Roger Clemens’ Statement

"I want to state clearly and without qualification: I did not take
steroids, human growth hormone or any other banned substances at any
time in my baseball career or, in fact, my entire life.  Those substances represent a dangerous and destructive shortcut that
no athlete should ever take.

"I am disappointed that my 25 years in public life have apparently not
earned me the benefit of the doubt, but I understand that Senator
Mitchell’s report has raised many serious questions. I plan to publicly
answer all of those questions at the appropriate time in the
appropriate way. I only ask that in the meantime people not rush to

— Roger Clemens, in a statement released today through Randy Hendricks and reported via AP at, and others.

92 comments… add one
  • This is Clemens saying, basically….
    IT’S ON!
    This is certain to get more interesting now.

    LocklandSF December 18, 2007, 4:23 pm
  • I am disappointed that my 25 years in public life have apparently not earned me the benefit of the doubt
    Only one person to blame for that, Roger.

    Paul SF December 18, 2007, 4:28 pm
  • I’m stealing this from another board, but it’s funny…
    That prison softball team is going to be INSANE!

    LocklandSF December 18, 2007, 4:32 pm
  • That’s a pretty strong statement. Of course, Rafael Palmeiro made it pretty clear he had never taken steroids either.

    Jay-YF December 18, 2007, 4:43 pm
  • Isn’t denial one of the sure signs of an addiction? Let’s sign that boy up for A&E’s Intervention Series.

    Shawn December 18, 2007, 4:47 pm
  • Good. OK then. He said he didn’t do it so let’s all move on. I believe him…so…how about Joba, huh? Is he going to win 15 games next year or what???

    krueg December 18, 2007, 4:48 pm
  • he’s pathetic. his lawyer’s response is dripping in typical bs rhetoric. the reason why his trainer first denied the allegations is that he was a loyal friend to clemens. when faced with jailtime, the truth came out. piss on him, and his post-redsox career.

    jalen December 18, 2007, 4:50 pm
  • “Only one person to blame for that, Roger.”
    Yes. George Mitchell.

    YF December 18, 2007, 4:56 pm
  • The passion and contempt some people have towards this players without knowing 100% what the truth is, blows my mind. I am not saying you are wrong or right, but rather let’s just see how this all plays out. I would venture to say there will be more and there will be some people on that list cleared. Until then, scrutinize your own lives. I for one know that there are things I regret doing, that’s life though. Constant tweeking and learning. I try to stay quiet about this because I know I am in the minority, but I got that off my chest finally.

    John - YF December 18, 2007, 5:01 pm
  • Should be “these” players.

    John - YF December 18, 2007, 5:02 pm
  • Clemens is all about the definitive denials:
    “There was no intent. I was fired up and emotional and flung the bat toward the on-deck circle where the batboy was (during Game 2 of the 2000 World Series). I had no idea that Mike (Piazza) was running. I guess it came close to him. I came back into the dugout and I said I’ve got to get control of my emotions and calm down.”
    Can’t find the one about never going anywhere but Boston or Texas… I’m just tired of the Clemens shtick.

    Paul SF December 18, 2007, 5:09 pm
  • If Clemens really wants his 25 years of public life to give him the benefit of the doubt, then he needs to have 25 years of public life that would actually give people cause to give him the benefit of the doubt…

    Paul SF December 18, 2007, 5:11 pm
  • Ok, last post, I promise. I’m not saying Clemens did or didn’t do anything (though I think he did). I’m just saying his word is worth less than zero.

    Paul SF December 18, 2007, 5:14 pm
  • That’s a good point, the man has looked in to the camera/microphone and lied so many times to the public, I’m not sure where his benefit of the doubt has been earned.

    LocklandSF December 18, 2007, 5:16 pm
  • ” piss on him, and his post-redsox career.”
    I love this. He only sucked, lied, and cheated after he left the red sox. Sure buddy.

    sam-YF December 18, 2007, 5:17 pm
  • I think the key point, raised here by yours truly, and elsewhere by the likes of John Thorn, Howard Bryant, Jayson Stark, Tim Marchman, and countless others, is that we should never have been been subjected to this report in the first place. As for “benefit of the doubt,” you can either give it to Clemens or you can give it to an admitted drug dealer who implicated him without providing any physical evidence while under pressure from a Federal prosecutor.

    YF December 18, 2007, 5:37 pm
  • “while under pressure from a Federal prosecutor”
    This is something of a red herring. Today’s Times had commentary from legal experts asserting that the testimony was MORE compelling under the circumstances.
    I am sick of this bullshit line – “the Feds made him do it”. McNamee has as much credibility on this subject, considering Pettitte’s admission, as Clemens.

    SF December 18, 2007, 5:44 pm
  • “we should never have been been subjected to this report in the first place”
    Speak for yourself, please.

    SF December 18, 2007, 5:45 pm
  • OK, YF, fair enough, so….
    Do you think Clemens EVER took steroids, or HGH, or any form of PED in his entire life?

    LocklandSF December 18, 2007, 5:46 pm
  • Does the Grimsley affadavit constitute “corroborating evidence”?
    Does morphing from
    suggest anything to anyone?
    How about the fact that the other guy that McNamee named has admitted to exactly what McNamee claimed? Under “duress from federal prosecutors”, he tells the truth about Pettitte but makes up a complete story about Clemens?

    soxgirl December 18, 2007, 6:12 pm
  • > Does the Grimsley affadavit constitute “corroborating evidence”?
    > Does morphing from … to … suggest anything to anyone?
    Not to me.
    >How about the fact that the other guy that McNamee named has admitted to exactly what McNamee claimed
    It is relevant to Pettitte but only interesting, not binding, regarding Clemens. I would rather wait.

    attackgerbil December 18, 2007, 6:22 pm
  • AG – That is definitely your right. But I gotta ask – did you/do you take the same wait and see attitude towards Barry Bonds?

    soxgirl December 18, 2007, 6:25 pm
  • I agree with SF here, completely (and Mike Lupica, amazingly). To me, the McNamee evidence is MORE compelling because he was facing serious jail time if he didn’t tell the truth.
    Defense attorneys always try this tactic in court in an attempt to undermine the credibility of a prosecutor’s witness. “Is it true you are testifying today in exchange for a reduced sentence in another case?” It never works. The juries still convict.

    Paul SF December 18, 2007, 6:26 pm
  • i think its interesting to see some Sox fans so willing to throw clemens under a bus and I truely wonder if one of their own star players were named in the same fashion under the same circumstances if they would be singing the same tune. It seems to me easier to determine someone is guilty and argue the points for it if he doesnt play for your own team or better yet if he plays for the rival squad…

    sam-YF December 18, 2007, 6:28 pm
  • I make that point in the context of knowing many giants fans who for years defended Bonds. I think that most would like to be objective here and some people are more so than others but its just easier to see someone as guilty when you have no stake in his defense.
    I for one have no idea what Clemens did or didnt do, i certainly have my suspicions but at this point I do feel that he deserves at least his side to be heard.

    sam-YF December 18, 2007, 6:33 pm
  • > did you/do you take the same wait and see attitude towards Barry Bonds?
    Fair question. I did wait on Bonds. I’m still waiting. I have attempted to have objective arguments with myself about how I would feel if the Yankees signed Bonds as a DH. That argument didn’t go well for either of me.
    I am less vehement in my decrying of acknowledged PED users than any baseball fan I know in person, and at least now, I’m ardently opposed to any official or criminal sanction against past users. I’ll write a longer answer later.

    attackgerbil December 18, 2007, 6:34 pm
  • sam-YF – I completely agree. That’s why I’m asking if everyone who wants to give Roger the benefit of the doubt is willing to do the same thing for Barry.

    soxgirl December 18, 2007, 6:35 pm
  • I love this:
    > “I plan to publicly answer all of those questions at the appropriate time in the appropriate way.”
    ‘Cause, you know, it takes a lot of time to craft the truth.

    Robin December 18, 2007, 6:50 pm
  • I for one have given Bonds the benefit of the doubt since the beginning. The reality of what Clemens and/or Bonds has done in order to maintain their exceptional careers is definitely in question and, though I doubt we will ever actually know the extent to which they did or did not use PEDs, should be looked at as evenly as possible.
    Considering the testimony from McNamee alleges that Clemens did literal butt loads of steroids on a handful of occasions and as far as we know NEVER failed any kind of drug test is important. It’s important because we don’t know how those two facts can coexist. I say that knowing full well that there could be very reasonable explanations for that but those explanations are not implicit nor have they been detailed as part of the allegation.
    Just one of those “thoughts” I’ve had.

    walein December 18, 2007, 6:52 pm
  • Robin–
    It takes “appropriate time” and “appropriate way”s because there are all kinds of ramifications and questions that will have to be answered.
    1) Legal action?
    2) Baseball action?
    3) Family situation.
    Each on of those things branch out into lots of other questions and one wouldn’t want to just start saying things that could be twisted or hurt ones ability to properly get ones side of the story out.

    walein December 18, 2007, 6:56 pm
  • Robin–
    It takes “appropriate time” and “appropriate way”s because there are all kinds of ramifications and questions that will have to be answered.
    1) Legal action?
    2) Baseball action?
    3) Family situation.
    Each on of those things branch out into lots of other questions and one wouldn’t want to just start saying things that could be twisted or hurt ones ability to properly get ones side of the story out.

    walein December 18, 2007, 6:56 pm
  • Why not wait to see what he has to say? What, really, did he do to Red Sox fans to make them hate him so vehemently? I don’t really see Pirates fans taking every opportunity they could to trash Bonds.
    Did Clemens publicly piss on a small-scale model of Fenway Park? Did he burn a Red Sox uniform? Did he do what he never did in Boston and win multiple championships with their hated rival? (oh, there it is)

    AndrewYF December 18, 2007, 7:11 pm
  • On another note, Buster Olney reports that Pettitte is unlikely to face any kind of punishment for his abbreviated use of HGH in 2002. The biggest reason probably being that MLB had no punishment system in place for substance abuse until 2003.

    AndrewYF December 18, 2007, 7:14 pm
  • I honestly don’t really give much of a crap about what Clemens did or did not do; we’re never going to know. And absent any kind of context (what percentage of players were using), I have no way to give it any kind of perspective. The whole discussion is pointless. When the evidence was is so thin (much of it compelled hearsay from a few sources), why bother naming names at all? It’s silly. And it’s massively counterproductive. There was no testing scheme for years because ownership (represented here by Mitchell, make no mistake) for so many years abused the trust of its labor force that labor has quite understandably taken a fairly intransigent stance on the matter. So now we have a commission that’s going to hang a few selected players out to dry, many based on really weak evidence, while giving the Commissioner a pass. That he’s considering handing out suspensions–what a joke. The whole thing is a fiasco. A misguided attempt to go back in time and correct the uncorrectable.

    YF December 18, 2007, 7:17 pm
  • YF – I couldn’t help myself – I went back and checked your reaction to Bonds hitting 756 and I have to say I admire your consistency. I’m not a huge fan of Clemens or Bonds but I do think they have to be treated about the same and I don’t see too many people doing it. Kudos.

    rootbeerfloat December 18, 2007, 7:25 pm
  • And on a hilarious note, some insight from our favorite New York fan Carl:

    AndrewYF December 18, 2007, 7:33 pm
  • Actually, I don’t dislike Roger. He’s given me a lot of enjoyment (when he was losing, granted). ;) And I’ll be interested to hear what he has to say. I know he can’t prove a negative, but if he can back up his denial in any meaningful way, great. I just don’t have a lot of patience with the “I’ll explain it all later when my lawyer says it’s OK” technique of asking for people’s faith. That’s all.

    Robin December 18, 2007, 7:36 pm
  • “I just don’t have a lot of patience with the “I’ll explain it all later when my lawyer says it’s OK” technique of asking for people’s faith.”
    Why not? Like you said, he can’t prove a negative. If he really is innocent, it takes a lot more time to really come up with a defense.

    AndrewYF December 18, 2007, 7:47 pm
  • //Did Clemens publicly piss on a small-scale model of Fenway Park? Did he burn a Red Sox uniform?//
    No, but he practically made out with the Babe Ruth statue in Monument Park every chance he got, which is pretty much the same thing. ;)

    Jackie (SF) December 18, 2007, 7:53 pm
  • andrew- you beat me to it with the carl link. i know nick will get a good laugh. i hope all you yf’s know, i read your posts with carls voice and image in my mind. with that said….nobody rocks harder than carl.

    sf rod December 18, 2007, 7:54 pm
  • Uh, there is significant corroborating evidence with Bonds – indeed, a whole book’s worth. And somehow I don’t think it took 30
    million for Fainaru-Wada and Williams to come up with their much more substantial evidence.
    By contrast, if people only tell the truth to stay out of jail, then obviously there has never been a false confession – ever –
    nor false statements by a jailed rat. They’re all faced with jail! How could they lie?
    Many, many cases in the Mitchell “report” were simply the word of one party. That is uncorroborated gossip. And no, it is not
    redundant because there could be such a thing as corroborated gossip. Indeed, that is in the report too! Worse, there was no effort to provide conflicting testimony or test the credibility of each source.
    Somehow the Times of London does just fine with investigative journalism. The BBC too. It has nothing to do with the presumption of guilt for the publishing industry. It has to do with the presumption of innocence for the named. And nice try but the defamation law in the US is very recent based on case law.
    Please, anyone, tell me how one of the “named” could prove their innocence to any of you claiming so loudly you know. If there is no chance of that, then your opinions are just as flimsy as that report. That is why the presumption should be biased toward innocence with the burden on proving guilt. Because once you assume guilt there is no getting around that conclusion.
    You folks are so good at dishing out Scarlett *’s but you can not tell me how an innocent party can reclaim that basic right?

    Mike YF December 18, 2007, 9:45 pm
  • If we were talking just implication.. someone told someone that he heard that Player X did steroids, then itd be easier for me to beleive a denial. Especially if the player had the following: A history of high personal integrity both in baseball and outside of it, was willing to speak openly and honestly about the situation – NOT throw a representative – allowing us to ‘look him in the eye’ so to speak, and a willingness both now AND earlier to participate in things LIKE the Mitchell investigation for the Good of the Game.

    Dionysus December 18, 2007, 10:34 pm
  • Even just two of these thigns would make me more likely to beleive a case like, oh say, Brian Robets before he admitted to it. In a situation like Rogers? No. Not only does he have NONE of those ‘morality bonuses’ lets call them.. but the stuff in the Mitchell Report on him is FAR more detailed.
    I am also inclined to beleive the peopel testifying agaisnt him.. because the punishment for them lying is HUGE. As I said in the Pettite thread, if we beleive that taking a deal for your testimony or having a criminal background destroys ones credibility, then we might as well shut down the Criminal Justice System. Especially forget about EVER taking down organized crime.

    Dionysus December 18, 2007, 10:35 pm
  • Sorry I had to split that all up. Having it all in one comment kept setting off spam filters for some reason. I have no clue why

    Dionysus December 18, 2007, 10:36 pm
  • The fact that you might believe Brian Roberts (an admitted PED user and possibly a disingenuous half-truthed apologizer) over Roger Clemens just spotlights the fact that you do not know who is telling the truth. You cannot base it on his “history of personal integrity” because what does that mean? By all accounts, ROger Clemens has been a good teammate, a legendary baseball player, a good father and husband to a large family (though maybe poor in his choice of name spelling).
    In a accusation such as this one it is the accuser’s record of “personal integrity” which must first be proven not Clemens.

    walein December 18, 2007, 11:02 pm
  • Dio-
    You can be inclined to believe someone testifying under a plea bargain but that doesnt mean that there arent many cases in which such testimony either wasnt true or was embellished. I think its pretty tough to make general statements as to weather we should believe someone’s testimony. The reality of the situation is that the testimony of someone like McNamee is a mix of truth and exaggeration.
    There is also an element of your argument that seems circular. You say we shouldnt believe these people because they are already liars since they took steroids. How would one defend themselves in your eyes then? If they are accused of taking steroids then they are already liars in your eyes. It doesnt add up to me.

    sam-YF December 18, 2007, 11:18 pm
  • Wow –
    Looks like a lot of people are really indignant about players using steroids.
    Here’s a question: How many of you are going to stop watching and / or going to games because of this scandal?
    (I have an idea of what the response to this is going to be, but I’ll ask the question anyway to confirm)

    rz-yf December 19, 2007, 9:51 am
  • It’s not the use of PEDs that really bothers me, it’s the circumstances.
    I’m sick of the players treating the public like we’re morons.
    Also, my dislike for Bonds and Clemens has little to do with PEDs. Bonds was a total ass well before the PED scandal. Clemens is the biggest two faced, opportunistic, greedy, lying piece of crap on the planet.

    LocklandSF December 19, 2007, 10:00 am
  • I think it’s more a lot of people really don’t like Roger Clemens.
    I for one can’t stand him, so I’m trying not to comment much on the actual basis of the claims against him — just on the fact that I think his denial is worthless based on his past actions, colored through my irrational dislike for the man.

    Paul SF December 19, 2007, 10:37 am
  • Lockland and Paul,
    how much of your dislike of Clemens driven by his success after leaving the Red Sox?
    Lockland- Can you explain why Clemens is any more opportunistic or greedy than any other player?

    sam-YF December 19, 2007, 10:41 am
  • Man, I am sooo looking forward to the replies to Sam’s questions, particularly from Lockland. I’m guessing some of it comes from the “jilted” feeling, but I don’t think you need to have that to think that Clemens is a jerk.

    Devine December 19, 2007, 11:07 am
  • Being a perceived “jerk” or being a perceived “nice” guy has nothing to do with ones’ likely chances of being implicated in this steroid mess.

    Nick-YF December 19, 2007, 11:17 am
  • No, I agree, it does not. But it does have a lot to do with the public’s perception of the issue…and whether they’ll rush to his defense or believe the worst of him. I don’t think that’s particularly fair, just the way it is.

    Devine December 19, 2007, 11:24 am
  • That is 100% true Nick.

    sam-YF December 19, 2007, 11:25 am
  • Sam, it really doesn’t have much to do with his success after leaving Boston, it has to do with the fact that the man lied so many times in so many ways, saying one thing and then turning around and doing the exact opposite.
    He has no leg to stand on with the “benefit of doubt” he feels he’s earned, he hasn’t, the man has literally lied to the public so many times, it’s absurd.

    LocklandSF December 19, 2007, 11:29 am
  • That being said, I was have welcomed him with open arms had he come to Boston last season, that’s how valuable I feel pitching is. I’m a pitching whore.

    LocklandSF December 19, 2007, 11:34 am
  • Also, I don’t mind opportunistic and greedy as long as you’re honest about it, frankly, I think everyone is opportunistic and greedy on some level.

    LocklandSF December 19, 2007, 11:37 am
  • can you give me some examples of when he said one thing and turned around and did another?

    sam-YF December 19, 2007, 11:48 am
  • Sam – didn’t he retire from the Yankees, with the Pinstriped Hummer and all, and then sign up with Houston?

    ponch - sf December 19, 2007, 11:55 am
  • Sam, honestly, if you don’t know what I’m talking about, you must have been on Mars for the last 10 years or so.

    LocklandSF December 19, 2007, 11:59 am
  • i’ve been called worse things, but the filter thinks i’m spam…actually i like spam, and i hear it’s very popular in hawaii

    dc December 19, 2007, 12:00 pm
  • The one that really turned me against him before he had any success in Toronto was his declaration that he would only pitch in Boston or Texas, then taking big bucks out of Toronto while saying they gave him the best chance to win his ring (they finished behind Boston both years he was there).

    Paul SF December 19, 2007, 12:04 pm
  • I’m probably drawing a blank here but I can only think of the retirement statements, which don’t really seem like huge lies. I guess they establish a pattern…I suppose.

    Nick-YF December 19, 2007, 12:06 pm
  • Paul got us started….
    “I will only play for Boston or Houston”
    “I don’t want to ever return to Fenway in a different uniform”
    “I’m retiring for good”
    “It’s not about the money”
    “I want to stay in Houston to be with my family”

    LocklandSF December 19, 2007, 12:09 pm
  • The boston or houston thing sure, you can call that a lie but it also seems that situations change and dictate what happens.
    But saying anything about retiring and not doing so is absolutely no different than any other player would do in the same position. He likely believed he was going to retire and then had a change of heart. I say big deal
    “Its not about the money” – please how many players have said this?
    Being in Houston with his family- this is a lie how?
    Im dont want to sit here and defend someone i actually think is a jerk. I asked for specific examples because I truely believe that basically everything you wrote is not really different than most other people (even non-athletes) would act/say. I personally have said, “ill never go back there” and then returned to a place. Does this make me disingenuous?
    It feels like you guys are looking for reasons to not like this guy.

    sam-YF December 19, 2007, 12:28 pm
  • Lockland: You call those statements lies, but that’s merely the basest possible way of framing them.
    “i will only play for boston or houston.”
    okay. perhaps this is a negotiating strategy intended to draw the paycheck that is closes to what he actually deserves. or perhaps it’s not a lie. perhaps he changed his mind. you can claim to know. but you have no actual proof.
    -“the fenway return.” see above.
    -“i’m retiring for good.” see above.
    -“it’s not about the money.” isn’t it possible that his return/team choice was driven by a matrix of factors, not just money? why is this a lie?
    -“family” see above.
    Honestly, I don’t care whether he was telling the truth in any of these situations. But I’m not sure how you can use them as categorical examples of anything. Bottom line: the discussion is not useful or productive.

    YF December 19, 2007, 12:30 pm
  • I disagree with you there, YF. We’re talking about public trust, right? And many people (especially kids, I’m guessing, but anyone who admired him) probably felt violated by Clemens saying one thing and then doing another, so they trusted him less or not at all. Why is this not relevant/useful/productive as a topic? It’s not just Lockland or Paul that feels this way.

    Devine December 19, 2007, 12:49 pm
  • I’m not trying to change anyone’s mind YF, I think the guy is a lying sack of garbage, that’s my opinion, PED scandal or not, I don’t really care how other people view him. I just don’t think he’s earned any benefit of the doubt.

    LocklandSF December 19, 2007, 12:51 pm
  • Devine, many athletes and people for that matter say one thing and do another to a varied degree. Im personally also a bit sick of the whole “what about what the kids think” argument. I dont believe these players are really role models they arent the sports for their personalities but for their skill. The sooner a kid learns that the better as far as Im concerned. I used to love Lenny Dykstra when i was growing up and we see how that turned out.

    sam-YF December 19, 2007, 12:54 pm
  • I’m not saying it’s a good thing, Sam, or that other players don’t lie or say one thing and do another. It’s exacerbated by his fame/skill/the amount of money he makes. I don’t care that kids felt bad, I’m just offering it as an example of someone being hurt and losing the trust that Clemens feels he has earned.

    Devine December 19, 2007, 12:58 pm
  • Devine, personally I think the examples used by Lockland and Paul are not very strong arguments that support the idea that Clemens is not to be trusted in this case.

    Nick-YF December 19, 2007, 1:00 pm
  • Nick, I’m not saying Clemens shouldn’t be trusted in this case, I’m saying Clemens shouldn’t be trusted period, ever.

    LocklandSF December 19, 2007, 1:05 pm
  • No, no, I’m not saying that *I* think he shouldn’t be trusted because of those things. I’m just saying I can understand that SOME people might feel less trusting of him because THEY feel he lied.
    I don’t feel one way or the other about this. I really don’t care. I’m just trying to say that there are reasons (in the fans’ minds) why some fans might be ready to distrust Clemens. It’s not a personal argument for me.

    Devine December 19, 2007, 1:05 pm
  • And what I’m trying to say also, Nick, is that it doesn’t matter much if the argument is strong, it matters how the public feels about Clemens. At least, that is the framework where I’m debating from.

    Devine December 19, 2007, 1:09 pm
  • //It feels like you guys are looking for reasons to not like this guy.//
    The dude THREW A SHARP FRAGMENT OF SHATTERED BAT AT A BASERUNNER. That alone, I think, is reason to think he’s kind of an asshole. That, and the whole pitching high and inside to his kids when they hit off him.
    Speaking of his kids – completely unrelated but I thought it was funny – I read a bit of research a couple weeks ago about how people almost always like their names, and therefore are subconsciously attracted to things that are similar to their names. Some examples given: People named after cities/states are more likely to move there (e.g., women named Georgia are more likely to move to Georgia), and baseball players with K names are less avoidant to striking out. So Roger really did Koby et. al. a disservice.

    Jackie (SF) December 19, 2007, 1:10 pm
  • “I’m just trying to say that there are reasons (in the fans’ minds) why some fans might be ready to distrust Clemens.”
    Well, I don’t think I ever had a doubt that there were reasons people could point to. Or that Clemens might not understand that he hasn’t earned some of the public’s distrust. I guess my only point is that these are not, in my view, especially valid reasons. Another point I’d argue is that the idea that most fans think Clemens (up until this incident) is two-faced is over-stated. My guess is that most fans didn’t think the guy had a history of lying.

    Nick-YF December 19, 2007, 1:23 pm
  • Just to add… link for the high/tight thing:
    And to clarify, I know that Clemens being an asshole has nothing to do with the validity of the allegations in the Mitchell report, but it would be a lie to say that it doesn’t make me more likely to believe the report. PED use would be consistent with a history of jackassery and rage issues… I’m not saying it’s right (and honestly, I’m sure Clemens doesn’t give a shit whether I think he used PEDs or not, since it doesn’t change my opinion of him) but that’s what it is.
    And finally… what would he have to do to convince you (Sam, I guess?) that he’s NOT a stand up, classy guy? I mean, come on.

    Jackie (SF) December 19, 2007, 1:24 pm
  • Jackie
    I dont really care what kind of guy he is, that is a totally irrelevant thing for me when Im talking about athletes. There are so many assholes in baseball on every single team. But for the record, the guys who play with Clemens always say he is one of the best teammates they have so that has to count for something. The people who actually spend time with him sing his praises.
    Also, please dont get me started on throwing high and tight. It makes Roger and any other pitcher better and is part of the game. Schilling used to do it, so did Pedro quite often. Batters dive over the plate. It happens, who cares, it says nothing about him.

    sam-YF December 19, 2007, 1:33 pm
  • TBH, the h/t thing cracks me up more than anything… I don’t care when pitchers do it in the context of an MLB game, but headhunting your kids… that’s a special kind of father/son relationship, I guess.
    The bat throwing thing, though. I just can’t get over that.
    (PS, the times I’ve worked with psychos, I’ve said nice things about them in public too. That doesn’t mean much to me.)

    Jackie (SF) December 19, 2007, 1:43 pm
  • I’m not at all claiming my opinion is the rational one here. I was 12 when Clemens left the Sox, so sign me up for the shrink. I’m sure that’s where the problem lies.
    But I did provide examples why Clemens has no credibility with me. I think he has a long history of selfish behavior not limited to lying to get his way or make himself look better in public. A lot of people do the same (or worse) things, and I don’t hate them like I hate Clemens. Heck, Johnny Damon made similar statements and went straight to New York with no Toronto pitstops, and i don’t hate him (as much). But I was 23 then, not 12. I’m sure Clemens is just a victim of bad timing. Knowing this doesn’t make me trust him any more, though.

    Paul SF December 19, 2007, 3:28 pm
  • “I think he has a long history of selfish behavior not limited to lying to get his way or make himself look better in public. A lot of people do the same (or worse) things”
    Are you talking about Clemens or Schilling, Paul?? :)

    The Sheriff (Andrews) December 19, 2007, 4:07 pm
  • Schilling may like the sound of his own voice a bit too much… But when did he ever lie? If anything the guy is too pious.

    Hudson December 19, 2007, 8:03 pm
  • Maybe he was lying when he said this:
    Issue date: June 3, 2002
    Arizona Diamondbacks righthander Curt Schilling thinks twice before giving a teammate the traditional slap on the butt for a job well-done. “I’ll pat guys on the ass, and they’ll look at me and go, ‘Don’t hit me there, man. It hurts,'” Schilling says. “That’s because that’s where they shoot the steroid needles.”
    …because he changed his story when testifying before Congress after making a very similar statement?

    The Sheriff (Andrews) December 19, 2007, 8:21 pm
  • I note you only cite Schilling’s first statement verbatim, and not the one you claim contradicts it.

    Hudson December 19, 2007, 8:49 pm
  • Schilling is a perfect example of how the team a guy is on can determine one’s feelings on him. I hate him. It may not be fully rational, but I cant stand the guy. Him running his mouth about every subject on earth is way worse to me than anything Clemens has ever said and dont even get me started on the 2004 presidential election…
    That said I would have liked him on my team in the early 2000s.

    sam-YF December 19, 2007, 10:06 pm
  • “I note you only cite Schilling’s first statement verbatim, and not the one you claim contradicts it.”
    Here you go:
    “When asked by Congress in 2005 about baseball’s steroid problem, Schilling said, “I think while I agree it’s a problem, I think the issue was grossly overstated by some people, including myself.”

    The Sheriff (Andrews) December 19, 2007, 10:46 pm
  • Posting for SF, who is in CAPTCHA HELL!
    “If Roger wants to go in front of the federal authorities or testify under oath, and face jail time if it is proven that he lied, I would hope that he is currently telling the 100% truth. Personally I have no interest in seeing one of my childhood (or early adulthood) heroes behind bars. So when he faces the same consequences for lying that Kirk Radomski and Brian McNamee did then I think there would be a strong reason to appreciate Roger’s stubbornness. Right now Radomski and McNamee face jail time if they lied. Roger faces what, exactly, if he lies? Not speaking in public to a bunch of kids?
    As someone who loved watching Roger pitch, who actually hoped was going to choose the Sox this year, and who loves the sport of baseball, I would be thrilled to see him to come out of this free and clear. But unless he does it on a level playing field with Radomski and McNamee, and considering his physical changes, pitching history, and documented dishonesty, I will have doubts about him. ”

    attackgerbil December 20, 2007, 1:14 pm
  • SF doesn’t seem to understand that Kirk Radomski and Brian McNamee were facing jail either way. The only chance they had to avoid jail was to talk. Worse case, it’s just as hard to prove they were lying as to prove they weren’t.
    And I’m still waiting for anyone to tell me how one of the “named” can reclaim their basic right to “innocent until proven guilty”.

    Mike YF December 20, 2007, 2:39 pm
  • i love the way sox fans still try to portray clemens as the villian for his departure from the sox…you conveniently forget that dooky, probably the worst gm in baseball history from a people skills perspective [at least], was the real reason roger left town…dooky was not a popular figure for the sox fans that i know, and it’s generally accepted that he left his mark on other players as well…roger left because dooky humiliated him and he found out he could get more money somewhere else, not necessarily in that order…likewise damon…you could claim that damon was not disrespected to the same degree that roger was [theo is more popular among fans than dooky, so he has some goodwill to draw on], but the bottom line was, well, the bottom line…somebody else was willing to offer more re$pect than the sox were…nothing personal sox fans, but the players we root for don’t really like us, as much as we want to think they do…is clemens insincere, and maybe stretches the truth when it’s convenient?…about some things maybe, but we all root for guys with character flaws, and we always will…it’s the nature of the beast…
    i don’t agree that roger has little to lose by lying sf…he has a lot to lose…sooner or later he will be forced to confront his accusers and put his money where his mouth is…his denial doesn’t seem as knee-jerk to me as it’s being protrayed…it’s carefully worded, direct, and forceful…even he knows that words alone are not going to be good enough, which is why he promised to address it in more detail at a later date…i suspect that there’s a big shoe yet to drop in the not too distant future…

    dc December 20, 2007, 2:49 pm
  • their basic right to “innocent until proven guilty”
    Whose civil liberties were violated here? Has the ACLU taken up the cause of the MLBPA? Typically this would be a sure-fire sign that there has been a possible rights violation, since the ACLU will take on anybody as a cause if there are liberties or rights at issue, to their credit. When and if that happens I will certainly have to critically re-assess how I feel about all of this. Though I am a bleeding heart liberal, I am incredibly ambivalent about all these supposed “violations” for some reason, I can’t put my finger on it quite yet. It’s why I haven’t been incredibly vociferous about the horribleness of the Mitchell Report, I just don’t feel that strongly about it in a negative way.

    SF December 20, 2007, 3:08 pm
  • In being named there is now an assumption that those players are guilty. Please tell me how they can prove their innocence.
    If you can, you will have succeeded in dramatically altering the entire justice system. If you believe many folks here, from now on, people can be charged, tried, and convicted solely on someone else’s word, no matter how often the accused says “I didn’t do it”.
    Too bad, I say. The burden of proof is on the innocent. If they can’t prove it, guilty as charged!

    Mike YF December 20, 2007, 3:26 pm
  • you are right mike…that’s exactly why some folks believe this was a very flawed investigation, an even more flawed report, and totally unnecessary to have named names to report a foregone conclusion: “mlb has a ped problem”….duh

    dc December 20, 2007, 3:49 pm

Leave a Comment

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.