Gossage not a Rocket fan

9 thoughts on “Gossage not a Rocket fan

  1. ProfRobert

    There is actual evidence Clemens used steriods — McNamee testified he injected Clemens with them. Now, you may not find that evidence persuasive, but it is actual evidence, admitted in court and from which, had the jury found McNamee credible, it could have convicted Clemens.

    I'm waiting to see what happens in McNamee's civil defamantion suit. Remember OJ? He was acquitted in the criminal trial but found liable in the civil trial. A civil verdict will be very interesting, as would a settlement for an undisclosed amount (which implies Clemens pays off McNamee to avoid having to testify and the risk of that the jury doesn't believe him), or a settlement for a disclosed, nominal amount (which means it's just nuisance value to Clemens).

    I realize that's not the point of the post, which is about the HoF. As to that, if I had a vote, I'd wait a number of years to see how things shake out. I agree Clemens probably should go in, but I don't have a problem with it happening in, say, 2025.

    • BrienJackson

      "There is actual evidence Clemens used steriods — McNamee testified he injected Clemens with them."

      That's a pretty light definition of evidence, given that MacNamee's account of things was flatly contradicted by his wife and otherwise fell apart at trial.

      • ProfRobert

        "Evidence is relevant if: (a) it has any tendency to make a fact more or less probable than it would be without the evidence; and (b) the fact is of consequence in determining the action." Federal Rule of Evidence 401. If you don't like the definition, complain to Judge Walton or Congress! I agree that the evidence against Clemens was not sufficiently persuasive to convict him beyond a reasonable doubt. It may not even be enough to find against him based on the preponderance of the evidence at the civil trial. But it *is* evidence, and that evidence is sufficient to go to a jury.

        Tamar, help me out here. We lawyers have to gang up on Brien!

        • Alright, well then let’s modify my statement from “actual evidence” to “reasonably compelling and actually supported evidence.”

          • ProfRobert

            Now that's a reasonably compelling and actually supported statement! ;-)

  2. timarimba

    So if Clemens doesn't deserve to be in the hall of fame, who does? Terry Mulholland?

  3. OldYanksFan

    Look, obvoiously Clemens is a SUSPECTED PEDs user. The question is should we keep suspected PEDs uses out of the HOF, knowing there are many, many unkown PEDs users who will get in, as well as hundreds of Greenies users already in.

    It's a sticky situation. I think they should all go in. History will tell us who may be tainted or not.

  4. jay_robertson

    I only have one big problem – with Clemens being "suspected" but not proven – does that mean he should get in, while A-Rod (since he was illegally outed with leaked data) should be kept out?

    Especially since there were how many OTHER users (I mean players) who tested positive, but their data has NOT been leaked?

    Let em all in, based on the merits of their play on the field – or keep everyone out – I'm pretty sure there is some street hood somewhere who would testify (for money, of course) that they gave someone something at some time.

  5. j montemarano

    Look. Hes guilty as sin! Group him with OJ and Casey Anthoney in that he did it anf got away with it. A travesty of justice.

Comments are closed.