| Roger Clemens
Posted: 1/8/2008 8:35:12 AM | "He wanted to prove that Macnamee was lying and I think he proved it."
You must have listened to a different phone conversation than I did. It sounded like two people trying to get information off each other without saying anything. Nowhere in that phone conversation does McNamee say "I lied" or "I know you're innocent", even though Clemens spent 17 minutes trying to get him to say exactly that.
Anyone who says that phone conversation proves Clemens' innocence is only saying that because they want to believe that Clemens is innocent. Not that there's anything wrong with that. Quite frankly, I think it's refreshing that people are siding with the athlete. That's cool. (Of course, you realize he's guilty as hell  ) | |
|
| Roger Clemens
Posted: 1/8/2008 9:05:53 AM | | clemens hands were tied legally. he could not give the appearance of leading the witness. that is why there are all the awkward pauses after mcnamee asks clemens what do you want me to do, because he cannot tell him what he wants him to do. it would be considered tampering in his pending case against mcnamee. clemens also took that call in front of his legal counsel so if you think he appeared guarded your right. all the points you make prairie smileys can be turned right around at you. mcnamee never says i know you did steroids or you know i injected you with them. anyone who says that conversation proves clemens guilt is only saying that because they want to see him proven guilty, like you. i for one do want to see him proven innocent in the court of public opinion. i am not very excited about a baseball hero being crucified unjustly. you think its refreshing that people are siding with the atlete? which atlete are you referring to because all the atletes i know of are guilty in the public majoritys opinion. | |
|
| Roger Clemens
Posted: 1/8/2008 9:56:38 AM | what are you talking about nick? This was a PHONE CONVERSATION...not a testimony. Clemens could say or ask whatever he wanted to.
And once again (this is really getting redundant), you fail to read my posting...like I said, it sounded like TWO people trying to get information FROM EACH OTHER without saying anything. Where do I say the phone conversation proves his guilt? Ummm...nowhere. The poster I was replying to said that the phone call was made to prove his innocence and all I said was that it didn't achieve that.
" i am not very excited about a baseball hero being crucified unjustly."
And yet you've been crucifying Barry Bonds ever since I first saw you posting on here. But I suppose because you think it's justifiable, that makes it OK.
"you think its refreshing that people are siding with the atlete? which atlete are you referring to because all the atletes i know of are guilty in the public majoritys opinion."
I was referring to the way you and others are siding with Clemens. Gee, I didn't think that was very hard to figure out. Hmmm...I bet those who actually took the time to ingest what I said, rather than jump all over me for it, probably recognized that I was applauding YOU fishernick, among others, for siding with Clemens. Pardon me for giving you props dude. | |
|
| Roger Clemens
Posted: 1/8/2008 10:18:57 AM | | you are the one not reading my posts, i read all your misinformed babble. prairie smileys you completely missed the boat about what i said about the phone call. i will try to make it a little clearer for you since you could not understand my point the first time through. in texas you can legally introduce a taped phone conversation with only one of the parties being aware of the recording. it most states both parties need to be aware of the recording for it to be admissable in court. so it was not just a PHONE CONVERSATION like you said it was knowingly recorded to be used as evidence in court. clemens recieved this phone call in front of his legal counsel and was coached as to what he could say or do. so you are absolutley wrong about clemens being able to say whatever he wanted. so if you can grasp the legality issues i just explained to you then you might begin to understand why clemens was pausing so often and not directly answering mcnamees question "what do you want me to do , roger" that was a question he legally could not answer. it can be viewed as tampering or baiting if clemens coached mcnamee. he has a pending defamation suit against mcnamee. i have provided the evidence that i believe shows the difference betweeen the clemens and bonds situations in my previous posts. i am ready to crucify bonds because i believe the evidence is overwhelming and the fact that he has ignored all the accusations furthers my opinion of his guilt. roger still gets the benefit of the doubt from me because i feel the evidence to prove his guilt has not been provided as of yet | |
|
| Roger Clemens
Posted: 1/8/2008 10:35:32 AM | | ya know fish, i read a lot of shit on these posts. and i refrain from name calling but in this case i gotta say: you are one dumb motherphucker. and i'll bet i'm not alone in that opinion. get a phuckin' clue dumbass. | |
|
| Roger Clemens
Posted: 1/8/2008 10:59:49 AM | ouch nasty, i am crying a little that hurt me so deeply. so what was that a little too complicated for you to follow? why dont you explain yourself about what i am being so "dumb" about. you bring nothing of merit to the "debate" like usual. just calling me names, and for the record you usually do not refrain from name calling. its well established in your past behavior. go have a and then another because that seems to be the only thing you are at peace with | |
|
| Roger Clemens
Posted: 1/8/2008 11:33:55 AM | And tell me...how admissible is a phone conversation in a court AFTER it's been presented to the mass public? It's not. It's no longer evidence. It has been played for everyone to hear, thereby tainting any possiblility of it not being pre-judged evidence. Those tapes were never made for court. They were made for the public to hear.
Clemens was being coached by his lawyers in the effort to make him "sound" as innocent as possible. It didn't make him sound any more innocent, or guilty, than before...just made him look really stupid.
"i just explained to you then you might begin to understand why clemens was pausing so often and not directly answering mcnamees question "what do you want me to do , roger" that was a question he legally could not answer."
Excuse me? Now it was illegal for Clemens to answer questions? What the heck are you talking about? He could LEGALLY answer any question he wanted to...he didn't answer those questions simply because, as you say in not so many words, he didn't want to incriminate himself any more than he already has.
And again, with the Bonds thing...I iterate...apparently because it's OK in the eyes of fishernick, there's nothing wrong with crucifying Bonds. But dare anyone crucify one of your heros.
You are a walking contradiction, fishernick. Thanks for clearing that up for eveyone....but then again, most people who have read your drivel realizes that by now. You know, you whine and crap your pants whenever anyone calls you down, but you have no problem getting personal with others on these boards. It's really quite humorous. | |
|
| Roger Clemens
Posted: 1/8/2008 11:49:04 AM | | you once again missed the point that clemens COULD NOT say whatever he wanted. it does not matter if the tape was made for use in public or traditional court. it was still the invention of clemens legal team and they were obligated to follow legal procedure in many areas. no its not illegal for clemens to answer question mcnamee poses but it could damage his defamation suit, so he was advised not to lead mcnamee(which any lawyer worth their salt would of told him). i explained it very clearly in my previous post, if you only choose to understand what you want then so be it. i am not about to attempt to explain that again, just refer to previous post. i also have explained my opinion on the difference between bonds and clemens and all one needs to do is retrace this post and others to see why i believe there is a significant difference between bonds and clemens. bonds was one of my heros and was even bigger in my life than the rocket which makes it all the more devastating to come to the realization that he most likely cheated. as for your last paragraph, i feel i stay on point. i could care less about how i am percieved by others in this forum. i post for myself not for what others in the cyber world might think. i only get personal in retaliation, i am not going to run with my tail between my legs when someone like you insults me. | |
|
| Roger Clemens
Posted: 1/8/2008 12:40:41 PM | ohhh....now according to you. it doesn't matter that the tape was made for public use. Well then, if it doesn't matter, why was he being coached? If it doesn't matter, why could he not "Legally" ask the questions? If it doesn't matter, then he should be able to ask whatever he wanted to.
Gawd...making you backtrack on your words is easier than predicting the winner of a Patriot/Dolphins game.
"i only get personal in retaliation, i am not going to run with my tail between my legs when someone like you insults me."
Well...at least you admit you have a tail. 
"i only get personal in retaliation"
BS...I'm not even going to bother scrolling back to where you started with the name calling to prove my point. Suffice it to say that you apologized for it once...turned all "born again Christian" or something like that, if memory serves me correctly.
PS...if you "could care less about what others think", that means you care. | |
|
| Roger Clemens
Posted: 1/8/2008 12:43:20 PM | | fisherdick, i've got a hundred dollar check to mail out if you can tell me who and when i've ever called anybody a name. only you you stupid son of a **** | |
|
| Roger Clemens
Posted: 1/8/2008 12:53:40 PM | | my fish have better reading comprehension skills than you do. in my opinion the tape was not made for either one specifically (public or traditional court) but for whatever one it suited best in retrospect. just because you obviously cannot understand the legal points i have made does not mean i am wrong, those are not opinions of mine they are facts. backtracking, all your statements are empty and faceless. i honestly could care less about what you or others think about me (thats a slang phrase not intended to be taken literally) but if you care i would seriously consider your future statements considering you have appeared borderline brain damaged recently. your smileys and juvenile attempts at humor are old and played out. try something of substance from now on. | |
|
| Roger Clemens
Posted: 1/8/2008 12:55:22 PM | | I think I can give a more objective opinion because I'm neither a fan or hater of Clemens well if anything I dislike him a little (He was an ass#@%$ with the Blue Jays). I think he is innocent. Just because Macnemee says he injected hgh doesn't mean that it DID happened. The same with Clemens saying it DID NOT happen, but you're innocent until proven guilty and one man's word over another is not good enough to prove guilt. The evidence presented so far would make Clemens innocent. I'm sorry if that makes Clemens bashers unhappy, but until conclusive evidence is presented and it hasn't been so far that makes Clemens innocent. | |
|
| Roger Clemens
Posted: 1/9/2008 5:54:31 AM | For those of you bashing fishernick for saying that Clemens couldn't tell McNamee what he wanted him to do because it could get him accused of tampering with a witness, I offer you this:
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/22544886/
It's a good read on MSNBC. This part specifically applies to this debate:
"Before the call, Clemens had been warned not to say anything that could get him accused of tampering with a federal witness, which is why Hardin said Clemens steered clear of telling McNamee what he wanted him to do."
fishernick is exactly right about the taped conversation, while some posters have spent the better part of a page trying to make him look like an idiot for saying so.
I think the moral is to make sure you're actually right before you tell someone else that they're wrong. | |
|
| Roger Clemens
Posted: 1/9/2008 9:46:40 AM | | today a report was released by clemens chiropractor that treated clemens while he was with the bluejays and after. his doctor, patrick graham says " i didnt notice any rashes, acne or increased muscle mass or structure". granted this is not irrefutibly evidence but it is just another piece of the puzzle. his doctor even goes on to say that he thought his sucess in toronto was due to the addition of the split finger fast ball which redefined his career and became his weapon of choice. in his doctors opinion he says " i just dont think he was on steroids". | |
|
Pucks
|
Joined: 10/14/2006
Msg: 165 | |
| Roger Clemens
Posted: 1/9/2008 10:56:38 AM | ^^^not sure how credible a chiropractor is over say a physcian?
Irregardless, i wonder how much Clemons paid this chiropractor to make this statement
I just find it very odd how large Clemons got as he aged...If you look back to his 80's pics compared to his late 90's early 2000's pics...there vastly different...how did he gain so much bulk? | |
|
| Roger Clemens
Posted: 1/9/2008 1:08:38 PM | | majority of people are so pessimistic. how did he gain so much bulk? he didnt gain that much bulk, considering he played 24 years. i am not sure of the exact amount of weight he gained but he ended his career at 230 and i will guess he weighed at least 180 minimum when he started his pro career in 1984. this is a man who trained like a mad man, regardless of PED use. omg he gained weight over a 24 year period. i know thats not natural, no one gains weight as they age. only PEDs users gain weight. if a case was made against clemens for PEDs use the only evidance that is currently available is one mans word against another. i personally would not want to be convicted of something with one mans word being the entirity of the evidance. people should demand more before they cast doubt on clemens as the majority are doing now. | |
|
Pucks
|
Joined: 10/14/2006
Msg: 167 | |
| Roger Clemens
Posted: 1/9/2008 4:46:01 PM | | ^^^^even if your weight numbers were correct, 50lbs is a substantial amount of bulk of weight gain. Dont you see that? | |
|
| Roger Clemens
Posted: 1/9/2008 5:20:12 PM | | I gained 40 pounds in 6 months when I started a highly dedicated training regimen, well before I could tell you the differences between halotestin, dianabol and anadrol. It's called food and it works miracles! | |
|
| Roger Clemens
Posted: 1/9/2008 5:25:14 PM | | like i said in my post that i guessed about his weight in 1984, and i was wrong. after a more in depth search i found his declared weight on his baseball cards as 205 pounds in 1984. so he has gained a whopping 25 pounds in two and a half decades. dont you see that? why do you ask such ridiculous questions? no i dont see that, i am arguing that i dont think it is such a monumental weight gain that its indicitive of PEDs usage. anyway much to my delight its only 25 pounds, so all the people saying that his head grew and his bodytype changed are misinformed, to put it nicely | |
|
Pucks
|
Joined: 10/14/2006
Msg: 170 | |
| Roger Clemens
Posted: 1/9/2008 5:38:59 PM | ^^^well go hard their fish.
You can spew your stuff about Roger's innocence. I dont believe it yet...I have read nothing that states otherwise.
Too funny, how you can bash Bonds but good old Roger is so clean.
| |
|
| Roger Clemens
Posted: 1/10/2008 12:10:34 AM |
You can spew your stuff about Roger's innocence. I dont believe it yet...I have read nothing that states otherwise.
Shouldn't Clemens be considered innocent until some definite proof comes forward he took PEDs, as opposed to considering him guilty until he can prove his innocence? The onus is on the accuser to prove the guilt of the accused. If an accusation is all it takes to make someone guilty, then we'd have a ton of people found guilty of things they didn't do. | |
|
| Roger Clemens
Posted: 1/10/2008 12:23:12 AM | .....as i've recently heard.....Clemens, Pettitt, Knoblauch (all Yanks)...will have to now testify before the Feds........................they will have to face certain questions that they've so far not given answers to, and do so under oath!!!
......Clemens phone call with Macn means nothing in terms of gauging his innocence.....it was a shot in the dark attempt by his lawyers to entice Macn to retract his statement in some shape or form....but it didn't happen.
......all you can do now is speculate!..........if you look at Clemens improved peformance, wgt gain, etc (in the late 90's)....it indirectly suggests that some form of chemical intervention took place!!!!........thus, IMO i believe he was juicing!
....what is yet to unfold will be interesting!
--------------------------------------------------------------
btw.....a chiropractic's statement in regards to determining whether or not a person is using PED is about as useful as that of a witch-doctor!....its worth titz on a bull! | |
|
| Roger Clemens
Posted: 1/10/2008 8:48:37 AM | | i can spew about his innocence. thats your best argument yet pukes and that smiley icon really put your argument over the top. why do you even bother to post something if you cant put at least the slightest amount of thought into it? 25 pounds gained over a 24 year career fact not spew. clemens did incorporate his split finger fastball into his arsenal which redefined his career. he also had a very poor relationship with the sox and battled a few injuries in his years before toronto. the difference with roger is that he had already proven that he was an MVP, CY young caliber pitcher previously (previous to the 90s). he had a transitional period between his accepting that he could no longer just overpower people to having to pitch a more intelligent game as ALL power pictures eventually have to do. the split finger to this day is his number one out pitch | |
|
Pucks
|
Joined: 10/14/2006
Msg: 174 | |
| Roger Clemens
Posted: 1/10/2008 12:36:55 PM | "as opposed to considering him guilty until he can prove his innocence?
The onus is on the accuser to prove the guilt of the accused"
yes generally speaking...But imo, in this case, since the revelation of Senator Mitchell's report its now on Clemens to prove his didnt juice up. | |
|
| Roger Clemens
Posted: 1/10/2008 12:55:17 PM | | now it turns out that the most trusted man in america (for absolutley no reason at all) was accused of rape in 2001. security at the hotel asked him to stop having sex with a women and he refused so security called the police. in the meantime security stated in police reports that they heard the women saying "no". when the police arrive mcnammee appears to be helping the women out of the pool who appears groggy an incoherant to the police. she remembers nothing about the pool. police find GHB(date rape drug) in her water and in her system. in a report by detective donald crotty he states that mcnamee lied to him. saying he was trying to save the womens life, when several witnesses (security and patrons) saw him having sex with the women and thats documented. i dont know why this case was not prosecuted but the yankees let him go immediatley after this incident occured. this is the man that so many are willing to throw clemens under the bus for. | |
|
Home
login 
