RealGM

Roger Clemens will be indicted on charges of making false statements to Congress about his use of performance-enhancing drugs, The New York Times reported, citing two sources briefed on the case.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=5476761

No one's above the law. Mr. Clemens is in a heap of trouble.

SharoneWright wrote:

Roger Clemens will be indicted on charges of making false statements to Congress about his use of performance-enhancing drugs, The New York Times reported, citing two sources briefed on the case.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=5476761

No one's above the law. Mr. Clemens is in a heap of trouble.

Finally!

Next up, Rafael Palmeiro

Andy Petite's testimony alone could have convicted Clemons when he thought it was a smart idea to lie to congress, since then the Feds have been amassing more evidance against him, he's gonna be nailed so badly you almsot feel a little sorry for him.

^

Yep. Especially considering he wasn't compelled to testify in the first place, but asked for the opportunity... Just a very bad move to lie.

HA HA (in nelson's voice)

I can't believe this guy is an ex-jay... people seem to rarely talk about his stay here... and thank goodness for that lol

DonYon wrote:HA HA (in nelson's voice)

I can't believe this guy is an ex-jay... people seem to rarely talk about his stay here... and thank goodness for that lol

I really enjoyed his 2 years. He was the best pitcher the Jays have ever had and the games that he pitched for this team were incredible (especially when you consider the juiced ball/steroid era that the late 90s was). Not to mention that he's quite possibly the greatest pitcher of all time.

This may be a bit of a congressional witch hunt, but Clemens really dug his own grave with his comments.

DonYon wrote:HA HA (in nelson's voice)

I can't believe this guy is an ex-jay... people seem to rarely talk about his stay here... and thank goodness for that lol

2 Cy Youngs in 2 seasons.

Randle McMurphy wrote:

DonYon wrote:HA HA (in nelson's voice)

I can't believe this guy is an ex-jay... people seem to rarely talk about his stay here... and thank goodness for that lol

I really enjoyed his 2 years. He was the best pitcher the Jays have ever had and the games that he pitched for this team were incredible (especially when you consider the juiced ball/steroid era that the late 90s was). Not to mention that he's quite possibly the greatest pitcher of all time.

This may be a bit of a congressional witch hunt, but Clemens really dug his own grave with his comments.

Haha, you an your roider glorification. Pedro was better in almost every conceivable way except for longevity, which of course is explained by the lack of juicing, and he did it pitching the entire time in the steroid era.

DonYon wrote:HA HA (in nelson's voice)

I can't believe this guy is an ex-jay... people seem to rarely talk about his stay here... and thank goodness for that lol

Just you wait for the trial - IIRC some of the most significant testimory from McNamee pertains to Roger's Blue Jay years...

His 20K performance was what made me start appreciate pitching (Hey, I was really young then, and for me baseball was all about the dingers )

Hoopstarr wrote:

Randle McMurphy wrote:

DonYon wrote:HA HA (in nelson's voice)

I can't believe this guy is an ex-jay... people seem to rarely talk about his stay here... and thank goodness for that lol

I really enjoyed his 2 years. He was the best pitcher the Jays have ever had and the games that he pitched for this team were incredible (especially when you consider the juiced ball/steroid era that the late 90s was). Not to mention that he's quite possibly the greatest pitcher of all time.

This may be a bit of a congressional witch hunt, but Clemens really dug his own grave with his comments.

Haha, you an your roider glorification. Pedro was better in almost every conceivable way except for longevity, which of course is explained by the lack of juicing, and he did it pitching the entire time in the steroid era.

Longevity is a major part of of my definition of the greatest of all time. Pedro only did it for 12-13 years (Career WAR: 89.4)...Clemens did it for almost twice as long (Career WAR: 145.5). Players were also using steroids throughout the entirety of Clemens' career, too.

http://www.fangraphs.com/careerleaders. ... 6&min=1000

BTW, did you read this JoPo post from a couple of weeks back? http://joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog/2010/08 ... -steroids/

I would also put Pedro ahead of Clemens, assuming Pedro was clean during his career (you never know nowadays)

From 1993-05, Pedro's ERA+ was 167 over 2505 innings. He won 197 games over thet span, and majority of this performance took place at the height of the juiced ball/steroid era. It was after that, at age 34, where he started to decline and/or get hurt. His career was never the same.

From 1984-96, Clemens had an ERA+ of 145 over 2776 innings. He won 192 games over that span. It was after that, at age 34, where he signed with Toronto and allegedly started his steroid use, which lead to 162 more wins (140 ERA+) until age 44.

So yes, Clemens (all things being equal) would get more points for longevity and durability and Clemens definitely performed better than Pedro from age 34-onwards, but that argument tends to have less meaning when PED's are involved. During their respective primes, Pedro was the better pitcher statistically, and with Roger's impending case that will likely be the way MLB portrays it from now on.

Randle McMurphy wrote:

Hoopstarr wrote:

Randle McMurphy wrote:I really enjoyed his 2 years. He was the best pitcher the Jays have ever had and the games that he pitched for this team were incredible (especially when you consider the juiced ball/steroid era that the late 90s was). Not to mention that he's quite possibly the greatest pitcher of all time.

This may be a bit of a congressional witch hunt, but Clemens really dug his own grave with his comments.

Haha, you an your roider glorification. Pedro was better in almost every conceivable way except for longevity, which of course is explained by the lack of juicing, and he did it pitching the entire time in the steroid era.

Longevity is a major part of of my definition of the greatest of all time. Pedro only did it for 12-13 years (Career WAR: 89.4)...Clemens did it for almost twice as long (Career WAR: 145.5). Players were also using steroids throughout the entirety of Clemens' career, too.

http://www.fangraphs.com/careerleaders. ... 6&min=1000

BTW, did you read this JoPo post from a couple of weeks back? http://joeposnanski.com/JoeBlog/2010/08 ... -steroids/

No I didn't read that JoPo piece until now but I have read those Eric Walker pages in the past. My contention would be that even if he's completely right, why/how does it make PED use OK? Why should we make the jump from "steroids aren't that bad" to "steroids are fine"? Even if it's not unhealthy and doesn't force other players to use them and doesn't influence kids, it's still an objectionable activity and still illegal. It doesn't help that the faces of roid use (Bonds, Clemens, McGire, A-Rod) are all unlikable d-bags.

By the way, http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2010/5 ... e-stat-top.

Michael Bradley wrote:I would also put Pedro ahead of Clemens, assuming Pedro was clean during his career (you never know nowadays)

From 1993-05, Pedro's ERA+ was 167 over 2505 innings. He won 197 games over thet span, and majority of this performance took place at the height of the juiced ball/steroid era. It was after that, at age 34, where he started to decline and/or get hurt. His career was never the same.

From 1984-96, Clemens had an ERA+ of 145 over 2776 innings. He won 192 games over that span. It was after that, at age 34, where he signed with Toronto and allegedly started his steroid use, which lead to 162 more wins (140 ERA+) until age 44.

So yes, Clemens (all things being equal) would get more points for longevity and durability and Clemens definitely performed better than Pedro from age 34-onwards, but that argument tends to have less meaning when PED's are involved. During their respective primes, Pedro was the better pitcher statistically, and with Roger's impending case that will likely be the way MLB portrays it from now on.

Except, after all the things we now know, why would anybody assume Pedro was clean? You can only judge these guys based on the statistics that they put up, and Clemens simply pitched at a high level for far longer than Pedro.

Sure, if we're talking greatest pitchers over a 10 year period, then Pedro is right at the top of the list. But he didn't pitch nearly long enough to be considered the greatest pitcher of all time like Clemens did.

Hoopstarr wrote:No I didn't read that JoPo piece until now but I have read those Eric Walker pages in the past. My contention would be that even if he's completely right, why/how does it make PED use OK? Why should we make the jump from "steroids aren't that bad" to "steroids are fine"?

Well personally, and I think you know my opinion, I couldn't care less about PED use in sports. In fact, I sort of embrace them. Sports become more interesting with players competing at higher levels and testing their limits.

If there were 2 hypothetical leagues (one was full of completely "clean" and "natural" players and one was full of PED users), there's no way I'd watch the one with clean players.

The same goes for football, basketball, hockey, the Olympics...they all become better to watch when the athletes are on PEDs (Really, I still wonder what the record in the 100M would be without steroids or SARMs in every competitor's system over the last 40 years).

In the end, I watch sports to be entertained, not to judge or condemn what grown men do with their bodies.

Even if it's not unhealthy and doesn't force other players to use them and doesn't influence kids, it's still an objectionable activity and still illegal.

My solution would be to legalize them, then. Anabolic steroids are only illegal because of the backlash following Ben Johnson's win. The DEA, AMA, and FDA all opposed that decision, but Congress went through with it anyway.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anabolic_s ... ted_States

By the way, http://www.beyondtheboxscore.com/2010/5 ... e-stat-top.

But why would we look at a rate stat to determine the greatest pitchers of all time (longevity is a huge part of the equation)?

Guys like Johan and Halladay don't come anywhere near the top on a list of the greatest pitchers of all time for me.