Roger ramps up denial (1 Viewer)

[Koya]

If Roger truly did not nothing, why not sue MLB, Mitchell, McNamee and anyone else he can find for slander?

If nothing else, sue that Brian McTrainer guy.

Well, the point of suing is generally to win. In this case, thats an impossibility. Not only does he need to prove a negative, but he also needs to prove that the lies were told with the intention of harming him - and its not McNamee that he'd need to prove tried to harm him, its Mitchell. There is just no way he can win. So, the lawsuit would cost him millions and he'd get no further than he said he said. Do you really value the opinion of 12 people too dumb to get out of jury duty over your own impressions?

Except Roger would not be suing for the "usual" reasons - namely getting a verdict in his favor and getting damages. He doesnt need the money and as noted, it would be nearly if not impossible for Clemens to win the case. He WOULD be suing to get his name out there, to testify under oath, to force all those who spoke against him to do the same... Clemens would not need to win the verdict to "win" the lawsuit for his needs.Of course, he really did it so that ain't gonna happen. But it's a thought.

 

[dparker713]

If Roger truly did not nothing, why not sue MLB, Mitchell, McNamee and anyone else he can find for slander?

If nothing else, sue that Brian McTrainer guy.

Well, the point of suing is generally to win. In this case, thats an impossibility. Not only does he need to prove a negative, but he also needs to prove that the lies were told with the intention of harming him - and its not McNamee that he'd need to prove tried to harm him, its Mitchell. There is just no way he can win. So, the lawsuit would cost him millions and he'd get no further than he said he said. Do you really value the opinion of 12 people too dumb to get out of jury duty over your own impressions?

Except Roger would not be suing for the "usual" reasons - namely getting a verdict in his favor and getting damages. He doesnt need the money and as noted, it would be nearly if not impossible for Clemens to win the case. He WOULD be suing to get his name out there, to testify under oath, to force all those who spoke against him to do the same... Clemens would not need to win the verdict to "win" the lawsuit for his needs.Of course, he really did it so that ain't gonna happen. But it's a thought.

There are no partials here. I'd give him a 99.99% chance of losing, and how exactly does that help his case with the public any. Even if the jury came out and explained that they believed Roger but couldnt direct a verdict for him, that wouldnt be the headline. The idea that Roger should use the courts to make some sort of public relations point is entirely ridiculous. The courts are already overflowing with frivolous lawsuits and this would certainly be one.

 

[skillz]

If Roger truly did not nothing, why not sue MLB, Mitchell, McNamee and anyone else he can find for slander?

If nothing else, sue that Brian McTrainer guy.

Well, the point of suing is generally to win. In this case, thats an impossibility. Not only does he need to prove a negative, but he also needs to prove that the lies were told with the intention of harming him - and its not McNamee that he'd need to prove tried to harm him, its Mitchell. There is just no way he can win. So, the lawsuit would cost him millions and he'd get no further than he said he said. Do you really value the opinion of 12 people too dumb to get out of jury duty over your own impressions?

Except Roger would not be suing for the "usual" reasons - namely getting a verdict in his favor and getting damages. He doesnt need the money and as noted, it would be nearly if not impossible for Clemens to win the case. He WOULD be suing to get his name out there, to testify under oath, to force all those who spoke against him to do the same... Clemens would not need to win the verdict to "win" the lawsuit for his needs.Of course, he really did it so that ain't gonna happen. But it's a thought.

Suing is not a good option for Roger given that:1. The burden of proving defamation or slander is exceedingly difficult for a public figure. The burden of proof is much higher than if a normal citizen like you or I was suing. He would have to prove that the statement was false and made with actual malice (basically a reckless disregard for the truth by the publisher) so even if the statements in the Mitchell Report are false he would still have a hard time being able to prove that the statement was made maliciously in order to win his lawsuit.2. More importantly, if he sues then the defendant would have the right to take his deposition under oath during the discovery phase. I think the last thing Roger wants at this point is to be required to testify under oath about the extent of his steroid use and put himself in a situation where he could be potentially indicted for perjury if he is caught lying.

 

[Angry Beavers]

If Roger truly did not nothing, why not sue MLB, Mitchell, McNamee and anyone else he can find for slander?

If nothing else, sue that Brian McTrainer guy.

Well, the point of suing is generally to win. In this case, thats an impossibility. Not only does he need to prove a negative, but he also needs to prove that the lies were told with the intention of harming him - and its not McNamee that he'd need to prove tried to harm him, its Mitchell. There is just no way he can win. So, the lawsuit would cost him millions and he'd get no further than he said he said. Do you really value the opinion of 12 people too dumb to get out of jury duty over your own impressions?

I think it would be interesting to make McManee testify to his accusations under oath. I would tend to believe he is legit and would have no problem doing so, but if Clemens has any intention of appearing serious in this fight, its a gambit he has to play.

I am fairly certain that McManee did offer "sworn" testimony. My point to a lawsuit, particularly against Mitchell, if I was Roger and did not use the juice would be to state that he (Mitchell) recklessly published something that was likely untrue and founded largely on suspect evidence at best. Roger would never recover money damages in a lawsuit, but I don't know of any other forum in which he could swear under oath that he did not take the juice, Mitchell is nuts, McManee is lying etc. I know that his chances of "winning" are somewhere around none, but collecting $ would not be the point, doing everything he could to clear his name would be.

 

[Angry Beavers]

If Roger truly did not nothing, why not sue MLB, Mitchell, McNamee and anyone else he can find for slander?

If nothing else, sue that Brian McTrainer guy.

Well, the point of suing is generally to win. In this case, thats an impossibility. Not only does he need to prove a negative, but he also needs to prove that the lies were told with the intention of harming him - and its not McNamee that he'd need to prove tried to harm him, its Mitchell. There is just no way he can win. So, the lawsuit would cost him millions and he'd get no further than he said he said. Do you really value the opinion of 12 people too dumb to get out of jury duty over your own impressions?

Except Roger would not be suing for the "usual" reasons - namely getting a verdict in his favor and getting damages. He doesnt need the money and as noted, it would be nearly if not impossible for Clemens to win the case. He WOULD be suing to get his name out there, to testify under oath, to force all those who spoke against him to do the same... Clemens would not need to win the verdict to "win" the lawsuit for his needs.

Of course, he really did it so that ain't gonna happen. But it's a thought.

Suing is not a good option for Roger given that:1. The burden of proving defamation or slander is exceedingly difficult for a public figure. The burden of proof is much higher than if a normal citizen like you or I was suing. He would have to prove that the statement was false and made with actual malice (basically a reckless disregard for the truth by the publisher) so even if the statements in the Mitchell Report are false he would still have a hard time being able to prove that the statement was made maliciously in order to win his lawsuit.

2. More importantly, if he sues then the defendant would have the right to take his deposition under oath during the discovery phase. I think the last thing Roger wants at this point is to be required to testify under oath about the extent of his steroid use and put himself in a situation where he could be potentially indicted for perjury if he is caught lying.

That is my point exactly - if he has something to hide, he'll never file suit. If he has nothing to hide, might as well bring it and see what transpires.....

 

[Leroy Hoard]

Consistent with his actions as a player. Hit a home run off him - get your head thrown at.

 

[NY/NJMFDIVER]

If Roger truly did not nothing, why not sue MLB, Mitchell, McNamee and anyone else he can find for slander?

If nothing else, sue that Brian McTrainer guy.

Well, the point of suing is generally to win. In this case, thats an impossibility. Not only does he need to prove a negative, but he also needs to prove that the lies were told with the intention of harming him - and its not McNamee that he'd need to prove tried to harm him, its Mitchell. There is just no way he can win. So, the lawsuit would cost him millions and he'd get no further than he said he said. Do you really value the opinion of 12 people too dumb to get out of jury duty over your own impressions?

I think it would be interesting to make McManee testify to his accusations under oath. I would tend to believe he is legit and would have no problem doing so, but if Clemens has any intention of appearing serious in this fight, its a gambit he has to play.

I am fairly certain that McManee did offer "sworn" testimony. My point to a lawsuit, particularly against Mitchell, if I was Roger and did not use the juice would be to state that he (Mitchell) recklessly published something that was likely untrue and founded largely on suspect evidence at best. Roger would never recover money damages in a lawsuit, but I don't know of any other forum in which he could swear under oath that he did not take the juice, Mitchell is nuts, McManee is lying etc. I know that his chances of "winning" are somewhere around none, but collecting $ would not be the point, doing everything he could to clear his name would be.

I'm not a legal expert, but I don't know if you can perjure yourself in a glorified deposition. In any I've given, I'm never been personally issued that warning, but I have been sworn in.

 

[skillz]

If Roger truly did not nothing, why not sue MLB, Mitchell, McNamee and anyone else he can find for slander?

If nothing else, sue that Brian McTrainer guy.

Well, the point of suing is generally to win. In this case, thats an impossibility. Not only does he need to prove a negative, but he also needs to prove that the lies were told with the intention of harming him - and its not McNamee that he'd need to prove tried to harm him, its Mitchell. There is just no way he can win. So, the lawsuit would cost him millions and he'd get no further than he said he said. Do you really value the opinion of 12 people too dumb to get out of jury duty over your own impressions?

I think it would be interesting to make McManee testify to his accusations under oath. I would tend to believe he is legit and would have no problem doing so, but if Clemens has any intention of appearing serious in this fight, its a gambit he has to play.

I am fairly certain that McManee did offer "sworn" testimony. My point to a lawsuit, particularly against Mitchell, if I was Roger and did not use the juice would be to state that he (Mitchell) recklessly published something that was likely untrue and founded largely on suspect evidence at best. Roger would never recover money damages in a lawsuit, but I don't know of any other forum in which he could swear under oath that he did not take the juice, Mitchell is nuts, McManee is lying etc. I know that his chances of "winning" are somewhere around none, but collecting $ would not be the point, doing everything he could to clear his name would be.

I'm not a legal expert, but I don't know if you can perjure yourself in a glorified deposition. In any I've given, I'm never been personally issued that warning, but I have been sworn in.

Sure you can. Perjury is making a false statement while under oath. A person can perjure themselves while testifying at a deposition, civil/criminal trial, or any other time they make a sworn statement (affidavit). There is no requirement that a person be advised that they will be committing a crime if they don't tell the truth. Now, as a practical matter, even if a person lies under oath at a deposition, a prosecutor is not going to waste his/her time and resources going after a perjury charge. But, when you have a big name involved that you can make an example out of (i.e. Bonds, Clemens), a prosecutor may take a shot at them in order to prove a point/make a name for themself.Clemens' whole strategy now is to deflect attention from himself by trying to dig up stuff on the trainer so people start talking about that instead. If Clemens really wanted to get the truth out there he had the opportunity to meet with Mitchell but he chose not to. He shouldn't be whining about what is in the report now, when he had every opportunity to rebut the allegations months ago.

 

[dparker713]

If Clemens really wanted to get the truth out there he had the opportunity to meet with Mitchell but he chose not to. He shouldn't be whining about what is in the report now, when he had every opportunity to rebut the allegations months ago.

This I really dont get. There were no ground rules to any meeting with Mitchell, so how exactly would you know you'd get a fair shake? Mitchell's offer to meet with players was BS, and everyone knew it. No one in their right minds should have met with Mitchell.

 

[Jefferson the Caregiver]

If Clemens really wanted to get the truth out there he had the opportunity to meet with Mitchell but he chose not to. He shouldn't be whining about what is in the report now, when he had every opportunity to rebut the allegations months ago.

This I really dont get. There were no ground rules to any meeting with Mitchell, so how exactly would you know you'd get a fair shake? Mitchell's offer to meet with players was BS, and everyone knew it. No one in their right minds should have met with Mitchell.

Do you think Roger is in a good position right now? If Clemens were innocent, he should have done everything he could have done to make sure his name didn't get put on that report. Why wouldn't he have gone to every length if he had nothing to hide? Actually if he were in his right mind, and innocent, he would have done that, because he is certainly screwed now.Now, he is assumed to be guilty, a lot of good not meeting Mitchell did him. How does he clear his name? If he were innocent, he would go to every length to make sure people knew he were innocent.

 

[dparker713]

If Clemens really wanted to get the truth out there he had the opportunity to meet with Mitchell but he chose not to. He shouldn't be whining about what is in the report now, when he had every opportunity to rebut the allegations months ago.

This I really dont get. There were no ground rules to any meeting with Mitchell, so how exactly would you know you'd get a fair shake? Mitchell's offer to meet with players was BS, and everyone knew it. No one in their right minds should have met with Mitchell.

Do you think Roger is in a good position right now? If Clemens were innocent, he should have done everything he could have done to make sure his name didn't get put on that report. Why wouldn't he have gone to every length if he had nothing to hide? Actually if he were in his right mind, and innocent, he would have done that, because he is certainly screwed now.Now, he is assumed to be guilty, a lot of good not meeting Mitchell did him. How does he clear his name? If he were innocent, he would go to every length to make sure people knew he were innocent.

Do you really think that there was any means for Roger to NOT have been in that report? At best he'd have his explanations side by side with the accusations. At worst Mitchell sides with McNamee. Going to talk to a guy without knowing any of the details, accusations or ground rules is just hubris. There is a reason that courts of law dont allow for surprise testimony - its just too easy to make someone appear guilty when they dont know whats coming. Frankly, for baseball people, this is akin to being accused of rape. You're reputation is immediately destroyed and there is no way to repair it.

 

[Jefferson the Caregiver]

If Clemens really wanted to get the truth out there he had the opportunity to meet with Mitchell but he chose not to. He shouldn't be whining about what is in the report now, when he had every opportunity to rebut the allegations months ago.

This I really dont get. There were no ground rules to any meeting with Mitchell, so how exactly would you know you'd get a fair shake? Mitchell's offer to meet with players was BS, and everyone knew it. No one in their right minds should have met with Mitchell.

Do you think Roger is in a good position right now? If Clemens were innocent, he should have done everything he could have done to make sure his name didn't get put on that report. Why wouldn't he have gone to every length if he had nothing to hide? Actually if he were in his right mind, and innocent, he would have done that, because he is certainly screwed now.Now, he is assumed to be guilty, a lot of good not meeting Mitchell did him. How does he clear his name? If he were innocent, he would go to every length to make sure people knew he were innocent.

Do you really think that there was any means for Roger to NOT have been in that report? At best he'd have his explanations side by side with the accusations. At worst Mitchell sides with McNamee. Going to talk to a guy without knowing any of the details, accusations or ground rules is just hubris. There is a reason that courts of law dont allow for surprise testimony - its just too easy to make someone appear guilty when they dont know whats coming. Frankly, for baseball people, this is akin to being accused of rape. You're reputation is immediately destroyed and there is no way to repair it.

Well if I were accuse of rape and innocent, I would be pulling out every stop to get people to turn their point of view. His weak attempts so far have done nothing to help his cause.

 

[skillz]

If Clemens really wanted to get the truth out there he had the opportunity to meet with Mitchell but he chose not to. He shouldn't be whining about what is in the report now, when he had every opportunity to rebut the allegations months ago.

This I really dont get. There were no ground rules to any meeting with Mitchell, so how exactly would you know you'd get a fair shake? Mitchell's offer to meet with players was BS, and everyone knew it. No one in their right minds should have met with Mitchell.

Do you think Roger is in a good position right now? If Clemens were innocent, he should have done everything he could have done to make sure his name didn't get put on that report. Why wouldn't he have gone to every length if he had nothing to hide? Actually if he were in his right mind, and innocent, he would have done that, because he is certainly screwed now.Now, he is assumed to be guilty, a lot of good not meeting Mitchell did him. How does he clear his name? If he were innocent, he would go to every length to make sure people knew he were innocent.

Do you really think that there was any means for Roger to NOT have been in that report? At best he'd have his explanations side by side with the accusations. At worst Mitchell sides with McNamee. Going to talk to a guy without knowing any of the details, accusations or ground rules is just hubris. There is a reason that courts of law dont allow for surprise testimony - its just too easy to make someone appear guilty when they dont know whats coming. Frankly, for baseball people, this is akin to being accused of rape. You're reputation is immediately destroyed and there is no way to repair it.

His lawyers could have easily established some ground rules/parameters for him to meet with Mitchell and also attended the meeting with him. From what has been reported, Clemens chose to completely ignore Mitchell's requests to talk to him. If Mitchell was unreasonable in what he wanted the ground rules to be, Clemens would at least be in a much better position to now say that he tried to meet with Mitchell to discuss the allegations but he chose not to meet when it became clear that the interview would have merely been a witch hunt and his side of the story would not have been given serious consideration. Instead he is now in a position where he has to defend himself to the public anyway by rebutting the allegations and, ironically, he is trying to do so in an interview with Mike Wallace where I am sure his lawyers have established some ground rules/parameters on what questions Wallace can ask/not ask. l

 

[dparker713]

If Clemens really wanted to get the truth out there he had the opportunity to meet with Mitchell but he chose not to. He shouldn't be whining about what is in the report now, when he had every opportunity to rebut the allegations months ago.

This I really dont get. There were no ground rules to any meeting with Mitchell, so how exactly would you know you'd get a fair shake? Mitchell's offer to meet with players was BS, and everyone knew it. No one in their right minds should have met with Mitchell.

Do you think Roger is in a good position right now? If Clemens were innocent, he should have done everything he could have done to make sure his name didn't get put on that report. Why wouldn't he have gone to every length if he had nothing to hide? Actually if he were in his right mind, and innocent, he would have done that, because he is certainly screwed now.Now, he is assumed to be guilty, a lot of good not meeting Mitchell did him. How does he clear his name? If he were innocent, he would go to every length to make sure people knew he were innocent.

Do you really think that there was any means for Roger to NOT have been in that report? At best he'd have his explanations side by side with the accusations. At worst Mitchell sides with McNamee. Going to talk to a guy without knowing any of the details, accusations or ground rules is just hubris. There is a reason that courts of law dont allow for surprise testimony - its just too easy to make someone appear guilty when they dont know whats coming. Frankly, for baseball people, this is akin to being accused of rape. You're reputation is immediately destroyed and there is no way to repair it.

His lawyers could have easily established some ground rules/parameters for him to meet with Mitchell and also attended the meeting with him. From what has been reported, Clemens chose to completely ignore Mitchell's requests to talk to him. If Mitchell was unreasonable in what he wanted the ground rules to be, Clemens would at least be in a much better position to now say that he tried to meet with Mitchell to discuss the allegations but he chose not to meet when it became clear that the interview would have merely been a witch hunt and his side of the story would not have been given serious consideration. Instead he is now in a position where he has to defend himself to the public anyway by rebutting the allegations and, ironically, he is trying to do so in an interview with Mike Wallace where I am sure his lawyers have established some ground rules/parameters on what questions Wallace can ask/not ask. l

Mitchell was judge, jury and opposition in any meeting he had. How exactly do you set ground rules and make him adhere to them?As for mike Wallace having ground rules, I highly doubt it. He's a God in the journalism world and he certainly doesnt need to cave to any requests to limit questions. The difference between Wallace and Mitchell in this case is Mitchell was working for the owners, Wallace has an extremely long and public reputation as tough but fair, and Wallace has no vested interest in the outcome of the interview. I'd much prefer a public interview with Wallace than agreeing to a closed door meeting with Mitchell.

 

[skillz]

Mike & Mike just said on their radio show this morning that McNamee has threatened to sue Clemens if he denies using steroids in his 60 Minutes interview. For what? I don't know since merely denying a person's allegations against you is not slander/defamation (if Clemens said that McNamee was lying and also a criminal/drug user, etc. I could see the basis for a suit). However, if a suit is filed that that would create an interesting scenario in that Clemens could be deposed under oath during the discovery phase of the civil suit.

 

[Kiddnets]

Mike & Mike just said on their radio show this morning that McNamee has threatened to sue Clemens if he denies using steroids in his 60 Minutes interview. For what? I don't know since merely denying a person's allegations against you is not slander/defamation (if Clemens said that McNamee was lying and also a criminal/drug user, etc. I could see the basis for a suit). However, if a suit is filed that that would create an interesting scenario in that Clemens could be deposed under oath during the discovery phase of the civil suit.

Wow McNamee just turned up the "juice" on Roger - he certainly sounds like a guy who is telling the truth while Roger is in defense mode.

 

[Koya]

Mike & Mike just said on their radio show this morning that McNamee has threatened to sue Clemens if he denies using steroids in his 60 Minutes interview. For what? I don't know since merely denying a person's allegations against you is not slander/defamation (if Clemens said that McNamee was lying and also a criminal/drug user, etc. I could see the basis for a suit). However, if a suit is filed that that would create an interesting scenario in that Clemens could be deposed under oath during the discovery phase of the civil suit.

Wow McNamee just turned up the "juice" on Roger - he certainly sounds like a guy who is telling the truth while Roger is in defense mode.

I heard this on WFAN this morning but with a slightly different take. I did not hear that McNamee would sue if Roger denied taking steroids per se, but rather would sue if Roger did anything to defame McNamee. So, if Rog just says "hey, I can't tell you about McNamee, you have to speak with him, but I can tell you I never took roids" I wouldnt see a suit. Even if he is tacitly calling McNamee a liar, it would not be direct.If Rog goes further to the end of "McNamee was flat out lying" or something like that, then McNamee is apparantly ready to lay down the gauntlet. I would love nothing more than this blowhard of an egomaniac Clemens to deny, lie, deny and end up getting sued himself because of his insolence.

 

[dparker713]

Mike & Mike just said on their radio show this morning that McNamee has threatened to sue Clemens if he denies using steroids in his 60 Minutes interview. For what? I don't know since merely denying a person's allegations against you is not slander/defamation (if Clemens said that McNamee was lying and also a criminal/drug user, etc. I could see the basis for a suit). However, if a suit is filed that that would create an interesting scenario in that Clemens could be deposed under oath during the discovery phase of the civil suit.

Wow McNamee just turned up the "juice" on Roger - he certainly sounds like a guy who is telling the truth while Roger is in defense mode.

I heard this on WFAN this morning but with a slightly different take. I did not hear that McNamee would sue if Roger denied taking steroids per se, but rather would sue if Roger did anything to defame McNamee. So, if Rog just says "hey, I can't tell you about McNamee, you have to speak with him, but I can tell you I never took roids" I wouldnt see a suit. Even if he is tacitly calling McNamee a liar, it would not be direct.If Rog goes further to the end of "McNamee was flat out lying" or something like that, then McNamee is apparantly ready to lay down the gauntlet. I would love nothing more than this blowhard of an egomaniac Clemens to deny, lie, deny and end up getting sued himself because of his insolence.

McNamee could sue all he wants. He could no more win in a suit than Roger could at this point. This is a matter of public interest and the burden is on McNamee. Unless he's holding back hard evidence, there's just no way.

 

[Statorama]

They ought to put Rog on that new game show that hooks you up to a lie detector. Now THAT would make for 'must watch' TV.

 

[Kiddnets]

here we go!

NEW YORK (AP) -- Roger Clemens said former trainer Brian McNamee injected him with the painkiller lidocaine and the vitamin B-12, according to the first excerpts released from the pitcher's interview with CBS's 60 Minutes.

McNamee said in the Mitchell report on doping in baseball that he personally injected Clemens with steroids in 1998 while with the Toronto Blue Jays, and with steroids and human growth hormone in 2000 and 2001 while with the New York Yankees.

Clemens issued a video statement on Dec. 23 denying the accusations and plans to hold a news conference Monday, a day after the CBS interview is to be broadcast.

During the interview, recorded last Friday at Clemens' home in Katy, Texas, Clemens was asked whether McNamee had injected him with any drugs.

"Lidocaine and B-12," Clemens responded. "It's for my joints, and B-12 I still take today."

Lidocaine is a local anesthetic that can be used by dentists and in minor surgery. It also is available as part of ointments used to treat skin inflammation.

Clemens told CBS that McNamee's accusation was "ridiculous" and said he "never" used banned substances.

"Swear?" CBS's Mike Wallace asked Clemens.

"Swear," Clemens responded.

Baseball players and owners did not have an agreement to ban steroids until September 2002, and they didn't ban HGH until January 2005.

 

[Kiddnets]

Mike & Mike just said on their radio show this morning that McNamee has threatened to sue Clemens if he denies using steroids in his 60 Minutes interview. For what? I don't know since merely denying a person's allegations against you is not slander/defamation (if Clemens said that McNamee was lying and also a criminal/drug user, etc. I could see the basis for a suit). However, if a suit is filed that that would create an interesting scenario in that Clemens could be deposed under oath during the discovery phase of the civil suit.

Wow McNamee just turned up the "juice" on Roger - he certainly sounds like a guy who is telling the truth while Roger is in defense mode.

I heard this on WFAN this morning but with a slightly different take. I did not hear that McNamee would sue if Roger denied taking steroids per se, but rather would sue if Roger did anything to defame McNamee. So, if Rog just says "hey, I can't tell you about McNamee, you have to speak with him, but I can tell you I never took roids" I wouldnt see a suit. Even if he is tacitly calling McNamee a liar, it would not be direct.If Rog goes further to the end of "McNamee was flat out lying" or something like that, then McNamee is apparantly ready to lay down the gauntlet. I would love nothing more than this blowhard of an egomaniac Clemens to deny, lie, deny and end up getting sued himself because of his insolence.

McNamee could sue all he wants. He could no more win in a suit than Roger could at this point. This is a matter of public interest and the burden is on McNamee. Unless he's holding back hard evidence, there's just no way.

The point isn'tto win a lawsuit but to get clemens to swear under oath which could expose him to perjury when hard evidence is finally uncovered.

 

[Liquid Tension]

Cobalt

Umm...perhaps I wasn't clear.

Clemens is a tool. Plain and simple. His denial is every bit as transparent as this whole "rehab" shtick that's going around.

All I can say is that it's refreshing to at least someone dig in his heels and say something different. It's a trainwreck, and he's a trainwreck, and I am absolutely convinced he's a juicer (and that he juiced mostly--if not exclusively--when he was a Yankee, which pisses me off). So, I'm done with him. But, I'm just so sick and tired of these panty waists who are offering up these absurd apologies that I actually like to see stupidity expressed a different way in the form of continued denial, which is what Clemens is doing here.

What are you talking about Cobalt 27?

He just came off two of his best/dominating years with Toronto when he went to the Yanks. With the Yanks he was above average but not close to dominant. Then he goes to Houston and dominates again. Then he comes back to the Yankees and was average...and you interpret that as evidence he only juiced with the Yanks? Either you are a blind Yankee hater or you are very weak at interpreting data.

 

[the moops]

Lidocaine and B-12. Umm, OK Roger.

 

[Jefferson the Caregiver]

McNamee could sue all he wants. He could no more win in a suit than Roger could at this point. This is a matter of public interest and the burden is on McNamee. Unless he's holding back hard evidence, there's just no way.

You are right that this is a matter of public interest but the burden is on McNamee? What planet are you on? McNamee has no chance of getting his Hall of Fame credentials stripped. The burden is on Roger now in a big way. McNamee has nothing to gain or lose at this point, public opinion is meaningless to him.

 

[skillz]

Lidocaine and B-12. Umm, OK Roger.

Sounds a lot like Palmeiro when he said Tejada was giving him shots of B-12.

 

[Wrigley]

here we go!NEW YORK (AP) -- Roger Clemens said former trainer Brian McNamee injected him with the painkiller lidocaine and the vitamin B-12, according to the first excerpts released from the pitcher's interview with CBS's 60 Minutes.McNamee said in the Mitchell report on doping in baseball that he personally injected Clemens with steroids in 1998 while with the Toronto Blue Jays, and with steroids and human growth hormone in 2000 and 2001 while with the New York Yankees.Clemens issued a video statement on Dec. 23 denying the accusations and plans to hold a news conference Monday, a day after the CBS interview is to be broadcast.During the interview, recorded last Friday at Clemens' home in Katy, Texas, Clemens was asked whether McNamee had injected him with any drugs."Lidocaine and B-12," Clemens responded. "It's for my joints, and B-12 I still take today."Lidocaine is a local anesthetic that can be used by dentists and in minor surgery. It also is available as part of ointments used to treat skin inflammation.Clemens told CBS that McNamee's accusation was "ridiculous" and said he "never" used banned substances."Swear?" CBS's Mike Wallace asked Clemens."Swear," Clemens responded.Baseball players and owners did not have an agreement to ban steroids until September 2002, and they didn't ban HGH until January 2005.

First Roids, and now he swears too?This guy is going down fast.

 

[TitusIII]

Roger's only move at this point is to offer McNamee a significant chunk of change under the table to retract his statements. I'm not sure if this will result in jail-time for McNamee, but if the money is right...

 

[Wrigley]

Roger's only move at this point is to offer McNamee a significant chunk of change under the table to retract his statements. I'm not sure if this will result in jail-time for McNamee, but if the money is right...

Right out of Bonds book of "how to get out of anything".........I like it.

 

[skillz]

ESPN News is now reporting that Congress is requiring Clemens, Pettite, and McNamee to testify before it on January 16. So it looks like Clemens will finally have to explain himself under oath.

 

[skillz]

Knoblauch is also being required to testify. Maybe he was a witness to the alleged injections when Clemens was playing with the Yankees so they want him to explain what he saw/heard.

 

[dparker713]

McNamee could sue all he wants. He could no more win in a suit than Roger could at this point. This is a matter of public interest and the burden is on McNamee. Unless he's holding back hard evidence, there's just no way.

You are right that this is a matter of public interest but the burden is on McNamee? What planet are you on? McNamee has no chance of getting his Hall of Fame credentials stripped. The burden is on Roger now in a big way. McNamee has nothing to gain or lose at this point, public opinion is meaningless to him.

The burden would be on McNamee in a court of law. I place very little weight in the court of public opinion as the public is dumb.

 

[[icon]]

ESPN News is now reporting that Congress is requiring Clemens, Pettite, and McNamee to testify before it on January 16. So it looks like Clemens will finally have to explain himself under oath.

This could be interesting. IF there is any legit evidence and Roger lies under oath... he should likely get the same sentencing as Bonds, no?

 

[RAPTURE]

Considering there have been MAYBE a handful of players that have EVER really come out against steroids and been willing to consider real testing and real punishments, I have ZERO sympathy for any star who is accused... even if they are wrongly accused. As they say, if you are not part of the solution, you are part of the problem.Now, Roger took them, don't get me wrong. But even if he didnt, he is STILL responsible for being one of the many who continued to be ok with a system rampant with cheating and no checks to ensure a level playing field. If a player came out years ago to actually clean up the sport, that would be one thing. But by at the least sitting back and allowing it to happen, you can not make yourself immune from the accusations cast.

In your world, you probably have zero sympathy for somebody who had their house broken into simply b/c they were not members of the Neighborhood Crime Watch.

 

[Sea Bass]

ESPN News is now reporting that Congress is requiring Clemens, Pettite, and McNamee to testify before it on January 16. So it looks like Clemens will finally have to explain himself under oath.

If Clemens is innocent this is a great opportunity. If not, his place in history and his future freedom are both in jeopardy.

 

[Statorama]

Knoblauch is also being required to testify. Maybe he was a witness to the alleged injections when Clemens was playing with the Yankees so they want him to explain what he saw/heard.

Too bad they didn't have a "throw it accurately from second to first" steroid.

 

[Statorama]

Knoblauch is also being required to testify. Maybe he was a witness to the alleged injections when Clemens was playing with the Yankees so they want him to explain what he saw/heard.

It's one thing for a blowhard like Canseco or a 'saving his own butt' character like Grimsley to break the baseball code of silence, but it will be huge if a recognizeable baseball name with nothing to gain starts telling steroid secrets.

 

[Ed Wood]

Absolutely NO details, but Clemens and McNamee apparently talked on the phone Friday. Doesn't say who initiated the call, but I'm betting Clemens and he said, "Please, Brian, don't sue me after the 60 Minutes show."

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3183738

 

[prosopis]

60 mins is starting

 

[Limp Ditka]

Absolutely NO details, but Clemens and McNamee apparently talked on the phone Friday. Doesn't say who initiated the call, but I'm betting Clemens and he said, "Please, Brian, don't sue me after the 60 Minutes show."

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3183738

Or maybe the conversation went a little differently.

Roger Clemens, on Sunday night, filed a defamation suit against his former trainer, Brian McNamee, who has claimed to have injected Clemens with steroids and HGH.

"Clemens' good reputation has been severely injured," the suit said. "McNamee's false allegations have also caused Clemens to suffer mental anguish, shame, public humiliation and embarrassment." If anyone has any hard evidence either way, now would be a great time to show it. Jan. 7 - 7:02 am et

 

[Angry Beavers]

Roger Clemens, on Sunday night, filed a defamation suit against his former trainer, Brian McNamee, who has claimed to have injected Clemens with steroids and HGH.

"Clemens' good reputation has been severely injured," the suit said. "McNamee's false allegations have also caused Clemens to suffer mental anguish, shame, public humiliation and embarrassment." If anyone has any hard evidence either way, now would be a great time to show it. Jan. 7 - 7:02 am et

The above is straight from Rotoworld.................

I applaud Roger for doing this assuming that he never took the juice. If he did take the juice, pretty stoopid to go to this extrmeme. Although, think about it. Roger is going to testify before Congress. Let us assume that he does not take the fifth Amendment, AND he is going to state that he never took the juice. IF he took the juice, and is going to lie about it to Congress, why not file suit as well? I imagine his previous sworn statement to Congress would be admissable, at least for purposes of impeachment, at the trial of the defamation case.

At least he is the first player to go to this extreme to defend himself against these kind of accusations.

 

[Kiddnets]

Roger Clemens, on Sunday night, filed a defamation suit against his former trainer, Brian McNamee, who has claimed to have injected Clemens with steroids and HGH."Clemens' good reputation has been severely injured," the suit said. "McNamee's false allegations have also caused Clemens to suffer mental anguish, shame, public humiliation and embarrassment." If anyone has any hard evidence either way, now would be a great time to show it. Jan. 7 - 7:02 am etThe above is straight from Rotoworld................. I applaud Roger for doing this assuming that he never took the juice. If he did take the juice, pretty stoopid to go to this extrmeme. Although, think about it. Roger is going to testify before Congress. Let us assume that he does not take the fifth Amendment, AND he is going to state that he never took the juice. IF he took the juice, and is going to lie about it to Congress, why not file suit as well? I imagine his previous sworn statement to Congress would be admissable, at least for purposes of impeachment, at the trial of the defamation case. At least he is the first player to go to this extreme to defend himself against these kind of accusations.

Exactly - he is going to lie in front of Congress so why not file suit and perjure himself as well. IMO he is clearly lying - but athletes that have been treated like Gods for so long are so arrogant that they think they will never get caught. It doesn't suprise me at all he is taking this to the extreme. He is banking on the fact that there is no physical evidence to take him down - he should be wary of the fall Palmero took - it will be far worse for Roger when the truth comes out!

 

[Wrigley]

Does this turn into a "he said, he said" thing?

 

[Limp Ditka]

Roger Clemens, on Sunday night, filed a defamation suit against his former trainer, Brian McNamee, who has claimed to have injected Clemens with steroids and HGH."Clemens' good reputation has been severely injured," the suit said. "McNamee's false allegations have also caused Clemens to suffer mental anguish, shame, public humiliation and embarrassment." If anyone has any hard evidence either way, now would be a great time to show it. Jan. 7 - 7:02 am etThe above is straight from Rotoworld................. I applaud Roger for doing this assuming that he never took the juice. If he did take the juice, pretty stoopid to go to this extrmeme. Although, think about it. Roger is going to testify before Congress. Let us assume that he does not take the fifth Amendment, AND he is going to state that he never took the juice. IF he took the juice, and is going to lie about it to Congress, why not file suit as well? I imagine his previous sworn statement to Congress would be admissable, at least for purposes of impeachment, at the trial of the defamation case. At least he is the first player to go to this extreme to defend himself against these kind of accusations.

Exactly - he is going to lie in front of Congress so why not file suit and perjure himself as well. IMO he is clearly lying - but athletes that have been treated like Gods for so long are so arrogant that they think they will never get caught. It doesn't suprise me at all he is taking this to the extreme. He is banking on the fact that there is no physical evidence to take him down - he should be wary of the fall Palmero took - it will be far worse for Roger when the truth comes out!

I wonder if this sets himself up for not having to say anything to congress as it would impact his suit.

 

[Steelnation]

From what I watched last night there is no doubt in my mind Roger is lying through his teeth

 

[RedRaiders]

Roger Clemens, on Sunday night, filed a defamation suit against his former trainer, Brian McNamee, who has claimed to have injected Clemens with steroids and HGH."Clemens' good reputation has been severely injured," the suit said. "McNamee's false allegations have also caused Clemens to suffer mental anguish, shame, public humiliation and embarrassment." If anyone has any hard evidence either way, now would be a great time to show it. Jan. 7 - 7:02 am etThe above is straight from Rotoworld................. I applaud Roger for doing this assuming that he never took the juice. If he did take the juice, pretty stoopid to go to this extrmeme. Although, think about it. Roger is going to testify before Congress. Let us assume that he does not take the fifth Amendment, AND he is going to state that he never took the juice. IF he took the juice, and is going to lie about it to Congress, why not file suit as well? I imagine his previous sworn statement to Congress would be admissable, at least for purposes of impeachment, at the trial of the defamation case. At least he is the first player to go to this extreme to defend himself against these kind of accusations.

Exactly - he is going to lie in front of Congress so why not file suit and perjure himself as well. IMO he is clearly lying - but athletes that have been treated like Gods for so long are so arrogant that they think they will never get caught. It doesn't suprise me at all he is taking this to the extreme. He is banking on the fact that there is no physical evidence to take him down - he should be wary of the fall Palmero took - it will be far worse for Roger when the truth comes out!

I wonder if this sets himself up for not having to say anything to congress as it would impact his suit.

Shrewd move by him if true.

 

[skillz]

Congress can still subpoena him regardless of the lawsuit. His choices at that point are: 1) to testify (with the risk of harming his lawsuit which if he is just going to deny taking steroids I don't see how his testimony will undermine his suit since that is the basis for his suit in the first place), or 2) take the 5th and not say anything which would make him look worse than McGwire. At this point, he hasn't been subpoenaed though as I understand it.

The lawsuit is certainly an interesting twist. As much as it seems like Clemens took steroids, I am trying to keep an open mind on this and let the facts play out. I just can't get over the fact that I remember when he left Boston and I thought for sure the Sox did the right thing by letting him go. His best days clearly looked behind him and then he just found himself again after going to Toronto (and coincidentally around the time that he started taking steroids).

Clemens certainly is taking some steps to prove his side of the story now by filing the lawsuit. His explanation at this point for not trying to rebut the Mitchell report sooner was that he didn't know that McNamee had made any allegations against him. So, there is at least a reason to consider for him not trying to meet with Mitchell before the report was published.

The parts of the 60 Minutes interview that didn't do him any favors are:

1) Refusing to take a lie detector test. (I know they are not 100% accurate but it still makes look to the public as if he is trying to hide the "real" facts by refusing to do so).

2) His whole "if I took steroids would the person who sold them to me speak up." Oh sure, as if a person that is violating federal law by dealing banned substances is going to raise his hand up so the feds can prosecute him and destroy his steroid ring. Of course, the person is not going to speak up and the fact that he isn't doesn't prove that he Roger didn't take steroids.

3) Wallace did a good job of showing that McNamee has some credibility.

---Pettitte has confirmed that he was telling the truth on his HGH use.

---Roger himself also said they were pretty good friends and he was surprised by the allegations. So it doesn't appear at this point that they ever had a falling out or anything like that which would have given McNamee a reason to make up the allegations in order to get back at Roger.

---Wallace stated how McNamee was involved in a steroid ring (so he clearly had access to the stuff by being in it and as evidenced by the truth of the Pettitte allegations) and was forced to tell the truth to the feds about who was using, and if he ever gave any false information he would get prosecuted. So he clearly had an incentive to tell the truth in order to avoid federal prosecution.

Now I am not a trainer or anything like that but the one thing that struck me as odd is why do the players get B-12 injected into their bodies. I was just at the store the other day and saw bottles of B-12 pills on the shelves. Why take an injection instead of the over the counter pills? It seems to me that the injections aren't necessary and that saying it was B-12 is an easy way of explaining why injections were taking place without saying that the injections were for steroids. I don't know....

 

[Jefferson the Caregiver]

How come Roger had to wait for Wallace to ask the question before he stated that McNamee had injected him, but with B-12?

Why not come right out with that weeks ago?

Instead he waits until the question gets asked and then he gives a prepared answer.

Bottom line, the guy is lying.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

Roger, at any time during your major league baseball career did you take steroids? That was the question that should have been asked.

To me Clemens is a traditional American from Texas and he was obviously very upset by all of this. I think you can ramp up your emotions when lying but it's very difficult unless you actually believe the lie to be truthful. What I'm saying is based on all the information I think he probably did not receive injections from McNamee but it's still possible that he took steroids at another time.

Also testifying before Congress and lying would not be a good move no matter what here. If there is any chance at all that he could be found to be lying he would be facing jailtime. It's why McGuire and others took the fifth. Would saving your reputation (which I'm sure it wouldn't because I've already read in here that people think he would lie in front of Congress) be worth the almost certainty that you would face jailtime at a later date? Hell no and many from organized crime figures to union officials to lobbies have taken the fifth over the years because lying to a congressional committee is a guarantee your see the inside of a cell. The only way he is lying is if he is 100 percent sure there is no chance to prove the allegations. There are very few things in this life that are 100 percent sure and this certainly would not be one of them.

Anyway based on his reactions, his facial expressions, and his emotion I'm inclined to believe that he did not take steroids from McNamee. I have never been a Clemens fan at all and find him to be an arrogant ### sometimes but he just seem like the type of guy to go to such extremes to lie. He has tens of millions of dollars, he is a family man, he still has people that believe him, and he's still going to the Hall of Fame. To risk all that to try to raise the his polling numbers seems like a reach to me since some will not believe him anyway for whatever reason.

 

[Koya]

Roger, at any time during your major league baseball career did you take steroids? That was the question that should have been asked. To me Clemens is a traditional American from Texas and he was obviously very upset by all of this. I think you can ramp up your emotions when lying but it's very difficult unless you actually believe the lie to be truthful. What I'm saying is based on all the information I think he probably did not receive injections from McNamee but it's still possible that he took steroids at another time. Also testifying before Congress and lying would not be a good move no matter what here. If there is any chance at all that he could be found to be lying he would be facing jailtime. It's why McGuire and others took the fifth. Would saving your reputation (which I'm sure it wouldn't because I've already read in here that people think he would lie in front of Congress) be worth the almost certainty that you would face jailtime at a later date? Hell no and many from organized crime figures to union officials to lobbies have taken the fifth over the years because lying to a congressional committee is a guarantee your see the inside of a cell. The only way he is lying is if he is 100 percent sure there is no chance to prove the allegations. There are very few things in this life that are 100 percent sure and this certainly would not be one of them. Anyway based on his reactions, his facial expressions, and his emotion I'm inclined to believe that he did not take steroids from McNamee. I have never been a Clemens fan at all and find him to be an arrogant ### sometimes but he just seem like the type of guy to go to such extremes to lie. He has tens of millions of dollars, he is a family man, he still has people that believe him, and he's still going to the Hall of Fame. To risk all that to try to raise the his polling numbers seems like a reach to me since some will not believe him anyway for whatever reason.

DD - as I understand it, initially Clemens denied ever having McNamee or anyone EVER inject ANYthing into him.Now, we get the B-12 bull#### (and it's bull####. You don't inject what he claims to have injected for the reasons he injected them from everything I have heard from Doctors and other professionals who would know).Personally, I think Clemens just believes there isnot enough hard evidence to prove he DID do it, so it's his best chance to posture away.

 

[Doctor Detroit]

Personally, I think Clemens just believes there isnot enough hard evidence to prove he DID do it, so it's his best chance to posture away.

Not sure. The phone call lends credence to the theory McNamee was just throwing out as much as he could to avoid jail. After awhile the investigators were likely saying, "that isn't good enough, we need someone bigger." I'll wait until all the evidence is in but I agree with some that the peanut gallery was too quick to convict here. Clemens is really bringing the big guns out here and he is not ####### around. If this is all and he is clean then good for him.