Edelman

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by bnorth

I would have to say "(D) All of the above are wrong". When did Roger ever fail a PED test?

In the mind of the public.

[pokerplyr80]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

In the mind of the public.

As I understand it there was no real evidence against Clemens other than the word of his trainer. And he had some serious credibility issues. Unless there is more to the story I haven't heard I don't think that should be enough to keep him out of the HOF.

[Jim65]

Originally Posted by pokerplyr80

As I understand it there was no real evidence against Clemens other than the word of his trainer. And he had some serious credibility issues. Unless there is more to the story I haven't heard I don't think that should be enough to keep him out of the HOF.

Andy Pettitte said Clemens told him the he took steroids. No one ever accused Pettitte of having credibility issues, the fact that Andy admitted his own use just gives him more credibility. Obviously hearsay not admissible in court but enough to convict in court of public opinion.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Jim65

Andy Pettitte said Clemens told him the he took steroids. No one ever accused Pettitte of having credibility issues, the fact that Andy admitted his own use just gives him more credibility. Obviously hearsay not admissible in court but enough to convict in court of public opinion.

Pettitte so testified in Clemens' trial. It was admissible. It didn't convince the jury.

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/02/s...ury-trial.html

[Jim65]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Pettitte so testified in Clemens' trial. It was admissible. It didn't convince the jury.

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/02/s...ury-trial.html

Thanks for the clarification.

It did convince me though. Clemens and Pettitte were best friends, Pettitte had absolutely no reason to lie.

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by Jim65

Thanks for the clarification.

It did convince me though. Clemens and Pettitte were best friends, Pettitte had absolutely no reason to lie.

As I recall, even on direct his memory wasn't so clear, and his testimony did not hold up well on cross.

[packs]

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

Pettitte so testified in Clemens' trial. It was admissible. It didn't convince the jury.

https://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/02/s...ury-trial.html

I guess he just decided to make it up then? Why would a player tarnish their own reputation in an attempt to discredit someone else? Isn't it more likely that the player put themselves at risk to tell the truth?

Isn't guilt by association / speculation the same cloud that hangs over Barry Bonds and David Ortiz? What makes Brady different to you?

[Peter_Spaeth]

Originally Posted by packs

I guess he just decided to make it up then? Why would a player tarnish their own reputation in an attempt to discredit someone else? Isn't it more likely that the player put themselves at risk to tell the truth?

Isn't guilt by association / speculation the same cloud that hangs over Barry Bonds and David Ortiz? What makes Brady different to you?

As to Pettite, he admitted he might have misunderstood Clemens. His testimony was far from compelling, even before cross.
http://www.espn.com/mlb/story/_/id/7...emens-hgh-talk

[Peter_Spaeth]

Are you seriously claiming there is a degree of suspicion about Brady using comparable to Bonds and Ortiz? There was also lots of circumstantial evidence about Bonds and Ortiz, and in the case of Bonds a lot more than circumstantial (his GF for one). is there any at all about Brady?