# Roger Clemens acquitted on all counts



## pwrshift (Jun 18, 2012)

http://www.myfoxaustin.com/story/18817525/verdict-reached-in-roger-clemens-perjury-case


----------



## hypnotiq (Jun 18, 2012)

Yet *one more* thing our government has no business being involved with...


----------



## ace2000 (Jun 18, 2012)

Wow, guess he really didn't use steroids after all...


:hysterical:


----------



## pedro47 (Jun 18, 2012)

What a total waste of tax payers money !!! First Barry Bond now Roger....


----------



## ampaholic (Jun 18, 2012)

So what happens when they are eligible for the hall of fame?


----------



## dioxide45 (Jun 18, 2012)

ampaholic said:


> So what happens when they are eligible for the hall of fame?



They will likely never make the hall of fame. Those voting for induction require a far lower burden of proof. Pretty much everyone believes they used performance enhancing drugs and pretty much have no chance of garnering enough votes to make it in. Guilty or not.


----------



## Kozman (Jun 20, 2012)

Agreed.  Total waste of taxpayer money.  Let baseball judge them.


----------



## am1 (Jun 20, 2012)

Lying to Congress is a criminal offence no matter what it is about.  Where and who draws the line?  

It would be nice if they went after Pettitte now.


----------



## ronparise (Jun 20, 2012)

am1 said:


> Lying to Congress is a criminal offence no matter what it is about.  Where and who draws the line?
> 
> It would be nice if they went after Pettitte now.



Exactly right...the crime wasnt using drugs, the crime was lying to Congress about it


----------



## Rob&Carol Q (Jun 20, 2012)

Lying to Congress is not a crime...  well, unless you are a average schmuck, then your goose is cooked.

The Steroid Boys have been found guilty in a different court...the Court of Public Opinion.

No Hall of Fame for these guys.


----------



## MOXJO7282 (Jun 20, 2012)

Of course they'll get in the Hall, no doubt. Do they deserve to? Yes IMHO because everyone was doing it so how do you isloate two and prevent their entry when you didn't prove they did it and you know so many others did it too. Of course they did it but eventually they will get it.


----------



## svwoude (Jun 20, 2012)

am1 said:


> Lying to Congress is a criminal offence no matter what it is about.  Where and who draws the line?
> 
> It would be nice if they went after Pettitte now.



Understand lying to Congress is a crime, but if they hadn't stuck their nose in baseballs business, he wouldn't have to lie to them!

Don't they have bigger or better things to get their panties in a bunch about?


----------



## bogey21 (Jun 20, 2012)

hypnotiq said:


> Yet *one more* thing our government has no business being involved with...



What a waste of our taxpayer money.  Clemmens, Bonds and John Edwards.  Millions of our taxpayer dollars down the drain with nothing to show for it.

George


----------



## am1 (Jun 20, 2012)

Even with a not guilty verdict they still have a lot to show for it.  Not what they wanted or the verdict that should have been given but that is how the legal system is set up.

If Clemons did not use performance enhancing drugs or told the truth about it then he would not have had to lie to congress.  

Under oath is under oath.


----------



## ampaholic (Jun 20, 2012)

am1 said:


> Even with a not guilty verdict they still have a lot to show for it.  Not what they wanted or the verdict that should have been given but that is how the legal system is set up.
> 
> If Clemons did not use performance enhancing drugs or told the truth about it then he would not have had to lie to congress.
> 
> Under oath is under oath.



He *didn't* lie to congress - don't you understand what "acquitted" means?


----------



## Elan (Jun 20, 2012)

am1 said:


> Even with a not guilty verdict they still have a lot to show for it.  Not what they wanted or the verdict that should have been given but that is how the legal system is set up.
> 
> If Clemons did not use performance enhancing drugs or told the truth about it then *he would not have had to lie to congress*.
> 
> Under oath is under oath.



  According to our legal system, he didn't lie.  He was acquitted.  If you're going to be a proponent of the frivolities afforded by our legal system, then accept the outcome as just.   

  Colossal waste of tax money.  Next, maybe we can get Ken Starr to take down Andy Pettite.


----------



## ampaholic (Jun 20, 2012)

Bug Slugs!


----------



## am1 (Jun 20, 2012)

Elan said:


> According to our legal system, he didn't lie.  He was acquitted.  If you're going to be a proponent of the frivolities afforded by our legal system, then accept the outcome as just.



I do not see it that way.  I see it that the people could not prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.


----------



## ace2000 (Jun 20, 2012)

ampaholic said:


> He *didn't* lie to congress - don't you understand what "acquitted" means?


 
Think what you want, but acquitted does NOT mean he didn't lie to congress.


----------



## ampaholic (Jun 20, 2012)

am1 said:


> I do not see it that way.  *I see it *that the people could not prove their case beyond a reasonable doubt.



So you think *you* know better than the jury what happened? Do *you* know what "really" happened? Is this story really just all about *you*?

Well since we are now talking about what *you* think:

 Do*you* also think the "burden of proof" is just silly - that this case has already been proven?


----------



## ampaholic (Jun 20, 2012)

ace2000 said:


> Think what you want, but acquitted does NOT mean he didn't lie to congress.



Well, yes actually it means just exactly that!


----------



## Rob&Carol Q (Jun 20, 2012)

ampaholic said:


> Well, yes actually it means just exactly that!



I actually mean the evidence presented did no prove beyond a "Reasonable Doubt"... The standard by which guilt is determined.  Kind of like OJ...not guilty, yet most folk "know" he killed that poor girl.

Sorry, but Clemens, Sosa, McGuire, Bonds, and the rest of the steroid gang are tainted in the eyes of the Baseball writers and will probably find themselves shut out in the Hall of Fame voting.

Interesting read here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Baseball_Hall_of_Fame_balloting,_2012

So call me a purist but I think the Baseball Hall of Fame would be diminished by adding these guys to the mix.  If they must be added, they've certained earned their * behind their name...


----------



## am1 (Jun 20, 2012)

ampaholic said:


> So you think *you* know better than the jury what happened? Do *you* know what "really" happened? Is this story really just all about *you*?
> 
> Well since we are now talking about what *you* think:
> 
> Do*you* also think the "burden of proof" is just silly - that this case has already been proven?



There is a reason he was found not guilty instead of innocent.  Yes I am able to think for myself and am not bound by the same burden of proof and trial procedures as the legal system.  

Do you think he is innocent of taking performance enhancing drugs and then lying to congress about it?  

How about Lance?


----------



## bogey21 (Jun 20, 2012)

Guilty.  Not Guilty.  Who cares.  What I care about are the millions of tax dollars (some of which were mine) down the drain trying to prove the unprovable re Barry Bonds, Roger Clemens and John Edwards.

George


----------



## ampaholic (Jun 20, 2012)

I fail to generate any interest in arguing with someone who stubbornly insists on substituting their opinion for fact.

The FACT is he was acquitted - get over it.

The FACT is an acquittal means he "didn't do it" in the eyes of the law, and therefore in the eyes of law abiding citizens - get over it.

Good day - I said Good Day!


----------



## SueDonJ (Jun 20, 2012)

ampaholic said:


> I fail to generate any interest in arguing with someone who stubbornly insists on substituting their opinion for fact.
> 
> The FACT is he was acquitted - get over it.
> 
> ...



Technically, all an acquittal means is that the prosecution failed to prove that he did what he was accused of doing.  Doesn't mean he did it or didn't do it, just that if he did it wasn't proven.

But the way I see it, the technicality is neither here nor there when talking about HOF eligibility.  HOF voters can keep players out based on a morals clause that doesn't exist in other sports - many of the writers/voters have an ongoing struggle with this issue for the exact reason MOXJO mentioned, that steroid use was prevalent for a time and there's no way of determining who was and wasn't doing it.  (A secondary stumbling block they deal with is that rules against steroid use were not enacted until after the era began.)  Court resolutions are not the only barometers on which the voters can base their decisions - all it takes to raise suspicion is a review of a player's stats and changes in his physique during the steroid era.  If a voter relies on that reasonable suspicion to keep a player out, I don't have any problem with that vote.

Because of the acquittal we can't say that he's a lying steroid-using cheat unless we phrase it in such a way that it's known to be only an opinion.  I'd say it like this: "I don't believe the guy is any more innocent than OJ.  If it was up to me that lying steroid-using cheat Roger Clemens would never get into the HOF, but it's not up to me."

:hysterical: 

The Pete Rose thing is so much more cut and dried IMO.  He broke the rules, admitted he broke the rules, and now he's paying for it by being denied entrance.  Works for me.


----------



## dioxide45 (Jun 20, 2012)

ampaholic said:


> I fail to generate any interest in arguing with someone who stubbornly insists on substituting their opinion for fact.
> 
> The FACT is he was acquitted - get over it.
> 
> ...



I don't agree. An acquittal doesn't mean innocence, it just means not guilty. He wasn't found innocent, he was found not guilty. There is a difference and an acquittal doesn't mean he was not lying. To prove he lied they would have had to prove that he used performance enhancing drugs. Something that didn't happen. That doesn't mean he didn't use them and didn't lie to congress. Just means they couldn't prove it.


----------



## dioxide45 (Jun 20, 2012)

SueDonJ said:


> Technically, all an acquittal means is that the prosecution failed to prove that he did what he was accused of doing.  Doesn't mean he did it or didn't do it, just that if he did it wasn't proven.
> 
> But the way I see it, the technicality is neither here nor there when talking about HOF eligibility.  HOF voters can keep players out based on a morals clause that doesn't exist in other sports - many of the writers/voters have an ongoing struggle with this issue for the exact reason MOXJO mentioned, that steroid use was prevalent for a time and there's no way of determining who was and wasn't doing it.  (A secondary stumbling block they deal with is that rules against steroid use were not enacted until after the era began.)  Court resolutions are not the only barometers on which the voters can base their decisions - all it takes to raise suspicion is a review of a player's stats and changes in his physique during the steroid era.  If a voter relies on that reasonable suspicion to keep a player out, I don't have any problem with that vote.
> 
> ...



I am rather pessimistic about his chances of getting in the Hall of Fame any time soon. Look at Mark McGwire. He has been on the ballot every year since 2007, he has failed every year to get the 75% of the votes needed for induction. In fact the most he has gotten was a dismal 23.7% in 2010. We will find out next year when Roger is eligible for the first time.


----------



## ace2000 (Jun 20, 2012)

SueDonJ said:


> Because of the acquittal we can't say that he's a lying steroid-using cheat unless we phrase it in such a way that it's known to be only an opinion. I'd say it like this: "I don't believe the guy is any more innocent than OJ. If it was up to me that lying steroid-using cheat Roger Clemens would never get into the HOF, but it's not up to me."
> 
> :hysterical:
> 
> The Pete Rose thing is so much more cut and dried IMO. He broke the rules, admitted he broke the rules, and now he's paying for it by being denied entrance. Works for me.


 
Personally, I'm just going to say "guilty"...  anyone have a problem with that?  Really, I can say and believe whatever I want.


----------



## ace2000 (Jun 20, 2012)

dioxide45 said:


> Look at Mark McGwire. He has been on the ballot every year since 2007, he has failed every year to get the 75% of the votes needed for induction. In fact the most he has gotten was a dismal 23.7% in 2010. We will find out next year when Roger is eligible for the first time.



These two are a few notches above McGwire.  There is no doubt that Bonds and Clemens were the two greatest players of their generation.  They'll  get in eventually.  There's going to be so many players with tainted stats, that there will be no choice.  But, it will take some time.


----------



## pwrshift (Jun 21, 2012)

Even the Babe apparently took drugs of his day...booze.  However I don't think booze is a performance enhancer and wonder what he would have done if he was 'clean'.

But when the long standing Ruth/Maris HR records were eventually broken by 3 or 4 hitters within the space of about 2 years you just knew something was enhancing their hitting.  Hard to say if it would have the same effect on pitchers like Clemens, but the breaking of HR records really bothers me.  If they get in the HOF I think they need an * beside their names.

On a personal note, I was in Chicago many years ago at the hotel checkout counter and when the clerk handed the big guy next to me a ball to sign I realized it was Hank Arron.  He towered over everyone in the room and could probably hit a homer with one arm.

Brian


----------



## ace2000 (Jun 21, 2012)

pwrshift said:


> On a personal note, I was in Chicago many years ago at the hotel checkout counter and when the clerk handed the big guy next to me a ball to sign I realized it was Hank Arron. He towered over everyone in the room and could probably hit a homer with one arm.


 
LOL - towered over everyone and hit a homer with one arm???  that sounds like a folktale of Paul Bunyan something.  

Hank Aaron was 6' 0" tall, and while he was playing he weighed between 180 and 200 lbs.  He may have been strong but he was not big.


----------



## theo (Jun 21, 2012)

*Roger's "bags"...*



SueDonJ said:


> <snip> Because of the acquittal we can't say that he's a lying steroid-using cheat unless we phrase it in such a way that it's known to be only an opinion.  I'd say it like this: "I don't believe the guy is any more innocent than OJ.  If it was up to me that lying steroid-using cheat Roger Clemens would never get into the HOF, but it's not up to me." <snip>



No disagreement here. However, one might also be tempted to say (...as a matter of personal opinion) that, with or without a criminal conviction, our boy Roger is and always was an arrogant ass who, without a good fastball, would likley have been "slinging grain bags for a living at a Texas Amway", as one Boston area sportswriter once quite aptly put it.  

I remember Clemens openly grousing about "having to carry his own bags" when pitched for the Red Sox. 
I think that comment may have prompted the subsequent sportswriter comment about the "grain bags". 

Personally, I hope Clemons never sees the HOF. As noted already, however, "it's not up to me".


----------



## Wonka (Jun 21, 2012)

I don't get it...what's the argument?

An innocent verdict from a jury means he was declared legally innocent by the jury...the decision might be right or wrong, but it is a legally binding decision.


----------



## am1 (Jun 21, 2012)

A timeshare sales person does not even do anything legally wrong yet they are vilified here without even a trial.


----------



## theo (Jun 21, 2012)

Wonka said:


> I don't get it...what's the argument?
> 
> An innocent verdict from a jury means he was declared legally innocent by the jury...the decision might be right or wrong, but it is a legally binding decision.



Argument? Just seems to me like different viewpoints about Roger Clemens. I've personally thought he was a horse's ass for years, whether "juiced" or not. You may instead idolize the man; that is your prerogative. 

Mark McGuire was never charged at all with anything regarding PED's, so he's certainly "legally innocent" too. Nonetheless, I hope they *both* have very long waits before any HOF considerations. YMMV.


----------



## ampaholic (Jun 21, 2012)

am1 said:


> A timeshare sales person does not even do anything *legally wrong* yet they are vilified here without even a trial.



You are showing your youth and inexperience am1. Actually "misrepresentation of material facts in sales" is covered by the fraud statutes in most jurisdictions, as such in most jurisdiction it would be charged as either a gross misdemeanor or a lower class felony.

Generally they are careful not to leave "evidence" around for the authorities to find. Turn on a video at your next presentation - they will fly right on tape.  

Just because you think something is so - doesn't make it so.


----------



## ampaholic (Jun 21, 2012)

theo said:


> Argument? Just seems to me like different viewpoints about Roger Clemens. I've personally thought he was a horse's ass for years, whether "juiced" or not. You may instead idolize the man; that is your prerogative.
> 
> Mark McGuire was never charged at all with anything regarding PED's, so he's certainly "legally innocent" too. Nonetheless, I hope they *both* have very long waits before any HOF considerations. YMMV.



Not to be overly argumentative; but being a horse's ass shouldn't keep him out of the hall - look at Ty Cobb. 

McGuire *was* accused in Canseco's book I believe, and if I have my facts strait he admitted being "juiced" didn't he. 

I don't have a dog in the fight as far as the HOF goes - as I never plan to even visit it. 

I just decry the part of human nature that implores us to denigrate someone based *"solely"* on whispers and innuendo _eg:_ the Salem Witch Hunts.


----------



## theo (Jun 21, 2012)

*Cooperstown, here I DON'T come...*



ampaholic said:


> I don't have a dog in the fight as far as the HOF goes - as I never plan to even visit it.



On that point, we are on the same page, devil dog.


----------



## hypnotiq (Jun 21, 2012)

So many things to say here, where to start.

1) The fact any taxpayer was wasted on this shows how screwed up this country is becoming.

2) No one in here was on the jury, so stating opinions as if they are facts, is rather cutesy but irrelevant.

3) Even *IF* he lied to Congress, I could give a flying leap. Congress constantly lies to the American people, I dont see anyone screaming about there.

4) Clemens will be in the HOF. Ill bet good money on it. I was never a fan but looking at it objectively, he belongs there.

Continue your circular fighting...


----------



## dioxide45 (Jun 21, 2012)

hypnotiq said:


> so stating opinions as if they are facts, is rather cutesy but irrelevant.



I've seen this mentioned on the board before in other threads. What makes people think that those stating their opinion are doing so as a fact? When you are reading the boards everyone is stating their opinions, just because they don't put "IMO" with their statement doesn't mean they are stating facts. This comment always comes from those that don't agree with the other's opinion.


----------



## theo (Jun 21, 2012)

*Howzzat now???*



hypnotiq said:


> Continue your circular fighting...



Fighting??? 

My guess is that you've never been engaged in any actual "fighting" if you actually think that a little bit of friendly discussion and assorted personal opinions about a baseball player actually consitutes *fighting*...


----------



## ampaholic (Jun 21, 2012)

hypnotiq said:


> 3) Even *IF* he lied to Congress, I could give a flying leap. Congress constantly lies to the American people, I dont see anyone screaming about there.



+1 from me - excellent point - good for the goose...



hypnotiq said:


> Continue your circular fighting...



Circular - yes 
Fighting - nah (perhaps a better word would be nagging :hysterical


----------



## am1 (Jun 21, 2012)

ampaholic said:


> You are showing your youth and inexperience am1. Actually "misrepresentation of material facts in sales" is covered by the fraud statutes in most jurisdictions, as such in most jurisdiction it would be charged as either a gross misdemeanor or a lower class felony.
> 
> Generally they are careful not to leave "evidence" around for the authorities to find. Turn on a video at your next presentation - they will fly right on tape.
> 
> Just because you think something is so - doesn't make it so.



Who says what they do is fraud?  Has it ever been proven in court?  Until then, in your opinion they have done nothing wrong.  

What is your opinion of what timeshare sales people do?

What is your opinion of what Roger and others took or did not take?

Do you believe people can have committed the crime but a jury found them not guilty?


----------



## ampaholic (Jun 21, 2012)

am1 said:


> Who says what they do is fraud?  Has it ever been proven in court?  Until then, in your opinion they have done nothing wrong.
> 
> What is your opinion of what timeshare sales people do?
> 
> ...



Like I said - nagging.


----------



## hypnotiq (Jun 22, 2012)

theo said:


> Fighting???
> 
> My guess is that you've never been engaged in any actual "fighting" if you actually think that a little bit of friendly discussion and assorted personal opinions about a baseball player actually consitutes *fighting*...



I forget that my sarcasm doesn't translate onto forums. The  was my sarcastic face. My apologies.


----------



## hypnotiq (Jun 22, 2012)

I have some other comments now that I have time.

#1 - if you're a purist, then you should stick to watching pre college kids play the game. There is nothing pure about post HS sports.

#2 - if you want to get on the topic of Babe Ruth, he also didn't have to face some of the toughest pitchers of his era, because they were black. Should we asterisk him as well?

#3 - even without PED, I expect athletes today to be _*significantly*_ better than those 50-100 years ago, simply because they take better care of their bodies and the science behind how to achieve maximum results with their bodies. 

#4 - even *IF* they take PED, there still requires *talent* to hit a ball, etc. Joe Blow can't just shove a needle in his ass and belt out 75 HR's like Bonds did. You still have to face pitchers throwing 100mph, make contact, etc. No amount of PED's can make up for talent.

Last, it makes me kind of scared how some of you are judge, jury, executioner about something that you likely don't have all the facts about. Unless you read the actual court transcripts that jury's were exposed to, your opinion is based on a guess at best.

Innocent until Proven Guilty used to mean something in this country. Long gone are those days. Today, you're guilty, until your proven innocent by the court of public opinion.


----------



## ampaholic (Jun 22, 2012)

hypnotiq said:


> -snip-
> Today, you're guilty, until your proven innocent by the court of public opinion.



The "court of public opinion" *never* finds someone innocent - never has, never will - human nature.


----------



## ampaholic (Jun 22, 2012)

hypnotiq said:


> I forget that my sarcasm doesn't translate onto forums. The  was my sarcastic face. My apologies.



I would actually be very happy for you if you never have to endure a _*real*_ fight. I'm pretty sure Theo would concur.

Semper Fi


----------



## pgnewarkboy (Jun 22, 2012)

*Clemons is INNOCENT*

100 percent positive he will be in hall of fame.  It was never proven he took steroids and it was never proven he lied about it.  

There is no reason to keep him out.  His numbers as a pitcher are better than great. He is one of the greatest pitchers of all time.

Now getting back to the facts.  In our legal system, a  legal charge must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt. If a charge is not proven the TRUTH of that charge is deemed to be FACTUALLY INCORRECT. NOT HYPOTHETICALLY INCORRECT but ACTUALLY wrong.  Inasmuch as the legal system could not make its case it is a FACT that the charges against him were wrong.  He neither took steroids or lied about it.  Consequently he is completely INNOCENT.


Anyone is entitled to have an opinion.  A person can think he did the steroids and lied about it but YOU WOULD BE WRONG.  You would hold an opinion that is wrong.


----------



## theo (Jun 22, 2012)

*Yessa!*



ampaholic said:


> I would actually be very happy for you if you never have to endure a _*real*_ fight. I'm pretty sure Theo would concur.
> 
> Semper Fi



Very well stated --- and I do indeed fully concur.  

In regard to Roger, I render no judgement on his guilt or innocence on PED's --- I just plain *dislike* the guy. 
I always have and I likely always will. That's nothing more than my personal opinion (and prerogative), which I neither solicit, need nor expect others to share.  

Living and working in the greater Boston area during the time when Clemens pitched for the Red Sox, I just grew very weary of Roger's continual whining and interminable prima donna antics, delivered in our faces (all too frequently) on the sports news there. 

On the other hand, once Clemens *left* Boston, it was soon enough "World Series rings all around" in 2004 for the Red Sox --- *without* "The Rocket".  

Semper Fi.


----------



## Ridewithme38 (Jun 22, 2012)

hypnotiq said:


> #4 - even *IF* they take PED, there still requires *talent* to hit a ball, etc. Joe Blow can't just shove a needle in his ass and belt out 75 HR's like Bonds did. You still have to face pitchers throwing 100mph, make contact, etc. No amount of PED's can make up for talent.



The issue for me has always been with the rule, not with the players...Because of some idiotic rule about professional athletes using PED's there is now an unfair advantage for those that do....I say, get rid of the rule banning PED use in professional sports, let ALL these players play at 100%...that way, we don't end up with only the scumbags being the 'top athletes' and give everyone a chance to compete


----------



## Ridewithme38 (Jun 22, 2012)

theo said:


> On the other hand, once Clemens *left* Boston, it was soon enough "World Series rings all around" in 2004 for the Red Sox --- *without* "The Rocket".
> 
> Semper Fi.



To be fair, the Yankees just got tired of winning every single year and let you guys have one.....Sometimes even the crappiest team in sports deserves a little taste of victory....

Your welcome


----------



## MOXJO7282 (Jun 22, 2012)

I say asterik the whole generation and let people decide for themselves how they feel about it.


----------



## Rob&Carol Q (Jun 22, 2012)

Oh sure...start the whole "Damn Yankees" thing...

As far as baseball and purity is concerned, try taking in some minor league games.  We have the Dayton Dragons here (A-Cincinnati) and my Bride and I have season tickets.  Nice park, reasonably OK ball, not outrageous prices.  And you get to see the next generation of Major League player when they are in the striving phase...good fun!  Shoot, we had Joey Votto down here a few years ago...even then everybody liked him and knew he was destined for the bigs.  Didn't realize that he was going to "that" good though.

Going to a game tonight...looking forward to it.


----------



## laura1957 (Jun 22, 2012)

Rob&Carol Q said:


> Oh sure...start the whole "Damn Yankees" thing...
> 
> As far as baseball and purity is concerned, try taking in some minor league games.  We have the Dayton Dragons here (A-Cincinnati) and my Bride and I have season tickets.  Nice park, reasonably OK ball, not outrageous prices.  And you get to see the next generation of Major League player when they are in the striving phase...good fun!  Shoot, we had Joey Votto down here a few years ago...even then everybody liked him and knew he was destined for the bigs.  Didn't realize that he was going to "that" good though.
> 
> Going to a game tonight...looking forward to it.



Absolutely!!   I went to many Yankee games when I lived on LI, but I think I enjoy the Delmarva Shorebirds games even more   Usually only have these young men for a couple years before they move on, but it is nice to see them make it to the big leagues


----------



## hypnotiq (Jun 22, 2012)

Ridewithme38 said:


> The issue for me has always been with the rule, not with the players...Because of some idiotic rule about professional athletes using PED's there is now an unfair advantage for those that do....I say, get rid of the rule banning PED use in professional sports, let ALL these players play at 100%...that way, we don't end up with only the scumbags being the 'top athletes' and give everyone a chance to compete



I actually tooko out my #5 point because I figured it would get people too wound up.

#5 - I know this will really wind some people up but I dont give a flying hoot if they are using PED or not. Like I said, the game stopped being pure as soon as adults are involved. These are professional athletes who are paid ridiculous sums of money to entertain you.  I say get rid of the rule and stop wasting the energy and money on something that has been happening for many decades.


----------



## hypnotiq (Jun 22, 2012)

MOXJO7282 said:


> I say asterik the whole generation and let people decide for themselves how they feel about it.



Why do we have to asterik for people to decide how they feel? Just leave it alone. If we are going to asterik McG, Sosa, Bonds, Clemens, etc... I want Babe Ruth asterik'd as well. People can decide for themslves how they feel about the fact he never had to face some of the toughest pitchers of his time...


----------



## hypnotiq (Jun 22, 2012)

theo said:


> In regard to Roger, I render no judgement on his guilt or innocence on PED's --- I just plain *dislike* the guy.
> I always have and I likely always will.



Im not a fan of Roger Clemens either but I think what has taken place with him and Congress, etc should have never happened in the first place. Its a waste of time and more importantly, taxpayer money.


----------



## ace2000 (Jun 22, 2012)

hypnotiq said:


> Im not a fan of Roger Clemens either but I think what has taken place with him and Congress, etc should have never happened in the first place. Its a waste of time and more importantly, taxpayer money.


 
If you're going to get excited at the expense of this episode, do some research... there is a lot more out there.

Are people going to be held accountable for what they say in a congressional hearing or not?  That is what is at stake here.  I understand that we all have different viewpoints on that subject.


----------



## hypnotiq (Jun 22, 2012)

Im not getting excited about this one episode. I can think of a lot of other stupid shit Congress has wasted time and our money on.



ace2000 said:


> Are people going to be held accountable for what they say in a congressional hearing or not?  That is what is at stake here.  I understand that we all have different viewpoints on that subject.



First of all, he was already found Not Guilty of lying to congress. So that point is moot.  He has been held accountable in the sense that; 12 people sitting in the jury box, who had access to ALL of the facts, found him Not Guilty. Period.

As far as people lying to Congress in general. Ill care about it as soon as Congress is held accountable for lying to the American public.


----------



## ace2000 (Jun 22, 2012)

hypnotiq said:


> First of all, he was already found Not Guilty of lying to congress. So that point is moot.


 
Wasn't one of the counts in this last trial whether he lied to Congress?  I believe it was.  Not sure it's a moot point.


----------



## hypnotiq (Jun 22, 2012)

ace2000 said:


> Wasn't one of the counts in this last trial whether he lied to Congress?  I believe it was.  Not sure it's a moot point.



Not sure what you're talking about...



> Roger Clemens was acquitted Monday on *all charges *that he obstructed and *lied to Congress*...


----------



## ace2000 (Jun 22, 2012)

hypnotiq said:


> Not sure what you're talking about...


 
You were complaining about the expense of the trial.  I mentioned that he was on trial for lying to Congress (he was found not guilty).

Added:  Should Congress have taken this case to begin with?  That is up for you all to argue about.  I have not stated an opinion about that question.  But, if Congress does decide to make someone testify, then I will say that they should probably have the right to prosecute if there is evidence that they were untruthful.


----------



## Elan (Jun 22, 2012)

hypnotiq said:


> Im not getting excited about this one episode. I can think of a lot of other stupid shit Congress has wasted time and our money on.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



  Amen.  To all of the above.


----------



## am1 (Jun 22, 2012)

When the pros are allowed to use then it is more acceptable for others to use.  IE high school kids. 

Should the same be allowed at the olympics?  Then who would get the medals the athletes or the doctors?  

I am against all kinds of illegal drugs regardless of the purpose and who using them.


----------



## Rob&Carol Q (Jun 22, 2012)

hypnotiq said:


> Why do we have to asterik for people to decide how they feel? Just leave it alone. If we are going to asterik McG, Sosa, Bonds, Clemens, etc... I want Babe Ruth asterik'd as well. People can decide for themslves how they feel about the fact he never had to face some of the toughest pitchers of his time...



I'm stumped by this one...how can ANY batter not face the toughest pitchers of his time?  You bat in the inning you bat, regardless of the pitcher at the time.  

In fact, recalling my heyday, there was a pitcher everyone absolutely feared in our little league.  He was taller than all of us, had facial hair, and his step towards the plate was fantastically huge in our little minds...and we just knew that ball was coming for us.  Funny thing though, I did better against this monster than the "weak" pitchers in our league.  Fear, adrenaline. Whatever...I knew I was unaturally aware when I faced this fireballer.  Oh, and he went a lot further in the game than I did.  He actually has some double A under his belt.  I stopped at 14 years old.  Almost 40 years later and I can still remember those confrontations!  What a game!

OK, sorry for the diversion...baseball does that...my point is the player does not get to chose against whom he is to perform.  Luck of the draw.  Would Babe do well against a 95mph slider every single throw?  Would Ty Cobb survive a full game against the hitters of today?  My guess is probably not...but they were the best of their era.  you can argue all you want about Clemens being the best...perhaps, certainly dominant when he was on his game...or on his drug...

But Hall of Fame next to the heroes of the game?  I'm not seeing it.


----------



## hypnotiq (Jun 22, 2012)

Rob&Carol Q said:


> I'm stumped by this one...how can ANY batter not face the toughest pitchers of his time?  You bat in the inning you bat, regardless of the pitcher at the time.
> .



Babe Ruth didn't have to play against black pitchers during his career because they were not permitted to play in MLB (they could only play in the Negro leagues).  Players like Satchel Paige.  So like I said, if you want to start asterik'ing, we can start there.

Records are made to be broken.

As I said before, athletes take way better of themselves today then they did 50-100 years ago. The science of improving ones body (even without PED) has progressed so far that athletes today are stronger, faster, etc.


----------



## ampaholic (Jun 22, 2012)

hypnotiq said:


> Babe Ruth didn't have to play against black pitchers during his career because they were not permitted to play in MLB (they could only play in the Negro leagues).  Players like Satchel Paige.  So like I said, if you want to start asterik'ing, we can start there.
> 
> Records are made to be broken.
> 
> As I said before, athletes take way better of themselves today then they did 50-100 years ago. The science of improving ones body (even without PED) has progressed so far that athletes today are stronger, faster, etc.



Imagine the Sultan of Swat facing a Vida Blue?

From Wikipedia"


> Unlike many southpaws, Blue was a power pitcher that worked fast and pounded the strike zone. He possessed a breaking curveball that he threw on occasion and an above average change-up, but his signature pitch was a blistering fastball that dialed up to nearly 100 miles per hour.[4] In The Neyer/James Guide to Pitchers, all-time hits leader Pete Rose stated that Blue 'threw as hard as anyone' he had ever faced,[5] and baseball historian Bill James cited Blue as the hardest-throwing lefty, and the second hardest thrower of his era, behind only Nolan Ryan.



Good morning, good afternoon, good night.


----------



## Mel (Jun 22, 2012)

Rob&Carol Q said:


> I'm stumped by this one...how can ANY batter not face the toughest pitchers of his time?  You bat in the inning you bat, regardless of the pitcher at the time.
> 
> In fact, recalling my heyday, there was a pitcher everyone absolutely feared in our little league.  He was taller than all of us, had facial hair, and his step towards the plate was fantastically huge in our little minds...and we just knew that ball was coming for us.  Funny thing though, I did better against this monster than the "weak" pitchers in our league.  Fear, adrenaline. Whatever...I knew I was unaturally aware when I faced this fireballer.  Oh, and he went a lot further in the game than I did.  He actually has some double A under his belt.  I stopped at 14 years old.  Almost 40 years later and I can still remember those confrontations!  What a game!
> 
> ...


The issue is not whether a player ended up batting against those individual pitchers, but whether it was even a possibility.  Arguably some of the best pitchers were relegated to the Negro Leagues, and could not play against the like of Babe Ruth.  My own great grandfather was one of those pitchers.  We will never know how great of a pitcher he was, because he wasn't able to pitch to what were considered the best batters of his time.


----------



## Ridewithme38 (Jun 22, 2012)

am1 said:


> I am against all kinds of illegal drugs regardless of the purpose and who using them.



This bothers me, one of those things i can't keep from commenting on...Make them legal and they all of a sudden are ok? The process behind what made some drugs illegal and not others isn't always as legit as you would think....A lot of the time its more political then scientific...Steroids while dangerous if used in excess are no more dangerous then alcohol when used occasionally...I can name a dozen 'illegal' drugs that are less dangerous then alcohol, but were made illegal because of political(some for the types of racial reasons that would appall us all today) reasons...

I don't believe that 'illegal' and 'wrong' go hand in hand and don't believe they should, my sense of morality is MUCH MUCH deeper then reading laws


----------



## am1 (Jun 22, 2012)

Ridewithme38 said:


> This bothers me, one of those things i can't keep from commenting on...Make them legal and they all of a sudden are ok? The process behind what made some drugs illegal and not others isn't always as legit as you would think....A lot of the time its more political then scientific...Steroids while dangerous if used in excess are no more dangerous then alcohol when used occasionally...I can name a dozen 'illegal' drugs that are less dangerous then alcohol, but were made illegal because of political(some for the types of racial reasons that would appall us all today) reasons...
> 
> I don't believe that 'illegal' and 'wrong' go hand in hand and don't believe they should, my sense of morality is MUCH MUCH deeper then reading laws



I can agree with you on some points.  But when one supports terrorism then I am against it.  

I feel people should have a lot for freedom than they do but need to be held accountable for that freedom.  

Yes socio economic class is a part of the what the penalties are for certain illegal drugs.

Mexico is trying to do what it can to stop what they mostly cannot control.  Their geographical location in the world has helped a lot when it comes to tourism but also hurts them as the highway of drugs to america runs through the country.


----------



## Wonka (Jun 22, 2012)

theo said:


> Argument? Just seems to me like different viewpoints about Roger Clemens. I've personally thought he was a horse's ass for years, whether "juiced" or not. You may instead idolize the man; that is your prerogative.
> 
> Mark McGuire was never charged at all with anything regarding PED's, so he's certainly "legally innocent" too. Nonetheless, I hope they *both* have very long waits before any HOF considerations. YMMV.



I'm not sure of the "legal definition" of an argument, or the the line where strong differences of opinion moves from a discussion, or debate, to an argument.

I'm not sure what evidence the jury heard or didn't hear.  Both can be crucial.  But my personal opinion is Roger Clemens most likely used steroids.  I've stayed at Holiday Inn Express, so I must be right.


----------



## pwrshift (Jun 22, 2012)

You guys are forgetting that the first to beat Ruth's HR record was Roger Maris.  I think he was 'clean'.  And 61 stood for a lot of years...and then smashed by 3 people in about 2 years!   Did the hitters suddenly get 'that' better on their own...or did the pitchers just get worse?


----------



## fillde (Jun 23, 2012)

pwrshift said:


> You guys are forgetting that the first to beat Ruth's HR record was Roger Maris.  I think he was 'clean'.  And 61 stood for a lot of years...and then smashed by 3 people in about 2 years!   Did the hitters suddenly get 'that' better on their own...or did the pitchers just get worse?



We all know the answer to the latter point you made. But do you know Maris has an asterisk  next to his record in the Hall.


----------



## SueDonJ (Jun 23, 2012)

Wonka said:


> ... But my personal opinion is Roger Clemens most likely used steroids.  I've stayed at Holiday Inn Express, so I must be right.



Well.  There you go.  Works for me!


----------



## Mel (Jun 23, 2012)

Wonka said:


> I'm not sure of the "legal definition" of an argument, or the the line where strong differences of opinion moves from a discussion, or debate, to an argument.
> 
> I'm not sure what evidence the jury heard or didn't hear.  Both can be crucial.  But my personal opinion is Roger Clemens most likely used steroids.  I've stayed at Holiday Inn Express, so I must be right.



I agree with you, he probably did.  Too bad, too, because as arrogant as he was (I grew up 2 miles from Fenway Park, and remember him well as a rookie), he was a good player - even so, he had already peaked by the time he is alleged to have juiced, and he is arrogant enough that I believe he would lie to Congress.  Yes, he was found not guilty, not the same as innocent, and that Jury won't be voting on his inclusion in the Hall of Fame.  He could have qualified only based on his early career.


fillde said:


> We all know the answer to the latter point you made. But do you know Maris has an asterisk  next to his record in the Hall.


Roger Maris is not in the Hall of Fame, and there is no asterisk if any official record books - that's an urban legend.  Commissioner For Frick indicated both his and Ruth's records would be show, and the number of games for each would be indicated.  The official record is not qualified.  Unlike the choice many players made to use Steriods, the length of the season was not in Maris' control (nor was the inability of the Negro League players to play in the Major Leagues in Babe Ruth's control).


----------



## Rob&Carol Q (Jun 25, 2012)

Ya know, only baseball seems to generate this much argument...

Must be the American Pastime...

Funny how this year seems to be a pitcher's year...

As long as we are jawboning...how 'bout Instant Replay?  Heresy?  Having been victimized by bad calls in softball on occasion and seeing pro games turn on an obvious blown call, I can see it both ways.  But I am not in favor of it...ever...well, right now.  I could see a challenge system being developed similar to football with each coach given one or two per game.


----------



## SueDonJ (Jun 25, 2012)

Rob&Carol Q said:


> Ya know, only baseball seems to generate this much argument...
> 
> Must be the American Pastime...
> 
> ...



I like instant replays in baseball only for home run calls, because in some parks it really is impossible for the umpires to correctly eyeball it when the ball hits the top of a wall or goes out way up high on either side of a foul post.  Sure, umpires might get the call wrong for on-field play but there's a mechanism in place that eventually removes consistently bad umpires from the position, and each team has an equal chance of getting dinged by an ump that way.  The bad home run calls, not so much, because not all parks have the quirks that necessitate calling home runs.

In 2010 an ump botched a call at first that blew Cleveland's Galarrago's bid for a perfect game.  He and everyone in the universe who was watching knew he blew it.  The ump admitted immediately that he'd screwed up and felt terrible about it.  I feel as badly for him as for Galarrago, but I still don't want instant replays for balls, strikes or base plays.  In such blatant cases where the umps admit to a wrong call immediately following it, I think MLB should be able to do post-game reviews and change the official game result.  But those calls/games are few and far between.


----------



## Clemson Fan (Jun 25, 2012)

Mel said:


> I agree with you, he probably did.  Too bad, too, because as arrogant as he was (I grew up 2 miles from Fenway Park, and remember him well as a rookie), he was a good player - even so, he had already peaked by the time he is alleged to have juiced, and he is arrogant enough that I believe he would lie to Congress.  Yes, he was found not guilty, not the same as innocent, and that Jury won't be voting on his inclusion in the Hall of Fame.  He could have qualified only based on his early career.



Spoken like a true Red Sox fan.  There's no way he could've been dirty during the early part of his career while on the Red Sox! :hysterical: 

I heard somebody say on the radio that the only thing he's guilty of is not being part of the Red Sox at the time of the Mitchell report!


----------

