McNamee is a straight-up LIAR!!!!!!!!!!!! No doubt about that after watching everything and reading everything!

 

I think Roger Clemens is fighting for something he obviously believes in. Why do that unless you believed in what you were saying. I just cannot see a guy go through all of this just to end up being a liar! When you believe in something as passionately as Roger does you are going to be upset when discussing the topic.

 

Everything he has ever done has been called into question and he admitted himself that his name will never recover from this, not matter what!

If you read up on body mannerisms and such, Roger Clemens was lying through his no good teeth. He is a liar and a cheat. I hope he goes to jail for thinking he is above the system.

Then why keep a syringe or gauze pads of any kind???

 

McNamee is a thug, a liar, a dirty cop, and an embarassment to the profession you say you belong. He is a drug dealer, not in his opinion, but a drug dealer none the less.

 

Someone said earlier to leave reason and morals out of the equation when trying to come to a decision on this allegation. I say why?? McNamee has been a liar and a thug all of his adult life, and Clemens pretty much a stand up guy until this episode. McNamee is the kind of guy that would cut his own mother's throat.

 

Then you have Pettite implicating Clemens in the HGH charge, but everyone should know that if Clemens were the "catch" in this case, and he is, that law enforcement officials will offer Pettite a deal (sort of like a get out of jail free card that has probably already been offered...here Andy, we'll guarantee no jailtime if you just give us something on Clemens, it doesn't have to be true but we'll act like it is because we really just want to see him fall). Heck, McNamee may have been offered the same deal by an overzealous FBI agent. What if you were a cop turned drug dealer looking at going to the same jails you sent other people, perhaps even wrongly. McNamee may be lying for survival purposes for all we know.

 

And yes, prosecuting attorneys and law enforcement do work this way in all parts of this great country.

 

Pettitie is not, nor ever was, in danger of jail time. The only reason that Clemens is, now, is possible perjury charges. I don't see where Pettite would be given any sort of deal.

Don't believe McNamee but then again, I'm a republican.

I knew there was something about you I liked!!!:lol:

I just don't know. Some things he did just gave me the impression that he was lying. Roger never, that I saw, put his hands to his face, stood straight and gave answers. Sometimes he did pause, but I'd do the same thing to make sure what I am saying is right.

 

An "Expert" on body language that has worked for the FBI I believe was on First Take this morning, she said that if she had to pick she thought Roger was lying, and McNamee was mostly telling the truth.

Really? He changed his story? What was the original story he supposedly told? His name was provided by McNamee to MLB investigators as someone to whom he had supplied HGH. When called on the carpet, he confessed to this usage and to conversations he had with Clemens about him (Clemens) using HGH. No change in story. Completely believeable. And his greatest advocate about what an honest, good person he is comes from Clemens himself. No loss of credibility there. Until some people get over this "Roger Idolitis" they seem to be inflicted with, they will never accept the very real possibility (likelihood) that Clemens did indeed use illegal substances.

 

He originally said he only took HGH in 2002 and that was it. Now he says he also took it in 2004 and that his father supplied it to him. So yeah he was right, Petitte did change his story.

He originally said he only took HGH in 2002 and that was it. Now he says he also took it in 2004 and that his father supplied it to him. So yeah he was right, Petitte did change his story.

 

Well he certainly didn't change his story in a way that would make him appear to be less truthful and I think that was certainly what was being implied. The man told the truth in his testimony, pure and simple. Anyone that questions Pettite's veracity is barking up the wrong tree.

Well he certainly didn't change his story in a way that would make him appear to be less truthful and I think that was certainly what was being implied. The man told the truth in his testimony, pure and simple. Anyone that questions Pettite's veracity is barking up the wrong tree.

 

Pettite agreed that McNamee gave him the HGH. He wasn't asked about any other time. Didn't ask, didn't tell. Does that make him a liar? No. He just did not tell everything he knew.

Well he certainly didn't change his story in a way that would make him appear to be less truthful and I think that was certainly what was being implied. The man told the truth in his testimony, pure and simple. Anyone that questions Pettite's veracity is barking up the wrong tree.

 

Well how doesn't it make him less truthful. I mean when at first he is asked about it, he says he only took it in 2002. Then he changes it to, well he actually took it in 2004 as well. So I don't know what you consider to be truthful, but that looks like it is a lie to me. If you say you only took something during a time and thats it, and then turn around and say well I also took it during this time. Then that is a lie no matter how you look at it. So basically we are dealing with a bunch of people who have lied at some point in time about these things. Now I do admit out of all of them, Petitte is the most believeable, but as I just shown he has also lied so far as well. So with all of this, it is just impossible to know what the real truth is.

Well how doesn't it make him less truthful. I mean when at first he is asked about it, he says he only took it in 2002. Then he changes it to, well he actually took it in 2004 as well. So I don't know what you consider to be truthful, but that looks like it is a lie to me. If you say you only took something during a time and thats it, and then turn around and say well I also took it during this time. Then that is a lie no matter how you look at it. So basically we are dealing with a bunch of people who have lied at some point in time about these things. Now I do admit out of all of them, Petitte is the most believeable, but as I just shown he has also lied so far as well. So with all of this, it is just impossible to know what the real truth is.

 

Not true. First of all, I don't consider it a lie. What he said originally wasn't at all inaccurate. He simply added an additional piece of information to it. Secondly, you don't know what he was asked originally. McNamee only said that he injected Pettite in 2002. Perhaps that is all that they asked Pettite originally - i.e., "Did you use HGH in 2002 as claimed by McNamee?' and he accurately answered yes. Then while deposed recently perhaps the question was a bit more open-ended and he was asked to provide any and all instances he used HGH with or without the help of McNamee and that is when he provided the information on the use in 2004. As best I have gleaned, McNamee did not assist in his use of HGH in 2004. And lastly, even if you want to call his first statement a "lie", it certainly doesn't (IMO and the opinion of many, many other people apparently) discredit his testimony regarding his conversations with Clemens when Clemens flat out told him he used HGH.

 

Even people that have "lied" in the past can still tell the truth. It happens every day. Have you ever told a lie? (I'll assume for the sake of argument that you have.) Does this mean we can never believe anything that comes out of your mouth?

Too funny. You must know McNamee fairly well, I would assume, to state that he has been a "liar and thug his entire adult life" and would "cut his own mother's throat". Please give us your unique insight into that. And since he didn't break any laws that I'm aware of while he was a police officer, I wouldn't say he has disgraced my profession in the slightest. (Yes, I assure you that I belong to this extremely honorable profession). He has disgraced the profession of athletic trainers moreso than anything else.

 

Pettite was not offered any type of "deal" because he was never under or even being considered for criminal charges. Please try to get yourself better informed before making such silly statements.

 

McNamee was asked to provide information on individuals to whom he provided HGH/steroids and did so. To date, everyone he implicated - except Clemens - acknowledged he was telling the truth. His motive for not lying is that if he did lie to federal investigators he would be charged with perjury, obstructing an investigation, and a host of other charges. Telling the truth was by far and away his best option in dealing with the charges against him.

 

And, of course, I'm certain you again have some unique and enlightening insight into all the misdeeds of prosecuting attorneys and law enforcement officials across the country. Please fill us in. But try to become informed first, as it is a very common and accepted practice to obtain useful information from defendents in exchange for a reduction in their charge/sentence.

 

I'll have to dig up where I read the article, but I'm about 99% sure he was charge with tampering with evidence that resulted in an innocent man being indicted or convicted of rape. I'll check and make sure real soon.

 

Your last statement is my main point...if reduction in a charge/sentence isn't enough incentive for a man of McNamee's character to lie, then what is?

 

Surely you aren't so nieve that you think every plea bargain or "deal" made by prosecuting attorneys and law enforcement resulted in factual or truthful information told by the informant?

I'll have to dig up where I read the article, but I'm about 99% sure he was charge with tampering with evidence that resulted in an innocent man being indicted or convicted of rape. I'll check and make sure real soon.

 

Your last statement is my main point...if reduction in a charge/sentence isn't enough incentive for a man of McNamee's character to lie, then what is?

 

Surely you aren't so nieve that you think every plea bargain or "deal" made by prosecuting attorneys and law enforcement resulted in factual or truthful information told by the informant?

 

Well, I will certainly repudiate my first statement if you find something indicating he did that while employed as a police officer.

 

When a deal like that is offered, the defendent knows if he feeds a line of lies to police/prosecutors and they can prove such, that the deal is not only off, but that he could be faced with other charges. It wasn't as though he was offered full immunity or anything.

 

And, no, I'm not naive as to your last point, I assure you. But I still just don't see that he lied in this instance or really had any good reason to lie. It wasn't as if he was told he'd be given a deal ONLY if he gave up information on Clemens and none of the other names he provided didn't matter.

Just asking but why is HGH banned if people say it doesn't even help?

^ It's like a "fountain of youth"

^ It's like a "fountain of youth"

 

And it makes your head swell up...literally, twice as big as normal...