Didn't Pettite back off of that statement?

He did.  I'm assuming after a "WTF are you doing?" conversation with Clemens and/or his lawyer.

Or that he realized he misremembered?     Why does Clemens HAVE to be guilty of using?

So far, I see five things:
1.  A teammate who said "Yes he did or, wait, no he didn't".
2.  A dirtbag saying "Yes he did.  Look at this old beer can where I stored the needles!!!!"
3.  An odd career line.
4.  The King of PED, Jose Canseco, saying "I don't think Clemens juiced."
5.  A court ruling stating "We cannot convict Clemens of perjury wrt his claims on PED use."

Where's the real evidence?

Posted by MikeT23 on 1/9/2014 3:24:00 PM (view original):
Or that he realized he misremembered?     Why does Clemens HAVE to be guilty of using?

So far, I see five things:
1.  A teammate who said "Yes he did or, wait, no he didn't".
2.  A dirtbag saying "Yes he did.  Look at this old beer can where I stored the needles!!!!"
3.  An odd career line.
4.  The King of PED, Jose Canseco, saying "I don't think Clemens juiced."
5.  A court ruling stating "We cannot convict Clemens of perjury wrt his claims on PED use."

Where's the real evidence?

1.  Already covered.
2.  A "dirtbag" who supplied to Pettitte, who later admitted that yes, that happened.  The "dirtbag" was also Clemens' personal trainer.
3,  An odd career line - a power pitcher putting up numbers of 61-33, 2.99 ERA, 146 ERA+, 1.137 WHIP and 8.1 K/9 . . . all after the age of 40.
5.  "Not guilty" is not necessarily "innocent"

Or we can just pretend that Roger's body was as clear of pharmaceuticals as the day he was born for his entire MLB career.

1.  So it isn't possible that Pettite misunderstood what was said?
2.  Yeah, accused of rape, always having money troubles and Clemens refused to give him more money.
3.  I think not missing a start for 18 seasons is also an odd career line. 
4.  No comment on Canseco?   Seems everything he's said about 'roids has proven to be true.
5.  But it's definitely "not guilty".

"Not guilty" in a court of law merely means that a jury/judge had "reasonable doubt".

Which is why OJ was "not guilty" of murder, but was "guilty" in a civil suit ("preponderance of evidence") for wrongful death.

Clemens probably juiced.  More likely than not, Maddux didn't.  At least not as regularly as Clemens.  But none of those are certain statements, particularly the ones with regard to Maddux.  So I still fail to understand why the voters who didn't list Maddux on their ballots are being universally thrown under a bus, with millions of fans calling for their voting rights - including some right here on these boards - and the majority of voters who left Clemens off are being given a total pass.  In many cases even applauded.  I just think that's total bullshit.  Like I said yesterday, there is NO statistical argument by which Maddux was a better pitcher than Clemens.  Every meaningful statistic you can come up with says Clemens was the better pitcher of the two.  And given the general uncertainty hovering around nearly every player in baseball (those who have tested positive or admitted to using being the only ones about whom we ARE certain) regarding PED use, there is a massive disconnect here for me.

There are many guys on here - tec being one of the most vocal - who strongly believe PED users do not belong in the Hall because they cheated.  They have yet to explain why bat corkers like Ruth and spitballers like Perry and amphetamine users like Mays and Aaron DO somehow belong in, but regardless, let's just all assume for a minute that it's a valid and defensible position.

Do you guys honestly believe that there is a 0% chance, beyond all doubt, that Maddux and Glavine and Frank Thomas ever used PEDs?  And if not, how can you support their induction?

Canseco also backed off his allegations of Clemens being a juicer. He accused him of using in the book.

Zero proof Ruth corked. He used a laminate bat in 23 that was soon outlawed. Same bat Ken Williams used.

Yeah, a number of historians believe he did cork later in his career, some don't.  About the same as the number of people who believed Bagwell was juicing, probably...

I still don't understand why it's necessary to label guys. Technically any player in baseball history could have been cheating. Everyone now could still be cheating (since PEDs are still in the game). By your logic, it's fair to say no one should be in the hall or ever should be again because they all COULD have cheated. It's ridiculous.

FWIW, I HATE Bonds and Clemens, but I'd vote for them. But to say that Clemens and Maddux should be judged the same is just asinine.

And I find it funny Mike is always right on guys like Ripken and Maddux for their durability, screaming 'roids. How about Mr. Jeter? He was pretty durable at a tough position for years and now has completely broken down. On the DL 4 times or so in the last year and a half. And he's playing for a team with a culture of juicers. I'd say he's one of the most likely current players to be on something.

Posted by The Taint on 1/9/2014 5:20:00 PM (view original):
Canseco also backed off his allegations of Clemens being a juicer. He accused him of using in the book.

Well Clemens sure turned his career around when he was teammates with Canseco in Toronto.