Edelman

Peter_Spaeth · #1 02-05-2019, 07:04 AM

Quote:

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 · #2 02-05-2019, 08:07 AM

Quote:

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 · #3 02-05-2019, 08:11 AM

Quote:

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 · #4 02-05-2019, 08:18 AM

Quote:

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 · #5 02-05-2019, 08:24 AM

Quote:

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 · #6 02-05-2019, 08:29 AM

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?

packs · #7 02-05-2019, 08:41 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by 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?

I said its the same cloud. Brady trains with a guy who has been banned from the sidelines, plane and locker room in the past. The same trainer started working with Edelman and Edelman failed a test after beginning his work with the guy. I would call that a cloud of suspicion but that's just me.

Peter_Spaeth · #8 02-05-2019, 08:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by packs

I said its the same cloud. Brady trains with a guy who has been banned from the sidelines, plane and locker room in the past. The same trainer started working with Edelman and Edelman failed a test after beginning his work with the guy. I would call that a cloud of suspicion but that's just me.

As I understand it much of that had to do with Belichick trying to assert his power and control and not wanting Guerrero to become a quasi-employee.

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/t...ns-suspension/

packs · #9 02-05-2019, 08:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Peter_Spaeth

As I understand it much of that had to do with Belichick trying to assert his power and control and not wanting Guerrero to become a quasi-employee.

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/t...ns-suspension/

If you look into Guerrero's "medical" background you will find he doesn't have one at all and has been sanctioned by the FTC in the past for false claims and invented studies about products he's endorsed or created.

Would you want that guy around your players? Or was it just a power struggle?