Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Roger Clemens' Courageous Stand

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • Roger Clemens' Courageous Stand

    The issue isn't whether Clemens used performance-enhancing substances. He is on trial for perjury. He has been tried for allegedly not admitting that he used steroids. What if he really didn't? Clemens stood up for his rights. That has made him a villain to many. Is using steroids and being a villain synonymous?

    http://www.baseball-fever.com/entry....ageous-Actions
    Baseball articles you might not like but should read.

  • #2
    Hope you didn't pull anything with that stretch.

    Comment


    • #3
      too funny ,,,

      Originally posted by metfan13 View Post
      Hope you didn't pull anything with that stretch.
      1. The more I learn, the more convinced I am that many players are over-rated due to inflated stats from offensive home parks (and eras)
      2. Strat-O-Matic Baseball Player, Collector and Hobbyist since 1969, visit my strat site: http://forums.delphiforums.com/GamersParadise
      3. My table top gaming blog: http://cary333.blogspot.com/

      Comment


      • #4
        "If he didn't lie to Congress about not using substance-enhancing substances, the only possible conclusion one can reach is that when Roger Clemens told the world that he didn't use substance-enhancing substances, he told the truth."

        Not at all.

        A court of law requires more evidence to convict than the court of public opinion, and rightfully so. When OJ Simpson was acquitted of murder, that didn't make him innocent. It just meant there wasn't sufficient evidence to convict in a court of law. And then a year or two later, he was found "liable" for the deaths in the civil suit. And ordered to pay millions of dollars. How is that possible if he was found "innocent" in the criminal trial?
        My top 10 players:

        1. Babe Ruth
        2. Barry Bonds
        3. Ty Cobb
        4. Ted Williams
        5. Willie Mays
        6. Alex Rodriguez
        7. Hank Aaron
        8. Honus Wagner
        9. Lou Gehrig
        10. Mickey Mantle

        Comment


        • #5
          Originally posted by GiambiJuice View Post
          "If he didn't lie to Congress about not using substance-enhancing substances, the only possible conclusion one can reach is that when Roger Clemens told the world that he didn't use substance-enhancing substances, he told the truth."

          Not at all.

          A court of law requires more evidence to convict than the court of public opinion, and rightfully so. When OJ Simpson was acquitted of murder, that didn't make him innocent. It just meant there wasn't sufficient evidence to convict in a court of law. And then a year or two later, he was found "liable" for the deaths in the civil suit. And ordered to pay millions of dollars. How is that possible if he was found "innocent" in the criminal trial?
          US Criminal Law is: Innocent until proven guilty. He was always innocent under US law. The jury acquittal did not make him innocent, it removed the possibility of him being convicted of those crimes in the future.

          Civil trials have nothing to do with criminal law. And afaik, Civil trials have no "innocent until proven guilty" provision. Lawyers are welcome to correct me, since my profession is bean counting.
          "It's better to look good, than be good."

          Comment


          • #6
            Originally posted by drstrangelove View Post
            US Criminal Law is: Innocent until proven guilty. He was always innocent under US law. The jury acquittal did not make him innocent, it removed the possibility of him being convicted of those crimes in the future.

            Civil trials have nothing to do with criminal law. And afaik, Civil trials have no "innocent until proven guilty" provision. Lawyers are welcome to correct me, since my profession is bean counting.
            You're correct. My only point is that just because Clemens is found "innocent" by the court system, it doesn't mean he has to be innocent in the court of public opinion too. There should obviously be stricter criteria to send a guy to jail than to vote against him making the HOF.
            My top 10 players:

            1. Babe Ruth
            2. Barry Bonds
            3. Ty Cobb
            4. Ted Williams
            5. Willie Mays
            6. Alex Rodriguez
            7. Hank Aaron
            8. Honus Wagner
            9. Lou Gehrig
            10. Mickey Mantle

            Comment


            • #7
              Good grief.
              They call me Mr. Baseball. Not because of my love for the game; because of all the stitches in my head.

              Comment


              • #8
                Originally posted by ol' aches and pains View Post
                Good grief.


                Indeed
                3 6 10 21 29 31 35 41 42 44 47

                Comment


                • #9
                  Even if he were innocent,still makes him an ass in the eyes of this person

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I'm 100% certain that Roger Clemens used steroids and HGH for a significant portion of his career, and lied about it under oath. All that said, I don't have a problem with those who believe in his innocence, regardless of how strongly I disagree with them.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      Originally posted by GiambiJuice View Post
                      "If he didn't lie to Congress about not using substance-enhancing substances, the only possible conclusion one can reach is that when Roger Clemens told the world that he didn't use substance-enhancing substances, he told the truth."

                      Not at all.

                      A court of law requires more evidence to convict than the court of public opinion, and rightfully so. When OJ Simpson was acquitted of murder, that didn't make him innocent. It just meant there wasn't sufficient evidence to convict in a court of law. And then a year or two later, he was found "liable" for the deaths in the civil suit. And ordered to pay millions of dollars. How is that possible if he was found "innocent" in the criminal trial?
                      I believe Clemens has McNamee's defamation suit to still deal with after this trial.

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        Originally posted by GiambiJuice View Post



                        A court of law requires more evidence to convict than the court of public opinion, and rightfully so. When OJ Simpson was acquitted of murder, that didn't make him innocent. It just meant there wasn't sufficient evidence to convict in a court of law.
                        Sorry to be a pedantic idiot, but I would probably describe it as that particular jury not seeing sufficient evidence. There WAS sufficient evidence, and I think a jury of well educated people would still have found OJ guilty. When you have jurors questioning dna evidence because 'there aren't that many people on planet' you know they might not have the background to thoroughly analyze the evidence.

                        Sorry to be a jerk, and I do agree with the point you are making. The threshholds for the court system and the court of public opinion are very different.

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          As Bobby Donnell, Eugene Young or Lindsey Dole might state, the fact that the bar (pun intended) is lower in a civil trial does not mean that is right. Words are vital. In our "justice system," OJ was found not guilty. That's should be it if we lived in a just society. But of course, we don't.

                          It's sad that most individual's refute the principle of beyond reasonable doubt. Too bad we can't the individuals that have been executed and then were unable to initiate a civil suit.
                          Baseball articles you might not like but should read.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            Roger Clemens as champion of those abused by the justice system? Interesting, and this whole time I just thought he was a roidhead juicer who was trying to save his own skin.
                            unknown brooklyn cabbie " how are the brooks doin"
                            unknown fan "good they got three men on base"
                            unknown brooklyn cabbie "which one?"

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              Originally posted by theAmazingMet View Post
                              Roger Clemens as champion of those abused by the justice system? Interesting, and this whole time I just thought he was a roidhead juicer who was trying to save his own skin.
                              Or has a lawyer that is a complete idiot

                              Comment

                              Ad Widget

                              Collapse
                              Working...
                              X