Magnificent Non-denial Denial
Roger Clemens becomes the top name implicated in the Major League Baseball steroids scandal, and his attorney issues a statement saying that he was slandered.
Now here's the quote:
"Roger has been repeatedly tested for these substances and he has never tested positive," Clemens' attorney, Rusty Hardin, said in a statement. "There has never been one shred of tangible evidence that he ever used these substances and yet he is being slandered today."
Let's look at this magnificent example of a non-denial denial.
1) Does the attorney say anywhere that Clemens did not use steroids?
Wow! How could he leave out such an important statement if it were true?
2) So Roger has never tested positive. Hmmmm, does that mean he never used steroids? Or does that simply mean he never got caught?
3) There's no "tangible" evidence that he used these drugs. Meaning, forget the guy who testified that he shot Roger in the ass many, many times, just focus on the fact that it wasn't video recorded and the bottles and needles were thrown out, and thus, no tangible evidence. We only have the testimony of the guy who helped him.
What a load of bullshit -- but it's the best non-denial denial I've read in a long time. Bravo!
http://tinyurl.com/af3dwf
1 comment:
As I've always said about the Roger Clemens thing, I think it's ridiculous that the single person who is named MOST OFTEN in the report, is also one of the few where there is not a SHRED of evidence beyond Radomski and McNamee's allegations.
Post a Comment