Clemens and Pettitte

by Shamus on Dec 13, 2007 5:45 PM EST Comment 32 comments

Are issuing statements right now.

Roger denies the allegations in the report and says it was made up by a "troubled" man that was faced with Federal Prison. He says the report is slander.

This was issued by Clemens attorney.

Pettitte has not issued any statement under advisement of the Hendricks brothers, as he is an active player.

I don't know where the statement was made. Parts of it was read over ESPN790 in Houston.

Looks like Clemens won't take his fate. Where do yall see this going?

Edit: The 2 statements were issued directly to ESPN790 by the Hendricks brother. The statement they read for Roger was written by his team of lawyers following the official report. It appears following the report Clemens called together his lawyers to start clearing him.

0 recs | Comment 32 comments

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Roids

by Sox Puppet on Dec 13, 2007 5:36 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Roid Rage!!!

by Tyler on Dec 13, 2007 5:40 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I see it going like this:

Clemens will never pitch again, Pettitte intends to. That is why the two different responses. If Andy denies it, and it is later proven he lied as well, he may face a suspension. Clemens doesn't have to worry about that.

by drwmsu1 on Dec 13, 2007 5:42 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Richard Justice

is speculating that Pettitte may walk away after this.

fwiw.

He has had good sources on him in the past IIRC, like when he left NY for the Stros.

by alskor on Dec 13, 2007 5:45 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

no wonder they were such good friends

they had things in common with each other

by jumanjifan01 on Dec 13, 2007 5:44 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Are you saying they injected each other's butts?

by Sox Puppet on Dec 13, 2007 6:03 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

not

in the way ur thinking of...lol

--http://yankeesfuture.wordpress.com Bobby Mcnally (alias)

by bobbymcnally on Dec 13, 2007 6:21 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Would it surprise anyone...

if the thing in common is that Clemens introduced Andy to steroids?

Remember Pettite in the mid-90's...big guy height wise but had a ton of room to fill out...I remember in '01 (I was 11 in '99 TF did I know) thinking...hey Pettite looks bigger and he's throwing harder...

Anyway since I found out that there are actually things that help get you bigger and stronger but they're illegal (these "steroids" and other products like it) I put down Pettite as a potential user....with Clemens as the guy who introduced him.

Sucks to be right. I remember in '98 thinking "damn, Pettites wife is one of the top 5 hottest Yankee wives" and even modeled my windup after his.

by SenorGato88 on Dec 13, 2007 9:36 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Not to defend petitte

here but from the reports, it looks like he only took HGH because of elbow problems once and never took any PED's since then.

As fro Clemens, well that's alot of PED's that guy snitch about.

by NYYLover1000 on Dec 13, 2007 6:33 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

so?

that's one of the advantages -- recovery from injury. saying he did it 'only' to recover from an injury isn't an excuse, that's the point of taking (some) of these PEDs.

by scooter on Dec 13, 2007 8:39 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

hmm

I find it a bit convenient that all the current players named are either in the twilight of their careers or major league average type players. So none of todays superstars were involved in any way? Umm, yeah ok sure.....

by bluechipper on Dec 13, 2007 7:47 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Great....

Someone else just said Clemens is in the twilight of his career, time for him to roid up and dominate for another 8 years.

also fully agree with bravesin07, I always liked Maddux more and am happy to finally be able to say he's the best pitcher in this generation and probably ever. Hopefully some good can come out of this, and that might be it.

by jspearlj1 on Dec 13, 2007 9:13 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

+1

For the Maddog, but let's not close the book on this yet.

There's gotta be some Tampa/West Palm trainer out there with Chipper, Conine, and others on his speed dial. We just saw a very small slice of the activity today.

by Yakker on Dec 13, 2007 9:48 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Related to that...

I'm happy to not see Pedro listed. May not have the best career, but certainly had the best stretch in history and even with injuries his career totals stack up pretty well.

by beastball on Dec 13, 2007 10:43 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

sorry to burst your bubble

but just bc a player was NOT named in the report doesn't mean he's clean. the two main sources worked for the two NYC teams.

i mean Sosa, McGwire and Palmeiro weren't named. the list is far from definitive.

by Travis G on Dec 13, 2007 11:14 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

Question

When they were injecting each other in the butt which one was the pitcher? hmmm

by pedrophile on Dec 13, 2007 8:44 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

HA

nice!

by scarfo on Dec 13, 2007 10:12 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I can finally say this

Greg Maddux career > Roger Clemens career

by Bravesin07 on Dec 13, 2007 9:10 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

I think Clemens might have started using in 96

from 93-95 his innings dropped and his hit rate went up. 1996 he starts striking out people in droves again 257 K's in 215 innings. Then he goes to Toronto and wins two CY's.

by Bravesin07 on Dec 13, 2007 9:33 PM EST reply actions 0 recs

Uhm

This board would be protected under the 1st Amendment, as no one is making any allegations. Specifically, no one is being libelous, as no one is printing opinion and claiming simultaneously to be reputable. This isn't a publication, so nothing is being published.

John would not be liable, as he is merely (as far as I know) occupying space owned by SB Nation.

The poster, again, would not be liable as he is not being libelous by posting his opinion in an opinion-oriented forum. Think of it this way -- this is no different than a bunch of housewives gossiping about the new neighbor's sexual habits. Is it maybe in bad taste? Sometimes, but seeing as none of these players will have their station in life/jobs/lives in general greatly effected by what posters on blogs in general are saying, there is no harm done. And since none of these opinions are being published, it's not libelous.

by mroak89 on Dec 13, 2007 10:09 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

I think.....

that if someone were to come on here and say "I know so and so took steroids" that may be grounds for potential legal issues (if a professional athlete found the post and wanted to press charges.)

If you say "I think/hope this guy took PH drugs" I think that is different.

There was actually a lawsuit won by a parent of a Nebraska football player for a post on a web page accusing his son of taking steriods.

I am also not a lawyer, this is just from what I have heard/seen.

by bl on Dec 13, 2007 10:57 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

these are public figures

so you'd have to show the poster had malice when making the statment (essentially meaning the poster knew or almost certainly should have known the the statement was false, yet said it anyway)

by SLK on Dec 14, 2007 6:35 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

+1

No chance in hell John could be liable for any of this. John could scream all of this from the rooftops himself and still not be liable. In the US, it's very hard to be liable for saying something about a celebrity.

Vogt early, Vogt often.

by Brickhaus on Dec 14, 2007 9:42 AM EST up reply actions 0 recs

i'm no lawyer...

but allegations are, according to Webster.com, statements of what the party intends to prove. most of what's written on a message board is speculation (Webster: to take to be true on the basis of insufficient evidence; theorize). Speculation isn't going to win a court case, but I don't think posting theories is illegal.

And John wouldn't be found liable unless he wrote it. (Liable: Obligated according to law: responsible) He's not responsible for speculation by someone in a public forum.

by phiago on Dec 13, 2007 10:11 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs

not my field of specialty...

...but i am a lawyer and do remember law school (sorta). I'll join the chorus of those who say there is really very little to worry about legally. The poster who said the plaintiff would have to show actual malice in this kind of case is spot on. I'll also add 2 things:

plaintiff would have to show damages. As great as this website is, it would be a real stretch to claim that a specific instance message board chatter could compromise the reputation of a plaintiff in such a way that the plaintiff suffered any kind of meaningful damage.
truth is a defense for the defendant - what that means is that a central issue at a trial would be whether the accusations are, indeed, true. I highly doubt a potential athlete/plaintiff would be eager to start having their life examined and be subject to discovery demands. Even if they are ultimately innocent of the allegations, going through depositions and being closely questions - and having your answers checked against other background information for consistency - just isn't fun, and can possibly open doors to things like perjury investigations.

There is a reason why Bonds did not follow up on his initial threats to sue Schilling after Schilling made his comments on Bonds' steroid use.

by LeftyTG on Dec 14, 2007 12:31 PM EST up reply actions 0 recs