madaboutharry
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Feb-23-08 11:18 AM
Original message |
Question about Roger Clemens |
|
Why is it important whether or not Roger Clemens was at Jose Conseco's party 10 years ago?
|
Fuzz
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Feb-23-08 11:21 AM
Response to Original message |
1. I think because he said under oath that he wasn't |
joeybee12
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Feb-23-08 11:21 AM
Response to Original message |
2. I could be wrong...but I think it's because Roger said he wasn't at that |
|
party...contradicts his testimony, apparently.
|
OneBlueSky
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Feb-23-08 11:22 AM
Response to Original message |
3. I seem to recall that it had something to do with a claim by someone or other . . . |
|
that Clemens had a discussion with someone at that party regarding steroid use . . . I don't think it was Canseco, because he denied that Clemens was there . . . might have been McNamee, in his deposition. . .
|
Fearless
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
|
Sat Feb-23-08 11:24 AM
Response to Original message |
4. Yes, its about the under oath part... |
|
Look at Andy Pettitte, they don't care about him, but he was involved in the same case, even gave evidence for it.
|
DU
AdBot (1000+ posts) |
Fri May 10th 2024, 03:50 AM
Response to Original message |