PDA

View Full Version : ESPN the Weekend - late Feb - Roger Clemens?



CleveSJM
01-07-2008, 01:40 PM
Roger Clemens is scheduled to appear at the 2008 ESPN the Weekend event in late February... Anyone else think the invite should be pulled? I know we are all innocent until proven guilty but the evidence is stacked up against him and I believe he was a steriod user. I may actually be down there during some of that weekend and will be compelled to "Boo" him if he's in a parade or something. I hate to be negative at WDW but I think he deserves all public opinion expressions. What do you think about the Rocket in a WDW parade?

Strmchsr
01-07-2008, 03:10 PM
I haven't heard any rumor of the invite being pulled. Honestly, I go with innocent until proven guilty in his case. With someone like Barry Bonds there is such physical evidence (head size change, the way he all of a sudden out of nowhere bulked up, etc) that I am more inclined to believe it of him, but with Clemons it's just the word of 1 guy. Why would I take his word over Clemons'? Also, now that Clemons has launched an anti-defamation law suit he must feel he has a pretty strong case that he was wronged. Athletes in the past who were accused haven't taken measures like this. So, I don't see any reason to boo him or take any action against him until the allegations are proven. If they are proven true, then absolutely I think he should not be invited to WDW or anywhere else, nor ever included in the HOF. If Pete Rose was banned for gambling, I think proven steroid users should get the same.

CleveSJM
01-07-2008, 04:25 PM
... physical evidence ...
... it's just the word of 1 guy...


Good points Chris, maybe I'll hold back my "boo" and go with an "eery" silence that may take place...

I do think the physical evidence is there. He was a little scrawny in Boston. Then there is the statistical improvement after he left Boston. His fastball was down in the lower 90's and then, after one off-season, it was back into the 95-97 range... Training???

Also, the Mitchell Report is more than just "one guy." No way Mitchell puts Clemens in there without a bunch of evidence. And why did it take him so long for him to remember it wasn't The Juice but was vitamins and lidocaine shot into him...

Maybe a little hushed "boo..." ;):judge::ghost:

Scar
01-07-2008, 05:23 PM
And why did it take him so long for him to remember it wasn't The Juice but was vitamins and lidocaine shot into him...And why would he let someone who is not a doctor (or nurse) shoot something into him?


If they are proven true, then absolutely I think he should not be invited to WDW or anywhere else, nor ever included in the HOF. If Pete Rose was banned for gambling, I think proven steroid users should get the same.The difference is, steroids were not against any baseball rule prior to 2003.

Strmchsr
01-07-2008, 06:09 PM
The difference is, steroids were not against any baseball rule prior to 2003.

That is an excellent point. If it was all pre-2003 even if it weren't ethical, it wasn't illegal. I'll be interested to see what comes of his lawsuit. I don't expect anything to come out of the 60 Min interview, but the court case should be a little more revealing, plus if he has to go before Congress as has been requested we'll see if he sticks to the story.

CleveSJM
01-07-2008, 06:33 PM
The difference is, steroids were not against any baseball rule prior to 2003.


That is an excellent point. If it was all Prue-2003 even if it weren't ethical, it wasn't illegal. I'll be interested to see what comes of his lawsuit. I don't expect anything to come out of the 60 Min interview, but the court case should be a little more revealing, plus if he has to go before Congress as has been requested we'll see if he sticks to the story.

Unethical without a doubt, but still illegal by the law of the land. Baseball does not specifically outlaw cattle rustling and jaywalking, it is still illegal under general law. Illegal performance enhancing drugs, specific rule or not, are still illegal drugs.

Congress will be interesting. He will not risk perjury. I expect him to take the 5th.

Scar
01-07-2008, 07:30 PM
Baseball does not specifically outlaw cattle rustling and jaywalking, it is still illegal under general law. Illegal performance enhancing drugs, specific rule or not, are still illegal drugs.Yes, but the point is, a great baseball player who rustles cattle is still eligible for The Hall of Fame.

DizneyFreak2002
01-07-2008, 07:31 PM
Also, the Mitchell Report is more than just "one guy." No way Mitchell puts Clemens in there without a bunch of evidence. And why did it take him so long for him to remember it wasn't The Juice but was vitamins and lidocaine shot into him...

First off, Mitchell does only have one guy's testimony against Clemens.. A guy whose wife left him, kid is extremely ill, and who was just desperate to stay out of jail... I am not saying Clemens is innocent of the allegations, but, let's take the statements from where they came from... Mitchell was very haphazard in using his testimony with NO PROOF.. That is the key.. NO PROOF... By the way, where are the players on Mitchell's team listed on that report?? Ohhh right, there wasn't any... So, yea.. Let's take a biased Mitchell and a liar's word...

Scar
01-07-2008, 07:54 PM
By the way, where are the players on Mitchell's team listed on that report?? Ohhh right, there wasn't any... Steve Woodard
Jose Canseco
Mo Vaughn
Mike Stanton
Josias Manzanillo
Mike Lansing
Eric Gagne
Chris Donnels
Brendon Donnelly
Roger Clemens
Jeremy Giambi

Source: Wikipedia

Melanie
01-08-2008, 01:15 AM
I haven't known who to believe in all this, but after reading more about McNamee, I'm beginning to believe Roger more and more.

JPL
01-08-2008, 09:10 AM
You know in sports trainers inject alot of things in players. So playing devils advocate here a bit.
Isn't possible that Roger was injected with vitamins and pain medicine? Under the pressure and fear of going to jail McNamee simply remembers injecting Roger with something so therefore assumes it was steroids.

I mean let's face it the guy is scared and confused. We all know how fear can cloud our judgements and memories.

alphamommy
01-08-2008, 10:02 AM
I've never been a big Clemens fan, but I am a lifelong baseball fan. As a fan, I recognize that he's a great pitcher.

After watching his "60 Minutes" interview and portions of his press conference, I find myself wanting to believe him, which surprised me. I'll be glued to the coverage of the Congressional testimony.

The thing I keep wondering is this: maybe Roger thought he was being injected with B12 and lidocaine. Maybe it really wasn't what he thought. Maybe both men are telling the truth as they know it. Hmmm...

Hammer
01-08-2008, 10:41 AM
I tend to think Roger is lying just by watching the way he reacted to certain questions in his interviews (looking away, etc.). Is McNamee a choir boy? Of course not. None of the guys in that business are. It does not help his case that almost all the others that McNamee named (Pettite, Brian Roberts) have admitted that they did it. So Roger is the only one he is lying about? Pretty suspect to me.

Also, I have a friend who used to work for the Red Sox until 2005 (he now works for Fox Sports). He said that Roger is hardly the sharpest tool in the toolbox (wife Debbie is the brains) but he is ruthless and would do anything to be on top. Not a real stretch of the imagination to think he would use steroids.

DizneyFreak2002
01-08-2008, 07:03 PM
Steve Woodard
Jose Canseco
Mo Vaughn
Mike Stanton
Josias Manzanillo
Mike Lansing
Eric Gagne
Chris Donnels
Brendon Donnelly
Roger Clemens
Jeremy Giambi

Source: Wikipedia

While you use Wikipedia (not the best place to use as a source, kind of like Jim Hill being used as a great source of Disney rumors) I referred to the Mitchell Report as well as a few baseball statistic sites to see when each of these players were named as a user and when they played with the Sox... Incredibly, only 1 player criss-crosses as a user on the Sox and that is Mo Vaughn... All others were named as users before or after they played for the team.. other than Canseco, who, obviously, was accused as being a user before... So, in reality, he doesn't count.... Where are CURRENT players named??? Or how about a player from the 2004 championship team??? Wait... there aren't any named... I wonder why....

DizneyFreak2002
01-08-2008, 07:07 PM
Also, I have a friend who used to work for the Red Sox until 2005 (he now works for Fox Sports). He said that Roger is hardly the sharpest tool in the toolbox (wife Debbie is the brains) but he is ruthless and would do anything to be on top. Not a real stretch of the imagination to think he would use steroids. OK, so you named 99.9 percent of ball players... They ALL would do anything to be on top.. Does that make them steroid users??? No...

I am not saying Clemens is innocent.. nor am I saying he is guilty... If fact, I said, from the minute his name was mentioned, Clemens was a user.. But, I am swaying a bit more to believing him when he says he didn't use... He will have his day in court now, and of course, in front of Congress.... I am just saying we cannot take the word of a desperate individual who is trying to save trying to keep his own backside out of jail....

Remember, there is a fine line between the truth and what the FBI/Congress/Sen. Mitchell wants to hear... I am really anticipating this COngressional hearing to see just who testifies and who pleads the 5th... I don't think Clemens will plead the 5th... I don't think he will give a Mark McGuire style answer either.. The other guy, not so sure about... We'll see in a few days...

JPL
01-09-2008, 09:48 AM
Well one thing is obvious wheter the Rocket did Steroids or didn't do them is something we will never know for sure but with the way he is fighting we know evidence of him doing them is either very scarce or doesn't exist at all. Outside of one man's testimony under pressure.

Hammer
01-09-2008, 10:07 AM
Jeff and Bobby, I understand what you are saying but the fact that the other players named by McNamee have admitted that he got them the drugs tends to make me think that he isn't lying about Clemens. If the others had denied it, I might be willing to believe him.

Oh, and Bobby, I am quite aware that most players will do anything to stay in the leagues. I was implying that Roger is much more underhanded about it. In my eyes, the only difference between him and Bonds is Clemens knows how to play the PR game better than Bonds and puts on a good face.

Ian
01-09-2008, 12:11 PM
I wonder how many people realize that George Mitchell is the former Chairman of the Board of Directors of a little corporation known as "The Walt Disney Company."

He actually was sort of under some scruitny for awhile for some shady conduct as a member of the Board. Mostly as it related to Eisner and the Board failing to live up to its fiduciary responsibility to shareholders by not serving as an appropriate check and balance to Eisner's power.

Nothing ever came of it, but I guess what I'm saying is, the minute I heard Mitchell was the one preparing the report, it was knocked down a few pegs in my eyes in terms of its credibility.

I'm also not saying I think Clemens is innocent (quite the opposite ... his behavior makes me think he's guilty as heck!), but the whole thing is a tad odd if you ask me. So much of it seems to hinge on the testimony of people who were, at a minimum, under threat of incarceration.

Not exactly rock solid proof, eh?

GothMickey
01-09-2008, 12:40 PM
I wonder how many people realize that George Mitchell is the former Chairman of the Board of Directors of a little corporation known as "The Walt Disney Company."

He actually was sort of under some scruitny for awhile for some shady conduct as a member of the Board. Mostly as it related to Eisner and the Board failing to live up to its fiduciary responsibility to shareholders by not serving as an appropriate check and balance to Eisner's power.

Nothing ever came of it, but I guess what I'm saying is, the minute I heard Mitchell was the one preparing the report, it was knocked down a few pegs in my eyes in terms of its credibility.

I'm also not saying I think Clemens is innocent (quite the opposite ... his behavior makes me think he's guilty as heck!), but the whole thing is a tad odd if you ask me. So much of it seems to hinge on the testimony of people who were, at a minimum, under threat of incarceration.

Not exactly rock solid proof, eh?

Great point about Mitchell. MLB spun it to make him sound like such a credible man. I think he was a horrible choice. An outside, unbiased, unaffiliated person should have been hired to do the investigation. In my opinion, until Clemens is charged with perjury, until he is indicted, until he is jailed, he should be allowed to attend ESPN The Weekend. After all, you are speaking about a network that hyped a PROVEN cheater in Barry Bonds as he, undeservedly, broke the home run record. This is the same network that hypes illegal hits in football, violent tackles, and violent hits in hockey. Clemens should be allowed to be there.

GothMickey
01-09-2008, 01:03 PM
Jeff and Bobby, I understand what you are saying but the fact that the other players named by McNamee have admitted that he got them the drugs tends to make me think that he isn't lying about Clemens. If the others had denied it, I might be willing to believe him.

I have to side with Jeff and Bobby. Here is something for you to ponder. Should we say Clemens is guilty by association or because there is a ton of physical proof he used? As far as I know, there is no proof. He has not failed a drug test, that any of us know about. Just because he was associated with McNamee doesn't make Clemens a guilty party. Think about this Christine, if you hired a trainer who was giving steroids and HGH to 10 of his other clients, but you refused, and never took the drugs, yet, he gave your name up as one of his clients who did, how would you feel? Wouldn't you sue? Wouldn't you do what you had to in order to clear your name? Wouldn't you be as enraged as Clemens is, especially since his legacy and name is being tarnished? If not true, wouldn't you fight to protect yourself? I think you would.

CleveSJM
01-09-2008, 01:49 PM
I have to side with Jeff and Bobby. Here is something for you to ponder. Should we say Clemens is guilty by association or because there is a ton of physical proof he used? As far as I know, there is no proof. He has not failed a drug test, that any of us know about. Just because he was associated with McNamee doesn't make Clemens a guilty party. Think about this Christine, if you hired a trainer who was giving steroids and HGH to 10 of his other clients, but you refused, and never took the drugs, yet, he gave your name up as one of his clients who did, how would you feel? Wouldn't you sue? Wouldn't you do what you had to in order to clear your name? Wouldn't you be as enraged as Clemens is, especially since his legacy and name is being tarnished? If not true, wouldn't you fight to protect yourself? I think you would.

I have to side with Christine. Clemens associated with and allowed his trainer to inject "something" into his muscles. Clemens was not enraged until he figured out his B12/Lidocaine story. He was quiet until then. Right away he should have said, "they're confused, it was vitamins" not weeks later. I'm saying it's ok for Clemens to come to ESPN the weekend, but that he should be expecting to hear a lot of boo birds and not cheering.

One last thought, why would McNamee lie about Roger but not the others. He gave them enough. If he wasn't sure about the Rocket it would been better for him to leave him out of it.

The Congress testimony will be very interesting. I can't see Roger risking perjury. I think he'll be evasive, if not hiding under the 5th.

GothMickey
01-09-2008, 02:39 PM
I have to side with Christine. Clemens associated with and allowed his trainer to inject "something" into his muscles. Clemens was not enraged until he figured out his B12/Lidocaine story. He was quiet until then. Right away he should have said, "they're confused, it was vitamins" not weeks later. I'm saying it's ok for Clemens to come to ESPN the weekend, but that he should be expecting to hear a lot of boo birds and not cheering.

One last thought, why would McNamee lie about Roger but not the others. He gave them enough. If he wasn't sure about the Rocket it would been better for him to leave him out of it.

The Congress testimony will be very interesting. I can't see Roger risking perjury. I think he'll be evasive, if not hiding under the 5th.

He would lie about Christine for the same reason he could be lying about Clemens. To stay out of jail. Clemens was in a lose lose situation no matter what he did. If he answered quickly, people still would have jumped on him. He sat back, waited to respond, by advise from counsel mind you, and people jump on him. During that tape, when McNamee questioned him 20 time "what do you want me to do?" Clemens could not have said "tell the truth." Witness tampering is an offense courts take seriously, and that would have been a case of witness tampering. All this is right now is guilt by association. Let's wait to see what happens at Congress. Let's wait to see if some kind of physical proof comes up. I thought about not about getting into this discussion because this is a hot topic that could easily lead to a fight. All we are going to do is go in circles. There are those of you who choose to convict based on association or because you despise Clemens. There are those of us who prefer evidence before we convict. We will just continue to disagree. Maybe now is a good time to cut this topic before it becomes an all out brawl. One other thing Cleve, you can't see Roger risking perjury? How about McNamee not risking perjury? For all we know, McNamee lied about Clemens. None of us know one way or the other.

CleveSJM
01-09-2008, 03:02 PM
Good points Goth. Not looking for a brawl, just opinions. I think we all see both sides and agree there's no way to really tell. Everyone seems to be in the middle of the road just leaning one way or the other. I'm not sending him to Leavenworth, just thinking about booing him.

Also, I was a huge Rocket fan. Rookie card, autograghed ball, BoSox Jersey, the works... I'm just disappointed more than anything that he even got mixed up in this. :confused:

Ian
01-09-2008, 03:13 PM
Great point about Mitchell. MLB spun it to make him sound like such a credible man. I think he was a horrible choice. An outside, unbiased, unaffiliated person should have been hired to do the investigation.You know that's kind of a good point. Can Mitchell truly be unbiased considering he was once the Chairman of the company that owns ESPN??

JPL
01-09-2008, 03:38 PM
You know that's kind of a good point. Can Mitchell truly be unbiased considering he was once the Chairman of the company that owns ESPN??

As well as being involved with the Red Sox. I mean he is far from unbiased.

Hammer
01-09-2008, 03:43 PM
Good points Goth. Not looking for a brawl, just opinions. I think we all see both sides and agree there's no way to really tell. Everyone seems to be in the middle of the road just leaning one way or the other. I'm not sending him to Leavenworth, just thinking about booing him.


Agreed. I just have a unique prespective regarding Clemens due to my friend who worked for NESN and the Red Sox. He traveled with the team for many seasons so I heard a bit about how some of these guys really are. It may be one of the reasons I usually won't root for individual players anymore and stick to cheering the team on.

DizneyFreak2002
01-09-2008, 06:46 PM
Agreed. I just have a unique prespective regarding Clemens due to my friend who worked for NESN and the Red Sox. He traveled with the team for many seasons so I heard a bit about how some of these guys really are. It may be one of the reasons I usually won't root for individual players anymore and stick to cheering the team on.

Probably better off not rooting for individual players anymore... As much as you guys love Ortiz, he'd break your heart in a second if more money was tossed his way... As would any player.... Red Sox fans, and Yankee fans too, are extremely fickle with players... We are all in a "what have you done for us lately" mentality.... If Rocket was 12-0 and help the Yankees win the World Series this year, Yankee fans would be defending him left and right today.. Fact is, Clemens stunk... And Yankee fans are completely upset by his performance.. So, they are all turning on him now, during these allegations of steroid abuse.... This is a sad situation baseball is in.. Not because of Clemens.. but because people allowed the cheating to go on so long... I say let Clemens be at ESPN Weekend... Cheer him if you want, boo him if you must... By the way, just so you all can get a true feel for the kind of slimebag McNamee is: police, I think in Tampa FL, are now looking into whether he lied to them about a rape case in 2001... That's right... They think he lied to stay out of jail... If this is true, then the man cannot be trusted...

DizneyFreak2002
01-09-2008, 06:50 PM
As well as being involved with the Red Sox. I mean he is far from unbiased.

Hence the reason I said no current Red Sox player is named in his report... Since the HGH and steroid abuse was so rampant, as he claims, then I am sure a few players from their 2004 team would be named... Unless, he didn't want to tarnish and taint their first championship in 86 years... Yet, he had no problems trying to taint and tarnish the Yankee dynasty of the late 90's, early 2000's.... Mitchell was truly biased... And Ian, Mitchell gave his ESPN a load of stories to run for a good long time...

Scar
01-10-2008, 01:53 PM
Hence the reason I said no current Red Sox player is named in his report... Since the HGH and steroid abuse was so rampant, as he claims, then I am sure a few players from their 2004 team would be named... Unless, he didn't want to tarnish and taint their first championship in 86 years... Yet, he had no problems trying to taint and tarnish the Yankee dynasty of the late 90's, early 2000's.... Mitchell was truly biased... And Ian, Mitchell gave his ESPN a load of stories to run for a good long time...I think that’s a stretch. I’m not saying it’s impossible, I just don’t think so. The reason there weren’t more Red Sox named is the same reason there weren’t more players in general named… that’s all he had evidence for.

I think all baseball fans know with certainty that every team had users on them. I wouldn’t be shocked if the real number is 10 times the number on the list.

I can tell you from an unbiased perspective (I hate both the Yankees and Red Sox) that neither ones championships are tainted. The Yankees beat my Mets in 2000 fair and square. The main reason you won and we lost is because we had Benitez and you had Rivera. And if I were to guess who was more likely taking steroids, it would be Benitez. I’m sure the Mets had just as many people on steroids as the Yankees.

DizneyFreak2002
01-10-2008, 08:09 PM
I think that’s a stretch. I’m not saying it’s impossible, I just don’t think so. The reason there weren’t more Red Sox named is the same reason there weren’t more players in general named… that’s all he had evidence for.

I think all baseball fans know with certainty that every team had users on them. I wouldn’t be shocked if the real number is 10 times the number on the list.

I can tell you from an unbiased perspective (I hate both the Yankees and Red Sox) that neither ones championships are tainted. The Yankees beat my Mets in 2000 fair and square. The main reason you won and we lost is because we had Benitez and you had Rivera. And if I were to guess who was more likely taking steroids, it would be Benitez. I’m sure the Mets had just as many people on steroids as the Yankees.

Scar, you made my case for me, saying out the list was more than likely 10 time the amount of players named... Well, then, don't name anyone... Just say how rampant HGH and steroid use was in baseball, but don't name anyone... With MLB giving him immunity from being sued, he carelessly named people with no proof... A few cashed checks??? If this is all the evidence he had going into trial, he would have been laughed at by fellow prosecutors... Even so, I think you get my drift... He could have and should have not mentioned any names at all unless he had concrete proof, as well as naming EVERYONE... What's done is done... Let the guilty players come forward, as many have, and let the innocent ones fight to get their name back, where only 1 is.... And for those that remain silent, whether they are truly innocent, or truly guilty, they will forever be known as a cheat....

Scar
01-10-2008, 10:17 PM
If this is all the evidence he had going into trial, he would have been laughed at by fellow prosecutors... Even so, I think you get my drift... He could have and should have not mentioned any names at all unless he had concrete proof, as well as naming EVERYONE... But this isn't a trial (which is why I'm confused about everyone who is saying "innocent until proven guilty.")

I totaly disagree about the naming of names. It was necessary to send a message to any future users that they will be named if caught, whch is really the whole point of the report, the future, not the past.

By the way, as much as I have always hated Clemens , he is a Hall of Famer, one of the greatest. No question.

GothMickey
01-11-2008, 08:39 AM
We keep going in circles people. Can't we just get back to the topic of whether Clemens should be part of ESPN the Weekend and not about this Mitchell Reoprt?

Scar
01-11-2008, 01:00 PM
We keep going in circles people. Can't we just get back to the topic of whether Clemens should be part of ESPN the Weekend and not about this Mitchell Reoprt?Sure, although I would like to here Steve's (the OP's) opinion on where the thread should be headed.

I think he should still be allowed to attend, but I think it would be prudent for him to decline.

CleveSJM
02-20-2008, 05:59 PM
Scar got it right. Good move Rocket.

Clemens pulls out of ESPN event
AP

Roger Clemens has pulled out of an ESPN sports personality weekend at Disney Hollywood Studios. The decision comes a week after Clemens gave testimony to a congressional committee about his alleged use of performance enhancing drugs. Clemens says in a statement Wednesday, "I believe my current participation could be a distraction."
ESPN spokesman Josh Krulewitz says ESPN "made the point that him being involved would be a newsworthy event," and his decision to withdraw was made in the past 24 hours.
Clemens had agreed to participate in "ESPN the Weekend" before the release of the Mitchell Report.
The withdrawal came after Clemens and his former trainer, Brian McNamee, offered widely contradictory testimony to the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform on Feb. 13.