Clemens lawyers cries foul....says players have no way to clear their names

The accuracy of polygraph tests is questionable. Seems to me it would only stir things up, regardless of the test results. That is, if Clemens took one and passed, people would still doubt him and if he failed, he'd claim the test was inaccurate and his fans would still want to believe him...</p>

The problem as I see it is there's no smoking gun in all of this, unless a player flat out admits he used performance enhancing substances. The Mitchell Report is something of a smoking gun to some, but you do have Fehr and Clemens' lawyer raising valid points in defense of the players.</p>

</p>

 

The good news is that there is now enough groundswell of support for blood and urine testing. Testing that could well work and give us faith in the game and players again.</p>

Oddly, I understand where Mitchell is coming from when he suggest we should not dwell on the past misdoings and move forward with actions that work. On the other hand, in any other job, if you took and failed a blood or urine test, you'd most certainly get fired.</p>

 

Hold on to the players samples to use in future tests when the substances can be tested for. Might not get the truth today or tomorrow, but better to know in a year or 2, then to just take random stabs in the dark who is and who isn't guilty.</p>

I also am shocked there isn't much discussion how the list is littered with Yankees and Mets. Ah... because the sources worked for them? Or maybe people are just too slow to realize that is why Pudge or other rumored users are not included.</p>

Yes rumored users as that is what a majority of the list consists of at this point.</p>

-Petey</p>

 

<div class='quotetop'>QUOTE (CelticKing)</div><div class='quotemain'></p>

I'm surprised no Red Sox were named, except Gagne and Donnelly. (who were in our team last season)</p>

</div></p>

... Mitchell has some association with the Red Sox.</p>

-Petey</p>

</p>

 

I found it amazing that there were no Red Sox on the list, and then I remembered that Mitchel has, or used to, have ties with the organization. Big Papi? Manny Ramirez? I'm not saying they did, I just find it interesting...</p>

I'm surprised by Andy Pettite being on the list, very surprised.</p>

 

The reason you see Yankees and Mets is the fact those are the two teams with former associates singing about it. The lawyers for these players are making a case these trainers are speaking out because they are disgruntled former employees. From what I can tell it's all he said, she said at this point without any concrete evidence.</p>

I'm not suprised if Clemens took steroids or HGH, but this list seems to make a lot of leap of faith connections to get a person's name on there. These guys are guilty until proven innocent and the damage is already done to their legacy.</p>

What needs to be exposed is how much did the commissioner know, the players union know, and the owners, and GMs know about this stuff. We're they pushing steroids on the players to get better results? Did the commissioner turn a blind eye on the steroid abuse to get interest back in the sport?</p>

A lot of these guys took roids for the financial gain of posting up career numbers and cashing in off that. A lot of these guys took roids or HGH because they wanted to fix the pain and nagging injuries. A lot of these guys took this crap because they weren't educated on it and these sleezy trainers made it sound like it was an ok substance. I'm sure some of them knew and went looking for it too, but I think there needs to be a broader investigation on how high up this went with the baseball executives. They all profited from this at some point.</p>

I do agree there needs to be a course of action and it needs to be done case by case. But I don't think it was right to publish this report until those steps were taken.</p>