1. Welcome to SportsJournalists.com, a friendly forum for discussing all things sports and journalism.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register for a free account to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Access to private conversations with other members.
    • Fewer ads.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Grimsley names Clemens

Discussion in 'Sports and News' started by Day Tripper, Sep 30, 2006.

  1. hockeybeat

    hockeybeat Guest

  2. Boom_70

    Boom_70 Well-Known Member

  3. Webster

    Webster Well-Known Member

    Dan Patrick previously said that he had seen the unredacted affidavit and that there was a surprise name. On his radio show today, he confirmed that he had seen Clemens' name on the unredacted version and that Petitte was the "surprise" name that he was referring to. He said that there were more names in the affidavit which haven't been released.
  4. Double Down

    Double Down Well-Known Member

    So did Dan Patrick read a copy of this unredacted affidavit at Titans practice and therefore couldn't write about it?

  5. Webster

    Webster Well-Known Member

    He mentioned a while ago that he had seen it and said at the time that he wasn't authorized by the person who showed it to him to report the names on the air.
  6. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    It's called speculation. And honestly, much of what people have been speculating about the wide-spread usage (This is not me. It is people who are around the game) is gaining credence with each new story. With each new story that points an anecdotal finger at a new player, it just proves what I have been saying all along. No one will likely ever catch Clemens. By this account, he used HGH. He has never been tested for HGH. He therefore, can't get caught unless someone actually catches him in the act--a damn-near impossibility. It will be a cloud that hangs over his head, though, much the way it hangs over the head of Lance Armstrong. It doesn't mean they didn't use. Just that they were careful. More anecdotal evidence points to their having used than not having used, whether you choose to accept the evidence or not.

    You'll only be satisified by smoking guns. To me, it is ignoring the pink elephant in the middle of the room, because you have your eye on the wall, not the middle of the room. But so be it. It is nearly impossible to produce those smoking guns. For one, baseball doesn't--and can't--test for the primary drug guys are using right now. And for another, no one has any clue how good the masking agents that are ahead of the tests are.
  7. DyePack

    DyePack New Member

    So, in other words, if you accuse without proof for long enough, eventually there will be enough speculation to justify it?
  8. Pilot

    Pilot Well-Known Member

    I had to laugh while watching PTI yesterday. MW came to the story, which was buried after the second break about behind a whole ton of NFL chatter, and said the same thing everyone on here said — people better treat RC the same way they treated Bonds. Then he went on to not exactly treat him the same way, say there isn't the same level of evidence yet and he's not in the same situation as Bonds is.

    A couple things were interesting to me. First, I thought it was pretty funny/stupid that he started off making a big deal about "how it has to be the same treatment" and he gives the speach probably 20 minutes into the show. If it's the same treatment, you lead the show ith it, or at least put it in the first block.

    I wish this was more of a big deal, but it appears it won't be, at least yet, for several reasons, and I don't think — don't think, not don't know — that any of them have to do with race. First, for this story in particular, it really hit at a great time in the newscycle for the players involved. Coming at the very end of last week, they got exactly what they needed — the story buried behind every market's NFL and college football news by the time the columnists and radio guys had time to get to it. Not to mention its the end of the season and everyone's about to stop talking about baseball all day.

    Also, I dont think it will be the same for many of the reasons already pointed out. There isn't the amount of evidence or the number of "well, how do you explain that information" moments yet with RC as there has been with Bonds. People went from debating whether they thought it was true with Bonds for a long time, to finally admitting it was true and now they wonder what to do or how they still feel about him. We're at the begining of that curve with RC, and there's no way he plays long enough for us to reach the same point we have with Bonds, in my opinion.

    It just doesn't seem many people are very fired up about this info right now. Heck, we're not even that into it. The thread is only three pages long and we've already reached the bickering crapfest that typically signals the end of a thread.

    For RC to catch as much grief as he should, there needs to be more. There needs to be more evidence, more leaks and more stories. We need to have this "Breaking News: He used" story a few more times before the public is really like "Oh crap. Maybe he used"

    All in my opinion, anyway. Should be fun to watch. Someone out there, stop reading this board and go catch that piece of crap. I would, but the Podunk High tennis parents would cry themselves to sleep if I don't get another picture of Jenny Soontobeskank hitting the ball into the net.
  9. The Big Ragu

    The Big Ragu Moderator Staff Member

    They were never blind accusations. It was reasoned speculations, based on dozens of factors I have pointed out over and over again to you--changes in physiques, sudden performance boosts, guys putting up numbers at ages that in every other era signaled the end of careers, etc. And that doesn't account for the players who came up and didn't give a baseline performance without using--they have always used, as their way of making it to the big leagues. The sport has been infested with users for the last 10+ years. Choose to believe or don't. I just find it amusing that you continually paint me as a witch hunter--and do it in a nasty, snarky way--when 1) Everyone with a brain who is around the game, knows it has been as big a problem as I am suggesting, and 2) Story after story implicating players keeps coming to light, demonstrating that I am not just "accusing without proof," but rather making reasoned conclusions. I wish I could tell you the person who mentioned Clemens to me last year--no proof, just an offhand conversation about potential users and some observations he had. Because I'd love to see you do your ankle biting act on him.
  10. Armchair_QB

    Armchair_QB Well-Known Member

    Please don't take this as a defense of Clemens or an absolution of anyone who has ripped Bonds in print, but Bonds did testify that he used PEDs "accidentally" so he is at least on the record as having used banned substances. That can't be said of Clemens.
  11. Yet.
    Let me revise and extend my remarks to say that Clemens should receive just as much heat as Bonds did -- which was considerable -- before he testified.
  12. DyePack

    DyePack New Member

    Then there should be plenty of hard evidence.
Draft saved Draft deleted

Share This Page