Roger Clemens Trial

Page 8 - Get up to date with the latest news, scores & standings from the Cycling News Community.
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
0
0
JRTinMA said:
Hey, I see you how you turned around obsession on me, good one Race! You responded and kept it going and you know better, just curb your obsession and keep it in the LA thread, k?
Thanks for proving my point
 
May 19, 2012
537
0
0
JRTinMA said:
I'm not sure who this Clemans is but I will take your word for it that he/she is disliked here.

Regarding Clemens, any "dislike" if thats what it really is in sport, was washed away with two World Series wins. He was given standing ovations upon many of his later returns to town. In fact, in todays Globe is an article suggesting he belongs in the Hall, hardly a sentiment of dislike and shared by many. He belongs in the Hall because he was an incredible pitcher before PEDs came into play.

As far as Jury in love, well you have that wrong too. The prosecution failed because their star witness was not credible. Hey that sounds familiar to another recent case...

http://www.boston.com/sports/touching_all_the_bases/2012/06/roger_clemens_1.html
Credible to who? The prosecutors believed McNamee, Pettite admitted being injected by him but "misremembered" what the Rocket said. Do YOU think Pettite's testimony was credible?

Forget this playing cute nonsense. Was McNamee credible to you? Not, did the prosecution attempt to impeach him?

I know things so I obviously believed McNamee's testimony. The jury were people who had no interest in baseball. I think it was 8 women and 4 men. Why are they Clemmons peers? Wouldn't his peers be those who engage in athletic pursuits and have some background in that reality?

The NYDN cover says what everyone, including you, knows.. Clemmons is guilty.

BTW, you'd be taken more seriously if you stopped engaging in this willful ignorance.:)

WRT the NYDN cover story. Maybe Clemmons will sue them for libel? LMAO.
 
May 3, 2010
360
0
0
Lone*Star/Urban^Cowboys & Free'Lance Journalists

JRTinMA said:
I'm not sure who this Clemans is but I will take your word for it that he/she is disliked here.

Regarding Clemens, any "dislike" if thats what it really is in sport, was washed away with two World Series wins. He was given standing ovations upon many of his later returns to town. In fact, in todays Globe is an article suggesting he belongs in the Hall, hardly a sentiment of dislike and shared by many. He belongs in the Hall because he was an incredible pitcher before PEDs came into play.

As far as Jury in love, well you have that wrong too. The prosecution failed because their star witness was not credible. Hey that sounds familiar to another recent case...

http://www.boston.com/sports/touching_all_the_bases/2012/06/roger_clemens_1.html
No comments.......As far as nuking the whole place? It'll nuke itself, as the ozone layer rescinds it's quest to protect....Pasupata*Times...Got Yellow Sub?
 
Jeremiah said:
Credible to who? The prosecutors believed McNamee, Pettite admitted being injected by him but "misremembered" what the Rocket said. Do YOU think Pettite's testimony was credible?

Forget this playing cute nonsense. Was McNamee credible to you? Not, did the prosecution attempt to impeach him?

I know things so I obviously believed McNamee's testimony. The jury were people who had no interest in baseball. I think it was 8 women and 4 men. Why are they Clemmons peers? Wouldn't his peers be those who engage in athletic pursuits and have some background in that reality?

The NYDN cover says what everyone, including you, knows.. Clemmons is guilty.

BTW, you'd be taken more seriously if you stopped engaging in this willful ignorance.:)

WRT the NYDN cover story. Maybe Clemmons will sue them for libel? LMAO.
Don't confuse innocent with not guilty of doping, I never said he didn't dope, if you actually took the time to read I made it clear he began doping, probably in Toronto or shortly after. What I think means nothing in a trial, I think Pettitte and Mcnamee were telling the truth, well at least Mcnamee was. Pettitte lied and changed his story to 50/50, there goes the credibility.

Why is it so hard for so many to understand how things work in court matter, because you and I believed him means nothing. Mcnamee was not a credible witness in court in front of a jury of Clemens peers. Its not like Clemens picked the jurors so they are certainly a jury of his peers, thats the silliest assertion you made. The prosecution made no attempt to discredit Mcnamee as you suggest, he was their key witness ffs.

The only ignorance here is your failure to understand how things work in court and separate that from opinion.
 
Mar 17, 2009
2,295
0
0
Jeremiah said:
Credible to who? The prosecutors believed McNamee, Pettite admitted being injected by him but "misremembered" what the Rocket said. Do YOU think Pettite's testimony was credible?

Forget this playing cute nonsense. Was McNamee credible to you? Not, did the prosecution attempt to impeach him?

I know things so I obviously believed McNamee's testimony. The jury were people who had no interest in baseball. I think it was 8 women and 4 men. Why are they Clemmons peers? Wouldn't his peers be those who engage in athletic pursuits and have some background in that reality?

The NYDN cover says what everyone, including you, knows.. Clemmons is guilty.

BTW, you'd be taken more seriously if you stopped engaging in this willful ignorance.:)

WRT the NYDN cover story. Maybe Clemmons will sue them for libel? LMAO.
who is clemmons? there was a clarence clemons who played sax with the e street band but he passed away. surely you aren't speaking ill of the dead. have you no decency? :mad:
 
Jun 19, 2009
5,220
0
0
pleyser said:
http://www.forbes.com/sites/monteburke/2012/06/18/roger-clemens-lance-armstrong-and-guilt-in-the-court-of-public-opinion/

I think the Roger Clemens outcome is the most likely outcome for Lance too. Claim you're vindincated by the long process, to a collective shrug of "whatever" because the entire era of your sport is full of asterisks, clouds of suspicion and participants who admitted PED use.

Legacy in tatters.
The major difference is that Clemens wasn't charged with being involved in a drug distribution activity. That and he didn't buy an insurance policy from SCA to give him a bonus payday (on a policy that excluded drug use) or pretend to be the Savior of Cancer victims. Lance has a hurricane of suspicion coming his way and it will take alot of time and $$$ for him to enjoy his version of peace.
 
May 20, 2010
718
0
0
Oldman said:
The major difference is that Clemens wasn't charged with being involved in a drug distribution activity. That and he didn't buy an insurance policy from SCA to give him a bonus payday (on a policy that excluded drug use) or pretend to be the Savior of Cancer victims. Lance has a hurricane of suspicion coming his way and it will take alot of time and $$$ for him to enjoy his version of peace.
My impression, IIRC, was the case did in fact not turn on drug use. Rather did Lance win the required races.

I think the matter required the relevant authorities to determine LA had used PEDs in achieving these wins AND
That therefore he had not legitimately won those races.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
0
0
JRTinMA said:
Seems Mcnamee is going to push on with his defamation civil suit. I guess Mcnamee didn't understand the game when he was helping players dope, what a joke.

http://www.reuters.com/article/2012/06/27/us-usa-baseball-clemens-idUSBRE85Q1AX20120627
So if you dope athletes then you shouldn't complain when they tell the public that you are trying to extort money from them and you are mentally troubled? Clemens is allowed to invent anything he likes about his drug dealer?
 
Aug 10, 2010
6,286
0
0
Race Radio said:
So if you dope athletes then you shouldn't complain when they tell the public that you are trying to extort money from them and you are mentally troubled? Clemens is allowed to invent anything he likes about his drug dealer?
What's the reputational value of a sleazy drug dealer, though? Not ideal defamation lawsuit material.
 
Race Radio said:
So if you dope athletes then you shouldn't complain when they tell the public that you are trying to extort money from them and you are mentally troubled? Clemens is allowed to invent anything he likes about his drug dealer?
Yes and yes. These risks come with being a drug dealer. Mcnamee was granted immunity for his testimony, he got plenty of value right there.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
0
0
JRTinMA said:
Yes and yes. These risks come with being a drug dealer. Mcnamee was granted immunity for his testimony, he got plenty of value right there.
Could you point out the law that says drug dealers are not protected by defamation laws?

Thanks
 
Race Radio said:
Could you point out the law that says drug dealers are not protected by defamation laws?

Thanks
If you point out where I stated that I will be happy to oblige. Look I understand you dislike all dopers who lie, with the exception of the lying dopers you like of course. This case should never have gone to trial, even the government knew it was a waste of time and money and unwinable. Hubris on both sides pushed it forward, ah hubris, it's what kept "some" from seeing the outcome of an investigation of another high profile athlete recently.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
0
0
JRTinMA said:
If you point out where I stated that I will be happy to oblige. Look I understand you dislike all dopers who lie, with the exception of the lying dopers you like of course. This case should never have gone to trial, even the government knew it was a waste of time and money and unwinable. Hubris on both sides pushed it forward, ah hubris, it's what kept "some" from seeing the outcome of an investigation of another high profile athlete recently.
It's always about Lance for you isn't it?
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
0
0
JRTinMA said:
You're like a child. No, I was referring to Barry Bonds, keep it about baseball in this thread. There are 20 threads to discuss your obsession.
Sure you were.

JRTinMA said:
ah hubris, it's what kept "some" from seeing the outcome of an investigation of another high profile athlete recently
Bonds = Trial, Conviction
Lance= investigation

There are plenty of Lance threads for you to talk about your obsession. No need to bring it here.
 
Apr 20, 2009
960
0
0
Well I for one am glad to see that all the time the Feds spent chasing a guy for allegedly lying to congress paid off. That Roger paid for his crime with....

Oh, wait. No. What a colossal waste of time and effort. Only a federal investigator would be allowed to double-down on a case that hinges on a proven liar with zero credibility and evidence stored in a beer can.

Roger is still the only pitcher to win 7 Cy Young awards, the most dominant pitcher of his generation, future Hall of Famer and one of the greatest of all time...and Federal prosecutors are still 0-for in recent cases.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
0
0
eleven said:
Well I for one am glad to see that all the time the Feds spent chasing a guy for allegedly lying to congress paid off. That Roger paid for his crime with....

Oh, wait. No. What a colossal waste of time and effort. Only a federal investigator would be allowed to double-down on a case that hinges on a proven liar with zero credibility and evidence stored in a beer can.

Roger is still the only pitcher to win 7 Cy Young awards, the most dominant pitcher of his generation, future Hall of Famer and one of the greatest of all time...and Federal prosecutors are still 0-for in recent cases.
O for?

Bonds is guilty. 13 athletes and staff plead guilty in BALCO. Sounds like they are 14-1 so far.

But your message is clear, if you are rich the government should ignore it when you break the law
 
Apr 20, 2009
960
0
0
Race Radio said:
O for?

Bonds is guilty. 13 athletes and staff plead guilty in BALCO. Sounds like they are 14-1 so far.

But your message is clear, if you are rich the government should ignore it when you break the law
Yes 0-fer in recent trials. Bonds. Edwards. Clemens. Armstrong. While Bonds was technically convicted on one of the bzillion original counts, he is paying virtually no recourse for his actions. The re-trial of Clemens was an absurd waste of resources predicated on the testimony of a proven liar and DNA evidence stored in a freaking beer can.

The BALCO affair hasn't produced any fruit in years.

I don't care if you're rich, poor or middle class - people lie to Congress every damn day. Pursuing them is absurd. If lying to congress is a punishable offense then half of the Wall Street executives and every employee of Enron that testified should be in jail.

Your assumption that my view is related to income is your own hang up, not mine.
 
Aug 13, 2009
12,855
0
0
eleven said:
Yes 0-fer in recent trials. Bonds. Edwards. Clemens. Armstrong. While Bonds was technically convicted on one of the bzillion original counts, he is paying virtually no recourse for his actions. The re-trial of Clemens was an absurd waste of resources predicated on the testimony of a proven liar and DNA evidence stored in a freaking beer can.

The BALCO affair hasn't produced any fruit in years.

I don't care if you're rich, poor or middle class - people lie to Congress every damn day. Pursuing them is absurd. If lying to congress is a punishable offense then half of the Wall Street executives and every employee of Enron that testified should be in jail.

Your assumption that my view is related to income is your own hang up, not mine.
Edwards? what does he have to do with doping? I must have missed the Armstrong trial, do you have a link? You dismiss the Fed's wins with ease but the fact is the Feds win 97% of their case. THEY have scoreboard.

Money is a KEY element to this discussion. The only way Clemens got off is by having the ability to spend an absurd amount of money on a legal team that kept him out of prison. Any other person without his resources would have lost.
 
Apr 20, 2009
960
0
0
Race Radio said:
Edwards? what does he have to do with doping?
Nothing, of course. It's just another example of an absurd federal investigation. You'll notice I didn't say anything about doping.

I must have missed the Armstrong trial, do you have a link? The fact is the Feds win 97% of their case. THEY have scoreboard.
The Armstrong investigation was weak enough that they couldn't get it to trial.

And the Feds don't win 97% of cases. That's just absurd. The Department of Justice and Federal Prosecutors lose cases every day.

Money is a KEY element to this discussion. The only way Clemens got off is by having the ability to spend an absurd amount of money on a legal team that kept him out of prison. Any other person without his resources would have lost.
I disagree. Clemens was found not guilty because the key witness against him was a complete fraud and the primary evidence against him was stored in a beer can. With all the charges and complexities of the case the jury still turned a verdict in a day.
 

ASK THE COMMUNITY