Merged: Clemens' Silence / Clemens' Denial

[traderumor]

Originally Posted by jojo

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?

You're asking the question on the Saturday after the report came out. Already, Andy Pettite decided to comment after refusing to do so for the report. So, the implications are still up in the air. But, to attack any problem, you first have to establish some facts, which prior to this report, we basically had innuendo. Where those facts are taken seems to be beyond the scope of this investigation. I really haven't had a chance to read the thing in its entirety, but I find your summarily dismissing the report's effectiveness ( a 400+ page report, double spaced or not) a few days after its release a symptom of someone having their mind made up on the issue or projecting their own expectations of what they want out of such an investigation.

[jojo]

Originally Posted by traderumor

You're asking the question on the Saturday after the report came out. Already, Andy Pettite decided to comment after refusing to do so for the report. So, the implications are still up in the air. But, to attack any problem, you first have to establish some facts, which prior to this report, we basically had innuendo. Where those facts are taken seems to be beyond the scope of this investigation. I really haven't had a chance to read the thing in its entirety, but I find your summarily dismissing the report's effectiveness ( a 400+ page report, double spaced or not) a few days after its release a symptom of someone having their mind made up on the issue or projecting their own expectations of what they want out of such an investigation.

And I find it puzzling that someone who admits he hasn't read the report would question the objectivity of someone who has read the report.

[traderumor]

Originally Posted by jojo

And I find it puzzling that someone who admits he hasn't read the report would question the objectivity of someone who has read the report.

Haven't read the report in its entirety, but did skim through the entire report, which I made clear in an earlier post. I did just get done reading the first part of the report word for word.

My questioning stems from the difference between reading and analyzing, the latter which is necessary to make informed conclusions. The conclusions you have stated have been general, broad sweeping statements indicitave of someone reading a document with less than an open mind. In other words, I would hope that you wouldn't walk into a classroom with an assignment of a 400 page report, make the few flippant remarks you made, and then stand on "well, I read the report" as the basis for a high grade.

[WVRedsFan]

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.

Really, this report was not to clarify the situation, but rather a "come to Jesus" document where MLB says it happened, it was wrong, and we're going to do everything we can to prevent it happening in the future. Nothing more. It could have been the clarifying document you wanted if people had cooperated. It's no surprise that they didn't. So many engaging in illegal activity aren't likely to cooperate.

Though this report has been greeted with a yawn by the general public, it speaks volumes on what happened during the last 15 years or longer. You have to think it's just like society in general. When a current high school student is asked how many classmates do you think do not drink or use drugs. The answer you get is in the single digits. We now accept using as a way of life. It's kind of sad. But it is what it is.

[jojo]

Originally Posted by traderumor

Haven't read the report in its entirety, but did skim through the entire report, which I made clear in an earlier post. I did just get done reading the first part of the report word for word.

My questioning stems from the difference between reading and analyzing, the latter which is necessary to make informed conclusions. The conclusions you have stated have been general, broad sweeping statements indicitave of someone reading a document with less than an open mind. In other words, I would hope that you wouldn't walk into a classroom with an assignment of a 400 page report, make the few flippant remarks you made, and then stand on "well, I read the report" as the basis for a high grade.

Are my conclusions really "indicitave of someone reading a document with less than an open mind" or is it that they just disagree with yours? I'd suggest that I'm not the one suffering from a less than open mind.

Once again, read the whole document, give yourself whatever time you feel you need to reach whatever you feel to be an analytical conclusion and then answer this: do we understand this issue anymore today than we did last Tuesday night?

Anyway, I'd suggest you read the damn thing before arguing it's merits.

[westofyou]

http://www.nypost.com/seven/12162007...dle_984675.htm

"He is a piece of [bleep]. First of all, he is an alcoholic," Baichu told The Post from his New York area residence. "He is a troubled soul and has got so many demons in his closets. He has a lot of problems in his life."

[Highlifeman21]

While McNamee was correct about Andy Pettitte, it doesn't also mean he was correct about Roger Clemens.

That being said, the only logical next step for Clemens to continue to assert his innocence is by suing someone over this. Who, I don't exactly know. But he's gotta sue someone.

It wouldn't surprise me if McNamee was correct about Clemens as well.

[gonelong]

Originally Posted by westofyou

http://www.nypost.com/seven/12162007...dle_984675.htm

Are these guys talking about the same guy? Ha ha.

GL


http://www.daytondailynews.com/s/con...7steroids.html
Big boys make big boy decisions

By C.J. Nitkowski
Former MLB pitcher, written for The Associated Press

Sunday, December 16, 2007
Following the release of the Mitchell Report, the name of Brian McNamee was thrust upon the baseball world. Already known in some of baseball's smaller circles, Mac now has become synonymous with Roger Clemens, Andy Pettitte and steroids.
Let me share who this trainer really is.


I've known Mac for over 10 years, and I have been a client of his since 2001. It pains me to see what he was forced to do, and you can be assured it has been awful for him.
Mac is one of the best in his field and he takes his job seriously. He is well-educated in exercise science with multiple degrees and is even more dedicated to his clients. This is testimony he never wanted to give. Only when it appeared that jail time was imminent and when he was under immense pressure did he give federal investigators and Senator Mitchell the information they were looking for.
A reckless conclusion would be that Mac is a "rat." For those who believe such a thing, I'd recommend less television. This is real life, not "The Sopranos," and with a family, Mac was left with no other alternative. There are a lot of people I love in my life, but none more than my family. There isn't a friend or teammate that I would desert my family for and go to jail.
An inaccurate assumption that has bothered me is that Mac pushes and supplies steroids. In my seven years of training with him, Mac never suggested or even hinted that I might want to consider taking steroids or HGH, even when I suggested it. He believed strongly in his program and so do I.
During my first year of training with Mac, I was seriously considering getting on the juice. I was coming off a bad year and I was looking for ways to make improvements. Getting on Mac's strength and conditioning program was part of the equation. I thought maybe the steroid Winstrol would be another. I consulted Mac about it.
He answered all my questions and clarified things I had heard in the clubhouse from other guys that I knew were taking it. It was 2001, quite possibly the height of the steroid era.
At no time did he ever tell me it was a good idea. Because he cares about his clients, Mac wouldn't let them do something like steroids without knowing what they were getting into. What they were and how to take them is information someone with his level of expertise would have.
His preference would be that guys just take the over-the-counter supplements we use and stay on his program. But Mac is not dumb. He knows that once an athlete has decided to take a performance-enhancing drug, there is no changing his mind. His concern was that if a client chose to take them, he would take them the right way, reducing the risks that are associated with steroid abuse and misuse.
In the end, I decided against it. Not because of Major League Baseball and not because of health risks. I chose not to use steroids because I was concerned with the legal trouble I could get into possessing or buying them.
Had I taken them, most certainly my name would have been in the Mitchell Report and I would have had to have an uncomfortable conversation with my two children. Lucky for me, I didn't have a trainer who encouraged me to take them. That is not who Brian McNamee is, even when I, as his client, suggested it might be a good idea.
Is he a saint and innocent in all of this? No. But it would be wrong to assume that the man that trained two of the best pitchers of my generation is a liar or a steroid pusher.
Big boys make big boy decisions, and if we get caught we must stand up and face the consequences. As disappointing as it is to hear, I don't doubt what he was forced to say is true.
I don't have proof and I can't corroborate his testimony. Mac had no motivation to lie. What matters to me is that my trainer is not misunderstood for who he really is. He is dedicated to his profession and to his clients, and having to do this was the last thing he ever wanted to do.

[RedFanAlways1966]

Originally Posted by Highlifeman21

That being said, the only logical next step for Clemens to continue to assert his innocence is by suing someone over this. Who, I don't exactly know. But he's gotta sue someone.

Or... take a lie detector test administered by a 3rd party. The tests might not be 100% accurate, but I am sure most experts will tell you that they are pretty darn good. Do this and pass... I will start believing. As a matter of fact, have 3 or 4 companies that do these tests give it to ya. Makes it more believable when multiple companies show that you are innocent. Once you pass, then sue away and I hope you win the case.

Sounds simple to me. These players have the time and I'd guess that MLB will pay (they can afford it) for the test in order to clear the names of those that are innocent. Sounds simple to me. However, I won't hold my breath waiting for those who claim innocence to do it. Why not? I have an idea.

[traderumor]

Originally Posted by jojo

Are my conclusions really "indicitave of someone reading a document with less than an open mind" or is it that they just disagree with yours? I'd suggest that I'm not the one suffering from a less than open mind.

Once again, read the whole document, give yourself whatever time you feel you need to reach whatever you feel to be an analytical conclusion and then answer this: do we understand this issue anymore today than we did last Tuesday night?

Anyway, I'd suggest you read the damn thing before arguing it's merits.

I have not argued for its merits because the thing just came out and there is a lot of information to consider. I have questioned your dismissiveness toward something that was just issued a few days ago. It's the kind of shallow commentary that rightly causes pundits to make fun of folks posting on boards just like this.

[jojo]

Originally Posted by traderumor

I have not argued for its merits because the thing just came out and there is a lot of information to consider. I have questioned your dismissiveness toward something that was just issued a few days ago. It's the kind of shallow commentary that rightly causes pundits to make fun of folks posting on boards just like this.

Once again, you haven't even read the entire document yet you're critiquing my opinion of it. I think THATS the kind of shallow commentary that rightly causes pundits to make fun of folks posting on boards just like this.

[traderumor]

Originally Posted by jojo

Once again, you haven't even read the entire document yet you're critiquing my opinion of it. I think THATS the kind of shallow commentary that rightly causes pundits to make fun of folks posting on boards just like this.

Again, you err, I haven't read the entire document word for word, but have scanned the document and read the first 40 pages that summarizes the report to date. Regardless, the two or three sentence opinion you wrote doesn't require someone to have read the document to see the dismissiveness in your response. Regardless, I'm done with the "I know you are but what am I" game you seem to want to play.

[jojo]

Originally Posted by traderumor

Again, you err, I haven't read the entire document word for word, but have scanned the document and read the first 40 pages that summarizes the report to date. Regardless, the two or three sentence opinion you wrote doesn't require someone to have read the document to see the dismissiveness in your response.

You've read a chapter and now feel qualified to write a book report yet I've read the entire document but I'm unqualified to have an objective opinion because there simply hasn't been enough time for me to thoughtfully formulate one?

It's this simple. The Mitchell report not only doesn't reveal anything new to a person who has closely followed this issue over the last several years but but perhaps more damning, it doesn't even raise the investigative bar. For a report that is supposed to be the authoritative word on the subject, it's pretty disappointing. You can try to spin that as "steroid user apologist opinion" if you want but frankly, I don't get your crusade to do so.

Originally Posted by traderumor

Regardless, I'm done with the "I know you are but what am I" game you seem to want to play.

Good. You'll have more time to actually read the entire document.

[traderumor]

Just FYI, Jojo, the first part of the report summarizes and provides a conclusion of the entire report. Someone who has read it as in depth as you have should know that.

[Sea Ray]

Originally Posted by Dom Heffner

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?

You might be right; working on that assumption I'd prefer a player just keep silent on the issue like Mark McGwire has done. Clemens' denials are calling into question the integrity of others such as Sen Mitchell and this trainer who spilled the beans. Again, it's reminiscent of Pete Rose calling guys like Dowd and Jansen liars.

McGwire hasn't called anyone a liar. He kept his mistake at one while Pete and Clemens are duplicating theirs.