean Rose didn't bet on baseball? No. He admits it now after years of calling these guys lying scum. Sound familiar, Mr. Clemens?

Really, if McNamee is such a sketchy guy, why is Clemens using him as his personal trainer and having him at his house all the time? Could it be that Clemens is pretty sketchy himself? Could it be that Clemens hired McNamee because he was a guy who was willing and able to get steroids and/or HGH through illicit means? If a guy wants to use PEDs, chances are he isn't calling up Mr. Upstanding Citizen to do his bidding.

Why are people so willing to accept that Barry Bonds was on steroids, but that Roger Clemens is some hard done guy who is the victim of a smear campaign by a scheming ex-employee?

oneupper
06-19-2012, 06:40 AM
Why are people so willing to accept that Barry Bonds was on steroids, but that Roger Clemens is some hard done guy who is the victim of a smear campaign by a scheming ex-employee?

"People" in this case are the jurors. I'm pretty sure if you ran a poll here asking if we thought Clemens juiced, most would say yes.

From what I read, the jurors were people (8 women, 4 men), who knew little and/or cared little about sports in general and baseball in particular.

That's how they are chosen these days. You'll never find an accountant on a financial fraud case jury or a social worker on a domestic violence case.

Cooper
06-19-2012, 09:19 AM
The trial was not about whether or not he used PEDs. It was about whether he lied to congress. 2 completely differing issues. Imo, i don't think it was worth it to find out whether he lied or not to congress -i just don't find any value in it. Yes, he probably used PEDS.....that line is quiet long, but it's not a Roger Clemens issue as much as it was the whole culture of baseball was in denial about the issue. Selig acted as if the issue didn't exist, the players union denied their was an issue (at the cost of level playing field for their members), and congress did nothing for 30 years.

Yeah, i just stole all of Bill James talking points from a post he made 3 days ago-- but it was so good that i thought it needed posted twice- i'm shameless.

Sea Ray
06-19-2012, 09:25 AM
The trial was not about whether or not he used PEDs. It was about whether he lied to congress. 2 completely differing issues. Imo, i don't think it was worth it to find out whether he lied or not to congress -i just don't find any value in it. Yes, he probably used PEDS.....that line is quiet long, but it's not a Roger Clemens issue as much as it was the whole culture of baseball was in denial about the issue. Selig acted as if the issue didn't exist, the players union denied their was an issue (at the cost of level playing field for their members), and congress did nothing for 30 years.

Yeah, i just stole all of Bill James talking points from a post he made 3 days ago-- but it was so good that i thought it needed posted twice- i'm shameless.

Sure the trial was about whether he lied to Congress but his statement in question was that he never used PEDs so how is the trial not about whether he used?

Cooper
06-19-2012, 09:53 AM
If the trial was about use -70% of the players in mlb would be guilty. Congress thought they set up a perjury trap- but there wasn't enough there. Surely you understand the difference between doing something and then potentially lying about it.

Sea Ray
06-19-2012, 10:19 AM
If the trial was about use -70% of the players in mlb would be guilty. Congress thought they set up a perjury trap- but there wasn't enough there. Surely you understand the difference between doing something and then potentially lying about it.

70% of the players didn't testify in front of Congress saying they didn't use. Clemens did and there was DNA evidence that he used PEDs. Seems to me his only defense is the one Barry Bonds used: he didn't know it was PEDs

Cooper
06-19-2012, 02:14 PM
The prosecution had the full weight and unlimited resources to draw on (120m), the jury deliberated for 10 hours- came back with an unanimous decision - yet, you still believe he perjured himself. I understand the feeling that he may have gotten away with lying- but combining the issues seems excessive, in that, you'd have to prosecute the whole of baseball.

RedsBaron
06-19-2012, 05:35 PM
Why are people so willing to accept that Barry Bonds was on steroids, but that Roger Clemens is some hard done guy who is the victim of a smear campaign by a scheming ex-employee?

IIRC Bonds and Clemens become eligible for the HOF in the same year. It will be interesting to see what the voters do. I believe that both Bonds and Clemens juiced but neither man has been proven to have done so beyond a reasonable doubt. In my opinion either they both go into the HOF or neither should go in.

Sea Ray
06-20-2012, 11:07 AM
IIRC Bonds and Clemens become eligible for the HOF in the same year. It will be interesting to see what the voters do. I believe that both Bonds and Clemens juiced but neither man has been proven to have done so beyond a reasonable doubt. In my opinion either they both go into the HOF or neither should go in.

I think it'll be next yr. My thinking is that neither one of them will get over 50% of the vote

durl
06-20-2012, 11:20 AM
I need someone to remind me of why this thing went to Congress in the first place.

cumberlandreds
06-20-2012, 11:30 AM
Congress lies to Americans everyday. So why should a jury find someone guilty of lieing to them? Just another example of needless waste of tax payer money. Clemons,Bonds and all the other obvious steriod users have been found guilty in the court of public opinion. That's all the satisfaction I and most people need.

Sea Ray
06-20-2012, 02:04 PM
Congress lies to Americans everyday. So why should a jury find someone guilty of lieing to them? Just another example of needless waste of tax payer money.

I take lying under oath to Congress much more seriously than you do.

oneupper
06-20-2012, 02:10 PM
The justice system needs these high-profile cases to show that no one is above the law. Sadly, the results have been leading to a different conclusion.

cumberlandreds
06-20-2012, 02:14 PM
I take lying under oath to Congress much more seriously than you do.

I take it very seriously. But I betcha those jurors saw exactly the way I said in my post. That and the Feds made another liar,MacNamee, their star witness.

WMR
06-20-2012, 02:21 PM
If all the liars in Congress were thrown in jail, who would be left to vote on legislation?

MikeThierry
06-20-2012, 02:23 PM
Congress lies to Americans everyday. So why should a jury find someone guilty of lieing to them? Just another example of needless waste of tax payer money. Clemons,Bonds and all the other obvious steriod users have been found guilty in the court of public opinion. That's all the satisfaction I and most people need.

That's apples and oranges from this case. Congressional leaders aren't under sworn oath testimony when they "lie" to the American people. Not saying it's right but its a huge difference.

Sea Ray
06-20-2012, 02:36 PM
I take it very seriously. But I betcha those jurors saw exactly the way I said in my post. That and the Feds made another liar,MacNamee, their star witness.

I hope not. I sure hope the fact that Congressmen lie had nothing to do with Clemens' guilt or innocence

MikeThierry
06-20-2012, 02:47 PM
I take it very seriously. But I betcha those jurors saw exactly the way I said in my post. That and the Feds made another liar,MacNamee, their star witness.

I don't think that was it at all. They saw that the prosecution horribly fumbled the case almost like a first year lawyer would if he just got out of law school.

RedsBaron
06-20-2012, 04:11 PM
The feds have had a bad run of high profile cases lately, both in the prosecution of sports stars and in general.

jojo
06-20-2012, 07:14 PM
IIRC Bonds and Clemens become eligible for the HOF in the same year. It will be interesting to see what the voters do. I believe that both Bonds and Clemens juiced but neither man has been proven to have done so beyond a reasonable doubt. In my opinion either they both go into the HOF or neither should go in.

IMHO either they are both first ballot HOFers or the status of the Hall as an institution that can accurately document the history of professional baseball must be reevaluated.

757690
06-20-2012, 08:15 PM
IMHO either they are both first ballot HOFers or the status of the Hall as an institution that can accurately document the history of professional baseball must be reevaluated.

The overwhelming use of PED's, along with the League and Union turning a blind eye, has doe exactly that: It has made it impossible to accurately document the history of MLB.

The water is beyond muddied, and has become too dirty know what really happened in that time span. There are no easy clear cut answers out there for any player. Basically, we will never fully know who was a Hall of Famer and who wasn't during that period.

jojo
06-20-2012, 08:38 PM
The overwhelming use of PED's, along with the League and Union turning a blind eye, has doe exactly that: It has made it impossible to accurately document the history of MLB.

The water is beyond muddied, and has become too dirty know what really happened in that time span. There are no easy clear cut answers out there for any player. Basically, we will never fully know who was a Hall of Famer and who wasn't during that period.

I disagree. It's actually easy. The best, most dominating players of the era are HOFers just like in any other era. That one can't compare Bonds to Ruth on an apples to apples basis isn't really a stumbling block because there are already all kinds of caveats when comparing across eras. Bonds literally might have been the second most valuable player in history and was ridiculously better than anyone since 1980. Clemens was easily the most dominant pitcher since 1980 and again its not even close between he and the number 2 guy if looking at WAR as a measure.

These two were clearly the most dominant position player and the most dominant pitcher in the majors during their careers. If they aren't first ballot hall of famers, then really, no one should get in during their year they come up to vote because it would be virtually impossible to argue there were two more valuable players.

edabbs44
06-20-2012, 08:42 PM
2 most valuable and 2 of the more egregious cases of PED usage. If their success and valuableness is tied to PED use, then keep them out.

757690
06-20-2012, 08:45 PM
I disagree. It's actually easy. The best, most dominating players of the era are HOFers just like in any other era. That one can't compare Bonds to Ruth on an apples to apples basis isn't really a stumbling block because there are already all kinds of caveats when comparing across eras. Bonds literally might have been the second most valuable player in history and was ridiculously better than anyone since 1980. Clemens was easily the most dominant pitcher since 1980 and again its not even close between he and the number 2 guy if looking at WAR as a measure.

These two were clearly the most dominant position player and the most dominant pitcher in the majors during their careers. If they aren't first ballot hall of famers, then really, no one should get in during their year they come up to vote because it would be virtually impossible to argue there were two more valuable players.

Besides the interruption, how was the play Mrs. Lincoln? :cool:

jojo
06-20-2012, 09:06 PM
Besides the interruption, how was the play Mrs. Lincoln? :cool:

I don't get the snark given the previous argument maintained the waters are impossibly muddied. The era is commonly called the PED era. It's revisionist history to argue definitively that anyone was "clean".

Also, while Ruth is the greatest player in history, he didn't have to hit against juiced pitchers.

There is no way a credible HOF could ignore the two greatest players of an era while honoring others in the era and by implication suggest such players were definitively clean.

GAC
06-21-2012, 04:38 AM
The only thing I have to say about this whole situation is this.....

"How does it feel Congress to be lied to? You don't like it? It infuriates you? Now you know how we feel."

One liar subpoenaed to testify before another group of liars. What irony. Heck, Clemens should run for Congress! LOL

Sea Ray
06-21-2012, 10:32 AM
I have no problem rewarding KGJ with a Hall spot and rejecting Bonds his place for awhile due to his use. I don't think those two men should be treated the same