MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Dec 29, 2007 20:32:04 GMT -5
Now THAT is interesting.
|
|
|
Post by 9 on Jan 3, 2008 17:35:25 GMT -5
Wow, silly us for jumping to conclusions! And all this time, it was only Lidocaine and B-12! From ESPN.com" Roger Clemens says he was injected with "Lidocaine and B-12" and not steroids or human growth hormone by former trainer Brian McNamee, according to a portion of an interview with CBS' "60 Minutes" released Thursday. "Lidocaine and B-12. It's for my joints, and B-12 I still take today," Clemens told Mike Wallace in the interview, which is scheduled to be shown Sunday night. It is Clemens' first interview since the release of the Mitchell report in December. In the report, McNamee claims to have injected Clemens with steroids in 1998, 2000 and 2001. He said he injected the seven-time Cy Young winner with HGH in 2000, according to the report. According to CBS, Clemens calls the accusation that he used steroids and HGH "ridiculous" and says he "never" used any banned substances. The interview was conducted last Friday. Wallace asked Clemens if he swears he didn't used banned substances. "Swear," Clemens responds. Lidocaine is a local anesthetic that can be used by dentists and in minor surgery. It also is available as part of ointments used to treat skin inflammation.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Jan 3, 2008 18:29:29 GMT -5
Is it common practice to take shots for your joints, even as a professional athlete?
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Jan 3, 2008 18:48:25 GMT -5
No, but it seems to be common practice for athletes to take "shots" AND "joints."
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Jan 4, 2008 18:41:31 GMT -5
Clemens, Pettitte, Trainer asked to testify to Congress
WASHINGTON - Roger Clemens and Andy Pettitte were asked Friday to testify before a congressional committee on Jan. 16, along with their former trainer, Brian McNamee.
Also invited to appear before the House Oversight Committee were former Mets clubhouse attendant Kirk Radomski, whose allegations were a central part of last month's Mitchell report on doping in baseball. Former All-Star second baseman Chuck Knoblauch also was asked to speak to the panel.
"It could be a circus with players, true," the committee's minority staff director, David Marin, said in a telephone interview. "But if you tailor it right and invite people who clearly have pertinent information about the substance of the report, then it's anything but a circus. It's substantive. That's what Democrats and Republicans have agreed to here."
A day earlier, the committee is to hear testimony from baseball commissioner Bud Selig, union leader Donald Fehr and former Senate majority leader George Mitchell.
"The original hearing was called to examine the Mitchell recommendations and findings. The committee has decided to hold a second day of hearings for the very same reason — to invite people with varying perspectives on the Mitchell report to shed further light on it," Marin said.
McNamee told Mitchell he had injected seven-time Cy Young Award winner Clemens with steroids and human growth hormone during the 1998, 2000 and 2001 seasons. Clemens, in an interview to be broadcast by CBS's "60 Minutes" on Sunday, said McNamee injected him with vitamins and painkillers but not performance-enhancing drugs.
Pettitte acknowledged McNamee injected him with HGH twice while the pitcher was recovering from an injury.
McNamee told Mitchell he acquired HGH from Radomski for Knoblauch in 2001, and that he injected him with it.
Radomski pleaded guilty in April to federal felony charges of distributing steroids and laundering money, and he is scheduled to be sentenced Feb. 8.
Although none of the people asked to testify under oath Jan. 16 had agreed to appear as of late Friday afternoon, the committee's announcement listed Clemens and others under the heading, "Witnesses will include."
Said Marin: "We always presume that invited witnesses will appear."
E-mails to attorneys for Clemens and McNamee and a phone call to Radomski's lawyer were not immediately returned.
This is the same panel of lawmakers that convened the March 2005 hearing where Mark McGwire refused to say whether he had used performance-enhancing drugs. Sammy Sosa said he had never knowingly used illegal performance-enhancing drugs, while Rafael Palmeiro denied using drugs but tested positive later that year for a steroid.
The leaders of the committee, California Democrat Henry Waxman and Virginia Republican Tom Davis, were among several members of the House and Senate who sponsored legislation in 2005, proposing to mandate stronger steroid testing and penalties for baseball and other U.S. professional sports leagues.
Another committee has scheduled a Jan. 23 hearing on the Mitchell report.
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Jan 6, 2008 18:43:55 GMT -5
Report: Clemens, McNamee in contact
Pitcher, former trainer speak in 'emotional' call for an hour
mlb.com
HOUSTON -- Assuming free-agent pitcher Roger Clemens accepts the invitation to testify before the House Oversight Committee on Jan. 16, he will be face-to-face with his former trainer Brian McNamee, presumably for the first time. But according to a report in Newsday's Sunday edition, Clemens and McNamee have already had contact -- on Friday, over the phone, during an hourlong conversation a source called "emotional."
The newspaper provided no other information regarding who initiated the call or what was discussed between the longtime friends, and representatives for both sides were not available for comment.
McNamee's accusations of Clemens' steroid use in the Mitchell Report ignited the drawn-out story that has resulted in both figures being invited to the nation's capitol. McNamee is expected to attend the hearings, as are three others who were invited to testify -- Yankees pitcher Andy Pettitte, retired Major Leaguer Chuck Knoblauch and former Mets clubhouse attendant Kirk Radomski.
Commissioner Bud Selig, former Sen. George Mitchell and union leader Don Fehr will testify before the committee Jan. 15. McNamee has steadfastly stood by his testimony to both federal investigators and Mitchell that he injected Clemens with performance-enhancing drugs during the 1998, 2000 and 2001 seasons. Clemens has issued several denials and is expected to do so again Sunday night when he appears on "60 Minutes" with Mike Wallace. The seven-time Cy Young winner plans to meet with the media in Houston on Monday to address reporters in person for the first time since the Mitchell Report was released Dec. 13.
According to the Newsday report, the "verbal sparring" between Clemens and McNamee has piqued the interest of Jeff Novitzky, an IRS special agent responsible for the indictment of Barry Bonds in November on felony charges of perjury and obstruction of justice.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Jan 6, 2008 20:01:08 GMT -5
Forgot to watch 60 minutes. Whoops.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Jan 7, 2008 9:01:31 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Jackass on Jan 7, 2008 11:53:10 GMT -5
Clemens = Liar
He may have seriously damaged his HOF credentials the same way Big Mac did.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Jan 7, 2008 12:25:25 GMT -5
It would be amazing if that is true.
|
|
|
Post by Bad Mouth Larry on Jan 8, 2008 11:25:01 GMT -5
Forgot to watch 60 minutes. Whoops. yea, what were you, busy playing competitve foosball? dude, you are so fuckin opinionated. God forbid you watch something to base your opinion on.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Jan 8, 2008 12:29:15 GMT -5
It's not like the material wasn't widely reported the next day, and my opinion of the Mitchell report has been based on reading pieces of the report. I have not read all 400 pages, but I did read over some of the stuff on Clemens and of course Pettitte.
The thing with me is Pettitte's admission. By admitting to the contents of the report, he basically validated McNammee's testimony. We're supposed to believe that McNamee was lying about Clemens, but telling the truth about Pettitte?
I would even have trouble buying it if McNamee recanted. But I don't think he will, because if he does, he goes to jail.
Mitchell was not targetting one specific player. He was investigating all of baseball. McNamee doesn't gain anything by naming Clemens. And if he lies about Clemens, he goes to jail. Clemens is the biggest previously unnamed new to the steroid world guy, but to lie about him does far more harm than good.
I don't know what Clemens can really do to prove his innocence at this point. Maybe if McNamee recanted, AND Clemens passed a lie detector. But the Pettitte situation really screws this up for Clemens.
What will be interesting will be what happens when Clemens testifies in front of Congress.
I am horrible at foosball by the way.
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Jan 8, 2008 13:27:59 GMT -5
Here is the bottom line - in regards to Clemens, at the end of the day, its one persons word against anothers. That is IT.
That does not really cut it.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Jan 8, 2008 13:45:33 GMT -5
Actually, it does cut it, given that one was under oath, sworn testimony, and Pettitte provided evidence that validates McNamee's word. More important, in the court of public opinion, Clemens isn't swaying anyone. I saw polls on ESPN.com and Newsday.com that overwhelmingly did not believe Clemens. On Newsday's poll, 61.6% believe Clemens used steroids and is lying to protect himself. The Pettitte thing is huge. Good article here on it: sports.espn.go.com/espn/columns/story?columnist=wojciechowski_gene&id=3185451&sportCat=mlb
|
|
|
Post by Bad Mouth Larry on Jan 9, 2008 12:00:35 GMT -5
if andy and roger juiced together, then roger is a total scumbag who has put andy in a damning position once they go to the grand jury. rat or lie.
|
|
|
Post by ajfreakz on Jan 9, 2008 12:09:24 GMT -5
if roger did that to andy..
i dont see how andy wouldnt just tell the fucking truth and tell roger fuck you and end the friendship..
as my mother always said: yours friends speak volumes about who you are as a person
|
|
|
Post by Bad Mouth Larry on Jan 9, 2008 12:11:44 GMT -5
YUP. BUT PEOPLE WILL CALL HIM A RAT. WHATEVER. I HOPE ANDY ONLY USED TWICE AND ROGER IS CLEAN. BUT I WASNT BORN YESTERDAY EITHER.
|
|
|
Post by ajfreakz on Jan 9, 2008 12:14:27 GMT -5
Larry you stupid fuck your like 60 years old right hahaha
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Jan 9, 2008 13:09:44 GMT -5
Any of you guys notice the story in the POST today (page 85) which flatly states that cops believe McNameee LIED in a 2001 rape case he was involved in?
As to be expected, Clemens' advisor snapped, "The significant thing is, when this guys rear end is in trouble, does he lie?"
Apparently this goof denied boning a "possibly drugged" woman in a hotel pool, even though security guards and witnesses all said they saw him.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Jan 9, 2008 13:17:34 GMT -5
Clemens' lawyers are doing the best job they can to spin, but the bottom line is that McNamee had no reason to lie about Clemens. Most important, Pettitte corroborated McNamee.
|
|
|
Post by thecaptain15 on Jan 9, 2008 13:48:01 GMT -5
Let me say first that I believe Clemens did the juice....but to refute what Balls said above about him having no reason to lie, let me say McNamee could have lied in an effort to give investigators "what they wanted..a big fish so they could make a name for themselves" so they go light on him and further themselves (Remeber Duke lacrosse case?)....also I am not saying that the investigators asked for this but McNamee probably could have figured offering up a big name certainly wouldn't hurt his plight....
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Jan 9, 2008 13:51:30 GMT -5
We don't know that, but given Mitchell's reputation, it's highly unlikely that he had a witch hunt against Clemens. There were big names in the report without him. And why not go after other big names like ARod? The odds that he lied about Clemens but not Pettitte are very small.
McNamee had no reason to lie. He got his deal. Not only that, he had a disincentive to lie because if he gets caught--he will be in jail.
|
|
|
Post by thecaptain15 on Jan 9, 2008 13:55:37 GMT -5
McNamee and Clemens had a conection not sure ARod had any connections with "seedy" types.....Also mlb wants A-Rod to be clean as they hope they will wipe Bonds from the record books...
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Jan 9, 2008 13:59:58 GMT -5
Wouldn't MLB want to keep Clemens clean too? I don't think there's a super conspiracy here. Clemens was just unlucky enough to have HIS supplier get caught and have to rat him out. He's not alone. Pettitte's admission was everything here. Let's also not forget that CLEMENS brought McNamee to the Yankees. Is it believable that Clemens' pal gave steroids to Pettitte, but not his best pal?
|
|
|
Post by Bad Mouth Larry on Jan 9, 2008 15:31:43 GMT -5
Clemens' lawyers are doing the best job they can to spin, but the bottom line is that McNamee had no reason to lie about Clemens. Most important, Pettitte corroborated McNamee. he corroborated mcnamee with respect to pettitte NOT with respect to clemens. its makes him more beleivable, but it SHOULD NOT PASS JUDGEMENT against roger yet just because andy corroborated. thats retarded thinking.
|
|
|
Post by Bad Mouth Larry on Jan 9, 2008 15:33:56 GMT -5
Wouldn't MLB want to keep Clemens clean too? I don't think there's a super conspiracy here. Clemens was just unlucky enough to have HIS supplier get caught and have to rat him out. He's not alone. Pettitte's admission was everything here. Let's also not forget that CLEMENS brought McNamee to the Yankees. Is it believable that Clemens' pal gave steroids to Pettitte, but not his best pal? you do know that andy admitted to using TWICE, while on the DiSABLED LIST. he was probably nowhere near roger clemens. so why since andy says he is guilty, do you continue to paint roger with the same brush. you need evidence to convict roger, not a guilty plea from his friend. you are such a fuckin moron.
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Jan 9, 2008 15:34:57 GMT -5
No, Larry, its just METSSUCKBALLS thinking.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Jan 9, 2008 15:57:42 GMT -5
So do you honestly think that McNamee is lying about Clemens, but telling the truth about Pettitte?
We HAVE evidence to convict Roger--the testimony of a credible witness.
The Andy Pettitte stuff in the Mitchell Report begins on page 175.
On page 176, McNamee mentions that he injected Pettitte 2 to 4 times while he was on the DL in 2002.
In other words, Pettitte admitted to exactly what was in the Mitchell Report. He was not accused of more. Yes, Clemens was accused of more, but Pettitte basically said that McNamee was telling the truth with regards to him.
In other words, McNamee's word is credible.
|
|
$heriff Tom
Administrator
Groom ba ya ya ya
Posts: 16,173
|
Post by $heriff Tom on Jan 9, 2008 16:02:21 GMT -5
So do you honestly think that McNamee is lying about Clemens, but telling the truth about Pettitte?
What does one thing have to do with another? A guy trying to show off can admit to sleeping with a girl while telling the truth about it, and throwing in another girl as a lie. Also, its akin to telling the truth about what you ate for lunch, but lying about what you ate for dinner to sound more fancy.
Why does telling the truth about one thing lock down anything else being discussed from that point?
As to the "credible witness" crap, I just pointed out where the authorities are flat-out saying this guy has lied in regards to legal matters before. That chips a few stones away from your credibilty edifice.
|
|
MSBNYY
Administrator
El Guapo
Posts: 15,545
|
Post by MSBNYY on Jan 9, 2008 16:34:02 GMT -5
It's the same witness in the same testimony. One of them is lying. One player, against his own interest, admitted that McNamee was telling the truth. The other player, whose reputation and legacy are now in the toilet, is disputing the claim.
Pettitte's admission makes it no longer one word against the other. McNamee has been backed up.
McNamee has incentive to tell the truth. If he is caught lying, he goes to jail. If he is going to lie, you really think he would choose ROGER CLEMENS to lie about? Yeah, no attention there.
If you want to believe Clemens, whose body language was analysed by a federal terrorist expert and was found to be lying, over a guy who had every reason to come clean and who was backed up by Clemens' best friend, that's your business. But sometimes things are exactly what they seem.
|
|