Even using it to add "in a quicker recovery" was/is wrong. That's exactly what Pettite did (or claimed to have done). He wasn't happy with the way his body was naturally recovering and aided the process by using an improper substance. Whether you call it "performance enhancement" or "recovery enhancement", it's wrong.

 

"Taking the word of an MLB great, future HOF'er, and one of best of all time." Just curious. Did you also feel the same way about Pete Rose and his claims he never bet on baseball? Even great athletes lie. Olympic great Marion Jones will likely get six months to think about her lying.

 

Sure McNamee can probably provide documentation that he purchased steroids around this time period, but that won't prove he injected Clemens. Just like Clemens' negative testing back then proves nothing because HGH couldn't be tested for back then (and actually still can't).

Never said taking enhancements wasn't wrong. My statement was perhaps he did take enhancements or something else to help in his recovery, like he indicated vioxx, pain shots or other methods. Just because Pettitte admitted he took something, doesn't mean they need to be lumped together, due to friendship.

 

As for Rose, he was investigated and evidence was provided, which hasn't been done in this instance. Many players have denied and/or admitted, so each must be evaluated on their own and not lumped together, as guilty or innocent.

 

More information, verifiable documents and substantiated proof must be forthcoming, for me to assume Clemens did this, which I've stated before.

Never said taking enhancements wasn't wrong. My statement was perhaps he did take enhancements or something else to help in his recovery, like he indicated vioxx, pain shots or other methods. Just because Pettitte admitted he took something, doesn't mean they need to be lumped together, due to friendship.

 

As for Rose, he was investigated and evidence was provided, which hasn't been done in this instance. Many players have denied and/or admitted, so each must be evaluated on their own and not lumped together, as guilty or innocent.

 

More information, verifiable documents and substantiated proof must be forthcoming, for me to assume Clemens did this, which I've stated before.

 

Yeah, but long before the official investigation of Rose was concluded, all you had was the word of some drug users and convicted felons against the word of Pete. Yet, even then, I think 99% of the free world pretty much felt Pete did exactly what they said he did, despite his continual denials.

 

You're right - it's a bit early to "convict" Clemens at this stage, but there's plenty enough to be very, very suspicious.

Is 3.55 ERA close to 4?

In 1995 he was a 4.18, in 1996 he had a 3.63...that rounds close to 4...

In 1995 he was a 4.18, in 1996 he had a 3.63...that rounds close to 4...

 

But you said 94-96, he had a 2.85 in 94...

 

Just don't turn on him yet, paesano...

So, will either one of these guys have to say anything in front of Congress? If Clemens dodges ANY questions, it will not look good.

 

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3194582

McNamee's attorney has made a huge and inaccurate leap to assume that his client's testimony under immunity is automatically considered Gospel truth and, therefore, if Clemens' testimony subsequently differs from McNamee, he (Clemens) will immediately open himself to possible criminal perjury charges. Ain't the way it works.