Clemens denies

[Paradisecity]

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3160063

 

NEW YORK -- Roger Clemens denied allegations by his former trainer that he took performance-enhancing drugs, calling them "a dangerous and destructive shortcut that no athlete should ever take.''

 

The accusations against the seven-time Cy Young Award winner from his former trainer, Brian McNamee, were contained in last week's Mitchell Report. Former Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell said McNamee said he injected Clemens with steroids in 1998 while with the Toronto Blue Jays, and steroids and human growth hormone in 2000 and 2001, while with the New York Yankees.

 

 

 

"I want to state clearly and without qualification: I did not take steroids, human growth hormone or any other banned substances at any time in my baseball career or, in fact, my entire life,'' Clemens said Tuesday in a statement issued through his agent, Randy Hendricks. "Those substances represent a dangerous and destructive shortcut that no athlete should ever take.

 

 

 

"I am disappointed that my 25 years in public life have apparently not earned me the benefit of the doubt, but I understand that Senator Mitchell's report has raised many serious questions. I plan to publicly answer all of those questions at the appropriate time in the appropriate way. I only ask that in the meantime people not rush to judgment.''

 

 

 

Another McNamee client, Yankees pitcher Andy Pettitte, said last weekend that he took HGH twice while rehabbing from an injury in 2002. Mitchell said McNamee told him he injected Pettitte with HGH two-to-four times that year.

 

 

 

Baseball players and owners didn't have an agreement banning steroids until September 2002. They banned HGH in January 2005.

 

I plan to publicly answer all of those questions at the appropriate time in the appropriate way.

 

AKA, "Once i figure out answers that could sound believable and account for this stuff i'll get back to you"

[26 to 6]

As much as I would love to believe him there's just no way anybody can. When he comes out and speaks publicly I guess we'll have more to discuss, but for now, this statement does nothing for me.

 

I do find it interesting though that Jose Canseco was admittedly skeptical that Clemens used steroids while with the Jays, but that doesnt mean much either.

[Thumper]

He's screwed if all he's gonna do is deny.

[yeszir]

I read it as "Clemens Dies".

[Thumper]

I read it as "Clemens Dies".

 

Him, his career, his legacy, and his Hall of Fame bid. Watch he goes to federal court over this, gets into a roid rage, jumps around the court room flinging s*** then dies from a heart attack.

[Soxfan1]

Him' date=' his career, his legacy, and his Hall of Fame bid. Watch he goes to federal court over this, gets into a roid rage, jumps around the court room flinging s*** then dies from a heart attack.[/quote']

 

That will happen.

[YAZMAN]

At this point I don't think he should even get any clemency from a Spanish waitress.

[a700hitter]

Funny isn't it. One by one the other players are making admissions, including Roberts (against whom the evidence was the most tenuous), but Clemens who has the most pages dedicated to him of any player denies using. If he doesn't bring suit, he should just shut up. He'll probably try digging up dirt on his accuser to discredit him. Stoolies are almost always low-lives, but that doesn't mean their testimony isn't truthful. If Clemen's wants to clear his name, he has one option--- a legal action for libel/slander.

[Thumper]

Funny isn't it. One by one the other players are making admissions' date=' including Roberts (against whom the evidence was the most tenuous), but Clemens who has the most pages dedicated to him of any player denies using. If he doesn't bring suit, he should just shut up. He'll probably try digging up dirt on his accuser to discredit him. Stoolies are almost always low-lives, but that doesn't mean their testimony isn't truthful. If Clemen's wants to clear his name, he has one option--- a legal action for libel/slander.[/quote']

 

Well now the word is Congress is getting involved. So I dare Clemens to lie to a federal grand jury. Then it'll be funny to see Bonds and Clemens in the same cell.

 

Clemens: "So what are you in here for, Barry?"

Bonds: "Because I'm black and I broke a record, now the white man wants to put me down. What about you Roger?"

Clemens: "... Uhhh... Me too. I'm black too."

[Mr Crunchy]

this nation prosecutes felons mainly on the work of rats and pro informants

this guy mcnamee was quiet and denying all till the deal with the feds was made

too much baggage on the raj was exposed

80 pages is hard to invent and now that his life partner admitted using over the weekend he looks like a fukin moron everytime he speaks

[Mr Crunchy]

Clemens: "So what are you in here for, Barry?"

Bonds: "Because I'm black and I broke a record, now the white man wants to put me down. What about you Roger?"

Clemens: "... Uhhh... Me too. I'm black

 

i always said pedro had a better grasp of english than tex clemens

[example1]

Is it really hard for people to see what the difference is and why the difference is significant?

 

Bonds lied under oath and faces jail time. The fact that he lied has been clear for quite awhile now, basically since the Game of Shadows came out in which Bonds was depicted as a power/attention hungry jerk who was willing to go to all measures to beat everyone else. The stories about him spending time with Sheffield--admittedly, from sheffield himself, I believe--were just bizarre. The guy was a narcisistic, drug crazed maniac. They described his rigorous usage schedule, and his use of multiple synthetic drugs, including stimulants usually prescribed to narcoleptics, during his amazing home run stretch.

 

The dude stumbled and bumbled his way into looking like an ******* at each and every turn. Clemens has only done that for the past week. Bonds may end up in jail, Roger still has a chance not to, and probably will not end up there--unless things get really bizarre.

 

It may sound like a defense of Clemens, but it is not. It is just a statement about how it seems everyone has forgot what Bonds really got all of his attention for: it wasn't simply USING performance enhancing drugs, it was using them so professionally and hungrily, with the specific intent of breaking the HR records, then lying (often viciously) to the media and fans, then lying (often viciously) on the stand, while his friends go to jail. The difference is, overall, minor, but within the framework of the "how bad is player X" discussion, it is essential.

 

That said, Roger is a clown. He wants his 25 years of public life to give him the "benefit of the doubt". Isn't that the same "benefit of the doubt" we are supposed to give guys who are paid 30m a year because of their "clean, old, hero" appeal? Who wouldn't pump themselves full of something to get a few more prorated 30m paychecks? Jesus Roger, don't insult our intelligence! We begrudge you enough for the absurd amounts of money and the multiple Cy Youngs after you left the Sox, but to accuse us, the public, of possibly doubting you--despite all the tell-tale signs and the credibility of the man putting forth the report--is a slap in the face. At least take the approach of the "classy" Andy Pettitte, instead of so-obviously taking the advice of your crack legal team.