Generalities are all we have since Clemens refuses to directly answer any of the tough questions... But, when you look at the big picture, it's very clear he did it and is trying to sweep it under the rug... What's really funny about the situation is that if he had just come clean and apologized, a LOT more people would have forgiven him... But, instead he chooses to play everyone for fools... Fortunately, many of us are able to see right through his lies and deception... The guy has no integrity whatsoever, and if you can't see that, I can't help you.
Clemens has always been unequivocal in that he never used. I don't believe he has ever wavered. You on the other hand have yet to speak about any specific issue concerning the case. Can you explain specifically how it is "very clear" he used. If it is so very clear it should be quite easy to come up with some iron clad arguments. Maybe you believe he used because of his late career achievements. Possible, but Ryan and r. Johnson had great late career success as well. Other than the old beer can with needles and gauze, there is NO evidence other than heresay.
See, I used to be like you and was a part of the group think surrounding clemens. Then I researched the case and came to the same conclusion the court did. There was no evidence of perjury. I do believe bonds, manny, palmiero, big mac and piazza used because they either admitted or tested positive. Clemens gets lumped in because of the court case but it is a different situation.
@softparade said:
Clemens was a sure fire HOF’er WITHOUT the juice. Shame he got caught up in it.
So was Bonds. Really even moreso than Clemens.
I don't understand why voters think it's their job to determine who was on stuff and who wasn't.
I don't understand why players who didn't need steroids to be great used them.
To answer your post it's because the HOF wasn't established for statistical achievements only, it was more for sportsmanship. MANY on these boards do not care a bit about that.
Sportsmanship!?!?! You must be kidding. There are TONS of bigots, spitballers, bat corkers and generally had guys in the hall. Even from the start.
PLEASE PLEASE read what I am writing, HOF was established that way. The statistical achiever lovers have ignored that in many cases.
Look up the qualifications to be considered for enshrinement.
I am against any of the proven/admitted juicers going in. YES guys cheated and got in.
To answer OP; Clemens' cards are already expensive 85 Topps Tiffany recently went for almost $8000.00, 84 Fleer Updates go for around 6-700.00.
I don't think his cards will jump too much if he gets in, but you never can tell!
It was well documented that Ruth used an illegal bat in the early 1920's and was caught. is that sporting? should he not have been considered for enshrinement? as far as character, what about adrian anson? He didnt have much. should he be a hofer?
or is a little cheating OK? maybe a medium amount of cheating is acceptable for HOF consideration. what about if something is considered cheating and then not? take Brett's pine tar home run. what if something is legal (like spitballs and andro) and then not? could those players be eligable? Piazza is an admitted user of andro and he got in. now, do three or four cases of little cheating (bat corking etc.) equal one case of big cheating?
see how slippery this slope has gotten.
Most interesting that Brett used an illegal bat according to the rules and umpire ruled correctly and yet it was eventually overturned. That has always seemed wrong to me.
Not familiar with Adrian Anson's issues. Keeping Ruth out because of one incident? I doubt it. Was he penalized for that?
You do have to draw the line SOMEWHERE. How about if you know you were out and the ump called you safe? If you don't let him know, is that cheating? Should that keep you out of the hall?
To answer your question, I guess a little cheating has got to be ok, or there would probably be no HOF.
I certainly think the penalty should "fit the crime" and the slope is, and has always been, slippery.
My opinion on steroids is that proof or admission of use should keep you out. No, Mickey Mantle should not be out of the HOF if that's your next question, never been proven, at least in my mind. I don't think steroid use was ever legal, but the spitball was at one time.
I was reading the other day that ALL the writers at S.I. were in favor of Bonds because he was good enough without steroids to get in. While that is absolutely true. I do not share that opinion, same as Rose and his problems.
Anson was a terrible racist who was instrumental in creating the color barrier. He also happened to be a 19th century superstar and the first to 3,000 hits. A despicable man. Would you consider him to have acted within the bounds of the character clause? I am not trying to be obtuse, I just honestly don't know how the character clause should be enacted.
Generalities are all we have since Clemens refuses to directly answer any of the tough questions... But, when you look at the big picture, it's very clear he did it and is trying to sweep it under the rug... What's really funny about the situation is that if he had just come clean and apologized, a LOT more people would have forgiven him... But, instead he chooses to play everyone for fools... Fortunately, many of us are able to see right through his lies and deception... The guy has no integrity whatsoever, and if you can't see that, I can't help you.
Clemens has always been unequivocal in that he never used. I don't believe he has ever wavered. You on the other hand have yet to speak about any specific issue concerning the case. Can you explain specifically how it is "very clear" he used. If it is so very clear it should be quite easy to come up with some iron clad arguments. Maybe you believe he used because of his late career achievements. Possible, but Ryan and r. Johnson had great late career success as well. Other than the old beer can with needles and gauze, there is NO evidence other than heresay.
See, I used to be like you and was a part of the group think surrounding clemens. Then I researched the case and came to the same conclusion the court did. There was no evidence of perjury. I do believe bonds, manny, palmiero, big mac and piazza used because they either admitted or tested positive. Clemens gets lumped in because of the court case but it is a different situation.
Again correct. You are on fire! I have wavered a bit since reading Canseco's second book. I think that without any real proof he should get the benefit of the doubt.
My gut feeling is that he used. But it shouldn't be what you think or even know, but what you can prove. Bagwell (I think) is in the same situation, he got big, but never tested positive (I don't think).
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
Generalities are all we have since Clemens refuses to directly answer any of the tough questions... But, when you look at the big picture, it's very clear he did it and is trying to sweep it under the rug... What's really funny about the situation is that if he had just come clean and apologized, a LOT more people would have forgiven him... But, instead he chooses to play everyone for fools... Fortunately, many of us are able to see right through his lies and deception... The guy has no integrity whatsoever, and if you can't see that, I can't help you.
Clemens has always been unequivocal in that he never used. I don't believe he has ever wavered. You on the other hand have yet to speak about any specific issue concerning the case. Can you explain specifically how it is "very clear" he used. If it is so very clear it should be quite easy to come up with some iron clad arguments. Maybe you believe he used because of his late career achievements. Possible, but Ryan and r. Johnson had great late career success as well. Other than the old beer can with needles and gauze, there is NO evidence other than heresay.
See, I used to be like you and was a part of the group think surrounding clemens. Then I researched the case and came to the same conclusion the court did. There was no evidence of perjury. I do believe bonds, manny, palmiero, big mac and piazza used because they either admitted or tested positive. Clemens gets lumped in because of the court case but it is a different situation.
Again correct. You are on fire! I have wavered a bit since reading Canseco's second book. I think that without any real proof he should get the benefit of the doubt.
My gut feeling is that he used. But it shouldn't be what you think or even know, but what you can prove. Bagwell (I think) is in the same situation, he got big, but never tested positive (I don't think).
I'm with you 1000%. I a!so have suspicions about bagwell, I Rodriguez and others, but I have no evidence. Since going back and looking at the Clemens case/evidence, I guess I have gotten a little bee in my bonnet about lumping him in with the known users. Now a bomb shell could come out tomorrow and my mind could change. But, with what we know now, there just isnt any evidence beyond he said/she said.
"Clemens has always been unequivocal in that he never used."
There's a shocker... So has Bonds.
"You on the other hand have yet to speak about any specific issue concerning the case"
I didn't think it was necessary since it's all been public knowledge for 10+ years... But, by saying you think Clemens never used, you're also calling Andy Pettitte a liar... He stated under oath that Clemens told him McNamee injected Clemens with HGH... So, you've decided to ignore Pettitte's testimony? And McNamee's testimony? Perhaps McNamee had a reason to lie (although that's debatable)... But, why would Pettitte lie??
I see no need to spend the time listing all the other evidence against Clemens (mostly considering you should already know it, and also because you've obviously decided to simply ignore it).
Let's not pretend that there's still a lot of debate on this issue... If it hadn't been for the PED accusations, Clemens would have been elected to the HOF on the first ballot with 95%+ of the vote... And now, after 7 tries, he's only a little over 50%...
What's also very telling about this is that, from what I've read, most of the people who support Clemens (and Bonds) for the HOF admit that they believe he was on PEDs, and simply don't care... So, what that means is that a STRONG majority of HOF voters (and, probably a stronger majority of fans) believe there's sufficient evidence that he used PEDs.
Realistically, there's only one way someone can examine all the evidence and conclude that Clemens most likely didn't use... It's called 'confirmation bias'.
@Desert_Ice_Sports said:
"Clemens has always been unequivocal in that he never used."
There's a shocker... So has Bonds.
"You on the other hand have yet to speak about any specific issue concerning the case"
I didn't think it was necessary since it's all been public knowledge for 10+ years... But, by saying you think Clemens never used, you're also calling Andy Pettitte a liar... He stated under oath that Clemens told him McNamee injected Clemens with HGH... So, you've decided to ignore Pettitte's testimony? And McNamee's testimony? Perhaps McNamee had a reason to lie (although that's debatable)... But, why would Pettitte lie??
I see no need to spend the time listing all the other evidence against Clemens (mostly considering you should already know it, and also because you've obviously decided to simply ignore it).
Let's not pretend that there's still a lot of debate on this issue... If it hadn't been for the PED accusations, Clemens would have been elected to the HOF on the first ballot with 95%+ of the vote... And now, after 7 tries, he's only a little over 50%...
What's also very telling about this is that, from what I've read, most of the people who support Clemens (and Bonds) for the HOF admit that they believe he was on PEDs, and simply don't care... So, what that means is that a STRONG majority of HOF voters (and, probably a stronger majority of fans) believe there's sufficient evidence that he used PEDs.
Realistically, there's only one way someone can examine all the evidence and conclude that Clemens most likely didn't use... It's called 'confirmation bias'.
"It's been public knowledge for 10+ years". That is group think. Do a little research. Read the transcript. Pettitte said he thought he heard Clemens tell him in a 1999 conversation that he had used hgh. Then, in a later conversation, Clemens said he had never used. Pettitte stated in his sworn statement that his original understanding was wrong. Pettitte never once said he thought Clemens used hgh, but that he misunderstood what was said. In fact he said there was a greater than 50% chance his original understanding was incorrect, under oath. That was the gist of his sworn statement. I am not ignoring Pettitte statement, it however seems you have misremembered it. Pettitte entire statement was a huge hit for the prosecution and they never should have called him. He made the same statement under deposition so they knew what he was going to say. He was actually a better witness for the defense, but you wouldn't know that because you seem to want to herd up with the sheeple instead of doing a little research on your own.
And McNamee, he was a horrible witness. There is no evidence. Only the crowd who took their information from the ESPN analysts outside the courtroom. I was the same, but when you look for yourself and don't let Lester munson tell you what to believe, you will see the same thing the court saw, no evidence
The obvious answer when something changed for Roger was in 1997. He came off four mediocre years and overnight he became dominant. I realize there can be some variance between teams but not this much. Something changed.
One of the things it appears people fail to realize is once these athletes are on the stuff and there ability to train and make gains quickly kicks in they get hooked. He was 34 in 97 and this would have been a perfect age to get on the juice. You are still young enough to be great and if you haven't used before you will make gains for sure. By 39 he was still making gains and was up to 238 pounds and climbing.
I love this quote from the story.
“The reason why my velocity continues to be what it is because of what we’re doing behind the scenes.”
Make no mistake about it Roger put in a ton of work in the gym. You simply can't take the stuff he and others took and just magically look the way they did. They earned the results they got from a ton of hard work. That said you don't make gains like this as a 39 year old male. It isn't possible naturally for someone with a long term prior workout regimen. It just isn't. If you are a beginner than perhaps a few years of big gains is in order but a natural plateau kicks in and you have to work hard to maintain that and small gains become possible over a longer period of time. Muscles take so long to build naturally and you can't stay lean like he was and gain mass too each year. You develop fuller and harder muscles but not much bigger. I think anyone who has ever trained for a long time realizes the life cycle of these athletes isn't naturally explained. The only answer is growth hormone and steroids.
Craig you know a ton about baseball history and stats. How much weight training have you done? The only reason I ask is all of the sports writers who were fat and out of shape always beat the drum that these are superior athletes and that their results were explained because they are just that much better than the rest and anyone who questions that is a loser or a hater. The people who questioned it the most are the very same people who have spent a lot of time working out and have a good understanding of what training can do for the body and it was beyond obvious the results they were experiencing weren't natural under any circumstances. Today all one must do is look on Instagram and you will see a ton of freaky conditioned guys that can only achieve that level of definition and size through performance enhancing drugs. It was no different then.
Clemens is elementary. Determining who else used gets more tricky because there will be a ton of guys who did that weren't obvious because they didn't have the genetics or put in the work.
"...because you seem to want to herd up with the sheeple instead of doing a little research on your own."
Sheeple? You're talking about considerably more than half, and probably more than 75% of everyone who's examined the issue... Some may be parroting the opinions of others (Just as many with your views do), but a LOT of very knowledgeable baseball journalists have concluded that Clemens most likely did PEDs... It's infinitely more likely that you're one of the 'Sheeple' than all of them.
Pettitte did what's very common among witnesses: he told the truth the first time around, then changed his story to protect either his ex-teammate's legacy or himself from prosecution... McNamee did the exact same thing; he just wanted the whole thing to end, and changing his story was the easiest way... Clemens was mentioned in the Mitchell Report 82 times... 82... Rusty Hardin's main goal in arguing Clemens' case wasn't to expose facts and statements from credible witnesses, it was to confuse, misdirect and suppress... He did an excellent job.
Producing enough evidence to convict someone in a criminal court of law is far beyond what's required to formulate a reasonable opinion of guilt or innocence... For years, the vast majority of Americans defended Lance Armstrong as vehemently as you're defending Clemens, even though the evidence against him was overwhelming... Their confirmation bias got the best of them, just as it is with you... 75%+ of knowledgeable baseball writers and fans isn't groupthink (one word), it's rational consensus.
@Dpeck100 said:
The obvious answer when something changed for Roger was in 1997. He came off four mediocre years and overnight he became dominant. I realize there can be some variance between teams but not this much. Something changed.
One of the things it appears people fail to realize is once these athletes are on the stuff and there ability to train and make gains quickly kicks in they get hooked. He was 34 in 97 and this would have been a perfect age to get on the juice. You are still young enough to be great and if you haven't used before you will make gains for sure. By 39 he was still making gains and was up to 238 pounds and climbing.
I love this quote from the story.
“The reason why my velocity continues to be what it is because of what we’re doing behind the scenes.”
Make no mistake about it Roger put in a ton of work in the gym. You simply can't take the stuff he and others took and just magically look the way they did. They earned the results they got from a ton of hard work. That said you don't make gains like this as a 39 year old male. It isn't possible naturally for someone with a long term prior workout regimen. It just isn't. If you are a beginner than perhaps a few years of big gains is in order but a natural plateau kicks in and you have to work hard to maintain that and small gains become possible over a longer period of time. Muscles take so long to build naturally and you can't stay lean like he was and gain mass too each year. You develop fuller and harder muscles but not much bigger. I think anyone who has ever trained for a long time realizes the life cycle of these athletes isn't naturally explained. The only answer is growth hormone and steroids.
Craig you know a ton about baseball history and stats. How much weight training have you done? The only reason I ask is all of the sports writers who were fat and out of shape always beat the drum that these are superior athletes and that their results were explained because they are just that much better than the rest and anyone who questions that is a loser or a hater. The people who questioned it the most are the very same people who have spent a lot of time working out and have a good understanding of what training can do for the body and it was beyond obvious the results they were experiencing weren't natural under any circumstances. Today all one must do is look on Instagram and you will see a ton of freaky conditioned guys that can only achieve that level of definition and size through performance enhancing drugs. It was no different then.
Clemens is elementary. Determining who else used gets more tricky because there will be a ton of guys who did that weren't obvious because they didn't have the genetics or put in the work.
The common sentiment that Clemens was coming off four mediocre years is a misconception. You need to remember the context. At that time, wins/losses were very important when evaluating talent and by that metric, Clemens was very mediocre. But, his 94 season was cy young caliber as he led the league in era+ and had a great strike shortened season. His 93 and 95 seasons were plagued by groin and hamstring injuries. His 96 was also very good, as he led the league in it's and struck out 20 again. He also led the league in k/9 and had a 139 era+
Assistant GM for the red Sox in 1996 testified at the trial under oath that internally the red Sox actually considered Clemens a must sign and at the top of his game. Duquette was posturing for negotiations when he made the twilight statement. The change in 97 that you speak of is explained by his catcher at the time, Charlie O'Brien as the introduction of a new pitch, the splitter. I watched Clemens from the mid 80's on through, and he never really gained anything on the fastball. It stayed pretty consistent over time. As he aged, it was clear he could still throw hard, but not for as long or with as much control. He needed to dial it back some to keep walks down.
Now even macnamees testimony said Clemens started steroids in 1998. Now I don't believe that is true, but then what caused 1997?
As far as his body mass or gains, Dr james Andrews performed shoulder surgery on Clemens in 1985 and also follow ups throughout Clemens career. He stated under oath in2016 that he had found no evidence of steroid use in any of his appointments with Clemens. Clemens blood tests also do not show elevated levels of ldl or hdl cholesterol. He also did not have high blood pressure or acne in his medical records that are all common with steroid use.
There is tons of evidence that the espn talking heads never gave us as I am sure they had a narrative to give. It is dry stuff to read through, but it is out there.
There is a crop of guys that are fitness industry leaders that insist they are clean like Mike O'Hearn and Simeon Panda. They have some how achieved results that no other human has done without help. All the fancy stats they have for baseball that you use they have for the fitness industry and even though the chances are zero that they are clean and their results defy logic they stick with the story. Their never wavering story allows for a few people to believe the impossible.
@Desert_Ice_Sports said:
"...because you seem to want to herd up with the sheeple instead of doing a little research on your own."
Sheeple? You're talking about considerably more than half, and probably more than 75% of everyone who's examined the issue... Some may be parroting the opinions of others (Just as many with your views do), but a LOT of very knowledgeable baseball journalists have concluded that Clemens most likely did PEDs... It's infinitely more likely that you're one of the 'Sheeple' than all of them.
Pettitte did what's very common among witnesses: he told the truth the first time around, then changed his story to protect either his ex-teammate's legacy or himself from prosecution... McNamee did the exact same thing; he just wanted the whole thing to end, and changing his story was the easiest way... Clemens was mentioned in the Mitchell Report 82 times... 82... Rusty Hardin's main goal in arguing Clemens' case wasn't to expose facts and statements from credible witnesses, it was to confuse, misdirect and suppress... He did an excellent job.
Producing enough evidence to convict someone in a criminal court of law is far beyond what's required to formulate a reasonable opinion of guilt or innocence... For years, the vast majority of Americans defended Lance Armstrong as vehemently as you're defending Clemens, even though the evidence against him was overwhelming... Their confirmation bias got the best of them, just as it is with you... 75%+ of knowledgeable baseball writers and fans isn't groupthink (one word), it's rational consensus.
You clearly haven't read the testimony. Pettitte never changed his story. It was the same. He remembered a conversation from 9 years ago where he thought he remembered something, then in a separate conversation 6 years later he realised his initial understanding was wrong. That was it and that is why he was a terrible witness for the prosecution to call.
It would seem that I am certainly in the minority of people who don't think Clemens juiced. Does that make me a sheeple? Some of your thoughts are a bit incoherent.
As far as the mitchell report, who was their witness for Clemens? Brian McNamee. He could have named Clemens 882 times and it wouldn't make it legit. McNamee was an ex employee with an axe to grind. His own wife thought he was lying.
"You clearly haven't read the testimony. Pettitte never changed his story. It was the same. He remembered a conversation
from 9 years ago where he thought he remembered something, then in a separate conversation 6 years later he realised
his initial understanding was wrong. That was it and that is why he was a terrible witness for the prosecution to call.
It would seem that I am certainly in the minority of people who don't think Clemens juiced. Does that make me a sheeple?
Some of your thoughts are a bit incoherent.
As far as the mitchell report, who was their witness for Clemens? Brian McNamee. He could have named Clemens 882
times and it wouldn't make it legit. McNamee was an ex employee with an axe to grind. His own wife thought he was lying."
Your defense of Pettitte is the very definition of confirmation bias... Not to mention your desire to ignore Clemens' almost unique ability to have another career 'prime' from age 38-43... His stats during those years are unprecedented, especially considering they were achieved as a pitcher during the steroid era... It's not about one single piece of information... It's the combination of many, many things.
What really put me over the top with this was how Clemens and Hardin handled the case, from beginning to end... If Hardin had the task of defending an innocent man, he wouldn't have tried to suppress and misdirect everything that came his way... And, Clemens wouldn't have pleaded ignorance 379 times in one deposition and stated that he believes that doing steroids actually produce a negative effect on an athlete's performance... Seriously, he said this... Clemens' level of disingenuousness was at a level that we hadn't seen in the sports world since the OJ trial.
I'm not really a big fan or hater of Clemens or Bonds so I don't have a dog in the fight. But I do just question when writers use the excuse of the "integrity clause" as a way of justifying not putting them in. Steroids aside, there are many many people in the HOF with questionable integrity that did a lot worse than shoot themselves up with needles.
@Desert_Ice_Sports said:
"You clearly haven't read the testimony. Pettitte never changed his story. It was the same. He remembered a conversation
from 9 years ago where he thought he remembered something, then in a separate conversation 6 years later he realised
his initial understanding was wrong. That was it and that is why he was a terrible witness for the prosecution to call.
It would seem that I am certainly in the minority of people who don't think Clemens juiced. Does that make me a sheeple?
Some of your thoughts are a bit incoherent.
As far as the mitchell report, who was their witness for Clemens? Brian McNamee. He could have named Clemens 882
times and it wouldn't make it legit. McNamee was an ex employee with an axe to grind. His own wife thought he was lying."
Your defense of Pettitte is the very definition of confirmation bias... Not to mention your desire to ignore Clemens' almost unique ability to have another career 'prime' from age 38-43... His stats during those years are unprecedented, especially considering they were achieved as a pitcher during the steroid era... It's not about one single piece of information... It's the combination of many, many things.
What really put me over the top with this was how Clemens and Hardin handled the case, from beginning to end... If Hardin had the task of defending an innocent man, he wouldn't have tried to suppress and misdirect everything that came his way... And, Clemens wouldn't have pleaded ignorance 379 times in one deposition and stated that he believes that doing steroids actually produce a negative effect on an athlete's performance... Seriously, he said this... Clemens' level of disingenuousness was at a level that we hadn't seen in the sports world since the OJ trial.
I'm done with this... Nothing more to be said.
Not defending Pettitte, just stating what he said. Dont take my word for it, read it yourself.
as far as having a "unique ability to have another prime from 38 to 43" not at all unique. see Ryan, Nolan, Spahn Warren, Johnson, Randy. if you are going to make a case for PED use based on late career brilliance, you really need to open the field. there are a whole bunch of players who had success late in career who are not linked to steroids. check out tony gwynns stats. that argument will be a non starter. If Clemens was juicing during the time period you mention, why were his Yankee years so poor? every one was below his career averages. ERA+, FIP, WHIP, ERA, WAA and practically every other statistic you can name, except pitcher wins are below his career averages. in fact, when he was "supposed" to be juicing with the Yankees, he was worse than he was when he went to the Astros. He was also less durable with the yankees, pitching fewer innings and completing many many fewer games. if he was making gains due to PED, you would think he would be more durable and more dominant with the Yankees.
your argument has gotten so weak, you are now citing the way the court case was handled, because the evidence cannot be made to fit your narrative. I am sorry you listened to ESPN and the talking heads build the steroid narrative around clemens. I listened to the same thing and thought the same way you do until the last year or so. if you really look at the court docs/evidence, there is just nothing there. It is a shame a persons public perception can be destroyed by the word of just one person. That is exactly what happened here.
Pettitte stated under oath that Clemens told him McNamee injected Clemens with HGH.
Isn't that hearsay? If McNamee was a liar, couldn't he have been lying to Pettitte?
I see no need to spend the time listing all the other evidence against Clemens (mostly considering you should already know it, and also because you've obviously decided to simply ignore it).
>
Just what's needed, another poster not willing to share information because he doesn't have the time. That doesn't support your argument, it weakens it.
I was on Clemens' side and now I am leaning the other way, BUT not because of hard evidence. There is no good evidence that he used. YES, plenty of indications he MIGHT have.
Let's not pretend that there's still a lot of debate on this issue... If it hadn't been for the PED accusations, Clemens would have been elected to the HOF on the first ballot with 95%+ of the vote... And now, after 7 tries, he's only a little over 50%...
Plenty of doubts about his use, but he could still get in. I hope not, but he could. There's LOTS of debate here.
Realistically, there's only one way someone can examine all the evidence and conclude that Clemens most likely didn't use... It's called 'confirmation bias'.
Poor way of making a conclusion, and if your wrong, one of the best pitchers of all time is excluded.
No failed tests, one very very unreliable witness to Clemens' using and a very suspicious career ark is all I see here. Even in Canseco's new book he can't say he knows Roger used and Jose has been correct about who used in most if not all cases.
If I was forced to bet on it, I would bet he used, but I just don't see any actual proof. Indications are there, but no proof.
If you have ever been accused of something you didn't do, you might think differently.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
@Desert_Ice_Sports said:
"You clearly haven't read the testimony. Pettitte never changed his story. It was the same. He remembered a conversation
from 9 years ago where he thought he remembered something, then in a separate conversation 6 years later he realised
his initial understanding was wrong. That was it and that is why he was a terrible witness for the prosecution to call.
It would seem that I am certainly in the minority of people who don't think Clemens juiced. Does that make me a sheeple?
Some of your thoughts are a bit incoherent.
As far as the mitchell report, who was their witness for Clemens? Brian McNamee. He could have named Clemens 882
times and it wouldn't make it legit. McNamee was an ex employee with an axe to grind. His own wife thought he was lying."
Your defense of Pettitte is the very definition of confirmation bias... Not to mention your desire to ignore Clemens' almost unique ability to have another career 'prime' from age 38-43... His stats during those years are unprecedented, especially considering they were achieved as a pitcher during the steroid era... It's not about one single piece of information... It's the combination of many, many things.
What really put me over the top with this was how Clemens and Hardin handled the case, from beginning to end... If Hardin had the task of defending an innocent man, he wouldn't have tried to suppress and misdirect everything that came his way... And, Clemens wouldn't have pleaded ignorance 379 times in one deposition and stated that he believes that doing steroids actually produce a negative effect on an athlete's performance... Seriously, he said this... Clemens' level of disingenuousness was at a level that we hadn't seen in the sports world since the OJ trial.
I'm done with this... Nothing more to be said.
Not defending Pettitte, just stating what he said. Dont take my word for it, read it yourself.
as far as having a "unique ability to have another prime from 38 to 43" not at all unique. see Ryan, Nolan, Spahn Warren, Johnson, Randy. if you are going to make a case for PED use based on late career brilliance, you really need to open the field. there are a whole bunch of players who had success late in career who are not linked to steroids. check out tony gwynns stats. that argument will be a non starter. If Clemens was juicing during the time period you mention, why were his Yankee years so poor? every one was below his career averages. ERA+, FIP, WHIP, ERA, WAA and practically every other statistic you can name, except pitcher wins are below his career averages. in fact, when he was "supposed" to be juicing with the Yankees, he was worse than he was when he went to the Astros. He was also less durable with the yankees, pitching fewer innings and completing many many fewer games. if he was making gains due to PED, you would think he would be more durable and more dominant with the Yankees.
your argument has gotten so weak, you are now citing the way the court case was handled, because the evidence cannot be made to fit your narrative. I am sorry you listened to ESPN and the talking heads build the steroid narrative around clemens. I listened to the same thing and thought the same way you do until the last year or so. if you really look at the court docs/evidence, there is just nothing there. It is a shame a persons public perception can be destroyed by the word of just one person. That is exactly what happened here.
Excellent post.
I think he used, but if I were on the "jury" my vote would be not guilty.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
Pettitte stated under oath that Clemens told him McNamee injected Clemens with HGH.
Isn't that hearsay? If McNamee was a liar, couldn't he have been lying to Pettitte?
I see no need to spend the time listing all the other evidence against Clemens (mostly considering you should already know it, and also because you've obviously decided to simply ignore it).
>
Just what's needed, another poster not willing to share information because he doesn't have the time. That doesn't support your argument, it weakens it.
I was on Clemens' side and now I am leaning the other way, BUT not because of hard evidence. There is no good evidence that he used. YES, plenty of indications he MIGHT have.
Let's not pretend that there's still a lot of debate on this issue... If it hadn't been for the PED accusations, Clemens would have been elected to the HOF on the first ballot with 95%+ of the vote... And now, after 7 tries, he's only a little over 50%...
Plenty of doubts about his use, but he could still get in. I hope not, but he could. There's LOTS of debate here.
Realistically, there's only one way someone can examine all the evidence and conclude that Clemens most likely didn't use... It's called 'confirmation bias'.
Poor way of making a conclusion, and if your wrong, one of the best pitchers of all time is excluded.
No failed tests, one very very unreliable witness to Clemens' using and a very suspicious career ark is all I see here. Even in Canseco's new book he can't say he knows Roger used and Jose has been correct about who used in most if not all cases.
If I was forced to bet on it, I would bet he used, but I just don't see any actual proof. Indications are there, but no proof.
If you have ever been accused of something you didn't do, you might think differently.
Very well put Joe.
as far as Canseco goes, here is a quote from 2010 after his sworn affidavit, which mirrors his support of clemens from his sworn 2008 affidavit.
"I had my suspicions back then of a lot of players because it was so rampant in the game of baseball," he said. "But if you ask me if I have any solid evidence, did I ever inject Roger Clemens or put him in contact or did he ever use steroids. Never." In the proceeding, he said he was asked about his own steroid use and about comments players made about steroid use that are mentioned in his book, Juiced. Canseco said Clemens knew about his drug use, but never asked to get in touch with suppliers. "I definitely spoke to Roger Clemens about steroids just like a lot of other players, but what we didn't talk about was Roger Clemens using steroids," he said.
Now, I dont like to base much by what Jose Canseco says, but at least when it comes to steroid use in MLB, he has seemingly been very accurate in his assessment. you would think that when Canseco joined the Red Sox in 1995 or the Blue Jays in 1998 that if Clemens was already using or even considering using, he would have had discussions with Canseco about use or acquisition as even then players seemingly knew about Jose and that he could help them in this respect. apparently such conversations never happened.
as i remember, Clemens was very aware of baseball history and his place in it even back in his red sox days. I am not sure if he would have risked that in order to use PED. I really am not sure.
@Dpeck100 said:
Well that solves it. He is super human.
There is a crop of guys that are fitness industry leaders that insist they are clean like Mike O'Hearn and Simeon Panda. They have some how achieved results that no other human has done without help. All the fancy stats they have for baseball that you use they have for the fitness industry and even though the chances are zero that they are clean and their results defy logic they stick with the story. Their never wavering story allows for a few people to believe the impossible.
By no means do I think Clemens is super human. Randy Johnson performed better at advanced age than Clemens did. Nolan Ryan also. Ryan's 87 season was unreal and at age 40.
I am not sure what you mean in regards to Clemens body from your earlier post. if you look at pictures, he had that same thick build in 92/93 as he did throughout his 30's and 40's there was no phase where he bulked up like bonds did. He never had a chiseled look to him. Always had a big base and trunk.to
I think everyone would consider Dr James Andrews an authority when it comes to working with athletes. He worked with Clemens for over 20 years and has access to his medical files and gave him regular workovers after his surgery. Andrews found no evidence during all those years that Clemens used steroids. He testified to that under oath.
I think everyone would consider Dr James Andrews an authority when it comes to working with athletes. He worked with Clemens for over 20 years and has access to his medical files and gave him regular workovers after his surgery. Andrews found no evidence during all those years that Clemens used steroids. He testified to that under oath.
I did not know this. I begin to lean back towards Clemens being clean.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
I was really surprised joebanzai when I started looking over the evidence years after the fact. Like most everyone else, I listened to the talking heads on espn, sports talk radio cable news etc and just figured they would give me the facts. I don't know if I was naive or just lazy, but I guess I didn't realize that at that time (and probably still) there was a narrative the news outlets were going for, namely, bring down the big athletes. It was what was putting eyes on the screen. Athletes who were not embroiled in scandal did not drive ratings. So when Clemens name cameup, more ratings. There was lots of stuff the national media never spoke about, like the james Andrews sworn testimony. I think had that stuff come out back then, public perception would have been very different with Clemens
An article from 2002 has him at 225, 2003 he went to 238 and even later in his career in the 240's. This is not a natural progression for a man in their late 30's into their 40's with a toned look. Not even close. Especially when he weighed 2005 in his early 20's. You are an animal in your early 20's!
Craig you know baseball but obviously you don't know working out.
When I say super human his results fall into the category of the two guys names I posted.
So Craig these two men insist they are natural. You are a hater if you disagree according to them. Do you think they look natural? They obviously aren't but still insist that their results as insane as they may be are natural. When there is smoke their is fire with fitness results. It just is what it is.
I think Arod's approach is the right one. Everyone knows he did it and just be open about it. Seek forgiveness. You must admit your sins to be forgiven in life.
@Dpeck100 said:
An article from 2002 has him at 225, 2003 he went to 238 and even later in his career in the 240's. This is not a natural progression for a man in their late 30's into their 40's with a toned look. Not even close. Especially when he weighed 2005 in his early 20's. You are an animal in your early 20's!
Craig you know baseball but obviously you don't know working out.
When I say super human his results fall into the category of the two guys names I posted.
I am not sure how accurate listed heights and weights for athletes are. I know they are certainly not accurate in the backs of baseball cards. John kr uk was listed at 170. Tony gwynn was listed at 185, canseco cards listed him at 230 for years and I have read him stats that he weighed as much as 265. For football players, listed weights are a joke. Now maybe Clemens was able to gain 13 pounds in one year. I am not sure, but at about a pound a month that doesn't seem to crazy.
Now, do the body builders you show look anything at all like Clemens ever? I never saw a picture of him where he even looked as cut as the strongest baseball player. I don't see any relation.
If you are employing the eyeball test, Clemens did not look the part of a bodybuilder. Unlike others.
You don't think that Dr James Andrews who's whole livelyhood is dealing with professional athletes could tell a steroid user? He worked one on one with Clemens from 85 on and had access to all the medical docs. You don't think he would know better than you or I The physical traits of a steroid user. You don't think that after examining Clemens for 13 years, that when he came in for his eval in 1998 or 1999 that Andrews wouldn't have been able to see a change of he was juicing? He testified that there was no physical change in Clemens.
Now I respect you and your opinions and knowledge of sports, cards etc. But I am going with the doctor on this one.
@Dpeck100 said:
Well one thing I like about you is you stick with your opinion. We will never agree on this and that is totally cool.
Agree. His comparison of Babe Ruth’s illegal bat used for a few weeks in the early 1920’s to ‘roid era cheaters is one of the most LOL items I’ll ever read on the subject I’m sure. But, yeah, kudos to him for staying on the ship.
@Dpeck100 said:
Well one thing I like about you is you stick with your opinion. We will never agree on this and that is totally cool.
Agree. His comparison of Babe Ruth’s illegal bat used for a few weeks in the early 1920’s to ‘roid era cheaters is one of the most LOL items I’ll ever read on the subject I’m sure. But, yeah, kudos to him for staying on the ship.
The great thing in life is we are all entitled to our own opinion. I naturally think his position is crazy but he thinks mine is too so we are even.
Clemens definitely did steroids. I am fairly certain Nolan Ryan did as well. I think he was a bit of a pioneer of the steroid era and players saw what kind of effect the needle had on his career and they gravitated towards it. Baseball has this unique way of telling the steroid story through statistics. It's fairy easy to pick up on the peculiarities.
@ArtVandelay said:
Clemens definitely did steroids. I am fairly certain Nolan Ryan did as well. I think he was a bit of a pioneer of the steroid era and players saw what kind of effect the needle had on his career and they gravitated towards it. Baseball has this unique way of telling the steroid story through statistics. It's fairy easy to pick up on the peculiarities.
Regardless of how we feel about Bonds and Clemens and despite the bitterness over the steroid era still very intense, as time passes and more suspected users get in, the greater the likelihood both are elected.
Unlike Joe Jackson and Pete Rose who received lifetime bans, Bonds and Clemens's accomplishments and candidacies will continue to be reviewed with regularity by the HOF Era's committees for decades to come. The question is once their eligiblilty for the BBWAA ballot expires, will former hall of famers and executives feel the same way about their cheating.
I thought it interesting that of the published ballots that Bonds and Clemens picked up a mere 3 ballots each among the writers changing their votes.
If Pete Rose ever becomes eligible, (hopefully no earlier than sometime AFTER his death), count on their admission too.
As far as their rookie cards, the '86 Topps Tiffany for Bonds, and '84 Fleer Update for Clemens are both very expensive but have much more room for improvement as time wears on.
Comments
Clemens has always been unequivocal in that he never used. I don't believe he has ever wavered. You on the other hand have yet to speak about any specific issue concerning the case. Can you explain specifically how it is "very clear" he used. If it is so very clear it should be quite easy to come up with some iron clad arguments. Maybe you believe he used because of his late career achievements. Possible, but Ryan and r. Johnson had great late career success as well. Other than the old beer can with needles and gauze, there is NO evidence other than heresay.
See, I used to be like you and was a part of the group think surrounding clemens. Then I researched the case and came to the same conclusion the court did. There was no evidence of perjury. I do believe bonds, manny, palmiero, big mac and piazza used because they either admitted or tested positive. Clemens gets lumped in because of the court case but it is a different situation.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Anson was a terrible racist who was instrumental in creating the color barrier. He also happened to be a 19th century superstar and the first to 3,000 hits. A despicable man. Would you consider him to have acted within the bounds of the character clause? I am not trying to be obtuse, I just honestly don't know how the character clause should be enacted.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Again correct. You are on fire! I have wavered a bit since reading Canseco's second book. I think that without any real proof he should get the benefit of the doubt.
My gut feeling is that he used. But it shouldn't be what you think or even know, but what you can prove. Bagwell (I think) is in the same situation, he got big, but never tested positive (I don't think).
I'm with you 1000%. I a!so have suspicions about bagwell, I Rodriguez and others, but I have no evidence. Since going back and looking at the Clemens case/evidence, I guess I have gotten a little bee in my bonnet about lumping him in with the known users. Now a bomb shell could come out tomorrow and my mind could change. But, with what we know now, there just isnt any evidence beyond he said/she said.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
I think Canseco said he knew I Rod did them. I can't stand Jose, but he seems to have been telling the truth with everyone he ratted out.
"Clemens has always been unequivocal in that he never used."
There's a shocker... So has Bonds.
"You on the other hand have yet to speak about any specific issue concerning the case"
I didn't think it was necessary since it's all been public knowledge for 10+ years... But, by saying you think Clemens never used, you're also calling Andy Pettitte a liar... He stated under oath that Clemens told him McNamee injected Clemens with HGH... So, you've decided to ignore Pettitte's testimony? And McNamee's testimony? Perhaps McNamee had a reason to lie (although that's debatable)... But, why would Pettitte lie??
I see no need to spend the time listing all the other evidence against Clemens (mostly considering you should already know it, and also because you've obviously decided to simply ignore it).
Let's not pretend that there's still a lot of debate on this issue... If it hadn't been for the PED accusations, Clemens would have been elected to the HOF on the first ballot with 95%+ of the vote... And now, after 7 tries, he's only a little over 50%...
What's also very telling about this is that, from what I've read, most of the people who support Clemens (and Bonds) for the HOF admit that they believe he was on PEDs, and simply don't care... So, what that means is that a STRONG majority of HOF voters (and, probably a stronger majority of fans) believe there's sufficient evidence that he used PEDs.
Realistically, there's only one way someone can examine all the evidence and conclude that Clemens most likely didn't use... It's called 'confirmation bias'.
DesertIceSports.Com
"It's been public knowledge for 10+ years". That is group think. Do a little research. Read the transcript. Pettitte said he thought he heard Clemens tell him in a 1999 conversation that he had used hgh. Then, in a later conversation, Clemens said he had never used. Pettitte stated in his sworn statement that his original understanding was wrong. Pettitte never once said he thought Clemens used hgh, but that he misunderstood what was said. In fact he said there was a greater than 50% chance his original understanding was incorrect, under oath. That was the gist of his sworn statement. I am not ignoring Pettitte statement, it however seems you have misremembered it. Pettitte entire statement was a huge hit for the prosecution and they never should have called him. He made the same statement under deposition so they knew what he was going to say. He was actually a better witness for the defense, but you wouldn't know that because you seem to want to herd up with the sheeple instead of doing a little research on your own.
And McNamee, he was a horrible witness. There is no evidence. Only the crowd who took their information from the ESPN analysts outside the courtroom. I was the same, but when you look for yourself and don't let Lester munson tell you what to believe, you will see the same thing the court saw, no evidence
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
The obvious answer when something changed for Roger was in 1997. He came off four mediocre years and overnight he became dominant. I realize there can be some variance between teams but not this much. Something changed.
One of the things it appears people fail to realize is once these athletes are on the stuff and there ability to train and make gains quickly kicks in they get hooked. He was 34 in 97 and this would have been a perfect age to get on the juice. You are still young enough to be great and if you haven't used before you will make gains for sure. By 39 he was still making gains and was up to 238 pounds and climbing.
I love this quote from the story.
“The reason why my velocity continues to be what it is because of what we’re doing behind the scenes.”
Make no mistake about it Roger put in a ton of work in the gym. You simply can't take the stuff he and others took and just magically look the way they did. They earned the results they got from a ton of hard work. That said you don't make gains like this as a 39 year old male. It isn't possible naturally for someone with a long term prior workout regimen. It just isn't. If you are a beginner than perhaps a few years of big gains is in order but a natural plateau kicks in and you have to work hard to maintain that and small gains become possible over a longer period of time. Muscles take so long to build naturally and you can't stay lean like he was and gain mass too each year. You develop fuller and harder muscles but not much bigger. I think anyone who has ever trained for a long time realizes the life cycle of these athletes isn't naturally explained. The only answer is growth hormone and steroids.
Craig you know a ton about baseball history and stats. How much weight training have you done? The only reason I ask is all of the sports writers who were fat and out of shape always beat the drum that these are superior athletes and that their results were explained because they are just that much better than the rest and anyone who questions that is a loser or a hater. The people who questioned it the most are the very same people who have spent a lot of time working out and have a good understanding of what training can do for the body and it was beyond obvious the results they were experiencing weren't natural under any circumstances. Today all one must do is look on Instagram and you will see a ton of freaky conditioned guys that can only achieve that level of definition and size through performance enhancing drugs. It was no different then.
Clemens is elementary. Determining who else used gets more tricky because there will be a ton of guys who did that weren't obvious because they didn't have the genetics or put in the work.
https://www.baseball-reference.com/players/c/clemero02.shtml
"...because you seem to want to herd up with the sheeple instead of doing a little research on your own."
Sheeple? You're talking about considerably more than half, and probably more than 75% of everyone who's examined the issue... Some may be parroting the opinions of others (Just as many with your views do), but a LOT of very knowledgeable baseball journalists have concluded that Clemens most likely did PEDs... It's infinitely more likely that you're one of the 'Sheeple' than all of them.
Pettitte did what's very common among witnesses: he told the truth the first time around, then changed his story to protect either his ex-teammate's legacy or himself from prosecution... McNamee did the exact same thing; he just wanted the whole thing to end, and changing his story was the easiest way... Clemens was mentioned in the Mitchell Report 82 times... 82... Rusty Hardin's main goal in arguing Clemens' case wasn't to expose facts and statements from credible witnesses, it was to confuse, misdirect and suppress... He did an excellent job.
Producing enough evidence to convict someone in a criminal court of law is far beyond what's required to formulate a reasonable opinion of guilt or innocence... For years, the vast majority of Americans defended Lance Armstrong as vehemently as you're defending Clemens, even though the evidence against him was overwhelming... Their confirmation bias got the best of them, just as it is with you... 75%+ of knowledgeable baseball writers and fans isn't groupthink (one word), it's rational consensus.
DesertIceSports.Com
The common sentiment that Clemens was coming off four mediocre years is a misconception. You need to remember the context. At that time, wins/losses were very important when evaluating talent and by that metric, Clemens was very mediocre. But, his 94 season was cy young caliber as he led the league in era+ and had a great strike shortened season. His 93 and 95 seasons were plagued by groin and hamstring injuries. His 96 was also very good, as he led the league in it's and struck out 20 again. He also led the league in k/9 and had a 139 era+
Assistant GM for the red Sox in 1996 testified at the trial under oath that internally the red Sox actually considered Clemens a must sign and at the top of his game. Duquette was posturing for negotiations when he made the twilight statement. The change in 97 that you speak of is explained by his catcher at the time, Charlie O'Brien as the introduction of a new pitch, the splitter. I watched Clemens from the mid 80's on through, and he never really gained anything on the fastball. It stayed pretty consistent over time. As he aged, it was clear he could still throw hard, but not for as long or with as much control. He needed to dial it back some to keep walks down.
Now even macnamees testimony said Clemens started steroids in 1998. Now I don't believe that is true, but then what caused 1997?
As far as his body mass or gains, Dr james Andrews performed shoulder surgery on Clemens in 1985 and also follow ups throughout Clemens career. He stated under oath in2016 that he had found no evidence of steroid use in any of his appointments with Clemens. Clemens blood tests also do not show elevated levels of ldl or hdl cholesterol. He also did not have high blood pressure or acne in his medical records that are all common with steroid use.
There is tons of evidence that the espn talking heads never gave us as I am sure they had a narrative to give. It is dry stuff to read through, but it is out there.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Well that solves it. He is super human.
There is a crop of guys that are fitness industry leaders that insist they are clean like Mike O'Hearn and Simeon Panda. They have some how achieved results that no other human has done without help. All the fancy stats they have for baseball that you use they have for the fitness industry and even though the chances are zero that they are clean and their results defy logic they stick with the story. Their never wavering story allows for a few people to believe the impossible.
You clearly haven't read the testimony. Pettitte never changed his story. It was the same. He remembered a conversation from 9 years ago where he thought he remembered something, then in a separate conversation 6 years later he realised his initial understanding was wrong. That was it and that is why he was a terrible witness for the prosecution to call.
It would seem that I am certainly in the minority of people who don't think Clemens juiced. Does that make me a sheeple? Some of your thoughts are a bit incoherent.
As far as the mitchell report, who was their witness for Clemens? Brian McNamee. He could have named Clemens 882 times and it wouldn't make it legit. McNamee was an ex employee with an axe to grind. His own wife thought he was lying.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
"You clearly haven't read the testimony. Pettitte never changed his story. It was the same. He remembered a conversation
from 9 years ago where he thought he remembered something, then in a separate conversation 6 years later he realised
his initial understanding was wrong. That was it and that is why he was a terrible witness for the prosecution to call.
It would seem that I am certainly in the minority of people who don't think Clemens juiced. Does that make me a sheeple?
Some of your thoughts are a bit incoherent.
As far as the mitchell report, who was their witness for Clemens? Brian McNamee. He could have named Clemens 882
times and it wouldn't make it legit. McNamee was an ex employee with an axe to grind. His own wife thought he was lying."
Your defense of Pettitte is the very definition of confirmation bias... Not to mention your desire to ignore Clemens' almost unique ability to have another career 'prime' from age 38-43... His stats during those years are unprecedented, especially considering they were achieved as a pitcher during the steroid era... It's not about one single piece of information... It's the combination of many, many things.
What really put me over the top with this was how Clemens and Hardin handled the case, from beginning to end... If Hardin had the task of defending an innocent man, he wouldn't have tried to suppress and misdirect everything that came his way... And, Clemens wouldn't have pleaded ignorance 379 times in one deposition and stated that he believes that doing steroids actually produce a negative effect on an athlete's performance... Seriously, he said this... Clemens' level of disingenuousness was at a level that we hadn't seen in the sports world since the OJ trial.
I'm done with this... Nothing more to be said.
DesertIceSports.Com
I'm not really a big fan or hater of Clemens or Bonds so I don't have a dog in the fight. But I do just question when writers use the excuse of the "integrity clause" as a way of justifying not putting them in. Steroids aside, there are many many people in the HOF with questionable integrity that did a lot worse than shoot themselves up with needles.
Currently Collecting:
Flickr: https://flickr.com/gp/184724292@N07/686763
Not defending Pettitte, just stating what he said. Dont take my word for it, read it yourself.
as far as having a "unique ability to have another prime from 38 to 43" not at all unique. see Ryan, Nolan, Spahn Warren, Johnson, Randy. if you are going to make a case for PED use based on late career brilliance, you really need to open the field. there are a whole bunch of players who had success late in career who are not linked to steroids. check out tony gwynns stats. that argument will be a non starter. If Clemens was juicing during the time period you mention, why were his Yankee years so poor? every one was below his career averages. ERA+, FIP, WHIP, ERA, WAA and practically every other statistic you can name, except pitcher wins are below his career averages. in fact, when he was "supposed" to be juicing with the Yankees, he was worse than he was when he went to the Astros. He was also less durable with the yankees, pitching fewer innings and completing many many fewer games. if he was making gains due to PED, you would think he would be more durable and more dominant with the Yankees.
your argument has gotten so weak, you are now citing the way the court case was handled, because the evidence cannot be made to fit your narrative. I am sorry you listened to ESPN and the talking heads build the steroid narrative around clemens. I listened to the same thing and thought the same way you do until the last year or so. if you really look at the court docs/evidence, there is just nothing there. It is a shame a persons public perception can be destroyed by the word of just one person. That is exactly what happened here.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Pettitte stated under oath that Clemens told him McNamee injected Clemens with HGH.
Isn't that hearsay? If McNamee was a liar, couldn't he have been lying to Pettitte?
>
Just what's needed, another poster not willing to share information because he doesn't have the time. That doesn't support your argument, it weakens it.
I was on Clemens' side and now I am leaning the other way, BUT not because of hard evidence. There is no good evidence that he used. YES, plenty of indications he MIGHT have.
Plenty of doubts about his use, but he could still get in. I hope not, but he could. There's LOTS of debate here.
Poor way of making a conclusion, and if your wrong, one of the best pitchers of all time is excluded.
No failed tests, one very very unreliable witness to Clemens' using and a very suspicious career ark is all I see here. Even in Canseco's new book he can't say he knows Roger used and Jose has been correct about who used in most if not all cases.
If I was forced to bet on it, I would bet he used, but I just don't see any actual proof. Indications are there, but no proof.
If you have ever been accused of something you didn't do, you might think differently.
Excellent post.
I think he used, but if I were on the "jury" my vote would be not guilty.
Very well put Joe.
as far as Canseco goes, here is a quote from 2010 after his sworn affidavit, which mirrors his support of clemens from his sworn 2008 affidavit.
"I had my suspicions back then of a lot of players because it was so rampant in the game of baseball," he said. "But if you ask me if I have any solid evidence, did I ever inject Roger Clemens or put him in contact or did he ever use steroids. Never." In the proceeding, he said he was asked about his own steroid use and about comments players made about steroid use that are mentioned in his book, Juiced. Canseco said Clemens knew about his drug use, but never asked to get in touch with suppliers. "I definitely spoke to Roger Clemens about steroids just like a lot of other players, but what we didn't talk about was Roger Clemens using steroids," he said.
Read more at: https://nesn.com/2010/06/jose-canseco-testifies-roger-clemens-has-never-used-steroids/
Now, I dont like to base much by what Jose Canseco says, but at least when it comes to steroid use in MLB, he has seemingly been very accurate in his assessment. you would think that when Canseco joined the Red Sox in 1995 or the Blue Jays in 1998 that if Clemens was already using or even considering using, he would have had discussions with Canseco about use or acquisition as even then players seemingly knew about Jose and that he could help them in this respect. apparently such conversations never happened.
as i remember, Clemens was very aware of baseball history and his place in it even back in his red sox days. I am not sure if he would have risked that in order to use PED. I really am not sure.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
By no means do I think Clemens is super human. Randy Johnson performed better at advanced age than Clemens did. Nolan Ryan also. Ryan's 87 season was unreal and at age 40.
I am not sure what you mean in regards to Clemens body from your earlier post. if you look at pictures, he had that same thick build in 92/93 as he did throughout his 30's and 40's there was no phase where he bulked up like bonds did. He never had a chiseled look to him. Always had a big base and trunk.to
I think everyone would consider Dr James Andrews an authority when it comes to working with athletes. He worked with Clemens for over 20 years and has access to his medical files and gave him regular workovers after his surgery. Andrews found no evidence during all those years that Clemens used steroids. He testified to that under oath.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
I did not know this. I begin to lean back towards Clemens being clean.
I was really surprised joebanzai when I started looking over the evidence years after the fact. Like most everyone else, I listened to the talking heads on espn, sports talk radio cable news etc and just figured they would give me the facts. I don't know if I was naive or just lazy, but I guess I didn't realize that at that time (and probably still) there was a narrative the news outlets were going for, namely, bring down the big athletes. It was what was putting eyes on the screen. Athletes who were not embroiled in scandal did not drive ratings. So when Clemens name cameup, more ratings. There was lots of stuff the national media never spoke about, like the james Andrews sworn testimony. I think had that stuff come out back then, public perception would have been very different with Clemens
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
An article from 2002 has him at 225, 2003 he went to 238 and even later in his career in the 240's. This is not a natural progression for a man in their late 30's into their 40's with a toned look. Not even close. Especially when he weighed 2005 in his early 20's. You are an animal in your early 20's!
Craig you know baseball but obviously you don't know working out.
When I say super human his results fall into the category of the two guys names I posted.
So Craig these two men insist they are natural. You are a hater if you disagree according to them. Do you think they look natural? They obviously aren't but still insist that their results as insane as they may be are natural. When there is smoke their is fire with fitness results. It just is what it is.
I think Arod's approach is the right one. Everyone knows he did it and just be open about it. Seek forgiveness. You must admit your sins to be forgiven in life.
http://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/25833082/alex-rodriguez-says-roger-clemens-barry-bonds-deserve-make-hall-fame
I am not sure how accurate listed heights and weights for athletes are. I know they are certainly not accurate in the backs of baseball cards. John kr uk was listed at 170. Tony gwynn was listed at 185, canseco cards listed him at 230 for years and I have read him stats that he weighed as much as 265. For football players, listed weights are a joke. Now maybe Clemens was able to gain 13 pounds in one year. I am not sure, but at about a pound a month that doesn't seem to crazy.
Now, do the body builders you show look anything at all like Clemens ever? I never saw a picture of him where he even looked as cut as the strongest baseball player. I don't see any relation.
If you are employing the eyeball test, Clemens did not look the part of a bodybuilder. Unlike others.
You don't think that Dr James Andrews who's whole livelyhood is dealing with professional athletes could tell a steroid user? He worked one on one with Clemens from 85 on and had access to all the medical docs. You don't think he would know better than you or I The physical traits of a steroid user. You don't think that after examining Clemens for 13 years, that when he came in for his eval in 1998 or 1999 that Andrews wouldn't have been able to see a change of he was juicing? He testified that there was no physical change in Clemens.
Now I respect you and your opinions and knowledge of sports, cards etc. But I am going with the doctor on this one.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Well one thing I like about you is you stick with your opinion. We will never agree on this and that is totally cool.
Agree. His comparison of Babe Ruth’s illegal bat used for a few weeks in the early 1920’s to ‘roid era cheaters is one of the most LOL items I’ll ever read on the subject I’m sure. But, yeah, kudos to him for staying on the ship.
ISO 1978 Topps Baseball in NM-MT High Grade Raw 3, 100, 103, 302, 347, 376, 416, 466, 481, 487, 509, 534, 540, 554, 579, 580, 622, 642, 673, 724__________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________________ISO 1978 O-Pee-Chee in NM-MT High Grade Raw12, 21, 29, 38, 49, 65, 69, 73, 74, 81, 95, 100, 104, 110, 115, 122, 132, 133, 135, 140, 142, 151, 153, 155, 160, 161, 167, 168, 172, 179, 181, 196, 200, 204, 210, 224, 231, 240
The great thing in life is we are all entitled to our own opinion. I naturally think his position is crazy but he thinks mine is too so we are even.
Clemens definitely did steroids. I am fairly certain Nolan Ryan did as well. I think he was a bit of a pioneer of the steroid era and players saw what kind of effect the needle had on his career and they gravitated towards it. Baseball has this unique way of telling the steroid story through statistics. It's fairy easy to pick up on the peculiarities.
Did Tony gwynn do steroids?
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
https://sports.theonion.com/rejection-from-hall-of-fame-sends-roger-clemens-spirali-1831995798
Always plenty of PSA-graded cards in my ebay store -- https://ebay.com/str/thelumbercompanysportscards
^ wow, I guess he cheated. Never looked that ripped in those baggy uniforms.
I just saw this on Facebook. Haha
I love it.
Andy
Regardless of how we feel about Bonds and Clemens and despite the bitterness over the steroid era still very intense, as time passes and more suspected users get in, the greater the likelihood both are elected.
Unlike Joe Jackson and Pete Rose who received lifetime bans, Bonds and Clemens's accomplishments and candidacies will continue to be reviewed with regularity by the HOF Era's committees for decades to come. The question is once their eligiblilty for the BBWAA ballot expires, will former hall of famers and executives feel the same way about their cheating.
I thought it interesting that of the published ballots that Bonds and Clemens picked up a mere 3 ballots each among the writers changing their votes.
If Pete Rose ever becomes eligible, (hopefully no earlier than sometime AFTER his death), count on their admission too.
As far as their rookie cards, the '86 Topps Tiffany for Bonds, and '84 Fleer Update for Clemens are both very expensive but have much more room for improvement as time wears on.