NY Times key date re Clemens at odds with MLB.com document
- From NY Times article by Alan Schwarz, 1/13/08, in which the author says Clemens did not respond until 5 days after the Report. MLB.com document shows he responded the same day, Dec. 13:
- Clemens did issue such a statement through his agent, Randy Hendricks, five days after the Mitchell report became public." ("the report released Dec. 13 by George Mitchell")....
- (From MLB.com)"12/13/2007 5:49 PM ET": "HOUSTON -- Roger Clemens vehemently denies allegations in the Mitchell report that he used performance-enhancing steroids, and is outraged that his name is included in the report based on the uncorroborated allegations of a troubled man threatened with federal criminal prosecution.
"Roger has been repeatedly tested for these substances and he has never tested positive. There has never been one shred of tangible evidence that he ever used these substances and yet he is being slandered today," said Clemens attorney Rusty Hardin.
- "The use of steroids in sports is a serious problem, it is wrong and it should be stopped," Hardin said. "However, I am extremely upset that Roger's name was in this report based on the allegations of a troubled and unreliable witness who only came up with names after being threatened with possible prison time."....
(Hardin, continuing) "I respectfully suggest it is very unfair to include Roger's name in this report. He is left with no meaningful way to combat what he strongly contends are totally false allegations. He has not been charged with anything, he will not be charged with anything and yet he is being tried in the court of public opinion with no recourse. That is totally wrong.""
Reference NY Times article by Alan Schwarz, "Clemens Faces Dangers of Spin in Steroids Case," 1/13/08 Tweet Stumbleupon StumbleUponposted by susan at
1/12/2008 03:18:00 PM
2 Comments:
Hardin responded the same day, but Clemens did not respond in his own words until 12/18.
By
Unknown, at 6:45 PM
"In his own words?" You're joking, I hope. His legal counsel wasn't directed by him to speak on Dec. 13? Who says this is what people should be talking about in the first place? And leaving out a major detail that nullifies their point?
From the NY Times article:
"Clemens did issue such a statement through his agent, Randy Hendricks, five days after the Mitchell report became public." Perhaps this is the point you're attempting to parse. Although the article didn't make the distinction you do of "his own words." You think his legal counsel was using someone else's words?
Why would the NY Times and apparently you make a point of saying he issued a statement through his baseball agent, but fail to mention he made a statement via his legal agent?
No one reading the NY Times article will find out that Clemens "in his own words" through his legal representative--his legal agent--responded emphatically the same day the report came out. So your point must be that hiding facts is good.
By
susan, at 8:02 PM
Post a Comment
<< Home