Clemens: BigFATLIar

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Cardus

I hear, read, and listen to people who scream bloody murder that Congress should not involve itself --or, as frequently claimed, "waste time" and "don't they have better things to do" -- in investigating steroids in baseball, because, after all, it's a sport.

If you look at baseball as a multibillion dollar business as opposed to a sport, then maybe there is merit to an investigation.

This reminds me of occasions when some argue here that Thoroughbred racing is sport, yet others dismiss those arguments as naive, because, after all, Thoroughbred racing is a business.

What other business does congress investigate because of the habits of the businesses employees?

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

What other business does congress investigate because of the habits of the businesses employees?

The production, distribution and use of illegal drugs.

There are strict federal regulations about the production of HGH.
There were huge ethical issues presented before this drug was allowed to be produced in the US.
I remember it well.
The opponents of the production of HGH predicted exactly
what has come to pass; that it would be used for purposes other than genetic disorders for which it was first intended (pituitary dwarves).

[Cannon Shell]

That is a bunch of crap. First of all we are talking about individuals named in a private investigation santioned and paid for by private business. This was not based upon a government investigation and as such the questionable tactics of investigators in using possibile immunity in order to provide information for a private investigation is unusual to say the least. Secondly, there are only minor violations (if any, I still have never been shown that using HGH is a crime) by the alleged users of the drugs, not the suppliers. Though I am not a lawyer I would find it strange that a governing body would concern itself not with the suppliers of the drug but the users? Where was Congress during the late 80's when baseball players were being brought in front of a court in PA for cocaine use? I would have to say that if given the choice between HGH and cocaine, the latter would be a much more serious and dangerous drug. However Congress wasnt sticking its nose in then. This isnt about the suppliers, they got immunity to finger the users. That is like arresting the drug kingpin and giving him immunity to tell who was using. It seems odd to me. Peegarden, this is not about the production and distribution of HGH. That would make sense. The way this has played out does not.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by Cardus

Oh, I don't know, Congress regulates interstate commerce, and a bunch of people have violated federal drug laws?

Oh yeah and baseball as defined by the Supreme Court does not fall under the definition of interstate commerce

[GBBob]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

That is a bunch of crap. First of all we are talking about individuals named in a private investigation santioned and paid for by private business. This was not based upon a government investigation and as such the questionable tactics of investigators in using possibile immunity in order to provide information for a private investigation is unusual to say the least. Secondly, there are only minor violations (if any, I still have never been shown that using HGH is a crime) by the alleged users of the drugs, not the suppliers. Though I am not a lawyer I would find it strange that a governing body would concern itself not with the suppliers of the drug but the users? Where was Congress during the late 80's when baseball players were being brought in front of a court in PA for cocaine use? I would have to say that if given the choice between HGH and cocaine, the latter would be a much more serious and dangerous drug. However Congress wasnt sticking its nose in then. This isnt about the suppliers, they got immunity to finger the users. That is like arresting the drug kingpin and giving him immunity to tell who was using. It seems odd to me. Peegarden, this is not about the production and distribution of HGH. That would make sense. The way this has played out does not.

umm..what about the anti-trust exemption they enjoy?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by GBBob

umm..what about the anti-trust exemption they enjoy?

What is the relation between antitrust exemption and HGH or Roger Clemens? The exemption was not some gift for good behavior.

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

That is a bunch of crap. First of all we are talking about individuals named in a private investigation santioned and paid for by private business. This was not based upon a government investigation and as such the questionable tactics of investigators in using possibile immunity in order to provide information for a private investigation is unusual to say the least. Secondly, there are only minor violations (if any, I still have never been shown that using HGH is a crime) by the alleged users of the drugs, not the suppliers. Though I am not a lawyer I would find it strange that a governing body would concern itself not with the suppliers of the drug but the users? Where was Congress during the late 80's when baseball players were being brought in front of a court in PA for cocaine use? I would have to say that if given the choice between HGH and cocaine, the latter would be a much more serious and dangerous drug. However Congress wasnt sticking its nose in then. This isnt about the suppliers, they got immunity to finger the users. That is like arresting the drug kingpin and giving him immunity to tell who was using. It seems odd to me. Peegarden, this is not about the production and distribution of HGH. That would make sense. The way this has played out does not.

Excuse please. Was the cocaine used to boost performance?
Are we marketing a business to consumers
based on assumptions that certain rules are followed?
Is this the WWF where guys bulk up to put on a predetermined show?

Again. This started with a company that was supplying drugs (BALCO)
and it bled over into a business that was portrayed as acting
in a manner not consistent with the actual product.

Actually I believe you are correct but seeing that I like to
play a bad lawyer I will.

What I especially dont like about the whole thing personally,
the thing that really stinks is the LYING

cant stand it.

[GBBob]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

What is the relation between antitrust exemption and HGH or Roger Clemens? The exemption was not some gift for good behavior.

Well..if you are granted/grandfathered a gift since 1922, at some point you have to have some accountability for your business practices.

The IRS can audit me for inane things..why can't Congress audit MLB once in a while.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by pgardn

Excuse please. Was the cocaine used to boost performance?
Are we marketing a business to consumers
based on assumptions that certain rules are followed?
Is this the WWF where guys bulk up to put on a predetermined show?

Again. This started with a company that was supplying drugs (BALCO)
and it bled over into a business that was portrayed as acting
in a manner not consistent with the actual product.

Actually I believe you are correct but seeing that I like to
play a bad lawyer I will.

What I especially dont like about the whole thing personally,
the thing that really stinks is the LYING

cant stand it.

It could be argued that the cocaine was used for performance though I still fail to see the role of Congress in this whole situation. If we are talking about breaking laws there are the police and FBI to investigate the broken laws and courts to enforce them. Did one congressman ask either man if they broke the law except for the lunatic from Indiana? Roger Clemens was not associated with Balco and that case has been in the court system where it belongs for years. This isnt about the law. It is about why Congress is involved and holding televised hearings about determining if Roger Clemens took HGH or not.

[GBBob]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

It could be argued that the cocaine was used for performance though I still fail to see the role of Congress in this whole situation. If we are talking about breaking laws there are the police and FBI to investigate the broken laws and courts to enforce them. Did one congressman ask either man if they broke the law except for the lunatic from Indiana? Roger Clemens was not associated with Balco and that case has been in the court system where it belongs for years. This isnt about the law. It is about why Congress is involved and holding televised hearings about determining if Roger Clemens took HGH or not.

So when are televised hearings acceptable?

If you say never, then that's a start.

The Senate holds some type of hearing almost every day. So this one involved Roger...I think you want to play the celebrity/sensationalism card here, but these hearings weren't created just for Roger..or just for Sammy, Mark or any of those other playa's either

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

It could be argued that the cocaine was used for performance though I still fail to see the role of Congress in this whole situation. If we are talking about breaking laws there are the police and FBI to investigate the broken laws and courts to enforce them. Did one congressman ask either man if they broke the law except for the lunatic from Indiana? Roger Clemens was not associated with Balco and that case has been in the court system where it belongs for years. This isnt about the law. It is about why Congress is involved and holding televised hearings about determining if Roger Clemens took HGH or not.

Well actually its now gone farther than that.
Perjury. We will see how this plays out.
It will interesting to see Barry Bonds charged
and Clemens off free.

I forsee race riots. (not really, but Al Sharpton has some ammo)

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by GBBob

Well..if you are granted/grandfathered a gift since 1922, at some point you have to have some accountability for your business practices.

The IRS can audit me for inane things..why can't Congress audit MLB once in a while.

It is not exactly a gift as it has been upheld by the court systems three times since. The reality is that the antitrust exemption is only pertinent in regards to baseball in movement of franchises, tv contracts and minor league affliiations with regards to the players. The only thing that would occur if the exemption was lifted is owners would be able to move franchises easier as the other leagues have already figured out how to deal with the other 2 issues.

I still dont see this hearing as an accountability issue except for 2 individuals. I never said that they couldnt hold these hearings but what were they hoping to do except get some facetime on national TV in an election year? What if Clemens had said, yeah I took them a few times, I'm sorry and I plead the 5th to everything else? OK so he admits it. Then what? An ex baseball player took HGH. McNamee doesnt go to jail. Is this important enough to spend millions investagating if Clemens is telling the truth? What does it matter? There were a lot of other names in the report. Arent we all supposed to be considered equal in the eyes of the law? I think Clemens is lying. But what difference does it really make to the citizens of the US?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by GBBob

So when are televised hearings acceptable?

If you say never, then that's a start.

The Senate holds some type of hearing almost every day. So this one involved Roger...I think you want to play the celebrity/sensationalism card here, but these hearings weren't created just for Roger..or just for Sammy, Mark or any of those other playa's either

This hearing was much different then the original one. This was based upon the Mitchell report and nothing else. The Mitchell report was not a government investigtion even if it was done by a former Senator. Why should the govt be involved so heavily when a person in a private report commissioned by a private business denies what is said about him in the report? Especially if the person committed no crimes? This hearing was absolutely created for Clemens and if you believe the Congressmen, by Clemens lawyer.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by pgardn

Well actually its now gone farther than that.
Perjury. We will see how this plays out.
It will interesting to see Barry Bonds charged
and Clemens off free.

I forsee race riots. (not really, but Al Sharpton has some ammo)

It never should have got to perjury. No hearing, no perjury.

Pettitte apologizes to the Yankees, Astros, his teammates and family.
No apology for his misremembering for Clemens.
Pettitte just said in an interview if anyone thinks he is lying
all they need to do is come and face him. Pettitte said he
has misled no one. (Pettitte has clearly aimed this at Roger even
though he says they are still friends that have not talked latelty)
Pettitte even said McNamee tried to tell him
NOT to use the stuff.

The title of the thread remains more than valid.
I will admit extreme prejudice. I have always really disliked
this guy even though he pitched for my alma matre
in college.

What a dck head. He is so following Pete Rose.
There is so much Clemens could say that he has
not. And thats because he is a liar.

[GBBob]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

It is not exactly a gift as it has been upheld by the court systems three times since. The reality is that the antitrust exemption is only pertinent in regards to baseball in movement of franchises, tv contracts and minor league affliiations with regards to the players. The only thing that would occur if the exemption was lifted is owners would be able to move franchises easier as the other leagues have already figured out how to deal with the other 2 issues.

I still dont see this hearing as an accountability issue except for 2 individuals. I never said that they couldnt hold these hearings but what were they hoping to do except get some facetime on national TV in an election year? What if Clemens had said, yeah I took them a few times, I'm sorry and I plead the 5th to everything else? OK so he admits it. Then what? An ex baseball player took HGH. McNamee doesnt go to jail. Is this important enough to spend millions investagating if Clemens is telling the truth? What does it matter? There were a lot of other names in the report. Arent we all supposed to be considered equal in the eyes of the law? I think Clemens is lying. But what difference does it really make to the citizens of the US?

OK..A lot of stuff there Chuck..

And I can't do that neat cut and paste like you can to address certain parts of your e-mail..damn..but.

If it doesn't make a difference ( that much), then remove the exemption...but...I think that wouldn't go over so well.

Roger= Barry=Mark= Any MLB player..Forget the name..they are testifying based on who they work for,

My issue isn't with Roger, et al, it's with MLB as a company. It's pretty obvious from horse racing that when someone is implicated, the sport in general is implicated. Maybe it's sad, but that's what I want to see happen to baseball.

[GBBob]

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

It never should have got to perjury. No hearing, no perjury.

OK..you think MLB is capable of judging themselves? If not...as I think we all know, who does?

Originally Posted by Cannon Shell

It never should have got to perjury. No hearing, no perjury.

Deposition under oath.
If anyone wants to push this.

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by GBBob

OK..you think MLB is capable of judging themselves? If not...as I think we all know, who does?

We judge them. We are the customers. If we stop buying the product, they change or go away. If we think the games are not on the level, we stop watching. If Microsoft had a bunch of employees go into rehab would there be Congressional intervention? When they thought that they were a monopoly that was leading to issues for the consumer fine. Why all the interest in sports? Because they are an easy target? How is the consumer injured when baseball players take HGH or lie about it?

[Cannon Shell]

Originally Posted by pgardn

Deposition under oath.
If anyone wants to push this.

Clemens wouldnt talk to Mitchell. So it is ok for Congress to do the dirty work for Mitchell? That is a little scary. Where are all the people that are up in arms over the patriot act or other govt intrusions? Since when does Congress use its powers as the enforcement agent of non govt affairs?