My favourite part ( don't have the exact quote) - ' You would think I would get some respect for my 25 years service in public'.
uh - who are we talking about here - Mahatma Gandhi? He is one of the overpaid ballplayers - that means the people will fave complete faith in whatever crap he says?
Das, I was thinking about that statement too and wondered if it's:
- part of the denial process...I remember as a kid in trouble playing it up like that to get some relief
or
- is he so egotistical and self-centered/self-important that he truly believes he shouldn't be questioned after "all that he has done for the sport."
I'm leaning towards it being part of a very calculated approach to denying the allegations.
First off, I don't know if Clemens is guilty or not, hopefully Congress or a court will make that final determination. However, I find it hard to believe that Clemens would do the 60 minutes interview and immediately have his lawyers file a defamation of character suit if he were guilty.
http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/7645222?MSNHPHMA
"Go big or go home," a weightlifting term, might apply here...a soft-pedaled denial isn't going to convince anyone.Originally Posted by BudLight;311881;
Perhaps Clemens knows there are only 2 people that know the truth...he and McNamee...and it'll always be, at most, a "his word against mine" issue.
That's going real big though. He will surely have to testify in the defamation of character case and could face 15 counts of perjury if he is lying and you can bet if he meets with congress the same questions will be asked of him. Is he that much of gambler to possibly face federal perjury charges?
If I understand Rogers ego ( and I hardly know him so likely I am wrong) - the answer is absolutely yes. He would rather go down on flames than admit that he used steroids. From a legal standpoint though - I think this is different than the Palmero case. Palmero was an idiot - he should not have said what he said in Congress knowing fully well that he has failed drug test. In Rogers case - this will be extremely difficult to bring a perjury case against him if he has not failed a drug test or he was smart enough to buy roids on cash unlike other boneheads who has left a money trail. I think he is betting that all will come down to public perception in this case. Initial verdict in public court is he is guilty and if he stands strong with his interviews and lawsuits - he thinks it will eventually change.
The only way I will change my opinion about Roger is if he ever takes a lie detector test(yeah I know they are not full proof ). Can't wait to see the buzzar go when he says ' God - I had no idea Andy was doing those HGH stuffs'.
Shaughnessy's take:
http://www.boston.com/sports/basebal...rd_to_believe/
Assuming he is guilty and there are others who know the truth or there is a paper trail or some other evidence...then that is the ultimate question.
http://thesteroidera.blogspot.com/20...ns-quotes.html
for those of you (like me) who would like to know what Canseco said without actually reading his book.
Consider the source!! Shaughnessy is "so well connected" he didn't even know Clemens filed suit last night. He should get his facts straight and do his homework if he wants to be credible.
Note the B12 reference in Canseco's book. Important to note that this book came out 2 years ago when reflecting on what Clemens says about B12...
Different links - too lazy to put them seperately. Feel free to read, draw your own conclusions and discuss.
http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/ba..._says_rog.html
http://www.nypost.com/seven/01062008...ike_149153.htm
The lawsuit story broke early morning - I am not gonna hold that against him for not including it in his report.
Okay, I can agree to that, in part, the story broke at 6:45 this morning.
Check out the news conference airing right now.
Clemens is innocent.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote