Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=5476761

A federal grand jury will indict Roger Clemens on charges of making false statements to Congress about his use of performance-enhancing drugs, The New York Times reported, citing two sources briefed on the case.

An announcement of the indictment was expected in the near future, according to the report.

Clemens and his former trainer, Brian McNamee, testified under oath before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform in 2008. McNamee, who cooperated with federal authorities and with baseball's Mitchell report on performance-enhancing drugs in baseball, said Clemens had used steroids, while Clemens flatly denied having ever used them.

A few weeks later, the FBI opened a perjury probe against Clemens, a seven-time Cy Young Award winner. The federal grand jury began hearing testimony more than 18 months ago.

In 3, 2, 1.....

I hope they indict him as a Red Sox.

JoltinJoe wrote:I hope they indict him as a Red Sox.

JoltinJoe wrote:I hope they indict him as a Red Sox.

Wouldn't it be Red Sock?

93henfan wrote:

JoltinJoe wrote:I hope they indict him as a Red Sox.

Wouldn't it be Red Sock?

I was on the fence about that but I rationalized that the team name references a pair.

JoltinJoe wrote:I hope they indict him as a Red Sox.

Let's see...he lied to the Yankees...he last wore a Yankee hat...

Col Hogan wrote:

JoltinJoe wrote:I hope they indict him as a Red Sox.

Let's see...he lied to the Yankees...he last wore a Yankee hat...

And don't forget, he did have that whole steroid-induced fit of rage, almost throwing the splintered bat at Piazza while he was a Yankee too. Just saying.

Col Hogan wrote:

JoltinJoe wrote:I hope they indict him as a Red Sox.

Let's see...he lied to the Yankees...he last wore a Yankee hat...

Then he goes into the HOF as a Yankee too??

JoltinJoe wrote:Then he goes into the HOF as a Yankee too??

You bring up an interesting subject: the HOF. Will the confirmed 'roider pitchers get the same blacklist treatment as the 'roider batters from the sportswriters? There's a sizable contingent that have gone on record as saying they'll never cast a ballot for McGwire, Bonds, Sosa, et al.

Conversely, if they do allow confirmed cheats and liars in, does that open the door for Pete Rose?

93henfan wrote:

JoltinJoe wrote:Then he goes into the HOF as a Yankee too??

You bring up an interesting subject: the HOF. Will the confirmed 'roider pitchers get the same blacklist treatment as the 'roider batters from the sportswriters? There's a sizable contingent that have gone on record as saying they'll never cast a ballot for McGwire, Bonds, Sosa, et al.

Conversely, if they do allow confirmed cheats and liars in, does that open the door for Pete Rose?

Seriously, Clemens making the HOF at this point is certainly in doubt. Beyond the steroids, not getting caught up in a federal indictment because of his actions around steroids isn't going to win him a lot of votes.

Does he get a Monument at Yankee Stadium???

93henfan wrote:

JoltinJoe wrote:Then he goes into the HOF as a Yankee too??

You bring up an interesting subject: the HOF. Will the confirmed 'roider pitchers get the same blacklist treatment as the 'roider batters from the sportswriters? There's a sizable contingent that have gone on record as saying they'll never cast a ballot for McGwire, Bonds, Sosa, et al.

Conversely, if they do allow confirmed cheats and liars in, does that open the door for Pete Rose?

And what do you do if the jury returns a not guilty verdict?

There's a good chance Rajah is going to walk. Perjury cases are hard enough to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, and this case will feature a "star" witness who is going to get his credibility scalded on cross examination. Plus that syringe evidence is never going to get before the jury.

Keep in mind it has been nearly 3 years since the Feds indicted Barry Bonds and that case isn't going to trial until next March. Bonds has won a number of pre-trial motions and evidentiary rulings and the case against him isn't looking that good.

JoltinJoe wrote:

93henfan wrote:
You bring up an interesting subject: the HOF. Will the confirmed 'roider pitchers get the same blacklist treatment as the 'roider batters from the sportswriters? There's a sizable contingent that have gone on record as saying they'll never cast a ballot for McGwire, Bonds, Sosa, et al.

Conversely, if they do allow confirmed cheats and liars in, does that open the door for Pete Rose?

And what do you do if the jury returns a not guilty verdict?

There's a good chance Rajah is going to walk. Perjury cases are hard enough to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, and this case will feature a "star" witness who is going to get his credibility scalded on cross examination. Plus that syringe evidence is never going to get before the jury.

Keep in mind it has been nearly 3 years since the Feds indicted Barry Bonds and that case isn't going to trial until next March. Bonds has won a number of pre-trial motions and evidentiary rulings and the case against him isn't looking that good.

The sportswriters aren't jurists. They're judges.

93henfan wrote:

JoltinJoe wrote:
And what do you do if the jury returns a not guilty verdict?

There's a good chance Rajah is going to walk. Perjury cases are hard enough to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, and this case will feature a "star" witness who is going to get his credibility scalded on cross examination. Plus that syringe evidence is never going to get before the jury.

Keep in mind it has been nearly 3 years since the Feds indicted Barry Bonds and that case isn't going to trial until next March. Bonds has won a number of pre-trial motions and evidentiary rulings and the case against him isn't looking that good.

The sportswriters aren't jurists. They're judges.

But how do they keep out a Barry Bonds or a Roger Clemens after a jury returns a "not guilty" verdict? That might be tough to justify.

JoltinJoe wrote: But how do they keep out a Barry Bonds or a Roger Clemens after a jury returns a "not guilty" verdict? That might be tough to justify.

Joe, you need to step out of your lawyer shoes for a minute. The rest of the world doesn't think like you guys. You don't need to prove that a scumbag is a scumbag to penalize them in our world.

93henfan wrote:

JoltinJoe wrote: But how do they keep out a Barry Bonds or a Roger Clemens after a jury returns a "not guilty" verdict? That might be tough to justify.

Joe, you need to step out of your lawyer shoes for a minute. The rest of the world doesn't think like you guys. You don't need to prove that a scumbag is a scumbag to penalize them in our world.

But if Roger gets cleared by the jury, it is in "your world" that he will argue, with a fair amount of success, that he has been exonerated. Non-lawyers don't necessarily grasp how hard a perjury case is to win, or that a conclusion of guilt must be reached beyond a reasonable doubt.

He will have much more success in "your world" convincing people that a not guilty verdict equates with exoneration.

JoltinJoe wrote:

93henfan wrote:
Joe, you need to step out of your lawyer shoes for a minute. The rest of the world doesn't think like you guys. You don't need to prove that a scumbag is a scumbag to penalize them in our world.

But if Roger gets cleared by the jury, it is in "your world" that he will argue, with a fair amount of success, that he has been exonerated. Non-lawyers don't necessarily grasp how hard a perjury case is to win, or that a conclusion of guilt must be reached beyond a reasonable doubt.

He will have much more success in "your world" convincing people that a not guilty verdict equates with exoneration.

Agreed. Short of having a confession from him, its going to be pretty darn hard to prove that he knew what he was saying was a lie.

If he gets acquitted, it shouldn't effect his HOF admittance at all.

danefan wrote:

JoltinJoe wrote:
But if Roger gets cleared by the jury, it is in "your world" that he will argue, with a fair amount of success, that he has been exonerated. Non-lawyers don't necessarily grasp how hard a perjury case is to win, or that a conclusion of guilt must be reached beyond a reasonable doubt.

He will have much more success in "your world" convincing people that a not guilty verdict equates with exoneration.

Agreed. Short of having a confession from him, its going to be pretty darn hard to prove that he knew what he was saying was a lie.

If he gets acquitted, it shouldn't effect his HOF admittance at all.

Plus, his chief accuser has a sordid background; and that syringe evidence is not going to be admitted into evidence.

McNamee's credibility is going to get creamed -- while Roger can just sit there and not even testify.

There's no use trying to engage in a conversation with Yankees fans or lawyers, and when it's a conversation with Yankee fan lawyers, well then reality is simply suspended.

I'm out.

93henfan wrote:There's no use trying to engage in a conversation with Yankees fans or lawyers, and when it's a conversation with Yankee fan lawyers, well then reality is simply suspended.

I'm out.

I think our point is simply that lawyers are less likely to be persuaded that a "not guilty" verdict equates with a finding of innocence than non-lawyers. And that's because we are more familiar of how difficult a perjury case is to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, if acquitted, Clemens will have more success with non-lawyers convincing them he's been completely exonerated.

Do you dispute that?

Roger will not to the HOF as a Yankee because he will not get there...period

Roger and Barry will not make the HOF...bank on it...

I'll accept wagers on a PM...

JoltinJoe wrote:

93henfan wrote:There's no use trying to engage in a conversation with Yankees fans or lawyers, and when it's a conversation with Yankee fan lawyers, well then reality is simply suspended.

I'm out.

I think our point is simply that lawyers are less likely to be persuaded that a "not guilty" verdict equates with a finding of innocence than non-lawyers. And that's because we are more familiar of how difficult a perjury case is to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, if acquitted, Clemens will have more success with non-lawyers convincing them he's been completely exonerated.

Do you dispute that?

Geraldo Rivera thinks Roger's Texas lawyer, Rusty Hardin, was guilty of malpractice for letting his client testify to Congress without taking the Fifth.

And we all know what sharp legal acumen Geraldo has.

Ivytalk wrote:

JoltinJoe wrote:
I think our point is simply that lawyers are less likely to be persuaded that a "not guilty" verdict equates with a finding of innocence than non-lawyers. And that's because we are more familiar of how difficult a perjury case is to prove beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, if acquitted, Clemens will have more success with non-lawyers convincing them he's been completely exonerated.

Do you dispute that?

Geraldo Rivera thinks Roger's Texas lawyer, Rusty Hardin, was guilty of malpractice for letting his client testify to Congress without taking the Fifth.

And we all know what sharp legal acumen Geraldo has.

This is funny, because Roger wanted to testify. Congress didn't issue a subpoena to him. He went there on his own volition to clear his name. So why would he volunteer to testify and then take the Fifth?

He never should have testified in front of congress. Once he made the decision to do so, there is no amount of lawyering which could have saved him.

That all said, I still think there's a very good chance he beats this rap. Having read the indictment yesterday, I'd say if he is found guilty of anything, it will be on the two counts asserting (i) he gave a false statement to investigators and (ii) he lied to congress about HGH use. This is because there is a reference to the statement of "Major League Baseball Player #1" (whose identity is known the grand jury ) that Clemens once told him that he had used HGH. All other counts are supported by the statements of "Major League Trainer #1 (whose identity is known the grand jury ). I have a sneaking suspicion that Major League Trainer #1 is not going to be a strong witness.

his lawyer says that the fact that he says he never did it should be proof enough

GannonFan wrote:
And don't forget, he did have that whole steroid-induced fit of rage, almost throwing the splintered bat at Piazza while he was a Yankee too. Just saying.

Uhh, he did indeed throw the splintered bat at Piazza. He just missed.