Trump calls on Baseball Hall of Fame to admit Roger Clemens
 

Weird that he singled out Clemens. I wonder what distinguishes him from the other PED users.

I hope it happens, so the rest can get in and we can end the conversations each year about the PED players.

Maybe his politics?
When he isn't voted in, maybe the President can just issue an Executive Order.

Ass kissing and bribes can get you whatever you want in today's America.

Thank you for your attention to this matter!

The statement says he believes Clemens was falsely accused and did not use steroids. That would be why he is singled out. Or politics.




I think that Clemens probably did use, but the case against him is very weak and there is little to no real evidence beyond the bizarre aging pattern - really only the testimony of a convicted perjurer.

I mean, I wish it weren't so. It's hard to ignore though, unless one completely avoids all news.

I completely avoid all news. Life is way better and in case you didn't know your statement has always been true.:)

I exclusively get my news from two flagship print newspapers -- one that leans left and one that leans right -- and ignore entirely the Politics sections of those newspapers. I find that helps.

True, but it has reached absurd new heights recently. I keep telling myself I will avoid news but it's hard to do!

This is definitely the way to go if you can manage it. It's just too convenient to pull up the news when you have some spare moments...

NYT and WSJ?

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

Yes, plus statements from Amdy Pettite and Jason Grimsley, and Clemens' DNA on a steroids needle. But no acne, shrunken balls, or size 10 head like other users.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

Bingo.

Pettitte backed way down on cross, admitted he wasn't sure at all.

It's a case of reverse jury nullification for the roid guys. The Contemporary Era committee is the only way in for those guys, and that committee is stacked with living HOF players. And as I've said before, I think the living HOF players are the least sympathetic voting cohort.

I don't think I want to know how you confirmed this. :)

1) Pettite backed down under oath and testified he wasn't sure that was what he actually had heard; he walked it back to a 'I don't know'.

2) The LA Times reported Grimsley fingered Clemens and Pettite and others in an affidavit. The affidavit was later unsealed and showed Grismley had not accused Clemens - he had said he got steroids from McNamee. The LA Times had to publish a retraction. I don't recall him later ever testifying against Clemens.

3) Clemens admitted the DNA on a needle from pretty early on. The dispute was if it was used for steroids (McNamee's story) or vitamin B12 shots (Clemens story, and to which his doctor testified to). The needle could have been used for either.

I suspect Clemens was guilty, but there is so much fake news about his case that is still widely believed.

The Mike piazza bat throw incident is the only clip you will ever need to see to judge his steroid usage (out of this solar system). And also to judge him as a person. He literally hurled a spear at Mike that could've easily impaled him.

C’mon man, Pettitte was best buds with Clemens in both New York and Houston. He was workout buddies with him for years. He didn’t “mishear” anything. Likely he took it very easy on Clemens when he testified under oath.

Easy to walk back your testimony on your friend when you’re not under oath anymore. Pettitte was a genuinely nice guy and likely more honest then most. One of the only players to come clean after the Mitchell report came out. I don’t think he told the entire truth while he was under oath, but he told more then most. He certainly told more truth then Roger, who didn’t have the same reservations telling bald faced lies under testimony.

Now Roger was certainly a workout legend on whatever teams he played on. Pettitte credits him with extending his own career by convincing him to take a workout regimen seriously. Roger had a little help though….and I suspect he helped Pettitte get a little help to.

The real question is, do you think MLB was so far behind the 8 ball in regards to regulating the HGH problem (not necessarily the anabolic steroids as much), do you think it should matter, if MLB didn’t think to ban it until certain players had been making use of it for years. Should those players be penalized when they had no real guidance on the issue until it was too late.

I mean, they still knew it was wrong, because they all went to great lengths to hide it from the general public…but………..

If the best/only evidence is Pettitte testifying under oath that he was 50/50 on if he had heard Clemens right and he didn't really know, well, that's how you know there's no actual evidence. There's a good reason Clemens was acquitted of perjury for his claims before Congress that he never used steroids - nobody can find any proof he did.

I'd be fine if we yanked Marichal out of the Hall and used this to deny Clemens - but it's just not the reason he's being kept out, and surely we all actually know that it is not any kind of reasonable evidence he used steroids.

The true travesty is that the commissioner who fully knew steroid use was going on, but chose to look the other way, is in The Hall. I don't know how that's justifiable when the record holder for Cy Young's and MVP's respectively are not.

This isn't a court of law, it's a court of public opinion and the standards aren't as high. Please don't make me invoke the name of OJ...that's just low hanging fruit. ;)

We all know he did them...the circumstantial evidence is bigly.

Do YOU think Clemens was clean? Pettitte was Clemens best baseball friend for years...and even HE couldn't bring himself to clearing Clemens name. Do you, in a million years think Pettitte did HGH...but Clemens was completely clean?

At least Pettitte showed some sort of remorse and admittance after he got caught. Clemens was from the school of deny, deny, deny and hire a bunch of high priced lawyers to "get him off".

BTW, the worst thing that happened to Clemens is he's been denied a memorial in an old baseball building after his career was over. Him and Bonds and McGwire and Sosa and A-Rod and Palmiero and etc., etc., etc....lives didn't end when that happened. They're all going to be fine...and if not...it's not going to be because of that.

...and if they go in....it doesn't mean they're "exonerated" or "innocent". Just means that the wheels turned in their favor.......again.

That's the way I see it, if Selig is in then so should everybody else

That's the opposite of how I see it. None of them should be in. Just because one rat sneaks through the fence doesn't mean you should open the gates to all of them.

Sent from my SM-S906U using Tapatalk

One of the most bizarre moments in baseball history.

Catchers are strong. Piazza would have kicked Clemens' ass if the benches didn't clear first.

Is there really any doubt Clemens cheated? I see all these technicalities listed but ignoring that a friend changed their mind about what a friend said to them when reporters and the law came asking about it and pushing the narrative that maybe he really did mishear his friend seems to be the biggest leap of them all.

We all live real lives in a real world. Is it really so hard to believe a friend would cover for a friend?

I'm aware it's not a court of law. That doesn't mean that one should substitute feelings and accusations over evidence in their reasoning of any issue. I might be suspicious based on accusations, but why should I be confident X did Y when there is no evidence that X, in objective fact, did Y?

You can see in the transcript that in my first post that I said I personally think Clemens probably did them. The aging pattern is so unusual, but there's really nothing beyond that suspicion - and suspicion is merely suspicion, not guilt. I am hardly certain he did them, because nobody can find any evidence that he did. Belief without evidence isn't worth much. His case is treated as if he is absolutely guilty, but almost none of the things anyone ever cites are actually true or bear out.

Who has ever suggested lives ended because of HOF votes? Sure, I'll agree with the last half because 100% of people do lol

Is there any evidence he cheated?

Of course Pettitte may well have lied on the stand to cover for Clemens after previously accusing him. Or perhaps his lie was in accusing him while getting pressed by investigators to give up other people. Hence the attraction of evidence - people say things that are simply not true constantly for myriad reasons and motive and regularly contradict themselves at different times.

The evidence was that Pettitte openly admitted his mistakes and confirmed the report on him was true. The evidence against Pettitte was being named in the report.

Later on, Pettitte said during testimony that Clemens told him about using HGH. During cross, Pettitte's memory of the conversation reverted to him not being sure anymore.

I have friends. It's not a stretch for me to see myself walking back comments about them if I think I might be jeopardizing them by syaing anything at all.

Beyond that, Clemens was the beneficiary of rulings that some evidence against him was inadmissible, including inconsistent statements he made and testimony from Pettitte's wife. There was also DNA evidence linking Clemens to vials, syringes, and cotton balls with steroids, but the defense was able to establish reasonable doubt because of chain of custody problems.

Clemens was guilty as sin, but his lawyers were better than the prosecutors. For what's it's worth, Bonds was ultimately not convicted either, but has also been blacklisted. As far as I know, Trump has never publicly complained about the treatment of Bonds.

President Trump Not Happy With National Baseball Hall of Fame

https://www.yahoo.com/sports/article...154818426.html

Exactly, he ended up with meaningless statements about how he was 50/50 on if he'd heard a conversation right and blew the case against Clemens by leaving only an accusation from a convicted perjurer and no evidence. Speculation about which of his stories (even though Pettitte is so honest!) is true and which is false is just speculation and people's beliefs. By the standard applied to Clemens here, I'd have to believe most anyone accused of anything was guilty of that thing. Compare Clemens' situation to how this board will exonerate Ortiz, for whom the evidence is greater than it is for Clemens but people like him so he gets a pass. Evidence is a good standard to use, because among many reasons it helps to steer towards the center and around people's narratives of good guys and bad guys.

The best thing against Clemens is that his career trajectory tracks with McNamee's charges and is highly abnormal. But that ain't much evidence either.

And he would've gotten in too, if not for those pesky voters! Time for a march on Cooperstown! January 6 is coming up...

Do you think Ortiz did more gear then Clemens?

Not a court of law. Nobody is going to jail or even paying a fine. What's your opinion?

Yes, I believe it's a level of complicity.

Personally, I think Ortiz, Sheffield and Pettitte stole a few packs of gum from the convenience store. I think Clemens and Bonds and McGwire and Sosa robbed an armored car as it was making a pickup at the bank.

Hell, Sheffield and Pettitte (I'm not sure about Ortiz), at least fessed up about it, and showed some remorse about it, unlike these other top tier guys who went into denial mode......though I think McGwire finally admitted to it eventually also. I don't think Pettitte is quite a HOF'er anyways, but it's why he still gets support, on top of his Postseason record.

I think most of the people responsible for voting in these popularity contests, feel the same way.

Everybody who votes on these committees, including the ballplayers who have been in the clubhouses, and likely really knew what went on behind closed doors, form their opinions around they're own circumstantial evidence.

Oh, Jose Canseco never failed a drug test either. Pretty sure he was geared up LOL! He only started throwing everybody else under the bus, after he got pissed off he was never invited back into the league after his age 36 season.

StOp ThE sTeAl!

HOF voting is about opinion though. Opinion is influenced by facts but not limited to them.

The election was stolen. Ah, Brent beat me to it, I now see.

What about Papi's career trajectory?

Again, nobody has said it is a court of law. Again, it is common sense to use evidence to shape opinion instead of vice versa. I understand that that, and holding consistent standards across the board, is unpopular.

I have no idea "who did more gear", and neither do you.

For Canseco, a failed test is one avenue of evidence - nobody has ever said it is the ONLY possible piece of evidence. The evidence against Canseco could fill an entire book, including his numerous admissions lol

Of course it is. My claim is not that HOF voters do not have opinions or should not have them.

Incredibly suspicious - but that, failed tests, etc. all of that is dismissible because it's Big Papi. We need to assume Clemens is guilty with a lack of evidence though.

For people we do not like, the accusation is enough, and for people we do like, accusation nor evidence shall suffice. True of a great many things in life.

While we're on the subject of evidence, there were no failed "tests" (plural) when it comes to Ortiz. He was only ever named on the 2003 survey test that the league, and even those who conducted the test, have said contained many false positives. After 2003, Ortiz was tested multiple times per year under MLB's testing program and never once failed a test. Over 450 of his career homers and 100% of his All-Star selections came after 2003.

Papi came to Boston at age 27 with a total of 56 career HR. I don't remember thinking anything at all when the Sox signed him. He ended up with 541. He hit 38 HR at age 40, and led the league in RBI and doubles. The year before, he hit 37 HR.

Absolutely true, I should have phrased it as "a failed test" instead of "failed tests". My point is made here - the board will leap to explain away failures and dismiss actual material evidence for Ortiz's guilt to let him off the hook, yet simultaneously leap to deny evidence is even needed to blame Clemens and complain if anyone asks for evidence.

MLB claimed false positive were possible after the results leaked (which is true, was true after, and is still true today). I think it safe to assume that failing a test is a piece of reasonable evidence one is guilty, not ironclad absolute proof, but very obviously actual evidence to use. It is more evidence than has ever been produced for Clemens' guilt, and both have highly suspicious career trajectories during the steroid era.

The bolded is the statement I find most questionable. In addition to witness testimony, the prosecution had needles and cotton balls from McNamee that tested positive for both Clemens' DNA and anabolic steroids. The defense argued that McNamee could have doctored it and the chain of custody was improper. The prosecution produced forensic expert testimony that it would have been very difficult to fake that evidence.

Ultimately, the jury found that the prosecution didn't prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. But there was physical evidence linking Clemens to steroids, and it might have been sufficient if the burden of proof were lower.

McNamee's DNA evidence, as I recall, was stored in a can in a box in his house for several years to use as future blackmail, and the single needle that tested positive for steroids didn't have Clemens DNA on it - his DNA was on the cotton balls and other needles (which he said was for B12 and his doctor testified too). Perhaps some evidence, but if we must dismiss Ortiz' genuine failed tests we are setting a very high bar to have a consistent standard (that worst of all things).

I would guess both used, but there is not much against Clemens and I'm having an extremely hard time seeing equal or greater evidence for the villain when we are dismissing failed tests for the hero.

Location: Massachusetts :)

"With Pettitte essentially neutralized, the case came down to Clemens’ word against McNamee’s. McNamee provided medical waste he said proved he had injected Clemens with steroids in 2001, but although cotton balls in the waste were shown to contain traces of Clemens’ DNA, blood on a needle McNamee also kept was not a definitive match to the pitcher."

https://www.latimes.com/sports/la-xp...619-story.html

So the provable DNA was on different items than the steroids - and some of the DNA wasn't even a definitive match. Looks like the evidence against Clemens is even less than I thought.

I'm from Massachusetts, but I'm not sure why that's relevant. Clemens and Ortiz both played for the Red Sox, and Clemens was my favorite pitcher growing up.

More importantly, my position isn't necessarily that Ortiz was clean. It's that we don't know what he tested positive for in 2003, because the results covered a wide range of PEDs -- not just steroids. I'm on record in another HOF thread acknowledging that Ortiz might have used steroids, that MLB probably looked the other way until it couldn't anymore, and that all the elite players suspected of using steroids (including Clemens and Bonds) should be inducted.

I used to be on the side of keep the juicers out, but when Selig went in (followed by Torre, La Russa, etc) I thought it was very hypocritical to keep the players out while letting in the owners and executives who at best looked the other way, or at worst, enabled the steroid era, who profited off of it, and then did their best Captain Renault impersonations when the music stopped.

The smiley indicates it is less than sincere - a joke that Red Sox fans tend to defend Ortiz heavily.

I'd love to hear how there is more evidence that Clemens used than that Ortiz did, since that was my claim you disagreed with. Clemens DNA was on different items than the steroid items in McNamee's blackmail box and some of it wasn't even a definitive match to him at all anyways - This should be used against Clemens anyways but we have to dismiss Ortiz' failed test because we don't know which PED he tested positive for only that it was a PED on the list of illegitimate substances being tested for? This is the perfect illustration of my point. Accusation and nonsense is enough for some players; material evidence must be dismissed for certain others though.

I don't see how acknowledging that the survey test was flawed, and then pointing out the literally dozens of times Ortiz was tested by MLB and passed each and every time, is "leaping to explain" anything. Those are just facts. Also, it's not really "actual material evidence" if the league states the results of the survey test were compromised. Manfred at the time said that there were "legitimate scientific reasons to doubt some results" and that false positives had been reported due to perfectly legal, over-the-counter supplements. This is also in no way to say that this proves unequivocally that Ortiz was clean his entire career. But it seems a stretch to call Ortiz "a known cheater" when he passed a myriad of tests from 2004 through the end of his career.

And just to point out, this isn't a personal vendetta against Clemens either. If the situations were reversed, I would make the same points about Clemens that I made about Ortiz. I'm not even saying that I think Ortiz deserved the HOF and Clemens doesn't. While Clemens was found "not guilty", that's a world apart from being "innocent". And there was considerably more smoke around Clemens accusations. So right, wrong or indifferent, I definitely can at least understand why the voters, time and again, have treated these situations differently.

Clemens also passed "dozens of times" (I doubt either were tested this many times), and never failed. If that's proof for Ortiz being innocent, how is it not proof for Clemens being innocent? If the situations were reversed, you would clearly not make the same argument because you can make the same argument right now - if this is your reason for letting Ortiz off, then Clemens also passes that exact same bar. He actually clears it better because there are 0 failed tests to dismiss instead of 1. This is, yet again, a perfect example of wildly different standards being used with one very strict one for one player and a very loose one for the player we want to let off.

Unlike Ortiz. If a positive test has to be thrown out because it *could* be a false positive, which is always possible and always has been in every incarnation of the tests, then why is the mere accusation proof enough for Clemens? It is true that there is more evidence for Ortiz than Clemens. Nobody is able to locate any actual evidence against Clemens; the same is just not true for Ortiz.

You clearly missed the part where I said the fact that the survey test results were thrown out was not iron-clad proof of Ortiz's innocence. It's right there in the first paragraph of my previous reply. I do however, bristle when I hear people say Ortiz was a cheater as if it is an undeniable fact. Likewise, I'm not saying, nor have I ever said, that Clemens was a cheater as if it's an undeniable fact. People are very quick to speak about things as if they have all the facts when the reality is they do not, and never will, have the whole story.

And yes, Ortiz was tested dozens of times, from 2004 to 2016. 13 years, multiple times each year. Clemens retired in 2007 and was subjected to far fewer tests, but probably still in double digits. And yes, you are correct, Clemens never failed any tests either. However, this isn't my bar, as you put it. Bonds and McGwire never failed a test either, and both admitted to using (though Bonds said it was unknowingly).

There has been no actual evidence located against EITHER player, as the 2003 test results were destroyed and even Ortiz himself was never told what he tested positive for. So saying that's he's guilty is as much speculation as saying Clemens is innocent because the courts found the evidence against him insufficient to convict. It sure feels that you are using the same double standard you are accusing everyone else of using, by admonishing Ortiz for the 2003 test, while simultaneously saying there was no merit to the multiple charges that were brought against Clemens.

So again, I don't know who did what. Neither do you. Neither does anyone on Al Gore's internet. I'm not saying Ortiz definitely deserved induction, or that Clemens definitely does not. I wouldn't be up in arms about it if Clemens does get inducted. I never said it was right that he is being kept out. I am only saying that given the situations, and the way everything unfolded in real time, I can certainly understand how people can view these cases in entirely different light. And that's why one guy is in the HOF right now while the other is outside looking in.