This poll shows just how biased this forum is. Yes, Im convinced he did them: davecrazy, KurtTheJetsFan, MSUJet85, Yisman, Murrell2878 Yes, I think he did them 10Pennington10, Jetfanmack, SixFeetDeep It doesn't really matter though, our opinions are so biased (including my own) that you can't really take anyone seriously. it just comes down to what you can prove....
If Clemens was more convincing against Pettitte's testimony other then the ultra weak response of he misheard me, I'd be less convinced that he did it, but like I said in the other thread, one man's word (McNamee) was supported while the other man's (Clemens) word wasn't. Bias has nothing to do with this fact. Can anyone dispute this?
no, the fact that you accuse the entire board of being biased because a few users don't agree with you is laughable. Based on the facts, there is ample evidence to support a conviction that he did it.
bias has everything to do with your opinion. we all know most mets fans here are bitter, evidenced by the ones that sit on here trolling yankees threads. you want to see him go down because of 2000. understandable, i guess. so you say you are "convinced" but i find it hard to beleive anyone can be "convinced" without some kind of concrete proof like drug tests or receipts. maybe you "think" he did them but how do you know? besides do you really think clemens testimony was weaker than McNamees? for a good portion it seemed like McNamee was on the hot seat, not clemens.
i was pointing out that one category has all mets/redsox fans and one is all yankees. you obviously didnt read my post carefully becuase i admitted that my own yankee bias affects my opinion. how is this board not biased if all mets fans are on one side and all yankees fans are on another. i will have to STRONGLY disagree with you about the conviction because this case would never hold up in court, i think that is easy to see.
anyone that isn't convinced just needs to watch rep. cummings tear roger a new asshole. there's absolutely no way this guy is telling the truth. the best part is when clemens says that pettite must've misheard him and that he remembers them having a conversation about HGH on a tv show. clemens shit is beyond weak.
Did you read my post or listen to the hearing? Clemens could do nothing, absolutely nothing about Pettitte's testimony. And no one and that includes Clemens has yet to give me 1 reason why McNamee would lie about Clemens but tell the truth about Knoblach and Pettitte. And since both of them collaborated with his word I have to see that part as true. Pettitte who was considered credible by even Clemens himself stated that Clemens told him he took steroids even to the point that he told his wife this. So now do you really think that bias is showing when I pick the side that has 5 people saying one thing on one side and you choosing to side with the 1 person saying something completely opposite. And as for McNamee being on the hot seat, that is more because of a political bias than the facts of the case choosing to slaughter a guy over insignificant details to the point that Congress actually had to APOLOGIZE about their behavior.
Either you belive Clemroid is telling the truth and Pettite and McNamee are lying, or you belive Pettite adn McNamee are telling the truth and Clemroid is lying. If Clemroid didnt take 'roids, then why are all these mean people lying about him and saying he did?
you know, i cant construct a post that applies to you specifically, im pointing it in the general direction of mets fans here. you're a good guy, i respect your opinions, and it is 100% possible that you came to this conclusion by you own unbiased opinion. thats fine with me. i think my major gripe is with the word "convinced". just because clemens looks uneasy in court with doesnt convince me that he did it. i wont be convinced until I see hard evidence, as with bonds.
No. I read your post. You said "I'm biased." I didn't know what you meant by that. I don't think I'm biased when it comes to Clemens. Once again, painting the entire board with a broad brush points to your bias, not the board's.
Exactly. The man not only had a weak argument to counter that of Pettite's accusation, but there was also likely a 75% or so chance that he did them just based on the percentage of players who did them at that time. He was also the best pitcher during the roid age as well as maintaining a high level of performance well into old ago, which is possible yet unlikely if he wasn't juicing. The odds are just against him, regardless of incriminating evidence against him otherwise. On top of that, as said above, McNamee has no reason to go out of his way to incriminate Clemens and lump him with Knoblauch and Pettite. The guys a scuzbag but most of his lies were to protect himself and cover up his "guys" rather than the opposite.
I'm not convinced he did them because I couldn't care less about this entire ordeal, and I haven't paid the slightest attention to any of these hearings.
I said that I've been convinced since 2000 that he did them more than a month ago, and nothing that happened today changed that. That doesn't mean that I have any proof, and it doesn't even mean that I would vote to convict if I was on the jury of a perjury trial based on only what we now know, since those are completely different things. I have been persuaded by the change in his appearance, his fits of rage, the unusual trajectory of his career, and now the statements of McNamee (remember, for all of him being sleazy - which he is - only Clemens has actually said that anything he said wasn't true, which hardly works in Roger's favor). This is what I believe to be true, which doesn't require any "proof" at all; I also believe that the mechanic at a station I went to years ago was a crook, but I can't prove that either.