31 Jan '08 18:14>
Originally posted by poundleeOf course it's a statement consistent with innocence esp. when combined with Clemens' repeated statements that someone needs to tell the truth; you people are really ridiculous. And why didn't McNamee respond, "I already told the truth, Roger?". Mcnamee had ample opportunity to say he told the truth in the conversation, but he never did. Roger Cossack the legal consultant on ESPN acknowledged that the tape was "good" for Clemens and McNamee's lawyers were pissed about it. What does that tell you?
I can't understand why you would tell these people I used steriods is not a statement consistent with innocence. It is a statement of "why did you turn me in" If he though McNamee was lying, he would have said (and probably in a more animated way) whay are you lying about me using steriods. The only explanation I can come up with for Clemens did not say ...[text shortened]... to scored more runs. They probably battered crappy relief pitchers in games that were over.
Clemen's ERA in 1997 was only marginally better than in his "awful" 1994. Toronto's better run support was a big factor in his improved W-L over his last few years in Boston, though I wouldn't discount the motivational factor to show Duquette and the rest of the Red Sox losers that he had plenty left (which everyone but Red Sox Nation knew anyway).