Roger Clemens Not Guilty on All Counts

[slidekellyslide]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

None of us were there so we don't know if he cheated or not.

Right...that HGH really was for his wife. Either way, there were so many cheaters during the last 2.5 decades in baseball it's frivolous to try and determine who was and who wasn't a user...the whole era deserves an asterisk. The Hall of Fame is a joke and has been ever since the veterans started putting in their undeserving pals so I could care less who goes in and who doesn't.

[oldjudge]

Dan (markel)----If the book constructs an iron clad argument that Clemens used steroids then all the prosecution had to do was read the book to the jury and Clemens would have been convicted. My guess is that O'Keefe's argument was not as convincing as you make it out to be. Perhaps you were convinced before you read the book. They had all the facts; you don't.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

Dan (markel)----If the book constructs an iron clad argument that Clemens used steroids then all the prosecution had to do was read the book to the jury and Clemens would have been convicted. My guess is that O'Keefe's argument was not as convincing as you make it out to be. Perhaps you were convinced before you read the book. They had all the facts; you don't.

You are overlooking that evidence frequently is not admissible.

[packs]

Old Judge do you really not think that he cheated? If you don't, without saying that it hasn't been proven, why don't you think he cheated? Just curious.

I don't think he'll ever get in the HOF. Here is a link to the 2012 voting. You will see that Rafi and McGwire faired pretty terribly. My man Don Mattingly (not a cheater) got more votes than Palmiero despite his 569 home runs and 3,000 plus hits.

[oldjudge]

I don't know if he cheated or not; I wasn't there. Therefore, my opinion would only be a guess. I haven't listened to the facts, like the jury. If after hearing the facts they thought that there was not compelling evidence that he did steroids then I must guess that he did not.
Peter--I was just making the point that if O'Keefe could make an open and shut case, based on facts and not assumptions, that Clemens juiced then the prosecution could have probably made a strong argument, a winning argument, that he was guilty. Obviously, that was not the case.

Mattingly had half a HOF career. Unfortunately, a bad back killed the second half.

[packs]

The jury didn't decide he didn't use steroids though. They decided it wasn't proven he lied about using steroids. There's a big difference. It's hard to prove someone lied about something you can't prove without a doubt they did.

The point of the Mitchell Report was both to inform baseball what was going on and to inform the fans of what their favorite players have been up to. If you refuse to acknowledge any of the report's information because it can't be proven, then I think you are missing the point. At the same token you can't prove anyone didn't use steroids.

[yanks12025]

Originally Posted by packs

The jury didn't decide he didn't use steroids though. They decided it wasn't proven he lied about using steroids. There's a big difference. It's hard to prove someone lied about something you can't prove without a doubt they did.

The point of the Mitchell Report was both to inform baseball what was going on and to inform the fans of what their favorite players have been up to. If you refuse to acknowledge any of the report's information because it can't be proven, then I think you are missing the point. At the same token you can't prove anyone didn't use steroids.

But the Mitchell Report was based on Brian Mcnamee's testimony atleast for Clemens being on it. But if a jury finds Clemens not guilty, then they must think Mcnamee's testimony is in doubt. So if they can't back his testimony in court, then what proof is there that Clemens actually used?

Also I think the Mitchell report was a huge joke and 90% biased against NY teams.

[CMIZ5290]

How can anyone with a head the size of a medicine ball have his health in front of him?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

I don't know if he cheated or not; I wasn't there. Therefore, my opinion would only be a guess. I haven't listened to the facts, like the jury. If after hearing the facts they thought that there was not compelling evidence that he did steroids then I must guess that he did not.
Peter--I was just making the point that if O'Keefe could make an open and shut case, based on facts and not assumptions, that Clemens juiced then the prosecution could have probably made a strong argument, a winning argument, that he was guilty. Obviously, that was not the case.

Mattingly had half a HOF career. Unfortunately, a bad back killed the second half.

And a jury acquited OJ. Sometimes, it's just hard to prove things with admissible evidence beyond a reasonable doubt. But I wouldn't infer innocence from that. Change the burden of proof and you might have a different verdict. The jury also could be sending a message that this sort of prosecution is a waste of time and money.

[laughlinfan]

Yep. Never used 'em. And thought that Piazza's broken bat was a baseball, so he grabbed it and threw it at him. Thinking back on this, a) how the heck was he not thrown out of the game and suspended and b) how come no one suspected Roid Rage at that time?

In retrospect, the people I feel sorry for are the guys who played clean and would have been considered the best of their decade, if the top ten (or twenty) players hadn't been cheating. Sad part is, we'll never know who they were for certain.

[WhenItWasAHobby]

Originally Posted by oldjudge

Dan (markel)----If the book constructs an iron clad argument that Clemens used steroids then all the prosecution had to do was read the book to the jury and Clemens would have been convicted. My guess is that O'Keefe's argument was not as convincing as you make it out to be. Perhaps you were convinced before you read the book. They had all the facts; you don't.

I never said iron clad. I would say it's more likely that Clemens did juice than not juice - a big difference. I don't know what you mean by "they had all the facts". If you are referring to the defense team as "they", that's a laugh. All they did was cast a shread of doubt in the prosecution's witnesses. If Clemens was an innocent as he claims, why didn't he just take the stand?