Mitchell Report Thread

[nitetrain8601]

now i know the report didnt turn up a whole lot of entirely credible evidence, but its a joke the way espn and other reporters are completely denying that the events in the mitchell report are unsubstantiated...the entire goddamn MLBPA is corrupt....they cheated, everyone knows it, everyone knew it, but now because nobody was willing to talk to the mitchell report its like espn is trying to construe this as...oh well we dont know if clemens took steroids still....WTF!?!? my ass we don't...how much clearer do we really have to make it?! ugh sorry just got so fed up reading stark and gammons b**** about the report was inconclusive mud slinging....mud deserves to be slung! these guys cheated... and no matter how much frank thomas says that somewhat clears his name..somewhere along the lines in history people will question him, and thats bull cuz he was probably clean and A holes like clemens and bonds have ruined it for guys like big frank

 

Exactly my point. People think guys like McNamee lied to protect himself. If he's told to tell the truth, he's telling the truth. All Mitchell can do is write what is said.

 

How much clearer does it have to be seen for a guy like Clemens? I swear, I think some people on Soxtalk want video evidence of a needle going in his ass, with him showing a picture ID. Even then, I think people will say the video is digital like with R. Kelly.

 

Bonds is guilty, but yet we have no more proof on him than we have on Clemens. Hell, I'd say you cold argue, you have more detail with Clemens.

 

[jackie hayes]

Exactly my point. People think guys like McNamee lied to protect himself. If he's told to tell the truth, he's telling the truth. All Mitchell can do is write what is said.

 

How much clearer does it have to be seen for a guy like Clemens? I swear, I think some people on Soxtalk want video evidence of a needle going in his ass, with him showing a picture ID. Even then, I think people will say the video is digital like with R. Kelly.

 

Bonds is guilty, but yet we have no more proof on him than we have on Clemens. Hell, I'd say you cold argue, you have more detail with Clemens.

This is hyperbole. The two biggest pieces of evidence against Bonds, in my mind, are his grand jury admission that he took the stuff (unknowingly, he claims) and the allegation that there are documents stating that he failed a steroid test years before that. We have neither for Clemens.

 

Which isn't to say he didn't do it. I think he probably did. His is kind of a middling example of the Mitchell report cases -- not as much evidence as for those who wrote large checks to Radomski, but much more than the very weak cases against Roberts and Cust.

[Soxbadger]

Jackie,

 

Bonds admitted to using the "Cream" and the "clear" not knowing they were roids. If you take the grand jury admission as fact, then you have to believe that Bonds did not knowingly take steroidsbecause there is absolutely no proof in the grand jury testimony that he did know. The only facts about whether Bonds knew are allegations made by other people (most of whom had an act to grind against Bonds).

 

The failed steroids test, irrelevant. Bonds took a test in a private clinic, who knows the protocols, who knows what they were really doing. This is BALCO, they are a corrupt felony organization. Now we are going to believe documents and tests that they produced? What if they put in a positive for Barry to blackmail him should they ever need it?

 

People want barry to be guilty, they want Clemens to be innocent.

 

The sad part is, there is a very real chance that barry told the absolute truth in that grand jury room (that he did steroids but just didnt know) and due to some scumbags wanting to make money his whole career was ruined.

[nitetrain8601]

This is hyperbole. The two biggest pieces of evidence against Bonds, in my mind, are his grand jury admission that he took the stuff (unknowingly, he claims) and the allegation that there are documents stating that he failed a steroid test years before that. We have neither for Clemens.

 

Which isn't to say he didn't do it. I think he probably did. His is kind of a middling example of the Mitchell report cases -- not as much evidence as for those who wrote large checks to Radomski, but much more than the very weak cases against Roberts and Cust.

 

So an allegation that there are documents against Bonds is good enough, but documents found in Jason Grimsley's house, and his personal trainer's admission to even injecting Clemens several times is not???

 

Wow. I can't greater double standard.

[jackie hayes]

So an allegation that there are documents against Bonds is good enough, but documents found in Jason Grimsley's house, and his personal trainer's admission to even injecting Clemens several times is not???

 

Wow. I can't greater double standard.

What are the documents that were "found in Jason Grimsley's house"? I haven't heard about these.

 

For f***'s sake, learn how to read. I did NOT say the evidence is "not enough". In fact, I said THAT I DO BELIEVE IT. That doesn't mean that there's just as much evidence.

 

And when there's an allegation made by federal prosecutors about evidence that was shown to a grand jury -- I tend to believe the evidence exists, yes.

[jackie hayes]

Jackie,

 

Bonds admitted to using the "Cream" and the "clear" not knowing they were roids. If you take the grand jury admission as fact, then you have to believe that Bonds did not knowingly take steroidsbecause there is absolutely no proof in the grand jury testimony that he did know. The only facts about whether Bonds knew are allegations made by other people (most of whom had an act to grind against Bonds).

 

The failed steroids test, irrelevant. Bonds took a test in a private clinic, who knows the protocols, who knows what they were really doing. This is BALCO, they are a corrupt felony organization. Now we are going to believe documents and tests that they produced? What if they put in a positive for Barry to blackmail him should they ever need it?

 

People want barry to be guilty, they want Clemens to be innocent.

 

The sad part is, there is a very real chance that barry told the absolute truth in that grand jury room (that he did steroids but just didnt know) and due to some scumbags wanting to make money his whole career was ruined.

I'm f***ing sick of this Bonds fight you keep picking. You'll say anything, no matter how absurd, to convince people that he did nothing. Your argument that I must believe every syllable of Bonds' testimony just because I accept his admission that he took these substances is absurd on its face. And no document from a corrupt organization is reliable? That's ridiculous -- you're prosecuting a group peddling stolen SSNs, and you wouldn't consider an actual record of how they got the numbers because it comes from a "corrupt felony organization"? Come on.

 

"People want barry to be guilty, they want Clemens to be innocent." You mean me? I don't give a s*** what happens to Clemens. Who's a bigger prick than him? Where have I ever -- EVER -- said that Clemens is "innocent"?

 

What annoys me is when people who are hellbent on proving Bonds innocent make ridiculous statements, like saying the testimony of one guy to Mitchell is just as much evidence as what there is on Bonds. There's a reason the vilification of Bonds exploded after the testimony was leaked, and not before. That doesn't mean Clemens is innocent, AT ALL. It's just a question of talking about an issue honestly.

[Soxbadger]

Jackie,

 

You have no clue what my viewpoint is.

 

I dont care that Clemens took roids, I dont care that Bonds took roids. I dont care that Gaylord Perry put vaseline on baseballs, I dont care that Sosa corked his bat. I dont care when teams steal signs, I dont care about any of it.

 

I think its a joke, I think the law is a joke. But that is an argument for another time another day.

 

And the evidence against Bonds is just as equal to multiple sources saying that they injected Clemen's personally.

 

Canseco had implicated Clemens for steroid use in his 2005 book, "Juiced," saying his performance at an advanced age showed all the "classic signs" of one who used performance-enhancing substances. Gary Sheffield also called out Clemens in 2004, saying, "I'm not accusing him of anything, but I betcha he's not just drinking soda water."

 

More seriously, Clemens's name was linked to reports regarding the sworn affidavit filed by special IRS agent Jeff Novitzky in which he said former pitcher Grimsley had identified a number of major league players as having used performance-enhancing substances. The names were blacked out on the affidavit, and the report was never substantiated at the time. Clemens reacted angrily at the time, saying, "I don't understand how people can do that and get away with it. I really don't.

 

http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/arti...trainer/?page=3

 

Fortunately for Clemens, he was popular so the names on the Grimsely affidavit stayed sealed. But if he gets the Bonds treatment, those documents will be unsealed.

 

 

 

[iamshack]

I don't really care one way or the other who was doing what. I just want the baseball industry AS A WHOLE to take the appropriate condemnation for this. I think Bud Selig and the others who commissioned this report, as well as George Mitchell and his team who authored the report should all be hung out to dry, honestly. I agree with the players on a lot of issues, but I also think the Players' Association has failed them entirely.

 

The entire thing is a mess and the media is making it worse by being so darn incompetent.

[Soxbadger]

My opinion is to forget about the past and just work harder in the future.

[jackie hayes]

Jackie,

 

You have no clue what my viewpoint is.

 

I dont care that Clemens took roids, I dont care that Bonds took roids. I dont care that Gaylord Perry put vaseline on baseballs, I dont care that Sosa corked his bat. I dont care when teams steal signs, I dont care about any of it.

 

I think its a joke, I think the law is a joke. But that is an argument for another time another day.

 

And the evidence against Bonds is just as equal to multiple sources saying that they injected Clemen's personally.

http://www.boston.com/sports/baseball/arti...trainer/?page=3

 

Fortunately for Clemens, he was popular so the names on the Grimsely affidavit stayed sealed. But if he gets the Bonds treatment, those documents will be unsealed.

Nor do I care what your viewpoint is.

 

I'm only responding to what you post, which is typically nonsense. For example, citing "multiple sources saying that they injected Clemen's personally," then immediately linking and quoting part of an article which doesn't say anything remotely close to that. Cogent analysis there.

 

You're at the point of just making s*** up because it sounds good for your argument, as you've done more than once when talking about steroids. Congrats, you've hit your stride.

[Soxbadger]

Your right I misspoke.

 

I meant to say multiple sources saying that they personally knew clemens did steroids.

 

I for a second thought Canseco had said that he had injected Clemens, but I looked and could not find it.

 

I stand corrected, sorry.

[jackie hayes]

Your right I misspoke.

 

I meant to say multiple sources saying that they personally knew clemens did steroids.

 

I for a second thought Canseco had said that he had injected Clemens, but I looked and could not find it.

 

I stand corrected, sorry.

THEY DIDN'T SAY THAT. Good God...

 

Both Canseco and Sheffield are speculating. NEITHER ONE CLAIMS ANY PERSONAL KNOWLEDGE. Which is clear if you read what they actually say.

 

You thought it said one thing. You were wrong. So you claim it said something else. Again you're wrong. Did you ever actually READ it?

[Soxbadger]

Well Radomski and McNamee are two... which would be multiple sources.

 

So did you actually read it?

 

Radomski knew McNamee was acting as personal trainer for Roger Clemens,

Andy Pettitte, and Chuck Knoblauch (among others), and he suspected McNamee was giving the

performance enhancing substances to some of his clients. Occasionally, McNamee

acknowledged good performances by Knoblauch or Clemens by “dropping hints,” such as

“[h]e’s on the program now.” McNamee never explicitly told Radomski that either Clemens or

Pettitte was using steroids or human growth hormone. According to Radomski, however,

McNamee asked Radomski what types of substances Radomski was providing to pitchers.

 

So he didnt call it the cream and the clear but instead dropped hints....

 

I dont know what your exactly trying to prove....

 

Im sure Clemens was smart enough not to go running around shooting up in front of everyone, it was close circle of people. The only 2 people privy two that circie have turned on him. Who else are you going to find? What more evidence do you want?

 

[Balta1701]

ESPN with a fairly remarkable story about F.P. Santangelo, who now hosts a radio show, coming forwards, admitting that the Mitchell Report was right, issuing an apology to the fans and to his family, and even taking calls on the issue.

[Heads22]

I always have hoped that F.P. stood for Fancy Pants.

[Linnwood]

Yeah, now he is. But what about the past 4-6 years? What affect on Bonds' career the last several years has this had?

 

Imagine that this had come out 5 years ago about Clemens. You think he's still getting paid $20 million a season? Clemens has probably made close to $200 million in salary by using performance-enhancing drugs since 1997.

 

 

Yeah, except the evidence was not there the past 4-6 years for Clemens. Yeah, there were rumors about Clemens, but all you had to do was look at Bonds and know there was something unnatural going on. As for affect on Bonds' career, do you think Clemens is more likely to get a new contract than Bonds is? Last time I checked the A's were still interested in Bonds. I'm sure Bonds made plenty of money of his performance-enhancing drugs.

 

 

Um this is proving the Bonds "apologists" right.

 

When Bonds was indicted, it was as if he was convicted.

 

When Clemens was fingered, its all "hearsay", "convicted felons testifying", etc etc.

 

Thats the exact same s*** thats happening to Bonds, but back then no one was saying how its totally unreliable. They were treating him like a convict.

 

Its funny to see all these reporters change their feelings now that the precious has been accused.

 

 

I don't watch ESPN anymore, but I assume you are talking about them when you say "its all "hearsay", "convicted felons testifying", etc etc." ?

 

I don't give a s*** what ESPN has to say, I hold Clemens in the same ill regard, and I've read nothing but people holding Clemens in the same category as Bonds.

 

If the Bonds apologists (and they are apologists, no need for scare quotes) were right everyone would forgive Clemens. Don't lump all sports fans in with the knuckleheads in Bristol. We don't all worship the Red Sox/Yankees and we don't all say it is "hearsay"

 

 

It isn't a race thing, and it never has been. It is a cheating thing.

Edited December 15, 2007 by Linnwood

[jackie hayes]

Well Radomski and McNamee are two... which would be multiple sources.

 

So did you actually read it?

So he didnt call it the cream and the clear but instead dropped hints....

 

I dont know what your exactly trying to prove....

 

Im sure Clemens was smart enough not to go running around shooting up in front of everyone, it was close circle of people. The only 2 people privy two that circie have turned on him. Who else are you going to find? What more evidence do you want?

You quoted Canseco and Sheffield. You then admitted that you misread the very text that you quoted, saying that you meant only that multiple people had personal knowledge. When I point out that the quote does NOT indicate that they have personal knowledge of Clemens' use, you move on to Radomski and McNamee, two people who aren't even mentioned in the quote.

 

And finally, YOU'RE WRONG ABOUT THAT, EVEN!!!!!!! Radomski explicitly admitted that he NEVER "personally knew clemens did steroids". Holy s***, not only did Radomski not have any personal knowledge, he was even "never explicitly told" about the steroid use. (That last quote is from the text you quoted, in case you haven't read it yet.) So not only did he have no personal knowledge, he didn't even get hearsay.

 

McNamee is the ONLY one who claims to have personal knowledge of Clemens roiding. That doesn't mean he's not telling the truth, but saying there is anyone else is a pure lie. So you've gone from multiple people claiming to have injected Clemens back to what everyone already knows from the Mitchell report, that one guy makes the claim. Hey, you shot for the big lie -- at least you tried.

 

And wtf are you talking about with the cream and the clear? This has got nothing to do with BALCO. Winstrol is neither the cream nor the clear. Nor is Deca-Durabolin. See what interesting tidbits you pick up when you actually read what you refer to?

 

What am I trying to "prove"? Nothing. I'm trying to clarify the FACTS in the case, and not let...people...with transparent agendas total f*** the discussion for all of us.

 

What have you said about the Bonds debate in the past? In previous threads about Bonds, you've stated without caveat that (1) the SF Chron reporters who reported the leaked testimony had committed a felony (WRONG, and obviously wrong under standard freedom of speech ideas, as every lawyer, hell, every high school graduate, should know), (2) that there was nothing illegal about the cream and the clear (WRONG, I cited the law that made the substances illegal), (3) that federal prosecutors leaked Bonds' testimony (WRONG, as a former BALCO lawyer has already been sentenced for the leak). And that was before all the bulls*** you've spewed here.

 

I get tired of you loudly announcing bulls*** and trying to make up enough facts to convince people. If you wonder why, it's because I think sometimes these conversations can be interesting, but not when someone hijacks a thread by swearing up and down on pure fantasy. Frankly, I'm amazed that there's not a chorus of posters shouting you down when you make these absurd claims. I'm tired of doing it. You have zero credibility left and I'm done dealing with you. I pity those who don't know any better.

[nitetrain8601]

What are the documents that were "found in Jason Grimsley's house"? I haven't heard about these.

 

For f***'s sake, learn how to read. I did NOT say the evidence is "not enough". In fact, I said THAT I DO BELIEVE IT. That doesn't mean that there's just as much evidence.

 

And when there's an allegation made by federal prosecutors about evidence that was shown to a grand jury -- I tend to believe the evidence exists, yes.

 

Documents found in Grimsley's house is how the feds got a list of people of who were on the 'roids. Grimsley coughed up the names as well IIRC. Clemens' name appears on the affadavit too I believe. Along with being injected personally by Mac several times, I don't know how people go ahead and say there's not as much evidence on him as Bonds. Ok, Bonds got big. So what? If the person is on the skinny side and used roids, there's less evidence that he took them? As far as I'm concerned, Tim Kurkjan has it right. If Clemens wants to say it's not true, then to save face and get voted into the HOF on the first ballot, he should sue, but we know he won't.

[jackie hayes]

Documents found in Grimsley's house is how the feds got a list of people of who were on the 'roids. Grimsley coughed up the names as well IIRC. Clemens' name appears on the affadavit too I believe. Along with being injected personally by Mac several times, I don't know how people go ahead and say there's not as much evidence on him as Bonds. Ok, Bonds got big. So what? If the person is on the skinny side and used roids, there's less evidence that he took them? As far as I'm concerned, Tim Kurkjan has it right. If Clemens wants to say it's not true, then to save face and get voted into the HOF on the first ballot, he should sue, but we know he won't.

All I know about is the affadavit with blacked out names -- if there are other documents that name Clemens, please provide a link to back that up. There was a report that Clemens' was one of the names in the affadavit, but the next day a US attorney stated that the report had a number of errors (without stating what the errors were).

 

Now, it wouldn't surprise me if Grimsley named Clemens, since we know Grimsley was linked to McNamee. But until we know that he is named, and how Grimsley knew he was a user, we can't say the evidence is as strong.

[jackie hayes]

Pettitte fesses up:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/sports/AP-...-Admission.html

[Linnwood]

Pettitte fesses up:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/sports/AP-...-Admission.html

 

 

Okay, so now two players named have confessed. Anyone still want to claim that it is just hearsay?

[Kalapse]

Pettitte fesses up:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/aponline/sports/AP-...-Admission.html

Nothing quite like f***ing over a good friend. If McNamee was telling the truth about Pettitte then why should we believe that he'd lie about Clemens' usage.

[Kalapse]

Okay, so now two players named have confessed. Anyone still want to claim that it is just hearsay?

Gary Bennett also admitted to using HGH, which confirms another portion of the Mitchell Report.

[Vance Law]

Gary Bennett also admitted to using HGH, which confirms another portion of the Mitchell Report.

 

So it seems like guys are willing to admit (after being called out in the Mitchell report) that they did HGH prior to 2005 when it was not yet banned.

 

And the only guys to admit to having done steroids have done so after they retired (Segui, Canseco, Camminiti), or somehow got busted (Gibbons, Grimsley, Giambi [sort of]).

[Kalapse]

Yep and the guys who admit to using HGH before 2005 are also denying ever using steroids.