• Roger Clemens Verdict Reached

    Posted by on June 18th, 2012 · Comments (15)

    Stay tuned.

    Update:  Another win for Clemens.

    Comments on Roger Clemens Verdict Reached

    1. MJ Recanati
      June 18th, 2012 | 5:00 pm

      What a colossal waste of time that entire trial was. Clemens might’ve lied under oath — I imagine that he did — but a good prosecutor always knows when a trial isn’t worth the effort because the probabilities of a guilty verdict are low.

      How could the prosecutors think that McNamee’s character and the chain-of-custody questions were not going to sink them?

    2. June 18th, 2012 | 5:29 pm

      If you have enough money and lawyers on your side, you can always win. OJ walked. And, Brian Cashman was able to lock away his girlfriend at Rikers.

    3. #15
      June 18th, 2012 | 5:49 pm

      The politicians, and their handservants at DOJ need to have their heads examined for grandstanding, and even for delving into this topic in the first place. What a waste of my money. Roger Clemens was not an elected official that violated the public trust or stole wealth/injured other people. Remember, the prosecution had two shots at this. First a mistrial because they couldn’t keep their mouths shut after the judges instructions, now this. What incompetence. Looks/sounds like they are about to do similar nonsense when it comes to boxing scoring. A top Dem and a top Repub in the Senate are both beating their chests for federal investigations. Stay out of our lives. We can chose to watch, or not watch these guys play sports and draw our own conclusions about their performance and behavoir. Reminds me of the comedian that said… “Look, I’ll take care of making sure my tray table is in the upright position; you guys fix that debt thing.”

      I also think the highly flawed Mitchell report needs to go the way of the Dodo bird. It was a slanted, incomplete, selective prosecution of certain players and teams (excluding the Boston Red Sox, of course). Now, the truth is baseball had a huge PED problem and without the MLB’s investigations it probably doesn’t get fixed. But they should have leaned on the players union, told them here’s what we’ve got and we’ll go public if you don’t play along. However, since they couldn’t nail everyone that used PED’s it was not right for them to pick and chose certain players/teams to identify by name.

      If Roger is smart he’ll keep his mouth shut. Just say this has been a tough, costly process on him and his family and he’s glad it’s behind him and his reputation has been cleared. Then shut up. Chances are more than pretty good he got away with both using steroids and then being untruthful about it under oath. It’s time for a deep sigh of relief, not an end zone dance.

      The smart move here is to not gloat. No “I told you so” on 60 Minutes. Stay off ESPN. That type of selfless behavoir will greatly help his HOF bid, which decidely moved back on track after today.

    4. #15
      June 18th, 2012 | 5:57 pm

      @ Steve L.:
      Money always helps, but Clemens had less resources at his disposal than the feds.

    5. redbug
      June 18th, 2012 | 6:13 pm

      @ #15:

      Clemens already proved he’s not smart by insisting on testifying.

      I guess because of McNamee’s character and the beer can, the standard of a guilty verdict wasn’t possible. Plus, Clemens was able to afford an expensive atty. Regardless, I think it’s clear he lied to congress. Whether one thinks congress needn’t have gotten involved, it’s still a crime to lie under oath to them.

    6. #15
      June 18th, 2012 | 8:22 pm

      @ redbug:
      To paraphrase Tom Cruise to Demi Moore….
      “It’s not what I know, it’s what I can prove. Oh I forget, you were out the day they taught law in law school.” Red, I agree with your sentiments. As I said, he more than probably used and he more than probably lied about it. But the threshold for proving that he lied could not be met. That’s our legal standard and the fleet of federal prosecutors bouncing around like pinballs in this circus failed to clear the bar. It’s only a crime if you are convicted.

    7. Garcia
      June 18th, 2012 | 10:19 pm

      redbug wrote:

      Whether one thinks congress needn’t have gotten involved, it’s still a crime to lie under oath to them.

      Great job, very succinct.

      Anyhow…Steve, What is it that they say: don’t spit into the wind. ;-)

      I can’t stop laughing at this post: http://waswatching.com/2012/05/23/bold-yankees-related-prediction/

      I love even more the amended prediction (check the comment section) too. I’m sure your next post will be that the Yanks will lose in the ALDS, so it doesn’t matter how well they are playing right now because they’ll be bounced like in 2005, 2006, 2007, 2008 (no playoffs), 2011. What does 2012 have in store for the Yanks?

    8. Evan3457
      June 19th, 2012 | 9:28 am

      Re: Clemens

      Did he use PED? I’m pretty sure he did.

      Did he lie to Congress? I’m pretty sure he did.

      Should Congress involve itself in setting perjury traps for athletes over steroid use? No f’in way. I’m sorry Clemens won, although he’s legally entitled to win, I guess. But I’m glad Congress and the Justice Department lost.

      As for the Hall of Fame, as of now, there’s no way guys like Clemens, Bonds, Sosa, A-Rod, Palmeiro and McGwire will get elected. However, this situation will change dramatically the first time a player no one suspects of using PED gets elected to the Hall, then decides to set the record straight and comes out and admits using them, and also decides not to “resign” from the Hall.

      As there is no expulsion mechanism, an acknowledged PED cheat will be in the Hall. At that point, the rationale for keeping out the openly acknowledged PED users completely evaporates, and either the writers or, eventually, some veterans committee or other will put the Bonds-Clemens-Sosa-ARod group in the Hall.

    9. MJ Recanati
      June 19th, 2012 | 9:37 am

      Steve L. wrote:

      If you have enough money and lawyers on your side, you can always win. OJ walked.

      More or less true, although your statement underestimates both the competence (or lack thereof) of the prosecution and the facts of the case.

      In the matter of US vs. Roger Clemens, the DOJ didn’t have a strong enough case to win so the matter should never have been brought to trial. Moreover, even if you believe that there was a winning case for the government to present, they clearly didn’t prepare their witnesses well enough to overcome questions of credibility which suggests that no matter how much money a defendant might have, it doesn’t take much to win when you’re squaring off against the ill-prepared.

      Steve L. wrote:

      And, Brian Cashman was able to lock away his girlfriend at Rikers

      That has nothing to do with money. She is being charged with a felony and the decision to arrest her and charge her with a crime was made by the district attorney’s office, not the front office of the New York Yankees. Once again, you miss making a good point by adding in factually inaccurate editorial commentary that has no relevance.

    10. MJ Recanati
      June 19th, 2012 | 9:39 am

      #15 wrote:

      To paraphrase Tom Cruise to Demi Moore….
      “It’s not what I know, it’s what I can prove. Oh I forget, you were out the day they taught law in law school.” Red, I agree with your sentiments. As I said, he more than probably used and he more than probably lied about it. But the threshold for proving that he lied could not be met. That’s our legal standard and the fleet of federal prosecutors bouncing around like pinballs in this circus failed to clear the bar. It’s only a crime if you are convicted.

      Yep. Love that movie, by the way.

    11. MJ Recanati
      June 19th, 2012 | 9:42 am

      Evan3457 wrote:

      However, this situation will change dramatically the first time a player no one suspects of using PED gets elected to the Hall, then decides to set the record straight and comes out and admits using them, and also decides not to “resign” from the Hall.

      It’ll also change as the BBWAA roster turns over. Younger members (and people that are not yet members but will join the membership over the next few years) will have a more nuanced view of the so-called Steroids Era than the current group of electors.

      Self-righteousness tends to increase with both age and job security and the BBWAA has a fair number of geezers whose membership card is not in jeopardy. I figure Clemens gets in about 12-14 years from now.

    12. #15
      June 19th, 2012 | 11:10 am

      It’s been a while since I read it, and I did read it, but the Mitchell report leans largely on McNamee as it relates to Clemens. A jury (and even the Feds aren’t claiming they were biased) hears all the facts and concludes there is reasonable doubt that McNamee is telling the truth. McNamee’s ex substantiates his lack of veracity on key points. Pettitte claims he’s 50-50 on what he heard/remembered, taking that line of “proof” down in flames. The jury concluded this without knowing that McNamee apparently slipped some women a Mickey at one point. Fun with chemistry.

      So the BBWAA will not vote for Clemens for the HOF because after all this they “feel like” he used PED’s???? Because they “believe” the findings of the Mitchell Report??? That’s the kind of arbitrary nonsense that argues for removing them from the conversation. If Clemens had been found guilty in this trial, then case closed. He’d have been certified as a liar about how he conducted his baseball career and a convicted felon to boot. “No HOF for you!” As of today, with all of the resources at their disposal, the feds could not prove Clemens lied, and after ~10 weeks of testimony, the jury punched ‘em out in ~ 10 hours.

      Clemens never admitted using steroids. He put his liberty and wealth on the line to prove it and he won. There is no righteous reason to exclude him from the HOF. This despite the fact that I or anyone else might feel that he used PEDS. To help frame my perspective on this… I think Pete Rose doesn’t belong in the HOF (during his lifetime). The rules were clear. He broke the rules. The facts proved he broke the rules. He lied about it for years when he could have come clean and repaired his reputation. Then he eventually admitted he broke the rules. Pete Rose, along with Thurman, was a hugely influential figure in my early life. They both brought an approach to the game that I sum up as follows… “You may be better than me, but I’m going to beat you because I want it more than you do.” For me, that carried beyond the ballpark. Despite my admiration for Rose on the field, his actions rightly resulted in him being banned from baseball for life. I bring this up to point out that I’m not one to say that a player deserves to get in HOF entirely on what he did on the field. There are other factors that need to be considered. But in Clemens’ case, there is enough information to dismiss both the Mitchell report and McNamee’s claims when considering his fitness for the HOF. Without those two clouds hanging over him, he ought to get in.

    13. redbug
      June 19th, 2012 | 6:25 pm

      @ #15:

      Rose didn’t get indicted and have to go before a jury. As you said in an earlier post, it’s a different standard. I think most people who watch the game believe Clemens used steroids and lied to congress. Perhaps most of us who do if put on that jury would’ve agreed w/ the not guilty verdict. But, “not guilty” isn’t the same as innocent, even in a courtroom. Andy’s testimony probably sunk the prosecuters. (That was troublesome to me. His wife recalled Andy telling her what Clemens told Andy at the time. Now Andy says maybe Clemens was talking about his wife??)

      I don’t think the cloud is off Clemens in the court of public opinion or w/ the writers. They’re not held to the same standard as the jurors. That not guilty verdict hasn’t changed my mind.

    14. #15
      June 19th, 2012 | 7:25 pm

      @ redbug:
      Fair enough. That’s a reasonable take.

      Rose didn’t get indicted because he was not charged with a crime (although he could have been from the gambling side). He broke baseball’s rules and suffers baseball’s consequences.

      I’m interested in why, based on what you saw on the field, you think Clemens used steroids. Before you answer, look up Nolan Ryan’s stats and Randy Johnson’s stats. Roger was very good for very long, but his performance was not in the “never been anything like this before” catagory, ala Bonds. Rare? Sure. Unquestionable proof of steroid use. Probably not. Lacking an admission or hard proof, I think a tie goes to the runner in this case.

    15. Raf
      June 19th, 2012 | 7:30 pm

      #15 wrote:

      I’m interested in why, based on what you saw on the field, you think Clemens used steroids.

      Because he was bigger at 40 than he was at 20 :P

    Leave a reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.