PDA

View Full Version : News Jury Reaches Verdict in Roger Clemens Trial


ChiefsandO'sfan
06-18-2012, 02:10 PM
Not Guilty on all counts-Updated


Clemens found not guilty in perjury trial

[Updated at 4:47 p.m. ET] Famed baseball pitcher Roger Clemens was found not guilty Monday of lying to Congress during an investigation of steroid use among major league players.

The case against Clemens involved one count of obstruction of Congress, three counts of making false statements and two counts of perjury. He was found not guilty on all counts.

He was not charged with illicit use of performance-enhancing drugs, but his denial of such use was part of the case against him.

Arguments in the trial in Washington concluded last week.

Sofa King
06-18-2012, 02:11 PM
GUILTY!

Bump
06-18-2012, 02:20 PM
I never understood why this needed to go to court and waste taxpayer money on cheating in baseball.

Predarat
06-18-2012, 02:24 PM
Guilty!

loochy
06-18-2012, 02:26 PM
I never understood why this needed to go to court and waste taxpayer money on cheating in baseball.

This. It's baseball's problem, not the taxpayers'.

DonInDenver
06-18-2012, 02:28 PM
I never understood why this needed to go to court and waste taxpayer money on cheating in baseball.

The money spent on this trial is miniscule in comparison to the overall waste of taxpayer dollars. Clemens perpetrated a fraud, therefore, in my eyes, he deserved to be exposed.

Hays
06-18-2012, 02:31 PM
He will get off, he is an athlete!

kepp
06-18-2012, 02:33 PM
The money spent on this trial is miniscule in comparison to the overall waste of taxpayer dollars. Clemens perpetrated a fraud, therefore, in my eyes, he deserved to be exposed.

So it's OK to waste more taxpayer $$ if it's not as large an expenditure as other wasteful things? Got it.

BoneKrusher
06-18-2012, 02:36 PM
Guilty!

vailpass
06-18-2012, 02:37 PM
Not Guilty

Cave Johnson
06-18-2012, 02:42 PM
2 nutpunches per juror to the AUSA for wasting everyone's goddamn time on this nonsense.

vailpass
06-18-2012, 02:46 PM
2 nutpunches per juror to the AUSA for wasting everyone's goddamn time on this nonsense.

Agreed it is nonsense. What is AUSA?

ChiefsandO'sfan
06-18-2012, 02:46 PM
Not Guilty on all counts-Updated



Clemens found not guilty in perjury trial

[Updated at 4:47 p.m. ET] Famed baseball pitcher Roger Clemens was found not guilty Monday of lying to Congress during an investigation of steroid use among major league players.

The case against Clemens involved one count of obstruction of Congress, three counts of making false statements and two counts of perjury. He was found not guilty on all counts.

He was not charged with illicit use of performance-enhancing drugs, but his denial of such use was part of the case against him.

Arguments in the trial in Washington concluded last week.

Predarat
06-18-2012, 02:52 PM
i was WRONG!

lcarus
06-18-2012, 02:53 PM
christ...

SuperChief
06-18-2012, 02:54 PM
Oddly enough, Clemens found not relevant.

seclark
06-18-2012, 02:54 PM
to the hof!
sec

vailpass
06-18-2012, 02:54 PM
Not Guilty on all counts-Updated



Clemens found not guilty in perjury trial

[Updated at 4:47 p.m. ET] Famed baseball pitcher Roger Clemens was found not guilty Monday of lying to Congress during an investigation of steroid use among major league players.

The case against Clemens involved one count of obstruction of Congress, three counts of making false statements and two counts of perjury. He was found not guilty on all counts.

He was not charged with illicit use of performance-enhancing drugs, but his denial of such use was part of the case against him.

Arguments in the trial in Washington concluded last week.

Was there ever any doubt? His next radio show should be a doozy.

Cave Johnson
06-18-2012, 02:57 PM
Agreed it is nonsense. What is AUSA?

Assistant US Attorney

ImAWalkingCorpse
06-18-2012, 03:00 PM
Waste of tax dollars. Brian McNamee was too much of a scumbag to rely on.

Bane
06-18-2012, 03:12 PM
LOL


Fuck you Congress.

Guru
06-18-2012, 03:13 PM
So, cheaters do win. Imagine that.

BoneKrusher
06-18-2012, 03:14 PM
LOL


**** you Congress.

exactly.

they're about as productive at doing their job as Matt Cassel is at QBing.

Bane
06-18-2012, 03:16 PM
exactly.

they're about as productive at doing their job as Matt Cassel is at QBing.

IMO this looks way worse on Congress and MLB than it does on Clemens.

BIG_DADDY
06-18-2012, 03:20 PM
Awesome!!!! Wonder how much that fiasco cost tax payers.

Frazod
06-18-2012, 03:22 PM
Awesome!!!! Wonder how much that fiasco cost tax payers.

Probably less than the last GAO Vegas party. LMAO

ChiefsandO'sfan
06-18-2012, 03:22 PM
Awesome!!!! Wonder how much that fiasco cost tax payers.

Jeff Passan ‏@JeffPassan

An estimated $2-3M. It's OK to gag. RT @DinoFTW: Is it possible you can tell us how much the GOVT spent on trial? Has to be in the millions.

Reerun_KC
06-18-2012, 03:23 PM
Who gives a shit... Baseball is fucking a worthless piece of shit without steriods...

Send that fucking pathetic sport to Mexico or bring back steriods...

DTLB58
06-18-2012, 03:24 PM
Awesome!!!! Wonder how much that fiasco cost tax payers.

$2-$3 Million according to the Yahoo article.

vailpass
06-18-2012, 03:33 PM
Assistant US Attorney

thx. soon to be the former AUSA?

Fruit Ninja
06-18-2012, 03:43 PM
Oddly enough, Clemens found not relevant.

but you posted in a thread about him? that makes him a little relevant to you.lol

Brock
06-18-2012, 03:48 PM
Charged with lying to congress, as if they deserve anything else.

Mr. Laz
06-18-2012, 04:03 PM
who cares

I still think he's a cheater


guilty or not guilty is about the tricks of law not really whether the person did anything

Garcia Bronco
06-18-2012, 04:08 PM
What a waste of time and money on the part of the Federal government.

boogblaster
06-18-2012, 06:32 PM
and does it matter .. they all use roids to rebuild a injury .....

whoman69
06-18-2012, 08:49 PM
to the hof!
sec

Doubtful. Those who believe he used are going to continue to do so. In court you have to prove something to a reasonable doubt. HOF voters have a much lower standard. Same thing with Barry Bonds. I think there's little doubt that Bonds used steroids, but to prove it definitively is another thing.

Brock
06-18-2012, 09:17 PM
Doubtful. Those who believe he used are going to continue to do so. In court you have to prove something to a reasonable doubt. HOF voters have a much lower standard. Same thing with Barry Bonds. I think there's little doubt that Bonds used steroids, but to prove it definitively is another thing.

LOL. Clemens is a lock.

Reerun_KC
06-18-2012, 10:02 PM
LOL. Clemens is a lock.

Should be first ballot. I applaud him for using roids. Roids and baseball are as American as apple pie and the star spangled banner.

HIChief
06-19-2012, 12:14 AM
Good! Now since there's nothing more pressing on the national or global agenda, and Congress seemingly has nothing better to do, maybe they can go investigate professional boxing.

HonestChieffan
06-19-2012, 06:57 AM
Good! Now since there's nothing more pressing on the national or global agenda, and Congress seemingly has nothing better to do, maybe they can go investigate professional boxing.

Indeed

JD10367
06-19-2012, 09:19 AM
It was definitely a waste of taxpayer money and taxpayer-funded court time.

He's guilty. OJ was found innocent, too; the courts don't always get it right.

And he's a douchebag.

And I'm a Red Sox fan, so I can imagine that others feel even more strongly.

whoman69
06-19-2012, 01:46 PM
LOL. Clemens is a lock.

So were Sammy Sosa and Mark McGwire. He wasn't proven innocent of using steroids, only of lying to Congress. He's eligible next year. My guess is somewhere between 15-20% with 75% needed for election. After six years on the ballot, McGwire has moved from 19.5-23.5%. He finished his career sixth on the all-time home run list, was rookie of the year, held the single season home run record and finished top 5 in MVP voting three times. This is even after coming clean and admitting use, something Roger will never do. Rafael Palmeirro is at 12.6% in his second year after more than 500 home runs. Jose Canseco had 462 home runs, and MVP and rookie of the year and was booted off the list with only 1.1% in his first year of eligibility.

Despite the spin, those who are voting know that Clemens was not acquitted of steroid use. The majority of electors will never vote in someone suspected or proven to have used steroids.

jspchief
06-19-2012, 01:48 PM
who cares

I still think he's a cheater


guilty or not guilty is about the tricks of law not really whether the person did anythingVery expensive grandstanding by our government. I care.

Kyle DeLexus
06-19-2012, 02:02 PM
So were Sammy Sosa and Mark McGwire. He wasn't proven innocent of using steroids, only of lying to Congress. He's eligible next year. My guess is somewhere between 15-20% with 75% needed for election. After six years on the ballot, McGwire has moved from 19.5-23.5%. He finished his career sixth on the all-time home run list, was rookie of the year, held the single season home run record and finished top 5 in MVP voting three times. This is even after coming clean and admitting use, something Roger will never do. Rafael Palmeirro is at 12.6% in his second year after more than 500 home runs. Jose Canseco had 462 home runs, and MVP and rookie of the year and was booted off the list with only 1.1% in his first year of eligibility.

Despite the spin, those who are voting know that Clemens was not acquitted of steroid use. The majority of electors will never vote in someone suspected or proven to have used steroids.

You don't think ARod gets in then?

jspchief
06-19-2012, 02:05 PM
You don't think ARod gets in then?Hell, it would almost have to exclude an entire era of baseball.

IMO, there will be a stall for a lot of these guys getting in, but somewhere down the road people will start to forgive or forget, and these guys will start getting voted in. As they should be.

Brock
06-19-2012, 02:10 PM
Despite the spin, those who are voting know that Clemens was not acquitted of steroid use. The majority of electors will never vote in someone suspected or proven to have used steroids.

Why would he need to be acquitted of steroid use? It's never even been proven that he used them. He can't be kept out on a suspicion, sorry.

vailpass
06-19-2012, 02:13 PM
Why would he need to be acquitted of steroid use? It's never even been proven that he used them. He can't be kept out on a suspicion, sorry.

Oh yes he can. Sportswriters elect HOF and they can, have and will exclude based on their opinions, suspicions, and whatever else they want.

jspchief
06-19-2012, 02:13 PM
He can't be kept out on a suspicion, sorry.Of course he can.

OnTheWarpath58
06-19-2012, 02:14 PM
Excellent piece on how HOF voters will/can view guys like Clemens, ARod, McGuire, Palmeiro, Bonds, etc.

http://www.stltoday.com/sports/baseball/professional/birdland/goold-the-clause-clemens-confronts-now/article_f4076876-ba1e-11e1-9e7b-0019bb30f31a.html

The verdict Monday in Roger Clemens' perjury trial happened early enough in the day for the 24/7 news cycle to grow tired it of 5 minutes later and start spinning the story forward to the next jury the seven-time Cy Young Award-winner will have to convince he's not guilty.

Before the first juror from the federal trial was interviewed, sports writers were already turning on their own. There hasn't even been a vote yet, and already journalists were hammering other journalists for their perceived stance on Clemens' Cooperstown case. Hey, we make convenient — and, it appears, popular — targets. Cannibalism is great for clicks.

Looks like the annual bonfire of baseball writers has come a few months this year.

This discussion (and I use that term loosely, because so much of it is chest-beating, moralizing theatrics) centers on a clause in the Hall of Fame ballot that encourages voters to consider sportsmanship, integrity, and character. It is the fifth prong of the ballot eligible voters(*) get every winter from the National Baseball Hall of Fame. It's there in clear, concise language — a player's sportsmanship, integrity, and character is supposed to be considered right alongside his home runs, career wins, mantel full of trophies, and World Series heroics.

* Voters are members of the Baseball Writers Association of America who have been so for at least 10 years, are in good standing, and are permitted by their news organization to vote for awards. The Post-Dispatch has several eligible voters. I am not one.

Clemens was acquitted of charges for making false statements and obstructing justice. As several reporters pointed out in their coverage, whether or not he used performance-enhancing drugs was not part of the acquittal. Gregg Doyel, at CBSSports.com, argues that the Clemens trial was exactly that -- a trial to determine whether he used.

"Shoeless" Joe Jackson was acquitted, too.

That didn't stop baseball from keeping him out of Cooperstown.

It's the character clause that will cause trouble. Depending on what side of the fence you stand it either gives writers the duty to consider a player's sportsmanship and integrity or it gives the writers a gavel to make judgments on player's who they suspect of cheating. It has become a layup tweet, column, or blog entry to fire on the writers for not being worthy of carrying a gavel. Or, for exchanging it in for an axe. Whatever. Wake me when there's a healthy discussion about this.

The character clause appears to be unique in sports Halls of Fame. I looked into this topic for The Post-Dispatch back in 2006. From that article (I added bold to several phrases that illuminate the debate):

Listed as No. 5 on the Hall's guidelines for voters - but it might as well be the cardinal rule - is the phrase that defines the qualifications of a Hall of Famer. It reads: "Voting shall be based upon the player's record, playing ability, integrity, sportsmanship, character and contributions to the team(s) on which the player played."

Integrity. Sportsmanship. Character.

"It was a consideration because anybody I considered never fell under that umbrella, and now we're getting players that you have to look at under that umbrella, " said John Shea, a national baseball writer for the San Francisco Chronicle and a voter. "Integrity. Sportsmanship. It's a direct relation with the people who did or may have cheated by using steroids. ...

"This is all a brand-new ballgame here with steroids. And really you don't even need to say it's integrity or sportsmanship. Did he cheat or did he not cheat? That's enough for you not to vote for a guy. I got a feeling there will be a lot more 'no' than 'yes' for that group."

Dale Petrosky, president of the Hall of Fame, told the Washington Post at this year's induction: "Baseball writers are going to have to look into their souls and ask, 'Does this guy belong in the Hall?' "

The "player's record" is hardly a defined criterion. But there are some golden-ticket statistics for admittance. The only 300-game winners not in the Hall both pitched in 2006. When Ripken and Gwynn are elected, all of the players with 3,000 hits will be in but Hall-bound Rickey Henderson, banned Rose and stained Rafael Palmeiro, who tested positive for performance-enhancement drugs.

There are 20 players who have hit at least 500 home runs in their career. Only five are not in the Hall of Fame. Two are still playing. The other three appeared before Congress to discuss steroid use in baseball.

Here the player's record meets the Congressional record.

McGwire's 583 career home runs rank seventh all-time, and in 1998 he became the first player in major league history to hit 70 homers in a season. In March 2005, he was called before Congress as part of a panel to discuss steroid use in baseball. Asked if he used steroids, McGwire refused "to talk about the past." His previous denials, so cherished by his advocates, suddenly seemed hollow, even flimsy. His Hall of Fame credentials lost sheen.

Other Halls handle such questioned candidates differently.

The Basketball Hall of Fame assigns its Board of Trustees to determine if a prospective inductee "damaged the integrity of the game of basketball." An official with basketball's hall said they've "never encountered even a discussion" on that point. The Pro Football Hall of Fame explicitly tells voters to only consider "achievements and contributions as a player, a coach or a contributor in professional football." Off-field actions are not to be considered.

"We tried to avoid all those sorts of things by saying the Hall of Fame is for on-the-field achievements, " said Joe Horrigan, Canton's vice president of communications. He gave the example of Pat Tillman, the former NFLer who left football and was killed while serving in Afghanistan. Horrigan said the voting policy meant that only Tillman's play and "not his patriotism" could be considered.

Yesterday on Twitter, Dave Zirin (@EdgeofSports), the sports editor at The Nation and columnist at Edge of Sports, asked how many "more klansmen, segregationists, greenie poppers, and spousal abusers will the baseball hall of fame admit before Roger Clemens?" While dramatically stated for effect, that's a good question. I wrote back to suggest that the baseball vote will be as pristine and perfect and clairvoyant as soon as every other election is too.

Zirin wrote that no other Halls are as "proudly sanctimonious" as baseball.

That's a broad brush, but it's a popular stance. Maybe it comes from a few voters bellowing the loudest. Maybe it's a stereotype that's as outdated as a flannel jersey. Or, maybe it comes from this notion that America's Pastime, with its rural roots and poetic pace and Cooperstown with its bucolic setting and august history ...

Oh, there I go again. So sanctimonious.

I find it interesting that Cooperstown appears to be the only Hall with a voting base that is larger than 400 people and expressly spells out how voters can weigh the merits off-field actions. Zirin asks how many "segregationists, greenie poppers, and spousal abusers" will be elected before Clemens. Shouldn't the question be how can other Halls keep such people out — when voters are told not to consider such things? Baseball actually has the clause to consider those things as part of a player's eligibility for the Hall. Baseball is equipped to keep the scalawags and cheats and brutes out.

Now, it's up to voters to determine if any of it actually bars entry.

At least they have the power to include it.

And here's the thing about voters: they — get this — reflect society because they are part of society. They aren't taking some moral high ground. They are still standing on culture's dirt road. This year's voters will weigh things differently than voters from the 1950s. My generation's voters will weigh OPS differently than the voters from the 1970s. Hall of Fame classes reflect their times. A friend recently shared with me a copy of the Yankees official yearbook from 1956. There was a page about the beat writers in it. All of them were middle-aged white men. Like the press box, the game itself, and our culture, the voters have become more diverse — in makeup, in effort, in background, in personality, in opinion, and so on.

This rush to attack the baseball writers who vote for the Hall of Fame strikes me as misplaced. It's far easier — and more traffic-driving popular — to bash writers with bon mots and sarcasm than to address the issue head on. The writers are stand-in villains.

They are welcome targets for anger that people wouldn't dare direct at their heroes. If Cardinals hitting coach Mark McGwire, who admitted to taking PEDs during his home-run binge in 1998, doesn't get into Cooperstown ... it's the writers' fault?

There's a disconnect with the blame.

I don't have a vote, so it seems inappropriate to suggest how voters should use theirs. But I have long believed that Pete Rose, Shoeless Joe, and now the Steroid Era players should go into the Hall. And right there on their plaques should read what they admitted doing. It should be part of their record, and it should be recorded for other generations to see in Cooperstown. Let each be a monument to where the game has been and how far it's come.

Why varnish the past? A good way to assure it won't happen again is to make it always part of the present.

I don't see how the character clause would prohibit that.

It might even allow voters a way to come to grips with the era.

In this morning's New York Daily News, Hall of Fame writer Bill Madden addresses this part of the ballot and what it means for Clemens:

We’ll see, off this acquittal, if Clemens will be able to get past that clause on the Baseball Writers’ Association Hall of Fame ballot about sportsmanship and integrity.

I can’t speak for my brethren, but I take that clause seriously and will vote accordingly. It has been my stance that if you want me to vote for all of these guys — Bonds, Clemens, Sosa, the rest — sheerly because they have reached Hall of Fame numbers, then take the clause out of the ballot.

This is the conversation we should be having. How should this clause be administered, or should it be there at all? Critics seem to want voters not to be moralists but also want them to keep out the dregs. Can it be both? The clause gives them the right to factor integrity into their vote. And if that clause is important enough to keep, then the question really should be, why don't the other sports have it?