Eagle-Tribune Blogs: Burt Talks Sports

8 reader comments to “Does anybody out there support Roger Clemens?”

1. 1
   bocatennis said:

   Bill
   I have never believed Clemens, never.
   The guy is a liar. He lied every step of the way when it came to leaving Boston - I would never go to the Yankees. - to - I will only play in Texas.
   He became obsessed with being in the news and being lauded.
   He is now paying for it.

   Posted: Feb 12th, 2008 at 3:36 pm
2. 2
   Max Kliman said:

   I don’t belive Clemens either. He is a big liar and he has no evidence and McNamee does. Also, look at pictures of his wife from 1999 and compare them to pictures from 2003. Huge difference! Clemens has dug himself into a huge hole and he is never going to get out.

   Posted: Feb 12th, 2008 at 5:06 pm
3. 3
   Marci said:

   Is it possible to believe neither of them? Neither of them have come across as particularly credible. Clemens is particularly hampered by history, as most deniars have turned to be juicers, but I want him to innocent. I like fairy tales and I want to believe in this pure untarnished vision of baseball.

   I’m just not sure if I believe he actually is innocent.

   Posted: Feb 12th, 2008 at 6:04 pm
4. 4
   Mike Daly said:

   McNamee has evidence plus history on his side; Woger has nothing beyond his own greed and belligerence.

   Posted: Feb 12th, 2008 at 7:26 pm
5. 5
   Jim-red sox nation west said:

   Who keeps needles,vials and dirty gauze for ten years? I guess we will find out. Could Roger have been injected not knowing it was steriods? After all, Mcnamee is the professional.Roger asked for something to make him feel better and his trainer said he had the perfect thing.

   Posted: Feb 13th, 2008 at 12:21 am
6. 6
   Bill Burt said:

   Marci
   Somebody is lying.
   Now, if you ask, is the truth somewhere closer to the middle? That’s probably closer to the real truth (though I’m still leaning heavily on McNamee’s side). But even at that, Clemens was a steroids user and is guilty … in my opinion.

   Posted: Feb 13th, 2008 at 4:43 pm
7. 7
   Marci said:

   Bill,
   I noticed the congressional committee made the same point. And when I go back to the original source material, before egos, and lawyers got involved, I ask myself, “what is the point of McNamee’s naming Clemens.” (And I know I’m not the only one to ask this question.)

   As a fan of both sports and escapist literature, I’m reminded of a scene in the Harry Potter books where a known “Death Eater” tried to escape punishment by naming other Death Eaters and was just grasping for any name that hadn’t come up before that would be important enough, big enough, to impress the tribunal and get him off.

   McNamee wasn’t in that position. He already had enough names to make himself look credible. And he was told that witholding information would send him to jail. So he had no incentive to make up names, and he had incentive to not withold names. If he doesn’t give up Clemens, and it comes out later that he was responsible for giving him drugs, now he’s on the hook for that and can be subject to prosecution.

   We know it’s not a vendetta against Clemens, because they had a friendly relationship clear through the ill-advised press conference. So all we’re left with is that he’s telling the truth, and some of us just don’t want to believe it.

   I guess it is what it is, right?

   Posted: Feb 13th, 2008 at 6:06 pm
8. 8
   Bill Burt said:

   Marci
   Well said.
   It is a sad day, with Clemens looking like a confused, spoiled boy. The angst he showed, with wrinkled forehead, was a telling sign.
   Afterward, if you watched him, he was weirdly trying to run out of the place, forgetting that his wife was there.
   An odd day.
   Thanks again.

   Posted: Feb 13th, 2008 at 7:29 pm