Democrats for McNamee, Republicans for Clemens???

[zahavasdad]

Has anyone noticed this, Democrats seem to believe McNamee and Republicans seem to believe Clemens.

[Brian McKenna]

Not sure, but I wanted to ask the ones that were so blatantly pro-Clemens, "How much smooge time did they spent with Clemens last week."

It just shows the complete sleeze nature of Congress that some invite Clemens in for one-on-one touchy-feely - probably autograph swapping - sessions the week before a hearing.

[hudsonharden]

What if you think both of them are scum, does that make you a Liberterian?

[whoisonit]

What if you think both of them are scum, does that make you a Liberterian?

Means your honest.

[Doctor X]

Indeed.

"Libertarian" means you think things like the IRS are a "matter of opinion."

By numbers, yes, more Reps slathered over Clemens than Dems. However, there were a few Dems who did--like that brainless woman suggesting he will go to heaven! The thing is you had one like Burton who is a buffoon make a loud and pathetic exhibition of himself. There was one prominent Rep who basically came out and stated that Clemens was lying, and the Ranking Member muttered the same thing.

I will admit I wanted McNamee to ask one guy if he got an autograph from Clemens so he could then respond, "well, shame on you!"

--J.D.

[whoisonit]

I will admit I wanted McNamee to ask one guy if he got an autograph from Clemens so he could then respond, "well, shame on you!"

--J.D.

Mmmm. That would have been enjoyable.

I believe a Libitarian holds the IRS to be unconstitutional.

[Doctor X]

Mmmm. That would have been enjoyable.

Probably would have earned him a contempt of Congress citation, but it would have been good theater!


I believe a Libitarian holds the IRS to be unconstitutional.

Unfortunately, a Constitutional amendment and a literal ton of case and statutary law--and a whole lot of federal agents--hold differently. Not to turn this into a political debate, but one of the leaders of the actual party could only mutter "wouldn't it be interesting if it was?" to the question on IRS constitutionality.

Well . . . "wouldn't it be interesting" if I was Nicole Kidman's Snuggle-Bunny! Reality does not work that way . . . unfortunately!

Right! The Republican outspoken against Clemens is Mark Souder.

--J.D.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

I wondered if Roger was sitting on the wrong side of the room.
He used tactics that the very people that were questioning him, the politicians often use.

When asked some questions he showed he could filibuster with the best of them. Long winded speeches at times even going back to childhood. At times completely off the subject the question he was asked...........where the heck is he going with this one I'm thinking.

Confronted with conflicting statements he made and the words of others the topper Andy Pettite's in particular...............I did not say that Andy "misheard". Every one else is lying or they heard wrong, I'm the only one you should believe.

I wanted to believe him but using common sense how could I. He was taking a beating, where is Mariano Rivera when I need him.

[tommybaseball]

Has anyone noticed this, Democrats seem to believe McNamee and Republicans seem to believe Clemens.

Has anyone noticed this, that as much as we are supposed to keep politics and religion out of this board, in regard to this particular situation, Houdini wouldn't be able to do it.
Baseball is Life!

[Captain Cold Nose]

I'm not Houdini, but I can remove posts that stray off topic too far.

Keep the political discussion to nothing more than simple observation, please, everyone.

[zahavasdad]

The Republicans Like Chris Shays were calling McNamee a Drug Dealer while the Democrats Like Henry Waxman said Clemens lying was boosted by Petittes and Knobloch's testimony.

Conservative Talk show hosts are comparing Clemens to the Duke Lacrosse team.

I agree BOTH are wrong, But all evidence cleary (in my view) points to Clemens being guilty even if McNamee IS a DRUG DEALER

[Doctor X]

As another poster observed well on the other thread, if McNamee is a DRUG DEALER [Boo. Hiss.--Ed.] then Clemens, his wife, Pettite, et al. are DRUG USERS.

Fallacies cut both ways, Congressman Shays.

--J.D.

[whoisonit]

Talk show hosts are comparing Clemens to the Duke Lacrosse team.


As if those poor kids haven't suffered enough !

[digglahhh]

I agree BOTH are wrong, But all evidence cleary (in my view) points to Clemens being guilty even if McNamee IS a DRUG DEALER

Yeah. That's what I kept saying too.

You don't have to like McNamee, you can, in fact, think he's scum. That doesn't mitigate any of Clemens' actions. In fact, one could argue it even a reflection of Clemens's character and/or ability to (mis)judge the character of others. After all, this "scum" is a man who was employed and embraced by Clemens for many years. Birds of a feather, right...

McNamee has been given immunity for the illegality of his actions in return for his cooperation, no? So what relevance does it have here? Character? Oh, how I would love Joe Congressman to make accusations about my character... I know more about you than you do about me...

I got really giddy for a minute though. When the whole thing about being a drug dealer, and "that's your opinion" went down, I was really hoping McNamee would bust out some crazy monologue like Johnny Depp in Blow or Nino Brown in New Jack City. That could have been the best moment in television history!

[tommybaseball]

I'm not Houdini, but I can remove posts that stray off topic too far.

Keep the political discussion to nothing more than simple observation, please, everyone.

CCN, if you didn't observe what was going on with the Republicans and Democrats yesterday as far as which side each political party were taking, then I'm not sure what you were watching yesterday or if you saw something you didn't want to see or believe.
As much as I didn't want to believe it when I took my then, eight year old son to Shea Stadium one afternoon to see Mark McGwire hit a shot off of the scoreboard, breaking a few light bulbs in the process, I was forced to eventually face this fact: McGwire cheated. Bonds cheated. Sosa cheated. PED's ruined everything about baseball that I believed in, especially that it was on the level. And now we know that it's not.
And we know because of common sense, not because we don't have a positive test.
The ugly truth that we saw yesterday was the chalky white foul line blurring between baseball and politics.
And the political parties showed their cards for the entire nation to see.
Maybe this will be the next great chapter after the discrimination that existed until 1947 where baseball plays a prominent roll in cleaning up hypocrisy in our country.
It could be an ugly "bloodbath" (whether or not it holds up in court, those needles are going to show Clemens blood mixed with steroids.) but wasn't it Thomas Jefferson who once wrote:
The game of baseball must be refreshed from time to time, by exposing the tainted blood of hypocrits who claim to be patriots but are really cheaters."
I don't know, something like that.....

You know what I hope comes out of all of this? That I can go to the ballpark again one day with my nine year old son (the other one is 17 now!) and feel confident that the game is clean.
But I guess that's just my audacity of hope.
Baseball is Life!

[Doctor X]

Looks to see where the foul line is. . . .

Given that one of the most outspoken critics of Clemens is a Republican, and some of the more embarrassing fawners were Democrats, I do not think this is a party thing. I think one will find more of a correspondence based upon the region of the country, and whom individual congressmen admired--and who their voters admired.

Frankly, I wonder if it is that: some checked the election year wind-direction in their constituency and argued accordingly.

Nevertheless, I doubt a congressman is going to win or lose an election over Roger Clemens.

--J.D.

[DODGER DEB]

McNamee's lawyers is predicting a full pardon from George Bush, is Roger Clemmens is convicted.

What a country!!!


McNamee's Lawyer Predicts Clemens Pardon
Published: 2/14/08, 2:25 PM EDTBy RONALD BLUM

(AP) - One of Brian McNamee's lawyers predicted that Roger Clemens will be pardoned by President Bush, saying some Republicans treated his client harshly because of the pitcher's friendship with the Bush family.

Lawyer Richard Emery made the claims Thursday, a day after a congressional hearing broke down along party lines. Many Democrats were skeptical of Clemens' denials that he used performance-enhancing drugs and Republicans questioned the character of McNamee, the personal trainer who made the accusations against the seven-time Cy Young Award winner.

"It would be the easiest thing in the world for George W. Bush given the corrupt proclivities of his administration to say Roger Clemens is an American hero, Roger Clemens helped children," Emery said in a telephone interview. "It's my belief they have some reason to believe they can get a pardon."

During Wednesday's session before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Clemens repeated his denials under oath, which could lead to criminal charges if federal prosecutors conclude he made false statements or obstructed Congress.

"I'm not aware of Mr. Clemens having been charged with anything," White House deputy press secretary Tony Fratto said after being told of Emery's remarks.

Emery cited Bush's decision last year to commute the 2 1/2-year prison sentence of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, his vice president's former top aide. Libby was convicted in the case of the leaked identity of a CIA operative.

During the hearing, Clemens cited his friendship with Bush's father, President George H.W. Bush, a baseball fan who regularly attends Houston Astros' games. Clemens said he was on a recent hunting trip when the elder Bush called with words of support.

"They have some belief that even if he's prosecuted, he will never have to serve jail time or face a trail," Emery said. "This is a charade we're going through."

IRS Special Agent Jeff Novitzky attended the hearing and watched from the second row. Novitzky has been a part of the BALCO prosecution team that secured an indictment against Barry Bonds on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice. Bonds testified before a grand jury in 2003 and denied that he knowingly used performance-enhancing drugs.

Emery praised Clemens' lawyers, Rusty Hardin and Lanny Breuer, as knowledgeable and said the prospect of a pardon was the only explanation thaat allowed the pitcher to repeat his denials under oath.

"It's the only reason lawyers worth their salt would allow their client to run into the buzzsaw of Jeff Novitzky and the potential prosecution, tampering and lying to a federal official," Emery said.

Joe Householder, Clemens' spokesman, said he would attempt to reach Hardin or Breuer for comment. Republicans on the committee did not immediately return telephone calls seeking comment.

___

AP White House Correspondent Terence Hunt contributed to this report.

c.

[Captain Cold Nose]

CCN, if you didn't observe what was going on with the Republicans and Democrats yesterday as far as which side each political party were taking, then I'm not sure what you were watching yesterday or if you saw something you didn't want to see or believe.
As much as I didn't want to believe it when I took my then, eight year old son to Shea Stadium one afternoon to see Mark McGwire hit a shot off of the scoreboard, breaking a few light bulbs in the process, I was forced to eventually face this fact: McGwire cheated. Bonds cheated. Sosa cheated. PED's ruined everything about baseball that I believed in, especially that it was on the level. And now we know that it's not.
And we know because of common sense, not because we don't have a positive test.
The ugly truth that we saw yesterday was the chalky white foul line blurring between baseball and politics.
And the political parties showed their cards for the entire nation to see.
Maybe this will be the next great chapter after the discrimination that existed until 1947 where baseball plays a prominent roll in cleaning up hypocrisy in our country.
It could be an ugly "bloodbath" (whether or not it holds up in court, those needles are going to show Clemens blood mixed with steroids.) but wasn't it Thomas Jefferson who once wrote:
The game of baseball must be refreshed from time to time, by exposing the tainted blood of hypocrits who claim to be patriots but are really cheaters."
I don't know, something like that.....

You know what I hope comes out of all of this? That I can go to the ballpark again one day with my nine year old son (the other one is 17 now!) and feel confident that the game is clean.
But I guess that's just my audacity of hope.
Baseball is Life!

I have zero problems with an observation like one party is siding with Clemens, and the other is siding with McNamee. That's not really politicizing.

One's views of the particular, that's where the line is drawn here. We're not here to discuss politics. I like to say nothing about them will be solved on a baseball board.

I will ask you this, Tommy. Exacty at what point is it the player and at what point is it steroids? Whether they did use or not, steroids are not a magic elixir, they are not a substitute for talent or ability. They may enhance it, how much we really don't know. McGwire was always a power threat, Bonds was among the best players in baseball, ever. Clemens one of the best pitchers. But to attribute any and all success to the use of the drugs is kind of short-sighted. If it were really that easy . . .

One more question. When was baseball ever really clean? Doctored pitches, greenies, stealing signs, I won't even bother to mention John McGraw beyond his name. So when was baseball clean? And since it really hans't been, why the umbrage over now only?

[Captain Cold Nose]

McNamee's lawyers is predicting a full pardon from George Bush, is Roger Clemmens is convicted.

What a country!!!


McNamee's Lawyer Predicts Clemens Pardon
Published: 2/14/08, 2:25 PM EDTBy RONALD BLUM

(AP) - One of Brian McNamee's lawyers predicted that Roger Clemens will be pardoned by President Bush, saying some Republicans treated his client harshly because of the pitcher's friendship with the Bush family.

Lawyer Richard Emery made the claims Thursday, a day after a congressional hearing broke down along party lines. Many Democrats were skeptical of Clemens' denials that he used performance-enhancing drugs and Republicans questioned the character of McNamee, the personal trainer who made the accusations against the seven-time Cy Young Award winner.

"It would be the easiest thing in the world for George W. Bush given the corrupt proclivities of his administration to say Roger Clemens is an American hero, Roger Clemens helped children," Emery said in a telephone interview. "It's my belief they have some reason to believe they can get a pardon."

During Wednesday's session before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Clemens repeated his denials under oath, which could lead to criminal charges if federal prosecutors conclude he made false statements or obstructed Congress.

"I'm not aware of Mr. Clemens having been charged with anything," White House deputy press secretary Tony Fratto said after being told of Emery's remarks.

Emery cited Bush's decision last year to commute the 2 1/2-year prison sentence of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, his vice president's former top aide. Libby was convicted in the case of the leaked identity of a CIA operative.

During the hearing, Clemens cited his friendship with Bush's father, President George H.W. Bush, a baseball fan who regularly attends Houston Astros' games. Clemens said he was on a recent hunting trip when the elder Bush called with words of support.

"They have some belief that even if he's prosecuted, he will never have to serve jail time or face a trail," Emery said. "This is a charade we're going through."

IRS Special Agent Jeff Novitzky attended the hearing and watched from the second row. Novitzky has been a part of the BALCO prosecution team that secured an indictment against Barry Bonds on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice. Bonds testified before a grand jury in 2003 and denied that he knowingly used performance-enhancing drugs.

Emery praised Clemens' lawyers, Rusty Hardin and Lanny Breuer, as knowledgeable and said the prospect of a pardon was the only explanation thaat allowed the pitcher to repeat his denials under oath.

"It's the only reason lawyers worth their salt would allow their client to run into the buzzsaw of Jeff Novitzky and the potential prosecution, tampering and lying to a federal official," Emery said.

Joe Householder, Clemens' spokesman, said he would attempt to reach Hardin or Breuer for comment. Republicans on the committee did not immediately return telephone calls seeking comment.

___

AP White House Correspondent Terence Hunt contributed to this report.

c.

My brother is a practicing attorney.

That being said, when comments are agenda-driven . . .

[digglahhh]

I will ask you this, Tommy. Exacty at what point is it the player and at what point is it steroids? Whether they did use or not, steroids are not a magic elixir, they are not a substitute for talent or ability. They may enhance it, how much we really don't know. McGwire was always a power threat, Bonds was among the best players in baseball, ever. Clemens one of the best pitchers. But to attribute any and all success to the use of the drugs is kind of short-sighted. If it were really that easy . . .

*Italics mine

I'll do ya one better, quantum mechanics would state that Barry's hands never actually even touched the bat... :rofl:

I agree with your general point, but the meta-point isn't really that "we don't know," but that it is impossible to know because our bodies are similar but unique systems that react differently to the infusion of chemicals from individual to individual.

We can make general assumptions confidence, such as Bonds would not have hit 73 homers in his late 30s (or ever) without the aid of artificial enhancements. But, to say that PEDs ruined all one loved about the sport is quite sensationalist, IMO.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

I will ask you this, Tommy. Exacty at what point is it the player and at what point is it steroids? Whether they did use or not, steroids are not a magic elixir, they are not a substitute for talent or ability. They may enhance it, how much we really don't know. McGwire was always a power threat, Bonds was among the best players in baseball, ever. Clemens one of the best pitchers. But to attribute any and all success to the use of the drugs is kind of short-sighted. If it were really that easy . . .

One more question. When was baseball ever really clean? Doctored pitches, greenies, stealing signs, I won't even bother to mention John McGraw beyond his name. So when was baseball clean? And since it really hans't been, why the umbrage over now only?

Does it really matter how much success was the result of use of any drug. I think those who know the game, have some knowledge of it would agree there is no way to measure how much any individual player owes any success, performance or numbers to a drug.

Thats not the point if any drug is banned those using it are breaking the rule. Agree with the rule or not doesn't matter. Some don't like the fact that their state mandates they wear seat belts. If found in violation doesn't matter if you agree with that law or not you still pay.

The fact that baseball was never clean means little here. We don't know how much success Perry owes to throwing illegal pitches but some keep bringing up his name. Almost all major sports have a ban on steroids, are they all out of line. It's probably more up front with baseball because of all the sports baseball's records are more revered and when it's believed a drug is giving some an advantage it's an issue to be looked in to, not by politicians.

Why the big deal now, fair or unfair of all the rule breaking it appear in all sports not just baseball when it's drug use it's a bigger deal.

It's here, accept it, steroids are now banned.

[tommybaseball]

...I will ask you this, Tommy. Exacty at what point is it the player and at what point is it steroids? Whether they did use or not, steroids are not a magic elixir, they are not a substitute for talent or ability. They may enhance it, how much we really don't know. McGwire was always a power threat, Bonds was among the best players in baseball, ever. Clemens one of the best pitchers. But to attribute any and all success to the use of the drugs is kind of short-sighted. If it were really that easy . . .

When the Hall of Fame is discussed, it is usually ALL about the numbers, and here are a few to chomp on:
Clemens alleged steroid use began when he was traded to Toronto, because at the age of 35, the Red Sox thought he was done, as a majority of Major League Players throughout history usually are. Up to that point, Clemens had 183 wins, excellent, really good, but Hall of Fame worthy? It's debatable.
From the age of 36 - 43, Clemens won almost as many games as he did (162) when he was young, and when most players are done or at least in extreme decline.

Bonds, no doubt a great player, hit 434 homeruns through the age of 35. From the age of 36 - 43 Bonds hit an additional 315 homers, including 73 at the age of 37, 46 at 38, 45 at 39 and 45 at 40. Astronomical!
Without Steroids, he may not even get the additional 66 homers needed to reach, what used to be the magic 500 club.

One more question. When was baseball ever really clean? Doctored pitches, greenies, stealing signs, I won't even bother to mention John McGraw beyond his name. So when was baseball clean? And since it really hans't been, why the umbrage over now only?

While some players throughout history tried to obtain an edge, nothing distorted the numbers the way PED's have. We all know that the average Joe Schlabotnik cannot take PED's and become a Major League ballplayer. but they can take a player like Brady Anderson, who in the first 10 years of his career hit more than 20 homers once (1992) but had totals of 1-1-4-3-2-21-13-12-and 16, before his distorted 50 in 1996. Here's the significance of 50 in 1996: it was the last year of his contract. In 1997, Brady signed a 5 year contract to the tune of about 35 million dollars:
http://www.baseball-reference.com/a/anderbr01.shtml

It wasn't just the superstars that brought the cost of a ticket up by inflating their stats in order to inflate their contracts. It was the middle of the road guys like Anderson, a lot of really good players, but certainly not a 50 homer guy by any means.
John McGraw may have grabbed a few belt buckles.
Gaylord Perry may have loaded a few up.
Greenies may have been rampant, allowing players to get through a grueling schedule.
Baseball has always been a numbers game.
Steroids ruined that.
Nothing has affected the books more and distorted the play on the field than PED's.

[tommybaseball]

[QUOTE=Captain Cold Nose;1113613]I have zero problems with an observation like one party is siding with Clemens, and the other is siding with McNamee. That's not really politicizing.

I will ask you this, Tommy. Exacty at what point is it the player and at what point is it steroids?

Clemens through 1996 - (thru age 34) 182 wins. Boston trades him to Toronto because they believe he is done.

Clemens 1997-2007 -(ages 35-45) 162 wins. He is alleged to have taken steroids during this time.
Some believe he found the fountain of youth.


Bonds through 1999 (age 35) 436 homeruns
Bonds through 2007 (age 43) 316 homeruns

Flax seed

You tell me, at what point?

[whoisonit]

It wasn't just the superstars that brought the cost of a ticket up by inflating their stats in order to inflate their contracts. It was the middle of the road guys like Anderson, a lot of really good players, but certainly not a 50 homer guy by any means.
John McGraw may have grabbed a few belt buckles.
Gaylord Perry may have loaded a few up.
Greenies may have been rampant, allowing players to get through a grueling schedule.
Baseball has always been a numbers game.
Steroids ruined that.
Nothing has affected the books more and distorted the play on the field than PED's.

You are so correct, so right on. The 'Perry/Greenies/McGraw' rant is so tiresome and so hollow. From what I've been reading in many, many old posts on this forum, this worn out, lame argument is made over and over (and over).
It's all about the numbers, our cherished numbers. We've been reciting them since we were kids, making adjustments as we got older for the inevitable few that came along to join the immortals. Gaylord Perry ? Puh-leze !
Greenies ? How can some keep a straight face making such spurious arguments? Why ? Who are you kidding ? All serious fans know what has been done to our beloved numbers. Shame on you.
This whole era is tainted, stained, defiled. All those cherished records violated.
ALL because of PED's. Not from Perry. Not from greenies. McGraw ? on par with PED's ? Not if you expect any serious fan to take you seriously !

[metfan13]

You are so correct, so right on. The 'Perry/Greenies/McGraw' rant is so tiresome and so hollow. From what I've been reading in many, many old posts on this forum, this worn out, lame argument is made over and over (and over).
It's all about the numbers, our cherished numbers. We've been reciting them since we were kids, making adjustments as we got older for the inevitable few that came along to join the immortals. Gaylord Perry ? Puh-leze !
Greenies ? How can some keep a straight face making such spurious arguments? Why ? Who are you kidding ? All serious fans know what has been done to our beloved numbers. Shame on you.
This whole era is tainted, stained, defiled. All those cherished records violated.
ALL because of PED's. Not from Perry. Not from greenies. McGraw ? on par with PED's ? Not if you expect any serious fan to take you seriously !

Completely agree

[SHOELESSJOE3]

[QUOTE=Captain Cold Nose;1113613]I have zero problems with an observation like one party is siding with Clemens, and the other is siding with McNamee. That's not really politicizing.

I will ask you this, Tommy. Exacty at what point is it the player and at what point is it steroids?

Clemens through 1996 - (thru age 34) 182 wins. Boston trades him to Toronto because they believe he is done.

Clemens 1997-2007 -(ages 35-45) 162 wins. He is alleged to have taken steroids during this time.
Some believe he found the fountain of youth.


Bonds through 1999 (age 35) 436 homeruns
Bonds through 2007 (age 43) 316 homeruns

Flax seed

You tell me, at what point?

A bit more. How is it that in his prime he could not do it but in the declining years he did. What did he do, Barry Bonds after the age of 35 ( 2001-2004) put up a 4 year peak that rivals any 4 year peak put up by Babe Ruth or Ted Williams when they were much younger than Barry and in their prime.

Below is another time period comparison.


--------------------------------Ba.---------Slugging-------AB/HR ratio
1986-2000- age 21-35---------.289-----------.567-----------15.09
2001-2006- age 26-41---------.333-----------.759------------8.5

The leap in slugging is off the chart. The cutting down of his AB/HR ratio is insane, almost cut in half for 6 seasons age 36-41. This just doesn't happen.

The 2001-2006 sample is of course a lower number of at bats but it is significant 2051 at bats.

Any wonder why eyebrows were raised.

[TonyK]

If you got both of them to autograph the photo you took of them that makes you a member of the Green Party ($$$).

[Sockeye]

What if you think both of them are scum, does that make you a Liberterian?

And if you can't decide which way to lean what does that make you? John McCain??

[digglahhh]

I don't think many of us have argued that comparatively primitive means of cheating are the equal of biochemical engineering in terms of scope or efficacy. The reason for bringing up such anecdotes is simply to inject a dose of reality in those who wax poetic about a false dichotomy of the pristine days of yore when players were clean, moral (and only white...) and played for pride not money and today's drug abusing spoiled brats who have no respect for the role of role model...

[Brian McKenna]

In truth I'm not sure why Congress would hold a hearing just to air the case of Roger Clemens. Seems inappropriate, headline grabbing and off the main issue of their duties.

[Sockeye]

In truth I'm not sure why Congress would hold a hearing just to air the case of Roger Clemens. Seems inappropriate, headline grabbing and off the main issue of their duties.

Not to mention a waste of time and our tax dollars! But hey that is what congress does best.

[Doctor X]

Clemens demanded it.

And Captain Cold Nose is absolutely correct about McNamee's lawyer's grandstanding.

As for Bonds' numbers, maybe they were just the result of flaxseed oil?

Flees flying bricks. . . .

--J. "Never Met a Boot I Could Not Lick" D.

[Mattingly]

Clemens through 1996 - (thru age 34) 182 wins. Boston trades him to Toronto because they believe he is done.

Clemens 1997-2007 -(ages 35-45) 162 wins. He is alleged to have taken steroids during this time.
Some believe he found the fountain of youth.


Bonds through 1999 (age 35) 436 homeruns
Bonds through 2007 (age 43) 316 homeruns

Flax seed

You tell me, at what point?
BTW, Clemens wasn't traded to Toronto. Dan Duquette, then the Boston GM, simply allowed Clemens to walk after 1996, whereby Clemens went to Toronto, supposedly because he'd wanted to be "closer to his kids" in Houston. :confused:

I think that that the late-30s stats show that steroids, HGH or other PEDs help the advanced-aged players to continue going onwards. Changing them from great players who would get in on the first ballot into amongst the top 5 of all time.

I think that it's the latter stage of their games that helped put them over the top, and it's this part of their career which is being questioned.

As to the main point, this NY Times article offers insight:

Politicians Turn Steroid Hearing Into a Partisan Squabble (http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/14/sports/baseball/14araton.html?_r=1&ref=baseball&oref=slogin)

It was difficult to decide which of the camps had the greater divide here Wednesday, Roger Clemens’s and Brian McNamee’s, or the Democrats and Republicans trying to get at the truth that either Clemens or McNamee wasn’t telling.

Democrats on the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform generally went after Clemens. Republicans tended to stalk McNamee. Then they denied that partisanship had ruled the day, even as Henry A. Waxman, the committee chairman, and Tom Davis, the ranking Republican, held a joint news conference and sounded as if they had attended different hearings in Room 2154 of the Rayburn Building.

“I thought Mr. McNamee was very credible,” Waxman of California said.

“McNamee’s obviously not the most reliable witness,” Davis of Virginia said.

Beyond the painful lesson in civics and government, what was learned over the last few weeks and especially here Wednesday is that Clemens is capable of throwing the jagged edge of a broken bat at just about anyone. Metaphorically speaking, at his wife and supposed close friend, if need be.

Think about it: in the interests of sparing the Clemens legend and attempting to save himself from forever being remembered as another synthetic warrior, Clemens seemed to have no problem having his wife ratted out as a one-time user of human growth hormone, first to Andy Pettitte and then to the world.

If anyone in the family was injected by McNamee with a forbidden substance, it was Debbie Clemens, not Roger. According to an affidavit given by Pettitte to the committee, when Pettitte reminded Clemens in 2005 of telling him that he used H.G.H. in 1999 or 2000, Clemens had apparently figured out that such admissions weren’t terribly wise in the new gotcha climate.

Her, not him, he told Pettitte, the disciple who worshiped Clemens and followed him around the gymnasium like a faithful hound. And when Pettitte’s testimony was officially revealed by Waxman, Clemens went head-hunting for Pettitte’s reputation — or at least his version of the truth — as well.

He still considered Pettitte his very good friend, Clemens kept telling the committee members not treating him as if he’d just stepped off the mound after throwing a three-hit shutout. But Pettitte had “misremembered” their conversations, even if his wife, Laura, was also on the record to the committee, vouching for her husband’s recollection, saying he had come right home and told her what Clemens had said.

And so it went in Room 2154, where Clemens, defiant when allowed to ramble, flummoxed and evasive when committee members pushed back, played every emotional card he could. Above all, he cast himself as the great American success story and patriot, who proudly wore the uniform of Team U.S.A. in the World Baseball Classic, who dutifully spoke to the troops in Qatar, Kuwait and Afghanistan, who did everything but liberate Kabul from the Taliban.

But who, in the final apolitical analysis, didn’t have anything resembling a convincing argument for why anyone should believe that McNamee had invented a great fiction about Clemens after telling the truth about Chuck Knoblauch, Pettitte and, yes, himself.

Hours into the hearing came a memorable sound bite, from Elijah E. Cummings, Democrat of Maryland, who said he had determined Pettitte to be the absentee voice that tipped the scale in favor of McNamee, and in effect made Clemens the person most risking a potential perjury charge.

“It’s hard to believe you, sir,” Cummings said. “I hate to say that. You’re one of my heroes, but it’s hard to believe you.”

In effect, Clemens’s argument came down to McNamee being a troubled man out to destroy him. But when the tape of their telephone conversation recorded by Clemens was played weeks ago, didn’t McNamee sound more distraught over having to give Clemens up?

Why, almost all of the committee Republicans asked, should the word of a drug dealer, as McNamee was characterized in one exchange with Christopher Shays of Connecticut, stand up against the pitcher considered the best of his generation and perhaps ever?

Attacks on McNamee’s placing Clemens at a party at José Canseco’s house in 1998 that Clemens and others denied were earnest and relentless — until Waxman not only dropped the bomb that the Clemens family nanny had supported McNamee’s claim, but made it sound as if the Clemens camp had tried to coach her before she talked to the committee.

Dan Burton, Republican of Indiana, tried to portray McNamee as incapable of telling the truth because he had admittedly lied for years about his involvement with performance-enhancing drugs. Lost, apparently, on Burton was McNamee’s stated and obvious purpose for lying, to protect Clemens, until he was trapped into the truth by the Mitchell investigation.

Was a hearing on baseball and steroids that turned into “Hannity & Colmes” a reflection of a culture that is depressingly polarized? A better question for voters to answer in November, but where the case of Clemens versus McNamee goes from here — to the court of public opinion or on to the Department of Justice — may depend on which party has control of this committee or even the White House next year.

[Mattingly]

In truth I'm not sure why Congress would hold a hearing just to air the case of Roger Clemens. Seems inappropriate, headline grabbing and off the main issue of their duties.
I read that Clemens himself requested this, just so he could clear the air on the matter.

I still say that lacking a trial, neither Clemens nor McNamee would've been sworn to tell the truth under oath without the US Congress being involved. I don't see the media, which depends upon baseball when they broadcast and/or report on games, nor Selig's office doing this, since they were involved with allowing the PED use to continue. Who but the US Congress could've gotten this information to us?

[zahavasdad]

There is a sports radio station here (not Political) and the hosts Mike and the Mad Dog who NEVER discuss politics RIPPED into the republicans for Hugging and slapping Clemens back

Chris Russo said the democrats would NEVER have slapped Mcnamee's back like the Virginia Republican did to Clemens

[efin98]

There is a sports radio station here (not Political) and the hosts Mike and the Mad Dog who NEVER discuss politics RIPPED into the republicans for Hugging and slapping Clemens back

Chris Russo said the democrats would NEVER have slapped Mcnamee's back like the Virginia Republican did to Clemens

He was giving his reaction to the testimony on CBS this morning and held firm against the Republicans' "I got your back" antics...he wasn't being political, he was giving his honest "no holds barred" opinion and held firm even after it was challenged by Representative Issa(R, California) on air.

[Orioles '66]

Has anyone noticed this, Democrats seem to believe McNamee and Republicans seem to believe Clemens.

I'll just say this, Roger is now a lying cheater. Anyway you try to twist or turn it, there's no denying the man is now just following orders from his lawyers. What a pity. And I now have more respect for Andy for admitting the truth.

Throw the bum out!

[Orioles '66]

So the two Democrat women who slobbered over him were . . . what?

You do not actually know if Clemens "donated a lot of money to the Republican party" now do you? Do you not think you should, perhaps, figure that out?

Now . . . back to baseball. . . .

--J.D.

Hahahahahhaha Make me laugh, why don't you?

Let me guess, Roger is one of your idols, no?
Or does he mean something else to you?
Am I getting closer? :rofl:

[iPod]

You are so correct, so right on. The 'Perry/Greenies/McGraw' rant is so tiresome and so hollow. From what I've been reading in many, many old posts on this forum, this worn out, lame argument is made over and over (and over).
It's all about the numbers, our cherished numbers. We've been reciting them since we were kids, making adjustments as we got older for the inevitable few that came along to join the immortals. Gaylord Perry ? Puh-leze !
Greenies ? How can some keep a straight face making such spurious arguments? Why ? Who are you kidding ? All serious fans know what has been done to our beloved numbers. Shame on you.
This whole era is tainted, stained, defiled. All those cherished records violated.
ALL because of PED's. Not from Perry. Not from greenies. McGraw ? on par with PED's ? Not if you expect any serious fan to take you seriously !

So, what, if Gaylord Perry had broke the single season record for strikeouts, then it would be OK to compare the two? What difference does it make? If I read a post by someone here saying that Bonds or Clemens or whoever shouldn't be admitted to the Hall because he cheated, logically he should be advocating the removal of guys like Perry. The fact that he isn't means that cheating isn't what really bothers him. If breaking a hallowed record is what makes it different, really what bothers you isn't cheating but rather cheating too well, which seems pretty silly to me.

[Go Cardinals]

Has anyone noticed this, Democrats seem to believe McNamee and Republicans seem to believe Clemens.

Many people around me thought this.

[Los Bravos]

I think that that the late-30s stats show that steroids, HGH or other PEDs help the advanced-aged players to continue going onwards. Changing them from great players who would get in on the first ballot into amongst the top 5 of all time.

I think that it's the latter stage of their games that helped put them over the top, and it's this part of their career which is being questioned.

Exactly.

I do feel there is a dichotomy between the two main guys this applies to. As I've said before, I think Bonds had HOF numbers before he started using. He was arguably the greatest five tool player of his generation (only Griffey, who was about to embark on an injury-riddled and unhappy decade, was his peer) and had, at the age of 34, several more productive years ahead of him. Most of the statistical projections I've seen for him put his final, natural homer total somewhere around the 650 mark. That he ruined his career, and his body, in a quest to be more like McGwire and Sosa is the stuff of Shakespearian tragedy.

Clemens, at the end of 1996, was still short of 200 wins and was wdely thought to be close to the end. He might have hung around for a while, fighting through the injuries on will and may even have developed new pitches (as many guys who follow his career progression do) and probably would have wound up with enough wins to justify his HOF induction. It would have been hard to ignore 3 Cys if he finished around 220+ in the win column.

Instead, he embarks on this second phase of total physical dominance that really should have set off red flags before it seems to have and definitely should have started more public questioning of him well before it did.

[Captain Cold Nose]

[QUOTE=tommybaseball;1113688]

A bit more. How is it that in his prime he could not do it but in the declining years he did. What did he do, Barry Bonds after the age of 35 ( 2001-2004) put up a 4 year peak that rivals any 4 year peak put up by Babe Ruth or Ted Williams when they were much younger than Barry and in their prime.

Below is another time period comparison.


--------------------------------Ba.---------Slugging-------AB/HR ratio
1986-2000- age 21-35---------.289-----------.567-----------15.09
2001-2006- age 26-41---------.333-----------.759------------8.5

The leap in slugging is off the chart. The cutting down of his AB/HR ratio is insane, almost cut in half for 6 seasons age 36-41. This just doesn't happen.

The 2001-2006 sample is of course a lower number of at bats but it is significant 2051 at bats.

Any wonder why eyebrows were raised.

I didn't ask for anecdotal evidence, Shoeless. I asked exactly when it is no longer the player and when it is simply the steroids kicking in. No one seems to actually provide info in that direction.

Why is cheating bad now and not earlier? And why are so few of the players implicated getting this degree of heat while others get ignored, as they usually would be anyway. The vociferous anti-steroid crowd has picked and chosen their targets, ignoring the obvious ones, ignoring the reality of the situation that this is far more widespread than a couple of players, yet they have very little to go by except for this anecdotal evidence. So and so's head was bigger 15 years ago. So what.

[Old Sweater]

Why is cheating bad now and not earlier?


Most of this I blame on the media turning turning baseball into a reality show spawning a new breed of baseball fans.

[Brownie31]

Speaking of Democrats and Republicans. Sean Delonas in The New York Post.

Brownie31

[digglahhh]

There is a sports radio station here (not Political) and the hosts Mike and the Mad Dog who NEVER discuss politics RIPPED into the republicans for Hugging and slapping Clemens back

Chris Russo said the democrats would NEVER have slapped Mcnamee's back like the Virginia Republican did to Clemens

Chris Russo knows as much about politics as he does about, well... sports (except women's tennis).

[SHOELESSJOE3]

[QUOTE=SHOELESSJOE3;1113711]

I didn't ask for anecdotal evidence, Shoeless. I asked exactly when it is no longer the player and when it is simply the steroids kicking in. No one seems to actually provide info in that direction.

Why is cheating bad now and not earlier? And why are so few of the players implicated getting this degree of heat while others get ignored, as they usually would be anyway. The vociferous anti-steroid crowd has picked and chosen their targets, ignoring the obvious ones, ignoring the reality of the situation that this is far more widespread than a couple of players, yet they have very little to go by except for this anecdotal evidence. So and so's head was bigger 15 years ago. So what.

Can't speak for all but I never thought or said cheating was worse now than earlier times. I don't make the rules, if baseball or any sport puts in place a ban on a substance or equipment use or any other means than it has to be accepted and so does any punishment that follows.

I think Barry or Roger should be and will probably make the HOF, would not bother me if they did, thats up to the voters.

It's a matter of opinion how some fans feel about the use of steroids or other chemicals in baseball. I take it more serious, others don't and I have to respect their take on the matter.

I might also add the statement Roger should not be looked down upon because it's a level playing field falls flat, if he did use staroids after the ban.
The only way it would be level was if everyone in the game chose to use steroids. If he did that was his choice others chose not to.

[Mattingly]

One thing I've never figured out is this: I've seen a few photos of Clemens and Bush in early 2001 when Bush did the regular honoring of the prior WS champs, and Clemens was on the 2000 WS team. Other than this, how was a Clemens-Bush friendship established?

I've been hearing that Clemens is a Republican (I'm sure he's not the only one in baseball), and even his lead attorney, Rusty says that a Presidential pardon may be in the offering if worse comes to worse. Hopefully, the conspiracy theorists on this have other things on their minds.

In either case, how did Roger Clemens get to know GW Bush in such a manner that other Republicans would be interested in either defending him and/or discrediting Brian McNamee? That part of the whole thing has evaded me.

As my co-Mod here (CCN) has mentioned, let's not get too enthusiastic about criticizing politicians' other moves, let's just stick to the story.

Thanks, folks. :)

[SHOELESSJOE3]

[QUOTE=SHOELESSJOE3;1113711]

I didn't ask for anecdotal evidence, Shoeless. I asked exactly when it is no longer the player and when it is simply the steroids kicking in. No one seems to actually provide info in that direction.
Why is cheating bad now and not earlier? And why are so few of the players implicated getting this degree of heat while others get ignored, as they usually would be anyway. The vociferous anti-steroid crowd has picked and chosen their targets, ignoring the obvious ones, ignoring the reality of the situation that this is far more widespread than a couple of players, yet they have very little to go by except for this anecdotal evidence. So and so's head was bigger 15 years ago. So what.

I'm with you on that one, no way to know exactly.

[sturg1dj]

CCN, if you didn't observe what was going on with the Republicans and Democrats yesterday as far as which side each political party were taking, then I'm not sure what you were watching yesterday or if you saw something you didn't want to see or believe.
As much as I didn't want to believe it when I took my then, eight year old son to Shea Stadium one afternoon to see Mark McGwire hit a shot off of the scoreboard, breaking a few light bulbs in the process, I was forced to eventually face this fact: McGwire cheated. Bonds cheated. Sosa cheated. PED's ruined everything about baseball that I believed in, especially that it was on the level. And now we know that it's not.
And we know because of common sense, not because we don't have a positive test.
The ugly truth that we saw yesterday was the chalky white foul line blurring between baseball and politics.
And the political parties showed their cards for the entire nation to see.
Maybe this will be the next great chapter after the discrimination that existed until 1947 where baseball plays a prominent roll in cleaning up hypocrisy in our country.
It could be an ugly "bloodbath" (whether or not it holds up in court, those needles are going to show Clemens blood mixed with steroids.) but wasn't it Thomas Jefferson who once wrote:
The game of baseball must be refreshed from time to time, by exposing the tainted blood of hypocrits who claim to be patriots but are really cheaters."
I don't know, something like that.....

You know what I hope comes out of all of this? That I can go to the ballpark again one day with my nine year old son (the other one is 17 now!) and feel confident that the game is clean.
But I guess that's just my audacity of hope.
Baseball is Life!



I hate to burst your bubble but no game you have ever seen in your lifetime has ever been clean.....period.

you may wish they were, and you may put baseball on some high pedestal, but baseball is just a microcosm of our larger society and in our society people do bad things to get ahead. People break rules and lie and cheat to succeed. I know it sucks, but its true. There are always good people and there are always bad people.


edit: I stand corrected. The Little League games you watched were probably clean...other than that....I don't think so

[sturg1dj]

You are so correct, so right on. The 'Perry/Greenies/McGraw' rant is so tiresome and so hollow. From what I've been reading in many, many old posts on this forum, this worn out, lame argument is made over and over (and over).
It's all about the numbers, our cherished numbers. We've been reciting them since we were kids, making adjustments as we got older for the inevitable few that came along to join the immortals. Gaylord Perry ? Puh-leze !
Greenies ? How can some keep a straight face making such spurious arguments? Why ? Who are you kidding ? All serious fans know what has been done to our beloved numbers. Shame on you.
This whole era is tainted, stained, defiled. All those cherished records violated.
ALL because of PED's. Not from Perry. Not from greenies. McGraw ? on par with PED's ? Not if you expect any serious fan to take you seriously !


i hate the argument about the numbers. The numbers have NEVER been transparent. 60 Home runs in 1927 is not the same as 60 today.....with or without steroids. How many home runs do you think the Babe would have hit in a stadium that was only 400 feet to dead center. I'll bet you could add at least 100. you stat nerds need to stop thinking that the stats are so meaningful. If you put all stats into historical context then they are all meaningful.

what if Babe Ruth played in a Yankee stadium with its current dimensions?

what if Hank Aaron played his ENTIRE career in Fulton County Stadium?

what if Ty Cobb played at a time where the home run was important?

[tommybaseball]

Most of this I blame on the media turning turning baseball into a reality show spawning a new breed of baseball fans.

Well, well...someone who gets it. And baseball is by far the least of what has been violated by the media.

Baseball is life!

[west coast orange and black]

ccn: [W]hen it is no longer the player and when it is simply the steroids kicking in?
No one seems to actually provide info in that direction.

i'm with you on this one, cap'n.
nor can anyone offer to satisfaction just what is a performance enhancing substance

[tommybaseball]

Well, up to this point I've been impressed with all the posts in this thread. It would have been so easy to cross the line into political doggerel. Now it has been done. Can we please keep ardent left-right partisanship to ourselves pal ? Your post is unessasary and offensive.

It's about baseball . . .

I'm sorry to offend anyone with the truth, we are all lovers of baseball and share this passion together, but the very name of this post, the circus that has transpired over the last few days, and the very idea that our tax money is paying for this is offensive to me.
Like MacNamee said, it is what it is.

[Doctor X]

Hahahahahhaha I did not actually read the posts but I will make a "t3h gh3y" joke LOLZ!!111!!

"Can't help fools."

--J.D.

[sturg1dj]

Well, up to this point I've been impressed with all the posts in this thread. It would have been so easy to cross the line into political doggerel. Now it has been done. Can we please keep ardent left-right partisanship to ourselves pal ? Your post is unessasary and offensive.

It's about baseball . . .



well how about this then, if Clemens receives a pardon but Bonds does not then we will have to look at this issue more carefully.

[tommybaseball]

well how about this then, if Clemens receives a pardon but Bonds does not then we will have to look at this issue more carefully.

That would take an incredible amount of HUBRIS. But then we already know that hubris is one of the main ingredients needed in order to make these types of decisions. Just add, stir, spin and presto! The magic elixir of cognitive dissonance. So easy to do, a 3-card monte dealer can put it together. Clemens/Bonds. Good guys/bad guys.

[DODGER DEB]

McNamee's lawyers is predicting a full pardon from George Bush, is Roger Clemmens is convicted.

What a country!!!


McNamee's Lawyer Predicts Clemens Pardon
Published: 2/14/08, 2:25 PM EDTBy RONALD BLUM

(AP) - One of Brian McNamee's lawyers predicted that Roger Clemens will be pardoned by President Bush, saying some Republicans treated his client harshly because of the pitcher's friendship with the Bush family.

Lawyer Richard Emery made the claims Thursday, a day after a congressional hearing broke down along party lines. Many Democrats were skeptical of Clemens' denials that he used performance-enhancing drugs and Republicans questioned the character of McNamee, the personal trainer who made the accusations against the seven-time Cy Young Award winner.

"It would be the easiest thing in the world for George W. Bush given the corrupt proclivities of his administration to say Roger Clemens is an American hero, Roger Clemens helped children," Emery said in a telephone interview. "It's my belief they have some reason to believe they can get a pardon."

During Wednesday's session before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, Clemens repeated his denials under oath, which could lead to criminal charges if federal prosecutors conclude he made false statements or obstructed Congress.

"I'm not aware of Mr. Clemens having been charged with anything," White House deputy press secretary Tony Fratto said after being told of Emery's remarks.

Emery cited Bush's decision last year to commute the 2 1/2-year prison sentence of I. Lewis "Scooter" Libby, his vice president's former top aide. Libby was convicted in the case of the leaked identity of a CIA operative.

During the hearing, Clemens cited his friendship with Bush's father, President George H.W. Bush, a baseball fan who regularly attends Houston Astros' games. Clemens said he was on a recent hunting trip when the elder Bush called with words of support.

"They have some belief that even if he's prosecuted, he will never have to serve jail time or face a trail," Emery said. "This is a charade we're going through."

IRS Special Agent Jeff Novitzky attended the hearing and watched from the second row. Novitzky has been a part of the BALCO prosecution team that secured an indictment against Barry Bonds on charges of perjury and obstruction of justice. Bonds testified before a grand jury in 2003 and denied that he knowingly used performance-enhancing drugs.

Emery praised Clemens' lawyers, Rusty Hardin and Lanny Breuer, as knowledgeable and said the prospect of a pardon was the only explanation thaat allowed the pitcher to repeat his denials under oath.

"It's the only reason lawyers worth their salt would allow their client to run into the buzzsaw of Jeff Novitzky and the potential prosecution, tampering and lying to a federal official," Emery said.

Joe Householder, Clemens' spokesman, said he would attempt to reach Hardin or Breuer for comment. Republicans on the committee did not immediately return telephone calls seeking comment.

___

AP White House Correspondent Terence Hunt contributed to this report.

c.


THIS QUOTE, and only THIS QUOTE, was my EXACT post!

tommybaseball definitely needs to learn how to use the "QUOTE" properly, and not add HIS PERSONAL COMMENTS to someone else's post.

c.

[whoisonit]

That would take an incredible amount of HUBRIS. But then we already know that hubris is one of the main ingredients needed in order to make these types of decisions. Just add, stir, spin and presto! The magic elixir of cognitive dissonance. So easy to do, a 3-card monte dealer can put it together...

Dodger Deb is correct. Please use the 'quote' option properly. You have inserted my signature onto a quote I DID NOT MAKE.

Please be more responsible.

[Doctor X]

Right . . . now . . . there will be a lot of gamesmanship on both sides: Clemens vs. McNamee.

Time to let it sort out.

I disagree with the recent conclusion by Chairman Waxman that it was a mistake to hold the public hearing with Clemens. From a legal standpoint, they had what they needed based on sworn depositions. However, this is a public sport, these are public figures. This was Clemens' chance to state his case to the public. In my opinion he failed. Nevertheless, he cannot claim he was not given the chance to answer the claims publicly.

Right . . . baseball!

--J.D.

[Macker]

I have fixed the quoting to several posts. All, please be a bit more cautious when quoting another.

[tommybaseball]

I have fixed the quoting to several posts. All, please be a bit more cautious when quoting another.

Thank you, and I apologize for a technical mistake.

[sandlot]

One thing that has been accomplished, if that's the appropriate word, by the attention placed on Clemens is to indirectly remove the race issue from the Bonds prosecution. This is another good reason for Novitzky to show up at the hearing. It's a way to say, "Oh, no, this isn't about Barry Bonds, it's not about race, it's all about cleaning up baseball and, see, we've even got a HOF white player in the cross hairs to go with the HOF black player. Our motives are pure."

The Chinese refer to "killing chickens to scare monkeys." It looks like the Feds have another strategy and are hoping to nail baseball's best hitter and the best pitcher, thereby killing gorillas to frighten the sparrows.

[Doctor X]

Would not the sparrows be afraid of the gorillas anyways?


:cap:

It is unfortunate that the assumption remains in the minds of enough people that Bonds is being "targeted" because of his race.

--J.D.

[Mattingly]

I'm sorry to offend anyone with the truth, we are all lovers of baseball and share this passion together, but the very name of this post, the circus that has transpired over the last few days, and the very idea that our tax money is paying for this is offensive to me.
Like MacNamee said, it is what it is.
While I strongly agree with you that we all share a love of baseball, for which discussion this website was created, when you call the US President a liar, then go on to criticize forumer Atty Gen John Ashcroft, then that crosses certain lines. If you wish to offer a reason why a Republican would favor Roger Clemens, such as the President's friendship with Clemens, any donations to the GOP that Clemens has made, that would certainly be acceptable.

If, in turn, the Dems are against McNamee since Clemens is perceived as a friend of GW Bush, showing the reasons for this would also be acceptable to myself. However, when you go into things like calling Bush a liar, then I cannot see how that would relate to his friendship with Roger Clemens, whom I understand is a Republican. We are not here to talk about the economy, war or anything else for which the US President may be criticized for during his Administration.

Please stick to baseball, since you've mentioned your sharing of our mutual love & passion.

[Mattingly]

Thank you, and I apologize for a technical mistake.
I think you should always look for the "[/quote]" code (this is the "end quote" code) when quoting someone. If that is removed, then you end up adding something on your own which may be mistakenly interpreted as what the other person has written. Please insure that it remains *ABOVE* your text before typing your thoughts.

I thank you for apologizing to one of our Admins, and I do presume that you will be more responsible, both in avoiding that technical error, as well as whichever comments you may make in the future. I wish you the best in both regards.

[Mattingly]

well how about this then, if Clemens receives a pardon but Bonds does not then we will have to look at this issue more carefully.
Should we look at it more carefully from which angle? I have no idea which political party that Barry Bonds is. Does he know GW Bush? Is he a Republican? Does he know any prominent GOP members?

I believe that this presumes that Clemens will actually go to trial here for perjury and/or steroids/HGH use, and that he would be convicted. While Barry Bonds is on trial, they have, to my knowledge, very little evidence on him.

Barry Bonds doesn't have a recent teammate whom he's been linked to (Andy Pettitte) that testified say that the trainer told the truth about himself; Bonds doesn't have another past teammate (Chuck Knoblauch) agree that the trainer spoke truthfully about himself; Bonds doesn't have a trainer (Brian McNamee) testifying against him.

Who are the two teammates testifying against Barry Bonds in front of the House of Representatives? Has Greg Anderson ever made any statements which were included in the Mitchell Report, and then (under oath) publicly accused Bonds of lying?

If anything, I believe that there is far more evidence against Clemens than Bonds, and that would be based upon individuals who have brought Clemens' credibility into question. Therefore, there may be very little reason to think that Bonds may even be convicted of perjury.

Besides, Bonds said that he did not *KNOWINGLY* take steroids. Therefore, the feds not only have to prove that he not only took steroids, they also have to prove that he *KNEW* at the time they were taken that they were steroids. Does that seem easy to prove?

[Doctor X]

Besides, Bonds said that he did not *KNOWINGLY* take steroids. Therefore, the feds not only have to prove that he not only took steroids, they also have to prove that he *KNEW* at the time they were taken that they were steroids. Does that seem easy to prove?

Right now posters are assuming what evidence the Feds have or do not have. If the positive test comes with evidence he was informed . . . well.

There is also a legal principle that the lawyers can discuss that basically states you have a reasonable duty to exercise diligence. You have to be aware of what is going on in your life. The "I had NO idea there was a drug den in my bathroom" does not work. I defer to the sober lawyers to either back that up or laugh at me!

Anyways, we do not know yet all of the evidence. Frankly, I find the evidence presented in Game of Shadows damning, and it is without a positive test. Of course, who knows how much of the evidence is admissible. Again, I defer to "t3h r34l" lawyers.

This is what will make this all exciting over the next few weeks as we wait for the season to start.

--J.D.

[Mattingly]

Right now posters are assuming what evidence the Feds have or do not have. If the positive test comes with evidence he was informed . . . well.
I think that's the thing. First you have to have evidence that he'd actually tested "positive" for a drug. All the media went bonkers when someone made a typo that Barry had failed a drug test. Now there's no drug test to say that he'd used drugs. In fact, Clemens hasn't failed a test either, so the most highly accused people today (at least in public and the media) haven't failed a test.

In addition to failing a drug test, you have to prove that Barry knew what he was taking that made him test guilty. How are you going to prove that he knew what he was taking?

There is also a legal principle that the lawyers can discuss that basically states you have a reasonable duty to exercise diligence. You have to be aware of what is going on in your life. The "I had NO idea there was a drug den in my bathroom" does not work. I defer to the sober lawyers to either back that up or laugh at me!
I think that having a drug den in your bathroom, which you go to every day (unless you're on the road most of the time) and taking drugs may be somewhat different. In fact, very different.

I've heard one person (west coast orange and black) mention that Barry may have been "trusting" of Greg Anderson. I say that's a bit too trusting. Either case, this puts the burden of the truth on Anderson, who wasn't saying anything. To me, that's the "Well, the other guy gave it to me" thing. Meanwhile, the other guy is quiet as a mouse. May as well blame a dead man for a murder, since he's not talking either.

Anyways, we do not know yet all of the evidence. Frankly, I find the evidence presented in Game of Shadows damning, and it is without a positive test. Of course, who knows how much of the evidence is admissible. Again, I defer to "t3h r34l" lawyers.
I never read that book. What evidence was there presented in that book?

I also don't know what a "t3h r34!" lawyer is. Care to elaborate?

This is what will make this all exciting over the next few weeks as we wait for the season to start.

--J.D.
Somehow I wish this would've happened in mid-November, since we could've gotten this all over during the baseball season. Now when the rooks are being introduced, we'll have people talking about PEDs. Even people who don't even follow baseball are talking about it, since it was on the news for 24 hours on Wednesday.

Between Clemens and Bonds, I predict we'll be hearing about this throughout the 2008 season. I don't see either playing another game again (who would possibly sign them?), so the sideshow 3-ring circus (complete with its own freak show) will fight for attention in being the main attraction. Like PT Barnum said, there's one born every minute!

[Mattingly]

Not to offer more overkill on a topic that's already been overdone (as if beating a dead horse), but ... when getting ready to toss out old papers, I happened across Parade magazine, which comes in the Sunday papers. I noticed this related article (dated Sun, Feb 10, 2008):

Should Congress Umpire Baseball? (http://www.parade.com/articles/editions/2008/edition_02-10-2008/Intelligence_Report)

This week, the House of Representatives is scheduled to hold hearings about the use of steroids in major league baseball. But some Americans wonder: Why is Congress spending its time on baseball? Lawmakers first got involved due to concerns about teenage athletes. “We heard from families of kids who committed suicide because they were copying pro players by using steroids,” says Rep. Tom Davis (R., Va.), who chaired hearings on the subject in 2005. Adds Rep. Henry Waxman (D., Calif.), the legislator currently in charge: “Baseball is a $6 billion industry. If there is widespread illegal activity, we have a responsibility to look into it.”

Politicians also may have another motive in mind. Since baseball is a popular topic, “Congress can score points with the public by holding hearings,” says Congressional scholar Norman Ornstein. Federal scrutiny, however, has led to positive changes. After the 2005 hearings, the sport tightened its drug policies and launched an extensive probe. Now Congress is pushing baseball to implement an investigative unit dedicated to steroids, independent drug testing and better player education.

[Doctor X]

I think that having a drug den in your bathroom, which you go to every day (unless you're on the road most of the time) and taking drugs may be somewhat different. In fact, very different.

Not really, it is your body, you are an athlete, you are interested in "supplements," et cetera. One has a responsibility to know what one is taking.


I never read that book. What evidence was there presented in that book?

I think that would be best remedied by reading the book or an online review of the book, with all due respect. I limit my summarization of texts to other topics, sorry.


I also don't know what a "t3h r34!" lawyer is.

A poster that is actually a lawyer and who, preferably, has experience in federal criminal cases involving perjury and obstruction of justice.

The law is one of those subjects where "what ought to be" and "it should be" are irrelevant to what is. Some time ago, on ANOTHER BOARD, a poster tried to argue what copyright is in America based on what he thought it should be. He happened to argue with an American appellate attorney who also handled a few copyright cases. The results were not pretty. It would like trying to argue that a ball that bounces off the ground and into the stands is a home run with, say, an MLB umpire.

Regarding your next post, if those responsible for policing the game fail for whatever reason, then someone else has to step in. To me, the solution is simple in that you have third-party testing like the International Olympic Committee. Cannot "rewrite the record books?" Ask Marion Jones, Floyd Landis, and Ben Johnson.

--J.D.

[Mattingly]

Not really, it is your body, you are an athlete, you are interested in "supplements," et cetera. One has a responsibility to know what one is taking.
I would agree that an athlete--especially an elite HoF lock making over $15m/yr--has an obligation to take care of, preserve his/her body, and that this would include knowing what was being ingested into it, and that the persons giving them this would not lie about what was being given.

However, in the case of both Clemens and Bonds, they both seem to claim that their trainers (McNamee and Anderson) gave them tainted substances. Clemens says that he's a "trusting soul" and Bonds said something along the lines that he'd not suspected Gred Anderson of giving him steroids.

I personally believe that the athlete should verify what he/she is being given, but I'm not in their shoes, I don't pay $100/hr or whatever the fees are, to those trainers, so I can't say for a fact that this happens.

I think that would be best remedied by reading the book or an online review of the book, with all due respect. I limit my summarization of texts to other topics, sorry.
Perhaps wcoab may have greater insight. I doubt I'd be getting that book, but whatever offerings someone can have on this, I'd be interested in discussing.

A poster that is actually a lawyer and who, preferably, has experience in federal criminal cases involving perjury and obstruction of justice.
How did that name come about? Seems like it's a code for something that's not easily decipherable.

The law is one of those subjects where "what ought to be" and "it should be" are irrelevant to what is. Some time ago, on ANOTHER BOARD, a poster tried to argue what copyright is in America based on what he thought it should be. He happened to argue with an American appellate attorney who also handled a few copyright cases. The results were not pretty. It would like trying to argue that a ball that bounces off the ground and into the stands is a home run with, say, an MLB umpire.
I'm not a lawyer, so I can't really discuss appellate law. I remember one of OJ's lawyers, Alan Dershowitz, was ready to handle the appeals process had he been convicted, but I haven't otherwise involved myself in that process.

Regarding your next post, if those responsible for policing the game fail for whatever reason, then someone else has to step in. To me, the solution is simple in that you have third-party testing like the International Olympic Committee. Cannot "rewrite the record books?" Ask Marion Jones, Floyd Landis, and Ben Johnson.

--J.D.
How do you know what my next post would be? Just curious.

I don't know if it's as much about 3rd party testing as it would be about 3rd party enforcement that tests be conducted, and that those who've violated these tests and have failed but still are allowed to play, would face harsh penalties. Only recently has MLB decided to have players sit, but why are there so few players who've faced penalties, yet according to Brian McNamee and many fans, "it's a sign of the times" that so many players have cheated?

If all those players have cheated and have gotten away with it, to me, it's not about the quality of the labs that those players have been sent to. It's whether or not the testing is done as frequently as desired, and whether or not the names are revealed of those who've failed these tests.

Without the scorn accompanying these failed drug tests, I don't believe that getting a 2nd, 3rd or 4th opinion would really amount to much if Selig's going to bury his head in the sand upon obtaining the results.

[Doctor X]

However, in the case of both Clemens and Bonds, they both seem to claim that their trainers (McNamee and Anderson) gave them tainted substances.

And I am Nicole Kidman's Snuggle-Bunny. . . . I know you are not making that excuse yourself, but I do not think it passes the laugh-test.


Perhaps wcoab may have greater insight. I doubt I'd be getting that book, . . .

It is a very good book which is now very inexpensive, especially if you order it on-line.


How did that name come about? Seems like it's a code for something that's not easily decipherable.

You mean "t3h r34l?" That is a satire of the "leet" or 1337 speak of internet boards and discussions. There are reasons for it; however, it is particularly common amongst those whose only introduction to composition comes from text and instant messaging . . . OMFG LOLZ!!!1!!!!1!. See also those who fail at capitalization and punctuation. . . .


I remember one of OJ's lawyers, Alan Dershowitz, was ready to handle the appeals process had he been convicted, but I haven't otherwise involved myself in that process.

Paid a lot of money to watch the trial while on his exercise bike, taking notes. Great job if you can get it.


How do you know what my next post would be? Just curious.

"Would Merlin tell Circe his secrets?"

More seriously, I saw it as after I previewed my post.


Only recently has MLB decided to have players sit, but why are there so few players who've faced penalties, yet according to Brian McNamee and many fans, "it's a sign of the times" that so many players have cheated?

Well, now we get into rules of evidence and the Players Union which, actually, has a legitimate interest to protect the rights of players. Everyone may "know" a player is on steroids, say, but one has to prove it.


It's whether or not the testing is done as frequently as desired, and whether or not the names are revealed of those who've failed these tests.

Exactly. Proper testing requires blood testing which players do not like.


. . . if Selig's going to bury his head in the sand upon obtaining the results.

With the introduction of stringent testing must come stringent punishment. That is probably a topic in and of itself; however, it could be as severe as invalidating all records between the last negative test and positive test. "But will that effect the stats of pitchers and fielders and . . . and. . . ." Yes, but that is why we have computers.

I am sorry, but for a player trying to make it into MLB where the basic salary adds zeros, where the only risk is a short suspension, but you retain your $$$ you made and all of your "achievements," . . . well . . . very tempting.

Take Bonds . . . please. . . . Let us say he was/is a first ballot HoF'er based on his achievements before he took steroids. Take that as a "given." Would he have broken the single-season HR record? Would he have approached Aaron's record? I am not sure he would, frankly, particularly the latter. If Bonds is allowed to retain those records, and enter the HoF--along with all of his $$$--what was the downside to him taking steroids? Let us also assume he was not dumb enough to lie under oath. Granted, that changes my example since he would have admitted to use before he "broke" [*--Ed.] Aaron's record. What, then, is the disincentive?

Now take Clemens . . . again assume he was/is a first ballot HoF'er . . . et cetera. He is basically at the end of his career. He made 20+ million just last year. He has more money than he could ever possibly need unless he plans to buy Montana--the state . . . not Joe. Joe commands a greater fee. . . .

Leave aside the legal issues as with Bonds: what is Clemens' disincentive if he keeps all his records, Cy Youngs, goes to the HofF?

So what do you tell the young player trying to get into MLB? What do you tell younger athletes in their teens? What do you tell . . .

. . .

. . . wait for it . . .

. . .

. . . THE CHILDREN?!!!

So [ZZZzzzz--Ed.] in order for testing to have any benefit, there has to be actual punishment. Selig, the Players Union, owners, even a lot of sports "wonks" on ESPN have not shown the interest in this until forced to do so by threats from Congress. I think you need reputable outside testing with strict rules of punishment.

--J.D.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

I would agree that an athlete--especially an elite HoF lock making over $15m/yr--has an obligation to take care of, preserve his/her body, and that this would include knowing what was being ingested into it, and that the persons giving them this would not lie about what was being given.

However, in the case of both Clemens and Bonds, they both seem to claim that their trainers (McNamee and Anderson) gave them tainted substances. Clemens says that he's a "trusting soul" and Bonds said something along the lines that he'd not suspected Gred Anderson of giving him steroids.



MATT, would you expect them to say or admit that they "knowingly" used steroids, are they fools. I really can't believe that silly story is still afloat and believed.

Look whats been posted on this board in the last few months, it's the owners at fault they knew of steroid use, MLB knew, trainers knew kept their mouths shut.....even this BS line, the fans we glorify these guys and clamor for more offense, they try to please us.

Now it's trainers who mislead some of them..........it's everyone else who is at fault, not the user.

Let me see, we have to believe that for some reason Barry and Roger's trusted trainers, friends duped them. Led them to believe that they supplied them with a substance that was something other then steroids...............WHY.

Knobloch and Pettite were aware and admitted but the third party Clemens could have been lied to. How does anyone believe this far out story.

I'm not a lawyer but saw through this one a year or more ago. I posted that this "never knowingly" BS story by Barry was so transparent just common sense would tell you why it was used. Good move probably his attorney's advice, I would do the same. OK, you got me........... but I didn't know, I was lied to.

I will say it could be hard to prove that Barry or Roger knew what the trainers supplied them with, legally it could be their way out. Thats not my point, my point I and many other will find it hard to swallow they only look more guilty.

[west coast orange and black]

Mattingly: an athlete .... has an obligation to take care of, preserve his/her body, and that this would include knowing what was being ingested into it, and that the persons giving them this would not lie about what was being given.

this obligation - to whom is it owed, mattingly?
if an athlete's trainer wants the athlete to use a certain exercise / training regimen / substance, how far ought the athlete go in asking about the exercise / regimen / substance? and if the athlete is then satisfied with the trainer's answer, why would it not be reasonable for the athlete to go ahead with the trainer's recommendation?
we seriously disagree on this, i know.

.. .. .. .. ..

anderson gave substances to bonds in the giants clubhouse in front of everyone. and bonds used those substances in front of everyone.
it is possible that anderson did not know that the substances were laced... if in fact they actually were.
("if in fact" because the feds can not show that the substances given to bonds by anderson are the same ones that they claim to be the illegal "the cream" and "clear / the clear".)

Bonds said something along the lines that he'd not suspected Gred Anderson of giving him steroids.

q: did anderson ever give you anything that you knew to be a steroid? did he ever give a steroid?

a: i don't think greg would do anything like that to me and jeopardize our friendship. i just don't think he would do that.

q: well, when you say that you don't think he would do that, to your knowledge, i mean, did you ever take any steroids that he gave you?

a: not that i know of.

the feds believe that bonds' second answer as a falsehood, a lie.
it's just that it is impossible for them to prove that what anderson gave to bonds were steroids.

It's whether or not the testing is done as frequently as desired, and whether or not the names are revealed of those who've failed these tests.
i hear you. but the tests are being done as frequently as desired... according to the two negotiating sides.

[west coast orange and black]

shoeless joe: Now it's trainers who mislead some of them ... it's everyone else who is at fault, not the user.

bonds, for one, has not claimed that anderson administered steroids to him.

this "never knowingly" BS story by Barry was so transparent just common sense would tell you why it was used. OK, you got me ... but I didn't know, I was lied to.

this would mean that anderson in fact knew that the substances that he gave to bonds were illegal. but anderson has not stated one way or the other; the feds have not been able to show that anderson gave illegal subtances (nor illegal substances that anderson knew were illegal) to bonds.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

shoeless joe: Now it's trainers who mislead some of them ... it's everyone else who is at fault, not the user.

bonds, for one, has not claimed that anderson administered steroids to him.

this "never knowingly" BS story by Barry was so transparent just common sense would tell you why it was used. OK, you got me ... but I didn't know, I was lied to.

this would mean that anderson in fact knew that the substances that he gave to bonds were illegal. but anderson has not stated one way or the other; the feds have not been able to show that anderson gave illegal subtances (nor illegal substances that anderson knew were illegal) to bonds.

I do understand that Bonds has not claimed that Anderson administered steroids to him.
My point, my post was in answer to another post that if I read correctly seemed to shift "possible blame" to Anderson only if it was ever proven that Anderson did administer steroids to Barry. How, because he states he never knowingly used steroids which one would have to conclude that Barry was not told by Anderson that it was steroids. I doubt it will ever be proven. And again I say what else would we expect Barry or any other to say in the event it was proven. He didn't say no, that would be a lie. A world of difference between a no and I never knowingly.

Similar to some questioned usually under oath, the answer....I don't recall, I don't remember, prove they lied they never gave a flat out yes or no.

Agreed to your last paragraph, the feds seem to have nothing at this point.

[west coast orange and black]

^^
well, it's not as if they don't have jack... 'cause they do.
but what they have is not gonna be enough at a trial... if there is one.

[Doctor X]

. . . the feds seem to have nothing at this point.

You are essentially arguing to ignorance.

They got an indictment; that is "something" all references to ham sandwiches aside.

Whether it is enough for a jury . . . that is why we have trials.

--J.D.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

You are essentially arguing to ignorance.

They got an indictment; that is "something" all references to ham sandwiches aside.

Whether it is enough for a jury . . . that is why we have trials.

--J.D.

If they do their keeping it up their sleeve. That was my point convincing a jury is a tough one, unless they have a bomb that they are saving for later.

[Doctor X]

If they do their keeping it up their sleeve.

Understandable. "We" are not the ones who will decide the trial.


That was my point convincing a jury is a tough one an, unless they have a bomb that they are saving for later.

Convincing juries . . . now we get into an actual trial. What the judge allows in . . . how the witnesses stand up and are believed . . . the actual jury members chosen . . . those are all "known unknowns" to quote Boondocks!

Will have to see, but given what has come out--if it is all admissible--I think Bonds is in trouble. Frankly, a positive steroid test sinks him in the Court of Public Opinion [Superior branch.--Ed.] in that most [Straw--Ed.] fans and pundits will not accept the "I had no idea what I was taking" excuse.

Such already guffawed over the "flax-seed oil" excuses. Some could cling to--as in the Clemens discussions--"show me the positive test! You can't! I win! You lose! HA!HA!HA!HA!" Well . . . here it is.

--J.D.

[zahavasdad]

Some articles I found

http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baseball/2008-02-14-republicans-clemens_N.htm

This ones says Clemens has a friendship with the Bush Family

http://abqtrib.com/news/2008/feb/15/clemens-hearing-split-along-party-lines/

[Doctor X]

And?

--J.D.

[zahavasdad]

.....And

Clemens is a Personal Friend of Bush, Thats why the Republicans are taking his side (Dont forget Bush owned the Texas Rangers and almost became Baseball Commissioner)

[Doctor X]

The fallacy is tertium non datur, or "excluding the middle" in the sense that you have made quite a large leap from "Personal Friend of Bush" to "Republicans taking his side"--a debatable conclusion. To begin, your linkypoo argued more for the fact the Republicans are in opposition, rather than showing any sort of favoritism to the President. You also fail to account for the Republicans who did not support Clemens as well as the Democrats who did.

That the President once owned the Texas Rangers and "almost became Baseball Commissioner" are also irrelevent: they do not establish a favoritism towards Clemens. Given that the President spoke out against the use of steroids in the past and has not tried to influence the proceedings--such as make public statements in support of Clemens, including, say, a weak "well, everyone is innocent until proven guilty," your argument proves unsound on many levels.

I think your link makes more of a case for knee-jerk opposition, particularly given the Ranking Member's far less-supportive remarks and the very public negative opinions of one Republican in particular.

Someone far wiser opined that one should not assume a conspiracy when simple incompetence and stupidity explains the facts. I think that applies to the likes of a Dan Burton, in particular, as well as that Democratic congresswoman who has predicted Clemens' afterlife!

Time will tell: IF Clemens ends up indicted for perjury AND Bush pardons him prior to the trial or after his conviction, THEN you might have a case of favoritism on the part of Bush towards Clemens. Similarly if you can cite Bush making public statments to "leave Roger alone!" To my knowledge, he has not done that.

I would not have expected either Bush the Younger or Elder to have read the Mitchell report, nor would anyone have expect them to have access to Clemens, Pettite, and McNamee's depositions. Clemens asking Bush the Elder what he should do, and him replying he should defend himself if innocent is simply a standard reply; one repeated by both supporters and objective fans. If Clemens did tell the truth, one would expect himself to aggressively defend himself. I do not think the evidence released thus far supports that conclusion, but time will tell. What the President and individual congressmen think about Clemens as a person, ballplayer, or anything else really does not matter; what will matter is what the evidence shows and, in the case of perjury, what the Justice Department thinks.

--J.D.

[DodgerBlue81]

The fallacy is tertium non datur, or "excluding the middle" in the sense that you have made quite a large leap from "Personal Friend of Bush" to "Republicans taking his side"--a debatable conclusion.


If you think the Republicans taking Clemens' side is debatable than you're lost. It's a FACT. They did. Everyone noticed it. They were basically defense attorneys for Clemens. They were all a disgrace except for Souder.

[sturg1dj]

the fact that republicans favored Clemens was totally noticeable. The only debate on the subject is why they favor Clemens.

To question the people who think its because Clemens is friends with Bush it totally understandable, but to question that the politicians took sides is not.

[tommybaseball]

the fact that republicans favored Clemens was totally noticeable. The only debate on the subject is why they favor Clemens.

To question the people who think its because Clemens is friends with Bush it totally understandable, but to question that the politicians took sides is not.

I think that it has much to do with Roger Clemens being perceived as the ICON for everything that America is supposed to represent, which a majority of current Republicans arrogantly feel they have a claim to. Clemens made it sound like he was an old Texas gunslinger, called out of retirement to wear the badge of the USA across his chest to fight the evil foreigners in the World Tournament. He made it sound like it was a deed of nobility. His nauseating rhetoric about how hard work got him to the optimum level, when in fact, PED's got him there, showed him to be a hypocrite and this was exposed for the nation to see. To the Republicans, this was intolerable. Shots were being taken at their guy. The guy who petitioned them (another joke) days before the hearing.
The overwhelming consensus is that Clemens lied and cheated, and that is what enabled him to stay around for such an extended period of time. He was able to hit the gym, not because of sheer will and determination that was bore into him from his mother, but because the steroids and HGH enabled him to do so. The senator from Indiana looked like a desperate idiot, watching his ICON being chiseled at as his world crumbled around him by defending someone whom most of the nation regards now as a fallen former idol. The Democratic woman who fawned over him was equally disturbing.
Republicans and Democrats should have been united on this issue. Instead, it was they who revealed to a nation their partisanship and the divisiveness that this farce revealed.

[sandlot]

I would just like to ask whoever the "Ed." is who keep's inserting comments into people's posts to please stop. It is annoying and unfunny, though obviously you enjoy it. While you're at it, please desist from removing things as well. Unless they are obscenities, which can easily be replaced by asterisks or %#*&, please leave them alone. If the person who's doing it is actually an "Ed.", I consider it an abuse of the position. If it's someone posing as an "Ed." please find out who it and kick his &*%$# butt off the board. Now back to drugs, lying, cheating, lawbreaking, character assassination and, maybe, a little baseball.

[whoisonit]

Now back to drugs, lying, cheating, lawbreaking, character assassination and, maybe, a little baseball.

How do you ever find the time to post on here?

[White Knight]

What if you think both of them are scum, does that make you a Liberterian?

No. Libertarians are anti-government. Steroids would be legal, so therefore no hearings.

[sandlot]

How do you ever find the time to post on here?Greenies :shhh: and lots of :coffee