lol you can't say he did anything "for sure" unless there is undeniable evidence. what kind of evidence is there against clemens?
Well, I'm 100% sure. I believe Pettitte, and he said Clemens admitted it to him. Plus even if you ignore all the damning testimony (and Clemens coming off as a shady liar when testifying), there's the fact that he clearly got a lot better at age 35. Just like Bonds. Sorry, you don't get better at that age, because that's well past your athletic prime. Just from looking at stats, it's undeniable that Bonds and Clemens did something drastic.
Waxman is NOT a Clemens fan. I thought Rog was going to jump over the table during Waxman's closing statement.
Is this really accurate? I'm not saying I don't think he was juicing, I do, but I don't think he got a lot better than when he was young. I remember him being more dominant and intimidating when he was on the Sox. he may have gotten more successful, and won more awards, but do the stats show he really became a better pitcher? I think the juice kept him in the game longer, not that it made him better than he was in his (natural) prime. Maybe I'm wrong, I'm sure someones got the stats.
Mike and Mad Dog bring up a good point. This was just all political bullshit. Clemens is pretty much a card carrying republican, and all the republicans defended him vigorously and attacked McNamee viciously, That moronic woman from North Carolina even brought pictures to defend him.
Yes. He was losing his fastball, or whatever you want to call it, in his last years with the Sox. When he went to the Blue Jays, all of a sudden he was a dominant pitcher again, like he was 22. http://www.baseball-reference.com/c/clemero02.shtml It's not hard to find. :wink: Compare his last years with the Red Sox, when Dan Duquette famously said he was in the twilight of his career, to his years in Toronto.
Thats far too many numbers for me to comprehend. Which ones make your case that he got much better after 35, strikeouts, innings, ERA? They look pretty comparable to me throughout his career, with some variance obviously, which can be attributed to any number of benign things. Again, I'm not saying he's innocent, I just don't see his career take off like a rocket (couldn't resist) like Bonds' did.
Pretty comparable? How about you look at 1995 and 1996 and compare them to 1997 and 1998. You think that's pretty comparable? WTF
well first of all McNamee never said he injected clemens in 1997, he said 1998. 1997 was the best year of clemens career, after the twilight comment hade been made. how do you explan that?
Oh so i am right, all of your opinions are founded on baseless conclusions you have made. Unless you can come up with some kind of proof, then im just gonna stop listening to you. You are the naive one.
Ummm, it sounds like people are grasping at straws to prove his guilt. The fact is, as of right now, there is exactly zero actual evidence that proves that Roger Clemens ever did steroids. There is the conflicting testimony of numerous people, and some possibly fabricated evidence, which we don't even know is actually evidence that "proves" Clemens' guilt. I think he did use performance enhancers. However, without proof, he's innocent. That's the way this country works, or at least that's the way it's supposed to work. But realistically, it doesn't, and that's truly unfortunate.
Exactly how I feel about it. People want to form a witch hunt because he's a winner,and he won with the Yankees. The Mitchell report is a piece of shit. And i say that because i'm sure it left out players from other teams that weren't looked into,or as for Boston,players purposely left out.
While there is no tangible proof which will save Clemens from perjury charges, it is simple math as to why Clemens is coming out guilty from this. It is more believable to trust a person's word that has collaborated testimony backing him up then trusting a desperate man with nothing but his word.
No obviously not. But the following two years, his first on the Yankees, you recall he came back to earth, and nestled between the two. Why? Was he getting poorer quality roids? That actually could be the case. Or maybe he was reverting to his natural level after two years out of his mind. It happens. I still don't see how he got "a lot better after 35." I admit, I'm pretty dense, though, so I'm not saying your wrong, but really, which stats, year to year prove to you he got a lot better after 35?
