PDA

View Full Version : Report: Clemens was at Canseco's party


Chicken Dinner
02-22-2008, 10:47 AM
McNamee claimed that the whole steroid plan with Clemens began at a party that was at Canseco's house. There's been plenty of people and video on record that Clemens was not at that party.

New evidence!!

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/yankees/2008/02/22/2008-02-22_new_photographic_evidence_could_prove_da.html

:o:

Sockinchisox
02-22-2008, 11:37 AM
There's a report out that says there is photographic proof Clemens was at Canseco's party that he said he wasn't at.

from rotoworld.

Mod Edit: Quote removed for violation of copyright laws. Please post links like I just inserted below.

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/ba..._prove_da.html (http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/yankees/2008/02/22/2008-02-22_new_photographic_evidence_could_prove_da.html)

I cannot post the actual article because it's against the ToS.

goon
02-22-2008, 11:43 AM
I hope you like jail, Roger.

Madvora
02-22-2008, 11:43 AM
I'm still having trouble figuring out why they're making such a big deal about this party.

goon
02-22-2008, 11:46 AM
I'm still having trouble figuring out why they're making such a big deal about this party.

I think it has something to do with Clemens discussing steroids at the party, I don't really recall. Either way, he said he wasn't there under oath, if they find out he lied, I believe that's perjury.

Tekijawa
02-22-2008, 11:46 AM
I'm still having trouble figuring out why they're making such a big deal about this party.
Would you admit you were at a party thrown by Canseco?:tongue:

I'd go to jail before I admitted that!

voodoochile
02-22-2008, 11:53 AM
There's a report out that says there is photographic proof Clemens was at Canseco's party that he said he wasn't at.

from rotoworld.

I cannot post the actual article because it's against the ToS.

Post a link...

voodoochile
02-22-2008, 11:54 AM
I'm still having trouble figuring out why they're making such a big deal about this party.

Who cares? If he lied, it's an issue. Lying to Congress while under oath is a really really bad idea...

Chicken Dinner
02-22-2008, 11:57 AM
Post a link...


http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/yankees/2008/02/22/2008-02-22_new_photographic_evidence_could_prove_da.html

Sockinchisox
02-22-2008, 11:59 AM
Post a link...

But it's from the NY Daily News isn't that what Fenway got banned for?

SoxSpeed22
02-22-2008, 12:03 PM
But it's from the NY Daily News isn't that what Fenway got banned for?The reason was he quoted from it and apparently that's not allowed for the NY Daily News.

voodoochile
02-22-2008, 12:05 PM
The reason was he quoted from it and apparently that's not allowed for the NY Daily News.

You can ALWAYS post links.

Edit: In fact, links are preferred.

gr8mexico
02-22-2008, 12:13 PM
Would you admit you were at a party thrown by Canseco?:tongue:

I'd go to jail before I admitted that!
Are you for real? That's Stupid

spiffie
02-22-2008, 12:19 PM
You can ALWAYS post links.

Edit: In fact, links are preferred.
I'm wondering if someone can tell me if this means that we cannot say the name of the paper in question. From their ToS, right after the part about never copying their materials it says something about not using any trademarked name without written permission. I'd quote the passage, but I suspect that quoting their ToS would in fact violate their ToS.

http://www.nydailynews.com/services/terms_of_service/index.html

Jerko
02-22-2008, 12:20 PM
Waiting for the "it's photoshopped" defense.....

soxwon
02-22-2008, 12:22 PM
I hope you like jail, Roger.

oh pleeze, no ones going to jail.

goon
02-22-2008, 12:28 PM
oh pleeze, no ones going to jail.

That's what Martha Stewart said.

Hokiesox
02-22-2008, 12:41 PM
I think it has something to do with Clemens discussing steroids at the party, I don't really recall. Either way, he said he wasn't there under oath, if they find out he lied, I believe that's perjury.

He's only going to be prosecuted if the Justice Department decides to take up the case. Is there anything out there saying they definitely want to take this up? I'm not sure they will.

Trav
02-22-2008, 01:29 PM
I hope you like jail, Roger.

I would rather see players like Clemens and Bonds face jail time and then roll over on the MLB brass that not only allowed this rampant cheating, but also encouraged it.

Selig in jail > Clemens in jail

Oblong
02-22-2008, 03:02 PM
I doubt we'll see anybody in jail over this. The difference with Martha Stewart is that she was involved with trading in a public company and the lying came about over investigating that. That's where the effect on the general public and the harm involved comes into play. Any investor can claim to be hurt. This steroid/PED stuff is not really that important of an issue. It's as relevant as to whether Stallone used them for his new Rambo movie.


At the same time, Congress has to show that lying under oath is something to be dealt with.

goon
02-22-2008, 03:22 PM
I doubt we'll see anybody in jail over this. The difference with Martha Stewart is that she was involved with trading in a public company and the lying came about over investigating that. That's where the effect on the general public and the harm involved comes into play. Any investor can claim to be hurt. This steroid/PED stuff is not really that important of an issue. It's as relevant as to whether Stallone used them for his new Rambo movie.


At the same time, Congress has to show that lying under oath is something to be dealt with.


The only point I was trying to make was that celebrities and athletes CAN go to jail, they're not invisible. At the same time I was half serious. I have no idea whether or not the justice department will take up the case or not like Hokie said. All I know is that he said he wasn't at that party under oath, if he was, then that's perjury. I really don't know much more beyond that.

kaufsox
02-22-2008, 05:45 PM
.


At the same time, Congress has to show that lying under oath is something to be dealt with.

and this is where he is facing some trouble. I doubt any time will be served, but I think Congress will slap his wrist as an example. It will only increase his public humiliation, which he seems to be trying to add to at every turn.

SoxSpeed22
02-22-2008, 07:37 PM
If money fraud was involved, he may end up in jail, just like Marion Jones did. But congress will not be the one to charge him for that, federal courts will.

Frontman
02-22-2008, 08:01 PM
Ok,

I don't get this. So there's a photo that was taken 10 years ago at Canseco's house; showing Roger Clemens there; and that automatically makes it "the party" in question?

Didn't they live near each other, the kids play together, wives do the wife thing together, etc?

So how can one prove this photo is from the party in question, beyond someone going "yep, that's the party we're talking about" which kicks it back to the he said/he said status that this whole mess is at right now?

Don't get me wrong, I'm convinced Clemens did HGH/steroids myself, I just am looking at this from a burden of proof position, and I don't think a photo showing Clemens at Canseco's house can lock him in as being at "the party."

California Sox
02-22-2008, 08:57 PM
The difference between this and the Marion Jones or Barry Bonds cases is that those two both ran afoul of on ongoing investigation. (Roger Clemens went to Congress to get them to hold hearings.) In the BALCO investigation, Federal prosecutors were counting on people to tell the truth so they could get a full picture of what laws were broken by whom. Jones (and apparently Bonds) was both less than helpful and less than candid. US attorneys do not mess around, particularly when they think they have been lied to. (See Scooter Libby for another example.) If Justice decides to investigate and Clemens is less than truthful with them, then he'd find himself in a world of trouble, but -- as we've seen in countless recent investigations -- lying to/misleading Congress does not carry the same ramifications. Congress always has to rely on Justice to bring prosecutions. It's human nature: If you lie to me in my investigation I'm going to try to nail you more than if you lie to someone else during their investigation.

StillMissOzzie
02-22-2008, 09:12 PM
I'm still having trouble figuring out why they're making such a big deal about this party.

Clemens had no strategy except to deny, deny, deny. His tactics were to try and shoot down McNamee's credibility. Score a double win for McNamee's side if this photo is as advertised.

Roger: "Oh, you guys meant THAT party? My bad..."

SMO
:gulp:

FarWestChicago
02-22-2008, 10:55 PM
I doubt we'll see anybody in jail over this. The difference with Martha Stewart is that she was involved with trading in a public company and the lying came about over investigating that. That's where the effect on the general public and the harm involved comes into play. Any investor can claim to be hurt. This steroid/PED stuff is not really that important of an issue. It's as relevant as to whether Stallone used them for his new Rambo movie.


At the same time, Congress has to show that lying under oath is something to be dealt with.If Marion Jones hadn't been sentenced to prison time you might have a point. :D:

voodoochile
02-22-2008, 11:36 PM
Ok,

I don't get this. So there's a photo that was taken 10 years ago at Canseco's house; showing Roger Clemens there; and that automatically makes it "the party" in question?

Didn't they live near each other, the kids play together, wives do the wife thing together, etc?

So how can one prove this photo is from the party in question, beyond someone going "yep, that's the party we're talking about" which kicks it back to the he said/he said status that this whole mess is at right now?

Don't get me wrong, I'm convinced Clemens did HGH/steroids myself, I just am looking at this from a burden of proof position, and I don't think a photo showing Clemens at Canseco's house can lock him in as being at "the party."

Well if it's from 1998, odds are it's a film camera and that means negatives which are dated IIRC. There might be other things that would prove it too, like if many of the people who were supposed to be there were in other pictures. Maybe that nanny in her pink and green bikini were in a picture.

Heck, maybe one of the pictures has a calendar in it or someone was wearing a dated t-shirt or a newspaper is in one of the pictures. Lots of ways to date pictures from environmental factors.

wassagstdu
02-23-2008, 08:04 AM
Waiting for the "it's photoshopped" defense.....

OK. Photographic evidence is not what it once was. Better if there is a negative...

I have no brief for Clemens, but I think making the Mitchell report public was an outrage, and both Mcnamee and his lawyer have possible ulterior motives.

Frontman
02-23-2008, 10:55 AM
Well if it's from 1998, odds are it's a film camera and that means negatives which are dated IIRC. There might be other things that would prove it too, like if many of the people who were supposed to be there were in other pictures. Maybe that nanny in her pink and green bikini were in a picture.

Heck, maybe one of the pictures has a calendar in it or someone was wearing a dated t-shirt or a newspaper is in one of the pictures. Lots of ways to date pictures from environmental factors.

Well, as long as the nanny threw out the bikini and never wore it before or since; the film might be dated, but you never know when it was developed, etc.

Like I said, not really a smoking gun per se.

voodoochile
02-23-2008, 10:56 AM
Well, as long as the nanny threw out the bikini and never wore it before or since; the film might be dated, but you never know when it was developed, etc.

Like I said, not really a smoking gun per se.

Also depends on the guy who has the pictures. If that's the only time he's ever been to Canseco's house and can get his folks and others to testify to that point, it would de facto date the pictures.

Frontman
02-23-2008, 11:39 AM
Also depends on the guy who has the pictures. If that's the only time he's ever been to Canseco's house and can get his folks and others to testify to that point, it would de facto date the pictures.

It will be interesting to see how this plays out, that's for sure.

I'm all for evidence to put Roger in trouble, I just don't think this is the "smoking gun" as it were.

#1swisher
02-27-2008, 05:49 PM
But it's from the NY Daily News isn't that what Fenway got banned for?
Fenway got banned...when? I enjoy his threads.