Merged: Clemens' Silence / Clemens' Denial

[Sea Ray]

The thing that really ticks me off about all this Mitchell Report stuff is that to a man (outside of Giambi) everybody has denied doing what the Mitchell report says. I'll use Clemens as an example.

His attorney says that his reputation is shattered and there's nothing he can do to restore it. I'll tell you what you could have done. You could have cooperated with the Mitchell Report! That was your chance to defend yourself, Roger. You opted not to, so don't moan about fairness now.

Hal Morris said he bought the steroids but didn't use them himself.

We already know of Bonds' and Palmiero's denials.

The bottomline is this: I don't buy any player's denials unless they cooperated with the investigation. If you refused to talk to Sen Mitchell, I don't want to hear from you now. If you are innocent why not cooperate fully?

This all reminds me of Pete Rose and the Dowd report. I'm disappointed that lying is common amongst ballplayers and Pete's the rule not the exception.

[jojo]

What ticks me off is how little the issue is clarified by the Mitchell report yet how quickly some have been to assume its the final word necessary to condemn groups of players and even an era.

[NJReds]

There were a couple ex-players who admitted that it was accurate. I forgot who.

For what it's worth, David Justice said that the trainer (who accused Pettitte and Clemens) approached him, but when he found out it was administered by needles, he declined. He did say if it came in pill form that he would have taken them.

[KoryMac5]

Originally Posted by jojo

What ticks me off is how little the issue is clarified by the Mitchell report yet how quickly some have been to assume its the final word necessary to condemn groups of players and even an era.

That is the way the country operates now, it is the court of public opinion that convicts.

[Dom Heffner]

This all reminds me of Pete Rose and the Dowd report. I'm disappointed that lying is common amongst ballplayers and Pete's the rule not the exception.

The consequences of admitting the truth are too great, often. Pete Rose found that out (as well he should have). Remember when everyone was telling him the only chance he had to get into the Hall was to come clean? How did that work out for him?

I have a friend who was involved in a small theft ring (twenty years ago) where he worked. The police called everybody in to a room for questioning and my friend was the only one who was man enough to simply admit what he did.

He was also the only one out of 15 people to get any kind of punishment. He is uninsurable today as an employee for something he did when he was 20.

There is a risk involved with admitting the truth sometimes, including the punishment being more severe than the crime.

My bet is Roger Clemens thinks he's Hall worthy whether he juiced or not, so he isn't going to risk induction by admitting something like this.

[GAC]

Originally Posted by Dom Heffner

The consequences of admitting the truth are too great, often.

Yep. Especially if you are guilty. For the most part, and due to ego/self preservation, most will not say anything that incriminates themselves. They'll take the 5th. If you're gonna nail me, then find the evidence yourself. I'm not gonna walk in your office andd freely offer it up.

[traderumor]

Originally Posted by jojo

What ticks me off is how little the issue is clarified by the Mitchell report yet how quickly some have been to assume its the final word necessary to condemn groups of players and even an era.

So, the report came out Wednesday, and you have read the entire thing to the extent of forming a conclusion that it does not clarify the issue? Or have you scanned it like everyone else and simply formed a different conclusion based on limited analysis?

[jojo]

Originally Posted by traderumor

So, the report came out Wednesday, and you have read the entire thing to the extent of forming a conclusion that it does not clarify the issue? Or have you scanned it like everyone else and simply formed a different conclusion based on limited analysis?

The report is only about 300 pages of text in actuality and it's double-spaced at that. It wasn't difficult to read. And it wasn't enlightening.

[icehole3]

Pettitte comes clean

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3156305

[traderumor]

Originally Posted by jojo

The report is only about 300 pages of text in actuality and it's double-spaced at that. It wasn't difficult to read. And it wasn't enlightening.

Forgive me if I'm confusing you with another poster, but I recall you normally erring on the side of the poor misunderstood juicers, like the martyr Bonds, so I'm guessing the level needed to "enlighten" you is pretty high. Again, I apologize if you are not one who is normally siding with the poor accused juicers.

[traderumor]

Originally Posted by icehole3

Pettitte comes clean

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3156305

That sort of throws Clemens under the bus.

[GullyFoyle]

Ex-MLB Player and local Sacramento radio host F.P. Santangelo also admitted his use after his name was in the report. Some players have come forward and I suspect more will follow. Not all are in denial mode right now.

And I have no problem assuming the rest are guilty. Not in any legal way... but in the court of opinion, and if that is unfair to the multimillion dollar players, then I can live with it. I think we all know people who life has been harder to.

[jojo]

Originally Posted by traderumor

Forgive me if I'm confusing you with another poster, but I recall you normally erring on the side of the poor misunderstood juicers, like the martyr Bonds, so I'm guessing the level needed to "enlighten" you is pretty high. Again, I apologize if you are not one who is normally siding with the poor accused juicers.

I think you've confused me with someone else. My take has always been we shouldn't assume anything about a player one way or the other. BTW, you wont find a post authored by me that suggests steroid users are misunderstood martyrs.

Discussion of this issue in particular has been characterized by very shoddy reporting on the media's part and very poor behavior on the part of the fans who generally are all to eager to accept innuendo as fact thus encouraging a pursuit of the titillating angle rather than the truth. Furthermore, it's an issue that provides sportswriters and fans alike an all to easy opportunity to moralize on a grandiose scale.

My standard for being enlightened is I think much like anyone's-new light needs to be shed on a subject such that a greater understanding is achieved or the issue is moved forward. As a vehicle of enlightenment, I think the Mitchell report is woefully lacking and ultimately very disappointing.

Really, do we understand this issue anymore today than we did Tuesday night or do we just have another chance to beat guys with evil sticks?

[jojo]

Originally Posted by traderumor

That sort of throws Clemens under the bus.

How exactly?

[GullyFoyle]

Originally Posted by jojo

As a vehicle of enlightenment, I think the Mitchell report is woefully lacking and ultimately very disappointing.

I hear what your saying Jojo, but isn't that in a large part due to the players? I'll do some searching for a link but at least one report has a player going to Mitchell and saying yes he bought the drugs but he didn't use them and provided proof and he wasn't named. All the players were invited to be a part of the document. They had a large part in making it what it is or isn't.