RealGM

check it out on pete's blog

Via agent Randy Hendricks, Roger Clemens has issued this statement:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2007/b ... index.html

heres another link

Clemens is definitely clean..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s5iqpb6L7pY

I believe him completely.

Green Font x 1,000,000

I'll believe Clemens is innocent when he brings a civil lawsuit against the trainer who fingered him, George Mitchell, Bud Selig and Major League Baseball for defamation, intereference with economic opportunity and all the rest. That's what every single innocent player named in Mitchell's report should do.

Curmudgeon wrote:I'll believe Clemens is innocent when he brings a civil lawsuit against the trainer who fingered him, George Mitchell, Bud Selig and Major League Baseball for defamation, intereference with economic opportunity and all the rest. That's what every single innocent player named in Mitchell's report should do.

Burden of proof is on the plaintiff. There's no way that Clemens could prove that these guys are lying, just like these guys can't prove that Clemens is lying. Without a receipt, a test, something, the case can't be brought to trial.

Slamm Goodbody wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



Burden of proof is on the plaintiff. There's no way that Clemens could prove that these guys are lying, just like these guys can't prove that Clemens is lying. Without a receipt, a test, something, the case can't be brought to trial.

I AGREE without the power of subpoena you have to use common sense,
which make you more skeptical about the accomplishments of most players in that era. for example there is no real prove that bonds or sosa or Clemens have used steroids but common sense says otherwise.

VinnyTheMick wrote:I believe him completely.

Green Font x 1,000,000

Slamm Goodbody wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



Burden of proof is on the plaintiff. There's no way that Clemens could prove that these guys are lying, just like these guys can't prove that Clemens is lying. Without a receipt, a test, something, the case can't be brought to trial.

So what? Get the trainer up on the witness stand.

Curmudgeon wrote:-= original quote snipped =-



So what? Get the trainer up on the witness stand.

I understand what you're saying but that doesn't fit the burden of proof. If he's your only witness, then the case would never make it to court. You can't just say, this guy is a liar and we're going to try to poke holes in his story, especially if you're bringing him personally up on charges. All he has to do is plead the fifth and clam up because you can't testify against yourself, one way or the other.

Let's say hypothetically he's just a witness in a broader case against Mitchell and MLB. He takes the stand and says verbatim what he said in the report. Then what? Where's the rest of your case come from? Even if you poke the guy's credibility full of holes, you have to have verifiable proof that he was lying, which Roger simply doesn't have. There's no case based on one guy's testimony without evidence.

Son, I've been a practicing attorney since before you were born (probably).

You can start with the fact that the 5th amendment has limited utility in a civil case, since there is no issue of self-incrimination. When Clemens' lawyer asks the trainer, "You were lying, weren't you," and the trainer refuses to answer on 5th amendment grounds, Clemens has just won the case.

Secondly, while the burden of proof is on the plaintiff, the burden is lower in a civil case: the standard is preponderance of the evidence. That's far easier to meet than the standard in a criminal proceeding.

Assuming for argument's sake that Clemens is in fact innocent, he has a strong case. He can bring in every guy whose locker was next to his, or roomed with him on the road, or who was also a trainer, equipment manager, travelling secretary or other functionary on every team for which he ever played, to testify that they never saw Clemens use anything. He can point to the lack of cancelled checks or any sort of paper trail implicating him in steroid or HGH use, the negative test results when he was tested, etc. etc.

Celebrities bring libel suits against tabloids all the time for making up stories about them-- and the celebrities win when the stories are bogus. That's why Tony Parker just sued a French magazine for $40 million for falsely accusing him of having an extramarital affair.

If Clemens doesn't bring a suit, it's an admission of guilt, and everyone knows it.

In October of 2006, the Los Angeles Times reported that Roger Clemens was one of the players implicated by Jason Grimsley in a federal affidavit. Clemens denied it at the time and was vindicated yesterday when the affidavit was unsealed and Clemens was not on the list.

Roger

Well, that statement from his attorney certainly sounds more like what I'd expect from an innocent man. As I said in my original post, every player wrongfully accused in the Mitchell report should bring a lawsuit. The ones that do not are likely guilty.

Curmudgeon wrote:Son, I've been a practicing attorney since before you were born (probably).

You can start with the fact that the 5th amendment has limited utility in a civil case, since there is no issue of self-incrimination. When Clemens' lawyer asks the trainer, "You were lying, weren't you," and the trainer refuses to answer on 5th amendment grounds, Clemens has just won the case.

Secondly, while the burden of proof is on the plaintiff, the burden is lower in a civil case: the standard is preponderance of the evidence. That's far easier to meet than the standard in a criminal proceeding.

Assuming for argument's sake that Clemens is in fact innocent, he has a strong case. He can bring in every guy whose locker was next to his, or roomed with him on the road, or who was also a trainer, equipment manager, travelling secretary or other functionary on every team for which he ever played, to testify that they never saw Clemens use anything. He can point to the lack of cancelled checks or any sort of paper trail implicating him in steroid or HGH use, the negative test results when he was tested, etc. etc.

Celebrities bring libel suits against tabloids all the time for making up stories about them-- and the celebrities win when the stories are bogus. That's why Tony Parker just sued a French magazine for $40 million for falsely accusing him of having an extramarital affair.

If Clemens doesn't bring a suit, it's an admission of guilt, and everyone knows it.

First of all, I agree that Clemens has to bring up a suit, one way or another. He has too much to lose by sitting on the sidelines. You're also 100% correct regarding the 5th. That said, I still don't see a case here. What you're saying, essentially, is that Clemens defense will consist primarily of providing character witnesses and aggressive questioning of the trainer. This is where his case falls flat on its face.

Baseball is a fraternity. These guys don't rat on one another. The only people that provided the meat of the Mitchel Report were trainers caught distributing steroids. They have an interest in being thorough and true because of their plea bargains. A friend or teammate isn't as credible of a witness because of his closeness to the plaintiff. When you consider that the only player to speak to Mitchell was Giambi, who essentially had to, it shows that these players take a tight-lipped approach to leaking information. Let's not forget the Congressional hearing where these guys played stupid or clammed up at every turn. They refuse to incriminate their fellow players.

Also consider that Roger was most likely stealthy in his alleged steroid use. Barry Bonds wasn't shooting steroids into his ass in front of his locker room and neither was Giambi. The major stars had too much to lose by making drug abuse known to a lot of parties. A pro athlete with a locker next to Clemens may never see him with a needle, but that doesn't mean he doesn't have a track mark. There's just not enough substance.

You know that very, very often these celebrity libel suits are thrown out before they even make it to trial because of the difficulty in proving them for public figures. It's a PR boon when you bring up charges, which is what Clemens needs. If it gets thrown out for not having enough evidence then he can continue to deny they were true and defend his reputation. This is what I think will happen here.

Cases are decided on circumstantial evidence every day-- even criminal cases. As for Clemens being a public figure, it shouldn't be too hard to meet the "reckless disregard" standard if Mitchell relied solely on the testimony of a single individual who may have had an axe to grind without further corroboration of steroid use.

If Clemens is in fact innocent, my guess is that quite a few experienced tort litigators would be willing to take the case on contingency.

And Clemens doesn't have to win the case. All he has to do is get past summary judgment and MLB (and/or its insurers) will settle, with part of the settlement being a public retraction.

Curmudgeon wrote:Cases are decided on circumstantial evidence every day-- even criminal cases. As for Clemens being a public figure, it shouldn't be too hard to meet the "reckless disregard" standard if Mitchell relied solely on the testimony of a single individual who may have had an axe to grind without further corroboration of steroid use.

If Clemens is in fact innocent, my guess is that quite a few experienced tort litigators would be willing to take the case on contingency.

And Clemens doesn't have to win the case. All he has to do is get past summary judgment and MLB (and/or its insurers) will settle, with part of the settlement being a public retraction.

All that is true and we're not that far off base on our opinions. The right thing for Clemens to do is take it to the courts, regardless of the outcome, but I just don't know what the final result would be without harder proof.