15 Feb 08
I haven't followed any of this closely at all, but it was apparent that the questioning of Clemens and McNamee appeared to be split along party lines. Especially how Rep. Dan Burton of Indiana viciously hammered McNamee when accusing him of telling "lie after lie after lie after lie" after McNamee seemed to have given reasonable explanations for some discrepancies. I found this curious. I just found this article that provides a possible explanation that seems to ring true. I don't know if the state of politics in the US can get much sorrier. Thoughts?
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/baseball/mlb/02/14/clemens.pardon.ap/index.html
15 Feb 08
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneOne shouldn't rely too much on stories planted by a parties' lawyer.
I haven't followed any of this closely at all, but it was apparent that the questioning of Clemens and McNamee appeared to be split along party lines. Especially how Rep. Dan Burton of Indiana viciously hammered McNamee when accusing him of telling "lie after lie after lie after lie" after McNamee seemed to have given reasonable explanations for some disc ...[text shortened]... s?
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/baseball/mlb/02/14/clemens.pardon.ap/index.html
15 Feb 08
3 edits
Originally posted by no1marauderWhat I got most from it was an explantion for why the questioning seemed to be split along party lines. I was unaware of the Clemens / Bush friendship. Burton looked like his head was about to explode. After all, we're talking about a game here. Ah, the ties that bind.
One shouldn't rely too much on stories planted by a parties' lawyer.
15 Feb 08
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneThere's not much doubt that McNamee has a history of lying and Burton's questioning of McNamee's was no more hostile (in fact less so) than Waxman's opening statements regarding Clemens. Perhaps a better explanation of the largely (though not exclusive split) along party lines is that George Mitchell was a long time democratic Senator and for quite a while that party's leader in the Senate.
What I got most from it was an explantion for why the questioning seemed to be split along party lines. I was unaware of the Clemens / Bush friendship. Burton looked like his head was about to explode. After all, we're talking about a game here. Ah, the ties that bind.
15 Feb 08
Originally posted by no1marauderlol. Now I'm sorry I missed Waxman. It must have been something to see his head explode ( I think that's the only way it could have been more hostile).
There's not much doubt that McNamee has a history of lying and Burton's questioning of McNamee's was no more hostile (in fact less so) than Waxman's opening statements regarding Clemens. Perhaps a better explanation of the largely (though not exclusive split) along party lines is that George Mitchell was a long time democratic Senator and for quite a while that party's leader in the Senate.
Regardless which explanation is true, it's still pathetic.
15 Feb 08
As I have said many times I think it is 100% clear Clemens is lying, but if Congress was going to have a hearing about the authenticity of the Mitchell reports, I think Clemens needed certain rights (1) the right call his witnesses (Pettitte to discuss the nature of the conversation, Mitchell to discuss standards for the report) (2) the right to cross examine (3) the right to examine the document Mitchell based his reports on. Since none of this happened and Congress already had depositions, what was the point of the hearing?
15 Feb 08
1 edit
Originally posted by poundleeDistracting the public from having a real debate about real issues.
Since none of this happened and Congress already had depositions, what was the point of the hearing?
Really, who cares if these guys are injecting junk in their butts. It makes no difference to anyone's lives. Let baseball deal with the record books.
Get the government to do government business; not some pseudo 1950's type investigation asking, "Have you ever, or do you know anyone who has knowingly...."
16 Feb 08
1 edit
Just a couple of thoughts here. First, McNamee is an easier target than Clemens. He is not as wealthy and not as famous as Clemens. Also McNamee administered medications to players without a medical liscence which include giving "legal" vitamin B-12 injections. It makes him not only an illegal drug trafficer via such drugs as the HGH but also practicing medicine without a liscence administering legal ones.
In the world of politics it usually behooves one to stay on the side of the wealthy and the side that is more easily defendable which is Clemens. Also being friends with powerful political people can help as well. 😉
16 Feb 08
Originally posted by uzlessNo, they can't give a green light for atheletes to take illegal substance with no consequences. They need to send a message, "This won't be tolerated."
Distracting the public from having a real debate about real issues.
Really, who cares if these guys are injecting junk in their butts. It makes no difference to anyone's lives. Let baseball deal with the record books.
Get the government to do government business; not some pseudo 1950's type investigation asking, "Have you ever, or do you know anyone who has knowingly...."
Clemens is a classic case of someone thinking they are more important than the law. He almost got away with it with all his PR he did taking and signing pictures while a few idiots who should have been doing their jobs kissed his bruised and punctured bottom.
McNamedMe didn't come through as an angel, but the real question is if Clemens did performance enhancing drugs. All signs point to YES!~
There is no way Andy Pettit 'misremembered' a conversation about Clemens taking these drugs. That's not anything you forget.
There is no way McNamedMe puts a needle in Debbie Clemens' belly in the bedroom without Roger knowing knowing in advance. She ran into complications and Roger talked with McNamedMe, not a 911 call or even a call to a real doctor.
Roger has never done HGH, but he's going to stand by as his wife gets a shot and has complications? He's not going to fire the guy and ask how they got together on this subject in the first place?
The list goes on, he threw Debbie under the buss saying that Pettit was thinking about a conversation he had about her... yet when they talked Debbie had not even got that shot yet.
I will admit I LOVED when someone said McNamedMe was a 'drug dealer' and McMe said, "That is your opinion." He got slammed!
"You are a drug dealer!"
No.
"Do you deal in drugs?"
Yes.
"Are they Illegal?"
Yes.
"You are a drug dealer!"
Stupid idiot!~
P-
16 Feb 08
Originally posted by PhlabibitI had to admit, it had me rolling on the floor as well. You know some people never will admit guilt no matter how clear their guilt is revealed to be.
"You are a drug dealer!"
No.
"Do you deal in drugs?"
Yes.
"Are they Illegal?"
Yes.
"You are a drug dealer!"
Stupid idiot!~
P-[/b]
16 Feb 08
1 edit
Originally posted by PhlabibitI saw the "drug dealer" exchange also. McNamee seemed genuinely confused by the whole thing. What crossed my mind was that "drug dealer" usually carries a connotation of someone who sells drugs for profit. I'm not familiar with the specifics, but I wondered if McNamee never profited from it and that's where his head was at. Perhaps like someone who gives a friend a left over prescription sleeping pill or something. I guess technically they would have illegally dealt drugs but wouldn't necessarily consider themselves a "drug dealer". Otherwise I have no idea.
No, they can't give a green light for atheletes to take illegal substance with no consequences. They need to send a message, "This won't be tolerated."
Clemens is a classic case of someone thinking they are more important than the law. He almost got away with it with all his PR he did taking and signing pictures while a few idiots who should have been hey Illegal?"
Yes.
"You are a drug dealer!"
Stupid idiot!~
P-
16 Feb 08
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneProfit from it? I don't think he was doing it for free.
I saw the "drug dealer" exchange also. McNamee seemed genuinely confused by the whole thing. What crossed my mind was that "drug dealer" usually carries a connotation of someone who sells drugs for profit. I'm not familiar with the specifics, but I wondered if McNamee never profited from it and that's where his head was at. Perhaps like someone who gives ...[text shortened]... but wouldn't necessarily consider themselves a "drug dealer". Otherwise I have no idea.
16 Feb 08
Originally posted by whodeyLike I said, I haven't paid much attention to this issue, but take a look at his relationship with Pettitte which is more of a known. Presumably in all the years McNamee trained him, Pettitte only used HGH on two separate occasions. At least with Pettitte, McNamee was almost exclusively in the business of training athletes, not in the business of dealing performance enhancing drugs. It seems quite possible that McNamee didn't push performance enhancing drugs, but was willing to deal with them when requested. He may have even done so reluctantly. Even if McNamee obtained the drugs, but didn't charge additionally for them or even sold them at cost, it wouldn't be for profit.
Profit from it? I don't think he was doing it for free.
16 Feb 08
Originally posted by ThinkOfOneDo you work for free? Would you take extra risks, and pass along the savings? I think you might want to 'pay attention' a bit more before speaking on a subject you admit to knowing little about.
Like I said, I haven't paid much attention to this issue, but take a look at his relationship with Pettitte which is more of a known. Presumably in all the years McNamee trained him, Pettitte only used HGH on two separate occasions. At least with Pettitte, McNamee was almost exclusively in the business of training athletes, not in the business of dealing ...[text shortened]... ut didn't charge additionally for them or even sold them at cost, it wouldn't be for profit.
P-