Roger Clemens Trial

Clemens-cy?

5/7/12 in MLB   |   This_is_Rick   |   265 respect

There should be little doubt or argument for the career of Roger Clemens. It was truly great. Regardless if you are a seasoned talent of the game, or you have only thrown one pitch at a carnival with hopes of winning the giant, stuffed dog, throwing a baseball with accuracy and power is not easy. 95 m.p.h is 95 m.p.h. Much like the logic behind an MLB slugger, steroids may strenghthen aspects in the physical realm, but not the natural ability it takes to have success in the first place. If you gave a cab driver a cycle of steroids and put him on the hill, I would bet the neighbor's Ferrari he wouldn't immediately start chucking whistle missile's towards the plate. It takes the natural ability, first. The cab driver will not become an overnight success because he took some juice and put on a glove. He will still be a cab driver, a stronger cab driver - with acne and smaller grapes. ( Please note, no cab driver's feelings were hurt in the writing of this piece.) While this scenario sounds silly, it is the same dirt experts and analysts are shoveling into the journalistic wheelbarrow and sports science dump truck.  In the case of Roger Clemens career a separation of being a liar, and a talented pitcher that juiced, is necessary. Not only for the game, but for the fans. 

Blog Photo - Roger Clemens Trial
There are simple truths to this matter.

One: It's impossible to count the number of players that took, or are taking H.G.H and or steroids. Player's closest to the game, on the collegiate and professional levels, all have encountered teammates and opponents that have taken some sort of performance-enhancing-whatevers, especially in the "Steroid Era," where it was looked at with eyes closed. No test? No penalty? Why not? An MLB player, who we will call "nameless," told me back in 2002 that he was taking a cycle, and stoked about the results. It kept his fastball at 93, consistently, as opposed to topping out at 93, and he felt stronger. However, to that he also acknowledged the fact  his fastball was already 91-92. He wasn't mid-80's, sans the super juice, with zero power. That's what got him in the league in the first place. Swinging at the dead horse one more time, he was talented already.

Two : Now that we know it happened, and a lot of players experimented, it's is time to hit the snooze-button on this annoying alarm of a situation. Roger Clemens lied, Bonds lied, Palmero lied, Sosa lied, Oliver North lied too. People lie, mainly to get out of uncomfortable situations. "Yes honey, those pants look amazing on you." We have all done it before, and we will all do it again, and again! 

The game is on a rise from recent "down years," and it's time for that momentum to progress. How Roger Clemens decided to answer the government is his doing. Guilty or innocent, get it over with, and let's go to a game. I say this as a true "Clemens-hater". I never rooted for him, based on the teams he played for, and the strike zone - 7 inches off the plate - he enjoyed in his career. But, I do realize a great pitcher when I see one, and I don't account for what he put on his Wheaties in the morning as my reasoning.

This truck is full, wait for the next one.

This_is_Rick
Notify me by email about comments that follow mine. Preview

5/8/12   |   beerstudk   |   1538 respect

jaysinw wrote:
I did hear they were trying to throw out the conviction, have not heard anything since the end of the trial. I am wondering what will happen with Clemens now that Pettitte claims he may not heard what he thought he heard. Personally I am way pass the RIODs things, it does not bother me if the players involved get away with using them.

I agree with you... I'm over it. I just wish that they would at least admit it.

5/8/12   |   jaysinw   |   4976 respect

beerstudk wrote:
I'm not sure that Bonds took 'shots'.  The BALCO steroids he was linked too are 'The Clear', which is a liquid supplement taken much like fish oil, and 'The Cream', which is a cream (go figure) that he applied to his knees.

Also, Bonds is in the process of appealing his Obstruction charge and most analysts think that he'll win that appeal because forcing him to answer thier questions violates his 5th amendment rights.  The only way that they would be able get him on anything solid is if his former trainer testifies against him (a la Brian MacNamee), which will never happen, or that they can prove that the huge payout he's sure to receive once the trail is over was to 'cover up' for Bonds.

As sad as it may seem to most people, Bonds will probably get away with using steroids with less than a slap on the wrist because he handled the situation with his trainer.  While Roger Clemons will probably get a rather large fine for Purgery because he threw his trainer under the bus.

I did hear they were trying to throw out the conviction, have not heard anything since the end of the trial. I am wondering what will happen with Clemens now that Pettitte claims he may not heard what he thought he heard. Personally I am way pass the RIODs things, it does not bother me if the players involved get away with using them.

5/8/12   |   beerstudk   |   1538 respect

jaysinw wrote:
He was not acquitted of any charges, instead the jury was divided and so it became a hung jury. So the Government could have gone after Bonds again. As for the one he was found guilty is obstruction of justice, in which he did not give a clear answer. The jury instruction said that to be convicted, Bonds must be found to have "obstructed, influenced or impeded, or endeavored to obstruct, influence, or impede" the grand jury "by knowingly giving material testimony that was intentionally evasive, false or misleading." With that said you can try to say Bonds did not lie, as others could say he did lie, by not given a truthful answer to the question. His lie was saying he did not "knowingly" take steroids, there is no way he wold have taken multiple shots of Riods without knowing. Yince he may have been able to say that where you make your living there way he did, there is no way a person takes shots without knowing what is in them.

I'm not sure that Bonds took 'shots'.  The BALCO steroids he was linked too are 'The Clear', which is a liquid supplement taken much like fish oil, and 'The Cream', which is a cream (go figure) that he applied to his knees.

Also, Bonds is in the process of appealing his Obstruction charge and most analysts think that he'll win that appeal because forcing him to answer thier questions violates his 5th amendment rights.  The only way that they would be able get him on anything solid is if his former trainer testifies against him (a la Brian MacNamee), which will never happen, or that they can prove that the huge payout he's sure to receive once the trail is over was to 'cover up' for Bonds.

As sad as it may seem to most people, Bonds will probably get away with using steroids with less than a slap on the wrist because he handled the situation with his trainer.  While Roger Clemons will probably get a rather large fine for Purgery because he threw his trainer under the bus.

5/8/12   |   ML31   |   3675 respect

jaysinw wrote:
He was not acquitted of any charges, instead the jury was divided and so it became a hung jury. So the Government could have gone after Bonds again. As for the one he was found guilty is obstruction of justice, in which he did not give a clear answer. The jury instruction said that to be convicted, Bonds must be found to have "obstructed, influenced or impeded, or endeavored to obstruct, influence, or impede" the grand jury "by knowingly giving material testimony that was intentionally evasive, false or misleading." With that said you can try to say Bonds did not lie, as others could say he did lie, by not given a truthful answer to the question. His lie was saying he did not "knowingly" take steroids, there is no way he wold have taken multiple shots of Riods without knowing. Yince he may have been able to say that where you make your living there way he did, there is no way a person takes shots without knowing what is in them.

It was my understanding that if there was no conviction then the feds could not try him again for the same crime.  If they did, it would have to be for something else. 

It is also entirely possible that he had no idea what he rubbed on his legs really was.  His testimony said he was told it was "linseed oil" by his personal trainer.  It is not unreasonable that he would trust what he was told by someone so close to him.  Do I think he knew what it really was?  Yes I do.  But without the testimony of his trainer there is no way to prove beyond reasonable doubt what he said to the Grand Jury was false.  Therefore, legally, he did not lie.

5/8/12   |   jaysinw   |   4976 respect

ML31 wrote:
Using the stuff with no prescription was/is indeed illegal and should be dealt with in that realm.  But until there is a consensus in the medical or scientific community that steroids and HGH turn ordinary baseball players into better baseball players it is lunacy to claim players who used that stuff were cheating the game in any way shape or form.  Especially when there is currently no hard evidence that stuff does anything of the kind.

PS:::  Barry Bonds was mentioned in the article as lying but he never really did.  He never claimed to "knowingly" take steroids and his perjury trial acquitted him of it as well. 

He was not acquitted of any charges, instead the jury was divided and so it became a hung jury. So the Government could have gone after Bonds again. As for the one he was found guilty is obstruction of justice, in which he did not give a clear answer. The jury instruction said that to be convicted, Bonds must be found to have "obstructed, influenced or impeded, or endeavored to obstruct, influence, or impede" the grand jury "by knowingly giving material testimony that was intentionally evasive, false or misleading." With that said you can try to say Bonds did not lie, as others could say he did lie, by not given a truthful answer to the question. His lie was saying he did not "knowingly" take steroids, there is no way he wold have taken multiple shots of Riods without knowing. Yince he may have been able to say that where you make your living there way he did, there is no way a person takes shots without knowing what is in them.

5/8/12   |   ML31   |   3675 respect

(Edited by ML31)

Using the stuff with no prescription was/is indeed illegal and should be dealt with in that realm.  But until there is a consensus in the medical or scientific community that steroids and HGH turn ordinary baseball players into better baseball players it is lunacy to claim players who used that stuff were cheating the game in any way shape or form.  Especially when there is currently no hard evidence that stuff does anything of the kind.

PS:::  Barry Bonds was mentioned in the article as lying but he never really did.  He never claimed to "knowingly" take steroids and his perjury trial acquitted him of it as well. 

5/7/12   |   jaysinw   |   4976 respect

Been saying the same thing for years, and those who played ball and complain about how certian players action should keep them out of the Hall. If we really went back and look at the players in the Hall, we would have a small room.

5/7/12   |   kas20

Spunky knows Baseball!!!