Ouch! On one hand, it's a good thing the Sox did not trade Lester. On the other hand, if they had know about this a couple of months ago, would they have been more aggressive in going after Santana? I really don't think it will hurt them as much as may appear. Of course, only time will tell, starting next week when P & C report.
I just read that he would be finished if he needed surgery and that the Sox are already looking into voiding his contract.
In another baseball story David Cone had some interesting comments about the union's stand against drug testing. Following the union's successful blocking of testing, the players apparently felt it was roid time. It's clear that the owners made an attempt to stem the tide but ever since their defeat in the collusion claim, they've cowered in front of the union. It's easy to blame Bud man for all the drug problems but he's pretty far down the list of the guilty And while we're at it, how about this guy McNamee and his version of the "blue dress." Roger might be in some big trouble now.
I'm not sure this 'evidence" is similar to the blue dress, but it certainly adds an interesting element of intrigue to the melodrama, the crescendo of which will be played out next week on Capitol Hill.
Sid This could be physical evidence including DNA which proved that the individual denying any wrongdoing is a liar. In Roger's case it could be much worse because he not only denied it, he sued the individual who accused him. I believe that he's already given interviews under oath to congressional investigators. If he can just get everyone to believe it was about sex or everybody lies about using drugs he can probalby skate.
Gip, the reason I don't think it's similar is that Roger has already said he was injected with legal stuff, so even if the evidence had "integrity" (the legal jargon I've learned listening to the sports talk show lawyers) regarding DNA, how do you prove the needles were used to inject illegal substances? Given the passage of time and the manner in which the items were kept, who's to say that McNamee did not dip a needle he used on Clemens for vitamin B into some HGH or steroid to make it look like the needle was used to inject an illegal substance? I'm not defending Clemens as the jury is still out on both guys, but you can see how the burden of credibility seems to be much more on on McNamee than on Clemens. On another note, I listened to Rusty Hardin's 5 minute speech yesterday in which he emphatically likened this case to the Duke case and said in no uncertain terms that when the dust has cleared, those who doubted Roger would be embarrassed.
OK, I guess I can buy that someone saved a needle used to inject vitamin B because some day he might be sued. It happens all the time.
Apparently Debbie Clemens got 5 injections of HGH too. No wonder she gets such good heat on that phone she throws in that commercial.
At this point it doesn't really matter what happens to the accused abusers from a legal standpoint? Their individual accomplishments will always be considered with a smirk, with a chuckle and with a degree of sadness. Does anyone really look at Barry Bonds and think he was better than Hank Aaron? Or Clemens... did he ever engender the same feeling of awe that Bob Gibson or Sandy Koufax did? This guy is still the best there ever was....