THE BOOK--Playing The Percentages In Baseball

The photo shoot was definitely 2003.

Check the bottom picture.

http://www.debbieclemens.com/

I have no doubt the photoshoot was in 2003.  The question is whether Clemens/Mrs. Clemens say that she took HGH in 2003 AND whether Clemens admits that he spoke to Pettitte in 99 or 00.  If both of those things are true, then he CANNOT claim that he spoke to Pettitte about his wife’s HGH and not his own.

How can the Senators/Congressmen not have asked him about that?

And the guy who asked him what uniform he is going to wear for the HOF should be voted out of office.  Did that really happen?

MGL, the Congress is full of lawyers who haven’t practiced law in a long, long time.  So they think they can do a cross examination.  And they have their young staffers think up questions/pass them notes, etc.

But these “lawmakers” aren’t really lawyers anymore, and they somehow left an incredibly stupid defense almost completely unrebutted.

The truth is sad:  they are a bunch of self-important old men who really have no skill to do anything but what they did today.

Nobody asked Clemens to reconcile this because Waxman, in his opening remarks, used this discrepancy to call Clemens a liar.

We learned through our depositions of Mr. Clemens and Mr. McNamee that Mr. McNamee did inject Mr. Clemens’ wife with HGH. Mr. Clemens and Mr. McNamee give completely different accounts of this injection. Mr. Clemens says that Mr. McNamee injected Mrs. Clemens without his knowledge. Mr. McNamee says that Mr. Clemens asked him to inject Mrs. Clemens.

What they do agree upon, however, is that these injections occuned in 2003. That makes it impossible that Mr. Clemens, when he spoke to Mr. Pettitte in 1999 or 2000, could have been referring to the injections of Mrs. Clemens.

http://oversight.house.gov/documents/20080213102956.pdf

The purpose of the hearing was (IMO) two-fold: (1) To showcase some Congressmen in action (what else have they done recently that was memorable and casts a favorable light on the the House?); (2) to sucker somebody into perjury so that they could refer the case to the DOJ, since there was no way to prove or disprove the factual assertions from any available evidence or testimony.

It’s an American style “show trial,” meant more for show than for trial since this isn’t a court (even a court of public opinion), and there are no charges on which anybody is being tried.

What they do agree upon, however, is that these injections occuned in 2003. That makes it impossible that Mr. Clemens, when he spoke to Mr. Pettitte in 1999 or 2000, could have been referring to the injections of Mrs. Clemens.

Well, at least someone DID notice the obvious and glaring discrepancy then!

So, did Waxman or anyone else ask Clemens to explain that?  If no, why not?

The partisanship in the hearings was disgusting.  Why was there partisanship?

I rail on Republicas and Bush and often get criticized for it.  Yet, the Republicans somehow managed to be on the “wrong side” once again.

Now, no one knows for sure who is lying and what happened, but with all the “innocent until proven guilty” rhetoic aside, Americans believe MacNamee by around 3-1, and most unbiased persons with any intelligence think that Clemens likely (not 100% of course) took PED’s and is lying.  Why are the Republicans on the other side?  Do they not have any sense other than to go on National TV and show off their ignorance and stupidity?

Speaking of stupidity and ignorance, it is one thing for Congress to be as such, it is another to show it off for all the world to see on televiion.  What moron came up with the idea that it would be a GOOD thing to show everyone how incompetent and ridiculous Congress can be, right in the middle of an election year?

Is there literally ANYONE who thought that this was a good idea and/or that they did a good job?

Well, it does appear that Mr. Clemens is caught like a rat in a trap. His bosom buddy Pettitte has outed him, all in the name of doing right by Jesus (the lesson--never trust religious people with your dark secrets). Clemens tried to use the wife incident to obfuscate the matter, but as usual, the timeline evidence has exposed his ‘deceivery’. And MGL, lots of people noticed this timeline discrepancy, including Waxman and 2 Chicago sportswriters today.

MGL may be a “100% prick”, G-Man (seriously ), but I am now virtually 100% convinced that the Rocket is 100% guilty.

---"His bosom buudy Pettitte has outed him, all in the name of doing right by Jesus...”

Actually, my ‘default’ position, from my experience of ‘religious’ people like what I’ve seen of Pettitte (I don’t know him personally, of course), is that he is using the religious thing to cover up for his need to cover his own arse. I hope somebody writes up a piece examining all of Andy’s comments on this matter in sequence, to expose his holier-than-thou persona as the phoney act it most likely is.

And then I see W Carroll’s post on BPro, in which he gives a bit more of Pettitte’s testimony, in which Pettitte seems not so sure of the actual truth.

I’m not going to take the time to do some sort of detailed investigation where I read every page of transcript. I think Mr Clemens is lying, but I’m not gonna post anymore about it.

Presuming ESPN doesn’t alter transcripts anymore:

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3246465

***

It is really shocking when you take a step back here.  The criminals are Radomski and McNamee.

Whatever lying Clemens, Pettitte, and any other athlete is doing, even under oath, can’t compare to the drug distribution that Radomski and McNamee have admitted to being a part of.

Furthermore, the possible lying of Clemens et al are not hampering a criminal investigation, unlike say Martha Stewart, or that rapper chick.

Basically, Clemens would get caught lying for the sake of lying.  And if this goes down as bad as it could, then the potential sentencing of Clemens would be harsher than the admitted drug dealers.

If I’m a player, I would say today:

I am clean.  I’ve never taken anything illicit.  However, if in the future I am confronted by any government investigator with a claim of evidence contrary to my truthful stance, I will admit to taking such drugs, that I did so because I was desperate, and that I regret that I did it.  That is, I have no choice but to lie, in order for people to believe me, and that I can move forward with my life.

Post that on each player’s locker.

I agree 100% that the idea of forcing someone to tell the truth to anyone under oath (under the penalty of perjury) about something that does not involve a serious criminal investigation is a gross violation of a person’s rights, and despicable.  Imagine if the government decided to bring you in front of Congress, put you on TV, and then ask you questions about your personal life, like if you ever cheated on your wife or girlfriend, or even minor legal transgressions (which we all have done), etc.

I would change one thing about Tango’s note on the locker.  I would say:

However, if in the future I am confronted by any government investigator with a claim of evidence contrary to my truthful stance, I will plead the 5th (refuse to answer any questions).  Not because I am guilty of anything - I am not - but because even if I tell the truth, I am putting myself in jeapordy of being charged with perjury.

and then ask you questions about your personal life, like if you ever cheated on your wife or girlfriend

I was thinking that exact same thing.  For example, if Roger wasn’t so well-prepared, and if they brought up his wife, and he said “I love her very much” in the middle of his answering, that would open up the line of questioning from your quote above.

Waxman was half right that they shouldn’t have had the hearings at all.  He would have been all right if that had simply decided to not even issue a written report at all on the hearings.  Basically, just throw the whole thing away.

Next up: is Waxman’s neighbor stealing his wireless connection from him?

This seems to be what this is about: exploring something about lying or cheating, without it being part of an ongoing criminal investigation, in order to start one.

Re Tango’s post #10…

I haven’t read the link, but I am not very outraged by trainers who provided steroids to millionaire professional atheletes who sought them out. I mean, you can use the term ‘drug dealers’ if you want, Tango, as one of the committee did, but it’s just not the same as some guy who sells crack to 16 yr olds.

I think, in the end, it is the players themselves who deserve the brunt of the blame.

I agree with David here, 100%.  A trainer providing athletes with steroids, whoop dee do!  They should be thrown in jail and the key discarded.

The Congressman that called him a “drug dealer” repeatedly was a moron before the hearing.

Just to clarify, I am not saying that it was a GOOD thing for the trainer to do or that he bears no moral or legal responsibility.  He could have said, I am sorry, I cannot do that, it is illegal and I might get in trouble, or I don’t believe in steroids in sports, or I think it is bad for you, or something like that, but comparing him to a “street drug dealer” is a stretch to say the least.  One of my good friends sells pot to his adult friends (and some strangers) on the side.  I think nothing of it.  He realizes he is taking a chance with the law, although I think there is a near zero chance he would get caught or that the police/prosecutors would care.  He is located in a liberal city in Oregon.

Boy, Firefox even checks my spelling while I type this!  Wow!

Yeah, Firefox is cool.  You can also click “CTRL-T”, and you get a new tab.  It’ll even let close your browser and remember your tabs that were open, so that next time, all those tabs open up again.  The find (CTRL-F) is also cool.

And, as a previous thread showed, the “SEARCH” that comes with this lets you use one search button for ALL your sites.

***

I said “dealer”.  I should have said “distributor”.