Columnists Don't Expect Much From 60 Minutes Tonite


This Forum was created to divert traffic from Current Events at the height of the BALCO scandal. It comes and goes as "needed"; it's back to being locked.

Columnists Don't Expect Much From 60 Minutes Tonite

Postby gh » Sun Jan 06, 2008 10:21 am

When Mike Wallace "grills" The Rocket, two SF Chron columnists expect softballs.

Gwen Knapp:

<<...We don't know yet how hard Wallace threw questions at Clemens, but early excerpts from tonight's "60 Minutes" interview (see Mr. Ostler's column on Page 2) suggest that the steroid era could topple another icon. I mean Wallace, not Clemens....>>

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... 01&sc=1000

Ostler:

<<...Wallace and Clemens reportedly are pals, but that doesn't prevent hard-as-nails newsman Wallace from asking the tough questions in the taped interview. Like this exchange, after Clemens says he didn't do steroids.
Wallace: "Swear?"
Clemens: "Swear."
I haven't seen the interview, but Wallace is ruthless and I assume he jumps in with follow-up questions, and we get:
"Double-swear?"
"Double-swear."
"Swear, swear, underwear?"...>>

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.c ... 01&sc=1000
gh
 
Posts: 46323
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: firmly at Arya's side!

Postby EPelle » Sun Jan 06, 2008 10:27 am

Worth repeating: Since Lidocaine can only be obtained via a prescription, Wallace should have point-blankly asked Clemens where the drug came from.

Video: http://www.sportsline.com/video/player? ... hannel=mlb
EPelle
 
Posts: 21442
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby lonewolf » Sun Jan 06, 2008 4:09 pm

I think we can assume Mr Clemens was not under oath?
lonewolf
 
Posts: 8814
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Indian Territory

Postby guru » Sun Jan 06, 2008 4:12 pm

lonewolf wrote:I think we can assume Mr Clemens was not under oath?


He won't have that luxury much longer.
guru
 
Posts: 10266
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Strava, racking KOMs https://tinyurl.com/qf2ntch

Postby Friar » Sun Jan 06, 2008 6:45 pm

Wallace did an adequate job (though I'd rather have had Lara do it!).
Rocket came off poorly --as expected-- but he was allowed to work in a segment on his Vioxx use. He said he did it to carry the team, and he now believes it was a considerable risk to his health. He took them "like Skittles." Not good for the heart.
So most won't believe him, but he did engender some sympathy for an ace who took pain med's for the team. That's all he's got.
Friar
 
Posts: 1021
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Sittin' on the dock of the Bay.

Postby guru » Sun Jan 06, 2008 6:49 pm

I loved how he said if he'd been taking steroids or HGH he'd "have a 3rd ear growing out of his forehead and he'd be pulling trucks with his teeth". As if the fact he doesn't is proof he's telling the truth LOL.
guru
 
Posts: 10266
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Strava, racking KOMs https://tinyurl.com/qf2ntch

Postby Pego » Mon Jan 07, 2008 6:26 am

guru wrote:I loved how he said if he'd been taking steroids or HGH he'd "have a 3rd ear growing out of his forehead


...or a "superfluous mammary" like the Man with a golden gun", LOL.
Pego
 
Posts: 10198
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: beyond help

Postby EPelle » Mon Jan 07, 2008 7:33 am

Clemens filed the suit Sunday night in Harris County District Court in Texas, listing 15 alleged statements McNamee made to the baseball drug investigator George Mitchell. Clemens claimed the statement were "untrue and defamatory."

http://www.sportsline.com/mlb/story/10563227
EPelle
 
Posts: 21442
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby Daisy » Mon Jan 07, 2008 9:07 am

Will he be foolish enough to lie under oath (Jan 16th)? I wonder if the feds are setting him up.
Daisy
 
Posts: 13153
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby bekeselassie » Mon Jan 07, 2008 9:34 am

When he said he never took HGH I didn't believe him. But three seconds later he swore he never took it. Now I believe him.

Anybody else notice how poorly edited the interview was?
bekeselassie
 
Posts: 2174
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2005 2:44 am

Postby EPelle » Mon Jan 07, 2008 9:35 am

Yep, hence the reason this thread exists.
EPelle
 
Posts: 21442
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby MJD » Mon Jan 07, 2008 10:24 am

Daisy wrote:Will he be foolish enough to lie under oath (Jan 16th)? I wonder if the feds are setting him up.


I predict he will take the 5th which will certainly help his civil suit.
MJD
 
Posts: 13402
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Postby Daisy » Mon Jan 07, 2008 10:29 am

MJD wrote:
Daisy wrote:Will he be foolish enough to lie under oath (Jan 16th)? I wonder if the feds are setting him up.

I predict he will take the 5th which will certainly help his civil suit.

Is that what McQwire did? I forget now. If so, he still got tarnished.

Is Clemens going ahead with the civil suit? In the Wisconsin State Journal it said he might forgo it due to the high laywer fees (or I might be mixing that up with a lawsuit against his old trainer, is that different to the civil suit you are talking about?)
Last edited by Daisy on Mon Jan 07, 2008 10:30 am, edited 1 time in total.
Daisy
 
Posts: 13153
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby guru » Mon Jan 07, 2008 10:30 am

MJD wrote:
Daisy wrote:Will he be foolish enough to lie under oath (Jan 16th)? I wonder if the feds are setting him up.


I predict he will take the 5th which will certainly help his civil suit.


And will make him look like a bald-face liar to the public after he painted himself into a corner of righteous denial last night.

The Feds must be licking their chops,
guru
 
Posts: 10266
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Strava, racking KOMs https://tinyurl.com/qf2ntch

Postby MJD » Mon Jan 07, 2008 10:34 am

Daisy wrote:Is Clemens going ahead with the civil suit? In the Wisconsin State Journal it said he might forgo it due to the high laywer fees (or I might be mixing that up with a lawsuit against his old trainer, is that different to the civil suit you are talking about?)




I am talking about the lawsuit mentioned above. McGwire "didn't want to talk about the past".
MJD
 
Posts: 13402
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Postby MJD » Mon Jan 07, 2008 10:36 am

guru wrote:
MJD wrote:
Daisy wrote:Will he be foolish enough to lie under oath (Jan 16th)? I wonder if the feds are setting him up.


I predict he will take the 5th which will certainly help his civil suit.


And will make him look like a bald-face liar to the public after he painted himself into a corner of righteous denial last night.

The Feds must be licking their chops,



His only other options are to tell the truth or lie-both of which have serious consequences. Did he play the "family" card in the interview?
MJD
 
Posts: 13402
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am

Postby Daisy » Mon Jan 07, 2008 10:38 am

MJD wrote:I am talking about the lawsuit mentioned above. McGwire "didn't want to talk about the past".


Oops, skipped over that. Interesting, sounds like the one the WSJ said he was not going to file. Who knows what is going on, one has to wonder if Clemens has a real strategy or whether he is changing it as he goes along.

MJD wrote:His only other options are to tell the truth or lie-both of which have serious consequences. Did he play the "family" card in the interview?


But history shows that the lies tend to have long term consequences whereas the truth can often be forgotton. His choices are bad vs very bad. He seems to be going for very bad. Odd.
Daisy
 
Posts: 13153
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby guru » Mon Jan 07, 2008 10:44 am

Daisy wrote:
MJD wrote:I am talking about the lawsuit mentioned above. McGwire "didn't want to talk about the past".


Oops, skipped over that. Interesting, sounds like the one the WSJ said he was not going to file. Who knows what is going on, one has to wonder if Clemens has a real strategy or whether he is changing it as he goes along.


After last night he has no where to go but forward. And if he truly did no cheating he would have no reason to take the 5th. He also can't skip the hearing because, as he said last night, if he knew what Mitchell had on him he would have "gone down there and set the record straight".

The hard part of playing chicken is knowing when to flinch.
guru
 
Posts: 10266
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Strava, racking KOMs https://tinyurl.com/qf2ntch

Postby tafnut » Mon Jan 07, 2008 11:21 am

Watching the interview last night, I was struck by how futile the whole exercise was. No one who didn't believe him before, believes him now, and no one who did believe him, changed their minds either. His 'righteous indignation' seemed a bit over the top. He also asked Mike Wallace, "So how did I get the PEDs? Where's that guy? I ask him to step up now." But . . . his trainer, the guy who DID accuse him of PEDs, WAS the supplier, so that guy already HAS stood up and said Clemens is guilty. After Marion's bald-face lies, it'll be real hard for anyone to take him seriously.
tafnut
 
Posts: 26684
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:31 am
Location: Lost at C (-minus)

Postby EPelle » Mon Jan 07, 2008 11:26 am

Nevermind the PED:s -- what about that Lidocaine supply?
EPelle
 
Posts: 21442
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby bekeselassie » Mon Jan 07, 2008 11:29 am

It's sad that now some of my favorite commercials are the ones about "productivity enhancers".
bekeselassie
 
Posts: 2174
Joined: Mon Dec 05, 2005 2:44 am

Postby RMc » Tue Jan 08, 2008 4:30 pm

Here's Clemens with the final word: :lol:

http://www.bestviral.com/video/8832/rog ... _use_uncut
RMc
 
Posts: 1428
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby EPelle » Wed Jan 09, 2008 3:02 am

Conte poses some questions to McNamee:

Source
EPelle
 
Posts: 21442
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby EPelle » Sun Jan 13, 2008 8:48 am

Clemens lawyer reluctant about deposition
    WASHINGTON (AFP) — Roger Clemens' attorney is reluctant to have the star baseball pitcher give a deposition to Congress next week ahead of a hearing before US lawmakers on steroid accusations, ESPN reported Sunday.

    Citing unnamed sources, the sports telecast network reported that lawyer Rusty Hardin does not want his client to submit to questions under oath and will speak with House of Representatives Oversight Committee members Monday. (more)
AFP.
EPelle
 
Posts: 21442
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am

Postby guru » Sun Jan 13, 2008 8:52 am

In the interest of fairness, it's worth noting Hardin's concern with Clemens testifying is more from the aspect of their lawsuit with McNamee than with Clemens having anything to hide.

I'm not saying that isn't a smokescreen, but that's the "reason".
guru
 
Posts: 10266
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am
Location: Strava, racking KOMs https://tinyurl.com/qf2ntch

Postby EPelle » Sun Jan 13, 2008 9:05 am

The article, which is unable to link here for some reason, stated:

Clemens, a legend with Hall of Fame statistics, could see his legacy ruined by doping links but could wind up in prison if proven to have lied under oath.

That is something Ward said was very possible if Clemens gives a desposition for the February 13 committee hearing and denies McNamee's accusations.

http://afp.google.com/article/ALeqM5hCD ... ivWJCg3OCw
EPelle
 
Posts: 21442
Joined: Sat Oct 08, 2005 4:32 am


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests