statuesqque said:

This is why about 6 months ago when Curt Schilling came out with that article talking about Barry Bonds and the allegations against him, i really thought his points were 100%. He mainly said if you arent guilty, take a test, proof it, lie detector, and then sue everyone of your accusers for false allegations after the fact, but Barry never did that, and now Roger isnt, thats almost as good as an admission of guilt. Also as a Lifetime Mets fan, its a pleasing thing to Clemens in this spot, especially after throwing a bat at Mike Piazza in the 2000 world series, and now finding out, that reaction may have been caused by over juicing during a pregame, and also hearing that more than half of that 2000 Yankee world series team that beat the mets was on the steroid list, of course showed that now even that is not a victory.
[Edited 1/7/08 21:50pm]

lastdecember said:

damn, I remember that...yeah, it could've been the juice. I understand taking a stand and all but sometimes it's better to go through being accused, playing there game and coming out right as rain on the other side and sue every single one... like you said.

statuesqque said:

Yeah i mean if they accuse you and youre 100% innocent, sue their asses off, its not like they dont have the cash to go to court, I mean Clemens was getting millions to not play and stay home. I just dont get that mentality, and to me it just proves guilt in some form, just like it did way back with Michael Jackson in the child molestation cases when he "settled" out of court? I mean HELLO that is basically saying "u got me".

lastdecember said:

Do your fucking research before accusing people of child molestation. He did not settle, his insurance company did. It was a civil suit. If the prosecution had more evidence, it would have had to go to criminal court regardless of the civil settlement.

Do more research and read the appropriate documents from the '93 case before judging people.

Rodya24 said:

Have you read his other posts? He is allergic to research...

lastdecember said:

You realize a lie detector test is unreliable don't you? For example (because I like to actually have proof or seem like I know what im talking about). Travis Henry Runningback for the Denver Broncos failed a drug test given to him by the NFL.

Henry used legal red tape to delay the impending suspension and used a fuck up by the NFL to delay/get out of suspension. Please see link. http://www.denverpost.com...ci_7088495

Now...Test sample B that they refer to in this article is the sample that of course is his postitive drug test. And here is a quote that sums up the article in a nut shell.

"Henry claims the league violated its substance-abuse policy by not allowing his own experts to be present for testing of his specimen. The substance-abuse program calls for two samples to be taken. According to an ESPN report, Henry is attempting to block the league from testing his "B-sample."

So your reponse is use a lie dector test...Dever did use one on Henry (who again keep in mind tested positive for weed on his drug test). Now see this link below.
http://sports.espn.go.com...id=3107244

Oh my...he passed his teams lie detector test...how is that possible? The league has his guilty test sample...he knew he was screwed and delayed the whole process to by time....Yet he passed a lie detector. So the NFL messes up the process and he uses a loophole to get out. His own team gives him a lie detector test and he passes....Must be innocent right? Nevermind the fact he has already been suspended for drugs while on another team and innocent men always delay drug test samples from being released.

Sinister said:

My point is this... I know that lie detector test or unreliable and inadmissible in a court of law as do most people nowadays but since he was asked to take the test. Then why not take it because hell, everybody already knows it's unreliable and won't prove anything. As I said earlier, he's already been convicted by the people so it won't matter anyway.

statuesqque said:

So I ask you this then. Reading what you did about Travis Henry do you think he is not guilty because he passed the lie detector? If its not going to change anything why take it? Why risk making a bad situation worse?

Sinister said:

So I ask you this then. Reading what you did about Travis Henry do you think he is not guilty because he passed the lie detector? no

If its not going to change anything why take it? Then why offer it up and that's my point when people pull out the lie detector anyway given what's known about them. So why not take it, they know the same thing about that it that we do.

Why risk making a bad situation worse? how could it, pass or fail it'll be pointed out that what... lie detectors are unreliable so either way it's cancelled out...can't go by that. ya, see what I'm getting at...

Rodya24 said:

DUDE why dont U READ, im saying that BY NOT GETTING BACK AT YOUR ATTACKERS YOU ARE ADMITTING YOUR OWN GUILT READ READ READ !!!!! I dont give a flying FUCK who settled and paid the POINT IS THAT HE allowed someone to SETTLE and how does that look? THATS WHAT IM SAYING, try READING FIRST BEFORE POSTING. Scenario if someone accuses you of something and drags your name through the mud like it was done to him what would you do ? SETTLE OUT OF COURT? how does that look, to me and to 99% of the world you are admitting something, thats what Clemens is doing by not taking this test, shit he could be clean, but prove it, stop paying off, and step up and be a man.

Sinister said:

Yet another person that cant fucking read, try reading the post before quoting what you think.

lastdecember said:

Again, do your research. Learn why the settlement was made. Learn who made the settlement. And learn the difference between civil and criminal.

lastdecember said:

Oh I "read" just fine...what I read is someone making bold accusations and assumptions based on what something "looks" like instead of actually knowing the facts, procedures and processes of how it works.

Cause if you did know those things you would not make yourself sound like you don't have a clue and people wouldn't keep calling you out on stuff.

You can have an opinion that's fine we all have those...but your opinions are so general its ridiculous. And then you contradict yourself with your responses.

I like Madonna more than Michael Jackson.

NDRU said:

I'm going to re-read the Mitchell report and see how many players MacNamee fingered. I know he implicated Clemens, Pettite and Knoblauch. So far, only Clemens has denied MacNamee's allegations.

If MacNamee was involved with numerous players and only Clemens has called him out, that wouldn't make sense. You'd think all the other players would join with Clemens and try to group-discredit MacNamee.