Roger Clemens

[Shea Zellweger]

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.

If you personally saw someone doing steroids and say so, that's a statement of fact. If you do not have such direct knowledge, the person has denied it, but you claim it as fact, it will be seen as a personal attack. It's not a matter of what a grand jury or trial jury determines, but rather a matter of grace. We as humans are too quick to believe the worst about someone. We as Christians should be willing to try and give someone the benefit of the doubt. It is my personal opinion that Roger Clemens' longevity in baseball is an indicator of potential PED use, but Clemens has denied it, I cannot disprove it, and there have been other players in the history of baseball who had some of their best years later in their career, so as a Christian, I feel it's my responsibility to try to take Clemens at his word. And as the host of a Christian Sports Forum, I believe it is my responsibility to hold participants to a similar standard. If you want to start a thread entitled "The evidence which I think shows Roger Clemens used PEDs," and have a discussion about that, go for it. I won't participate, but I won't stop you. But we're not going to go as far to proclaim definite, defaming knowledge when we do not have such, and if you did not see Clemens inject, you don't know. If you didn't see OJ Simpson kill his wife, you don't know.

Something else to consider: If you were wrongly accused, and the evidence seemed to suggest your guilt, would you want folks saying they knew you were guilty, or would you want them to believe your denial? I would hope that folks could find in in their hearts to believe me when I proclaimed my innocence, and I'm guessing you would too. Let's keep that, and the Golden Rule, in mind before we start slinging accusations and claiming knowledge when we don't have it.

[Ryan Scott]

If we're going to be held to that level of knowledge than we can't ever talk about knowing anything.

Did Roger Clemens once strike out 20 batters in a game? I didn't see it, so I don't know.

Everything we know is based on evidence - none of it is based on certainty. We claim certainty based on our faith in the evidence.

If someone else makes a fact claim, "I saw player x do ______," it's not fact if I believe it?

The statistical and observational evidence is sketchy at best - it might be indicative of PEDs, it might not. But when Andy Pettitte says Clemens admitted using HGH, that's not a statement you can take with a grain of salt. If it's fact if he says it, why can't it be fact if I believe it?

I make it a life principle to take people at their word - but I've also been lied to. When the evidence makes my continued belief in them impossible, I have to stop believing them.

I hope we won't be reprimanding people for saying "Jerry Sandusky abused children," as a statement of fact. None of us saw it, but I think we can all agree that the evidence is worthy of calling it fact - mostly because we believe the testimony of people who were in a position to know.

Andy Pettitte was in a position to know. I believe him. I have no doubt about it whatsoever. I'm just not sure how else to talk about it. If I say, "he might have done it," I'm lying. I certainly don't want to be a liar.

I'm stating what I believe to be true - that is a fact. If I state what I think is likely to be true, that's an opinion. In this case, it is the former, not the latter.

As I said, I apologize for putting words into others mouths, but this is a fact as far as I'm concerned. It might not be a fact for other people, that's fine.

I'll leave it alone. I don't care that much. It just doesn't make sense.

[Benjamin Burch]

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.

This confuses me.

GB%, K%, BB%, LD%, FB% don't show you the direct result of how well a pitcher pitched? This has nothing to do with a pitcher's value to their team's success. Nothing at all.

[Ryan Scott]

This confuses me.

GB%, K%, BB%, LD%, FB% don't show you the direct result of how well a pitcher pitched? This has nothing to do with a pitcher's value to their team's success. Nothing at all.

No, I'm saying a player's contribution to a team's success has no correlation to how good they are as a player.

There's a lot of stats out there that can be used to make the case that Lou Gehrig is the greatest baseball player of all time. I appreciate those stats and they contribute, but I believe Lou Gehrig is the greatest player of all time mostly because I believe it - there's something intangible and immeasurable about him that swings my decision making more than stats ever could.

I think Christy Matthewson and Warren Spahn were the two greatest pitchers ever - for basically subjective and capricious reasons that I don't feel the need or really ability to defend in any definitive way.

I'm not really interested in debating, just in giving my opinion - since those kids of debates aren't really winnable anyway.

[Michael Flowers]

Andy Pettitte was in a position to know. I believe him. I have no doubt about it whatsoever. I'm just not sure how else to talk about it. If I say, "he might have done it," I'm lying. I certainly don't want to be a liar.

And yet even he retracted and said that it is 50-50 that he misunderstood what was told to him. If he isn't even certain then it is impossible for us to be. I am willing to admit that it still is likely that he used something at some point in time (as many did in that era) but to say he did so without first hand knowledge at this point isn't fair.

Also, as far as stats go, we have documented reports which are credible and can be verified if one does the research.

Now, as far as I am concerned on the whole topic of steroids, I wish that the government and media would just agree to leave it alone and deal with the future instead of what might have happened in the past. No one benefits from digging into history that is fondly remembered.

[Shea Zellweger]

If we're going to be held to that level of knowledge than we can't ever talk about knowing anything.

Did Roger Clemens once strike out 20 batters in a game? I didn't see it, so I don't know.

this example really does not mesh with anything I outlined. What I said, several times in several different ways, was that if someone is accused of something defaming, and denies it, then we should not claim knowledge of his/her guilt unless we have directly witnessed it. Is saying "Roger Clemens once struck out 20 batters" defaming? No. Did Roger Clemens deny he struck out 20 batters? No. So it doesn't even fall under the same category (plus, I'm pretty sure there's an official box score and game footage in Cooperstown...). It's not at all the same thing, and your use of this example suggests to me that either I'm not communicating clearly, or you're not reading me correctly.

Everything we know is based on evidence - none of it is based on certainty. We claim certainty based on our faith in the evidence.

If someone else makes a fact claim, "I saw player x do ______," it's not fact if I believe it?

The statistical and observational evidence is sketchy at best - it might be indicative of PEDs, it might not. But when Andy Pettitte says Clemens admitted using HGH, that's not a statement you can take with a grain of salt. If it's fact if he says it, why can't it be fact if I believe it?

well, for starters, because Andy Pettite said several times in the course of the trial that he wasn't sure he heard Clemens correctly...

I hope we won't be reprimanding people for saying "Jerry Sandusky abused children," as a statement of fact. None of us saw it, but I think we can all agree that the evidence is worthy of calling it fact - mostly because we believe the testimony of people who were in a position to know.

I see no reason to reprimand people for making reference to something that's been established on the clear testimony of multiple witnesses. That's a far cry from the Clemens case, where there were two major witnesses, and both of their testimonies were suspect.

Andy Pettitte was in a position to know. I believe him. I have no doubt about it whatsoever. I'm just not sure how else to talk about it. If I say, "he might have done it," I'm lying. I certainly don't want to be a liar.

is it particularly hard to say "I believe he did it"?

I'm stating what I believe to be true - that is a fact. If I state what I think is likely to be true, that's an opinion. In this case, it is the former, not the latter.

a belief statement is not a statement of fact. You're free to say what you believe, if you classify it as such. Saying you know is an entirely different thing, and in this instance you do not know, you believe.

I'll leave it alone. I don't care that much. It just doesn't make sense.

I'm sorry you feel that way. I've done my best to explain it, but based on this response, and the examples you chose to use, I'm not sure how good of a job I did...

[Benjamin Burch]

No, I'm saying a player's contribution to a team's success has no correlation to how good they are as a player.

All of those stats I used were a player's individual success. That is, striking out batters, keeping the ball on the ground, and not walking batters is success for a pitcher.

Or, do you consider home runs success for a pitcher?

There's a lot of stats out there that can be used to make the case that Lou Gehrig is the greatest baseball player of all time.

You'd have to point me to those statistics. I cannot find any statistics that suggest this to be the case. He trails the Big3 (Bonds, Ruth, Williams) in every single statistic I have found, and trails the Big5 (Mays, Cobb) in the majority of them.

I appreciate those stats and they contribute, but I believe Lou Gehrig is the greatest player of all time mostly because I believe it - there's something intangible and immeasurable about him that swings my decision making more than stats ever could.

This baffles me. Mostly because you rely on what others have said about him, the film you've seen, etc.... even though you weren't around to experience the guys' career. I just don't see what you have to base this on.

I think Christy Matthewson and Warren Spahn were the two greatest pitchers ever - for basically subjective and capricious reasons that I don't feel the need or really ability to defend in any definitive way.

ok.

[Ryan Scott]

a belief statement is not a statement of fact.

This is where I disagree. We're really the arbiters of our own facts. I can say I've visited the moon on 19 separate occasions; if I believe it strongly enough, it's a fact for me. Others might disagree, but it's still a fact.

I guess my contention is that there is no such thing as a definitive truth, therefore the only things we can know are the things about which we have no doubts.

In the grand scheme of facts, this one is about as minute in importance as one can possibly get - which is again, why it's not a huge deal to me. I was just trying to be heard.

I just can't figure out any way to honestly express my view other than to say, "I know."

Don't feel bad. I suspect the communication errors are entirely my own.

[Shea Zellweger]

This is where I disagree. We're really the arbiters of our own facts. I can say I've visited the moon on 19 separate occasions; if I believe it strongly enough, it's a fact for me. Others might disagree, but it's still a fact.

I guess my contention is that there is no such thing as a definitive truth, therefore the only things we can know are the things about which we have no doubts.

In the grand scheme of facts, this one is about as minute in importance as one can possibly get - which is again, why it's not a huge deal to me. I was just trying to be heard.

I just can't figure out any way to honestly express my view other than to say, "I know."

Don't feel bad. I suspect the communication errors are entirely my own.

maybe I wasn't expecting so postmodern a definition of "fact" in the sports forum .

Honestly, if you said "It is a fact that Lou Gehrig is the greatest player in the history of baseball," I'd let it go. You could even make that statement about Trot Nixon or Endy Chavez, and I'd let it go... as a moderator, anyway. As a participant, I'd be all over it. But when we're dealing with accusations of crime, and the potential for slander/libel/gossip is there, we need to be more careful.

[Michael Flowers]

This is where I disagree. We're really the arbiters of our own facts. I can say I've visited the moon on 19 separate occasions; if I believe it strongly enough, it's a fact for me. Others might disagree, but it's still a fact.

I guess my contention is that there is no such thing as a definitive truth, therefore the only things we can know are the things about which we have no doubts.

In the grand scheme of facts, this one is about as minute in importance as one can possibly get - which is again, why it's not a huge deal to me. I was just trying to be heard.

I just can't figure out any way to honestly express my view other than to say, "I know."

Don't feel bad. I suspect the communication errors are entirely my own.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/fact?s=t
fact
   
noun
1. something that actually exists; reality; truth: Your fears have no basis in fact.
2. something known to exist or to have happened: Space travel is now a fact.
3. a truth known by actual experience or observation; something known to be true: Scientists gather facts about plant growth.
4. something said to be true or supposed to have happened: The facts given by the witness are highly questionable.

By basis of number 4 you are allowed to say it is fact for you, but to this point the rest of us have approached it from the other three. So, this is an argument/debate with no winner to be certain.

Also, when I am certain about something but know that others may not be, or that the facts may not definitively lead down the same road, I always phrase it as "it is my personal belief that...."