• When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.

OT: Is Clemens Innocent, or an Incredibly ballssy liar?

Started by Aman619,

Clemency for Clemens?  

213 members have voted

  1. 1. Clemency for Clemens?

    • 13366
    • 13366
    • 13366
    • 13366

32 posts in this topic

Aman619

Aman619

Posted
Posted

He's spending day after day strolling thru Congress meeting and greeting Senators and Congressman, many of whom will sit in judgement of him during his testimony next week. He has 2 high priced lawyers calling the shots, leading him though the halls of "just us", and badmouthing his accuse in the most condescending ways....

 

so my question is, will he pull this charade off??

 

I know what I think, but am I missing something here? Please tell me what you think.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Bronty

Bronty

Posted
Posted

maybe he'll help OJ look for the real killers when he's done lying.... well, I guess that's too harsh. He's not killing people. I've definitely lost respect for him though. I wish these guys who are guilty as sin would at least own it.

 

I mean ........allegedly.......... and ........in my opinion.........

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites
shadroch

shadroch

Posted
Posted

I haven't seen a shred of evidence against him,just the word of a guy looking to cut a deal,a person who was caught lying to the police in the past.This newest proof is a joke.A bunch of syringes that were kept where,under what conditions,and are supposed to contain what exactly? And that can of beer isn't exactly a smoking gun.If he testifies under oath before congress,I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.If he pulls a Big Mac or a Sammy Sosa,I won't.If he swears he didn't,and it later is proven that he did,I hope they convict him and seize all his ill-gotten gains.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
buttock

buttock

Posted
Posted

I'm not sure what to think. I want to give him "reasonable doubt", but my gut says he did it.

 

There's no reason, to my knowledge, to inject lidocaine into your butt. And B12 does nothing for you if your gut works. i.e. that may be a benign concoction, but there's no reason for him to need it.

 

The Andy Pettite confession was damning for Clemens as well.

 

And I also feel that even were he not to have taken steroids, he (as well as all other MLB players) deserve any suspicion/complicity they get for not speaking up about the use by others.

 

Circumstantially, you have Clemens ERA going up while his body was breaking down ca. 1997-1998. This wasn't an isolated thing as his performance had been declining for some time. He leaves the Red Sox and his only other suitor is Toronto. Texans aren't flocking to Canada, so I'm guessing the market wasn't terribly hot for him. Magically, he turns his career around and wins 4 more Cy Youngs - right at the time McNamee says he started using. Toward the end, he conveniently "retires" every year and isn't subject to MLB testing in the off-season.

 

Add it all up and it stinks.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
heinlein99

heinlein99

Posted
Posted
Wife knows him from his days at San Jac Jr college, she says

he was always a polite boy.

Yeah, well, she is now suspected of taking HGH herself to "tone up" for the Swimsuit Issue cover shoot --- Linky

 

He means his own wife, knucklehead.

 

And I agree with pretty much everything Buttock said. (hm, how many times have I used that sentence... )

Link to comment
Share on other sites
The Black Hand ®

The Black Hand ®

Posted
Posted
I haven't seen a shred of evidence against him,just the word of a guy looking to cut a deal,a person who was caught lying to the police in the past.This newest proof is a joke.A bunch of syringes that were kept where,under what conditions,and are supposed to contain what exactly? And that can of beer isn't exactly a smoking gun.If he testifies under oath before congress,I'll give him the benefit of the doubt.If he pulls a Big Mac or a Sammy Sosa,I won't.If he swears he didn't,and it later is proven that he did,I hope they convict him and seize all his ill-gotten gains.

 

The evidence that has been mentioned, syringes with his blood, mixed with steroids, is absolutely useless. If the trainer injected him with vtamin B and kept the syringe, it would then be so easy to doctor that syringe with traces of steroids. That evidence was brought forward for public consumption, it won't stand up in court.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
shadroch

shadroch

Posted
Posted
I haven't seen a shred of evidence against him

 

You a member of the Congressional committee conducting the hearings?

 

I'm sorry,is that supposed to make sense?

To date,has there been a shred of evidence presented against him? Last year,the LA paper claimed He and Pettite had been named by Jason Grimsley.It was much ballyhooed about,but it turned out to be completely wrong.

From watching tv and reading,I've come to believe that the uncolloberated testimony of an accomplice is not admissable in any court of law,and I've yet to see a shred of physical evidence against Clemens.His trainer claims he only injected him with stuff Roger provided.What do you suppose the Enquirer would pay whomever stepped forward with proof that they sold RC these drugs?The person needn't worry about going to jail. The former Met employee who admitted selling to dozens of people got probation and an $18,000 fine.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Mr. Zipper

Mr. Zipper

Posted
Posted

As a Yankees fan, my heart wants to think he is innocent, but my head thinks differently.

 

At this stage, Clemen's has nothing to lose by protesting very loudly. Best case he clears his name, worst case is no worse off than he is now.

 

In regard to the allegations that this trainer was forced to name Clemens...

 

This makes no sense at all. Why would investigators need to get Clemen's specifically? The trainer already rolled on others and named names. (All of which were accurate by the way.) Clemen's camp would have us believe that he had to name Clemens specifically to avoid prosecution. This is absurd and a desperate attempt to smear the witness.

 

Very disappointing...

Link to comment
Share on other sites
JohnT

JohnT

Posted
Posted
I've yet to see a shred of physical evidence against Clemens.

 

The physical evidence is his body and his performance at an age when he should have declined, like his non-cheating competitors.

Link to comment
Share on other sites
Go to topic listing