I.E. under penalty of purgery Clemens makes his statements, while his accuser refuses to, and in addition, doesn't sue, what kind of impact does that have?

I myself would be a little embarassed to be that dependent on someone else on everyday decisions I should already be in sinc with.

From what I've read, McNamee did have an excellent reputation as a trainer from those that have worked with him. I did also read a few articles about the 'date rape' accusations that absolutely tuned my stomach.

10 hours of working out in a day? That is simply sick.

Selection............................................... Votes
IN - Get That Dude At Any Cost -- 14% -- (69)
Eh.... Not Sold On The Idea Yet -- 42% -- (209)
OUT - Not Worth It ................ -- 44% -- (222)

My, how times have changed.

Mushnick had a good point in today's Post. Why would Clemens, or anyone else for that matter, have his TRAINER inject him with B-12? Isn't that something that you would prefer that your DOCTOR do? Especially someone like Clemens, who can afford the best health care and physicians in the world. I don't think I'd be trusting some trainer to inject me with anyone, unless of course, I was doing something that I didn't want my doctor to know about...

Maybe he doesn't like showing his tushy to the Doctor.

I have more of a problem with his taking it solely on the advice of a trainer, without any input from a doctor, than with his receiving the actual injection that way.

Am going to try and get tix for when the Red Sox open 2008 here in Tokyo so I can root against them...

• The lawsuit includes a quote from a conversation Hardin's private investigators had with McNamee after the Mitchell Report was made public. The lengthy McNamee quote indicates he was persuaded to talk about Clemens after a federal prosecutor and agent threatened him.

• According to the lawsuit, McNamee told Hardin's investigators a federal prosecutor and federal agent talked about how he already had two strikes against him for possessing and delivering steroids and could get a third -- lying to a federal agent -- and go to jail. He said it was soon after that he was asked, "So what about Clemens?"

The funniest part of the article was when Jordan attributes Ryan's success to being blessed by God, but then can't seem to understand Clemens' late career success...even though he witnessed Clemens rigorous workouts. Then, Jordan waxes poetic about Seaver, which makes me think tearing down Clemens is a way to make Seaver look better. Pathetic.

2 Good point...but how do you feel about the author of the Mitchell Report being a Director of the Red Sox? It's funny how people concern themselves about conflict when it's convenient (that's a general observation, and not attrubuted to your views).

5 Something tells me that was a show for the reporter.

7 In an interview on WEEI, Jose Canseco gave a very credible reason: not wanting the team to know your body was aching for fear it would be used against you. For what it's worth, Canseco also said he believed Clemens was clean and that McNamee lied about the party at his house.

12 Your reaction shows why Clemens is in a no-win situation. No matter what he does, people will read deeper into it...and even accuse him of being spoiled or grandstanding for insisting upon his innocence. I think Clemens main point was the most credible...he should be given the benefit of the doubt when the only evidence is the testimony of an accused rapist, proven liar and steroid pusher.

But, by the same token, you can't talk about presumption of innocence and then say "accused rapist." And, of course, every steroid user got his 'roids from a criminal.

I think it points out that we should be very slow to judge someone on their 'performance' and should be more concerned with facts, and TRY to understand the true nature of the situation.

I personally have no idea about Roger, but my main impression from the interview was he was REALLY angry. Not selfrighteous anger, but true betrayal anger.

Southron
January 7th, 2008 at 9:03 am
I find it revealing that you brought up the cost of a law suit; that is, a man's willingness to spend money as the true measurement of his sincerity to clear his name. Unlike yourself, Clemens is from the traditional south (Houston is considered more Southern than Western) and, as such would have a different viewpoint of matters such as this.

1. First of all, it is obvious that he is deeply offended and dismayed that his word was questioned at all, especially without a modicum of proof and on the word of a convicted felon.

2. To sue someone in the south is considered bad form, as in a self-imposed act of dragging one's family name through the street of public opinion. His stance would be he should not have to go to court to defend his word; the old southern adage that one's word is one's bond is in play here.

3. Lastly, his seemingly beside-the-point story concerning pitching injured, and even going so far as to take legal pain substances that could now possibly be harmful to his health is telling; it reveals the full magnitude of his sense of anger and betrayal after giving years and years of loyal support.

The truth is, you are dealing with a cross-cultural response that you do not understand or, I suspect, even wish to understand. You are out for blood or submission, possibly both, and for you folks north of the Potomac River that is always the bottom line.

Having said that, there was more credible testimony in the McNamee case. Here is an excerpt from the NYTimes article:

According to police and hotel reports, a security guard saw Mr. McNamee and a 40-year-old woman, both of whom were naked, in the hotel pool at about 3:45 a.m. on Oct. 6 during a regular baseball season that had been extended because of the terrorist attacks on Sept. 11. The security guard said that Mr. McNamee appeared to be having sex with the woman while another naked man was standing off to the side.

Eventually, after everyone exited the pool, "the woman was like jelly and could not stand on her own," the hotel incident report stated.

*
Sure, the charges were dropped "due to the insufficient physical and cooperative evidence", but if the standard of the Mitchell report was used, McNamee would be a convicted rapist.

It's a good thing Mr. Pavano doesn't subscribe to this theory :)