Roger Clemens and PEDs

[Kyyle23]

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3880712

 

Tests have linked Roger Clemens' DNA to blood in syringes that his former personal trainer says he used to inject the pitcher with performance-enhancing drugs, according to a report.

 

Citing two unidentified sources familiar with the investigation, The Washington Post reported Tuesday that the DNA results are preliminary and subject to verification tests. The newspaper said Clemens voluntarily gave a DNA sample to federal authorities, according to the sources, and it still remains to be determined whether the syringes ever contained steroids or human growth hormone.

 

 

[clyons]

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3880712

 

I can hear ol' Rusty now: "The DNA laboratory was an absolute cesspool of contamination." Might as well, its worked for a famous athlete before.

[Kyyle23]

I can hear ol' Rusty now: "The DNA laboratory was an absolute cesspool of contamination." Might as well, its worked for a famous athlete before.

 

No, his quote was even better:

 

Clemens' lawyer, Rusty Hardin, told the Post that the DNA testing "won't matter at all."

 

"It will still be evidence fabricated by McNamee," Hardin was quoted as saying. "I would be dumbfounded if any responsible person ever found this to be reliable or credible evidence in any way."

 

Gotta love it, DNA tests dont matter now

[HuskyCaucasian]

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3880712

I'm shocked!! I completely trusted Roger. He is an upstanding gentleman and I trust his every word.

[Balta1701]

No, his quote was even better:

Gotta love it, DNA tests dont matter now

Well, at some level it's sort of a fair point. Especially in a criminal case, it might be darn hard to actually establish that the evidence here wasn't contaminated. McNamee, an admitted criminal with motivation to shift blame to other people, had them in his possession, presumably for years.

 

In a civil case, I think it's probably the nail in the coffin of Clemens's defamation suit. And in the public eye as well. I have difficulty though seeing how this could be useful in any criminal prosecution.

[NorthSideSox72]

No Hall for you!!!

 

[clyons]

Well, at some level it's sort of a fair point. Especially in a criminal case, it might be darn hard to actually establish that the evidence here wasn't contaminated. McNamee, an admitted criminal with motivation to shift blame to other people, had them in his possession, presumably for years.

 

In a civil case, I think it's probably the nail in the coffin of Clemens's defamation suit. And in the public eye as well. I have difficulty though seeing how this could be useful in any criminal prosecution.

 

I don't think there's ever going to be a criminal case here. As a practical matter, this evidence is no different than the DNA on Monica's blue dress.

[NorthSideSox72]

I don't think there's ever going to be a criminal case here. As a practical matter, this evidence is no different than the DNA on Monica's blue dress.

And we have a new, third great personal analogy for the past week. Barry Bonds is Rosa Parks, Rod Blagojevich is Ghandi, and Roger Clemens is Bill Clinton.

 

 

[Soxbadger]

The defamation suit was nothing to start.

 

In order for Clemens to win, he would have had to prove malice, that Mcamee actually knew the statements that he was making were false.

 

If Mcamee even can say "Well I thought it was steroids" he basically has won.

 

The defamation suit was a stunt to begin with, some people ask the question "Well if Roger is telling the truth why doesnt he sue for defamation" or reach the conclusion "If he isnt suing for defamation it must be true."

 

When you have a Roger Clemens, who can pay any legal fee in the world, some times you you file a lawsuit that is loser, just for the public perception.

 

The real question is, will the Fed go after Clemens for perjury. Im pretty sure that under oath he denied using steroids at the House hearings.

 

http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2008/02/r...to_strongl.html

 

"Let me be clear," Clemens said. "I have never taken steroids or HGH.

 

Its such a great unintended pun too.

 

Let me be CLEAR.

 

Hahaa

[Gregory Pratt]

why do you laugh at Clemens but not Bonds?

[Soxbadger]

I laugh because of how the 2 situations are being handled.

 

Bonds is a criminal.

 

Clemens is non-issue.

 

Both have done basically the same thing (well Clemens is worse, Clemens could have taken the 5th or even not testified. He chose to testify and chose to flat out lie), and the way that the govt treats them just shows how much of a joke our criminal system is.

 

If youre "good guy" Clemens, we will just let your lies slide because we know everyone commits a little perjury.

 

If youre "bad guy" Bonds, we will prosecute you to the fullest extent of the law because perjury is the worst possible crime and completely undermines the entire judicial system, so to let even 1 instance of perjury slide would be the end of the US justice system.

 

(Previous statements obvious hyperbole.)

 

I think the fact Bonds was forced against his will to testify versus Clemens going out of his way to testify, makes me personally much less upset about what Bonds did. The system of the Grand Jury is why I think that Bonds perjury is completely bunk, Clemens was not in a Grand Jury.

 

I do think that the entire PED, steroids, is a joke and that neither of them should have to face consequences with baseball for something that baseball encouraged or at minimum turned a blind eye.

 

I just find it hilarious how different Clemens and Bonds are treated.

[NorthSideSox72]

Treated differently? They are both despised for it by many, and ridiculed for it. In fact, I think Bonds has been treated better than Clemens, with all the attention he got with the bogus HR titles.

 

There is more discussion about Bonds of course, because he broke some of baseball's sacred records. Its natural.

 

[Soxbadger]

Treated differently? They are both despised for it by many, and ridiculed for it. In fact, I think Bonds has been treated better than Clemens, with all the attention he got with the bogus HR titles.

 

Has Clemens been charged with perjury for lying under oath?

 

Because Bonds has, and to me thats being treated differently.

 

 

[NorthSideSox72]

Has Clemens been charged with perjury for lying under oath?

 

Because Bonds has, and to me thats being treated differently.

I thought you meant by the media and/or fans.

 

[Balta1701]

Has Clemens been charged with perjury for lying under oath?

 

Because Bonds has, and to me thats being treated differently.

Bonds's testimony also took place years before Clemens's.

[Soxbadger]

No, I really dont care about the media or fans, those are just people with opinions. Itd be like complaining that the media and fans liked Sosa more than Thomas. Ill argue about the hall, and what it should be about, but at the end of the day thats just peoples opinions. Its like employment at will in Illinois, I can fire you for any reason or no reason, provided its not an unconstitutional reason.

 

They can vote for HOF for any reason or no reason, its really their choice, thats why they are given the vote.

 

 

I care how the govt acts, because they are supposed to be acting in a fair and just manner. And I have to ask, is this justice when you have 2 similar fact patterns that are treated almost completely opposite.

[Balta1701]

I care how the govt acts, because they are supposed to be acting in a fair and just manner. And I have to ask, is this justice when you have 2 similar fact patterns that are treated almost completely opposite.

Roger Clemens's testimony happened 1 year ago. That was him testifying under oath before Congress. Did he testify under oath before that?

 

Bonds's Grand Jury Testimony happened in December of 2004. He was finally charged with a crime in November, 2007. That's a 3 year turnaround, nearly 5 years and we're still not at the trial.

 

It was federal authorities who performed the DNA tests on McNamee's needles. They would not be performing those tests if there was not an active federal investigation in to the matter.

 

As others have said repeatedly, perjury is a very difficult charge to make and prove. The government could be 95% sure a person had committed the crime, but if they couldn't prove it to 100%, then they would find bringing the case to be difficult. At this point, the same government that investigated Bonds for 3 years across 2 U.S. attorneys is currently investigating Clemens. Given all of the other complexities of a perjury charge, I think that is the greatest amount of fairness we could expect at this point.

 

Also, here's an analysis of how those syringes would play in a potential perjury case. Frankly, if his DNA is actually on them and they can establish somehow where in the syringe they took the sample, I think it's only a matter of time before they bring charges. It'll be a fairly long time, because that's how those cases work, but only a matter of time.

[Balta1701]

On another note...Bonds fails steroid test (from his 2003 sample retest).

[Soxbadger]

I guess well see if Im right or wrong, but my guess is that Clemens never faces trial.

 

/shrugs

[Balta1701]

I guess well see if Im right or wrong, but my guess is that Clemens never faces trial.

 

/shrugs

You could certainly be right, but it's not from a lack of effort on the government's part, it's from the fact that perjury is a difficult charge to make.

[Soxbadger]

I know how difficult perjury is to prove, Ive been making that argument for what seems to be years.

 

I just think that the govt is out for spite against Bonds and that really bothers me.

[NorthSideSox72]

I know how difficult perjury is to prove, Ive been making that argument for what seems to be years.

 

I just think that the govt is out for spite against Bonds and that really bothers me.

And I think you, and others, confuse spite with the reality of law enforcement. You cannot catch and prosecute all criminals, its not possible. So you target some mix of the ones who are easiest to catch and prosecute, and the ones that will have the biggest collateral impact. Bonds made it highly obvious what he was doing (easy to catch), and he's a high profile player in the extreme (biggest collateral impact). Its how that field works.

 

[ptatc]

Has Clemens been charged with perjury for lying under oath?

 

Because Bonds has, and to me thats being treated differently.

 

The big difference here is that Bonds' tesitmony was before a grand jury. Clemens was not.

 

As far as the people. I think you will have a difficult time finding anyone in baseball you will feel sorry for either of them.

 

Neither one is worth anything as far as human beings go.

 

[Soxbadger]

And I think you, and others, confuse spite with the reality of law enforcement. You cannot catch and prosecute all criminals, its not possible. So you target some mix of the ones who are easiest to catch and prosecute, and the ones that will have the biggest collateral impact. Bonds made it highly obvious what he was doing (easy to catch), and he's a high profile player in the extreme (biggest collateral impact). Its how that field works.

 

I understand how prosecutions work, I just believe in this case the govt is out for spite against Bonds because he did not give them what they wanted in the Grand Jury.

 

I think thats unjust, but its just my opinion. You will never be able to prove that they arent just "fulfilling their duty to enforce the law to the best of their ability."

 

The big difference here is that Bonds' tesitmony was before a grand jury. Clemens was not.

 

Right Clemens is (imo) much much worse.

 

Bonds was forced to testify against his will. If he did not testify he could be taken to jail. He also could not plead the 5th.

 

Clemens was not forced to testify, in fact he wanted to testify to "clear his name". He never had to answer any question.

 

So what Clemens did (imo) is worse, because he chose to go to Congress for the specific purpose of lying.

 

Bonds on the other hand told the govt he did not want to testify because he could not plead the 5th and he may make statements that could ruin his career. The govt promised him full immunity (except perjury) and that no transcripts would ever be released.

 

The govt didnt keep up their end, they could have forced Book of Shadows to never be printed or to remove the illegally obtained transcripts.

 

They didnt, they dont care about people, they just care about convictions. When Bonds was no longer useful for the Baclo conviction, they set out to ruin his life.

 

Thats my opinion on the matter and why I am so against it. Because the govt should not be able to force people to give up their 5th amendment right, unless they can protect those people. The govt failed to protect Bonds.

[Texsox]

The argument that it is unfair you are prosecuting my guy, but not these others, is silly. If we actually believed it, no one would ever be prosecuted. That is not, and has not, ever been the case here. There are just too many variables between cases.

 

I was a huge Clemens fan, I felt he was one of the greatest pitchers I've witnessed play. Now that I know that was partially drug produced, I am very saddened. I hope they keep him out of the HoF.