clock menu more-arrow no yes mobile

Filed under:

Clemens Responds

Roger Clemens on the LA Times piece:

I didn't see it, nor do I need to see it.  But for the people involved, I think it's very dangerous and malicious and reckless on their part for some guys to have a document or whatever he did and supposedly put it out there with somebody else's writing on it.  These are the things we're hearing."
. . .

Grimsley never worked out with myself or Andy at any point.  I don't know where that's coming from.  When it's going to take a serious turn is when one of my sponsors pull[s] out, then somebody's going to be responsible for that.  Then my lawyers will take over from there.

I will repeat right now that I think it is more likely that the accusations are true than that they are false. But I can be convinced otherwise, I WANT to be convinced otherwise, if the evidence is there, and I want to be as fair as I can in this space.

I will say that in the aggressively expressed quotes here, at no point does Roger say "I deny taking HGH."

He says he's had tests, but the tests don't detect the presence of HGH. He says he never worked out with Grimsley, which brings no information at all to the table. And he threatens a lawsuit, as Barry Bonds did, before Barry realized that the truth prevented him from suing.

You didn't sound like a clown, Roger, but I was hoping for better. I was hoping for something that would clear your name, and all we got was angry rhetoric.

Better than an easily discredited lie, I guess.

Already, in the video of Miguel Tejada shot at his locker ESPN made available on the web, we have been given the first quantifiable lie since the leak broke.

Reporters more or less ask Tejada "when did you hear about this?" and he answers (more or less) right now, when I saw you were at my locker.

Not true, it appears, as ESPN is reporting that the Orioles had made Tejada, Jay Gibbons, and Brian Roberts aware of the situation previously, informing them that they were rumored to be in the affidavit back in June.

And if the Orioles knew in June, then did the Astros?

And if the Astros did, and they acted as the Orioles did, by advising their players, then why, if Roger and Andy are innocent, are we hearing about this now?

Seems to me if you're innocent you break the story yourself, issue your denial as soon as you know. But if you're guilty, hey maybe it blows over, right?

And Flippy Alou, I see, is sticking up for Clemens.

Why does this not reassure me?