The Grimsley affidavit: Clemens, Pettitte NOT accused. What do you think?

Question

Fast on the heels of the Mitchell report, federal prosecutors unsealed retired pitcher Jason Grimsley's affidavit today, the testimony for which he provided after being busted for receiving HGH in the mail in May 2006.

Despite rampant rumors, neither Clemens nor Pettitte were mentioned. Earlier released versions had names blacked out.

Mcnamee's word is still all there is against the Rocket. So... what do you think? Did Clemens partake? Were the rumors of him in the Grimsley affidavit based simply on jealous sniping, and character assassination? Will other posters put up their own version of this question over the weekend and claim it as breaking news? Is the Mitchell report (in which Grimsley did not cooperate), at least the section on Clemens, circling the drain?

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news;_ylt=AmFAHcDA7KxNZ0d4DrDMIsERvLYF?slug=ap-drugs-grimsley&prov=ap&type=lgns

Answer 1

First off, I'm not sure why everyone is acting like Chipmaker is positioning himself as a Clemens apologist. All he did was state a fact about the Grimsely revelation, then ask a followup question.

As for Grimsley's affadavit, I was a little surprised not to see Pettitte and/or Clemens included, but I don't think it by any means puts the Rocket in the clear. Just as I don't assume he's guilty on the word of a locker room attendant, so I won't announce him innocent just because he wasn't in the affadavit.

Unfortunately, I don't think any of the Mitchell Report will be circling the drain for a long time. I have a feeling that this report will hang around for a long time, even if there's very little meat included in the report. And now that guys like Roberts and Pettitte have stepped up and admitted their steroid use, it should only inflame things further. I wish I could wake up tomorrow and have this thing over, but I guess it won't happen.

Answer 2

So what.
Pettite has admitted to using HGH as McNamee said he did so that makes the trainer that more creditable.
The point here is that 5 players from the 2000 WS winning Yankees names were on it. Below it a quote from that article.
"Grimsley, Canseco, Knoblauch, Watson and Hill all played on the 2000 Yankees".

So now if you add Clemens and Pettite to that 2000 roster you have at least 7 players on that WS team??????

Maybe MLB should take the 2000 WS away from the Yankees for having a juiced up, performance enhanced team...

Ask yourself this question? Why did Roger Clemens take McNamee with him to the Yankees from the BlueJays and then when he got canned still use him as his personal trainer?????

Figure it out................

Answer 3

Was Grimsley ever a team mate of Clemens and Pettitte?

If not then that woudl be why he did not name them as he would not have had first hand accounts of them useing anyhting.

Add:Ok seen he was with the Yankes from 1999-2000 for the back to back WS.Not sure why he did not name them.Also at the time of that statement there names had not came out in any type of report so all he did was gave names of who was already out there.The report was done in June of 2006

Answer 4

who cares? grimsley implicated players he personally knew had used
so by your logic here everytime somone implicates some people for something, but not others who have been implicated before, those that werent are innocent
ok, lets try this idea elsewhere, lets say that while saddam hussein were on trial some high ranking millitary guy in the iraqi army testified, and he said "I witnessed Saddams sons plotting attacks on iraqis, but i never saw or heard saddam himself do it"
now according to your logic that would mean that saddam hussein did not, in fact, ever plot to kill his own people, but uday and qusay did, so saddam should still be alive and well, living out his years whereever a government will take him, because that army guy implicated some people, but not saddam
you see how ridiculous and illogical your argument is?

Answer 5

Who knows, but if he didn't mention pettitte and Pettitte confessed, how can grimsley's paper be considered all inclusive?

I think Congress has confidence in Mitchell and will pursue this.

In the meantime, how do you account for Clemens body and especially head growth? simple aging? How much has your head grown in the last few years?

Answer 6

I think you're grasping at straws. Pettitte wasn't mentioned in the Grimley aff. and he admits using so what does that say about Clemens? Nothing. Clemens is guilty. Get over it.

Answer 7

I still think it is Roger's word against Mcnamee's. The fact that none of the players named have filed suit, one has to wonder why. That fact over any other makes me think Roger and the other players did use.