Peter, your column is a joke. Witchhunt? Are you saying that there was no steroid / HGH use? Are you saying that it never happened, and we should just move on? What about all the players that followed the rules and lost? These steroid heads walk all over the rules and then laughed all the way to the bank. What does it say to those thinking about using steroids that you want to sweep it under the rug because it's a witchhunt.

And why are Republicans defending these liars?

And why are Republicans defending these liars?

And why are Democrats like Waxman apologizing AND defending a man (McNamee) who openly admitted to all the hearing members than he had, in fact, lied on several occasions? I don't know. You're the Democrat, apparently, you explain it to me.

And to answer your question, Thank God somebody during that hearing had the temerity to question McNamee's credibility and testimony in the Mitchell Report. It certainly bears it. McNamee himself today contradicted his own Mitchell Report testimony.

Are you saying that there was no steroid / HGH use?

No, you are. I NEVER said that.

What about all the players that followed the rules and lost?

Lost what exactly?

And how do you know ANY and ALL players were always following the rules? (Please keep in mind that Gaylord Perry is in the HOF largely for the admitted ability to throw an illegal pitch: aka, The Spitter, The Spitball, The Big Goo).

And what about laser-eye surgery? That's performance enhancing, too, you know.

So is Tommy John surgery.

And arthroscopic surgeries on knees, elbows and shoulders. Think any of those aren't "performance enhancing"? Better yet, ask players from before the 1970s that if they had that technology back then that their careers wouldn't have lasted longer. I bet they view them as performance enhancing/career lasting.

These steroid heads walk all over the rules and then laughed all the way to the bank.

Yeah, guys like Jason Grimsely, Alex Bennett, Jack Cust, Ricky Bones, Alex Cabrera, Howie Clark, Jason Christiansen, Mike Judd, Tim Laker and dozens of other "well-known" players certainly "walked over" other players to make their millions, didn't they? Why didn't steroids work for them the way they worked for, say, Juan Gonzalez? Or Chuck Knoblauch? Where are their inflated numbers? I'll tell you where they are: Out of baseball.

Fact: The number of "unknown" players named in the Mitchell Report far exceeds that of the "known" players named in the report.

So why aren't these alleged miracle steroids working for them? Hmm? Can you answer that?

Why is the U.S. Congress wasting its time with this crap? This is right up there with the whole flap over Floyd Landis. Congress can't figure out how to handle its business but it has time to investigate a private entity that chose to tarnish its own legacy and then look the other way? The first word that comes to mind on this would most certainly be de-voweled.

And now they want to do the same thing to the NFL over the Belichick video situation? Again, none of Congress' business!

Each member of those committees, especially Rep. Waxman and Arlen Specter, should be indicted for fraud.

"Peter, your column is a joke. Witchhunt? Are you saying that there was no steroid / HGH use? Are you saying that it never happened, and we should just move on?"

Peter: "No, you are. I NEVER said that."

Laugh out loud. It's right there, your parting shot: "The witchhunt continues." Did someone alter your post?

peter f almighty,
the difference is laser-eye surgery, tommy john surgery and arthroscopic surgery and not banned by MLB rules, steroids and hgh are.
not all steroid and hgh use is for performance enhancement, its also used to stall the drop-off off in strength and endurance that comes with age. steroid and hgh use artifically keeps marginal players in the majors past their natural lifespan, depriving younger deserving players of their chance at the majors. whether that is good or bad, i'm not passing judgement, just clearing up the misconception about steroid, hgh usage you pass off so arrogantly.

mikem:

Just because I call it (the heaing, and moreso the Mitchell Report itself) a witch hunt does not at all imply/infer/insinuate that I don't believe Roger Clemens ever took steroids or HGH.

This is the THIRD time I've had to set a strawman straight. You are putting words into my mouth that do not exist.

kep:

the difference is laser-eye surgery, tommy john surgery and arthroscopic surgery and not banned by MLB rules, steroids and hgh are.
not all steroid and hgh use is for performance enhancement, its also used to stall the drop-off off in strength and endurance that comes with age.

And what EXSCTLY do you think lasik, TJ surgery, etc. do? Hmm?

Lasik, my friend, and to use your own words "stalls" and is KNOWN to reverse degenerative sight conditions. TJ surgery places the ligaments of dead bodies into a live ones so that they may still perform. What, pray tell, is the friggin' difference. Because one is legal and the other isn't? Or is is because steroids are potentially dangerous if taken incorrectly can deform/kill you? Well, this for that, surgery, if performed incorrectly, can deform/kill you. However, the undeniable truth, again in your own words, is that these surgeries "stall the drop-off off in strength and endurance that comes with age".

marginal players in the majors past their natural lifespan, depriving younger deserving players of their chance at the majors.

Go take a HARD look at the 69 players on Mitchell's list. Prove that steroids prolonged or enhanced their stats. It's your accusation, you prove it. Remember, in this country, the burden of proof lays with the accuser.

"Just because I call it (the heaing, and moreso the Mitchell Report itself) a witch hunt does not at all imply/infer/insinuate that I don't believe Roger Clemens ever took steroids or HGH."

OMG... Actually, it's worse than that, Peter. It is precisely "just because" you call it a witchhunt that you are arguing that the problem (steroid abuse in baseball) doesn't exist, not just that Clemens has not abused them. That's what witchhunt means. That's why they call a witchhunt a "witchhunt". It is a search for something that does not exist, WITCHES. That's how the word and use originated, in the helplessness that the accused (Salem witch trials) felt in proving they were not something that did not even exist and therefore could not be proven or disproven. It is the endless (obviously) search for something that does not exist and so cannot be satisfied, and which eventually must accuse all.

"Does she NOT look, act, speak, move or smell like a witch?" Who the hell knows. There is no example to compare with. GUILTY.

If the steroid abuse in baseball investigation is a witchhunt, then steroids are not being abused in baseball. It's as simple as that. It's your choice of word. If you are tired of defending something you didn't say perhaps you should stop saying it.

OMG... Actually, it's worse than that, Peter. It is precisely "just because" you call it a witchhunt that you are arguing that the problem (steroid abuse in baseball) doesn't exist...

Like HELL I am, mikem! Deosn't exist? Absolutely NOWHERE have I ever said the steroid/HGH in baseball doesn't! I defy you to say where I've said it doesn't exist. Go on, do it.

Jason Grimsley is proof enough of that there is/was a problem. Now THAT is evidence. They caught his ass red handed. But Clemens? Not so much. (More in a minute.)

A witch hunt is panic-induced singling out one person who may be innocent of the thinly veiled charges against them. That is NOT to say that a steroid problem doesn't exist or didn't exist or that these players aren't "guilty" of using them at some point in their career.

However, to single them out without concrete and irrefutable evidence that warrants such a hearing like yesterday signals that there is, yes, witch hunting occurring--a panic induced search among those who may be innocent of the accusations against them.

In Clemens' case, and given McNamee inconsistent testimony in both yesterday's hearing and in the MR and the lack of evidence against Clemens, and the contradictory claims of Clemens' whereabouts during "the party", yeah, I'll say it again, that smacks of a witch hunt.

Why single out Clemens where the "evidence" is heasay--one man's word v. another? In keeping with the metaphor, McNamee is calling Clemens' witch. So McNamee should have to prove that Clemens is a witch, shouldn't he? Yes. And to Clemens' point yesterday, how is supposed to prove a negative? Well, he can't. Therefore, it is up to McNamee, the prosecution and whomever else to prove that Clemens is indeed a witch.

You make the HUGE mistake of presuming Clemens' guilt based on the MR, instead of the rational and American thing to do, which is to presume a man's innocent.

If the steroid abuse in baseball investigation is a witchhunt, then steroids are not being abused in baseball.

That's a ridiculous, senseless and pointless argument.

Finally, where is Miguel Tejada in all this? Where is Paul LoDuca with his canceled checks? Rondell White's canceled checks to Radomski? Why aren't they being called before Congress?

I'll tell you why: Political grandstanding by personal-agenda driven politicians looking for a little camera face time before a highly publicized media event, Republicans and Democrats alike.

Does any one think Paul LoDuca and his canceled checks and personal notes would garner such attention? Get real. America KNOWS who Roger Clemens is, and not Paul LoDuca. And you can't bet the farm that every politician in that room yesterday knew that....

Peter, you seem want to play dumb. Feel free.

Peter, you seem want to play dumb. Feel free.

No, you don't want to take time to answer the hard questions. Your response is really petty and a copout to all the questions I asked you to answer.

I'm always up for a good and reasonable debate. Back up what you say and what you accuse me of doing with facts, or don't bother posting.

"Back up what you say and what you accuse me of doing with facts..."

I just did, with your own words, but as I said you are going to pretend that you just don't understand it.

"...or don't bother posting."

Good luck with that. I sure as hell am not going to stop posting just because you or your editor don't like being held accountable for what you say. It is I who is being the adult and pointing out the problem with your choice of words, quite patiently in fact. And it is you who is responding with a juvenile demand that I keep repeating myself till you hear me, in essence.

Heh, Clemens managed to disgust both the liberal and conservative papers in DC. What a schmuck.

I just did, with your own words, but as I said you are going to pretend that you just don't understand it.

A pathetic copout.

I set your strawman on fire. Watch it burn.

Ok, Peter. It's true. Quoting you is just a strawman.

You are so lost in your argument you can't even see straight.

Come one, be a man....set me straight. Answer my queries. Or do you have the balls....

I'm guessing, no.

More childishness. So now we are chickens for not playing your little game?

Grow up or stop posting here. (Heh)

More childishness. So now we are chickens for not playing your little game?

Game? No, but apparently you're thoroughly incapable of answering the questions I posed to you. I answered yours, nearly every one of them--no matter how stupid, banal, pointless, thoughtless and feckless. I even answered your insane assertion that by calling the hearing a witch hunt that it somehow (and in your bizarre little mind) implies that I was "arguing that the problem (steroid abuse in baseball) doesn't exist...." That assertion is just flat out bullshit and beyond the pale stupid. Period. I NEVER said anything or anywhere close to that. It doesn't even come close to implying it, either. I asked you repeatedly to point out where I said that. But you can't do it. Yet, you continue to stick by your ridiculous and baseless strawman (if you even know what one is) as if it were The Gospel.

The only person playing games here is you. Well, game over. I'm done answering you.

Oh, and just for the record, I've had several friends here at work read this thread and they all agree (and I'll even one of them here): "He's an idiot."

"I answered yours, nearly every one of them--no matter how stupid, banal, pointless, thoughtless and feckless."

Nearly every one of them?? A joke. I had only ONE point to make, about "witchhunt" and what it describes. But your memory now is that you replied to several points I raised. Ridiculous. And you never addressed "witchhunt", you ignored it.

Your problem is that you don't want to admit that the investigation is not a "witchhunt" because you think it's provocative and makes Clemens sound like a victim of something evil. But it makes you sound naive.

"Oh, and just for the record, I've had several friends here at work read this thread and they all agree (and I'll even one of them here): "He's an idiot."

How old are you?

Look. You win. You are right. I am wrong. I apologize. It is a witchhunt.