Roger Admits to Being Injected

Well, I'm of two heads on this issue:

1) Come on Roger, enough is enough now. If you're not going to admit to anything, just STFU already.

2) What if, just what if, he is actually innocent? Now I'm not saying he is, because I think he's about as guilty as Manson, but as with anything, guilt must be proven, and it hasn't truly been, at least in terms of what a court would be able to consider guilt. If by some crazy way Roger is innocent, this whole thing is utterly ridiculous, from start to finish.

Now then, something interesting is that Roger is saying he has never "used a banned substance". Does that mean he took HGH before it was banned? If he didn't say illegal, and instead said banned, then he's not lying. Rather than the Bonds defense, he's using the Clinton one.

 

Well, he did not pinky swear, so i do not buy it.

 

Roger should learn from Tejada and Palmeiro that the B12 excuse is lame and stupid, it is even more stupid that he actually basically said "I got shot in the ass by a B12 shot, HA!" The saddest part is the 2nd grade response of you swear.

 

very embarrassing

 

if he wants to take the Bonds route, he will pay for it.

 

that was what Palmeiro said. Palmeiro claimed he got B-12 from Tejada.

 

there is still no way they are gonna be able to prove roger did anything so this is a moot point. he looks like an asshole for this innocence campaign when everyone thinks hes guilty but in reality the only people that know if roger took anything are him and McNamee.

 

Roger's going to see Congress.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3181689

 

Just curious: why are Clemens, Knoblauch, and Pettite testifying, but not, say, anyone else in the report?

 

This certainly raises the bar considerably. If Clemens and McNamee directly contradict each other under oath, the chances that somebody goes to jail go up dramatically.

 

I think the most poignant point is that McNamee was threatened with jail time "only if he didn't tell the truth". Why would he risk going to jail and say he injected Roger with steroids if that was not true. If it was not true, all he had to say is I never injected Roger with steroids. And why would Roger give an interview to Mike Wallace, but not George Mitchell?

 

(Note: I'm just looking for a semi-plausible answer to your question... I'm not stating that I believe this is what happened.)

If it seemed clear to McNamee that "telling the truth" equated to "saying Roger was guilty" in the minds of the investigators, then it wouldn't be surprising if he lied about it. Interrogators can/will lean awfully hard on a subject to get the answer they want, as opposed to getting the truth (although the interrogators can/will often think of the two as one and the same). And the greater the duress, the less certain you can be of the veracity of statements from an interrogated subject.

 

I'd guess its because, outside of Clemens, most everyone else has been intelligently quiet. These are guys that might be able to shed some light on what Clemens has been shooting his mouth off on publicly.

 

So this is a witch hunt for Clemens? Honestly, I really don't see the point. There's going to be a meeting in front of Clemens just to find out if Clemens was doing steroids? I mean, does it really matter that much? I think it's just stupid.

If it's not a witch hunt for Clemens, then this makes no sense. Knobby didn't say a word, and Pettite admitted. Gary Bennett and Brian Roberts and a couple other guys admitted, but they're not going in front of congress.

 

Ladies and gentlemen... these are your tax dollars at work.

 

Clemens bought this on himself. He is discrediting a report from the former United States Senate Majority Leader. If you don't understand that; go back to second grade. Or are you in second grade now?