Clemens Finally Sues

Rocket's suing McNamee:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/08/sports/baseball/08clemens.html?em&ex=1199854800&en=1893280eac6fd721&ei=5087%0A

Mods, feel free to merge with the other Roger thread.

This kind of, sort of, sways me back to about 55/45 that he did not use steroids.

 

Never mind. DTGDTN.

I see it's buried in the Team Coverage thread. It's been overshadowed by Cansportschick asking if she can touch it - the World Series trophy that is.

 

He'd better be prepared to answer questions under oath now, no excuses or relying on the 5th now. Otherwise his lawsuit is going to get thrown out.

 

Good for Rog. If you're going to go down, go down swinging.

Do I think Clemens roided up? Probably.

But, just like Lance Armstrong, if you're going to claim your innocence you better fight to establish it, too.

Armstrong, who I also think very well may have doped up for years, was never shy about taking the people who called him a doper to court. He always won, too.

So, Clemens, this is the right thing to do. Whether or not he'll ever clear his name is doubtful though. Doper or not, he's painted.

 

I guess this makes barry bonds look like the lying piece of shit and miserable little bitch we all know him to be.

 

Marion Jones went broke fighting for her innocence. And then plead guilty.
I can only wish the same thing happens to Roger if he is in fact guilty.

 

This will allow him to not plead the 5th OR answer questions since "he won't be able to divulge details due to the pending lawsuit."

It takes me from 98/2 that he took steroids to 99/1.

 

Based on where the suit was filed, Houston, it could very-well come down to the word of McNamee, an ex-trainer once questioned in a sexual assault case, vs. the word of a Clemens, a person with next-to-god status there.
It doesn't mean Clemens isn't lying, I'm on the fence personally, but it would appear Rogers' lawyers are going to try turning it into a credibility race in front of a potential sympathetic jury.
Because really, what other evidence is out there that he juiced?
You would think Pettite's admission hurts his case, same goes for McNamee's connections to Jason Grimsley, but still those could be twisted as circumstantial evidence. It'll be interesting theater.

 

I can't figure out why this won't get thrown out of court tomorrow. He's a public figure which means they would have to prove malice. Even Clemens doesn't think that was McNamee's motivation. The suit is a PR stunt for all of talk radio folks who don't understand the law.

Although the last time I did something like this 21 came back at me explaining (repeatedly - I was a slow learner)that you could have liability & a reward with no damamges, which was news to me. So everyone can please feel free to explain to me why I'm wrong.

 

Remember, the USFL won its case against the NFL, and was awarded $1 in damages, IIRC.

Here's an infinitely more enjoyable scenario: the feds pressed MacNamee for a name, and their investigation -- and baseball's -- blow up in everyone's face like an expired Soviet missile.

 

The $1 was tripled, according to antitrust law, and they got 76c in interest, making the grand total $3.76.

The USFL did also recover over $6 million in court costs, but obviously after the league folded.

Here's an old Greg Garber retropect on it.

http://espn.go.com/nfl/columns/lawsuit/

 

Not if the Space Cowboys can get that missle to crash into the moon