A Sea Of Red

I love the fact that it's now official his wife took HGH....yeah she took HGH and he never did....I love how he expects us to believe that

I missed that.


McNamee looks like a scum bag.

A scum bag who tells the truth under oath.

Clemens is looking a lot better here than McNamee today. That dude looks like a porn producer.

I think they're both sleeze balls.

What the #*%@ difference does it make what the guy looks like?

olldflame wrote:What the #*%@ difference does it make what the guy looks like?

Allow me to re-phrase. Clemens appearance before the Congressional committee as visually transmitted through the ESPN cameras, broadcast through the airwaves and, ultimately, perceived through my ocular cavities seems more credible than McNamee's. In terms of "appearance", I refer to his body language, how quickly and confidently he answers questions, how nervous he appears, etc.,

Today, Clemens "looks" like he knows what he's talking about and is certain of the answers he's giving. McNamee "looks" like any random unwitting co-star of "To Catch a Predator".

It seems that people are very divided on who they believe here. I think they're both lying but Clemens has looked much worse. My brother now believes that Clemens is innocent and McNamee made it all up. Very interesting...

Starks Blog is pretty good.....good summary...

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/blog/ind ... l_hearings

I see mallett already linked...my fault...didn't realize it was starks blog...

I don't know what to think. ugh. I have watched it all today. At moments they both appear to be lying. So many things just don't add up. The one problem I have that keeps me from believing Clemens is Andy Pettitte's testimony. I can't get past that. I suppose he could have misunderstood Clemens when he said he used HGH but if he wasn't totally sure what Clemens told him I don't think he would swear to it under oath. Other than that, I could believe Clemens. Maybe Clemens didn't use steroids and only used HGH. I know he says he used neither, but to me HGH is less of a big deal. I see it as more of an experimental treatment (which may in 5-10 years be legalized). It seems to improve your health without consequences i.e. heal from injury. My feeling is that HGH should be legal due to lack of research to support its efficacy but at the same time, I can see how it can be compared to other drugs that are perfectly legal, such as ibuprofen, which helps you heal (with long term consequences I might add,), and cortizone shots. Steroids such a Winstrol are much more harmful and have the research to back it up.

kel varson wrote:I don't know what to think. ugh. I have watched it all today. At moments they both appear to be lying. So many things just don't add up. The one problem I have that keeps me from believing Clemens is Andy Pettitte's testimony. I can't get past that. I suppose he could have misunderstood Clemens when he said he used HGH but if he wasn't totally sure what Clemens told him I don't think he would swear to it under oath. Other than that, I could believe Clemens. Maybe Clemens didn't use steroids and only used HGH. I know he says he used neither, but to me HGH is less of a big deal. I see it as more of an experimental treatment (which may in 5-10 years be legalized). It seems to improve your health without consequences i.e. heal from injury. My feeling is that HGH should be legal due to lack of research to support its efficacy but at the same time, I can see how it can be compared to other drugs that are perfectly legal, such as ibuprofen, which helps you heal (with long term consequences I might add,), and cortizone shots. Steroids such a Winstrol are much more harmful and have the research to back it up.

The issue isn't whether HGH should be legalized but whether Clemens lied or not. I don't think it makes it any better if he lied about HGH or both.

I think Clemens is a liar, he never used HGH and he said he didn't know anything about HGH, but yet his wife got a shot of HGH. Like they never talked about it, give me a break.
So where would she get an ideal to get a HGH shot if he had not gotten one earlier.
Also damaging was the MRI that the committee got this week, and they gave it to some Dr who said the MRI showed the mass was the result of steroid injection not B12. And the Dr who looked at the MRI didn't know it was Rogers, they stripped his name off the MRI. Also two trainers said they never in their 20 and 30 yrs had a B12 shot give a player a mass like that. Also the MRI reading disproved Roger's claim he pulled a glut muscle.
At least McNamee admitted he is a liar in previous account, maybe all those statements before were when he was not under oath.

4everfsu wrote:I think Clemens is a liar, he never used HGH and he said he didn't know anything about HGH, but yet his wife got a shot of HGH. Like they never talked about it, give me a break.
So where would she get an ideal to get a HGH shot if he had not gotten one earlier.
Also damaging was the MRI that the committee got this week, and they gave it to some Dr who said the MRI showed the mass was the result of steroid injection not B12. And the Dr who looked at the MRI didn't know it was Rogers, they stripped his name off the MRI. Also two trainers said they never in their 20 and 30 yrs had a B12 shot give a player a mass like that. Also the MRI reading disproved Roger's claim he pulled a glut muscle.
At least McNamee admitted he is a liar in previous account, maybe all those statements before were when he was not under oath.

What he said...and then some.

4everfsu wrote:I think Clemens is a liar, he never used HGH and he said he didn't know anything about HGH, but yet his wife got a shot of HGH. Like they never talked about it, give me a break.
So where would she get an ideal to get a HGH shot if he had not gotten one earlier.
Also damaging was the MRI that the committee got this week, and they gave it to some Dr who said the MRI showed the mass was the result of steroid injection not B12. And the Dr who looked at the MRI didn't know it was Rogers, they stripped his name off the MRI. Also two trainers said they never in their 20 and 30 yrs had a B12 shot give a player a mass like that. Also the MRI reading disproved Roger's claim he pulled a glut muscle.
At least McNamee admitted he is a liar in previous account, maybe all those statements before were when he was not under oath.

wait wait let you use your key line....

Some of these question were answered if you paid attention...i guess you didn't watch today.

adam42381 wrote:

kel varson wrote:I don't know what to think. ugh. I have watched it all today. At moments they both appear to be lying. So many things just don't add up. The one problem I have that keeps me from believing Clemens is Andy Pettitte's testimony. I can't get past that. I suppose he could have misunderstood Clemens when he said he used HGH but if he wasn't totally sure what Clemens told him I don't think he would swear to it under oath. Other than that, I could believe Clemens. Maybe Clemens didn't use steroids and only used HGH. I know he says he used neither, but to me HGH is less of a big deal. I see it as more of an experimental treatment (which may in 5-10 years be legalized). It seems to improve your health without consequences i.e. heal from injury. My feeling is that HGH should be legal due to lack of research to support its efficacy but at the same time, I can see how it can be compared to other drugs that are perfectly legal, such as ibuprofen, which helps you heal (with long term consequences I might add,), and cortizone shots. Steroids such a Winstrol are much more harmful and have the research to back it up.

The issue isn't whether HGH should be legalized but whether Clemens lied or not. I don't think it makes it any better if he lied about HGH or both.

I didn't say that was the issue. I was just stating my thoughts on HGH. I think there's a chance in the future it will be considered a legitimate medical treatment for sports injuries. For the record, yes, I think Clemens lied. Andy Pettitte and the rest of the evidence is too overwhelming.

Rocketfan wrote:

4everfsu wrote:I think Clemens is a liar, he never used HGH and he said he didn't know anything about HGH, but yet his wife got a shot of HGH. Like they never talked about it, give me a break.
So where would she get an ideal to get a HGH shot if he had not gotten one earlier.
Also damaging was the MRI that the committee got this week, and they gave it to some Dr who said the MRI showed the mass was the result of steroid injection not B12. And the Dr who looked at the MRI didn't know it was Rogers, they stripped his name off the MRI. Also two trainers said they never in their 20 and 30 yrs had a B12 shot give a player a mass like that. Also the MRI reading disproved Roger's claim he pulled a glut muscle.
At least McNamee admitted he is a liar in previous account, maybe all those statements before were when he was not under oath.

wait wait let you use your key line....

Some of these question were answered if you paid attention...i guess you didn't watch today.

Rocketfan is right. Those questions, including the MRI, were answered pretty well by the Clemens team. I thought the Clemens team defended the questions about the MRI pretty well. Doesn't change my opinion. I don't think Pettitte would lie. Also, I see a better motive for Clemens to lie than McNamee.

I have a good question...
Why did this go down party lines? Dems seemed to push Mcnamara and Repubs pushing Clemens.

I was not convinvced before todays hearings he was guilty but now after Pettite and his waffling on HGH questions and then his wife taking it, I think he had to have taken roids.

Stevewalt wrote:I have a good question...
Why did this go down party lines? Dems seemed to push Mcnamara and Repubs pushing Clemens.

I was not convinvced before todays hearings he was guilty but now after Pettite and his waffling on HGH questions and then his wife taking it, I think he had to have taken roids.

I think that was the perception from the hearing. I'm guessing if you polled all 500 plus members of Congress that the split would not be 50/50 along party lines. There would probably be many Republicans in the "mcnamee" camp. You are right though, it was split at today's hearing. Probably more coinicidene than anything else.

Also, I am pretty sure Clemens is a Republican. Not that it had anything to do with it.

Yep Clemen answered about the MRI study the committe had done, by saying his Dr or some Dr from Baylor U or Hospital said it was not a steroid injection. Yep I did watch it today

Who cares - what a big waste on tax payers money. Let it go already. It wasn't against the rules back then - let it die. It's a sport. Congress spends less time trying to keep us out of recession, then having these stupid hearings just to try and catch a guy in a lie.

What's next? Are we going to bring every person from Congress suspected of having hair implants in front of a committee?

I'm so sick of steroid talk!!!!

How do you really feel?

prototype wrote:Who cares - what a big waste on tax payers money. Let it go already. It wasn't against the rules back then - let it die. It's a sport. Congress spends less time trying to keep us out of recession, then having these stupid hearings just to try and catch a guy in a lie.

What's next? Are we going to bring every person from Congress suspected of having hair implants in front of a committee?

I'm so sick of steroid talk!!!!

Us baseball fans care

I want to know if one of 3 or 4 greatest pitchers in the last 100 years cheated. I'm guessing a lot of people pay more annually in sports memorabilia and tickets than they do in taxes.

I trust what Andy Petitte says over Clemens.