Coming Out Swinging

by LateInningRelief on Dec 18, 2007 5:05 PM EST Comment 23 comments

Clemens released a statement through his agent today:

"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. 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."

Anybody believe him?

Poll

How credible is Clemens' statement?

Not at all: He's guilty, guilty, guilty

28 votes

Not too much, but I hope

23 votes

I'm not going to rush to judgement: It's Rocket

14 votes

He's clean, dammit

4 votes

69 votes | Poll has closed

0 recs | Comment 23 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Either

He's innocent, or hes equal parts incredibly arrogant and stupid.

The tough part for these athletes is that it is very hard to prove something did not occur. Thats why all these idiots like Mad dog and Michael Kay drive me nuts talking about well "if hes innocent, he should sue, I would."
Good luck trying to prove the non-existence of an event by a preponderance of the evidence. It looks like this is going to turn into one big he said/she said.

by seanp23 on Dec 18, 2007 6:05 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

it's harder

to prove the existence of an event than it's non-existence (if it existed). the burden of proof, as always, is on the accuser, not the defendant.

however, i'll agree with you if you are referring to the "court of public opinion."

by tombradylikesdudes on Dec 18, 2007 6:25 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

In cases

Like these (slander) however, the defense is the truth. Its very hard to prove the truth when the truth is something that did not occur.

If something happened then you have evidence i.e. witnesses, canceled checks, used syringes, dna.

If it didnt happen then you have the absence of those things.

by seanp23 on Dec 18, 2007 6:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

also

It would have to proven that the allegations were done out of malice. Also hard to prove.

by seanp23 on Dec 18, 2007 7:01 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

this is a little mixed up

Person A says bad thing about Person B.

Person B sues Person A.

Person A can prove what they said is a bad thing. That is when "truth is a complete defense" against defamation/libel and the case is dismissed.

Okay so suppose Person A can't prove its the truth, then Person B, if famous, has to prove malice. Non famous people don't have to prove malice.

"The secret of managing is to keep the guys who hate you away from the guys who are undecided." -Casey Stengel

by bxgrl1 on Dec 18, 2007 8:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

*edit

I meant if Person A can prove that the bad thing they said is true then truth is a complete defense against being sued for defamation/libel.

"The secret of managing is to keep the guys who hate you away from the guys who are undecided." -Casey Stengel

by bxgrl1 on Dec 18, 2007 8:08 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

If

Roger clemens wants to sue baseball over what he claims to be slanderous comments made about him he needs to show that what they said was: untruthful and malicious. Baseball doesnt have to prove anything, Roger needs to prove he was slandered and that his reputation is damaged. So, hes got to prove it was damaged as a result of the false/malicious statements of baseball.

When the truth is allegedly something that never happened, it becomes increasingly difficult to prove that something never happened and I dont think you can prove any malicious conduct here either.

by seanp23 on Dec 18, 2007 8:15 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Clemens

would be the accuser here. He is accusing baseball/mitchell/whoever of slander in this hypothetical suit.

by seanp23 on Dec 18, 2007 7:14 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Here's a big problem

Clemens' legacy is tarnished no matter what - as is every player mentioned in the report.

Perhaps this is a bad example, but it somewhat comparable to being accused of rape. Once a person is publicly accused of such a terrible act, it's really difficult to repair one's image whether he's guilty or not.

It also doesn't help that his best buddy Pettitte has already admitted his guilt with HGH and others like Roberts and Vina are following his lead.

No matter what happens, Clemens' reputation has suffered irreparable damage and his HoF candidacy is in serious trouble.

by anaconda on Dec 18, 2007 7:29 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Rocket's right

He has earned credibility with me.

I will believe him. He's innocent.

He said it, I'll buy it.

No somebody has to show evidence to convince me different.

But Rocket, this will never work again if you dissappoint me.

A positive attitude may not solve all your problems, but it will annoy enough people to make it worth the effort. Herm Albright (1876 - 1944)

by Cbeck3 on Dec 19, 2007 12:19 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Hmm...

I'd like to believe he didn't do it, but reality is he probably did. Just look at his stats, his build, ect.....His stats magically got a lot better when Jose Canseco was on his team....

If he was on the Red Sox, this site would be blasting him...

I hope he didn't, and he's innocent until proven guilty, but there is really no way to prove it. It's word against word....And in today's society, you have to prove your innocents, and he's not really doing it. I'm not saying he has too, but if he attacked the report ASAP, it would have looked better.

I wish he had of been using them last year when he turned into a pile of shit, but it's just money.

by AKJoe on Dec 19, 2007 8:57 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

He did it

because he is an asshole

and he was an asshole long before he joined the Yankees

I despised him when he was with the Sox

by Frank Malzone on Dec 20, 2007 1:24 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

he did it...

...because he's an asshole?

so if you're an asshole, you're guilty?

I think Schilling is an asshole. He must be guilty too by way of that logic.

"The secret of managing is to keep the guys who hate you away from the guys who are undecided." -Casey Stengel

by bxgrl1 on Dec 20, 2007 5:15 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

One problem with Clemens' denial

To me, the whole thing that sinks Rocket is Pettitte's admission. If McNamee was completely truthful about Pettitte, how in the hell is anyone supposed to believe that he is completely untruthful as to Clemens?

Fear the Evil Empire

by pfistyunc on Dec 20, 2007 7:08 AM EST reply actions 0 recs

Well

it's not impossible. I had always figured that Pettitte got on the juice shortly after Rocket arrived in NY, and his 'work out routine' added a couple MPH to Andy's fastball.

But if Pettitte is being honest about only using HGH while he was on the DL, that means either Andy had refused Clemens offer of steroids up to that point while still remaining close friends, or Clemens didn't offer horse juice.

I'm not saying it's likely, but it's still a possibility. Frankly, I don't know how much to care either way.

"Have faith in the Yankees, my son. Think of the great DiMaggio."

by jscape2000 on Dec 20, 2007 11:45 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Not necessarily

Just because Clemens did roids doesn't mean that he asked Andy to do it or offered it to Andy. The bulk of the roid accusations occurred when the two were not teammates. To me, the two things that really damn Clemens are Pettitte's admission and the immunity offered to McNamee. He was only given immunity for truthful testimony so why in the hell would he lie? If Clemens is correct and Andy's admission is to be believed, then McNamee's false testimony about Clemens exposes him to legal liability for supplying HGH to Pettitte. It makes absolutely no sense for McNamee to do that.

Fear the Evil Empire

by pfistyunc on Dec 20, 2007 4:02 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

No

He was given immunity so that he wouldn't protect anybody. But he also had to recognize the value of a big fish- a witness who gives up Roger Clemens is worth more (and deserves a bigger break) than a witness with only a string of Alex Sanchezes,

"Have faith in the Yankees, my son. Think of the great DiMaggio."

by jscape2000 on Dec 21, 2007 2:18 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

A condition of his immunity

was truthful testimony. Lying about Clemens would expose him to jail time. To me, that is pretty good incentive to tell the truth. Look, I know it sucks that two Yankee heroes are cheaters, but we really need to stop scrambling for excuses or explanations and move on. Perhaps Roger should just say he was "trying to heal" like shady Andy Pettitte so that Yankee fans will forgive him and thank him for his honesty?

Fear the Evil Empire

by pfistyunc on Dec 21, 2007 8:13 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Clemens

is not a Yankee hero. I'm sure he'd like to be one, and I'm sure the Boss considers him one, but I don't think the fans consider him one.

He played here for a few years and did some nice things. He also did some really crap things too.

I know it's a dumb argument, but "Roger Clemens Day" at Yankee Stadium just doesn't do it for me.

by matthaggs on Dec 21, 2007 10:16 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

That may be the case

So are you saying that Suzyn Waldman did not speak for Yankee fans as a whole when she had that aneurysm when he announced he was coming back?

Fear the Evil Empire

by pfistyunc on Dec 21, 2007 10:30 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Er, no.

I'd rather have you speak for Yankee fans as a whole.

In terms of service to the Yankees, wouldn't you rate Cone ahead of Clemens?

It's purely a timing thing, but the Yanks needed Cone more than they ever needed Clemens.

If Cone doesn't get a day, Clemens shouldn't get one either.

Again I know it's stupid, but how else am I gonna kill time at work today ?

by matthaggs on Dec 21, 2007 11:05 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

How dumb

does andy feel today? He could have denied it like roger and then used the grimsley affidavit to bolster the argument. I think Radomski's was opened today too and that only mentions Mcnamee, Roger and Andy in passing. Roger must really be pissed at him now.

by seanp23 on Dec 21, 2007 11:46 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs