This hearing is absolutely mesmerizing. - Page 2 - cougarguard.com — unofficial BYU Cougars / LDS sports, football, basketball forum and message board

Indy Coug · 02-13-2008, 03:47 PM

There's nothing more than heresay from a very shaky witness and a very old conversation which may or may not have been misheard/misunderstood from 8 or 9 years ago. There is no physical evidence.

I'm not saying Clemens is clean. I'm saying that there should be a higher burden of "proof" for this to have been included in the Mitchell Report.

RockyBalboa · 02-13-2008, 03:47 PM

Neither have appeared credible today and both come across like liars.

creekster · 02-13-2008, 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

There's nothing more than heresay from a very shaky witness and a very old conversation which may or may not have been misheard/misunderstood from 8 or 9 years ago. There is no physical evidence.

I'm not saying Clemens is clean. I'm saying that there should be a higher burden of "proof" for this to have been included in the Mitchell Report.

It is not hearsay for McNamee to testify about what he said or did. There is some physical evidence (the abscess stuff) and maybe the gauze, etc. (has it been tested yet?).

creekster · 02-13-2008, 03:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RockyBalboa

Neither have appeared credible today and both come across like liars.

I concur.

Indy Coug · 02-13-2008, 03:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by creekster

It is not hearsay for McNamee to testify about what he said or did. There is some physical evidence (the abscess stuff) and maybe the gauze, etc. (has it been tested yet?).

Well, let's forego the legal definition of what heresay is or isn't. It's a he-said/he-said case and nothing more. McNamee's batting average with truth has him hitting in the 8 spot right now; which isn't what you want to build your case on.

Pettite's has a recollection of a very old conversation, which he may or may not have understood Clemens correctly. Regardless, he is not a first hand witness of any drug administration. So it remains a he-said/he-said case.

I've heard nothing today that has solidified either side's case. It's just a jumbled mess.

creekster · 02-13-2008, 04:06 PM

Man, I can see why these guys aren't practicing lawyers. Their cross-x technique is horrible. This Davis clown begins by asking about the Tampa trip. Mcnamee says he isn't sure if it was Tampa, and Davis says he doesn't really care about the Tampa angle and then proceeds to base his whole line of questioning on the fact that the abscess could not have been caused by an injection in Tampa due to the timing of the team's trip there. Whatever.

Indy Coug · 02-13-2008, 04:09 PM

Mitchell Report associate is rightfully getting blasted for not seeking out any number of other witnesses to verify the details of Clemens' attendance at the Canseco BBQ. The threshold of "proof" for inclusion in the Mitchell Report was simply too low.

SteelBlue · 02-13-2008, 04:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

I've heard nothing today that has solidified either side's case. It's just a jumbled mess.

Which, I've said in another thread, is what this whole Mitchell Report may become after all of this. It's too bad really, because I think for the most part the people that got named are guilty.

I still think Pettite's testimony is at least slightly damaging. The chance of Pettite getting confused about which Clemens, man or wife, was actually taking the HGH seem pretty slim. I think most of us would remember the man considered one of the greatest pitchers of all time telling us he was using HGH.

creekster · 02-13-2008, 04:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Indy Coug

Mitchell Report associate is rightfully getting blasted for not seeking out any number of other witnesses to verify the details of Clemens' attendance at the Canseco BBQ. The threshold of "proof" for inclusion in the Mitchell Report was simply too low.

Not really true. The guy was not allowed to explain why it was written as it was. The report doe snot realy on the luncheon meeting for anything terribly material.

Indy Coug · 02-13-2008, 04:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by creekster

Not really true. The guy was not allowed to explain why it was written as it was. The report doe snot realy on the luncheon meeting for anything terribly material.

At the very least, it calls into question the level of thoroughness in which this investigation was conducted.

02-13-2008, 03:47 PM	#12
RockyBalboa Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Salt Lake City Posts: 7,297	Neither have appeared credible today and both come across like liars. __________________ Masquerading as Cougarguards very own genius dumbass since 05'.

02-13-2008, 04:06 PM	#16
creekster Senior Member Join Date: Aug 2005 Location: the far corner of my mind Posts: 8,711	Man, I can see why these guys aren't practicing lawyers. Their cross-x technique is horrible. This Davis clown begins by asking about the Tampa trip. Mcnamee says he isn't sure if it was Tampa, and Davis says he doesn't really care about the Tampa angle and then proceeds to base his whole line of questioning on the fact that the abscess could not have been caused by an injection in Tampa due to the timing of the team's trip there. Whatever. __________________ Sorry for th e tpyos.

02-13-2008, 03:47 PM	#11
Indy Coug Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Between Iraq and a hard place Posts: 7,569	There's nothing more than heresay from a very shaky witness and a very old conversation which may or may not have been misheard/misunderstood from 8 or 9 years ago. There is no physical evidence. I'm not saying Clemens is clean. I'm saying that there should be a higher burden of "proof" for this to have been included in the Mitchell Report.

02-13-2008, 04:09 PM	#17
Indy Coug Senior Member Join Date: Jan 2006 Location: Between Iraq and a hard place Posts: 7,569	Mitchell Report associate is rightfully getting blasted for not seeking out any number of other witnesses to verify the details of Clemens' attendance at the Canseco BBQ. The threshold of "proof" for inclusion in the Mitchell Report was simply too low.