Do you think Clemens used steriods?

[jacksonbart]

If he did, he should have just fessed up to it. It takes it to whole other level if he lied under oath. McNamee does not seem very trust worthy. but Andy Petite? Why would he say that Clemens used? Not looking good for Clemens

[kelA]

Yes I think he did take 'roids. Just too much evidence against him in my opinion. If he didnt, then Mcnamee is one helluva master mind to conspire as much as he did. Plus the fact that Clemens' little buddy Pettitte has pretty much confessed to his involvement, and Clemens's inquiring.

[Fish]

I've given' this some thought.I can't for the life of me understand why a guy like me that could care less about b-ball has to pay that bunch of idiots to set there and debate this BS instead of taking care of MY business.There are so many important issues from Russia,China,Iran,Iraq and you name it that it's almost insanity to discuss this crap while Rome is burning.What a crock and waste of valuable time and resources.

This issue should be handled in court,by baseball or anyone except the government that's paid to take care of our most important issues,not a "sport"that affects no one I know.

Nothin' against you JB or the thread or the game,just my take.

[jacksonbart]

no offense taken, can see your point, but find it interesting to see a man with so much, who would loose a lot of his legacy as it pertains to his career if he is caught taking HGH or steriods. But if he denies it and then is found to have lied under oath will make his situation so much worse. Jail time. Hard for me to tell if he is an idiot or whether he really did not use the stuff.

[Fish]

I agree JB,hard to tell.The idea though of locking a guy like this up while releasing child molesters and other violent criminals is just more of the insanity which I touched on.

[jacksonbart]

Perhaps we should shut down this web site and assign the web bandwith to tracking fugitives and stop wasting our money on music and start spending our money on tracking down child molesters. It worked for Pete Townsend

[oldbuckster]

His wife looked good though !!!!!!! ............... Those guys are all idiots, I have to take shots to limit my HGH growth, those jerks use it to increase it. I can speak first hand about HGH, and it's not a pretty subject ..................... I think Roger is NOT telling the truth under oath !!!!!!!!

[CECAA850]

I watched most of the hearing. I was pretty open minded and willing to give both sides a shot. The body language and evidence seem to point to Roger as being a big fat liar. I've never heard the word "misremembered" before. I'm sure it's lawyerspeak.

[mas]

As much as I hate to say this, in the midst of a media frenzy and a popular society where an accusation is tantamount to a conviction, Clemens had 2 options.

To admit that he, like everyone else dabbled in them as it was the policy de jour - as everyone did following the "I didn't inhale" BS, or if he is indeed innocent and wants to place himself above the frey, he must 'prove' himself credible.

And in that case, the onus is on him not simply to persist in saying he didn't, but to present some evidence that establishes his postion, such as a independently administered polygraph test.

And contrary to many who think state of the art polygraph tests are easily falsified - they are not. What happens is that either they have a high degree of reliability or they do not, and this is rather easily determined. But you do not simply 'fool' the measurements (unlike in the movies).

I wish such actions were not necessary to establish credibility, but simply saying "I'm innocent" or giving some lame 'I thought it was oregano' excuse while refusing to be subjected to any other means that could help substantiate his position and help exonerate him is not, I fear, the path that will ultimately succeed.

Oh, and as mentioned earlier, why is this considered to be within the scope of Congress and not the courts? Well, now you have opened up Pandora's Box and illuminated a much larger problem than steroids and baseball.

And how 'bout them unions!? Yup, we are getting a much better idea of how they are bettering society in this mess! No moral vacuum there! Its a legitimate cesspool!

[Daddy Dee]

It's a weird one to me.

if it's true, it's too bad to have a good guy paint himself in a corner over it.

OTOH, why make a big deal about it. POTUS can lie under oath and half the country thinks it's fine.

It's just baseball.

[Klipsched with Yamahas]

To the best of my knowledge, and recollection, I don't recall!

[:#]

[jheis]

As (I believe) Hemmingway said, there are only three sports: mountain climbing, bull fighting, and motor racing. Everything else is a just a game.

Baseball is is just an exceedingly boring game. The only thing that makes this interesting is the obscene amount of money these (artificially) overgrown children are paid to play a stupid game (and yes, I'm wearing my flameproof underwear).

James

[Arky]

For a contrary view, alot of todays kids emulate famous athletes so in that vain the topic has some importance.

If Clemens committed federal perjury he's an idiot.

[oldtimer]

Hemmingway was an idiot who couldn't write more than a five word sentence. Faulkner was a man with the command of the language. What I truly think is that Clemens should have stayed retired instead of trying to help the GDMF yankees last year. Not that it helped. But stay retired now roger, it's over buddy!

[mas]

Hemmingway was an idiot who couldn't write more than a five word sentence. Faulkner was a man with the command of the language. What I truly think is that Clemens should have stayed retired instead of trying to help the GDMF yankees last year. Not that it helped. But stay retired now roger, it's over buddy!

LOL!

You know, i couldn't even think of an arguement to hassle you with here!

And not even a play on the "Clemens" reference, despite my first 'automatic' thought that it was (literally, literary...sorry, couldn't resist) an allusion to Twain! (...and what did he ever do for the Yankees!?)

LOL!

Loved it!

[oldtimer]

God bless you mas! I think you are starting to get the duality inherent in a lot of my posts...

[oldenough]

YES ..

[cmdridq]

And in that case, the onus is on him not simply to persist in saying he didn't, but to present some evidence that establishes his postion, such as a independently administered polygraph test.

And contrary to many who think state of the art polygraph tests are easily falsified - they are not. What happens is that either they have a high degree of reliability or they do not, and this is rather easily determined. But you do not simply 'fool' the measurements (unlike in the movies).

Polygraph tests are not admissible as evidence in a court of law. Why? Because they are not reliable. If you have any empirical proof to the contrary I would like to know what it is?

[mas]

First, they are not in a court of law.

Nor are we suggesting the use of the
polygraph to definitively determine strict guilt or innocence based solely upon
the results in lieu of a jury.

The common notion of using such a test as a
substitute for a jury is a misuse of the test.

Second, the test is very reliable, but it is
not necessarily conclusive, and there is a significant difference.

Additionally, the test's reliability is much
greater in discerning innocence than guilt.

Let me try to explain...

This is because there are lots of situations
where someone may have a 'guilty state of mind' due to many related issues and
return a deceptive result, but not in fact be guilty.

It's the same with flight. When a defendant
runs away from the police or the scene of the crime, a jury is entitled to
infer a guilty state of mind. But flight doesn't necessary equal guilt.

Innocence, on the other hand, is much more
unequivocal and reliability can be very high.

But even here, some people are pathological,
and so divorced from morality that they may test honest. It may also be
possible to affect results by methods such as biofeedback, self-inflicted pain,
or by the use of drugs.

In other words, the test is not necessarily
conclusive. Nor does it need to be.

The reliability can be determined through a
precision structured query. But the common notion that the test returns a
simple "guilty or innocent" result is erroneous. Rather you receive a
highly reliable or unreliable finding.

But then, no one is suggesting its sole use
as a determination of innocence or guilt.

And as such, It CAN be used to bolster one's
credibility in declaring innocence in a matter of questionable 'he said
she said' situations where public opinion is at issue. This is perhaps its
strongest use.

And Clemens’ situation is that the onus is
on him to substantiate his credibility, especially when other have not, or will
not, subject themselves to such scrutiny.

I mean, just take a look at the hearing. Not
only do the politicians make this all look like a gigantic photo op, it’s hard
to believe anyone completely. If someone is willing to undergo such scrutiny
and they return a highly reliable test result substantiating an contention of
innocence, they would be doing themselves a grave disservice by not to using this
as a vehicle to bolster their credibility.

And as far as why I think this, I am not an
expert. But I do happen to have pretty easy access to a very credible legal
expert in the technology; and this topic has been discussed at length in the
past as it is quite a fascinating subject. If you want to know more about this aspect, PM me.

[g_mac_okie]

Of course he did...