| pety posters
Posted: 1/6/2008 10:09:27 AM | some poster don't understand the difference between illegal and BANNED substances. and these same posters will ramble on about moral compasses and crumbling humanity etc.... yet they would never call a guy who corks his bat or uses a spitball or steals signals or bets against his own team as a manger a cheater. they would have you believe that it is gamemanship. illegal substances and banned substances are NOT the same thing. heroin illegal, testosterone banned. there will be a quiz later! | |
|
| pety posters
Posted: 1/6/2008 10:13:11 AM | | My apologies - by "illegal" I meant "banned". | |
|
| pety posters
Posted: 1/6/2008 12:28:34 PM | | don't worry 'bout it. i'm just a little salty today. i'm taking down my christmas shit and every year i say the same thing . " why do i even bother putting it up?" so i take a break, have a beer and get on here and b itch. | |
|
| pety posters
Posted: 1/6/2008 1:12:31 PM | | if something is banned from a sport it is technically illegal within the sport. you are like a lawyer trying to get off on a technicality when everyone knows your client is guilty. follow the bouncing ball and try not to get distracted by the shiny lights. filthy you are always in a bad mood, the christmas thing is just the excuse of the day enjoy | |
|
| pety posters
Posted: 1/6/2008 5:07:22 PM | | you might be right about the mood thing | |
|
| pety posters
Posted: 1/6/2008 9:19:34 PM | | i think i get it now though, using a banned substance is illegal just as scuffing a ball with an emory board and such is illegal. both illegal with in the sport and therefore the same thing. a=b,b=c,a=c.......hmmm... when do we start weeding the rulebreakers out of the hall? i'll have another | |
|
| Roger Clemens
Posted: 1/7/2008 9:14:40 AM | | last night i watched the clemens interview on 60 minutes. i wanted to get a feel as to his innocence or guilt. i think he presented himself as best he could given the legal ramifications that he had to tip toe around. its basically one persons word against another. so why is clemens already guilty in the majoritys opinion? this macnamee or whoever this person is that i never heard of before any of this surfaced is single handedly destroying the career of one of the best pitchers to ever play the game. i think it is a shame that a man with rogers reputation is not given the benefit of the doubt against a man trying to avoid jail time. its the same situation with bonds except there are more finger pointers than just one. i guess america needs to see there heros destroyed and that makes most feel better. i really dont get why these nobodys are granted the clout to destroy icons with no proof. | |
|
| Roger Clemens
Posted: 1/7/2008 9:24:24 AM | | I also saw the Clemen's interview. If it's one man's word over another's word, there is NO real evidence or proof that Clemens is guilty of using steroids. You're supposed to be innocent until proven guilty, so the lacking of evidence and proof would make Clemens innocent. | |
|
| Roger Clemens
Posted: 1/7/2008 10:04:49 AM | | i just saw a report that clemens is filing a defamation suit against mcnamee. mcnamees lawyers were threatening roger before the interview that they would sue him(for defamation) if he denied mcnamees statements. well he denied them during the interview and is on the attack. good for roger. i hope this ends with mcnamee being found guilty and thrown in jail. if he truly is making false statements against someone of the significance as roger then he needs to be made an example of | |
|
| Roger Clemens
Posted: 1/7/2008 10:23:13 AM | | this whole innocent until proven guilty concept is a basic human right in this country. but it really has no standing in the private workplace where employment is a not a right. i also saw the 60 min. piece and i thought clemens was hiding something. if he or any of these other guys had any balls they would stand up and say yeah i took this that or the other. and then spearhead the movement to make the shit an acceptable part of the game and regulated. eliminate the cloak and dagger bullshit that goes with baseballs shady traditions. but roger won't want to hurt his chances at the hall. stand up roger, barry,etc. be pioneer like curt flood, who made it possible for you guys to make the money you make today!!! | |
|
| Roger Clemens
Posted: 1/7/2008 10:43:50 AM | lol
yep
they owe it all to curt flood
asinine | |
|
| Roger Clemens
Posted: 1/7/2008 10:52:55 AM | | he is standing up for himself. he has done everything he could have to attempt to save his reputation. andy petite did have the balls to admit his wrongdoing. it the majority of people who are just like you nasty, guilty until proven innocent. you fit right in with the masses, believing whatever some nobody tells you over one of the best pictures in mlb ever. i will give him the benefit of the doubt but there will always be doubt there thanks to peoples willingness to accept the presses opinions and speculations as fact. | |
|
| Roger Clemens
Posted: 1/7/2008 11:08:42 AM | Hey I love the Rocket man, but where there's smoke there's usually fire. I didn't think he looked all that honest answering those questions, but I'm no forensics expert on human expressions. He could have but we don't know right now.
But i do remember a guy wheeling part of a bat at Mike Piazza and the same guy trying to tell the ump he meant to throw the ball. Ya Ok Roger. Why would you try to throw the ball at a baserunner. | |
|
| Roger Clemens
Posted: 1/7/2008 11:23:28 AM | | yeah there might be something to the bat incident or it may have been just a bonehead play. i've been a fan of rogers as well. so do we now have a big name white guy to go with barry in front of the firing squad? i mean we always heard the whispers some loud some not about po' barry being persecuted because he is a man of color. now clemens comes along with the same high level of professional pedigree . both guys at the very top of their positons as ball players and both more gifted naturally than any other at those same positions. | |
|
| Roger Clemens
Posted: 1/7/2008 11:29:34 AM | | yes he threw the bat at piazza and does that make him guilty of steroid use? he has always been a competitor and emotion would take over at times. do you think he would have been such a dominant force if he was a passive sheep. the only smoke that has been created was from a man trying to avoid jail time. people need to put themselves in his shoes and try to imagine being attacked by somebody word against word. the majority of the public accepting your guilt with no proof. its sad that the press can so effectively influence peoples opinions with absolutley NO PROOF AT ALL | |
|
| Roger Clemens
Posted: 1/7/2008 11:40:11 AM | except common sense
and the big thing steroids does is allow great players like bonds or clemens to compete-it doesn't in in itself make them better
clemens was a MUCH smarter pitcher-bonds was a MUCH smarter hitter-at 35 than 25
imagine having the physical wherewithal of a 25 yr old and the experience of a 35 yr old?
in a game like baseball
it didn't make them better-they were always great-it enabled them to take better advantage of their tools
clemens was washed up in boston-they basically cut him-and then plays like that for the jays
no proof-yet-except that we are reasonable human beings | |
|
| Roger Clemens
Posted: 1/7/2008 11:47:54 AM | | clemens was always great bonds was not. clemens has demonstrated a consistancy throughout his career. clemens was electric even before he was a MLB player. bonds transforms into superman in the later parts of his career, statistically and physically. if you want to base your case on assumptions then bonds is guilty and clemens is not. | |
|
| Roger Clemens
Posted: 1/7/2008 11:48:02 AM | | I believed the Mitchell Report when it first came out. I still believe that it is more likely than not that Clemens used steriods or HGH. The 60 mins. interview did little to change my mind since Roger was not under oath. However, lawsuits have been filed and Roger has been called before a grand jury. He will have to testify under oath then we will see what his story is. | |
|
| Roger Clemens
Posted: 1/7/2008 11:50:42 AM | hey fisher, it was ok when you guys did it to o.j. right? ....did i just read that right? that bonds has not always been great? the guy has never been a great human being but as a ball player you gotta be shitin' me. he was a better all around player before he got big. and at that he was better than any of his contemporaries. if you've never seen him play i could understand a ridiculous statement like that. i'll even ask you this, who was better than bonds? | |
|
| Roger Clemens
Posted: 1/7/2008 11:54:06 AM | | Why is O.J. mentioned in this thread? Did he use steriods or HGH too? | |
|
| Roger Clemens
Posted: 1/7/2008 11:55:49 AM | to fishernick
he won three STRAIGHT MVP awards starting in 1990
by 30 the closest player he statistically measured up against was FRANK ROBINSON
defensively-he was pretty good early on no? eight gold gloves in a row or something sick like that?
you may want to rethink your last post... | |
|
| Roger Clemens
Posted: 1/7/2008 11:57:21 AM | | pick- it was about "innocent until proven guilty" | |
|
| Roger Clemens
Posted: 1/7/2008 11:59:04 AM | | Ok thanks flthymcnsty. See the connection now. My response to that is that you are innocent until proven guilty in a court of law, not in public opinion. | |
|
| Roger Clemens
Posted: 1/7/2008 12:13:40 PM | | who won the 91 nl mvp? not barry. i am not saying he wasnt good, defensively he was awsome. he went from great to the best ever. can you deny the transformation that barry made. i cant, it was obvious. rogers career was more even keeled. quite a mvp drought though after 93 . 2001 was his next one, something happened around 1996 and by 2000 i think he had it perfected. this is all speculative though, there are no facts to date besides the record books | |
|
| Roger Clemens
Posted: 1/7/2008 12:32:57 PM | you just said he wasnt great dude! in your last post...and i quote.
"clemens was always great bonds was not."
now you are saying he went from great to the best ever.hmmmm.interesting.are you sure you are a dude because you argue like some women i know.
you are right about the mvp-90-92-93
but try arguing your point about him not being great?
who else can you name in the history of the sport who won three of four and isn't considered great?
coupled with the gold gloves....come on-back up your statement | |
|
Home
login 
