Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

Roger Clemens' Courageous Stand

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

  • drstrangelove
    replied
    Originally posted by ol' aches and pains View Post
    I would prefer that no more of my tax dollars be used to finance this witch hunt, and I'm as anti-PED's as any poster here.

    Enough, already.
    100% aggreement on this.

    Leave a comment:


  • drstrangelove
    replied
    Originally posted by fenrir View Post
    I believe Clemens has McNamee's defamation suit to still deal with after this trial.
    There is indeed a defamation suit lingering, but most of it has already been tossed out (in 2010, I think.) The sites I read seemed to think it was viable IF Clemens was convicted. I honestly don't know how it will stand now.

    Leave a comment:


  • ol' aches and pains
    replied
    Originally posted by GiambiJuice View Post
    Some BB-F posters would have you believe that since all the people involved are being paid salaries anyway, it is not a waste of money!
    I would prefer that no more of my tax dollars be used to finance this witch hunt, and I'm as anti-PED's as any poster here.

    Enough, already.

    Leave a comment:


  • GiambiJuice
    replied
    Originally posted by ol' aches and pains View Post
    Yes, let's throw more of our taxpayers' money down this rathole. Let's not rest until every PED user and supplier has been tried and probably aquitted!
    Some BB-F posters would have you believe that since all the people involved are being paid salaries anyway, it is not a waste of money!

    Leave a comment:


  • ol' aches and pains
    replied
    Originally posted by voodoochile View Post
    Since Clemens was found not guilty on all six counts, in all fairness, shouldn't McNamee now be tried for perjury?
    Yes, let's throw more of our taxpayers' money down this rathole. Let's not rest until every PED user and supplier has been tried and probably aquitted!

    Leave a comment:


  • voodoochile
    replied
    Since Clemens was found not guilty on all six counts, in all fairness, shouldn't McNamee now be tried for perjury?

    Leave a comment:


  • LouGehrig
    replied
    You are right with respect to why the bar is lower. Anytime an individual is forced to do something unjust, liberty is jeopardized. Of course, that is a wide-reaching statement that borders on the absurd, but that doesn't make it less true.

    Leave a comment:


  • SHOELESSJOE3
    replied
    Originally posted by LouGehrig View Post
    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.
    I don't know much about the law but if I'm correct, in a civil trial the bar of proof is lower because the one on trial won't be executed or given a jail term, it's all about money.
    And, in many cases the one on trial doesn't pay a cent. Liberty is not in jeopardy.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cap78
    replied
    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

    Leave a comment:


  • theAmazingMet
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • LouGehrig
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • dl4060
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • fenrir
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • fenrir
    replied
    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.

    Leave a comment:


  • Cap78
    replied
    Even if he were innocent,still makes him an ass in the eyes of this person

    Leave a comment:

Ad Widget

Collapse
Working...
X