Mitchell steroid probe; Latest - Clemens headed to Court; Congress

[BrewCrewForever]

I think the forever famous line is going to be "It is what it is."

That was another good one. But I still like "misremembers" the best.

 

[logan82]

PeaveyFury[/b]]Happy Valentines Day, Sweetheart!

I think they exchanged bracelets.

 

http://store.theonion.com/cheat-to-win-bracelet-p-57.html

[Schlitz001]

I think the forever famous line is going to be "It is what it is."

That was another good one. But I still like "misremembers" the best.

 

 

Nothing will ever beat "Steroids is....is bad. Don't do 'em."

[PeaveyFury]

Lo Duca kind of admits to usage without actually saying so by apologizing for his 'mistakes in judgment:'

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3248962

 

As Jim Powell and Jim Callis mentioned today, other than Clemens, no one named in the Mitchell report has denied the accusations.

 

EDIT: As Schlitz mentions below, that last part is incorrect.

[BrewCrewForever]

Lo Duca kind of admits to usage without actually saying so by apologizing for his 'mistakes in judgment:'

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3248962

 

As Jim Powell and Jim Callis mentioned today, other than Clemens, no one named in the Mitchell report has denied the accusations.

I wonder if we will ever hear Eric Gagne come out and make a comment about his appearance in the report. I have a feeling he will just dodge the question or no comment it.

 

[Schlitz001]

Lo Duca kind of admits to usage without actually saying so by apologizing for his 'mistakes in judgment:'

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3248962

 

As Jim Powell and Jim Callis mentioned today, other than Clemens, no one named in the Mitchell report has denied the accusations.

 

That's just not true. Jack Cust has denied it. Brendon Donelly has denied it. David Justice has denied it. Mike Stanton has denied it. Jeff Williams has denied it.

 

I heard someone on XM also claim that Clemens "must be lying" because he is the only one denying what is stated in the Mitchell report. There are dozens of better reasons to not believe Clemens than that one, so get off it.

[Schlitz001]

And unless Gagne really never used steroids it will be best for him to come out and just admit to using them. There likely won't be any penalty for admission to use other than public humiliation. We have seen how Roger Clemens is being treated after his weak denial.

 

Come Monday reporters are going to start questioning Gagne, and I hope we can move off of the topic as quickly as possible.

[PeaveyFury]

Jack Cust has denied it. Brendon Donelly has denied it. David Justice has denied it. Mike Stanton has denied it. Jeff Williams has denied it.

 

You are completely correct. I'm somewhat surprised Powell and Callis weren't aware of those players, but then neither was I.

 

And unless Gagne really never used steroids it will be best for him to come out and just admit to using them.

 

I agree completely. The general public has generally seemed quite forgiving of those that have owned up to their wrongdoings.

[burnzy24]

Things continue to get worse for Clemens. Now it is being reported that there is photos of him at the Jose Canseco party that the swore under oath he never attended. If this is true I really don't think that Clemens has any sense of credibility left, not that I believed he had very much left before this.

Man Has Photo of Clemens

[RU Rah Rah]

If the photo thing is true, Clemens has an even deeper hole to climb out of. But, boy, I'll believe the photos when I see them, and when someone has confirmed that they weren't Photoshopped.

[PeaveyFury]

Wow, that's not just a deep hole that he'd have to climb out of if this is true and these are real, it's also a very likely perjury indictment.

[foamboy1]

I think he's going to receive an indictment for either obstruction, perjury or both, regardless of the photos. He may or may not be convicted. Yet I believe he will be indicted. A sad story...he thought he could handle this like any other matter where the sycophant media is bowled over when he acts like he really means it. The legal work is a different animal altogether. I sense he is beginning to believe that.

 

I love Roger....I think he's lying though and is damaged goods forever. It's too bad. He never had to do this. He could have taken the Gagne route and everything would be fine.

[danzig6767]

Yea foam

 

It's one thing to try and lie to the media and see if it might cause some doubt. To walk into a congressional hearing though where lying could get him thrown in jail, man that's risky business.

 

Sure if Clemens had just fessed up and sounded/looked sorry, even if he was faking the sorry part, Roger would have taken a hit, but many would have at least respected him somewhat for not trying to dodge the issue. Now he sits there looking worse than if he had simply fessed up and might be looking at an indictment to boot.

 

What's that phrase, what a tangled web we weave, when we first try to deceive. If i mangled it, oh well.http://forum.brewerfan.net/images/smilies/wink.gif

[RoseBowlMtg]

Also from Tom Verducci in this week's SI:

 

Regarding the conversation with Pettitte and Clemen's wife using HGH:

 

Clemens told the committee that Pettitte "misremembers" the 1999 conversation to which Pettitte referred, that he had spoken of HGH use by his wife. But, Clemens also told the committee that Debbie used HGH only in 2003, which would have been four years after the first conversation with Pettitte.

 

Whoops: His fans will forgive him but baseball fans will know he is a liar who thought he could outsmart the public.

[burnzy24]

Now Clemens' lawyer says that Roger might have been at the party after he went golfing. Thats cool because a few weeks ago he swore he wasn't there. It's convenient what a photograph can do to jog your memory.

 

Roger "Misremembers" Canseco's Party

[RU Rah Rah]

They aren't wasting much time. From the AP:

 

"A draft letter asking the Justice Department to investigate whether Roger Clemens made false statements to Congress has been written by House staffers, The New York Times[/i] reported on its Web site Monday, citing three unidentified lawyers familiar with the matter."

 

Of course, given the Times' luck with "unidentified" sources, perhaps we should take this with a grain of salt.....

[snyttri]

 

Of course, given the Times' luck with "unidentified" sources, perhaps we should take this with a grain of salt.....

There's a place for political commentary in the off topic section.

[RU Rah Rah]

 

Of course, given the Times' luck with "unidentified" sources, perhaps we should take this with a grain of salt.....

There's a place for political commentary in the off topic section.

Nothing political about it. The Times ran a story with "unidentified" sources that was widely slammed as poor journalism by the paper's peers in the profession -- not because of its perceived political slant, but because of its thinness as reporting. (Even the Boston Globe, which is owned by the NYT, would not run the story.)

 

Honestly, I meant to comment on the journalism, not the politics.

 

[snyttri]

RU Rah Rah wrote:

Nothing political about it. The Times ran a story with "unidentified" sources that was widely slammed as poor journalism by the paper's peers in the profession -- not because of its perceived political slant, but because of its thinness as reporting. (Even the Boston Globe, which is owned by the NYT, would not run the story.)

 

Honestly, I meant to comment on the journalism, not the politics.

There's nothing unusual about using unidentified sources. It was only the inflammatory aspect of the story that made some people expect more than a standard that is often used.

[Time for a Miller]

As a holder of a bachelor of Science in journalism I think I'm going to side with Ru Rah Rah on this one. There is something unusual about using unidentified sources when reporting a story such as that. There is always something unusual about using unidentified sources and your not suppose to use them unless there is a a good reason too (the source is to young/witness protection program stuff) It's not like this was Watergate where the sources had a legitimate reason for remaining anonymous. This was a tabloid story handled in a tabloid way that just happened to target a political figure. If a slandering story like this is going to be printed the sources need to be identified since there is no possibility of other evidence arrriving and it's just hersey. I subscribe to the NY Times, but not for shoddy journalism such as that story. I like there science section a lot since it is one of the last Newspapers in the Nation to have one. Stories like that are damaging to the NY Times integrity and really upsets me. Now before this DOES get politcal let me return to the Roger Clemens issue. It is pretty obvious to me after watching nearly all of the congressional hearing that Clemens perjerud himself on many many issues. However, proving it beyond a reasonable doubt will be nearly impossible. I think the best chance they have is getting him on the lie that he did not attend the Canseco party. It would be a pretty lame reason for Clemens to go to jail since I felt his attendance at the party was virtually unimportant since "going to a party" is not a crime. I think Clemens got the affidavit from Canseco and thought he was golden and could claim he did not attend the party. Then things got a little hairy with the Nanny and now the picture with the 11-year-old.

[RU Rah Rah]

At first blush, it would seem ridiculous to nail Clemens for perjury simply over his apparent misstatements regarding the Canseco party. It seems like pretty small potatoes. But . . .lying is lying, and he was under oath. My guess is that they will have more to go on than simply one fib.

[foamboy1]

Lying to the government is a crime....ask Martha Stewart or Bonds or anyone. Trust me...you're prepped "to the tenth power" about what is required of you in these situations.

Yet....this is not about Canseco's party. Isn't it clear to the whole world that Clemens is a user? I love Roger....but that McNamee is right about Knoblauch, Pettitte, Roger's wife, now the party, etc., etc., etc. And the physical evidence? And the timelines that make no sense relative to a Pettitte conversation and his wife's HGH use, etc. Everyone around him is using HGH and is on the record doing so...and there is evidence....and some excuses make no sense, etc.

This is not about lying about Canseco's party.....come on.

[RU Rah Rah]

Letter itself is here:

 

http://assets.espn.go.com/photo/2008/0227/mlb_clemensreferal.pdf

[RU Rah Rah]

No, I am not making this up. According the AP:

 

"Roger Clemens had a decade-long relationship with country star Mindy McCready that began when she was a 15-year-old aspiring singer and the pitcher was a Red Sox ace, the Daily News reported. Clemens' lawyer, Rusty Hardin, confirmed a long-term relationship but told the newspaper it was not sexual."

 

This could be used to impugn Clemens' character, veracity, etc.

 

And there's this nugget, from the Daily News story itself:

 

"During another Big Apple excursion, the two holed up in the trendy SoHo Grand and later partied with Monica Lewinsky and Michael Jordan. McCready, according to a source, even bummed a cigar off His Airness to give to Clemens."

[Beast Light]

This is unreal. If this turns out to be true, I don't know if anyone is going to believe a word he says anymore. I know that having an affair does not mean he did HGH or steroids, but it sure makes it difficult to believe his side of the story ..if anyone really does in the first place.

 

According to ESPN, Mindy McCready's lawyer declined to comment on the issue. I assume that they will be making a statement in the near future. If she admits to an affair, I think that the public will lose all respect for Roger ..unless he can convince America that McCready misremembered. So what happens if it is learned that an affair started when she was 15? Could he even be charged for that this far down the road? Would it just be her word against his?