Posted by MikeT23 on 1/20/2017 1:57:00 PM (view original):
Posted by bad_luck on 1/20/2017 1:33:00 PM (view original):
Posted by MikeT23 on 1/20/2017 1:22:00 PM (view original):
It's proving that they could not prove he did. Should be good enough.
???
Remember when I said, "don't be retarded." You didn't take my advice.
The fact that a court couldn't convict him of perjury does not prove that he didn't take PEDs. It just means that the government couldn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he lied under oath. That's a really high bar to clear. I doubt any MLB player would be convicted of perjury for PED use. It's that same as Bonds' obstruction conviction being overturned.
You wouldn't argue that Bonds took anyone to court and won, would you?
Yay, needlessly argumentative BL in the house today.
Bonds admitted to using PED. Clemens vehemently denied it. The government took him to court, they obviously felt they had a case, for perjury over his steroid use denial. They failed to convict.
Do you think they're the same circumstance?
This isn't my cause. You're the one who said Clemens "takes it to court and wins. And everyone says "Yeah, I don't care. I know he used PEDs."
A) Clemens didn't take anyone to court. Well...he did file a defamation suit, but ended up paying the guy to settle it.
B) Being found not guilty is winning in the sense that you don't go to jail. But it doesn't prove you did or did not do anything. Especially when he wasn't charged with drug use, he was charged with lying under oath.
C) You know I don't give a **** about PEDs, but I find it hilarious the hoops you jump through to try to give Clemens a pass.