I know he's denied it but I'd like to hear his full explanation before making a judgment.
2007-12-18 14:28:20 · 20 answers · asked by Titus Pullo 5 in Sports ➔ Baseball
If I was McNamee and I was told to tell the truth or be prosecuted. I would tell the truth. He named Andy Pettitte...he came clean. Others are coming clean too like Vina, Segui & Roberts. Andy Pettitte is a close friend of Roger Clemens who was also trained by McNamee.
If Petitte knew that HGH was wrong morally...why didn't he inform MLB or the Union?
Does McNamee have a valid reason for lying when what he's saying can be vaildated? Clemens has plenty questions to answer and not through his attorneys. This report seems to be accurate due to the fact that players are coming clean.
Why is Clemens the only one so far to deny the report? Why should I give Clemens the benefit when Barry Bonds has admitted more, and the government has less proof.
No trainer has come clean and said Bonds used...Clemens trainer did. Bonds & Clemens has said he they haven't used steroids, but Bonds is being crucified while people are giving Clemens the "benefit of the doubt."
Don't get me wrong. I believe they are both steroid users based on Bonds size and Clemens off and on longevity. And they should be punished. I just think there is a double standard.
With that being said...the Mitchell report was total a media stunt by MLB to give the public the illusion that they are without responsibility for the Steroid era.
Sen. Mitchell is also on the Red Sox board of directors. No Red Sox are mentioned in the report, but there is one un-named MLB player who assisted him in naming other players and trainers, but he helped the Senator only if he was not named in the report. I am certain he is a member of the Red Sox. 22 times a Yankee player was mentioned in the report. The most in the MLB...coincidence...I doubt it.
2007-12-18 15:08:08 · answer #1 · answered by Dawg Winfrey 5 · 3⤊ 1⤋
It wouldn't make sense for the report to be right about everyone BUT Roger.
As with Bonds, we saw stats that were seemingly impossible after 40 and the same held true with Clemens.
As a few said, what would you do if you were Clemens AND innocent. Is that's what is being done.
Now, what would you do if you were Clemens and guilty?
Which one of those is closer to what's actually happening?
2007-12-18 18:30:23 · answer #2 · answered by brettj666 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Baroid is so different from Rocket:
1 - the number of witnesses - the mistress, the partner etc.
2 - Baroid paid off his trainer to sit in jail to NOT testify
3 - Baroid never sued anyone for saying he did - let's see if Rocket sues
4 - Rocket always had a training regimen and never ballooned in his statistics, just stayed fairly great or very good - Baroid never had 50 homers and then ballooned to over 70 and over 60 - incredible increases at a time he should have been going down hill
Rocket may have used, but I am not convinced - but also not convinced he did not use - watch for a lawsuit - if that happens it will indicate to me he is clean, no lawsuit will mean it is true
Just my opinion
2007-12-18 15:02:49 · answer #3 · answered by vegasrob89118 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
He is innocent until proven guilty. He has not been convicted, has not been charged, and will not be charged with any crime. While he was an active player he did not fail a drug test. And the same is true of almost all of the players named in Mitchell's report. The idea of issuing such a report without the intent of taking legal action is irresponsible, Bud Selig is a hypocrite of the highest order, Mitchell's involvement with the Red Sox organization is the very definition of conflict of interest, and the entire business of baseball is corrupt beyond belief. To willfully damage players' reputations, and especially active players, simply to cast blame somewhere other than the owners' boxes is reprehensible. Baseball owners, their servants in the commisioner's office, and in congress, and on city councils and real estate development boards are cowardly wanna-be jock-sniffers, and this latest act of ingratitude to the athletes who have made them billions and billions of unearned dollars is despicable.
2007-12-18 15:22:58 · answer #4 · answered by Doctor B 3 · 3⤊ 0⤋
The court of public opinion took little time convicting Barry Bonds, but I have a feeling that Clemens will be considered innocent until proven guilty.
2007-12-18 15:09:37 · answer #5 · answered by BlakWriter 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋
does bonds deserved the benefit of the doubt?would like to hear his full explanation....or was he prejudged.
face it....Clemens will deny...of course.or say he did it to recover from injury.bottom line is.....he did use!
2007-12-18 19:38:01 · answer #6 · answered by mojo569 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Has Clemens been proven guilty before a court of law?
2007-12-19 01:37:59 · answer #7 · answered by CommonSense 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Good Plan. I'm going to wait to hear HIS side of the Story- too. -But I'm afraid the use of Steroids is SO commonplace in Sports today- there's ALWAYS going to be an element of doubt there- WHATEVER the Players say... :(
2007-12-18 14:38:26 · answer #8 · answered by Joseph, II 7 · 1⤊ 1⤋
This guy has been a top line pitcher since coming to the majors. I highly doubt he took anything. Just because he is arguably top 5 pitcher ever , gives people the reason to doubt. Do you like to be doubted or called a liar? I sure don't.
2007-12-18 14:32:52 · answer #9 · answered by dave51_1998 4 · 4⤊ 1⤋
If they can prove that Roger used steroids, produce the proof. If not, get off his back and put him in the Hall of Fame.
Proof, I want Proof!
2007-12-19 00:17:12 · answer #10 · answered by Pastor In Kentucky 3 · 0⤊ 1⤋