@LarkinCollector said:
Football allows murderers, spouse beaters, child beaters, and all kinds of other "undesirables" to play, if their stats are good enough, so PED usage is pretty low on the list of things to be concerned with.
Baseball, at one time at least, was concerned with "integrity of the game" and PED usage by some destroyed that integrity.
Hence the difference in how PED usage is viewed by their fanbases.
The long history of MLB is littered with at least as many undesirables as football. I am not sure what era this "integrity of the game" took place. Miserable people and scandal have been involved in every era in baseball.
@LarkinCollector said:
Football allows murderers, spouse beaters, child beaters, and all kinds of other "undesirables" to play, if their stats are good enough, so PED usage is pretty low on the list of things to be concerned with.
Baseball, at one time at least, was concerned with "integrity of the game" and PED usage by some destroyed that integrity.
Hence the difference in how PED usage is viewed by their fanbases.
The long history of MLB is littered with at least as many undesirables as football. I am not sure what era this "integrity of the game" took place. Miserable people and scandal have been involved in every era in baseball.
Perhaps, but no baseball team would sign Kareem Hunt.
I can't read what is behind the paywall, but I am getting it is courtroom analysis. Don't read the analysis, read the transcript. This is the jist of where Pettitte ended up after testifying about his initial conversation in 1999.
“Well, obviously I was a little confused and flustered. But after that, I was like, well, obviously I must have misunderstood him.”
I am not going to quote the entire transcript, but that was the money shot so to speak. Pettittes entire testimony was vague and hurt the prosecution. It came down to Mac and Clemens.
I can't read what is behind the paywall, but I am getting it is courtroom analysis. Don't read the analysis, read the transcript. This is the jist of where Pettitte ended up after testifying about his initial conversation in 1999.
“Well, obviously I was a little confused and flustered. But after that, I was like, well, obviously I must have misunderstood him.”
I am not going to quote the entire transcript, but that was the money shot so to speak. Pettittes entire testimony was vague and hurt the prosecution. It came down to Mac and Clemens.
I can't read what is behind the paywall, but I am getting it is courtroom analysis. Don't read the analysis, read the transcript. This is the jist of where Pettitte ended up after testifying about his initial conversation in 1999.
“Well, obviously I was a little confused and flustered. But after that, I was like, well, obviously I must have misunderstood him.”
I am not going to quote the entire transcript, but that was the money shot so to speak. Pettittes entire testimony was vague and hurt the prosecution. It came down to Mac and Clemens.
I watched it live. I don’t have need of the article or transcript; I only posted it as corroboration.
Your last bit is like when a defense attorney points out that DNA is ONLY 99 percent. It’s possible Andy made a mistake do to the time that has passed but he answered what he remembered to be the truth.
That’s the actual truth of the matter.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
I can't read what is behind the paywall, but I am getting it is courtroom analysis. Don't read the analysis, read the transcript. This is the jist of where Pettitte ended up after testifying about his initial conversation in 1999.
“Well, obviously I was a little confused and flustered. But after that, I was like, well, obviously I must have misunderstood him.”
I am not going to quote the entire transcript, but that was the money shot so to speak. Pettittes entire testimony was vague and hurt the prosecution. It came down to Mac and Clemens.
I watched it live. I don’t have need of the article or transcript; I only posted it as corroboration.
Your last bit is like when a defense attorney points out that DNA is ONLY 99 percent. It’s possible Andy made a mistake do to the time that has passed but he answered what he remembered to be the truth.
I can't read what is behind the paywall, but I am getting it is courtroom analysis. Don't read the analysis, read the transcript. This is the jist of where Pettitte ended up after testifying about his initial conversation in 1999.
“Well, obviously I was a little confused and flustered. But after that, I was like, well, obviously I must have misunderstood him.”
I am not going to quote the entire transcript, but that was the money shot so to speak. Pettittes entire testimony was vague and hurt the prosecution. It came down to Mac and Clemens.
I can't read what is behind the paywall, but I am getting it is courtroom analysis. Don't read the analysis, read the transcript. This is the jist of where Pettitte ended up after testifying about his initial conversation in 1999.
“Well, obviously I was a little confused and flustered. But after that, I was like, well, obviously I must have misunderstood him.”
I am not going to quote the entire transcript, but that was the money shot so to speak. Pettittes entire testimony was vague and hurt the prosecution. It came down to Mac and Clemens.
I can't read what is behind the paywall, but I am getting it is courtroom analysis. Don't read the analysis, read the transcript. This is the jist of where Pettitte ended up after testifying about his initial conversation in 1999.
“Well, obviously I was a little confused and flustered. But after that, I was like, well, obviously I must have misunderstood him.”
I am not going to quote the entire transcript, but that was the money shot so to speak. Pettittes entire testimony was vague and hurt the prosecution. It came down to Mac and Clemens.
Putin , up to his old tricks again
What? Care to elaborate?
god no
Then I don't understand why you posted. Cluttering up the thread
I can't read what is behind the paywall, but I am getting it is courtroom analysis. Don't read the analysis, read the transcript. This is the jist of where Pettitte ended up after testifying about his initial conversation in 1999.
“Well, obviously I was a little confused and flustered. But after that, I was like, well, obviously I must have misunderstood him.”
I am not going to quote the entire transcript, but that was the money shot so to speak. Pettittes entire testimony was vague and hurt the prosecution. It came down to Mac and Clemens.
I watched it live. I don’t have need of the article or transcript; I only posted it as corroboration.
Your last bit is like when a defense attorney points out that DNA is ONLY 99 percent. It’s possible Andy made a mistake do to the time that has passed but he answered what he remembered to be the truth.
That’s the actual truth of the matter.
Why didn't the prosecution win?
Because perjury is very difficult to prove and the entire case was frivolous from day one.
There were sleeping jurors!
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
I can't read what is behind the paywall, but I am getting it is courtroom analysis. Don't read the analysis, read the transcript. This is the jist of where Pettitte ended up after testifying about his initial conversation in 1999.
“Well, obviously I was a little confused and flustered. But after that, I was like, well, obviously I must have misunderstood him.”
I am not going to quote the entire transcript, but that was the money shot so to speak. Pettittes entire testimony was vague and hurt the prosecution. It came down to Mac and Clemens.
I watched it live. I don’t have need of the article or transcript; I only posted it as corroboration.
Your last bit is like when a defense attorney points out that DNA is ONLY 99 percent. It’s possible Andy made a mistake do to the time that has passed but he answered what he remembered to be the truth.
That’s the actual truth of the matter.
Why didn't the prosecution win?
Because perjury is very difficult to prove and the entire case was frivolous from day one.
I can't read what is behind the paywall, but I am getting it is courtroom analysis. Don't read the analysis, read the transcript. This is the jist of where Pettitte ended up after testifying about his initial conversation in 1999.
“Well, obviously I was a little confused and flustered. But after that, I was like, well, obviously I must have misunderstood him.”
I am not going to quote the entire transcript, but that was the money shot so to speak. Pettittes entire testimony was vague and hurt the prosecution. It came down to Mac and Clemens.
I watched it live. I don’t have need of the article or transcript; I only posted it as corroboration.
Your last bit is like when a defense attorney points out that DNA is ONLY 99 percent. It’s possible Andy made a mistake do to the time that has passed but he answered what he remembered to be the truth.
That’s the actual truth of the matter.
Why didn't the prosecution win?
Because perjury is very difficult to prove and the entire case was frivolous from day one.
There were sleeping jurors!
No evidence. Heresay. That's why they lost.
Clemens found McNamee. He hired McNamee. His wife was injected by McNamee as was his best friend but he had no knowledge of McNamee and never took HGH. Best friend also says Clemens took them but acknowledges that too much time has passed to be 100% certain. That is all directly from the legal proceedings.
If, in light of those facts, you choose to believe Clemens is clean and that there is no evidence that points to his use of PEDs than that is your right.
However, for me that just doesn’t seem very plausible.
Huge Yankee fan here who appreciated how good a pitcher Clemens was and got to see him pitch quite often.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
I can't read what is behind the paywall, but I am getting it is courtroom analysis. Don't read the analysis, read the transcript. This is the jist of where Pettitte ended up after testifying about his initial conversation in 1999.
“Well, obviously I was a little confused and flustered. But after that, I was like, well, obviously I must have misunderstood him.”
I am not going to quote the entire transcript, but that was the money shot so to speak. Pettittes entire testimony was vague and hurt the prosecution. It came down to Mac and Clemens.
Putin , up to his old tricks again
What? Care to elaborate?
god no
Then I don't understand why you posted. Cluttering up the thread
You're just noticing this NOW?
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
I can't read what is behind the paywall, but I am getting it is courtroom analysis. Don't read the analysis, read the transcript. This is the jist of where Pettitte ended up after testifying about his initial conversation in 1999.
“Well, obviously I was a little confused and flustered. But after that, I was like, well, obviously I must have misunderstood him.”
I am not going to quote the entire transcript, but that was the money shot so to speak. Pettittes entire testimony was vague and hurt the prosecution. It came down to Mac and Clemens.
I watched it live. I don’t have need of the article or transcript; I only posted it as corroboration.
Your last bit is like when a defense attorney points out that DNA is ONLY 99 percent. It’s possible Andy made a mistake do to the time that has passed but he answered what he remembered to be the truth.
That’s the actual truth of the matter.
Why didn't the prosecution win?
Because perjury is very difficult to prove and the entire case was frivolous from day one.
There were sleeping jurors!
No evidence. Heresay. That's why they lost.
Clemens found McNamee. He hired McNamee. His wife was injected by McNamee as was his best friend but he had no knowledge of McNamee and never took HGH. Best friend also says Clemens took them but acknowledges that too much time has passed to be 100% certain. That is all directly from the legal proceedings.
If, in light of those facts, you choose to believe Clemens is clean and that there is no evidence that points to his use of PEDs than that is your right.
However, for me that just doesn’t seem very plausible.
Huge Yankee fan here who appreciated how good a pitcher Clemens was and got to see him pitch quite often.
Clemens hired McNamee. He never denied knowledge of Mcnamee. I am not sure where that came from. Debbie Clemens used HGH, that does not mean Roger Clemens did. that is a logical fallacy.
Pettitte states: "I'm saying that I was under the impression that he told me he had taken it. And then when Roger told me that he didn't take it, and I misunderstood him, I took it for that, that I misunderstood him."
Andy was not sure when the conversation took place. The prosecution said 1999, andy said he wasnt sure. Andy was also not sure of the substance of the conversation. In fact, he was only 50% sure what the conversation was about and he stated that under oath. Pettitte was not a good witness for the prosecution. in fact, he was the prosecutions hail mary. they new they would never win with mcnamee, they had to try with pettitte and he testified that he misunderstood the original conversation.
Pettitte was also asked this question during the trial: "Do you have any knowledge of whether Clemens ever used any substances that were banned by MLB other than steroids and hgh?
"no"
Amphetamines?
"no"
Dr James Andrews performed shoulder surgery on Clemens in 1985. He continued to see clemens periodically until he retired. He was asked under oath if he saw any evidence that Roger Clemens had used PED. He said He saw no evidence that clemens did. no physical changes, no changes in musculature, no acne, no high blood pressure, no high cholesterol. No physical or medical evidence to support PED use. Keep in mind he frequently gave clemens physicals and had access to all his medical records. this is also a man whose livelyhood is working with professional athletes.
Dont you think after working with as many athletes as he has and being in the profession he is in, that he would be able to spot a PED user?
this storyline was not picked up by the talking head media as it did not support their narrative, so most are uniformed about it.
Keep in mind none of this was even brought up until Mcnamee had a falling out with clemens because he wouldnt fund a vitamin start up company Mcnamee wanted to start. Dealing with a disgruntled former employee. Mcnamees own wifes testimony conflicted with his.
I can't read what is behind the paywall, but I am getting it is courtroom analysis. Don't read the analysis, read the transcript. This is the jist of where Pettitte ended up after testifying about his initial conversation in 1999.
“Well, obviously I was a little confused and flustered. But after that, I was like, well, obviously I must have misunderstood him.”
I am not going to quote the entire transcript, but that was the money shot so to speak. Pettittes entire testimony was vague and hurt the prosecution. It came down to Mac and Clemens.
I watched it live. I don’t have need of the article or transcript; I only posted it as corroboration.
Your last bit is like when a defense attorney points out that DNA is ONLY 99 percent. It’s possible Andy made a mistake do to the time that has passed but he answered what he remembered to be the truth.
That’s the actual truth of the matter.
Why didn't the prosecution win?
Because perjury is very difficult to prove and the entire case was frivolous from day one.
There were sleeping jurors!
No evidence. Heresay. That's why they lost.
Clemens found McNamee. He hired McNamee. His wife was injected by McNamee as was his best friend but he had no knowledge of McNamee and never took HGH. Best friend also says Clemens took them but acknowledges that too much time has passed to be 100% certain. That is all directly from the legal proceedings.
If, in light of those facts, you choose to believe Clemens is clean and that there is no evidence that points to his use of PEDs than that is your right.
However, for me that just doesn’t seem very plausible.
Huge Yankee fan here who appreciated how good a pitcher Clemens was and got to see him pitch quite often.
Clemens hired McNamee. He never denied knowledge of Mcnamee. I am not sure where that came from. Debbie Clemens used HGH, that does not mean Roger Clemens did. that is a logical fallacy.
Pettitte states: "I'm saying that I was under the impression that he told me he had taken it. And then when Roger told me that he didn't take it, and I misunderstood him, I took it for that, that I misunderstood him."
Andy was not sure when the conversation took place. The prosecution said 1999, andy said he wasnt sure. Andy was also not sure of the substance of the conversation. In fact, he was only 50% sure what the conversation was about and he stated that under oath. Pettitte was not a good witness for the prosecution. in fact, he was the prosecutions hail mary. they new they would never win with mcnamee, they had to try with pettitte and he testified that he misunderstood the original conversation.
Pettitte was also asked this question during the trial: "Do you have any knowledge of whether Clemens ever used any substances that were banned by MLB other than steroids and hgh?
"no"
Amphetamines?
"no"
Dr James Andrews performed shoulder surgery on Clemens in 1985. He continued to see clemens periodically until he retired. He was asked under oath if he saw any evidence that Roger Clemens had used PED. He said He saw no evidence that clemens did. no physical changes, no changes in musculature, no acne, no high blood pressure, no high cholesterol. No physical or medical evidence to support PED use. Keep in mind he frequently gave clemens physicals and had access to all his medical records. this is also a man whose livelyhood is working with professional athletes.
Dont you think after working with as many athletes as he has and being in the profession he is in, that he would be able to spot a PED user?
this storyline was not picked up by the talking head media as it did not support their narrative, so most are uniformed about it.
Keep in mind none of this was even brought up until Mcnamee had a falling out with clemens because he wouldnt fund a vitamin start up company Mcnamee wanted to start. Dealing with a disgruntled former employee. Mcnamees own wifes testimony conflicted with his.
there is no evidence, but heresay.
These are the facts! This is why I give Roger the benefit of the doubt. I never gave much weight to the Pettitte/Mcnamee testimony.
Playing devils advocate here, Dr Andrews was probably not looking for evidence of steroids, and a smart Juicer can get off steroids (and doesn't necessarily HAVE to get huge muscles or bad acne either) and appear clean if he has time. A scheduled operation would certainly give someone time for the drugs to get out of the system. A Doctor might also not want to throw one of his patients "under the bus" without medical proof that he did steroids.
I strongly suspect that Clemens did at some point (or points) take steroids, you could say the same for many others, including Puckett, who never tested positive.
I do believe that a person is innocent until proven guilty and I don't see enough proof in Clemens' case.
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
Pettitte states: "I'm saying that I was under the impression that he told me he had taken it. And then when Roger told me that he didn't take it, and I misunderstood him, I took it for that, that I misunderstood him."
I think we’re taking things out of context to suit an argument. At the end of the long day of testimony (having watched it), Pettitte had said the way he remembers it, Roger said he took them.
Recognize, it is ROGER who tells him, ‘No, Andy, I didn’t’ and Andy said ‘Ok, bud - I guess I made a mistake.’
I have some friends of mine who told me they took steroids and I probably couldn’t tell you when the conversations took place, either. Since we’re still friends in many cases, if any were trying to recant their confession, I’d probably do the same thing Andy Pettitte did.
“I could have sworn you told me you took steroids but maybe I made a mistake”
Correction from earlier (must have been typing to fast and missed the ommision:
Had no knowledge of McNamee’s dealings...
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
"I think we’re taking things out of context to suit an argument. At the end of the long day of testimony (having watched it), Pettitte had said the way he remembers it, Roger said he took them."
I am not sure what is out of context. I think maybe you dont have the timeline down correctly.
sometime in 1999 or thereabouts, Pettitte and Clemens had a brief conversation where Andy thought he heard Clemens say he used HGH. Remember, Pettitte stated that he wasnt sure of when the conversation happened or any real specifics about the conversation. Then, 5 or 6 years later they had another conversation and Clemens made it clear to andy that he never used HGH. after the second conversation is when Andy concluded that he must have misunderstood the original conversation. that is what he testified to.
"I think we’re taking things out of context to suit an argument. At the end of the long day of testimony (having watched it), Pettitte had said the way he remembers it, Roger said he took them."
I am not sure what is out of context. I think maybe you dont have the timeline down correctly.
sometime in 1999 or thereabouts, Pettitte and Clemens had a brief conversation where Andy thought he heard Clemens say he used HGH. Remember, Pettitte stated that he wasnt sure of when the conversation happened or any real specifics about the conversation. Then, 5 or 6 years later they had another conversation and Clemens made it clear to andy that he never used HGH. after the second conversation is when Andy concluded that he must have misunderstood the original conversation. that is what he testified to.
what was out of context?
You are focusing on one sentence from two and a half hours of testimony.
That is actually how you would define ‘out of context’.
The only thing that seems to change Andy’s story was Roger Clemens telling him to do so.
And, why overlook this little part? There’s a bazillions personal trainers out there - so why pick an HGH dealer to work with? Why would you risk your reputation?
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
"I think we’re taking things out of context to suit an argument. At the end of the long day of testimony (having watched it), Pettitte had said the way he remembers it, Roger said he took them."
I am not sure what is out of context. I think maybe you dont have the timeline down correctly.
sometime in 1999 or thereabouts, Pettitte and Clemens had a brief conversation where Andy thought he heard Clemens say he used HGH. Remember, Pettitte stated that he wasnt sure of when the conversation happened or any real specifics about the conversation. Then, 5 or 6 years later they had another conversation and Clemens made it clear to andy that he never used HGH. after the second conversation is when Andy concluded that he must have misunderstood the original conversation. that is what he testified to.
what was out of context?
You are focusing on one sentence from two and a half hours of testimony.
That is actually how you would define ‘out of context’.
The only thing that seems to change Andy’s story was Roger Clemens telling him to do so.
And, why overlook this little part? There’s a bazillions personal trainers out there - so why pick an HGH dealer to work with? Why would you risk your reputation?
I go to a gym and the stuff I hear people talking about supplements and whatnot is ludicrous and they all seem to think they are experts and have no problem handing out advice that is literally insane .
"I think we’re taking things out of context to suit an argument. At the end of the long day of testimony (having watched it), Pettitte had said the way he remembers it, Roger said he took them."
I am not sure what is out of context. I think maybe you dont have the timeline down correctly.
sometime in 1999 or thereabouts, Pettitte and Clemens had a brief conversation where Andy thought he heard Clemens say he used HGH. Remember, Pettitte stated that he wasnt sure of when the conversation happened or any real specifics about the conversation. Then, 5 or 6 years later they had another conversation and Clemens made it clear to andy that he never used HGH. after the second conversation is when Andy concluded that he must have misunderstood the original conversation. that is what he testified to.
what was out of context?
You are focusing on one sentence from two and a half hours of testimony.
That is actually how you would define ‘out of context’.
The only thing that seems to change Andy’s story was Roger Clemens telling him to do so.
And, why overlook this little part? There’s a bazillions personal trainers out there - so why pick an HGH dealer to work with? Why would you risk your reputation?
To quote a line from the movie "Lethal Weapon" "Pretty thin"
2013,14 and 15 Certificate Award Winner Harmon Killebrew Master Set and Master Topps Set
"I think we’re taking things out of context to suit an argument. At the end of the long day of testimony (having watched it), Pettitte had said the way he remembers it, Roger said he took them."
I am not sure what is out of context. I think maybe you dont have the timeline down correctly.
sometime in 1999 or thereabouts, Pettitte and Clemens had a brief conversation where Andy thought he heard Clemens say he used HGH. Remember, Pettitte stated that he wasnt sure of when the conversation happened or any real specifics about the conversation. Then, 5 or 6 years later they had another conversation and Clemens made it clear to andy that he never used HGH. after the second conversation is when Andy concluded that he must have misunderstood the original conversation. that is what he testified to.
what was out of context?
You are focusing on one sentence from two and a half hours of testimony.
That is actually how you would define ‘out of context’.
The only thing that seems to change Andy’s story was Roger Clemens telling him to do so.
And, why overlook this little part? There’s a bazillions personal trainers out there - so why pick an HGH dealer to work with? Why would you risk your reputation?
maybe they were friends? maybe he liked how mac trained him? maybe he liked the price? Maybe he would go out of his way for clemens? who knows why he chose him.
why would I not focus on the part of the testimony that matters the most? the crux of his testimony. I'm certainly not going to quote the entire deposition and testimony.
Clemens corrected a misconception andy had from years ago. has no one ever gotten the wrong impression or information about you and you had to correct them? I know I have. It is not like this was witness tampering as this conversation was years before any trial.
"I think we’re taking things out of context to suit an argument. At the end of the long day of testimony (having watched it), Pettitte had said the way he remembers it, Roger said he took them."
I am not sure what is out of context. I think maybe you dont have the timeline down correctly.
sometime in 1999 or thereabouts, Pettitte and Clemens had a brief conversation where Andy thought he heard Clemens say he used HGH. Remember, Pettitte stated that he wasnt sure of when the conversation happened or any real specifics about the conversation. Then, 5 or 6 years later they had another conversation and Clemens made it clear to andy that he never used HGH. after the second conversation is when Andy concluded that he must have misunderstood the original conversation. that is what he testified to.
what was out of context?
You are focusing on one sentence from two and a half hours of testimony.
That is actually how you would define ‘out of context’.
The only thing that seems to change Andy’s story was Roger Clemens telling him to do so.
And, why overlook this little part? There’s a bazillions personal trainers out there - so why pick an HGH dealer to work with? Why would you risk your reputation?
I go to a gym and the stuff I hear people talking about supplements and whatnot is ludicrous and they all seem to think they are experts and have no problem handing out advice that is literally insane .
Sports doesn't require an IQ test to participate.
So he seeks out the best doctor in America for surgery in 1985 but then just pulls a name out of a hat to train him in 1998 and - by mere coincidence - that guy happens to have connections for HGH?
Yes, I swear that is rain on your leg. No, don’t worry, it’s just that the rain is unseasonably warm and the cloud it’s falling from just happens to be hovering right around my belt buckle. Oh and it’s not raining anywhere else nearby.
Weird, right?
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
"I think we’re taking things out of context to suit an argument. At the end of the long day of testimony (having watched it), Pettitte had said the way he remembers it, Roger said he took them."
I am not sure what is out of context. I think maybe you dont have the timeline down correctly.
sometime in 1999 or thereabouts, Pettitte and Clemens had a brief conversation where Andy thought he heard Clemens say he used HGH. Remember, Pettitte stated that he wasnt sure of when the conversation happened or any real specifics about the conversation. Then, 5 or 6 years later they had another conversation and Clemens made it clear to andy that he never used HGH. after the second conversation is when Andy concluded that he must have misunderstood the original conversation. that is what he testified to.
what was out of context?
You are focusing on one sentence from two and a half hours of testimony.
That is actually how you would define ‘out of context’.
The only thing that seems to change Andy’s story was Roger Clemens telling him to do so.
And, why overlook this little part? There’s a bazillions personal trainers out there - so why pick an HGH dealer to work with? Why would you risk your reputation?
I go to a gym and the stuff I hear people talking about supplements and whatnot is ludicrous and they all seem to think they are experts and have no problem handing out advice that is literally insane .
Sports doesn't require an IQ test to participate.
So he seeks out the best doctor in America for surgery in 1985 but then just pulls a name out of a hat to train him in 1998 and - by mere coincidence - that guy happens to have connections for HGH?
Yes, I swear that is rain on your leg. No, don’t worry, it’s just that the rain is unseasonably warm and the cloud it’s falling from just happens to be hovering right around my belt buckle. Oh and it’s not raining anywhere else nearby.
Weird, right?
and the best doctor in america testified under oath that he did not believe Clemens ever used PED after having seen him for physicals for years and having access to his medicals
No - a man who makes his living treating baseball players can’t start outing them or his business dries up pretty quick. I’m not saying he lied but you can pretty easily say - under oath - that you never saw evidence of use if you never looked for it.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
"I think we’re taking things out of context to suit an argument. At the end of the long day of testimony (having watched it), Pettitte had said the way he remembers it, Roger said he took them."
I am not sure what is out of context. I think maybe you dont have the timeline down correctly.
sometime in 1999 or thereabouts, Pettitte and Clemens had a brief conversation where Andy thought he heard Clemens say he used HGH. Remember, Pettitte stated that he wasnt sure of when the conversation happened or any real specifics about the conversation. Then, 5 or 6 years later they had another conversation and Clemens made it clear to andy that he never used HGH. after the second conversation is when Andy concluded that he must have misunderstood the original conversation. that is what he testified to.
what was out of context?
You are focusing on one sentence from two and a half hours of testimony.
That is actually how you would define ‘out of context’.
The only thing that seems to change Andy’s story was Roger Clemens telling him to do so.
And, why overlook this little part? There’s a bazillions personal trainers out there - so why pick an HGH dealer to work with? Why would you risk your reputation?
I go to a gym and the stuff I hear people talking about supplements and whatnot is ludicrous and they all seem to think they are experts and have no problem handing out advice that is literally insane .
Sports doesn't require an IQ test to participate.
So he seeks out the best doctor in America for surgery in 1985 but then just pulls a name out of a hat to train him in 1998 and - by mere coincidence - that guy happens to have connections for HGH?
Yes, I swear that is rain on your leg. No, don’t worry, it’s just that the rain is unseasonably warm and the cloud it’s falling from just happens to be hovering right around my belt buckle. Oh and it’s not raining anywhere else nearby.
Weird, right?
and the best doctor in america testified under oath that he did not believe Clemens ever used PED after having seen him for physicals for years and having access to his medicals
weird, right?
Why hire Brian McNamee?
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
"I think we’re taking things out of context to suit an argument. At the end of the long day of testimony (having watched it), Pettitte had said the way he remembers it, Roger said he took them."
I am not sure what is out of context. I think maybe you dont have the timeline down correctly.
sometime in 1999 or thereabouts, Pettitte and Clemens had a brief conversation where Andy thought he heard Clemens say he used HGH. Remember, Pettitte stated that he wasnt sure of when the conversation happened or any real specifics about the conversation. Then, 5 or 6 years later they had another conversation and Clemens made it clear to andy that he never used HGH. after the second conversation is when Andy concluded that he must have misunderstood the original conversation. that is what he testified to.
what was out of context?
You are focusing on one sentence from two and a half hours of testimony.
That is actually how you would define ‘out of context’.
The only thing that seems to change Andy’s story was Roger Clemens telling him to do so.
And, why overlook this little part? There’s a bazillions personal trainers out there - so why pick an HGH dealer to work with? Why would you risk your reputation?
I go to a gym and the stuff I hear people talking about supplements and whatnot is ludicrous and they all seem to think they are experts and have no problem handing out advice that is literally insane .
Sports doesn't require an IQ test to participate.
So he seeks out the best doctor in America for surgery in 1985 but then just pulls a name out of a hat to train him in 1998 and - by mere coincidence - that guy happens to have connections for HGH?
Yes, I swear that is rain on your leg. No, don’t worry, it’s just that the rain is unseasonably warm and the cloud it’s falling from just happens to be hovering right around my belt buckle. Oh and it’s not raining anywhere else nearby.
Weird, right?
and the best doctor in america testified under oath that he did not believe Clemens ever used PED after having seen him for physicals for years and having access to his medicals
weird, right?
Why hire Brian McNamee?
McNamee was a conditioning coach for the blue jays starting in 1998. Then he was hired by the Yankees from 2000-2001. That is how he met Clemens.
Now here is macs timeline. He said he injected Clemens with steroids starting in 1998 and continued through 2001. He was first deposed under oath in 2007. Isn't it amazing he said he never injected or supplied Clemens with PED after 2001 even though they continued to work together. Guess what the statute is On supplying steroids? 6 years.
Now if Clemens was using Mac as a trainer because he supplied and injected Clemens with PED, why did he continue to work with him after 2001? His utility to Clemens would have been gone. Wouldn't Clemens have moved on to another trainer who could supply him? He didnt.
The narrative Mac and the media have crafted doesn't make sense. No steroids, meet Mac in 98 and start steroids after his second best season, continue using through 2001, stop using for the last 6 years of his career as he is aging.
Mac crafted this narrative so that he could bring Clemens down after a failed business opportunity and other slights, but make the timeline so that the statute of limitations has been exceeded when he testified.
Prosecuting Clemens and Bonds was a waste of money. Do I think they "knowingly" used? Of course. Is there definitive proof? No. That only exists for a few, like Ken Caminiti or Lyle Alzado, who both admitted it.
The list of big-time athletes that have laid blame with their wives for sketchy behavior is interesting:
Roger Clemens -- my wife ordered hGH. I had no idea.
Peyton Manning -- my wife ordered hGH. I had no idea.
Wayne Gretzky -- my wife was placing $500,000 in illegal bets with Rick Tocchet. I had no idea.
Believe who you will. Marital privilege that forbids testimony against a spouse is a convenient thing.
"Look up, old boy, and see what you get." -William Bonney.
@breakdown said:
Prosecuting Clemens and Bonds was a waste of money. Do I think they "knowingly" used? Of course. Is there definitive proof? No. That only exists for a few, like Ken Caminiti or Lyle Alzado, who both admitted it.
The list of big-time athletes that have laid blame with their wives for sketchy behavior is interesting:
Roger Clemens -- my wife ordered hGH. I had no idea.
Peyton Manning -- my wife ordered hGH. I had no idea.
Wayne Gretzky -- my wife was placing $500,000 in illegal bets with Rick Tocchet. I had no idea.
Believe who you will. Marital privilege that forbids testimony against a spouse is a convenient thing.
The whole thing was a stupid waste of time and money. MLB could have just worked something lucrative out with the players union when the time came and handled it internally. Congress should have told MLB and these players to handle it themselves and not waste resources on it. And for the record I don’t believe any of these ball players one bit nor do I care what they put in their bodies
Comments
The long history of MLB is littered with at least as many undesirables as football. I am not sure what era this "integrity of the game" took place. Miserable people and scandal have been involved in every era in baseball.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Perhaps, but no baseball team would sign Kareem Hunt.
The NY Times article...
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/02/sports/pettitte-takes-witness-stand-in-clemens-perjury-trial.html
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Also, I’m happy to drop it - I’m not looking to get a Clemens fan upset.
One of the best pitchers I ever saw.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
I can't read what is behind the paywall, but I am getting it is courtroom analysis. Don't read the analysis, read the transcript. This is the jist of where Pettitte ended up after testifying about his initial conversation in 1999.
“Well, obviously I was a little confused and flustered. But after that, I was like, well, obviously I must have misunderstood him.”
I am not going to quote the entire transcript, but that was the money shot so to speak. Pettittes entire testimony was vague and hurt the prosecution. It came down to Mac and Clemens.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Putin , up to his old tricks again
No, you don't have to drop anything. I'm not upset at all, really. I love to talk about this stuff
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Nm> @craig44 said:
I watched it live. I don’t have need of the article or transcript; I only posted it as corroboration.
Your last bit is like when a defense attorney points out that DNA is ONLY 99 percent. It’s possible Andy made a mistake do to the time that has passed but he answered what he remembered to be the truth.
That’s the actual truth of the matter.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Why didn't the prosecution win?
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
What? Care to elaborate?
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
god no
Then I don't understand why you posted. Cluttering up the thread
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
Because perjury is very difficult to prove and the entire case was frivolous from day one.
There were sleeping jurors!
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
No evidence. Heresay. That's why they lost.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
bronco aka thread clutter-upper
i dig it
it was going so smoothly up to that point
Clemens found McNamee. He hired McNamee. His wife was injected by McNamee as was his best friend but he had no knowledge of McNamee and never took HGH. Best friend also says Clemens took them but acknowledges that too much time has passed to be 100% certain. That is all directly from the legal proceedings.
If, in light of those facts, you choose to believe Clemens is clean and that there is no evidence that points to his use of PEDs than that is your right.
However, for me that just doesn’t seem very plausible.
Huge Yankee fan here who appreciated how good a pitcher Clemens was and got to see him pitch quite often.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
You're just noticing this NOW?
Clemens hired McNamee. He never denied knowledge of Mcnamee. I am not sure where that came from. Debbie Clemens used HGH, that does not mean Roger Clemens did. that is a logical fallacy.
Pettitte states: "I'm saying that I was under the impression that he told me he had taken it. And then when Roger told me that he didn't take it, and I misunderstood him, I took it for that, that I misunderstood him."
Andy was not sure when the conversation took place. The prosecution said 1999, andy said he wasnt sure. Andy was also not sure of the substance of the conversation. In fact, he was only 50% sure what the conversation was about and he stated that under oath. Pettitte was not a good witness for the prosecution. in fact, he was the prosecutions hail mary. they new they would never win with mcnamee, they had to try with pettitte and he testified that he misunderstood the original conversation.
Pettitte was also asked this question during the trial: "Do you have any knowledge of whether Clemens ever used any substances that were banned by MLB other than steroids and hgh?
"no"
Amphetamines?
"no"
Dr James Andrews performed shoulder surgery on Clemens in 1985. He continued to see clemens periodically until he retired. He was asked under oath if he saw any evidence that Roger Clemens had used PED. He said He saw no evidence that clemens did. no physical changes, no changes in musculature, no acne, no high blood pressure, no high cholesterol. No physical or medical evidence to support PED use. Keep in mind he frequently gave clemens physicals and had access to all his medical records. this is also a man whose livelyhood is working with professional athletes.
Dont you think after working with as many athletes as he has and being in the profession he is in, that he would be able to spot a PED user?
this storyline was not picked up by the talking head media as it did not support their narrative, so most are uniformed about it.
Keep in mind none of this was even brought up until Mcnamee had a falling out with clemens because he wouldnt fund a vitamin start up company Mcnamee wanted to start. Dealing with a disgruntled former employee. Mcnamees own wifes testimony conflicted with his.
there is no evidence, but heresay.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
These are the facts! This is why I give Roger the benefit of the doubt. I never gave much weight to the Pettitte/Mcnamee testimony.
Playing devils advocate here, Dr Andrews was probably not looking for evidence of steroids, and a smart Juicer can get off steroids (and doesn't necessarily HAVE to get huge muscles or bad acne either) and appear clean if he has time. A scheduled operation would certainly give someone time for the drugs to get out of the system. A Doctor might also not want to throw one of his patients "under the bus" without medical proof that he did steroids.
I strongly suspect that Clemens did at some point (or points) take steroids, you could say the same for many others, including Puckett, who never tested positive.
I do believe that a person is innocent until proven guilty and I don't see enough proof in Clemens' case.
@craig44
Pettitte states: "I'm saying that I was under the impression that he told me he had taken it. And then when Roger told me that he didn't take it, and I misunderstood him, I took it for that, that I misunderstood him."
I think we’re taking things out of context to suit an argument. At the end of the long day of testimony (having watched it), Pettitte had said the way he remembers it, Roger said he took them.
Recognize, it is ROGER who tells him, ‘No, Andy, I didn’t’ and Andy said ‘Ok, bud - I guess I made a mistake.’
I have some friends of mine who told me they took steroids and I probably couldn’t tell you when the conversations took place, either. Since we’re still friends in many cases, if any were trying to recant their confession, I’d probably do the same thing Andy Pettitte did.
“I could have sworn you told me you took steroids but maybe I made a mistake”
Correction from earlier (must have been typing to fast and missed the ommision:
Had no knowledge of McNamee’s dealings...
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
1951WheatiesPremium said:
"I think we’re taking things out of context to suit an argument. At the end of the long day of testimony (having watched it), Pettitte had said the way he remembers it, Roger said he took them."
I am not sure what is out of context. I think maybe you dont have the timeline down correctly.
sometime in 1999 or thereabouts, Pettitte and Clemens had a brief conversation where Andy thought he heard Clemens say he used HGH. Remember, Pettitte stated that he wasnt sure of when the conversation happened or any real specifics about the conversation. Then, 5 or 6 years later they had another conversation and Clemens made it clear to andy that he never used HGH. after the second conversation is when Andy concluded that he must have misunderstood the original conversation. that is what he testified to.
what was out of context?
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
You are focusing on one sentence from two and a half hours of testimony.
That is actually how you would define ‘out of context’.
The only thing that seems to change Andy’s story was Roger Clemens telling him to do so.
And, why overlook this little part? There’s a bazillions personal trainers out there - so why pick an HGH dealer to work with? Why would you risk your reputation?
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
I go to a gym and the stuff I hear people talking about supplements and whatnot is ludicrous and they all seem to think they are experts and have no problem handing out advice that is literally insane .
Sports doesn't require an IQ test to participate.
To quote a line from the movie "Lethal Weapon" "Pretty thin"
maybe they were friends? maybe he liked how mac trained him? maybe he liked the price? Maybe he would go out of his way for clemens? who knows why he chose him.
why would I not focus on the part of the testimony that matters the most? the crux of his testimony. I'm certainly not going to quote the entire deposition and testimony.
Clemens corrected a misconception andy had from years ago. has no one ever gotten the wrong impression or information about you and you had to correct them? I know I have. It is not like this was witness tampering as this conversation was years before any trial.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
So he seeks out the best doctor in America for surgery in 1985 but then just pulls a name out of a hat to train him in 1998 and - by mere coincidence - that guy happens to have connections for HGH?
Yes, I swear that is rain on your leg. No, don’t worry, it’s just that the rain is unseasonably warm and the cloud it’s falling from just happens to be hovering right around my belt buckle. Oh and it’s not raining anywhere else nearby.
Weird, right?
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
and the best doctor in america testified under oath that he did not believe Clemens ever used PED after having seen him for physicals for years and having access to his medicals
weird, right?
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
No - a man who makes his living treating baseball players can’t start outing them or his business dries up pretty quick. I’m not saying he lied but you can pretty easily say - under oath - that you never saw evidence of use if you never looked for it.
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
Why hire Brian McNamee?
Curious about the rare, mysterious and beautiful 1951 Wheaties Premium Photos?
https://forums.collectors.com/discussion/987963/1951-wheaties-premium-photos-set-registry#latest
thats what it looks like after the cleaning lady comes by anyway
that's a nice globe, thread clutter-upper
and is that your great-great-great-grandparents on the wall?
McNamee was a conditioning coach for the blue jays starting in 1998. Then he was hired by the Yankees from 2000-2001. That is how he met Clemens.
Now here is macs timeline. He said he injected Clemens with steroids starting in 1998 and continued through 2001. He was first deposed under oath in 2007. Isn't it amazing he said he never injected or supplied Clemens with PED after 2001 even though they continued to work together. Guess what the statute is On supplying steroids? 6 years.
Now if Clemens was using Mac as a trainer because he supplied and injected Clemens with PED, why did he continue to work with him after 2001? His utility to Clemens would have been gone. Wouldn't Clemens have moved on to another trainer who could supply him? He didnt.
The narrative Mac and the media have crafted doesn't make sense. No steroids, meet Mac in 98 and start steroids after his second best season, continue using through 2001, stop using for the last 6 years of his career as he is aging.
Mac crafted this narrative so that he could bring Clemens down after a failed business opportunity and other slights, but make the timeline so that the statute of limitations has been exceeded when he testified.
George Brett, Roger Clemens and Tommy Brady.
I can't say , that picture is from 3 days ago there is a towering pile of old newspaper in the way now, and a large box of cat hair I've been saving
Prosecuting Clemens and Bonds was a waste of money. Do I think they "knowingly" used? Of course. Is there definitive proof? No. That only exists for a few, like Ken Caminiti or Lyle Alzado, who both admitted it.
The list of big-time athletes that have laid blame with their wives for sketchy behavior is interesting:
Roger Clemens -- my wife ordered hGH. I had no idea.
Peyton Manning -- my wife ordered hGH. I had no idea.
Wayne Gretzky -- my wife was placing $500,000 in illegal bets with Rick Tocchet. I had no idea.
Believe who you will. Marital privilege that forbids testimony against a spouse is a convenient thing.
"Look up, old boy, and see what you get." -William Bonney.
The whole thing was a stupid waste of time and money. MLB could have just worked something lucrative out with the players union when the time came and handled it internally. Congress should have told MLB and these players to handle it themselves and not waste resources on it. And for the record I don’t believe any of these ball players one bit nor do I care what they put in their bodies