Photo Evidence might exist that Clemens was at the Party

[zahavasdad]

The New York Daily News report that a photo from the party that Clemens denied attending (The Steroids one) exisits and from a reliable source

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/yankees/2008/02/22/2008-02-22_new_photographic_evidence_could_prove_da.html


If true, not good for Clemens especially since he told congress he wasnt there

[Imgran]

Altogether now...


*yawwwwwwwwwn!!!!!*

It's gotta be a matter of substance before it's perjury. I have my doubts that this qualifies.

[ipitch]

Here's the photo. :shhh: Looks like they decided to put on their uniforms and mess around in Canseco's backyard. Apparently they couldn't find a bat. :cap:

[Brian McKenna]

Just one more piece affirming McNamee.

[KCGHOST]

Claiming to have a photograph that can verify something (at least as far as time and date goes) and producing one can be two different matters. After all this The Daily News.

[Mattingly]

How exactly does a photo prove that Clemens was at a specific party on a specific date? I think I'll likely hear the word "Photoshop" mentioned sometime soon.

I'm missing something. Clemens said he'd never attended the party, which Canseco's affidavit supports. However, McNamee said that Clemens was there. What supposedly happened at that party which is so significant? Did Clemens allegedly make a comment regarding PED usage while at the party?

[rockin500]

Just one more piece affirming McNamee.
how so? theres a difference between saying you have one and actually proving you have one. and is it really a photo or is it a digital picture and photoshopped?

if its a verifiable picture, then yes it helps corroborate what mcnamee said, but until then, it doesnt corroborate anything.

[Imgran]

Speaking of photoshop, is it just me or do the shadows not quite work?

[bob]

Is there any proof that he was at that specific party and was doing something wrong? If not then its not really useful either way.

[Zito75]

How exactly does a photo prove that Clemens was at a specific party on a specific date? I think I'll likely hear the word "Photoshop" mentioned sometime soon.

I'm missing something. Clemens said he'd never attended the party, which Canseco's affidavit supports. However, McNamee said that Clemens was there. What supposedly happened at that party which is so significant? Did Clemens allegedly make a comment regarding PED usage while at the party?

What an odd looking photo... Did you see the size of Jose's arms?

The reason why this is such is a big deal is because it's a credibility issue- plain & simple. Rocket's lawyers are looking to catch McNamee in any lie possible, that way they can question his character and make him look like he's lied all along. Typical smear tactic, and it just might work since there are a million events that have happened along way that must either be proven or defended on circumstantial evidence.

[Mattingly]

What an odd looking photo... Did you see the size of Jose's arms?

The reason why this is such is a big deal is because it's a credibility issue- plain & simple. Rocket's lawyers are looking to catch McNamee in any lie possible, that way they can question his character and make him look like he's lied all along. Typical smear tactic, and it just might work since there are a million events that have happened along way that must either be proven or defended on circumstantial evidence.
I've seen bodybuilders that had arms like Canseco's. Not top-tier like Mr Olympia, but he's got bigger arms that are more well-defined than quite a few serious weightlifters I've seen. Why in the world is hit "batting" without a bat? :confused:

Anyway, I thought we'd see a pic of Roger Clemens at the party. I guess we're waiting for McNamee's lawyers to show this, right?

Yes, I know about the "discredit everything he says" thing. I've worked in the legal field re litigation. It can get nasty.

What I'm asking is, what was alleged that Clemens supposedly did or said at the party which is so significant that this becomes a point of contention between the two sides?

From the US Congress' website, here's the 3-page affidavit of Jose Canseco from Jan 2008 re that 1998 party at his house in Miami:

http://oversight.house.gov/documents/20080213150353.pdf

If you don't have Adobe Acrobat or your browser won't read this file, you can get this at www.adobe.com.

[MyDogSparty]

Is there any proof that he was at that specific party and was doing something wrong? If not then its not really useful either way.

It's not about what went on at the party. Clemens is attacking the validity of the Mitchell report. The report is extremely important to the Committee because it shows the drug abuse in baseball that they want cleaned up. The report claims Clemens did PEDs. Clemens claims otherwise. The report claims Clemens went to this party. Clemens claims otherwise. This is about the credibility of the Mitchell Report. Can Congress rely on this report to show the drug abuse that has gone on in baseball?

[Mattingly]

It's not about what went on at the party. Clemens is attacking the validity of the Mitchell report. The report is extremely important to the Committee because it shows the drug abuse in baseball that they want cleaned up. The report claims Clemens did PEDs. Clemens claims otherwise. The report claims Clemens went to this party. Clemens claims otherwise. This is about the credibility of the Mitchell Report. Can Congress rely on this report to show the drug abuse that has gone on in baseball?
So you're saying that Clemens and his attorneys are merely attacking a point brought up by McNamee, that he was at this Canseco-hosted party? So there's nothing which allegedly was said and/or done at this party which connects Clemens with PED usage? If so, now it finally begins to make sense.

[Old Sweater]

Next thing you'll know there a be a date marked photo showing McNamee sticking a needle in Clemens butt with giant HGH letters on the syringe.:)

[TonyK]

Next thing you'll know there a be a date marked photo showing McNamee sticking a needle in Clemens butt with giant HGH letters on the syringe.:)

When that happens Roger's defense will be it was Andy's butt, and not his.

[Sweet Lou]

Where did that picture come from? That picture doesn't prove anything. If it was taken at a party, why are they wearing their uniforms? Players would where normal clothes to a party. And how do we know that that is Canseco's backyard? Looks like a softball field to me, with cars parked in the back.
I want to see the photo of these guys with this little boy with other people from the party around. THAT would mean something.
-Lou

[Mattingly]

Where did that picture come from? That picture doesn't prove anything. If it was taken at a party, why are they wearing their uniforms? Players would where normal clothes to a party. And how do we know that that is Canseco's backyard? Looks like a softball field to me, with cars parked in the back.
I want to see the photo of these guys with this little boy with other people from the party around. THAT would mean something.
-Lou
I never even noticed that. Besides the fact that Canseco doesn't have a bat in his hand, but is clearly in a batting stance, that's some house he has if it has a nicely manicured lawn and the dirt you'd find at a LL or ST field. That looks like a ballpark to me.

I've also never heard of players wearing their uniforms if they're not practicing. When Pettitte gave his recent press conference at Legends Field in Tampa, neither he, nor manager Joe Girardi, GM Brian Cashman, Rivera, Posada nor Jeter were in uniform. Unless you're playing the game, a uniform wouldn't be needed.

If/when that pic of Clemens does surface, I'd have to hear what McNamee has to say re what they were all wearing. Looking at what you've just discovered, I'm surprised that Clemens' attorney hasn't already asked McNamee what they were all wearing. If the choice of clothing is inconsistent with the eventual photo, something would be very suspicious to me about this.

[ipitch]

Guys,

I posted the picture as a joke. It's not from the party. I didn't think anyone would think it was an actual picture from the party.

[MyDogSparty]

So you're saying that Clemens and his attorneys are merely attacking a point brought up by McNamee, that he was at this Canseco-hosted party? So there's nothing which allegedly was said and/or done at this party which connects Clemens with PED usage? If so, now it finally begins to make sense.

That is true. It is McNamee's contention that it was after that party coincidentally that Clemens approached him about getting and using steroids. There is more on the party but here's part of McNamee's deposition...

Q Let me ask you to turn to page 168 and look at the
bottom paragraph where it reads, on or about June 8th to
10th, 1998, the Toronto Blue Jays played an away series with
the Florida Marlins. McNamee attended a lunch party that
Canseco hosted at his home in Miami. McNamee stated that
during this luncheon he observed Clemens, Canseco and
another person he did not know meeting inside Canseco's
house, although McNamee did not personally attend that
meeting.
Do you recall this party at Mr. Canseco's house?
A Yes.
Q How many people approximately were at the party?
A Mostly the whole team, the coaching staff.
Q The Blue Jays team?
A Canseco's, I believe -- yes, the Blue Jays.
Canseco's wife, his daughter, and there were two olderly
people. One might have been his mother and/or his father or
somebody helping out with the party. They set up a spread
outside near the pool. I mean it was a -- it wasn't a great
26
party. It was a great house, a great setting with the pool
and stuff, but we had a game that night. So it was, you
know -- everyone just had sandwiches and hung out for an
hour and went to the ballpark, so it wasn't a great party.
Q How many people approximately are we talking, 30,
50, 100?
A I would say about 30 because I'm sure one or two
people didn't go, I'm sure. You know, but it wasn't --
Roger was there with his nannie and I think two of his kids,
two of his youngest kids. Because the nannie was there.
The child, his youngest child Kody was, Kody had to be two
maybe, so the nannie was chasing him around. And maybe Kacy
would have been about four. The oldest ones I don't believe
were there. And Roger's wife was there, Debbie. She was
the only other female besides the olderly woman helping with
the food, Jose's wife, daughter and the two children and
Debbie.
Q We've received evidence that there was a team party
at Canseco's house, but that Mr. Clemens was golfing that
day and wasn't at the party. It sound like you have a
pretty clear recollection of seeing Mr. Clemens at this
party along with some family members, is that right? Are
you certain about that?
A Roger showed up after golf, I believe. Maybe he was
golfing. I don't know if he was golfing. He might have
27
showed up a little bit later, but no, he was there the whole
time for the most part. He was in the house. I could tell
you a specific story about him being there, which was
involving Jose, Jose's wife and Roger's wife when they went
inside, when the guys showed up. I mean, they talked -- no
disrespect, but they talked about how great Jose's wife's
augmentation job was to Debbie and showed her. And then
Debbie showed her her augmentation job.
Q And this was during this same party?
A In the house. Then the guy -- they came back out --
the nannie, you can get her. If you want to talk to her,
her name was Lily. They left on bad terms. She worked for
him for 14 years.
Q Worked for Canseco?
A No, for Roger.
Q The nannie?
A Yes.
Q Do you know what her last name is?
A She's a great girl. No.
Q How many times have you been in Mr. Canseco's home
in Miami?
A That was it.
Q That was the only time?
A Yes.
Q And you're fairly certain about the time frame being
28
during this June 8th to 10th, 1998 period?
A I'm sure that it was against the Florida Marlins,
which was a National League team. And we only interleagued
certain teams, so that's it. I don't know. Yeah, if that's
what they came up with, then yes.
Q You've never been to Mr. Canseco's house another
time, right? This is the only time you've ever been in that
house?
A The only time. But you have to understand. In '98
was my first job as a strength coach and this house was
unbelievable. I've never been to a Roger-type house, but
they had a rock pool. I mean, the house -- I mean it's
something you don't forget, you don't forget. And I could
tell you the players that were there. I mean, as far as Pat
Hentgen, Woody Williams, Chris Carpenter, Jose, and just --
you know, me. But those guys would -- they visibly saw
Roger there, they visibly saw him go in the house and they
visibly saw his nannie chase his kids.

[RubeBaker]

This would be interesting if I still cared. Good grief. If I wanted to see a circus, I would spend my money on Barnum & Bailey and not this crap. Who was where, who has what, who said that, who cares?

Clemans is like the kid trying to deny he ate the Cheetos when he's got orange all over his face. Mitchell, Macnamee, Pettite, Knoblauch, and even his wife have made some kind of remark that hurts his case. Instead of apologizing, he's fighting a losing battle and making himself look like an idiot in doing so. This it what it comes down to for a HoF pitcher? A used syringe and a photo of him at a party?

[DodgerBlue81]

How exactly does a photo prove that Clemens was at a specific party on a specific date? I think I'll likely hear the word "Photoshop" mentioned sometime soon.

I'm missing something. Clemens said he'd never attended the party, which Canseco's affidavit supports. However, McNamee said that Clemens was there. What supposedly happened at that party which is so significant? Did Clemens allegedly make a comment regarding PED usage while at the party?

The nanny also said Clemens was there and that his kids slept at Canseco's house.

[NJMetfan4life]

Here's the photo. :shhh: Looks like they decided to put on their uniforms and mess around in Canseco's backyard. Apparently they couldn't find a bat. :cap:

Clemens looks drunk, look at his eyes.

[Urbanshocker13]

Found another photo from the "party"
http://i56.photobucket.com/albums/g165/urbanshocker13/attachment-1php.jpg

I really have to get a life!

[Bench 5]

Here's the photo. :shhh: Looks like they decided to put on their uniforms and mess around in Canseco's backyard. Apparently they couldn't find a bat. :cap:

That's not Jose.....that's Ozzie:dance

[digglahhh]

Clemens looks drunk, look at his eyes.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sun

:)

[Skin & Bones]

Clemens is actually acknowledging the possibility that he may have been there.


Roger Clemens may be backpedaling on his long-time stance that he never attended a 1998 party at Jose Canseco's house.

In the wake of the Daily News' report Friday that a photograph exists of Clemens posing with a young man at Canseco's Florida home - a photo said to have been taken on June 9, 1998 - the Rocket's attorney issued a statement that seems to suggest Clemens may have attended the party after all.

Brian McNamee, Clemens' former trainer, has told federal investigators and Congress that Clemens was at the party and talked about steroid use with Canseco, while the seven-time Cy Young Award winner has vehemently disputed such claims. Clemens reiterated those denials before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform last week. Canseco likewise submitted an affidavit to the committee that corroborates the Rocket's version of events.

In his testimony before Congress, Clemens told ranking member Tom Davis (R-Va.), "So could I have gone by (Canseco's) house later that afternoon and dropped my wife or her brother-in-law, the people that golfed with me? Sure, I could have. But at the time of the day that I would have expressed it to be, I was on my way to the ballpark. I know one thing. I wasn't there having huddled up with somebody trying to do a drug deal. I know that for sure."

Clemens attorney Rusty Hardin issued a statement Friday that in part reverses course. "We know that baseball announcers broadcasting the games at the time said Roger was not at the party. Jose Canseco has said Roger was not at the party, as has Canseco's former wife. Roger was playing golf at the time of the party, and has stated that he may have stopped by the Canseco house after playing golf before heading to the ballpark for the game," read Hardin's statement.

The proof Clemens attended may also lie in photographs from the party. As The News first reported, McNamee attorney Richard Emery was informed of the existence of the photograph that allegedly shows Clemens and the young man at Canseco's home. Emery also told The News a second photograph exists, showing Canseco posing with the same boy on the same day.

"I don't know anything about it. No one's talked to me or Jose. No one's said anything about it. We don't know the validity of (the photos)," Robert Saunooke, the attorney for Canseco, told The News on Friday. "There's no doubt that Roger Clemens has been to Jose's house. But the question was (about) this particular date for a barbecue and that didn't happen. You can take a picture of me every day of the week and I can say, 'This is one day and that's another.' How are you going to tell which day you took the photo of me?"

According to Emery, the photos in question have been turned over to federal investigators and Congress. Emery told The News that McNamee's lawyers, including Earl Ward, were called by the father of the boy in the photo following the Feb. 13 hearing in which Clemens faced off against McNamee. The boy was about 11 at the time the photo was taken.

The father of the boy informed McNamee's lawyers that he was frustrated by the attacks on McNamee, particularly those of committee member Dan Burton (R-Ind.), who repeatedly called McNamee a liar. The man told the lawyers about the photo of his son, and also that he had contacted Hardin before the hearing.

"I find it interesting that it was offered to Hardin on Feb. 12 - and he walked away from it, probably because he didn't want any contradictory evidence that showed Clemens was at the party," Emery said.

Emery has not seen the photos himself, but gave the information he learned about them to Congress and to IRS Special Agent Jeff Novitzky, the lead investigator in the BALCO steroids case. The Justice Department could investigate Clemens for perjury and any such photographic evidence could prove damning if it's valid.

According to Emery, the boy’s father told McNamee’s lawyers that he wants to keep his son, who is now a college baseball player and is draft-eligible, out of the controversy.

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/yankees/2008/02/22/2008-02-22_roger_clemens_attorney_maybe_rocket_was_.html

[Old Sweater]

30 eye witnesses were at the party. Why do they need a picture? I think they would recognize Clemens.

[BoweryBoys]

30 eye witnesses were at the party. Why do they need a picture? I think they would recognize Clemens.

Yes and two of those witnesses claim that Clemens WAS at the party, the man who had the photograph that is now in the hands of federal investigators and his son shown in the two photographs. Also a third witness that was proven to be at the party who has testified that Clemens was also there was the former nanny for Clemens children. Unless the photos can be proven to be obvious fakes, very doubtful, it is just more trouble for Clemens and more blows to his already shaky credibility.

I guess we are just supposed to believe that there is this "vast conspiracy" that was formed to "get Clemens" made up of McNamee, Pettitte, Pettitte's wife, Knoblauch, the former Nanny who Clemens' people allegedly tried to intimidate, and now some guy who just decides to lie and maybe make up a couple of fake photos putting him and his baseball player son into possible serious jeopardy if they are in any way less then truthful.

[fenrir]

Yes and two of those witnesses claim that Clemens WAS at the party, the man who had the photograph that is now in the hands of federal investigators and his son shown in the two photographs. Also a third witness that was proven to be at the party who has testified that Clemens was also there was the former nanny for Clemens children. Unless the photos can be proven to be obvious fakes, very doubtful, it is just more trouble for Clemens and more blows to his already shaky credibility.

I guess we are just supposed to believe that there is this "vast conspiracy" that was formed to "get Clemens" made up of McNamee, Pettitte, Pettitte's wife, Knoblauch, the former Nanny who Clemens' people allegedly tried to intimidate, and now some guy who just decides to lie and maybe make up a couple of fake photos putting him and his baseball player son into possible serious jeopardy if they are in any way less then truthful.

spot on man, spot on:applaud:

[Skin & Bones]

If anyone actually took the time to read Clemens deposition, you would have read that Clemens acknowledged the possibility that he was at the party for a brief time.

Q ...Let me just go back here. So you have or you haven't been to Mr. Canseco's house?

A I sure could have been. I wasn't here at this -- at a party that he had. I could have gone by there after a golf outing. So -- but I was not at this party.

He could simply point out that these "pictures" were taken during the the brief time he was there after Golfing.

[MyDogSparty]

If anyone actually took the time to read Clemens deposition, you would have read that Clemens acknowledged the possibility that he was at the party for a brief time.



He could simply point out that these "pictures" were taken during the the brief time he was there after Golfing.


I don't think you're correct. Clemens doesn't acknowledge anything. At least not with the part of the deposition that you quoted. The part from Clemens' deposition that you quoted does NOT prove what you posted at all. That quote implies that he could have been at Jose's house at some point during the time (which could be years) he knew Canseco but it clearly states that he was NOT there on the date being questioned.

[Skin & Bones]

I don't think you're correct. Clemens doesn't acknowledge anything. At least not with the part of the deposition that you quoted. The part from Clemens' deposition that you quoted does NOT prove what you posted at all. That quote implies that he could have been at Jose's house at some point during the time (which could be years) he knew Canseco but it clearly states that he was NOT there on the date being questioned.

Well, that was from his desposition. If Clemens wasn't referring to the party though, why would he just randomly blurt that he could of been at Canseco's house after a Golf Game? He had to be talking about one specific incident, and I think it was the party in June of 1998.

[DoubleX]

Altogether now...


*yawwwwwwwwwn!!!!!*

It's gotta be a matter of substance before it's perjury. I have my doubts that this qualifies.

I agree with this. The media is hyping this up, but so what if he was at the party? First it would have to be shown that the pictures are of that same party - it's possible Canseco had multiple parties and Clemens appeared at one of them, but not the one McNamee was talking about. Even if it is the right party, what exactly does it prove? That he lied about being at the party, or perhaps just doesn't remember being at the party? Yeah, the natural chain of thought is that if Clemens lied about this, what else did he lie about, but this doesn't prove that he materially lied about using performance enhancers, which is the focus here. To this party evidence, Clemens could come back and say, "Well it was 10 years ago, I've been to a lot of parties, so I didn't remember going to this one." So you'd have prove that he knew he lied, and that could be a hard thing to actually prove, even if he all believe he did knowingly lie under oath.

I just don't see Clemens going to jail over this party thing, despite with the geniuses at ESPN (aka MTV Sports, or perhaps E Sports) would like us to think. For jail to be a real possibility here, some evidence, beyond just McNamee, is going to have to come to fore that corroborates that Clemens did use performance enhancers.

[fenrir]

theres recent news that an old teammate of clemens said clemens was at the party.
http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/yankees/2008/02/25/2008-02-25_congress_may_have_new_evidence_that_woul.html

[fenrir]

I agree with this. The media is hyping this up, but so what if he was at the party? First it would have to be shown that the pictures are of that same party - it's possible Canseco had multiple parties and Clemens appeared at one of them, but not the one McNamee was talking about. Even if it is the right party, what exactly does it prove? That he lied about being at the party, or perhaps just doesn't remember being at the party? Yeah, the natural chain of thought is that if Clemens lied about this, what else did he lie about, but this doesn't prove that he materially lied about using performance enhancers, which is the focus here. To this party evidence, Clemens could come back and say, "Well it was 10 years ago, I've been to a lot of parties, so I didn't remember going to this one." So you'd have prove that he knew he lied, and that could be a hard thing to actually prove, even if he all believe he did knowingly lie under oath.

I just don't see Clemens going to jail over this party thing, despite with the geniuses at ESPN (aka MTV Sports, or perhaps E Sports) would like us to think. For jail to be a real possibility here, some evidence, beyond just McNamee, is going to have to come to fore that corroborates that Clemens did use performance enhancers.


he will probably never go to jail. he will probably never get into the hall of fame either. so either way he loses.

[JerseySoxFan19]

in the article about the guy on the '04 sox who was juicing i'm taking all bets that it was foulke

[MyDogSparty]

What cracks me up about this whole case right now is that from the beginning Clemens' attoney, Rusty Hardin, has stated that he, without any doubt, believes that his client is telling the truth. Now with all the information coming out slamming Roger's credibility I wonder if, when he puts his head on his pillow at night, does he still buy Roger's stories? Or, does he now think he's supporting a liar but it's too late to back out now. I wonder if he's sat down with Roger and said, "Roger, come on man, the gig is up. It's time to come clean. You've thrown your wife under the bus, one of your best friends under the bus, your nanny under the bus and others. Your story keeps unraveling at every turn. When is enough going to be enough?"

You have to wonder how these lawyers live with themselves? What do they tell themselves so they can sleep at night?

[rockin500]

What cracks me up about this whole case right now is that from the beginning Clemens' attoney, Rusty Hardin, has stated that he, without any doubt, believes that his client is telling the truth. Now with all the information coming out slamming Roger's credibility I wonder if, when he puts his head on his pillow at night, does he still buy Roger's stories? Or, does he now think he's supporting a liar but it's too late to back out now. I wonder if he's sat down with Roger and said, "Roger, come on man, the gig is up. It's time to come clean. You've thrown your wife under the bus, one of your best friends under the bus, your nanny under the bus and others. Your story keeps unraveling at every turn. When is enough going to be enough?"

You have to wonder how these lawyers live with themselves? What do they tell themselves so they can sleep at night?
you know, even if he did ask roger that, (assuming roger is guilty as sin) dont you think that perhaps roger has convinced himself that he is telling the truth? Its basically the big lie theory.

[Sweet Lou]

Guys,

I posted the picture as a joke. It's not from the party. I didn't think anyone would think it was an actual picture from the party.
D'oh!!! :blush::hide: I'm so smart. S-m-r-a-t. Smart.

(hangs head and walks out of thread with red face)

-Lou

[MyDogSparty]

you know, even if he did ask roger that, (assuming roger is guilty as sin) dont you think that perhaps roger has convinced himself that he is telling the truth? Its basically the big lie theory.

I do agree that through some twisted logic Roger has convinced himself that he's telling the truth. I guess what I'm saying is that Roger seemed to convince his attorney beyond any doubt that he's telling the truth before this all began. Knowing what he knows now, does Clemens' attorney still believe him? If so, how? I realize that we'll never know the answer to the question but I think it's funny. I mean the lawyer was even duped by Clemens and now he's got to stick with this guy.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

How much more are we supposed to believe. The more he fights the deeper the hole gets. Is there a picture of Roger at that party? Can they prove it was that party on that day and even if they do that in no way proves that Roger was involved in a discussion about steroid use with Conseco.

The point is that Roger said he was not there and McNamee said he was and now Roger's attorney says OH, maybe he did stop by when he hears there is supposedly a picture of Roger at that party.

Roger said that Andy Pettite misheard him in that conversation in 1999 or 2000. Roger didn't say he used steroids he was speaking of his wife, Andy heard wrong. Then we find out that his wife was injected with steroids in 2002 or 2004. That was after his comments to Andy in 1999 or 2000.

He's getting buried, it looks like the rat McNamee is telling the truth and Roger is telling all the lies.

There is no way out forget about jail, Roger is fighting for his reputation, he can't save it the more he talks the worse he looks.

[BoweryBoys]

This whole question about what Clemens' lawyers really think and feel makes me think of the larger question of how most who earn their living via MLB really think and feel.

It is like the recent interview with Tony LaRussa where he still vehemently defends McGwire and insists on no PED use by McGwire. Sometimes I read things stated by people like LaRussa on these matters and am amazed at the insult to my intelligence and wonder if most MLB people just think most fans are stupid and have no right to learn all they can about the truth. It seems like a mentality of "we want you to keep spending more and more of your money and supporting the game but stay the heck out of our private business because you have no rights beyond just spending your money and blindly supporting the game".

To me there seems to be sense of arrogant entitlement permeated throughout modern era MLB. It doesn't surprise me that any player's lawyer would just continue to repeat a stale line that becomes increasingly ridiculous because we fans are supposed to just except what we are given and told without questioning with no rights beyond that.

[BoweryBoys]

[QUOTE=SHOELESSJOE3;1123792]
He's getting buried, it looks like the rat McNamee is telling the truth and Roger is telling all the lies.


This statement says a lot about the modern game. McNamee seems to be a "Rat". So what is he doing being allowed in MLB clubhouses anywhere near players? Why does a player continue to keep him around even after he has been fired by an MLB club? What kind of sport allows "rats" to be involved? Where there is one "rat" there are usually more, no?

Modern era MLB is increasingly looking more and more like prohibition era Chicago. The bad part is that MLB has for too many years just been unwilling to deal with its problems because of all the money that keeps pouring in and what the fans don't need to know, (in MLB's opinion) won't hurt them. Question is, is that "them" the fans or is it MLB?

[Brian McKenna]

Sometimes I read things stated by people like LaRussa on these matters and am amazed at the insult to my intelligence

Exactly - that's one of the biggest points about Clemens and the others - just a complete lack of respect for the game's fans.

Anyway, LaRussa saying that is just the complicit exonerating the accused.

[BoweryBoys]

Exactly - that's one of the biggest points about Clemens and the others - just a complete lack of respect for the game's fans.

Anyway, LaRussa saying that is just the complicit exonerating the accused.

Bingo, you got it exactly right. I wish more fans understood this or even cared. I guess some fans just want to follow the game and accept whatever they are told and given. Then you have the "casual fans" and the "chicks dig the long ball" mentality that, IMHO, has no place or business in MLB. Makes one wonder if we would even be having any of these type discussions if the idea of the over the fence HR was never invented. Just think if doing that was never more then just a foul ball. To me the HR is an overrated aspect of the game anyway.

Anyway, "chicks do dig the long ball" and the HR is what most MLB officials thought that most of us stupid fans really care about so they turned a blind eye for years. Now some like LaRussa still act insulted when the subject is brought up like the fans have no right to complain or question the HR numbers of someone like McGwire. Just keep buying tickets and spending your money but keep your nose out of "our business".

[ipitch]

That must've been a heck of a party. Ten years later and people are still talking about it. :)

[JerseySoxFan19]

i wonder if they had dirty movies, hehe

[tommybaseball]

This whole question about what Clemens' lawyers really think and feel makes me think of the larger question of how most who earn their living via MLB really think and feel.

It is like the recent interview with Tony LaRussa where he still vehemently defends McGwire and insists on no PED use by McGwire. Sometimes I read things stated by people like LaRussa on these matters and am amazed at the insult to my intelligence and wonder if most MLB people just think most fans are stupid and have no right to learn all they can about the truth. It seems like a mentality of "we want you to keep spending more and more of your money and supporting the game but stay the heck out of our private business because you have no rights beyond just spending your money and blindly supporting the game".

To me there seems to be sense of arrogant entitlement permeated throughout modern era MLB. It doesn't surprise me that any player's lawyer would just continue to repeat a stale line that becomes increasingly ridiculous because we fans are supposed to just except what we are given and told without questioning with no rights beyond that.

I took the liberty of hi-lighting a few of the points you made. The fact that fans continually support Major League Baseball despite the manner in which they are treated, from sky-rocket ticket prices that exclude blue-collar fans, to non-involvement with fans including avoidance of autograph seekers, to a type of rollerball game whose stats are bogus because of PED's proves that no matter how much fans moan and complain on boards like this, or call in to the shills at radio stations like WFAN, MLB will maintain status-quo and continue to laugh all the way to the bank.
The only way to make your voice heard is to stop going, stop buying merchandise and stop watching MLB, a far-fetched plan to say the least.
People who complain and continue to support the game are stupid and deserve what they get- a continuous, figuratively symbolic bashing in the head and wallet with a Louisville Slugger.
I won a few office bets in 2005 by sticking to my guns. I lasted the entire season with no withdrawl. I believed at the time that steps were taken to clean up the game, or at least infuse a sense of fear in the players about getting caught. I watched again for the last 2 seasons, hoping from the $5.00- ROW W, Section 34 (which was closer to my dinner plate on the other side of the Bronx than home plate) that what I was watching had some semblance of a real game.
Well, fooled me twice- SHAME ON ME! Here's my head! Whack it!

The only way I go back this time is if they go along with Jeter's suggestion.
This time, I want blood!

[TonyK]

Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive.

- Sir Walter Scott

[tommybaseball]

Oh what a tangled web we weave, when first we practice to deceive.

- Sir Walter Scott

Pitched for the '86 Astros, right? Threw that scuff ball. Seriously, well put.

[BoweryBoys]

The points that Tommybaseball make are excellent and very valid. Actually, I did make a conscious decision a few years ago to stop supporting the game in any way and have not bought one ticket nor purchased any MLB merchandise in many years. (I actually stopped going to games quite sometime ago, around 2000, when I decided that the price of tickets and parking just got to be beyond what is worth paying to see people running around playing a game. Heck I can now buy a whole season, or at least a half-season, of some of my all-time favorite classic TV shows for less money and get a lot more entertainment value for my money watching Ness chase the bad guys or Dr. Richard Kimble avoid the relentless pursuit of Lt. Gerard.)

Anyway, I just didn't want to bring up the idea of myself, at least as one fan, deciding the game was not worth supporting anymore because that only opens one up for all kinds of abuse about being on "a moral high horse" and other invalid silly comments. Also, I believe that all have the right for themselves to make their own decision on whether or not to support the game without influence from others. I still love and study the past history of the game, which is partly why I am a member here, and am satisfied with that.

The fact remains that some fans of the game are just getting fed up and becoming increasingly less interested, or see the game as not worth their time. At the same time, the game makes new fans for many various reasons, not the least of which are those who actually think that 4-6 HRs a game and 14-10 scores are the ideal. Nothing used to make me shake my head in frustration more then the new fans who had thought the game was "boring" but in recent years now think it is great due to all the "offense" in the modern game. MLB will always laugh all the way to the bank with the sucker's money because there will always be a fresh supply of people who are only fans on that level and do not care about the game on any deeper level then that.

[Brian McKenna]

There are frustrations in the game - I agree:

1) High cost to attend a game - but that's in most of the sports. There are bargains to be found if you're willing to travel to minor league or independent lg games.

I paid $5.25 for a hot dog this weekend at a Maryland basketball game. If I had gone to a Towson game though, it would have been a lot cheaper.

2) High salaries - I believe the talent should get their fair share of the revenue. But, I no longer can side with a bunch of millionaires when trouble or complaints arise.

3) Merchandising costs - team and merchandising stores are ridiculous. Sorry, but no mere baseball cap is worth $20+. No to mention the price of other products. Though I've bought my share of $20 hats, I have found some very nice caps from Wal Mart for $5 and elsewhere under for $10-15.

4) Arrogant and condescending players and management - but that's everywhere not just sports.

5) I personally believe the home run actually kills the excitement of the game. Bam the rally is over - time to reset. To me, nearly every other aspect of the game is more exciting. This is not to say though that I wouldn't want my team to build a lead in any way possible.

6) "Roids are a blight on the game - as much a question mark on the integrity of the game as game-fixing. Clemens and Bonds' continued denials though we know otherwise are also disheartening. But, we'll get over it.

I don't personally believe the players owe use anything - especially autographs as this is one of the biggest fraud industries in the country. And, I know personally from managing restaurants that people are ignorant and unrelenting to celebs in seeking them.

I might at times rant against some of this stuff, but I've never ranted against the game itself and I don't see me doing so. I get great enjoyment from it so I'll be watching. Though, I don't really attend that many ML games. It's a lot cheaper and hassle free to watch ML games on TV and drive to the local high school, college or amateur fields. There are also about 6 minor league clubs within an hour's drive.

[SHOELESSJOE3]

There are frustrations in the game - I agree:

1) High cost to attend a game - but that's in most of the sports. There are bargains to be found if you're willing to travel to minor league or independent lg games.

I paid $5.25 for a hot dog this weekend at a Maryland basketball game. If I had gone to a Towson game though, it would have been a lot cheaper.

2) High salaries - I believe the talent should get their fair share of the revenue. But, I no longer can side with a bunch of millionaires when trouble or complaints arise.

3) Merchandising costs - team and merchandising stores are ridiculous. Sorry, but no mere baseball cap is worth $20+. No to mention the price of other products. Though I've bought my share of $20 hats, I have found some very nice caps from Wal Mart for $5 and elsewhere under for $10-15.

4) Arrogant and condescending players and management - but that's everywhere not just sports.

5) I personally believe the home run actually kills the excitement of the game. Bam the rally is over - time to reset. To me, nearly every other aspect of the game is more exciting. This is not to say though that I wouldn't want my team to build a lead in any way possible.

6) "Roids are a blight on the game - as much a question mark on the integrity of the game as game-fixing. Clemens and Bonds' continued denials though we know otherwise are also disheartening. But, we'll get over it.

I don't personally believe the players owe use anything - especially autographs as this is one of the biggest fraud industries in the country. And, I know personally from managing restaurants that people are ignorant and unrelenting to celebs in seeking them.

I might at times rant against some of this stuff, but I've never ranted against the game itself and I don't see me doing so. I get great enjoyment from it so I'll be watching. Though, I don't really attend that many ML games. It's a lot cheaper and hassle free to watch ML games on TV and drive to the local high school, college or amateur fields. There are also about 6 minor league clubs within an hour's drive.

Pretty much the same take here. I don't attend as many MLB games as I once did. Only 90 miles from Toronto so I go to see a couple of games a year, usually the Yanks. Buffalo has a great minor league park and I'll go to a dozen games a year with some friends and treat my one or two nephews. Best seat in the house 15 bucks, Monday games 7.00 bucks gets you a good seat. Thats all I want, nothing like a night at the ball game.

[Old Sweater]

I turned 55 in October so I get $1 Rockpile seats this year instead of the $4 they previously were.

That is about $7 total counting a round trip light rail ticket, which drops you off a few blocks from Coors Field. Can't beat it with a stick.