Roger Clemens vs. Brian McNamee: Whom Should You Believe?
Someone is Lying
It is very hard to believe Clemens or his former trainer. Clemens' numbers got significantly better when he turned 35. That same year he began training with McNamee. For the next 7 years, Clemens' averaged over 16 wins a season. The 4 years before he began training with McNamee, Clemens only had 10 wins a season. The human body naturally shuts down when you hit your mid thirties. It's part of human life. When he was 41, "The Rocket" racked up 18 wins and a sub 3.00 ERA. How does that happen? Clemens' productivity has gone up when it is naturally supposed to go down. This is why I have a very hard time believing Roger Clemens.
Watching the hearing on ESPN, McNamee's stories have had holes poked in them. Multiple sources, including Jose Canseco himself, have said that Clemens' did not attend Canseco's barbecue in which Clemens supposedly spoke with Canseco about HGH. McNamee insists that Clemens did attend that party. Another piece of McNamee's evidence that doesn't add up is the old gauze and syringes. McNamee says that he distrusted Roger Clemens, so he kept the materials. If he distrusted Clemens or had a problem with him, why would McNamee continue to train the 7-time Cy-young winner?
There are holes and both parties' stories. However, it all boils down to two things. Roger Clemens has everything to lose if he admits that he used HGH or steroids. His legacy will be tainted and he may not be voted into the Hall of Fame. So Clemens figures that he must lie in order to get out of this mess. Brian McNamee has absolutely nothing to gain from lying. McNamee isn't hiding anything or trying to protect a legacy. If he lies, he'll end up in jail. If Clemens is lying, he'll end up in jail and his career will have a giant asterisk next to it. So why would McNamee lie?
The second point deals with Andy Pettitte and Chuck Knoblauch. Out of the three players related to him, why would McNamee tell the truth about two out of the three? Pettitte and Knoblauch have already come forward and admitted that they used HGH. Clemens has not and will not unless he is proven guilty.
The two questions, what does McNamee have to gain, and why would he lie about two of the three are the reasons I have to believe Brian McNamee. I really don't want to believe either of them, but McNamee is the one with the better story right now.
Published by Petro438
Sports are my life View profile
- Roger Clemens Faces New Allegations of Marital InfidelityAthletes such as Roger Clemens live life under a microscope. Is it fair that they are subjected to such a high level of scrutiny?
- What Does the Mitchell Report Really Mean?The release of the Mitchell report brings with it many questions. Here are some of those questions and my answers to those questions.
- Roger Clemens: The Upcoming Performance of His LifeWhen Roger Clemens raises his right hand and swears to "tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth" he will start the most important performance of his life.
- Best Halloween Costume Ever: New York Yankees Roger ClemensThe best halloween costume I ever had was when I dressed up as Roger Clemens of the New York Yankees the year that Roger Clemens ended up clinching the title for the Yankees!
- Most Americans Feel Baseball Players in Mitchell Report Should Be PunishedAfter waiting for nearly two years, the Mitchell report was released. As expected a significant number of baseball's star players were named in the report as steroid users. Now according to a recent survey, Americans...
- The Mitchell Report Starts a Steroid War: Barry Bonds Amid Many Suspected of Use
- Here Are the Names Listed in MLB's Mitchell Report
- Confirmed Mitchell Report Names
- Mitchell Report: Jason Varitek, Jeff Bagwell, Trot Nixon, & Nomar Garciparra NOT i...
- The Week in Sports Tidbits Style
- The Mitchell Report and Baseball's Steroids Report
- Mitchell Report: Major League Baseball
8 Comments
Post a CommentWins are a terrible way to judge a pitcher. In 1996, the season Clemens had just 10 wins, he finished sixth in the league in ERA, seventh in WHIP, second in hits allowed per nine innings, was fifth in innings pitched and led the league in strikeouts. In every category in which Clemens had control over the outcome, he was one of the top pitchers in baseball. It's not his fault his team didn't score enough runs when he was pitching or that the bullpen blew leads for him. If Clemens started taking steroids in 1997, it didn't transform him back to a good pitcher. Because he was still one of the elite SP in the game in 1996.
I'm not a baseball fan but I watched some of the questioning by congress. If Clemens if telling the truth and he didn't use HGH good for him. If he did use the drug he is doing himself much more harm by going on the attack and possible perjuring himself. If he did use HGH he should of just came clean with it at the beginning and I'm sure the reasons would be understood. I just get the feeling he is lying and like a little boy he is backed into a corner where he has to tell an even bigger lie and he is beating his hands on his chest insisting he is telling the truth because he is louder than anyone else.There is also a lot of "legalize" in his speeches. "I don't recall", "he misheard/misunderstood."
Okay, I'm done, or else I'll be here for 7 hours! Hope you get a lot of page views for this. Cheers~
Why? Because its not what everyone else is talking about and its not "the big story" as the media would put it. Instead the focus is on the Congress trying to catch each person in a lie with changing the wording of questions previous ones had asked about. I could really talk about this forever and I was going to write an article, but an unbiased opinion to almost everybody is just as bad as siding with Clemens. I do think he has it harder like you said, because he has more to lose, but also because he has already been prosecuted and convicted by the majority of fans (see ESPN poll) and the media already. I have read probably around 200 articles on this subject, I've read the Mitchell Report, I've listened to testimony, and its all "He Said/He Said" nothing more.
I keep hearing, "Why would McNamee have two thirds of his story right, but be lying about the other?" Which is a great question considering Pettite and Knoblauch both admitted to it, why would Clemens not, and I have my own questions about that myself, but I always like to think what other people are not considering. Although one Congressman actually did, but I can't remember who said it off had that, "He had seen things like this happen before, when an idea pops in the accused head that if he gives up someone nostalgic it might help the sentence, but when it backfires that person has to keep on lying and drag it out whatever the cost." Those weren't his exact words, but it was similar to the point, but I have not heard one person talk about this at all or even contemplate it.
The media. For instance, partially speaking about Andy Pettite's testimony is lacking in itself. Why would they only have half of it released and if this was supposed to be sealed, why was it not? Also Pettite told Congress that even though he remembered Clemens telling him this 10 years ago, he also remembered Clemens telling him that he misunderstood the conversation, in a conversation the two had in 2004-2005. Yet the media says nothing about that at all, it is cutoff at Pettite says Clemens told him he took steriods. Which means a partial story leaves nothing but blank pages that need to be filled in, and everyone with an opinion will do so in a flash for the fun of conversation.
Because the media (like us) can take one comment and make it appear as something else in a heartbeat which creates doubt. In a fast paced world we are impatient and are too quick to judge. Not saying that you are, especially in your last sentence where you believe McNamee more, "right now.", but the public in general. If there is a hole in someone's testimony, they are automatically lying, even though I listened to Congressmen and women twist facts around into appearing that way for both McNamee and Clemens. There definitely was favoritism for both men by the Congress people that were evident in questions that some of them asked Clemens or McNamee. Where does that favoritism for either one revert back too?
I'm really surprised no one has commented on this yet, but I guess everyone has more important things to do then listen or watch the meeting today. I listened to the entire thing today which I must say was extremely long, but its what I was interested in and the best line I heard all day was "Trial by Media." You said, "Roger Clemens has everything to lose if he admits that he used HGH or steroids. His legacy will be tainted...", but in fact his legacy is already tainted and if it remains this stalemate it will be as bad as the "who killed JFK." when talking sports. Even if McNamee says he lied about everything (which he admitted to lying about quite a lot), and Clemens is cleared, there will always be doubt. Why?