Merged: Clemens' Silence / Clemens' Denial

[Sea Ray]

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?

This is a poor example. Pete is still paying the price for lying about this for over a decade. This caused a lot of hassle for many people. Pete also should not have admitted it in a way in which he stood to profit (a book). If he had admitted it in that August 1989 press conference with Bart Giamatti. he'd have been reinstated a year later.

[jojo]

Originally Posted by 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.

Come on, you're better than beating this point into the ground....

Lets just do this. We agree to have different opinions about the report and recognize that it's possible to arrive at that point with an objective mind.

Fair enough?

[Ga_Red]

http://www.ajc.com/sports/content/sh...s_Clemens.html

[SunDeck]

Color me shocked.

[NJReds]

It's really no different than Lance Armstrong. Armstrong has been accused by more than one person of using enhancers or doping, however he's always denied it, he's never tested positive and there's no "paper trail" of him buying the stuff. But he gets the benefit of the doubt and Clemens doesn't.

[traderumor]

Originally Posted by NJReds

It's really no different than Lance Armstrong. Armstrong has been accused by more than one person of using enhancers or doping, however he's always denied it, he's never tested positive and there's no "paper trail" of him buying the stuff. But he gets the benefit of the doubt and Clemens doesn't.

Why should Clemens benefit from doubt? He has been suspected for quite some time off the record, another McNamee client already gave a suspect excuse and admitted using HGH (Pettite), and then there is the Brian Roberts "admission." And that is on top of the Congressional hearing debacle with Palmeiro and McGwire. Why should anyone be given the benefit of the doubt on this subject at this point? Plus, I believe Clemens had the opportunity to answer to Mitchell's findings, and like all the other Fehr sheep, declined. He had his chance to deny and was silent, as were all the others who are now "coming clean." It's just a nasty mess and Clemens, Bonds, et al continuing to play games with the truth is not helpful.

[westofyou]

http://www.baseballprospectus.com/ar...articleid=6995

Toronto Sun baseball columnist Bob Elliott, who covered Clemens with the Blue Jays, says he will vote yes. “He was a first-ballot Hall of Famer five years ago, he's the same today, and he'll be the same five years from now,” Elliott said.

USA Today’s Bob Nightengale and Tracy Ringolsby of the Rocky Mountain News also plan to put a checkmark in the box next to Clemens’ name when he first appears on the ballot. “There have been widespread rumors for years on Clemens, and the Mitchell Report does not change my view that he is a Hall of Famer,” Nightengale said. Ringolsby noted, “"I think what this report shows is that baseball, like other sports, went through a period of time that will be forever blemished, but it also shows this was an industry-wide situation, not isolated cases. During his career Clemens was as dominate, if not the most dominate, of any pitcher in the game. Hopefully lessons will be learned from what happened, in that, we have a tendency in all phases of life, to try and find an edge on our competition and often that edge is used without a full understanding of the long-term implications.”

The St. Petersburg Times’ Marc Topkin is also inclined to vote for Clemens, though he will do so in pencil for now. “Based on what I know now, Roger Clemens would have my vote for the Hall of Fame,” Topkin said. “But I reserve the right to change my mind."

Two Hall voters who are definitely opposed to Clemens’ enshrinement are the Dayton Daily News’ Hal McCoy and Newark Star-Ledger’s Dan Graziano, who covered Clemens with the Yankees. “I won't vote for cheaters,” McCoy said. “I said that about Mark McGwire and Sammy Sosa and Barry Bonds. So I have to say it about Roger Clemens, too. He cheated and he wasn't participating on a level playing field with guys who chose to play the game the right way.”

Said Graziano, “My personal feeling on this is that the Hall of Fame is a reward, and I don't intend to reward people who cheated in an effort to get there. I did not vote for Mark McGwire last year and have no plans to vote for him in the future. Similarly, I have no plans to vote for Barry Bonds. As to the argument that he was a Hall of Famer before he took the stuff, I submit that (a) we don't know that for sure and (b) I don't care. If Clemens or Bonds wasn't satisfied with simply being great, and decided he needed to cheat in order to become immortal, my feeling is that I should not reward him for that.”

As a matter of full disclosure, I have been a BBWAA member for 20 years and will be filling out my 11th Hall ballot before the end of the month. Despite many conflicted feelings, I would vote yes on Clemens if forced to make a decision today. I have reached the point where I am no longer certain that any player has been drug free in the past 15 years. Being that I have not been blessed with psychic powers, I have no way of knowing who has played by the rules and who has cheated.

Therefore, I can only go by the numbers, and Clemens has 354 wins, 4,672 strikeouts, and a most impressive 3.12 ERA during a career in which the league average has been 4.38. To me, those numbers clearly say Hall of Fame.

[NJReds]

Originally Posted by traderumor

Why should Clemens benefit from doubt?

Besides the statement from the dealer, what evidence is there except for rumor and speculation?

I admit, I've been wrong on these things before. I gave Pete Rose the benefit of the doubt despite the fact that there was much more evidence against him in the Dowd Report than there was against Clemens in the Mitchell Report.

[Sea Ray]

Originally Posted by NJReds

Besides the statement from the dealer, what evidence is there except for rumor and speculation?

I admit, I've been wrong on these things before. I gave Pete Rose the benefit of the doubt despite the fact that there was much more evidence against him in the Dowd Report than there was against Clemens in the Mitchell Report.

First of all there's never going to be much evidence. These guys know what they're doing is wrong so they cover their tracks. But here is one piece:

How about the evidence that his game got better when he hit his late 30s and early 40s? He was an OK pitcher in the late 90s, not great. Then he all of a sudden becomes dominant again and profits from it with huge contracts from the Yankees and Astros.

Never before in the history of sports have guys had their peak years in their early 40s. Bonds and Clemens have changed all that.

What further evidence are you waiting for? Do you want the trainer's girlfriend or someone to say he injected Roger?

[bucksfan2]

There is no overwhelming evidence that links Clemens to steroids. The evidence is that of a "he said she said" manner. If that were true then I would deny and deny everything. Unless you have another congressional hearing or grand jury testimony leak you will never really know the truth as to what Clemens did or did not do.

[Sea Ray]

Originally Posted by bucksfan2

There is no overwhelming evidence that links Clemens to steroids. The evidence is that of a "he said she said" manner. If that were true then I would deny and deny everything. Unless you have another congressional hearing or grand jury testimony leak you will never really know the truth as to what Clemens did or did not do.

Funny you should bring that up. I hear that there will be a Congressional hearing Jan 15th, next month. It'll be interesting to see what Clemens says under oath.

As to what you would have done...let me tell you how I would have handled it. If I did absolutely nothing like Roger says now, I would have fully cooperated with the Mitchell investigation and vehemently challenged this trainer's allegations. Secondly I would have vocally denied it again by 3pm last Thurs. And I would have done all that myself; not through my lawyer. Lastly I would sue this trainer and the Mitchell Report itself for slander.

This trainer gave a detailed accounting of how he gave Clemens his steroids, complete with dates, times and the exact steroids used. This constituted 8 pages of the report.

As of right now the facts point to Clemens' guilt.

[Blitz Dorsey]

Clemens is as obvious as Bonds. Don't kid yourself.

[Chip R]

Originally Posted by Sea Ray

Funny you should bring that up. I hear that there will be a Congressional hearing Jan 15th, next month. It'll be interesting to see what Clemens says under oath.

I'd be more interested what he had to say in a court of law. Where he would actually be prosecuted if he perjured himself.

[jojo]

Originally Posted by Sea Ray

As to what you would have done...let me tell you how I would have handled it. If I did absolutely nothing like Roger says now, I would have fully cooperated with the Mitchell investigation and vehemently challenged this trainer's allegations. Secondly I would have vocally denied it again by 3pm last Thurs. And I would have done all that myself; not through my lawyer. Lastly I would sue this trainer and the Mitchell Report itself for slander.

Yes, the proverbial "I" has an easy life.

[Sea Ray]

Originally Posted by Chip R

I'd be more interested what he had to say in a court of law. Where he would actually be prosecuted if he perjured himself.

You can bet he'll be under oath while speaking on Capitol Hill, although so was Palmiero...