Fascinating

[Jenksismyhero]

Anyone else find it odd that the congressman who kept calling McNamee a drug dealer was the one guy that Clemens was seeking out and found as he was walking out of the hearing room?

 

Also,the members of congress are piss poor at asking questions and forcing an actual answer.

 

"Mr. Clemens, I just find it hard to believe you. There's ample corroborating testimonial evidence against you. Two other witnesses agree with what McNamee is asserting.Why should I believe you?"

 

"Well sir, I've worked hard in my life. My body is a temple. I've told some kids at talks that they shouldnt do drugs. My body is a temple."

 

And why does everyone think that McNamee lying 5 years ago has any bearing on this? I mean, if you're going to say he lied before so he's lying now, he had a motive to lie back then. Now he doesn't. He was caught and forced to tell the truth. Before he was protecting his clients and career. For committee member on his side why didn't anyone ask him about that?

 

I only watched the last hour or so, but I came away with a more solid feeling that Clemens is lying. His defenses are weak and the fact that Pettite and his wife made sworn statements really hurts him. Oh and also the fact that he's got a dirt-bag lawyer and is playing the total sleaze ball party in visiting each congress member before the hearing (and not just to go over procedure/routine).

 

Also, if I were McNamee I would have said two words at the end: "Whitaker Chambers."

[Pants Rowland]

Am I the only person that thinks this is ridiculous? Why are my tax dollars being spent on this instead of fixing the economy, fighting a war, ending hunger, getting someone a job or education!

 

I agree but they wouldn't do those other things anyway. In case anyone hasn't noticed, a good chunk of those guys in Washington aren't really good at their jobs. They like to create diversions that make it look like they are taking care of business. Typically it is things really far away like Iraq, terrorism, communism etc. that we can not fully see or comprehend so we trust that they are telling us the trust. This whole steroids thing is a little different since it is so close to home, but it is still a b.s. diversion, nonetheless.

[TheBigHurt]

No, but we like to watch things that we can't do. We didn't inject any player, never said we did. Fans didn't force anyone to do anything. But to say that more fans showing up to watch players like McGwire, Sosa, Bonds, Brady Anderson hit 50 hrs, Palmeiro, etc. it's irresponsible to think that fans didn't have a small part of it. If we stopped going to games, that sends a clear message.

 

Shoot, I'm responsible too, I didn't stop going to games.

 

Well, sure. But that doesn't make us responsible. Call me irresponsible, then. So since MORE people go to games, we are hyping this sort of thing? That's absurd. You're being very dramatic in saying, "If we stopped going to games." When do people altogether stop going to games, and especially when their teams have stars like Clemens? I think you're being overly dramatic. And if I was a ballplayer and there was even a slight lack of people going to games, I'm going to start doing harmful drugs to make things more exciting, and partial blame is on the fans for that? That's asinine.

Edited February 13, 2008 by TheBigHurt

[Controlled Chaos]

Anyone else find it odd that the congressman who kept calling McNamee a drug dealer was the one guy that Clemens was seeking out and found as he was walking out of the hearing room?

 

Also,the members of congress are piss poor at asking questions and forcing an actual answer.

 

"Mr. Clemens, I just find it hard to believe you. There's ample corroborating testimonial evidence against you. Two other witnesses agree with what McNamee is asserting.Why should I believe you?"

 

"Well sir, I've worked hard in my life. My body is a temple. I've told some kids at talks that they shouldnt do drugs. My body is a temple."

 

And why does everyone think that McNamee lying 5 years ago has any bearing on this? I mean, if you're going to say he lied before so he's lying now, he had a motive to lie back then. Now he doesn't. He was caught and forced to tell the truth. Before he was protecting his clients and career. For committee member on his side why didn't anyone ask him about that?

 

I only watched the last hour or so, but I came away with a more solid feeling that Clemens is lying. His defenses are weak and the fact that Pettite and his wife made sworn statements really hurts him. Oh and also the fact that he's got a dirt-bag lawyer and is playing the total sleaze ball party in visiting each congress member before the hearing (and not just to go over procedure/routine).

 

Also, if I were McNamee I would have said two words at the end: "Whitaker Chambers."

Yeah and you probably missed the lady that gave Roger a platform just to talk a little bit about how much hard work he puts in to stay in such great shape. Then she pulls up a big ass poster board with pictures of Clemens from different years of his career and says something like...I'm not an expert, but you look the same size in all these. She also grilled McNamee if he had a book deal in place. He said no. Then it was..well will you get a book deal from this. He said no. Then it was well are you going to profit from this by selling your story and he said no. Then in a sarcastic tone she was like...yeah, well we'll see about that. I mean she was almost like a lawyer for Clemens railing McNamee. It was nuts.

 

 

As I was just searching for Mrs. Foxx's exact text I came across this picture withe the caption underneath

Former New York Yankees pitcher Roger Clemens walks to the office of Rep. Virginia Foxx, R-N.C. on Capitol Hill in Washington, Tuesday, Feb. 12, 2008. (AP Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta)

Edited February 13, 2008 by Controlled Chaos

[lvjeremylv]

Yeah and you probably missed the lady that gave Roger a platform just to talk a little bit about how much hard work he puts in to stay in such great shape. Then she pulls up a big ass poster board with pictures of Clemens from different years of his career and says something like...I'm not an expert, but you look the same size in all these.

Yeah that lady acted like a 13 year old fan. She seemed star struck. And if you compare Roger's body when he was with the Red Sox to what it is now, there is a difference. Anyone with vision greater than 20/400 can see that.

Edited February 13, 2008 by lvjeremylv

[StrangeSox]

Yeah that lady acted like a 13 year old fan. She seemed star struck. And if you compare Roger's body when he was with the Red Sox to what it is now, there is a difference. Anyone with vision greater than 20/400 can see that.

 

And its irrelevant anyway, because you don't use steriods/ HGH only to get bigger.

[lvjeremylv]

And its irrelevant anyway, because you don't use steriods/ HGH only to get bigger.

No, you don't use them only for that purpose - but that's an end result of it. So a change in body shape, structure, or build is certainly not irrelevant.

[santo=dorf]

Several flukes in the same bullpen? Interesting coincidence.

 

There are lots of reasons why an athlete might stop taking performance enhancing drugs. Fear of getting caught; guilt from cheating; no longer needing them since they achieved their objective (whatever that may be); wanting to stop before putting their body in greater danger. Those are 4 possible answers.

 

I don't want to make it sound like I for sure believe that the 2005 Sox were up to no good. I really hope that the stars aligned that year and everything worked out in our favor. It was the greatest moment of my sports life, and if it came to light that there were HGH or steroids involved, it would greatly disappoint me and tarnish that entire year of my life. But to dismiss the possibility categorically is not prudent.

Well right now you're turning it into a witch hunt with no evidence other than "hey, these guys all had a great year when we won the World Series."

 

Provide some factual evidence, not speculation or weark analysis, before trying to slander some of our players from our great team in 2005.

[lvjeremylv]

Maybe the feds want to get in touch with Roger's nanny so they can check for a green card and then deport her. Start working on the immigration problem while dealing with steroids in MLB. Kill 2 birds with 1 stone.

[santo=dorf]

On a side note, Rep. Waxman is one weird lookin' dude.

When I look at him I can't help but think of "An American Tail."

 

 

There are no cats in America

[lvjeremylv]

Well right now you're turning it into a witch hunt with no evidence other than "hey, these guys all had a great year when we won the World Series."

 

Provide some factual evidence, not speculation or weark analysis, before trying to slander some of our players from our great team in 2005.

I don't have any factual evidence (how on Earth could I?), other than the stats that I provided. Those stats, by the way, are not "weak analysis". They are legitimate facts that I took a few minutes to compile. And I didn't say "These guys all had a great year when we won the World Series". I said "These guys all had a great year when we won the World Series after being very mediocre for years before (and years after) that. Big difference.

 

Please don't confuse raising a legitimate question with a witch hunt.

[santo=dorf]

I don't have any factual evidence (how on Earth could I?), other than the stats that I provided. Those stats, by the way, are not "weak analysis". They are legitimate facts that I took a few minutes to compile. And I didn't say "These guys all had a great year when we won the World Series". I said "These guys all had a great year when we won the World Series after being very mediocre for years before (and years after) that. Big difference.

 

Please don't confuse raising a legitimate question with a witch hunt.

You basic analysis is " this guy had a good year, so he must be on something." Why not claim "this guy had a good year, so he must be working on a new program or with a new coach?"

 

Again, if they used roids or PED in 2005 to win, why didn't they stay on them in 2006 when they sucked? Or why did they suck if they stayed on them?

[Metz]

I came home to the live media talk with Clemens attorneys .. I was so drawned into them talking, they knew how to answer everything(as they should) but it definitely made Clemens look so good .. ha

[witesoxfan]

I don't have any factual evidence (how on Earth could I?), other than the stats that I provided. Those stats, by the way, are not "weak analysis". They are legitimate facts that I took a few minutes to compile. And I didn't say "These guys all had a great year when we won the World Series". I said "These guys all had a great year when we won the World Series after being very mediocre for years before (and years after) that. Big difference.

 

Please don't confuse raising a legitimate question with a witch hunt.

 

Neal Cotts in 2005 = 1.94 ERA Career (excluding 2005) = 5.60 ERA

Cliff Politte in 2005 = 2.00 ERA Career (excluding 2005) = 4.87 ERA

Dustin Hermanson in 2005 = 2.04 ERA Career (excluding 2005) = 4.31 ERA

Jose Contreras in 2005 = 3.61 ERA Career (excluding 2005) = 4.89 ERA

Jon Garland in 2005 = 3.50 ERA Career (excluding 2005) = 4.58 ERA

 

Neal Cotts seems like a one-trick pony of sorts; he succeeded by having a fastball that came in at 92 but looked like it was coming in at 97, confusing the hell out of hitters. Since that point in time, they have figured him out and he's toast. Cliff Politte had a very good 3 year stretch from 2000-2002, and he was a pretty solid, though unspectacular, reliever in 2004. Hermanson always had a great combination of stuff, and he had 4 fantastic months in 2005, keeping his ERA down to 2.04. Jose Contreras always had and still does have very good stuff; with his family in the United States and a friend in El Duque at his side, he calmed down and was arguably the best pitcher in baseball from July of 2005 until he was injured in May of 2006; he hasn't been the same pitcher since that point in time. And Jon Garland was a 25 year old pitcher who matured, stayed healthy all year, and pitched 6 good months of baseball; normally he has 4 good months, so I really don't see what's wrong with his year.

 

There are definitely outliers, for sure, but the offense itself sucked; there were only 3 above average offensive players in the starting lineup.

 

I don't know how you can really even consider PEDs on the team, it just really doesn't make sense to me. There are perfectly logical explanations for everyone's (meaning like 4, 5 players?) "career" year.

 

So why not 2006? Jermaine Dye hit 44 homers, and he's never gotten anywhere close to that in his entire career, Joe Crede had by far the best year of his career, Konerko had a very good year as well, and where did this Matt Thornton guy coming from, putting up a 3.33 ERA?

 

 

[lvjeremylv]

You basic analysis is " this guy had a good year, so he must be on something." Why not claim "this guy had a good year, so he must be working on a new program or with a new coach?"

 

Again, if they used roids or PED in 2005 to win, why didn't they stay on them in 2006 when they sucked? Or why did they suck if they stayed on them?

Why is the same question being asked again? There are a number of reasons why a player would decide to stop cheating. I don't feel a need to cover the few that I mentioned again.

 

And sure, it's possible that working with Don Cooper made that much of a difference in those players' performances. I've never said it wasn't. I simply raised the possibility of impropriety.

[lvjeremylv]

So why not 2006? Jermaine Dye hit 44 homers, and he's never gotten anywhere close to that in his entire career, Joe Crede had by far the best year of his career, Konerko had a very good year as well, and where did this Matt Thornton guy coming from, putting up a 3.33 ERA?

Good point on Dye. I've already thought something was up with the great year he had in 2006. Again, I hope not though. I would like to believe that all of the Sox players' achievements have been based on merit and hard work and not thanks to a vile. But to have your best offensive year at the age of 32 seems suspicious. His best year before 2006 was in 2000 when he batted .321 with 33 bombs and 118 RBI in 601 at-bats for the Royals. In 2006 he hit .315, 44 bombs, and 120 RBI in 539 at-bats.

 

In the case of Crede, almost all hitters have their best years from the ages of 26-28. In 2006, he was 28. Paulie's 2006 wasn't much better than his 2004 and 2005. And Thornton was always gifted with a good arm. Like someone mentioned in a different post (which I agreed with), perhaps working with Don Cooper was what he needed to get it figured out.

[RockRaines]

How about you all speculate on Sox players taking illegal drugs in your heads instead of on this board?

[lvjeremylv]

How about you all speculate on Sox players taking illegal drugs in your heads instead of on this board?

How about if you don't like a topic, don't read about it or further contribute to it? The people dictate what's discussed on this board, not you.

[Soxbadger]

Eh Congress does millions of things at the same time. This notion that they stop everything just because they're working on the steroid investigation is false. It was up to baseball to fix this problem, and they turned a blind eye to it for the better part of 2 decades. I'm glad someone is stepping in and trying to do something about it. It's unfortunate that the government has to intervene, but had they not, the problem would still be rampant.

 

Talk about hyperbole.

 

Did I say that congress was stopping everything?

 

I said "Doesn't congress have better things to worry about?"

 

I dont care whether or not adults are taking drugs.

 

Have these baseball players hurt anyone?

 

Is there some pressing need that if congress does not step in that America is going to suffer because of?

 

Can you estimate how much tax payer money is being wasted on these hearings, on depositions, etc.

 

It was up to baseball to fix this problem, and they turned a blind eye to it for the better part of 2 decades.

 

The irony is they are still turning a blind eye to most of it. Greenies are unmentioned, there is no way to go after the new designer drugs.

 

This is nothing more than a dog and pony show. They go after a bunch of aging veterans to make it seem like they are doing something and then everyone is happy.

 

It doesnt strike you as odd the only players named are in the twilight of their career, yet the players who were being caught since 2005 does not reflect its only old players using steroids.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Major...ed_for_steroids

 

Odd isnt it?

 

[RME JICO]

Good point on Dye. I've already thought something was up with the great year he had in 2006. Again, I hope not though. I would like to believe that all of the Sox players' achievements have been based on merit and hard work and not thanks to a vile. But to have your best offensive year at the age of 32 seems suspicious. His best year before 2006 was in 2000 when he batted .321 with 33 bombs and 118 RBI in 601 at-bats for the Royals. In 2006 he hit .315, 44 bombs, and 120 RBI in 539 at-bats.

 

In the case of Crede, almost all hitters have their best years from the ages of 26-28. In 2006, he was 28. Paulie's 2006 wasn't much better than his 2004 and 2005. And Thornton was always gifted with a good arm. Like someone mentioned in a different post (which I agreed with), perhaps working with Don Cooper was what he needed to get it figured out.

Brady Anderson hit 50 HRs in 1996 and no one ever questioned whether he was taking anything.

[lvjeremylv]

Brady Anderson hit 50 HRs in 1996 and no one ever questioned whether he was taking anything.

Well in 1996 it wasn't known by the public what was going on. It's clear now that Brady Anderson did not hit a legitimate 50 homers.

[witesoxfan]

Good point on Dye. I've already thought something was up with the great year he had in 2006. Again, I hope not though. I would like to believe that all of the Sox players' achievements have been based on merit and hard work and not thanks to a vile. But to have your best offensive year at the age of 32 seems suspicious. His best year before 2006 was in 2000 when he batted .321 with 33 bombs and 118 RBI in 601 at-bats for the Royals. In 2006 he hit .315, 44 bombs, and 120 RBI in 539 at-bats.

 

In the case of Crede, almost all hitters have their best years from the ages of 26-28. In 2006, he was 28. Paulie's 2006 wasn't much better than his 2004 and 2005. And Thornton was always gifted with a good arm. Like someone mentioned in a different post (which I agreed with), perhaps working with Don Cooper was what he needed to get it figured out.

 

I don't find it weird at all, honestly. Step back away from the statistics for a second and realize that there are more circumstances to them than just the numbers themselves.

 

Jermaine Dye went to Kansas City, which was pretty neutral through his tenure there; he then went to Oakland, which is a cavernous ballpark. He then comes to USCF, which has a short fence in LF, and Dye's pretty much a dead pull hitter. Hence, once he gets comfortable and the plate and starts seeing the ball in May of 2005, he starts crushing it. From May 4th until the end of the season, Dye hit for a .900 OPS. Then the next season, Dye's still confident and comfortable, and this year he has the protection of Thome and Konerko hitting in front of him. Hence, the explosion. He struggled in September, got lost at the plate, and started the year off terrible last year, putting up a .214/.271/.402/.673 in the first half. Once he got healthy and a new contract, he put up a .298/.368/.579/.947 line in the second half.

 

There should be no reason at all to speculate; it's really not that hard to do the math with some of these guys and understand how they can struggle or succeed. And why should you speculate? There's no real rhyme or reason to it.

[lvjeremylv]

I dont care whether or not adults are taking drugs.

You don't? I do, and so do tens of millions of other people who are drug free.

 

Have these baseball players hurt anyone?

These players are role models who children look up to, and steroid use among the youth of America is a real problem. It's not solely because of what's going on in MLB, but it certainly isn't helping.

 

Is there some pressing need that if congress does not step in that America is going to suffer because of?

See my above statement.

 

The irony is they are still turning a blind eye to most of it. Greenies are unmentioned, there is no way to go after the new designer drugs.

What can you do about things that can't be tested for? Nothing. But there are tests for types of steroids and there are tests that can be done for HGH. Some testing is better than no testing. Of course you can't foil every type of designer drug. That's a given.

 

This is nothing more than a dog and pony show. They go after a bunch of aging veterans to make it seem like they are doing something and then everyone is happy.

Tejada isn't an aging veteran, and he'll be going down for perjury. The feds don't take kindly to that. And the people that they've "gone after", such as Palmeiro, Sosa, McGwire, Clemens, etc...were some of the best players of our generation. So they aren't just going after the old players - they're going after people that otherwise would have been remembered as some of the all-time greats. And now they'll be remembered for what they really were - cheating, lying, drug abusing scumbags.

[Dick Allen]

When Caminiti and Canseco first came "clean", didn't they estimate about 75% of players were using PEDs? I don't think you can just look at someone who has a huge year after and before several bad ones. There are probably several fringe players that would be nowhere near the major leagues if they didn't juice. I really believe usage was over 50%. I also think there are guys you would bet anything that they juiced but didn't as well as guys whose juicing would totally shock you.

Edited February 14, 2008 by Dick Allen

[Marky Mark]

Lots of people in baseball used and still use PED on every team, we just have to accept it while MLB "tries" to contain it, because the use is far too widespread to even hope it can be contained. Ask a scout, I know everyone here knows one.