Playing devil's advocate is fine, and I certainly don't mind defending my point. I wasn't as focused on the individual points as much as the aggregation of all together. We have no smoking gun either for or against Roger taking mother's little helper. That tape recording certainly wasn't it. For me, it added even more evidence against Roger, although I know some here disagree. But, all we can do is stack the evidence on both sides, weigh it out, and take a stab at whose story seems more likely to be true. Yes, Clemens could have become a workout warrior when he left for Toronto under his new contract. Yes, it could have been common for a personal trainer to provide B-12 and/or lidocaine shots. Yes, McNamee speaking of Kirk Radomski to Clemens' agent may have been perfectly natural. As a whole, when I stack all these things up against Roger's principle defense ("Don't I get the benefit of the doubt?!"), I think the scales tip markedly in favor of PED use. For me, the strongest evidence is in the statistics. No player in the history of MLB - hell, in the history of sport - has increased production so dramatically in advancing years, without chemical assistance. Bonds and Clemens are the two best examples.
Plain and simple, He did it. Period. The defamation suit, and the coming countersuit, will inevitably lead to both parties not admitting wrongdoing, and a payment being made, under confidentiality agreement. Roger will be taking care of McNamee...... McNamee is probably out from under the feds, and once they get past Congress, this lawsuit will look like it says what Clemens wants it to say at first blush, which is all it will get. Sprts reporters, and the harebrained legal analysts will never think it out beyond what the first move APPEARS to be. Just like McGuire with the Andro in his locker ......
I watched the press conference last night with the taped conversation. I wonder why Roger didn't say "Why did you lie?" or "I want you to come clean about me"....the whole thing sounded staged. I couldn't understand why McNamee kept saying "what do you want me to do?" with no answer from Roger.
I agree with this... I just don't agree with the specific manner in which you stacked some of this particular evidence. The conclusion might be correct, but not the method. My point regarding this was that it is well documented that he did in fact become a workout warrior when he went to Toronto. Bonds is more clear cut, since his power numbers skyrocketed. Like I pointed out regarding the stats you used (wins), those don't provide very strong evidence. His K/9 would've been better, altough not over that entire eight year span you suggested.
I don't remember reading that there was any notable change between his workout regimen in Boston vs. AnywhereElse. Could've been. I just don't remember that point being made. At the very least, we know he found himself a new trainer, which brings us into the quagmire of today. We do know that he started a different, and perhaps more effective, training regimen. I credit him for that. Juice alone wouldn't have helped him unless he also worked out like a demon. I do recall a scene from one his Boston training camps - I'd guess 1992. Roger had arrived late, and then-Manager Butch Hobson met him on the field to make peace. The two jogged around together, although Roger kept his walkman headphones on, and refused to talk with Hobson. He made a big deal after that scene to tell everyone how rigorous his workouts were, and how he did his own little thing in his own little world. Maybe he did ramp it up substantially in Toronto. But, if you heard him tell it in 1992 (or so) that was his "thing" - working out hard. We'll disagree forever on the evidentiary value of wins. He doubled his win total in one year, and hit 20 wins twice in a row following his new "training." But, recognizing how wins do tie-in to a number of factors, I also pointed out how his total innings went up. I don't buy into his K/9 number as the best of stats to cherrypick. He's is and always was a strikeout pitcher. When his velocity dropped, Roger switched his strikeout pitch from high heat to a bottom-dropping split. He adapted and maintained what he had always done, even in his worst of years. Sustainability is what compels me on Roger, as with Bonds. His ability to maintain high performance on the playing field when the science tells us that human anatomy begins to deteriorate. Innings pitched. Maybe even WHIP. Or, one of the other stats I like a lot is his innings pitched vs. just his BB totals. That takes the batter and run support out of it entirely. And, I guess I don't need to say it - in his first post-McNamee year, he added 20+ innings and dropped 35+ walks. If we do choose to discount (or qualify win totals), I'd suggest that the sum of his stats and the length he was able to sustain them tell us all we need to know. I watched Roger as a Red Sox. I probably saw 90% of his games. In the early 1990's Roger was still trying to be a high-heat strikeout pitcher. And, although I do remember his run support being notoriously absent, he wasn't the pitcher I watched from his days as a rookie.
And didn't he drop off substantially? Wasn't the claim as he left Boston - by Duquette - that he was out of shape and "done"? I know. And I mentioned how if it coincided with Clemens getting in shape "naturally", a boost in innings isn't that incredible. Fair enough. But it's still a better indicator of individual pitching performance than wins. And the claims of adaptation would make it less likely to require belief in PED usage. Again, fair enough. Although you can't take studies on stochastic processes and apply them to individuals as anything more than percentages. Of course, fewer walks means less "wasted" pitches, which means a greater likelihood to go deeper into games. I don't know, man. Like I said, I just feel there's more compelling evidence than some of the stuff you're listing. Interestingly, here's what McNamee added yesterday:
