Did anybody really think he wouldn't get acquitted?
Did anybody really think he wouldn't get acquitted?
Post Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 0 LaughingDennis M. Scott - "thanks" for this post
...Yes. I wasn't one of them, but there were a lot of people who thought the case against Clemens was compelling. Keep in mind that part of jury selection was making sure to choose jurors who didn't know who Roger Clemens is, so it's not like this was a celebrity getting off easy. It was a really weird trial, but I agree with the jurors- the evidence was not sufficient for a vote of guilty.
Post Thanks / Like - 2 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Boston media seems to be emphasizing the point that this was a trial about perjury, and not using.
Post Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 0 Laughing
I'm offended that this even came to trial, as it is based upon lying to a congressional investigation that should never have occurred. A huge waste of government resources.
"Fully embracing the Gospel, fully engaging the world"Post Thanks / Like - 5 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Everyone knows he used lots of steroids and that he lied about it. However, as we've seen, it's pretty tough to prove in court.
I didn't follow the case at all since I don't really care. The same thing will likely happen with Lance Armstrong now that he's going before the USADA - lots of incriminating evidence, but not enough for a conviction.
These guys are happen to win titles and make money - even at the cost of their reputation. In is what it is.
...just my $.02.Post Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 0 Laughing
No, every one doesn't know, they just think they know. I for one do not know, because I did not personally investigate the case. I'm going to go out on a limb here and say no one posting here has either. Though I don't know for sure ...Originally Posted by Ryan Scott
Post Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 0 Laughing
This. I get so tired of the idea that somehow people know that athletes used steroids.
- Ben
Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death! And to those in the tombs, bestowing life!
Χριστὸς ἀνέστη ἐκ νεκρῶν, θανάτῳ θάνατον πατήσας! καὶ τοῖς ἐν τοῖς μνήμασι, ζωὴν χαρισάμενος!Post Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 0 Laughing
He Used. He Used. The big arrogant ox used used used. He did not break any US laws though by using but his arrogance and pride allowed him to perjure himself before a congress (that should not have even been holding hearings). My lil sports heart was broken by the Rocket.. not so much by his use ..but by his stupid attitude of not fessin' up and dragging baseball, his history, and fans through the muck. Bye Bye Roger and may you enjoy a restless Pete Rose Retirement.
"And as we pass the collection plate, please give as if the person next to you was watching."
-Rev. LovejoyPost Thanks / Like - 2 Thanks, 0 Laughing
This is a host's post.
I agree with Dan here. I'm very tired of people drawing conclusions and asserting them as fact without knowing that to be the case. Doesn't matter if it's Cam Newton "Cheating." Lebron James ""Quitting," or one of hundreds of athletes "Juicing." I may have suspicions, and the evidence may appear to support them, but in the end I do not know, and to smear the name of one who has claimed innocence without direct knowledge of their guilt is, imo, contrary to the call of the Gospel, as well as skirting on the edge of personal attack. If you don't have direct personal knowledge of an individual's guilt, refrain from asserting your speculations as fact.
Again, this is a host's post.
Post Thanks / Like - 2 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Lance Armstrong being investigated by the USADA is not in any way a criminal investigation. The worst that can happen is that his tour titles may be stripped if found guilty of doping.
It was and is my opinion that the Clemens trial should have never happened. If they could have proved that Clemens used steroids based on DNA from evidence then this would have been a slam dunk. But all that they had was people saying that he had taken them, or that he or someone else had said he had taken them. McNamee was not a credible witness because of the issue and previous happenings in the investigations. Because the government prosecutors could never prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that Clemens perjured himself, this case should not have gone to trial.
Congress should have never gotten involved in the steroids issues but simply allowed the sports to deal with them as they were already doing or beginning to do. Punishing players who used them before they were actually banned or detectable is a waste of time and money. The best question to come out of all of this is: How many millions of dollars were wasted in the attempt to convict Roger Clemens of perjury when he went to Congress to clear his name after the Mitchell report? If Ken Griffey Junior had been included in the report I guarantee you he would have gone out to clear his name, but we would also have been less inclined to believe that he used (for the record, he never did according to all available sources and statements). Why are we so willing to believe that Roger Clemens did over anyone else?
If he's convicted by USADA, he'll face legal charges in France. I suspect he'll just avoid the country if that happens, but still.
...just my $.02.
There is direct evidence.
Clemens was a good, not great pitcher whose major downfall was a lack of self-discipline and motivation. He was either hurt or not trying hard enough. As his Red Sox career was coming to an end, he was released - then suddenly zoomed past his prior talent to win award after award. There were multiple witnesses, including his best friend, who said they saw him and helped him use steroids. He wasn't convicted because a few people found some credible doubt; I'm happy we have a legal system that requires the most firm evidence possible - but being acquitted does not equal innocent. He used steroids; there's evidence.
There's even more evidence for Lance Armstrong. I've detailed all of that here before. There's been even more former teammates and cofidantes who've come out recently. I actually expect he'll be convicted by USADA and have his title stripped.
I know Roger Clemens used steroids. I know beyond a shadow of a doubt. I'd love to believe Lance Armstrong didn't use illegal performance enhancers, but I can't even find a shred of doubt in any evidence anywhere - thus I have to say I know he cheated.
You or others might have a doubt (it boggles the mind how), but I know as much as I know anything else in the world.
...just my $.02.Post Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Shea (welcome back BTW), What is a Host's post and the relevance ? Its my opinion that you might chill a bit. This is an open forum where opinions are expressed on a WIDE variety of topics - Sports included. This is not a court of law. To suggest that those of us stating our opinion that Roger used is "contrary to the Gospel" just because we don't have first hand knowledge, is a bit off. 99% of every word stated here on Naznet is opinion.
Look most everyone in baseball during the Clemen's days knew he used whether they say it or not. For him to fabricate it wasn't him, but to throw is wife under the bus is just silly. Just because I wasn't in the Roger's locker room witnessing the jabs, doesn't mean I should forgo the weight of the evidence and copious materials supplied by courts and the media suggesting he did use. I think all intelligent readers here know that by saying Roger is guilty of Juicing is purely opinion albeit heavily weighted with credible evidence, and is not actual first hand knowledge.
I also happen to believe without first hand evidence and will state that OJ killed Nichole - and I have really really strong fantastic belief and will state as fact one that you would also state as fact without firsthand knowledge, but I won't because its too sacred to post here in triviality.
My last 2 cents on this topic is: Roger was / is great athlete, person, competitor, BUT FLAWED with Pride like us all. He made a choice to lie instead of in humility admitting error. I think the Gospel has a lot to say about and for man like Roger.
"And as we pass the collection plate, please give as if the person next to you was watching."
-Rev. Lovejoy
He will be in the Hall of Fame. Quote me on that. This trial was the first step in the process of getting Roger and Bonds into the Hall, and getting baseball into a better state as a sport in general. I'll comment more on this later. For now, Roger will absolutely be in the Hall, Bonds hopefully/possibly will. Bonds' attitude towards the media will hurt him a little bit. Neither will be first ballot.
- Ben
Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death! And to those in the tombs, bestowing life!
Χριστὸς ἀνέστη ἐκ νεκρῶν, θανάτῳ θάνατον πατήσας! καὶ τοῖς ἐν τοῖς μνήμασι, ζωὴν χαρισάμενος!
This is utter nonsense, Ryan. Give me a break.
Roger Clemens' years in Boston are some of the best years in baseball history for any pitcher. His first 12 years are better than the first 12 years of the following pitchers' careers in terms of FIP and WAR (as far as we can tell).
Nolan Ryan
Greg Maddux
Doc Gooden
And that's all I've even looked at so far. As far as we've done the math for (and can), Clemens' first 12 years is better than any other pitcher in MLB history in terms of fWAR. But you're going to try to tell me he wasn't great?
Roger Clemens played anywhere from All-Star to Legendary every year except for two while on the Red Sox (1985, 1995). At age 30 Clemens had a Cy-Young quality season, followed by a decline to All-Star level performance at age 31 and 32, followed by a down year at age 33, and then back to Cy-Young caliber at age 34.
At age 35 he went to Toronto, and put up his best and 4th best seasons, followed by a clear decline from 1999-2003 with the Yankees (39-42). Then, at age 43 and 44, he had two more All-Star to borderline Cy-Young quality seasons.
You know who else had the same up-and downs throughout their career, at the same ages, including his best, consistent 3 year stretch from ages 42-44??
Nolan Ryan.
During those years that Nolan Ryan was doing this in his early 40s, Rickey Henderson was shattering SB records, about to start hitting 30 HR while stealing 60 bases, and we knew that steroids were in use in sports (NFL) at the time....
But I don't see anyone accusing Rickey Henderson and Nolan Ryan of using steroids.... So I'm sick and tired of the steroid talk. We don't actually care. We only care that home run records were beaten and we had to see two people clearly become the best hitter and pitcher of all time (Bonds + Clemens). If they hadn't been SO good, we wouldn't have cared....
So...
(1) Roger Clemens was not only GREAT in his 12-year stint with Boston, he was one of the greatest pitchers of all time, probably top 15-20
(2) If Roger Clemens' production evidences steroid use, then so does Nolan Ryan's.
(3) Can we stop pretending to make such a big deal over steroids, and caring so much about steroids, and being so inconsistent about it?
- Ben
Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death! And to those in the tombs, bestowing life!
Χριστὸς ἀνέστη ἐκ νεκρῶν, θανάτῳ θάνατον πατήσας! καὶ τοῖς ἐν τοῖς μνήμασι, ζωὴν χαρισάμενος!Post Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 0 Laughing
If Clemens had retired instead of going to Toronto he would not have been a first ballot Hall of Famer. He was very good, especially one dimensional when it comes to strikeouts, but not great. Nothing you said changes what I said.
Clemens didn't try very hard after about 1990 and his physical skills were waning towards the end of the Boston years. The resurgence was strange, but not, in and of itself, indicative of anything. The damning evidence is the testimony of HIS BEST FRIEND, who said he used steroids and had personal knowledge of such.
I'm not about keeping anyone out of the Hall of Fame - everyone should be there - Joe Jackson and Pete Rose included. We had a steroids era that basically ruined the joy of baseball's best quality - the sacred numbers. But, like every other era, it is part of the game.
I'm more upset that these guys won't admit what they did than that they actually did it.
Bonds would have been a first ballot Hall of Famer steroids or not. Clemens would have gotten in, but it would have taken a few years. I think the same likely goes for McGwire. The Hall of Fame is a moot point.
And for the record, Nolan Ryan is one of my favorite all time baseball players, but he wasn't a great pitcher. He was fantastic, world-class at striking people out - but that doesn't make one a great pitcher. He's an all-time great more for his longevity than for his talent. You'd take him over almost anyone for one at-bat, but he's way down the list if you're choosing a pitcher for a whole game. I think comparing Clemens to him is very accurate; Clemens had a lot of those same skills - it was only after his time in Boston that he rounded into a more complete pitcher.
...just my $.02.
Stating that something like this is fact without having any actual proof, especially when it cannot be known is putting oneself in danger of slander/libel. As Christians we should be above leveling unproven and damaging charges against someone when there may not be any fact to them. In my opinion only two players' performances in the 90s clearly illustrate steroid or HGH use and those players are Bonds and McGuire (Sosa was using corked bats). Both saw a major uptick in HR/power and appearance that is just not likely to have come from natural training (McGuire has admitted his use). However, I am not going to go out and bash on them for it. Am I saddened that they did so, yes, but does that make them criminals and sub-human and not worthy of common courtesy, no. Roger Clemens has not been proven to have used and so we should not be spouting off as fact that he has. If the government couldn't definitively prove it after 7 years then it needs to be let go.
Adding to what Ben was saying: from 1992 through 1995 Clemens did not pitch a full season either due to injury or to strike. His ERA and W-L are only the stats that fluctuated from previous years when you take into account the number of games pitched. W-L is not a good indicator of performance as your team also has to give you the run support to win games. ERA is also bad because it doesn't take into account the level of competition in any way shape or form. 1996 (last season in Boston) Clemens numbers were virtually the same as every great year of his career to that point. His performance was not the reason for why he was not retained in Boston.
His two seasons in Toronto were probably as much luck as anything else in terms of his low ERA. Opposing players were not making solid contact and as such hits and runs were not being allowed. Jamie Moyer's success into age 49-50 has been because he learned how to keep opposing players from being able to make too much solid contact. Clemens likely did some of the same.
His years in NY were marked by a decrease in his strikeouts but not in any way by his overall performance, nor did his performance significantly improve. He was playing with one of the best offenses MLB has seen and so of course he was going to win more games, he also had a great defense behind him on the field.
Houston, in my opinion, was a classic example of a pitcher moving from the AL to the NL. His stats improved quite a bit when he got to the NL in comparison to his AL performance but that is not at all uncommon. He was pitching against players who had mostly never had to hit against him and that really does play in a pitchers favor. His Houston years do surprise me, but they still do not indicate to me that he ever used steroids. Do I have a hunch that he probably did at some point, sure, but do my doubts make me willing to forget about it and not just assume he did, yes.
Clemens' stat line can be seen at the following link:
http://mlb.mlb.com/team/player.jsp?player_id=112388
Yes, he has. Just because a court doesn't convict someone doesn't mean proof is lacking. The same is true for Lance Armstrong and dozens of other athletes.
Again, I don't really have much of an issue with them using PEDs - but I have a huge issue with them lying about it.
...just my $.02.Post Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 0 Laughing
And we should have issues with them lying about it, but the US Justice department and Congress failed to prove that he lied. That should be the end of it. What would you say if they did sample analysis of McNamee's "evidence" and discovered that it was Tino Martinez or some other Yankee from the late 90s and not Roger Clemens who took HGH? When you intentionally or unintentionally make statements that wrongly tarnish someone's name you do them harm that is not covered over by a simple "I'm sorry, my mistake." That is why we should not be so quick to assert that he has used. No one has PROVEN that he used, they have just presented strong arguments as to why he must have used.
I don't trust McNamee as far as I can throw him. Andy Pettitte is a stand up guy and Clemens best friend. He has no reason to lie. That's proof enough for me. Clemens lied to the people of Boston in public about his departure there and many other times to make himself look better throughout his career. He's not got the best reputation for truth telling. If it's his word against Pettitte's, other evidence be damned, I'm believing Pettitte.
...just my $.02.Post Thanks / Like - 2 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Ryan, you're insane. The guy's FIP and WAR in his first 12 years, as well as his BB/K ratio were not only 1st Ballot HoF, they were absolutely legendary. During his 12-year stint in Boston he was the best pitcher in baseball, and the only two who came close were Randy Johnson and Greg Maddux.
So, if Roger Clemens wasn't first ballot, then neither are those two. You're so far wrong on this count it isn't funny. And yes, everything I said changes what you said.
Yet his decline was to an all-star caliber of play, getting 4.4, 5.0, and 7.6 fWAR in 3 of his last 4 seasons in Boston.Clemens didn't try very hard after about 1990 and his physical skills were waning towards the end of the Boston years. The resurgence was strange, but not, in and of itself, indicative of anything.
Fair enough.The damning evidence is the testimony of HIS BEST FRIEND, who said he used steroids and had personal knowledge of such.
I'm not about keeping anyone out of the Hall of Fame - everyone should be there - Joe Jackson and Pete Rose included. We had a steroids era that basically ruined the joy of baseball's best quality - the sacred numbers. But, like every other era, it is part of the game.
I'm more upset that these guys won't admit what they did than that they actually did it.
This doesn't make sense, Ryan. Since "moneyball" we've come to understand pitching much better than we did before. Cy Young voters only look at 3 stats:And for the record, Nolan Ryan is one of my favorite all time baseball players, but he wasn't a great pitcher. He was fantastic, world-class at striking people out - but that doesn't make one a great pitcher. He's an all-time great more for his longevity than for his talent. You'd take him over almost anyone for one at-bat, but he's way down the list if you're choosing a pitcher for a whole game. I think comparing Clemens to him is very accurate; Clemens had a lot of those same skills - it was only after his time in Boston that he rounded into a more complete pitcher.
Walks
Strikeouts
Home Runs
They then give a cursory look to ERA.
I would generally add that they're missing out by not looking at GB%. Walk/Strikeout ratio is the most important statistic in baseball for pitchers, without any question. They are the two things pitchers control more than anything else. Striking a batter out is the single best outcome a pitcher can have in an at bat.
To be a pitcher who strikes out a ton of batter and walks very few is the best kid of pitcher there can be. If they keep the ball in the ballpark, even better.
This idea that someone is a great strikeout pitcher who doesn't walk many batters is somehow not great is literally nonsense. It makes zero sense in the world of baseball analytics. You're very far off in left field right now.
- Ben
Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death! And to those in the tombs, bestowing life!
Χριστὸς ἀνέστη ἐκ νεκρῶν, θανάτῳ θάνατον πατήσας! καὶ τοῖς ἐν τοῖς μνήμασι, ζωὴν χαρισάμενος!
Again, completely wrong.it was only after his time in Boston that he rounded into a more complete pitcher.
Of Clemens' 10 best seasons in terms of -FIP, 7 came in Boston.
- Ben
Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death! And to those in the tombs, bestowing life!
Χριστὸς ἀνέστη ἐκ νεκρῶν, θανάτῳ θάνατον πατήσας! καὶ τοῖς ἐν τοῖς μνήμασι, ζωὴν χαρισάμενος!
Stats only win you ball games, they don't make great players. I don't even know what FIP is - I watched him play. He had more to give and he was never very savvy. He did know how to get Ks, though.
...just my $.02.
Great players win ball games. Again, I don't know what you mean by winning ball games and being great players being different. I, too, watched Clemens. He and Frank Thomas were always my favorite players.
FIP is "Fielding Independent Pitching". It takes a pitcher's BB, K, GB%, IFFB%, LD%, FB%, and HR/FB ratio, converting them into a number like ERA. These are the things the pitcher has control over, which the defense has nothing to do with. These are what make a great pitcher... aka, A great pitcher will get a high % of K, GB, and IFFB, while limiting his BB, LD, and FB, while keeping FB in the ball park.
-FIP is then FIP put on a scale of 100, where 100 is the league average for that season, and the lower your FIP is compared to league average, the lower your -FIP is. It is also park-adjusted for park factors. That is, a pitcher who pitches in Coors Field would be expected to have more FB leave the ballpark and end up as XBH than would a pitcher who pitches at PetCo Park.
It gives a concrete way to evaluate a pitcher's performance compared to his peers, as well as the hitting/run environment that season, while making adjustments for park factors. By being on a 100 scale, it gives us a direct percentage to evaluate based upon.
If there were a single statistic which was most important in evaluating a pitcher's effectiveness (greatness), this is it. WAR also incorporates that pitcher's fielding ability as well as hitting ability in the NL.
- Ben
Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death! And to those in the tombs, bestowing life!
Χριστὸς ἀνέστη ἐκ νεκρῶν, θανάτῳ θάνατον πατήσας! καὶ τοῖς ἐν τοῖς μνήμασι, ζωὴν χαρισάμενος!
Those stats do great for fielding winning teams, but baseball is the most individual of team sports - guys are good because they're good. I'm an old school baseball fan; I call'em like I see'em. I recognize that stats do indeed help teams field the right players to maximize wins, but that takes a lot of the enjoyment of the game out of it for me.
I recognize that much of my understanding of players before my era are based on stats - basic stats that don't accurately predict a player's value to the team. I do think, however, that they can help judge the value of players in their own right.
The new stats tell us Tim Raines was an incredible player because of all the little things he did that weren't picked up in hits, runs, avg, rbi, and home runs. That's fine and I liked Tim Raines a lot. Those numbers don't make him great.
Clemens never quite had the it factor; he kept getting close and he put up some monster outings from time to time; he just never reached his potential and no player can be considered great if they fell short of their own capabilities. Great players exceed their potential; that's part of the deal.
...just my $.02.
Scott, it is the responsibility of the host to maintain the parameters of appropriate conversation on Naznet, as established by Dave McClung. Each forum has its own unique characteristics, but the forum hosts are the arbiters. Shea is just doing his job. Obviously, you disagree with the specific parameters Shea is trying to set, but he is right to try.
Besides, he needs the big bucks Dave is paying him.
"Fully embracing the Gospel, fully engaging the world"Post Thanks / Like - 0 Thanks, 1 LaughingJohn Kennedy - thanks for this funny post
Just had to mention ... again ... seeing your note here, re having gotten to see Nolan Ryan at the Astrodome long ago, and still have a couple of things from that era. One of these days 'might. Do something with them.
Life beats down and crushes the soul and art reminds you that you have one.
~ Stella Adler ~
~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~
It takes a great deal of maturity to accept that trying to eliminate all risk eliminates life.
~ Susan Lapin ~
Scott,
A host's post is when the host of the subforum is making an official statement regarding correct behavior in the forum. As the host of the sports forum, I expect it to fall in line with the mission of NazNet.
As for 99% of posts being opinion, that's true, and you are 100% free to express your opinion as such. However, you are not free to state that you know a damning fact about someone when, in fact, you do not. You can say you think, you're pretty sure, you're confident, you believe, etc. that Roger Clemens used Steroids. But you cannot say you know Roger Clemens used steroids, and/or lied about using steroids. It is a defaming statement, and will be treated in this forum like a personal attack. Same goes for OJ. And no, the existence of God is not the same thing. Defaming statements, passed off as fact, without definitive evidence, are libelous. Expression of a belief in a higher being, or the resurrection thereof, is a statement of faith. Statements of faith are, so far as I'm aware, not condemned by Scripture, but Gossip and Slander most certainly are.
Ryan, the public jury is very clearly out on whether Clemens' stats are indicative of PEDs. Ben is far from alone in his assessment of Clemens' career, and while you can argue that stats are not indicative of a good pitcher, there are plenty of people out there who believe it is. You cannot set your own non-expert criteria for what makes a pitcher good, then grade a pitcher's career by those criteria, and present that as conclusive evidence of PED use. You may genuinely think you know Clemens used PEDs, but unless you have direct knowledge of that use, I will ask you once again to use language of opinion when presenting your opinion, rather than passing it off as fact.
Let's get back on track, or I may have to close a sports thread for the first time...
This is so far wrong factually that it makes no sense. Great players produce at high levels. Clemens produced at a legendary level. Teams win because their players - together - produce at a high level over the course of a year.
Baseball is more objective statistically than any other sport. Your eyes fool you. K rates, BB rates, GB rates don't. That's a pitcher's job. Call it what you will, Clemens was better than anyone else, ever, and 7 of his 10 best years were in Boston.I'm an old school baseball fan; I call'em like I see'em. I recognize that stats do indeed help teams field the right players to maximize wins, but that takes a lot of the enjoyment of the game out of it for me.
Actually, when adjusted for era, his numbers do, in fact, make him borderline HoF great. That is exactly what they do.I recognize that much of my understanding of players before my era are based on stats - basic stats that don't accurately predict a player's value to the team. I do think, however, that they can help judge the value of players in their own right.
The new stats tell us Tim Raines was an incredible player because of all the little things he did that weren't picked up in hits, runs, avg, rbi, and home runs. That's fine and I liked Tim Raines a lot. Those numbers don't make him great.
Cliche, cliche, cliche, blah, blah.... Clemens outperformed and outproduced jsut about any pitcher.... ever. Call it what you will. I choose to call it great. He was better than anyone else. If that is just "good" then so be it. Your argument is literally nothing but nonsense so far.Clemens never quite had the it factor; he kept getting close and he put up some monster outings from time to time; he just never reached his potential and no player can be considered great if they fell short of their own capabilities. Great players exceed their potential; that's part of the deal.
- Ben
Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death! And to those in the tombs, bestowing life!
Χριστὸς ἀνέστη ἐκ νεκρῶν, θανάτῳ θάνατον πατήσας! καὶ τοῖς ἐν τοῖς μνήμασι, ζωὴν χαρισάμενος!
So did anyone think that the jury would come to a decision in just one day?
Where was this kind of oversight a couple of years ago when people were arguing that Tom Brady was better than Peyton Manning?
Post Thanks / Like - 0 Thanks, 1 Laughing
At this point in their careers (2 years ago), it's true.
- Ben
Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death! And to those in the tombs, bestowing life!
Χριστὸς ἀνέστη ἐκ νεκρῶν, θανάτῳ θάνατον πατήσας! καὶ τοῖς ἐν τοῖς μνήμασι, ζωὴν χαρισάμενος!
I wasn't surprised. They picked a jury which had no interest in baseball, so there was no interest in trying to create something out of nothing, and the case was pretty awful. It seemed a very easy verdict.
- Ben
Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death! And to those in the tombs, bestowing life!
Χριστὸς ἀνέστη ἐκ νεκρῶν, θανάτῳ θάνατον πατήσας! καὶ τοῖς ἐν τοῖς μνήμασι, ζωὴν χαρισάμενος!Post Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 0 Laughing
Interesting point, Ben, not that the jurors had never heard of Clemens (is there such a person?) but that they had no interest in baseball.
actually, the majority of the jurors did not know who Clemens was (or lied about it during selection). Some had heard the name, but the attorneys wanted people who didn't have preconceived notions about Clemens' guilt or innocence, which basically amounted to choosing people who didn't know who he was.
Post Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 0 Laughing
And surprisingly there are plenty of people out there who have no interest in baseball and no knowledge of anything or anyone associated with the sport.
Weirdos.
- Ben
Christ is risen from the dead, trampling down death by death! And to those in the tombs, bestowing life!
Χριστὸς ἀνέστη ἐκ νεκρῶν, θανάτῳ θάνατον πατήσας! καὶ τοῖς ἐν τοῖς μνήμασι, ζωὴν χαρισάμενος!Post Thanks / Like - 1 Thanks, 2 Laughing
Ben, those stats measure how much a player contributes to a team's wins. They don't measure how good a player is. I don't equate the two at all.
Judging how good a player is is entirely subjective. There is no statistic that will prove how good a player is - only how valuable they are to their team. Again, I don't think those two are at all equal.
...just my $.02.
I'll respect this. I'm just really unclear how we're arbitrating facts here? Do we have to have personal knowledge of something to talk about it as fact? What if I say I personally saw player x do steroids, but they still deny it - can I talk about it as a fact or does the player's lack of admission make it still an opinion?
I just can't accept a jury's decision as the arbiter of fact and opinion - that doesn't hold up. Are we not allowed to say OJ Simpson killed his wife?
I can see my error in saying, "we all know..." because clearly that's not true. I apologize. I don't see the harm in saying, "I know," when there really isn't any doubt in my mind. Disputed facts can still be facts.
I'm just trying to figure out how we draw the line here.
...just my $.02.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
