OK, so this news conference...

[MusicMan]

... is this supposed to be informative?

[Lurch]

He recorded his conversation with McNamee and is playing it!

[pravata]

He recorded his conversation with McNamee and is playing it!

right here http://www.myfoxkc.com/myfox/pages/Sports/Detail?contentId=5416246&version=1&locale=EN-US&layoutCode=TSTY&pageId=6.4.1

Probably tons of other places too.

[Holly]

That didn't turn out so well for Alec Baldwin, either.

[Bench]

"Let me just visit with some people and we'll go from there."

"OK. Bye."

And two days later those people filed a law suit.

[remy]

Tell me what you want me to do.

[Lurch]

They're suggesting McNamee solicited the call to try and set up Roger.  

[MusicMan]

You could have rescheduled the damn press conference, Roger.

[Lurch]

And he appears to be PISSED at Justice (?) or some "hometown" media

[tophfar]

You could have rescheduled the damn press conference, Roger.

seriously, what a douche.

[toddthebod]

seriously, what a douche.

He's got a good lawyer.  I was pretty impressed with Hardin.

[pravata]

And he appears to be PISSED at Justice (?) or some "hometown" media

Justice or Ortiz. Could be both.  McTaggart is backing him and Campbell is saying wishes the whole thing never happened.  On further review, has to be Justice.  He and Campbell are the only ones to have a column printed in the paper.  Campbell's is just some capering about.  Justice has one of his affected personal advice letters.  I doubt Roger reads blogs.

[remy]

"And I can swallow."

CONFIRMED.

[Bench]

"And I can swallow."

CONFIRMED.

"No comment" from the Pettitte camp.

[MusicMan]

"All you have to do is a little bit of homework".

He may be an asshole, but that was a well deserved rebuke.

[Lurch]

"All you have to do is a little bit of homework".

He may be an asshole, but that was a well deserved rebuke.

Sounded like JdJO he was ripping into

[remy]

Now he's cursing on live TV.  Class.

[Arky Vaughan]

It looks like he's got some anger-management issues.

[Lurch]

WTF, he just left?!  Thought he would answer all questions?

[Bench]

Now he's cursing on live TV.  Class.

He doesn't give a rat's ass. He worked his butt off. Sounds like a fixation to me.

Wow. That ended abruptly.

[tophfar]

It looks like he's got some anger-management issues.

roid rage anyone?

[austro]

I got to the party late. Is this archived anywhere?

[Lurch]

Note that he asked McNamee where he was so that they could be sure they werent violating any state laws about recording telephone conversations.

[remy]

Is it just me, or did we just watch a press conference with a white, non-bald Barry Bonds?

[kevwun]

This is DQ at his finest.

[tophfar]

Wow. That ended abruptly.

Indeed.  I don't think he really helped himself at any point during that whole thing.

[MusicMan]

It looks like he's got some anger-management issues.

So let's recap... in a press conference covering his alleged use of steroids:
1.  He threatened McNamee with physical harm;
2.  His attorney commented on how big Roger is, and how easily Roger could pummel him; and
3.  He had a fit of anger and stormed off.

What were those symptoms again?

[tophfar]

Note that he asked McNamee where he was so that they could be sure they werent violating any state laws about recording telephone conversations.

is there a transcript of the phone call anywhere?  i missed that part.

[Bench]

Indeed.  I don't think he really helped himself at any point during that whole thing.

All it did was make me like him less, which I didn't think was even possible.

[Taras Bulba]

Justice or Ortiz. Could be both.  McTaggart is backing him and Campbell is saying wishes the whole thing never happened.  On further review, has to be Justice.  He and Campbell are the only ones to have a column printed in the paper.  Campbell's is just some capering about.  Justice has one of his affected personal advice letters.  I doubt Roger reads blogs.

What's the over and under on Justice caving and pinwheeling to Roger's side?

[Arky Vaughan]

I wonder what McNamee has to back up his accusations.

[pravata]

Sounded like JdJO he was ripping into

I'm not listening to it right now, what makes you think so?

[pravata]

What's the over and under on Justice caving and pinwheeling to Roger's side?

100%.  And the opposite of that, and opposite again.

[tophfar]

I wonder what McNamee has to back up his accusations.

whatever it is, i suppose it has to be pretty solid to avoid federal pound me in the ass prosecution, doesn't it?

[Lurch]

I'm not listening to it right now, what makes you think so?

Voice

[pravata]

Voice

Yeah the pissed part but what makes you think it's directed at Ortiz.

[Lurch]

So McNamee asks at least a dozen times "What do you want me to do?"  How is it possible that Roger never said "Admit that you are not telling the truth"?  Now ask yourself... why NOT answer that way?  How, logically, would the conversation then have gone?

[MusicMan]

So McNamee asks at least a dozen times "What do you want me to do?"  How is it possible that Roger never said "Admit that you are not telling the truth"?  Now ask yourself... why NOT answer that way?  How, logically, would the conversation then have gone?

I'll side with Roger on that one.  (Yeech.)  Responding "just tell the truth" in response to "what do you want me to do" could have been construed somehow as "coaching" a witness.  I guess.

[Lurch]

Yeah the pissed part but what makes you think it's directed at Ortiz.

The venom appeared twice.  The first time he said he'd take questions but then quickly started stammering about being angry with local media.  The second time came after a half-question (Roger stopped it) that sounded like Ortiz talking about discussing a specific year with the Blue Jays.  It was on this rant that Roger appeared to be glaring back at the person who asked the question suggesting that the question itself is insulting.

[Bench]

I'll side with Roger on that one.  (Yeech.)  Responding "just tell the truth" in response to "what do you want me to do" could have been construed somehow as "coaching" a witness.  I guess.

He said that many times in response to "what do you want me to do."

"I just need someone to tell the truth," Clemens said.

And then at one point McNamee said "I'll do anything. I'll go to jail for you." Which sounds like "I will lie for you."

Both did a shocking good job at saying a lot but not really saying anything definitive or substantive.

[pravata]

The venom appeared twice.  The first time he said he'd take questions but then quickly started stammering about being angry with local media.  The second time came after a half-question (Roger stopped it) that sounded like Ortiz talking about discussing a specific year with the Blue Jays.  It was on this rant that Roger appeared to be glaring back at the person who asked the question suggesting that the question itself is insulting.

Gotcha, thanks.  Ortiz does have a distinctive voice.  Wonder if Justice even showed up.

[pravata]

He said that many times in response to "what do you want me to do."

"I just need someone to tell the truth," Clemens said.

And then at one point McNamee said "I'll do anything. I'll go to jail for you." Which sounds like "I will lie for you."

Both did a shocking good job at saying a lot but not really saying anything definitive or substantive.

Wonder if McNamee knew the call was recorded.

[Bench]

Wonder if McNamee knew the call was recorded.

Didn't Hardin say that the McNamee camp leaked the tape? I came in late to the presser and was trying to get some work done while listening, so I missed a bit here and there.

Didn't Hardin indicate that the lawsuit was filed yesterday in response to the conversation being leaked?

[austro]

Wonder if McNamee knew the call was recorded.

He'd have to be spectacularly dim not to suspect it and behave accordingly.

[Bench]

Didn't Hardin say that the McNamee camp leaked the tape? I came in late to the presser and was trying to get some work done while listening, so I missed a bit here and there.

Didn't Hardin indicate that the lawsuit was filed yesterday in response to the conversation being leaked?

My bad.

"It is not clear if McNamee knew the conversation was being taped."

From a write up on the press conference.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3185494

[pravata]

He'd have to be spectacularly dim not to suspect it and behave accordingly.

Maybe.  But it appears that McNamee texted Clemens that he wanted to talk, and Clemens initiated the call.  In addition, his lawyer was with him when he was talking to McNamee.  McTaggart has the story, http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/sports/5434320.html

[pravata]

My bad.

"It is not clear if McNamee knew the conversation was being taped."

From a write up on the press conference.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3185494

Is that legal?

[Astroholic]

What's the over and under on Justice caving and pinwheeling to Roger's side?

How many times?

[matadorph]

Is that legal?

In Texas, yes.

[Lurch]

Is that legal?

Yes, in Texas and New York, thus Roger asking specifically where McNamee was at one point.

[Lurch]

Gotcha, thanks.  Ortiz does have a distinctive voice.  Wonder if Justice even showed up.

McTaggart listed the reporters that had their questions answered in his chat, and Ortiz was not one.  Neither was Justice.

[legs_of_eggs]

I was hoping he'd be asked why B-12 HAD to be injected into him, my wife takes these in the form of chewable vitamins.

[Bench]

Is that legal?

In our lovely state, any telephone conversation can be recorded as long as one person gives his or her consent. That person, of course, is always the person who is doing the recording. There is no duty to disclose to any other particpant in the phone call.

[Noe]

Maybe.  But it appears that McNamee texted Clemens that he wanted to talk, and Clemens initiated the call.  In addition, his lawyer was with him when he was talking to McNamee.  McTaggart has the story, http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/sports/5434320.html

You get an entirely different view of McNamee and Clemens (in terms of friendship and their relationship) from this ESPN video interview of their investigative reporter.

McNamee refutes what Clemens claims

What McNamee's camp is putting out now is that Clemens knew ahead of the Mitchell Report what McNamee told them.  Seems to me someone is a complusive liar and can't help himself in doing so and it doesn't look like it's Roger Clemens to me.

[Bench]

You get an entirely different view of McNamee and Clemens (in terms of friendship and their relationship) from this ESPN video interview of their investigative reporter.

McNamee refutes what Clemens claims

What McNamee's camp is putting out now is that Clemens knew ahead of the Mitchell Report what McNamee told them.  Seems to me someone is a complusive liar and can't help himself in doing so and it doesn't look like it's Roger Clemens to me.

Here's another interesting view of their relationship, as recalled by Pat Jordan who followed the two around for a NYT Mag feature in 2001:

"On the first day I interviewed Mr. Clemens in Houston I had dinner with him and Mr. McNamee at the most exclusive steak house in Houston. The bill was for over $400, which I paid. Mr. Clemens said, "I’ll get you tomorrow." The next day he bought me a taco at a Mexican Restaurant. But the point of my profile of Mr. Clemens was less about his parsimoniousness than it was his strange relationship with Mr. McNamee. During the dinner at the steakhouse Mr. Clemens asked Mr. McNamee for his permission to have a steak (McNamee nodded) and a baked potato (McNamee nodded again, but added a caveat, "Only dry."). The same scenario played itself out at the Mexican Restaurant. Clemens pointed to an item on the menu and Mr. McNamee either nodded, or shook his head, no.

During the three days I followed Mr. Clemens around Houston, he seemed like a child beholden to the whims of the sour, suspicious, and taciturn McNamee. It seemed as if Mr. Clemens would not do anything to his body, or ingest anything into it that Mr. McNamee hadn't approved. I found it strange that, at 38, Mr. Clemens still had to have someone dictate his diet and workout regimen down to the minutest detail at this late stage of his illustrious career. In fact, Mr. Clemens' devotion to Mr. McNamee's diet and workout routine seemed almost like a spiritual quest that must not be impeded."

http://baseballanalysts.com/archives/2008/01/friends_1.php

[Noe]

I was hoping he'd be asked why B-12 HAD to be injected into him, my wife takes these in the form of chewable vitamins.

From the world wide web:

Vitamin B12 and its role in correcting anemia were discovered in 1934. Since then, doctors have administered vitamin B12 injections to treat fatigue and anemia.

Why vitamin B12 injections? Why not a pill? Early on, doctors noted that taking a pill or increasing the amount of vitamin B12 in the diet (usually by eating liver) didn't always help. Vitamin B12 injections were more likely to make people feel better and to correct anemia. Ever since, there has been an ongoing debate over which is better, vitamin B12 injections or pills.

and...

Most multivitamin pills only contain 100-200 mcg of the cyanocobalamin form of B12. This must then be converted to methylcobalamin or adenosylcobalamin before it can be used by the body. The actual absorption of B12 is a serious problem with oral supplements. Swallowing 500 mcg of Vitamin B12 can result in absorption of as little as 1.8 mcg, so most oral supplements do not provide an adequate daily intake.

[hostros7]

If there's anything we can learn from our good friends, the hard-core drug junkies... taking something via the needle is always preferable to ingesting orally.

[legs_of_eggs]

From the world wide web:

and...

Thanks, wasn't sure.

[Rebel Jew]

wow to all these shenanigans.  it seems only yesterday we were praising team bastard for keeping quiet and controlling the flow of information, but now he's decided to take on the entire sports media, congress, and the public like they're some rookie pinch-hit infielder.

this is turning into a wonderfully hilarious clemens meltdown.

[KayJay90]

From the world wide web: [...] sour, suspicious, and taciturn McNamee [...]

If McNamee was a guy suspicious of some reporter in his and Clemens' territory in 2001, why on earth would he NOT be suspicious of Clemens himself in a returned phone call?  ESPECIALLY after Clemens asked his whereabouts?

What's the possibility that it wasn't McNamee on the telephone in that tape played?  What if a telephone conversation did indeed take place between McNamee and Clemens, but without a text-message heads-up, and THAT conversation wasn't recorded?  So Hardin cooks up a very-nearly-similar conversation with Clemens (briefed and following the script) and someone who sounds like McNamee, and THAT'S the conversation on tape?

I wouldn't put it past a guy who has a reputation for being a showman, a guy who plays the media and to the media, and who's doing everything in his power to make Roger Clemens seem like a sympathetic figure to the average joe. 

The story at Chron.com is right to call it the "alleged tape".

[Arky Vaughan]

He said that many times in response to "what do you want me to do."

"I just need someone to tell the truth," Clemens said.

And then at one point McNamee said "I'll do anything. I'll go to jail for you." Which sounds like "I will lie for you."

Both did a shocking good job at saying a lot but not really saying anything definitive or substantive.

It's almost as if Clemens knew the conversation was being taped so that it could be played back publicly at a later ... oh, wait.

[MusicMan]

I'm not familiar with this writer, but I think he gets it right on the call:

As a piece of baseball theater, the tape was vintage Clemens -- a late-inning intimidation tactic. But in the real world, it smacked of something else -- a millionaire employer humiliating an uppity employee by putting his intimate personal life on public display. Whatever transpired between the men, whatever quiet war they are waging, this was a step the Rocket didn't have to take.

The whole thing fell flat as evidence, anyway. McNamee never recanted what he told IRS special agent Jeff Novitzky.

[HudsonHawk]

I'm not familiar with this writer, but I think he gets it right on the call:

I think this guy is way off base on that.  Clemens has no choice but to give the appearance at least of being completely transparent.  If that humiliates the guy who has publically accused him, so be it.  At this point, the chips just have to fall where they may.  Neither Clemens nor McNamee are innocent in this. 

[JimR]

I think this guy is way off base on that.  Clemens has no choice but to give the appearance at least of being completely transparent.  If that humiliates the guy who has publically accused him, so be it.  At this point, the chips just have to fall where they may.  Neither Clemens nor McNamee are innocent in this. 

it was a charade, on both ends of the call, orchestrated and managed by lawyers.

Clemens has nothing to lose by lying until he is placed under oath. McNamee loses his freedom if he lies.

[Duman]

Gene Wojo of the world wide leader puts Roger up vs. Reality

[HudsonHawk]

it was a charade, on both ends of the call, orchestrated and managed by lawyers.

Clemens has nothing to lose by lying until he is placed under oath. McNamee loses his freedom if he lies.

I agree that there is little stock to be placed in the call, I'm just saying I don't feel sorry for McNamee at this point any more than I do Clemens.  Together they've made their collective bed.  I'm not opposed to either of them having to sleep in it.

[Astroholic]

This from RJ's article in the comical today.  It appears that the wheel is starting to spin, he is changing sides (back to DQ's side if your are keeping track at home).

Hey RJ, why didn't you have the guts to ask Roger Clemens a question at his presser. Are you not man enough? You rip everyday on this blog but I didn't hear say thing today in front of him. Were you scared?


[I wasn't called on, although in fairness, Clemens was ticked off at me when he walked in the room. At the beginning, he stared at me and said he was having trouble being in the same room with some people. He meant me. He may have meant others, but he clearly meant me. I did have a question to ask--did he discuss steroids with Jose Canseco?--but never got a chance to ask it when he got mad and walked out. Hardin later said that Clemens did discuss steroids with Jose Canseco, but not in the context reported in Mitchell's report.--Richard]

[GreatBagwellsBeard]

After a kinda lackluster take earlier, the Dugout's press conference strip is a step in the right direction.  Captures the essence of DQ's petulance.

[S.P. Rodriguez]

I agree that there is little stock to be placed in the call, I'm just saying I don't feel sorry for McNamee at this point any more than I do Clemens.  Together they've made their collective bed.  I'm not opposed to either of them having to sleep in it.

I agree.  What bothered me is that while Clemens sounded scripted or coached, McNamee sounded no different.  It was almost as if he was baiting Roger to coerce him in some way.  The entire conversation was absurd.  It's his word against the others combined with journalistic opinions and speculation. 

Clemens stands to lose his reputation and future induction to the Hall of Fame.  McNamee is facing jail time on top of his claims of being broke, sick child, etc...  You can look at those things as motivation to tell the truth or motivation to lie.  At this point, McNamee's goose is cooked, as the Feds obviously had enough on him to turn him into a witness.  It makes me wonder what, exactly, he was caught with or doing.   Clemens, on the other hand has only been listed in the Mitchell report with a history of no failed tests and no other witnesses stepping forward with claims that support McNamee. 

To add to the cliches, if you lie down with dogs, you get up with fleas.    I just can't tell which, Clemens or McNamee, is the dog.   

[Astroholic]

  I just can't tell which, Clemens or McNamee, is the dog.   

At this point, the both are.  Clemens will never be able to remove the doubt of his guilt for public opinion.  And as you stated, McNamee's goose is cooked.  His questionable past (we all have skeletons) is being brought to the fore front.

[JimR]

my favorite lie thus far: "i don't give a ___ about the Hall of Fame!"

this from the same man who used extortion to get Cliff Gustafson to retire his number, which pissed off everyone conneceted with UT including the Athletic Department.

[Limey]

Gene Wojo of the world wide leader puts Roger up vs. Reality

From the article:

"The lawsuit adds another layer of intrigue because now McNamee, Clemens and Andy Pettitte, a longtime Clemens friend, teammate, McNamee client, workout partner and admitted HGH user, can be deposed, along with others, for the case."

Any chance of this being televised on ESPN?  I think whoever deposes the Clemens may need some form of protection, because I don't think Rajah likes being pressed.  Here's some sage advice:

"Do not touch the glass. Do not approach the glass. You pass him nothing but soft paper - no pencils or pens. No staples or paperclips in his paper. Use the sliding food carrier, no exceptions. If he attempts to pass you anything, do not accept it."

[MusicMan]

my favorite lie thus far: "i don't give a ___ about the Hall of Fame!"

this from the same man who used extortion to get Cliff Gustafson to retire his number, which pissed off everyone conneceted with UT including the Athletic Department.

The lie about missing Gus's son's funeral was much more egregious.  Not surprising, but egregious.

[JimR]

The lie about missing Gus's son's funeral was much more egregious.  Not surprising, but egregious.

he did not have a good relationship with Gustafson while he was playing. i do not know about afterwards. CG told me on two occasions: "he is gutless." by that he meant Clemens would refuse to pitch if his arm was hurting.

[pravata]

This from RJ's article in the comical today.  It appears that the wheel is starting to spin, he is changing sides (back to DQ's side if your are keeping track at home).

Hey RJ, why didn't you have the guts to ask Roger Clemens a question at his presser. Are you not man enough? You rip everyday on this blog but I didn't hear say thing today in front of him. Were you scared?


[I wasn't called on, although in fairness, Clemens was ticked off at me when he walked in the room. At the beginning, he stared at me and said he was having trouble being in the same room with some people. He meant me. He may have meant others, but he clearly meant me. I did have a question to ask--did he discuss steroids with Jose Canseco?--but never got a chance to ask it when he got mad and walked out. Hardin later said that Clemens did discuss steroids with Jose Canseco, but not in the context reported in Mitchell's report.--Richard]

I can not wait until Justice gets the national job he's been auditioning for for so long.  In addition to putting himself out as the media figure most on Clemens mind, he's letting us know about his appearances on other shows and also other invitations he's had to turn down because of his busy schedule.  Move on, jackass.

[pravata]

The lie about missing Gus's son's funeral was much more egregious.  Not surprising, but egregious.

Details please.

[Limey]

I can not wait until Justice gets the national job he's been auditioning for for so long.  In addition to putting himself out as the media figure most on Clemens mind, he's letting us know about his appearances on other shows and also other invitations he's had to turn down because of his busy schedule.  Move on, jackass.

Hopefully then they'd stop promoting him as an expert on the Astros.  It's like putting me up there as an expert on the condos being built outside of my office window: I look at it every day, but I have no idea what's going on inside.

[toddthebod]

When (if) this defamation case actually gets going, there could be a lot of interesting depositions.  Pettitte will be deposed.  Canseco is going to be deposed.  I would imagine that many of Roger's other teammates are going to be deposed.  Any drug tests that MLB conducted on Roger (even the pilot ones that didn't "count") are going to be subpoenaed.  Roger's personal medical records (including whatever blood tests he might have done) are going to be subpoenaed.  Phone records, credit card records, bank statements -- all subpoenaed in the attempt to show where Roger was obtaining steroids.  If I were McNamee's lawyer, I would have a field day during discovery.  And the best thing is that I guarantee you that the Clemens camp seeks to have the whole case placed under seal because of the "personal" nature of the matter (medical records and all).  If a court actually seals the case, the media's collective head is going to explode -- like in Scanners.

[MusicMan]

Details please.

Coach Gustafson's son passed away last week, and Roger started his statements by how sorry he was that he was missing the funeral to be at the press conference.  He had also made similar comments to McNamee on the tape.

The "lie" to it is that Clemens called the press conference, and could damn well have postponed it by a day if it was that important to him.

[BUWebguy]

Footer gives her take in an MLB.com video (around the 3 min mark):
http://mlb.mlb.com/media/video.jsp?video=200801072341251

[kevwun]

It's my understanding that Clemens would have nothing to do with UT Baseball while Coach Gus was around.  He only started coming to the alumni game and other things after Augie took over.

[Houston]

I've thought more about the phone conversation between Roger Clemens and Brian McNamee (trainer). Here's what stands out to me:
 
-- Clemens never once asks the trainer why he lied
-- the trainer never once says Clemens knows he took the drugs (the closest he came was when he said "the truth is what is it and I did what I had to do..."
-- Clemens continuously said "I need someone to tell the truth," but he was talking to the only "someone" who could say anything of relevance. I wondered why he didn't say "I need you to tell the truth."
-- the trainer continuously said "What do you want me to do? Tell me what you want me to do." Even at one point going so far as to say "Just tell me what you want me to do. I'll even go to jail, if that's what you want." (I think the only risk for the trainer going to jail is if he lied the first time, not if he lies now. He was under oath then. Clemens has not been.)
-- Until Clemens is under oath, he can say anything he wants, the trainer will always be watched to hear if any of his statements contradict what he told the investigators.
-- I'm sure Clemens knew the conversation was being recorded and he had gotten advice from his attorney not to coach the witness. While it seems like the trainer didn't specifically know the conversation was recorded, in some parts of the call, he acted like he suspected it might be. Clemens asked at least twice "where are you calling from? Are you still out East?" Texas and New York (as far as I know) are the only states that allow recorded calls to be known to only one party in the conversation. All others require that all parties know.
-- The question remains for Clemens, why would that trainer tell the admitted truth about Andy Pettitte and lie about Clemens when they'd likely be able to corroborate each other's stories if they just stuck together?
-- Who's got the most to gain by telling the truth? The trainer because he'll stay out of jail. Of course, it could be argued that Clemens has a lot to gain, too, if he really didn't take any of those performance-enhancing drugs.
-- Who's got the most to gain by lying? Clemens, if he took the 'roids.
-- Who's got the most to lose by lying? The trainer because he'll go to jail; Clemens will just lose endorsements, but unless there's a criminal investigation launched (like with Barry Bonds), Clemens isn't in danger of being sent to the pokey.

[JimR]

It's my understanding that Clemens would have nothing to do with UT Baseball while Coach Gus was around.  He only started coming to the alumni game and other things after Augie took over.

not true.

[kevwun]

That clears it up then.

-- Clemens continuously said "I need someone to tell the truth," but he was talking to the only "someone" who could say anything of relevance. I wondered why he didn't say "I need you to tell the truth."

I think that was to avoid being accused of witness tampering.

[pravata]

Coach Gustafson's son passed away last week, and Roger started his statements by how sorry he was that he was missing the funeral to be at the press conference.  He had also made similar comments to McNamee on the tape.

The "lie" to it is that Clemens called the press conference, and could damn well have postponed it by a day if it was that important to him.

Who is he "honoring"?

Deron Gustafson died on Jan. 3.  The newspapers (Jan 4) reported, "Services will be at 2 p.m. Monday (Jan. 7)
http://www.statesman.com/sports/content/sports/stories/longhorns/01/04/0104gustafson.html

(Chron, Jan. 3,) "The reason the meeting with the media is going to be on Jan. 7 (and not on Sunday) is to honor our agreement with 60 Minutes," said Public Strategies Inc. managing director Joe Householder, who is handling public relations for Clemens and Hardin. "
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5422122.html

[pravata]

I've thought more about the phone conversation between Roger Clemens and Brian McNamee (trainer). Here's what stands out to me:
 
-- Clemens never once asks the trainer why he lied
-- the trainer never once says Clemens knows he took the drugs (the closest he came was when he said "the truth is what is it and I did what I had to do..."
-- Clemens continuously said "I need someone to tell the truth," but he was talking to the only "someone" who could say anything of relevance. I wondered why he didn't say "I need you to tell the truth."
-- the trainer continuously said "What do you want me to do? Tell me what you want me to do." Even at one point going so far as to say "Just tell me what you want me to do. I'll even go to jail, if that's what you want." (I think the only risk for the trainer going to jail is if he lied the first time, not if he lies now. He was under oath then. Clemens has not been.)
-- Until Clemens is under oath, he can say anything he wants, the trainer will always be watched to hear if any of his statements contradict what he told the investigators.
-- I'm sure Clemens knew the conversation was being recorded and he had gotten advice from his attorney not to coach the witness. While it seems like the trainer didn't specifically know the conversation was recorded, in some parts of the call, he acted like he suspected it might be. Clemens asked at least twice "where are you calling from? Are you still out East?" Texas and New York (as far as I know) are the only states that allow recorded calls to be known to only one party in the conversation. All others require that all parties know.
-- The question remains for Clemens, why would that trainer tell the admitted truth about Andy Pettitte and lie about Clemens when they'd likely be able to corroborate each other's stories if they just stuck together?
-- Who's got the most to gain by telling the truth? The trainer because he'll stay out of jail. Of course, it could be argued that Clemens has a lot to gain, too, if he really didn't take any of those performance-enhancing drugs.
-- Who's got the most to gain by lying? Clemens, if he took the 'roids.
-- Who's got the most to lose by lying? The trainer because he'll go to jail; Clemens will just lose endorsements, but unless there's a criminal investigation launched (like with Barry Bonds), Clemens isn't in danger of being sent to the pokey.

Clemens knew the conversation was being recorded because he recorded it.  And his attorney was sitting right next to him the whole time.  Hardin could have easily passed him notes.

[Col. Sphinx Drummond]

It's so typical of a Drama Queen. Clemens has made the whole Mitchell Report about him. That's the collective sigh heard amongst the MLBPA members. He's shouldering all the flack. Anyway, he must feel a little confident that there exists no substantial evidence, it's just his word against McNamee. And here's what I keep thinking -- McNamee wouldn't just make it up, unless he was coerced, which I doubt because that would mean some kind of conspiracy, why would he implicate Clemens, if Roger was not culpable. I think Roger is setting himself up for a horrible fall. I can see him eventually pulling out the "I had no idea he had injected me with steroids. He told me it was B-12" excuse. Or maybe they had a don't ask don't tell policy on injections.

[pravata]

Who is he "honoring"?

Deron Gustafson died on Jan. 3.  The newspapers (Jan 4) reported, "Services will be at 2 p.m. Monday (Jan. 7)
http://www.statesman.com/sports/content/sports/stories/longhorns/01/04/0104gustafson.html

(Chron, Jan. 3,) "The reason the meeting with the media is going to be on Jan. 7 (and not on Sunday) is to honor our agreement with 60 Minutes," said Public Strategies Inc. managing director Joe Householder, who is handling public relations for Clemens and Hardin. "
http://www.chron.com/disp/story.mpl/front/5422122.html

There's a Southwest Airlines flight today that leaves Austin at 5:05pm and arrives in Houston, 5:55pm.

[Limey]

Any drug tests that MLB conducted on Roger (even the pilot ones that didn't "count") are going to be subpoenaed.

IIRC, the Feds made MLB keep all the tests from the 2003 season - the year when all such tests were supposed to be anonymous.  Here's hoping that MLB is better than the CIA at preserving records.

[Bench]

I think that was to avoid being accused of witness tampering.

Witness tampering? How?

[pravata]

Witness tampering? How?

They hadn't even filed the suit at that time.

[Limey]

They hadn't even filed the suit at that time.

Can you get pulled up for pre-emptive tampering?

[pravata]

Can you get pulled up for pre-emptive tampering?

Sleazy, yes.  Illegal? Probably not.

[Bench]

Can you get pulled up for pre-emptive tampering?

No. Opposing parties in law suits often have a pre-existing relationship.

[kevwun]

I was thinking about when the Feds have McNamee testify in the future against Radomski or some other person.  I don't think Clemens wants to be on tape trying to get McNamee to change his story.  Roger isn't going to be facing charges, but his name will come up quite a bit.

[pravata]

I was thinking about when the Feds have McNamee testify in the future against Radomski or some other person.  I don't think Clemens wants to be on tape trying to get McNamee to change his story.  Roger isn't going to be facing charges, but his name will come up quite a bit.

Unlike now.

[Noe]

When (if) this defamation case actually gets going, there could be a lot of interesting depositions.  Pettitte will be deposed.  Canseco is going to be deposed.  I would imagine that many of Roger's other teammates are going to be deposed.  Any drug tests that MLB conducted on Roger (even the pilot ones that didn't "count") are going to be subpoenaed.  Roger's personal medical records (including whatever blood tests he might have done) are going to be subpoenaed.  Phone records, credit card records, bank statements -- all subpoenaed in the attempt to show where Roger was obtaining steroids.  If I were McNamee's lawyer, I would have a field day during discovery.  And the best thing is that I guarantee you that the Clemens camp seeks to have the whole case placed under seal because of the "personal" nature of the matter (medical records and all).  If a court actually seals the case, the media's collective head is going to explode -- like in Scanners.

I have a question for you (and any other lawyer who would like to chime in):

McNamee claims to be broke and have a son who is sick and because of all of that, he just needs to avoid prison.  So it sounds like to me that McNamee is trying to position Clemens into a negotiation.  That being the case, do you think that the lawyers for McNamee are trying to get money (for Mac and themselves) instead of getting the truth out there?

I can't imagine a guy who is supposed to be broke can afford the big time lawyers he has going for him.  So I imagine it's about money, for McNamee's side and that is what will happen, some sort of out of court settlement.  Not the truth, not anywhere near that... it will be the same as the Kobe incident: money makes the accuser go away.

And the problem then becomes who lied?  Roger?  McNamee?  Both?

We will never know if this is about getting money out of Clemens to get McNamee to shut up already and go away.  The problem seems to be that Clemens is hell bent on fighting this instead of just paying off this accuser.  So right now, I have more of a jaded view of McNamee with my healthy reservations of Roger Clemens... but not entirely for doing anything illegal, but because he's egotistical enough to carry this circus to the nth degree.

[JimR]

I have a question for you (and any other lawyer who would like to chime in):

McNamee claims to be broke and have a son who is sick and because of all of that, he just needs to avoid prison.  So it sounds like to me that McNamee is trying to position Clemens into a negotiation.  That being the case, do you think that the lawyers for McNamee are trying to get money (for Mac and themselves) instead of getting the truth out there?

I can't imagine a guy who is supposed to be broke can afford the big time lawyers he has going for him.  So I imagine it's about money, for McNamee's side and that is what will happen, some sort of out of court settlement.  Not the truth, not anywhere near that... it will be the same as the Kobe incident: money makes the accuser go away.

And the problem then becomes who lied?  Roger?  McNamee?  Both?

We will never know if this is about getting money out of Clemens to get McNamee to shut up already and go away.

no way in hell. both sides were trying to get the other to say something incriminating.

[Noe]

-- Who's got the most to gain by telling the truth? The trainer because he'll stay out of jail. Of course, it could be argued that Clemens has a lot to gain, too, if he really didn't take any of those performance-enhancing drugs.

Not necessarily.

-- Who's got the most to lose by lying? The trainer because he'll go to jail; Clemens will just lose endorsements, but unless there's a criminal investigation launched (like with Barry Bonds), Clemens isn't in danger of being sent to the pokey.

Not necessarily.  McNamee is saying his son is sick and dying and he's broke.  If he feels trapped in *that* situation, getting money from a benefactor like Clemens is preferable and jail time is an okay trade off at this point because as Clemens said "How the hell can I defend myself?"  If McNamee knows this, he has a better than good shot of getting an out of court settlement out of Clemens and walks away with what he wanted.

Plausible?

[JimR]

Not necessarily.

Not necessarily.  McNamee is saying his son is sick and dying and he's broke.  If he feels trapped in *that* situation, getting money from a benefactor like Clemens is preferable and jail time is an okay trade off at this point because as Clemens said "How the hell can I defend myself?"  If McNamee knows this, he has a better than good shot of getting an out of court settlement out of Clemens and walks away with what he wanted.

Plausible?

no way. not over the phone. his lawyer would never allow it.

[Bench]

Not necessarily.

Not necessarily.  McNamee is saying his son is sick and dying and he's broke.  If he feels trapped in *that* situation, getting money from a benefactor like Clemens is preferable and jail time is an okay trade off at this point because as Clemens said "How the hell can I defend myself?"  If McNamee knows this, he has a better than good shot of getting an out of court settlement out of Clemens and walks away with what he wanted.

Plausible?

Why would Clemens pay McNamee to settle the suit that Clemens brought against McNamee? Clemens is the one seeking "damages" here. You have that backwards. Unless you are saying that McNamee is trying to extort Clemens into paying him to change his story?

[Noe]

It's so typical of a Drama Queen. Clemens has made the whole Mitchell Report about him. That's the collective sigh heard amongst the MLBPA members. He's shouldering all the flack. Anyway, he must feel a little confident that there exists no substantial evidence, it's just his word against McNamee. And here's what I keep thinking -- McNamee wouldn't just make it up, unless he was coerced, which I doubt because that would mean some kind of conspiracy, why would he implicate Clemens, if Roger was not culpable. I think Roger is setting himself up for a horrible fall. I can see him eventually pulling out the "I had no idea he had injected me with steroids. He told me it was B-12" excuse. Or maybe they had a don't ask don't tell policy on injections.

The other thing that can come out of this is a shift of the tide from the players towards the league and others (like the union) in power.  The Mitchell Report was never intended to be an indictment, but what Clemens has managed to do is go against the grain, fight the report, cause the story to stay alive and now everyone is on notice: the MLB offices, the union, everyone!

And if Clemens manages to sway this his way as a player (and it could happen), then he will have effectively swayed public opinion against the players and put the target on the back of the league and doctors and trainers and chem labs, et. al.  The next guy to be targeted by the league and anyone else as a "user" will have a much better time of defending themselves against public opinions because this will work as a Richard Jewel effect for the players.  The media will be indicted as well for the witch hunt that no one really likes and would rather get the game back to the forefront by now.

[BUWebguy]

McNamee claims to be broke and have a son who is sick and because of all of that, he just needs to avoid prison.  So it sounds like to me that McNamee is trying to position Clemens into a negotiation.  That being the case, do you think that the lawyers for McNamee are trying to get money (for Mac and themselves) instead of getting the truth out there?

McNamee said in the phone call that he had turned down "seven figures" to talk about it. Obviously, he could have been lying, but it certainly seems plausible that someone might offer something like that. If that's true and you're right that he just wants/needs money, why not take that? Holding out for the slim chance that he might win a bigger settlement from Clemens?

Edit to add: I'm no lawyer, and I've never even stayed in a Holiday Inn Express.

[Noe]

Why would Clemens pay McNamee to settle the suit that Clemens brought against McNamee? Clemens is the one seeking "damages" here. You have that backwards. Unless you are saying that McNamee is trying to extort Clemens into paying him to change his story?

How can he afford his lawyers?

[pravata]

How come nobody mentioned this?

Roger Clemens and Andy Pettitte sent private investigators to conduct a taped interview with Brian McNamee the day before the release of the Mitchell Report. Tapes of the extensive session have not been released by Clemens' camp.

... the taped interview that took place Dec.12, .... The investigators - a representative from Hardin's law firm and a former Houston homicide officer - arrived to interview McNamee on Wednesday, the day before the report's release, presenting him with documents signed on Dec.11 authorizing them to ask questions on behalf of Clemens and Pettitte. ...

Said Ward (one of McNamee's attorneys): "Mr. Clemens did in fact know that he was named in the report prior to its release and the only thing he did in a heartbeat was to hire a lawyer prior to the release of Senator Mitchell's report. ..."
http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/yankees/2008/01/08/2008-01-08_brian_mcnamees_lawyers_demand_release_of.html

[Noe]

no way. not over the phone. his lawyer would never allow it.

I was under impression that McNamee texted Clemens that he wanted to talk.  What we do know is Clemens went to his counsel to ask if he should take the call.  I have not heard of McNamee's lawyers being present when Clemens called him *on his cell phone*.  Perhaps McNamee had a talk with his lawyers prior to texting Clemens, but that sure sounds like they're trying to set the foundation for a negotiation to me.

But what do I know... nothing, nada, zip.  As much as I would love to hate Clemens in this whole deal, I'm finding it really hard to believe he's done anything wrong other than allow his ego to step into a whole circus waiting to happen.  But is he protecting his own (like anyone one of us would)?  I think so.

This McNamee fellow though looks ten shades of shady to me.

[Noe]

How come nobody mentioned this?

Roger Clemens and Andy Pettitte sent private investigators to conduct a taped interview with Brian McNamee the day before the release of the Mitchell Report. Tapes of the extensive session have not been released by Clemens' camp.

... the taped interview that took place Dec.12, .... The investigators - a representative from Hardin's law firm and a former Houston homicide officer - arrived to interview McNamee on Wednesday, the day before the report's release, presenting him with documents signed on Dec.11 authorizing them to ask questions on behalf of Clemens and Pettitte. ...

Said Ward (one of McNamee's attorneys): "Mr. Clemens did in fact know that he was named in the report prior to its release and the only thing he did in a heartbeat was to hire a lawyer prior to the release of Senator Mitchell's report. ..."
http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/yankees/2008/01/08/2008-01-08_brian_mcnamees_lawyers_demand_release_of.html

It was reported and I put the video link up so we could see/hear to difference in the stories from each camp on what or who or when in all this mess.  At best, this is McNamee's side your reading to discredit Clemen's camp and attempts to cast aspersions on McNamee.

It's now getting to the point on who you believe.  None of which is about the truth.

[pravata]

I was under impression that McNamee texted Clemens that he wanted to talk.  What we do know is Clemens went to his counsel to ask if he should take the call.  I have not heard of McNamee's lawyers being present when Clemens called him *one his cell phone*.  Perhaps McNamee had a talk with his lawyers prior to texting Clemens, but that sure sounds like they're trying to set the foundation for a negotiation to me.

But what do I know... nothing, nada, zip.  As much as I would love to hate Clemens in this whole deal, I'm finding it really hard to believe he's done anything wrong other than allow his ego to step into a whole circus waiting to happen.  But is he protecting his own (like anyone one of us would)?  I think so.

This McNamee fellow though looks ten shades of shady to me.

He is.  And Roger appears to be a lighter shade of naive, but,

"The original text message to Roger said, 'My son is sick, can you call him at home?' Brian was not even living there. He had no intention of talking to Clemens. (Clemens) never did call his son."
http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=txmcnameelawyers&prov=st&type=lgns

[pravata]

It was reported and I put the video link up so we could see/hear to difference in the stories from each camp on what or who or when in all this mess.  At best, this is McNamee's side your reading to discredit Clemen's camp and attempts to cast aspersions on McNamee.

It's now getting to the point on who you believe.  None of which is about the truth.

I found that now.  I'm no good with the video stuff.  So why are Clemens and Hardin pretending that representation was hired after the Mitchell Report came out?

[Noe]

He is.  And Roger appears to be a lighter shade of naive, but,

"The original text message to Roger said, 'My son is sick, can you call him at home?' Brian was not even living there. He had no intention of talking to Clemens. (Clemens) never did call his son."
http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=txmcnameelawyers&prov=st&type=lgns

What, in heavens name do these lawyers want?

"What does (Clemens) do, he calls him back with his lawyer in the room and a tape recorder going," Emery said. "He wants to play that game, he's going to get buried. I have no compunction about putting him in jail.

"This is war."

I would be concerned that my lawyer is behaving this way.  If they have the truth on their part, then they need not worry about what Clemens does, including discredit their client.  In a court of law, if they have a case to present, then they can have their day.  But all this really smacks of saber rattling to gain an out-of-court settlement.

But then again, this is just me.

[Noe]

I found that now.  I'm no good with the video stuff.  So why are Clemens and Hardin pretending that representation was hired after the Mitchell Report came out?

Their side of the story.

Two sides, a court decides who is more believable.  Unless it gets settled out of court.  We will know as soon as McNamee defends himself successfully against damages and counter sues.  If not, McNamee lost his chance at a pay day and it all goes away.

[Bench]

What, in heavens name do these lawyers want?

I would be concerned that my lawyer is behaving this way.  If they have the truth on their part, then they need not worry about what Clemens does, including discredit their client.  In a court of law, if they have a case to present, then they can have their day.  But all this really smacks of saber rattling to gain an out-of-court settlement.

But then again, this is just me.

I guess you are assuming that McNamee will counterclaim his own defamation claim (which he most certainly will). However, I'm not sure that I follow your opinion that he can show that he has such a stronger case than Clemens that he will "win" a settlement.

[Noe]

McNamee said in the phone call that he had turned down "seven figures" to talk about it. Obviously, he could have been lying, but it certainly seems plausible that someone might offer something like that. If that's true and you're right that he just wants/needs money, why not take that? Holding out for the slim chance that he might win a bigger settlement from Clemens?

Edit to add: I'm no lawyer, and I've never even stayed in a Holiday Inn Express.

If I told you "I've got a seven figure to tell more" (lies or truth), what sort of impact would you *think* that should have on a guy like Clemens, who really *does* care about his reputation?  I would think I can get a better deal this way and not have to even spend one day on the keyboard writing a damn thing.

Easy money.

[Noe]

I guess you are assuming that McNamee will counterclaim his own defamation claim (which he most certainly will). However, I'm not sure that I follow your opinion that he can show that he has such a stronger case than Clemens that he will "win" a settlement.

I believe he thinks he can get Clemens to pay one way or another.  To stop the madness?  Perhaps.  The one thing that is strange to me is how Roger Clemens is so vehemently defending himself in such a non-issue (really).  The Mitchell Report is going away, Clemens is going to the HOF and have nothing ever stick on him.  Why McNamee gave up Clemens in the first place tells me he has something to tell, perhaps not as sensational, but enough to concern Clemens that his family life could get affected.

Any way, I'm pretty much ready for this crap to end because it is the biggest non-issue ever presented to the American public since Paris Hilton/Brittney Spears are at war.  I'm not sure who is which, but McNamee and Clemens are the new Hilton/Spears in the sports headlines and we are all to blame for allowing ourselves to dive right into this as if it matters.

Somebody contact Alkie and let's take up a collection to make McNamee go away and Clemens to shut the fuck up.

[Noe]

I guess you are assuming that McNamee will counterclaim his own defamation claim (which he most certainly will). However, I'm not sure that I follow your opinion that he can show that he has such a stronger case than Clemens that he will "win" a settlement.

His lawyers (how can he afford them?) already said they will counter sue.

[BudGirl]

Any way, I'm pretty much ready for this crap to end because it is the biggest non-issue ever presented to the American public since Paris Hilton/Brittney Spears are at war.  I'm not sure who is which, but McNamee and Clemens are the new Hilton/Spears in the sports headlines and we are all to blame for allowing ourselves to dive right into this as if it matters.

Some body contact Alkie and let's take up a collection to make McNamee go away and Clemens to shut the fuck up.

I've been sick of it for a while already. 

[JimR]

His lawyers (how can he afford them?) already said they will counter sue.

Noe, contingent fee arrangement.

your comments in this thread make it appear that you have had no contact with litigation or lawyers.

[tophfar]

your comments in this thread make it appear that you have had no contact with litigation or lawyers.

which isn't necessarily a bad thing.

[JimR]

which isn't necessarily a bad thing.

right--should have added that.

[Noe]

Noe, contingent fee arrangement.

your comments in this thread make it appear that you have had no contact with litigation or lawyers.

So his lawyers have a huge stake in this?  Meaning they took this on for the benefits to them and not necessarily because truth is the item of the day.  I don't mean to discredit the business of being a lawyer, not by a long shot, but the man is broke, has family problems and now has some very high profile lawyers because they're going after a high profile celebrity in a high profile item (steriods?  Oh come on!).

Sure seems we keep moving further and further away from truth here and more what benefits the individual players in this whole pretty sad story that we keep getting ourselves involved in.  I would just as soon that the MLB find a way that is much cleaner to appease the congress of our country (thanks, *THIS* is what I want from my government!) than just throwing players under the bus.

I wish all of them would just fucking go away and let the game to be the focus again, lawyers first and foremost.  No offense.

[tophfar]

So his lawyers have a huge stake in this?  Meaning they took this on for the benefits to them and not necessarily because truth is the item of the day. 

Re: Anti-Tobacco litigation, and Ambulance Chasing.

Disclaimer: IANAL, nor have i played one on tv. 

[farmstros]

speaking of the hall of fame and getting the focus back on the game.  the class of '08 announcement is starting now

[Noe]

I've been sick of it for a while already. 

To paraphrase Allen Iverson "What are we talking about here... steroids!  I mean, come on... STEROIDS!  Yeah, STEROIDS!"

We have a full fledge hysteria in our hands now and we can't stop ourselves.  Tar and feathering?  Not good enough.  Hanging?  Yeah, let's do that instead!  Why not, we're all about this as a society now instead of the ideals that made us a country to be admired.  Well, no sir, not me... I will not sit here and allow anyone to besmirch the American Flag!

But seriously, I've heard some of the most incredible things in the last few days to justify our indignation towards this situation (steriods).  Legallity, the kids who die because of use, third ear, pulling trains with teeth, etc. etc.  The real truth about steroids is that it is fashionable to blame all ills on it and easily escape a responsible dialogue about them and reasonable solutions.  Sorry to say, we do exactly what we do in this situation as a society far too often and ultimately we get the government, leagues, media we demand.

I would not feel it wrong to watch Roger Clemen's next PC be one where he shouts "ARE YOU NOT ENTERTAINED!?!?" and then throws a broken bat at someone while walking out of the presser.  That's where we are now.

[pravata]

Their side of the story.

Two sides, a court decides who is more believable.  Unless it gets settled out of court.  We will know as soon as McNamee defends himself successfully against damages and counter sues.  If not, McNamee lost his chance at a pay day and it all goes away.

I don't think so.  There's a piece of paper out there with Roger and Andy's signature on it that provides proof that this meeting occured.

[JimR]

So his lawyers have a huge stake in this?  Meaning they took this on for the benefits to them and not necessarily because truth is the item of the day.  I don't mean to discredit the business of being a lawyer, not by a long shot, but the man is broke, has family problems and now has some very high profile lawyers because they're going after a high profile celebrity in a high profile item (steriods?  Oh come on!).

Sure seems we keep moving further and further away from truth here and more what benefits the individual players in this whole pretty sad story that we keep getting ourselves involved in.  I would just as soon that the MLB find a way that is much cleaner to appease the congress of our country (thanks, *THIS* is what I want from my government!) than just throwing players under the bus.

I wish all of them would just fucking go away and let the game to be the focus again, lawyers first and foremost.  No offense.

oh, please.

[pravata]

What, in heavens name do these lawyers want?

I would be concerned that my lawyer is behaving this way.  If they have the truth on their part, then they need not worry about what Clemens does, including discredit their client.  In a court of law, if they have a case to present, then they can have their day.  But all this really smacks of saber rattling to gain an out-of-court settlement.

But then again, this is just me.

I think that Hardin has exhibited more sabre rattling tactics.  Hardin providing counsel during the phone call looks to me like he's concerned Clemens might say something determental.    Emery sounds pissed now.  If he's really emotional that's bad.  I don't think he's a bad lawyer, so that seems like a tactic.  The Clemens camp filed first, knowing that the Wallace interview would provoke a suit from McNamee, to get the venue in Texas. 

[JimR]

I think that Hardin has exhibited more sabre rattling tactics.  Hardin providing counsel during the phone call looks to me like he's concerned Clemens might say something determental.    Emery sounds pissed now.  If he's really emotional that's bad.  I don't think he's a bad lawyer, so that seems like a tactic.  The Clemens camp filed first, knowing that the Wallace interview would provoke a suit from McNamee, to get the venue in Texas. 

exactly right. it is a venue move, totally.

[Noe]

oh, please.

Cool.  I have my opinion (not facts) about what is going on and that is that this has little to nothing to do with truth.  Maybe I'm naive and the lawyers in this case are all about truth and justice.  Just maybe... hmmmm.

[Noe]

I don't think so.  There's a piece of paper out there with Roger and Andy's signature on it that provides proof that this meeting occured.

The timetable is in question, not whether it occurred or not.  Hardin said he sent investigators to talk to McNamee.  "WHEN" is the question now.

[Noe]

I think that Hardin has exhibited more sabre rattling tactics.  Hardin providing counsel during the phone call looks to me like he's concerned Clemens might say something determental.    Emery sounds pissed now.  If he's really emotional that's bad.  I don't think he's a bad lawyer, so that seems like a tactic.  The Clemens camp filed first, knowing that the Wallace interview would provoke a suit from McNamee, to get the venue in Texas. 

I've said all along that Clemens just shutting up and letting the whole thing die a natural painless death would've been best.  I've thought his ego did not allow him to do so.  Now we have this going on.  A full fledge reality show-like sports drama of sickening proportions.

And the media is loving it!

And we just lose sight of the issue at hand, steroid use in the MLB.  An MLB that has a good (not great) drug program in place and IS cleaning up their act.  This was agreed to by the MLBPA as well.  This after much finger pointing by congress at the union and league.  The Mitchell Report was supposed to shine a light of where they've been and where they are now to provide perspective for the congress and allow the league to continue the good fight.  Senator Mitchell said so himself that it was his considered opinion that no punishment should come to players from this report and that the league could now just move on.  That seems to be highly ignored now. 

Instead it's a media circus.

So if Clemens decided they can't have his name to provide the congress what they need or want to look good, then who am I to blame him?  Now this is playing out and the more it does, the more it just all looks like it's heading towards a settlement (like Kobe Bryant's case in Colorado) where the accuser goes away after money comes his way.  Very little about truth, more about looking more right than the other guy in the end.

Much ado about nothing, but we love our media circus nonetheless.

[Jacksonian]

When do pitchers and catchers report?

[Noe]

When do pitchers and catchers report?

Eggszactly!  When do lawyers go away?

[JimR]

Eggszactly!  When do lawyers go away?

we follow computer nerds out the door.

[Jacksonian]

Eggszactly!  When do lawyers go away?

No, seriously, when do pitchers and catchers report?

I already know when lawyers go away.

[pravata]

No, seriously, when do pitchers and catchers report?

I already know when lawyers go away.

Valentine's Day http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=ap-baseballcalendar&prov=ap&type=lgns

[Noe]

we follow computer nerds out the door.

I thought it was as right after the media lights went off and they walked out.  I get my parade lineup wrong sometimes.

[Houston]

I thought it was as right after the media lights went off and they walked out.  I get my

Did Noe blow a fuse?

[austro]

Did Noe blow a fuse?

His lawyer cut him off.

[Lurch]

His lawyer cut him off.

Retainer ran out

[Noe]

Did Noe blow a fuse?

Some folks walked into my office to talk about a delivery date and I hit "post" by accident.  Sorry.

[Bench]

I think that Hardin has exhibited more sabre rattling tactics.  Hardin providing counsel during the phone call looks to me like he's concerned Clemens might say something determental.    Emery sounds pissed now.  If he's really emotional that's bad.  I don't think he's a bad lawyer, so that seems like a tactic.  The Clemens camp filed first, knowing that the Wallace interview would provoke a suit from McNamee, to get the venue in Texas. 

Here's a fun one for you. While taping a phone conversation without the other side's consent/knowledge is legal in Texas, the Rules of Professional Ethics which govern lawyers prohibit a lawyer from doing it. Furthermore, in the comments to the rule, it says it is unethical for a lawyer to try to get around that rule by having a non-lawyer make the phone call.

Just adding more fuel to Noe's fire.

[pravata]

Here's a fun one for you. While taping a phone conversation without the other side's consent/knowledge is legal in Texas, the Rules of Professional Ethics which govern lawyers prohibit a lawyer from doing it. Furthermore, in the comments to the rule, it says it is unethical for a lawyer to try to get around that rule by having a non-lawyer make the phone call.

Just adding more fuel to Noe's fire.

So. Is Rusty a potted plant?

[pravata]

my favorite lie thus far: "i don't give a ___ about the Hall of Fame!"

this from the same man who used extortion to get Cliff Gustafson to retire his number, which pissed off everyone conneceted with UT including the Athletic Department.

(2003) "I play 20 years, work my tail off, they're not going to tell me what hat I'm wearing," Clemens told reporters Saturday. "I promise you that. There might be a vacant seat there. I'll take my mother and we'll go to Palm Springs and invite all y'all and we'll have our own celebration."

"Somebody told me there are a couple of guys who don't even have a hat on," Clemens said. "But that would be disrespectful to what Mr. (George) Steinbrenner has given me: an opportunity to come here and continue my career, to be able to achieve these moments and become a Hall of Famer.

"I became a Hall of Famer here," Clemens added. "If I'd have listened to people there [in Boston], then I'd have been done. Not people. One person that evaluated my skills and he didn't take the time to get to know me."
http://espn.go.com/mlb/news/2003/0615/1568234.html

[Houston]

(2003) "I play 20 years, work my tail off, they're not going to tell me what hat I'm wearing," Clemens told reporters Saturday. "I promise you that. There might be a vacant seat there. I'll take my mother and we'll go to Palm Springs and invite all y'all and we'll have our own celebration."

"Somebody told me there are a couple of guys who don't even have a hat on," Clemens said. "But that would be disrespectful to what Mr. (George) Steinbrenner has given me: an opportunity to come here and continue my career, to be able to achieve these moments and become a Hall of Famer.

"I became a Hall of Famer here," Clemens added. "If I'd have listened to people there [in Boston], then I'd have been done. Not people. One person that evaluated my skills and he didn't take the time to get to know me."
http://espn.go.com/mlb/news/2003/0615/1568234.html

Imagine if he really cared about the Hall of Fame! He'd really be upset.

[JimR]

lawyers, like agents, work FOR clients...or at least ethical ones do. they do not direct clients' actions, and they do not make decisions for them. smart lawyers suggest alternatives, and let the clients make the decision.

this circus is Roger's show, not Hardin's. Roger is using Rusty Hardin to show how powereful he is to be able to hire such a big name. Racehorse Haynes must have been busy.

[pravata]

lawyers, like agents, work FOR clients...or at least ethical ones do. they do not direct clients' actions, and they do not make decisions for them. smart lawyers suggest alternatives, and let the clients make the decision.

this circus is Roger's show, not Hardin's. Roger is using Rusty Hardin to show how powereful he is to be able to hire such a big name. Racehorse Haynes must have been busy.

But Roger wants it both ways.  He says my lawyer told me to do this, my trainer told me to do this, the media made me do this.   It's out of his hands.

[JimR]

But Roger wants it both ways.  He says my lawyer told me to do this, my trainer told me to do this, the media made me do this.   It's out of his hands.

of course. gotta have a scapegoat.

[Limey]

But Roger wants it both ways.  He says my lawyer told me to do this, my trainer told me to do this, the media made me do this.   It's out of his hands.

More believable than from whom Pettitte claims to get his marching orders?

[pravata]

More believable than from whom Pettitte claims to get his marching orders?

Precisely as.

[JackAstro]

Sorry if this is a repost:

http://www.collegehumor.com/video:1795065

[DVauthrin]

McNamee does have a history of lying

[hostros7]

McNamee does have a history of lying

This guy sounds like a prince. 

Personally, I am quite done with this saga.  With all the mudslinging and finger-pointing, what's left for the primaries?  Come on, Roger.. Think of America

[pravata]

McNamee does have a history of lying

He's a big fat liar.  The rape case is nothing new.  The St Petersburg police declined to press charges so it's no good bringing that up again.  McNamee called himself "Dr. Brian McNamee, Ph.D," used the e-mail address "McNameePHD," and told people he had earned his doctorate at Columbus University in Louisiana. Columbus now operates out of Mississippi, after the state of Louisiana shut it down in 2001 for being a "diploma mill," churning out degrees to people who did little or no academic work.  Link These things have been known. But Clemens stuck with him through all this, even after the Yankees fired him.  Clemens admitted he didn't even know McNamee's credentials, didn't care.  He kept him around for 12 years.  7 months ago Clemens would have been McNamee's best reference.

[KayJay90]

McNamee does have a history of lying

So does Roger.

1)  The alleged life-threatening "blister" in the 7th inning of a pivotal WS game -- 1986.
2)  The lie about swearing (he said he didn't, but lipreading says he did) to Terry Cooney after he was kicked out of ANOTHER pivotal post-season 4th/elimination ALCS game -- 1990.
3)  The lie that got his aggravated assault felony charge knocked back to a misdemeanor ("self defense"; he jumped on the back of an off-duty cop and tried to strangle him) -- 1991.
4)  The lie to Red Sox fans that he wasn't preparing to leave the Red Sox (he put his Mass. house up for sale more than a year before his contract was up) -- 1995 and 1996.
5)  The lie to Red Sox fans that the only other team he'd consider pitching for besides the Red Sox would be one of the Texas teams, in order to be closer to home.  This was just before entertaining offers from the Yankees and the Blue Jays, and of course, he went to the team that offered the most -- 1996-1997 offseason (OK, so just about every greedy and/or dishonest baseball player has said this to his fans...doesn't make it right...better off not saying anything at all).
6)  The lie to Blue Jay fans and to MLB itself, getting an unwritten and handshake clause in his contract allowing him to be traded to a team of his choice if the team was not "competitive" (according to HIS lights, of course), with evidently no time limit on that determination -- 1998-1999 offseason, 2 years after his signing.
7)  The lie to Yankee fans saying he was going to retire -- 2003-2004 offseason.  The Yankees gave him a Humvee.  He un-retired the next spring to pitch for Houston.
8 )  The lie to Astros fans saying he was going to retire -- 2006-2007 offseason.  The Astros picked his kid in the 2005 draft, signing bonus $380,000.  Clemens un-retired the next spring at (eventually) $3M/win to pitch for the Yankees.
9)  Evidence today shows he lied about when he found out his name was going to be in the Mitchell Report (Clemens' PIs questioned McNamee about it the day before it was released; in the 60 Minutes interview Clemens said he had no advance knowledge he was named in the Report).

[DVauthrin]

So does Roger.

1)  The alleged life-threatening "blister" in the 7th inning of a pivotal WS game -- 1986.
2)  The lie about swearing (he said he didn't, but lipreading says he did) to Terry Cooney after he was kicked out of ANOTHER pivotal post-season 4th/elimination ALCS game -- 1990.
3)  The lie that got his aggravated assault felony charge knocked back to a misdemeanor ("self defense"; he jumped on the back of an off-duty cop and tried to strangle him) -- 1991.
4)  The lie to Red Sox fans that he wasn't preparing to leave the Red Sox (he put his Mass. house up for sale more than a year before his contract was up) -- 1995 and 1996.
5)  The lie to Red Sox fans that the only other team he'd consider pitching for besides the Red Sox would be one of the Texas teams, in order to be closer to home.  This was just before entertaining offers from the Yankees and the Blue Jays, and of course, he went to the team that offered the most -- 1996-1997 offseason (OK, so just about every greedy and/or dishonest baseball player has said this to his fans...doesn't make it right...better off not saying anything at all).
6)  The lie to Blue Jay fans and to MLB itself, getting an unwritten and handshake clause in his contract allowing him to be traded to a team of his choice if the team was not "competitive" (according to HIS lights, of course), with evidently no time limit on that determination -- 1998-1999 offseason, 2 years after his signing.
7)  The lie to Yankee fans saying he was going to retire -- 2003-2004 offseason.  The Yankees gave him a Humvee.  He un-retired the next spring to pitch for Houston.
8 )  The lie to Astros fans saying he was going to retire -- 2006-2007 offseason.  The Astros picked his kid in the 2005 draft, signing bonus $380,000.  Clemens un-retired the next spring at (eventually) $3M/win to pitch for the Yankees.
9)  Evidence today shows he lied about when he found out his name was going to be in the Mitchell Report (Clemens' PIs questioned McNamee about it the day before it was released; in the 60 Minutes interview Clemens said he had no advance knowledge he was named in the Report).

I never said Roger didn't lie either, but rather just that McNamee also has credibility issues.

[KayJay90]

I never said Roger didn't lie either, but rather just that McNamee also has credibility issues.

Oh, no doubt.  But until Roger is under oath, he can say anything.  McNamee has already given his testimony to the Feds under oath, and it was the same information he gave George Mitchell.

Oh, yeah, one more thing:  I found #10 and #11.
10)  The lie about how he feels about getting enough votes for the HOF -- "Do you think I played my career because I'm worried about the damn Hall of Fame?".  That's ALL Roger has been talking about since he left Boston.  6/16/03: "Clemens, who also pitched for the Boston Red Sox and Toronto Blue Jays, has emphasized numerous times his desire to go into the Hall as a Yankee".
11)  The lie about throwing the bat shard at Mike Piazza -- "I thought it was the ball" --  Game 2, Mets/Yankees WS, 2000.

[Noe]

The lie about raping a woman is a bit different in scope than lying about a blister.  Roger Clemens is an a-hole athlete, I personally don't like his machismo and egotistical ways as an baseball player.  But the other guy seems to be barely a human being with any sort of morality.

I don't think they're in the same ballpark when it comes to being disgusting human beings.  My gosh, we're talking about steriods here for Clemens, not some sort of high crime against humanity.  But to trust a rapist to get to Clemens just because I personally don't like him as a player is revolting to me as a person.

[KayJay90]

The lie about raping a woman is a bit different in scope than lying about a blister.  Roger Clemens is an a-hole athlete, I personally don't like his machismo and egotistical ways as an baseball player.  But the other guy seems to be barely a human being with any sort of morality.
I don't think they're in the same ballpark when it comes to being disgusting human beings.  My gosh, we're talking about steriods here for Clemens, not some sort of high crime against humanity.  But to trust a rapist to get to Clemens just because I personally don't like him as a player is revolting to me as a person.

Dearie me.  McNamee is a rapist, eh?  Who sez?  There's a AP story in New England media and the  Chron.com datelined TODAY as if it is NEW news -- although, to their credit, not anywhere in NY newspapers online -- that digs up the story about the 2001 "alleged rape" with a rather inflammatory headline: "Police: Clemens' ex-trainer lied during rape investigation".  I don't know about you, but I think that story released today, as it reads below, has Rusty Hardin's fingerprints all over it.

Detectives believed the former New York Yankees trainer who says he injected Roger Clemens with steroids lied to them during the 2001 investigation of a possible rape...Police said Brian McNamee denied having sex with a possibly drugged woman in a hotel pool, even though security guards and other witnesses said they saw him.  [NOTE: "saw him"...not "saw him having sex"]....The state attorney's office, however, decided not to press charges.  Clemens cited the incident as an example of McNamee's dishonesty in a defamation lawsuit filed Sunday in Texas."

However, in ONE New York online newspaper's archives dating back to the day the Mitchell Report was released, there is a REPRINT of an October 14, 2001 story about this same situation.  It reads very differently from the above, and is entitled "McNamee Questioned in '01 Sexual Battery Incident". .  [Note: QUESTIONED.  Not CHARGED.  Not ARRESTED.  Not CONVICTED.]   

...St. Petersburg police said they have questioned him about an Oct. 6 incident where "it looked like he was having sex with a woman" in a hotel swimming pool."  Rick Stelljes, a police spokesman, told The Post the manager saw McNamee and the woman in a sexual position in about 3½ feet of water.   "The manager said it looked like he was having sex with the woman," he said. "That's when the manager questioned McNamee and the woman cried out, 'Help me.'"

Consider the refractive index of 3½ feet of water, from the POV of a person with eyes possibly 7 feet above pool water level, at night, and possibly in near-darkness.  It might have also  "looked like"  McNamee was trying to help the woman, which is what he SAID he was trying to do.   

Obviously the manager thought he (the manager) was the first to be asked for help by the woman...  Evidently the prosecuting attorney thought otherwise, because McNamee was cleared of any wrongdoing in the matter and never charged. 

There's a lot neither you or I know, but I suspect some of it has to do with some unnamed baseball player McNamee took the fall for -- something he's apparently done for people he's admired throughout his various careers.  It's not served him well, obviously, but some people are like that.

Yeah, that Rusty Hardin, he's a wily old fox. 

[Col. Sphinx Drummond]

Consider the refractive index of 3½ feet of water, from the POV of a person with eyes possibly 7 feet above pool water level, at night, and possibly in near-darkness.  It might have also  "looked like"  McNamee was trying to help the woman, which is what he SAID he was trying to do.   

Yes, it's conceivable that McNamee was being a hero, saving the woman under the influence of GHB from the unwanted sexual advances of Charles Wonsowicz.

That's probably why McNamee had no clothes on.

That's probably why McNamee refused to submit a saliva sample for DNA analysis.

That's how heroes do it.



The hero is exposed when
His crimes are brought to the light of day
Won't be feeling sorry, sorry, sorry
On the judgement day

Wasn't it me who said
There'll be a price to pay

And I won't feel bad at all
When the hero takes a fall
When the hero takes a fall
(Hero takes a fall) oh no

Your mother told you stories
You substitute with girls who tell you more
Suddenly your sycophants
Are chanting slogans at your door

We're seeing through you now
I saw it all before

And I won't feel bad at all
When the hero takes a fall
When the hero takes a fall
(Hero takes a fall) oh no

Oh oh, oh oh, oh oh
Oh oh, oh oh, oh oh
Oh oh, oh oh, oh oh oh

Emotion is a virtue
For you it is the one fatal flaw
Sitting on your throne and drinking
Thinking she'll return your call

Every story's got an ending
Look out, here it comes, here it comes

And I won't feel bad at all
When the hero takes a fall
When the hero takes a fall
(Hero takes a fall) oh no

Oh oh, oh oh, oh oh
Oh oh, oh oh, oh oh
Oh oh, oh oh, oh oh oh

[Ty in Tampa]

Mmmm...susanna hoffs.

[Tralfaz]

Mmmm...susanna hoffs.

Chic's with Ric's.  A winning combination.

[Limey]

Mmmm...susanna hoffs.

...live at the House of Blues.

[farmstros]

don't know if this has been posted.  C.J. Nitkowski was interviewed on 1560 the Game this morning(Wednesday).  He has trained with McNamee quite a bit and gives some interesting insights in support of McNamee.  I think it is or will be available on podcast at www.1560thegame.com

[Noe]

Evidently the prosecuting attorney thought otherwise, because McNamee was cleared of any wrongdoing in the matter and never charged.

He was never charged, but hardly "cleared".  The differences in a civil and a felony case is the burden of proof.  Prosecutors make their decisions based on burden of proof, not whether they believe the accused of being innocent (entirely).  The OJ case should have taught you that a long time ago.  OJ was found not guilt in a felony trial of murder.  He was found guilty in a civil lawsuit of violation of another person's rights (by killing them).

So was he "cleared" or not?

Your dislike of Roger Clemens is obvious, to the point that you're willing to allow for anything on the accuser side.  I would think after this is done with, a person could take a long shower to wash away the after effects though.  I just as soon stay a very healthy distance away from the accuser myself.  A person that is by all accounts the type of guy I've known in my lifetime that would take advantage of a woman and feel no remorse about it.  Guys that I stay away from at all cost so I cannot be associated with such pigs.

Scum bags.

[pravata]

He was never charged, but hardly "cleared".  The differences in a civil and a felony case is the burden of proof.  Prosecutors make their decisions based on burden of proof, not whether they believe the accused of being innocent (entirely).  The OJ case should have taught you that a long time ago.  OJ was found not guilt in a felony trial of murder.  He was found guilty in a civil lawsuit of violation of another person's rights (by killing them).

So was he "cleared" or not?

Your dislike of Roger Clemens is obvious, to the point that you're willing to allow for anything on the accuser side.  I would think after this is done with, a person could take a long shower to wash away the after effects though.  I just as soon stay a very healthy distance away from the accuser myself.  A person that is by all accounts the type of guy I've known in my lifetime that would take advantage of a woman and feel no remorse about it.  Guys that I stay away from at all cost so I cannot be associated with such pigs.

Scum bags.

The point that can be made, likely in court along with dozens of publicly available quotes from Clemens about what a great guy "Mac" is, (I think he may have lived in Clemens pool house for a while) is that Clemens knew about this all along.  He did not distance himself at all.  It's not about liking or disliking anybody.  He chose to associate himself with this person for many years.  He can't act all shocked about it now.

[Noe]

The point that can be made, likely in court along with dozens of publicly available quotes from Clemens about what a great "Mac" is, is that Clemens knew about this all along.  He did not distance himself at all.  It's not about liking or disliking anybody.  He chose to associate himself with this person for many years.  He can't act all shocked about it now.

I thought about that and was very comfortable with feeling that Clemens didn't care about the allegations surrounding this creep and thus was in it for himself.  Cool, that is probably very much in line with Clemen's egotistical behavior.  I can deal with that.

But then I read this give and take on the same issue:

Jose,

Regarding your response to Lisa, keeping McNamee as a friend and inviting him to their homes says absolutely nothing negative about Pettitte or Clemens.

Have you ever had a friend or co-worker turn on you? Now can you imagine the pressure of a friend or co-worker under the whithering lights of a federal investigation?

Let's pretend that it did happen and Jose Ortiz was accused of something criminal by a friend/co-worker. Your attorney would dig up any and all unsavory accusations about that friend/co-worker to impugn his/her integrity and trumpet the goodness in your history. It's no different with Clemens and McNamee.

I don't know if Clemens is telling the truth or not. Frankly, I don't care. This accusation frenzy is tabloid fare, and the further the MSM, the Commissioner and Congress continue beating this drum seemingly in effort to absolve their own culpability in the sorry affair the worse it is for the game I love.

It's understood that your job as well as that of Justice, etc. is to sell papers and generate page reads for the Chron website. But it is an unsavory business, I hope, for you all these days and it's my sincere hope that at least one of you will move to the forefront of the call to go beyond "he said, he said" and perjury trap reporting to proposing real solutions for how to move forward.


(The fact is it's hard to rip somebody for something they supposedly did a long time ago yet not have had a problem with it when he supposedly did it. For somebody to say that McNamee was a rapist, as Lisa said, you must wonder why Roger and Andy let this rapist in their house. JJO)

===================

Jose,

No, it's not that hard nor is it uncommon.

If your friend was accused of rape, you'd probably believe your friend and defend him, right? If that friend then turned on you to federal investigators, isn't it likely you would revisit your defense of him against the previous allegation?

Question the merits all you like but this is simple human nature, not just legal posturing.

The fact is I really don't know the extent of the friendship that both Pettitte and Clemens had with this guy.  You do tend to believe your friend when they tell you they didn't do it and then later find out that they did (in this case, they didn't find out that he did commit this crime only that he threw them under the bus at the moment he was cornered).  There may be ample reason now to think that Clemens and Pettitte, like CJ Nitkowski had every reason to believe in their friend but now have reservations like everyone else does about this scum.

Clemens may be defending himself from a huge mistake of believing a friend and if that's the case, then he doesn't deserve to go through the level of hardship he's going through in that particular matter (standing by a friend who turned out to be scum).

[pravata]

...
Clemens may be defending himself from a huge mistake of believing a friend and if that's the case, then he doesn't deserve to go through the level of hardship he's going through in that particular matter (standing by a friend who turned out to be scum).

If that's what it was, I'd have some sympathy.  I think McNamee is a sleaze, and I don't know if Clemens did anything illegal.  But I do know that what's happening now is just calculated legal manuvering. 

[Noe]

If that's what it was, I'd have some sympathy.  I think McNamee is a sleaze, and I don't know if Clemens did anything illegal.  But I do know that what's happening now is just calculated legal manuvering. 

Agreed.  Because it's now beyond two people, it's now up to lawyers and the manuvering therein.  And this is where the truth gets morphed into who sounds more plausible and right.  I can't shake that one side has a rapist (*allegedly*) on their side.

Since this is about the court of public opinion, I'm then sitting in the jury box as such and would firmly cast of vote of "I don't believe this guy can tell the truth, only tell what he needs to tell to save his arse" and that is what it's coming down to now.

[Col. Sphinx Drummond]

Agreed.  Because it's now beyond two people, it's now up to lawyers and the manuvering therein.  And this is where the truth gets morphed into who sounds more plausible and right.  I can't shake that one side has a rapist (*allegedly*) on their side.

Since this is about the court of public opinion, I'm then sitting in the jury box as such and would firmly cast of vote of "I don't believe this guy can tell the truth, only tell what he needs to tell to save his arse" and that is what it's coming down to now.

Can steer this back to Susanna Hoffs?

[pravata]

Agreed.  Because it's now beyond two people, it's now up to lawyers and the manuvering therein.  And this is where the truth gets morphed into who sounds more plausible and right.  I can't shake that one side has a rapist (*allegedly*) on their side.

Since this is about the court of public opinion, I'm then sitting in the jury box as such and would firmly cast of vote of "I don't believe this guy can tell the truth, only tell what he needs to tell to save his arse" and that is what it's coming down to now.

Rusty Hardin would like for you to fill out a juror questionaire.  Hardin isn't saying anything new that the detectives didn't already know since 2001.

[Noe]

Rusty Hardin would like for you to fill out a juror questionaire.  Hardin isn't saying anything new that the detectives didn't already know since 2001.

The media is being used gladly because it's a story.  Well, give them one!  Isn't this what is going on, the tail wagging the dog.  The tail should comply if the dog says it's okay as long as it looks like it's the one in control.

THIS is about the court of public opinion just as much as it is about the legal world.  In such a case, a rapist (allegedly) gets very little quarter.  I would think a smart maneuver would be to use this story over and over again in the public opinion court.  If not, then Clemens isn't getting anything for the money he's spending other than a legal defense and that's probably child's play compared to public opinion swaying.

First things first, feed the hungry media what sells papers/air time: a rapist (*allegedly*) does just that.  What is not lost to me is that what Clemens is accused of is taking a small amount of steriods (from the mouth of the accuser) for a limited time to help him bounce back from ailments and maintain late in a season.  The scale of public favor can swing heavily in favor of Clemens given the level of damnation of both sides.  Clemens has to face the reputation hurt because someone decided it was necessary to have a big fish to add to a report for the oomph factor.  That big fish was given up by a person of some sleezy background it seems. 

Had Clemens just shut up, he'd be living in retirement comfortably by now because it wasn't about taking it this far (as far as the Mitchell Report, MLB and even Congress was concerned).  But no one, I firmly believe, counted on Clemens being the egotistical nutjob that would want to protect his honor in this way.  Against what?  Limited steroid use?  Big deal?  Hell no.  But it does seem to be a big deal for some, including the media who want a story.

Well they got it.  They egged Clemens on to talk (with help from Lance Berkman and Curt Schilling no less) and when he did, all hell has broken loose and now even Congress is involved.  We have rape, third ears, pulling trains with teeth, dogs sleeping with cats.... end of the world, I tells ya... end. of. the. world.

Thanks Gerry.  Never hurts to have a good old fashion hysteria in this country every other week.

[Limey]

Can steer this back to Susanna Hoffs?

Easy

[JimR]

The media is being used gladly because it's a story.  Well, give them one!  Isn't this what is going on, the tail wagging the dog.  The tail should comply if the dog says it's okay as long as it looks like it's the one in control.

THIS is about the court of public opinion just as much as it is about the legal world.  In such a case, a rapist (allegedly) gets very little quarter.  I would think a smart maneuver would be to use this story over and over again in the public opinion court.  If not, then Clemens isn't getting anything for the money he's spending other than a legal defense and that's probably child's play compared to public opinion swaying.

First things first, feed the hungry media what sells papers/air time: a rapist (*allegedly*) does just that.  What is not lost to me is that what Clemens is accused of is taking a small amount of steriods (from the mouth of the accuser) for a limited time to help him bounce back from ailments and maintain late in a season.  The scale of public favor can swing heavily in favor of Clemens given the level of damnation of both sides.  Clemens has to face the reputation hurt because someone decided it was necessary to have a big fish to add to a report for the oomph factor.  That big fish was given up by a person of some sleezy background it seems. 

Had Clemens just shut up, he'd be living in retirement comfortably by now because it wasn't about taking it this far (as far as the Mitchell Report, MLB and even Congress was concerned).  But no one, I firmly believe, counted on Clemens being the egotistical nutjob that would want to protect his honor in this way.  Against what?  Limited steroid use?  Big deal?  Hell no.  But it does seem to be a big deal for some, including the media who want a story.

Well they got it.  They egged Clemens on to talk (with help from Lance Berkman and Curt Schilling no less) and when he did, all hell has broken loose and now even Congress is involved.  We have rape, third ears, pulling trains with teeth, dogs sleeping with cats.... end of the world, I tells ya... end. of. the. world.

Thanks Gerry.  Never hurts to have a good old fashion hysteria in this country every other week.

"...egged Clemens on to talk...." yeah, he certainly always has been reluctant to talk. damn that media. damn those lawyers. poor Roger. all he wanted to do was retire in peace.

[Noe]

"...egged Clemens on to talk...." yeah, he certainly always has been reluctant to talk. damn that media. damn those lawyers. poor Roger. all he wanted to do was retire in peace.

Slience isn't very golden for Clemens

Devil in the details
That's a good idea. Regardless, Clemens hasn't done nearly enough to fight for his reputation. George Mitchell's report on baseball and performance-enhancing drugs contains detail after damning detail on Clemens. Yes, they are from one source — trainer Brian McNamee — but there are names, dates, conversations and illegal substances.

Clemens asked McNamee to inject him with Winstrol, which Clemens supplied. ... McNamee injected Clemens approximately four times in the buttocks over a several-week period. ... Each incident took place in Clemens's apartment at the SkyDome.

— Mitchell Report

(Clemens was 8-6 with a 3.77 ERA around the time McNamee did the injections in 1998. He went 12-0 with a 1.77 ERA the rest of the way.)

If McNamee made it all up, he's one of the great liars of all time. Clemens must address the specifics. In the end, each of us probably will have to decide who we're going to believe.

and

Maybe McNamee made up every last word of it. But Clemens is only giving him credibility with his silence. It's like he's delaying coming up with real answers because he hopes it goes away or he can concoct a dog-ate-my-homework strategy.

His attorney, Rusty Hardin, would like you to know Mitchell's case wouldn't hold up in a court of law. That's irrelevant. Clemens must attempt to win in the court of public opinion.

Clemens fires back at McNamee, critics with high heat

"I made a statement through this man (Hardin) when it first happened. I made a statement through my foundation. That wasn't good enough. And now I'm here doing this. I cannot wait to go into the private sector and hopefully never have to answer it again. I've said enough."

In that press conference, Clemens said he was extremely upset that he was not given the benefit of the doubt from the media, *especially those in his hometown*.  They did call him out and he took the bait.  There is also the supposed call out from Lance Berkman in the Chronicle to Roger Clemens that he has to speak to the allegations, that later got recanted by Berkman in his interview by 1560 KGOW.  Berkman claims he never told the Chronicle that Clemens should talk to clear his name and that he personally believes Roger that he did not use steriods.  Berkman did admit that he told Andy Pettitte to tell the truth about what he knew but never said anything about Clemens needing to do the same.

Curt Schilling never backed away from the call out he made on Clemens and the doubt he now had on the Cy Youngs after his stint in Toronto.

Believe whatever you feel comfortable with.  I just don't think this circus is warranted nor very pleasant to follow, even though Clemens has a part in making it all happen to date.  But I choose not to blame him entirely for it all, just some of it because of his huge ego (which is what I've said from the beginning, his ego won't let him stay quiet like he was advised to do by the union and his advisors from the start.  The media had a better than good chance of making him come out swinging and allow for this circus by calling him out).

"Roger is upset because such a large portion of opinion-makers presume he was guilty in this situation, and you can't argue that hasn't happened," Hardin said. "If you're the person that that presumption was made against, you're not going to be happy.

"And when you're in a room that (has) a fair number of people who have made that conclusion, you might just have a case of you know what. And that's what happened today. That's why I wasn't successful in saying, 'Lighten up.' "

[Arky Vaughan]

Wouldn't McNamee be able to hire lawyers on a contingent basis only for the purposes of litigating a lawsuit filed by McNamee? I don't know of an arrangement for a lawyer to work on a contingent basis when providing general legal advice or legal defense to a client.

[JimR]

Wouldn't McNamee be able to hire lawyers on a contingent basis only for the purposes of litigating a lawsuit filed by McNamee? I don't know of an arrangement for a lawyer to work on a contingent basis when providing general legal advice or legal defense to a client.

sure, and the plan was to sue. as i am sure you know, defense lawyers generally work on an hourly basis. criminal defense attorneys generally get their fees up front.

[Bench]

Wouldn't McNamee be able to hire lawyers on a contingent basis only for the purposes of litigating a lawsuit filed by McNamee? I don't know of an arrangement for a lawyer to work on a contingent basis when providing general legal advice or legal defense to a client.

Counterclaims provide a basis for contingent recovery.

[JimR]

Counterclaims provide a basis for contingent recovery.

yep. he knows that.

[KayJay90]

The media is being used gladly because it's a story.  Well, give them one!  Isn't this what is going on, the tail wagging the dog.  The tail should comply if the dog says it's okay as long as it looks like it's the one in control.

THIS is about the court of public opinion just as much as it is about the legal world.  In such a case, a rapist (allegedly) gets very little quarter.  I would think a smart maneuver would be to use this story over and over again in the public opinion court.  If not, then Clemens isn't getting anything for the money he's spending other than a legal defense and that's probably child's play compared to public opinion swaying.

First things first, feed the hungry media what sells papers/air time: a rapist (*allegedly*) does just that.  What is not lost to me is that what Clemens is accused of is taking a small amount of steriods (from the mouth of the accuser) for a limited time to help him bounce back from ailments and maintain late in a season.  The scale of public favor can swing heavily in favor of Clemens given the level of damnation of both sides.  Clemens has to face the reputation hurt because someone decided it was necessary to have a big fish to add to a report for the oomph factor.  That big fish was given up by a person of some sleezy background it seems. 

Had Clemens just shut up, he'd be living in retirement comfortably by now because it wasn't about taking it this far (as far as the Mitchell Report, MLB and even Congress was concerned).  But no one, I firmly believe, counted on Clemens being the egotistical nutjob that would want to protect his honor in this way.  Against what?  Limited steroid use?  Big deal?  Hell no.  But it does seem to be a big deal for some, including the media who want a story.

Well they got it.  They egged Clemens on to talk (with help from Lance Berkman and Curt Schilling no less) and when he did, all hell has broken loose and now even Congress is involved.  We have rape, third ears, pulling trains with teeth, dogs sleeping with cats.... end of the world, I tells ya... end. of. the. world.

Thanks Gerry.  Never hurts to have a good old fashion hysteria in this country every other week.

I agree with everything you posted here, Noe.

As far as my feelings about McNamee are concerned, he's not the kind of person I would associate with, either, in other words one of any number of sycophants who idolize athletes, actors, politicians, rap stars, singers, etc.   Assuming the guy had any personality weaknesses to start with, associating with people who have enough power to minimize their own personality weaknesses (in this case, a not-very-well-socialized premium pitcher) would only provide him with the cachet (but likely not the CASH) to emulate his idol(s)...thus getting caught in a compromising situation such as the 2001 Florida case.

My problem is that the story was so one-sidedly reported in the Chron.com and in several other online news sources, when there was a more objective report (as in the NY Daily News) available to all.

And as far as my feelings about Roger Clemens are concerned, I started being not impressed with him as a person (despite his obvious plus talents as a pitcher) back in 1990 when I ran into him nearly literally in Spring Training that year (I had a field pass).  And I began being suspicious of his strenuous workout regimen being "enhanced" several years after I was impressed with the barrels-of-rice workouts, when he rebounded in the second half of 1996 after a VERY lackluster first half and two of the previous four years being 30 pounds overweight and riddled with injuries that kept him on the DL and off the field.  Then when I saw some of those millennium-era Yankee and later, Astros pictures that show his head wider than it was long with a hat size that must have been at least 8-1/2 -- for the past 3 years for sure I've felt he and Barry Bonds have a lot in common.

[Noe]

I agree with everything you posted here, Noe.

As far as my feelings about McNamee are concerned, he's not the kind of person I would associate with, either, in other words one of any number of sycophants who idolize athletes, actors, politicians, rap stars, singers, etc.   Assuming the guy had any personality weaknesses to start with, associating with people who have enough power to minimize their own personality weaknesses (in this case, a not-very-well-socialized premium pitcher) would only provide him with the cachet (but likely not the CASH) to emulate his idol(s)...thus getting caught in a compromising situation such as the 2001 Florida case.

My problem is that the story was so one-sidedly reported in the Chron.com and in several other online news sources, when there was a more objective report (as in the NY Daily News) available to all.

And as far as my feelings about Roger Clemens are concerned, I started being not impressed with him as a person (despite his obvious plus talents as a pitcher) back in 1990 when I ran into him nearly literally in Spring Training that year (I had a field pass).  And I began being suspicious of his strenuous workout regimen being "enhanced" several years after I was impressed with the barrels-of-rice workouts, when he rebounded in the second half of 1996 after a VERY lackluster first half and two of the previous four years being 30 pounds overweight and riddled with injuries that kept him on the DL and off the field.  Then when I saw some of those millennium-era Yankee and later, Astros pictures that show his head wider than it was long with a hat size that must have been at least 8-1/2 -- for the past 3 years for sure I've felt he and Barry Bonds have a lot in common.

Cool, you have a very solid frame of reference from which to work from to make your decision as to where you would fall in the court of public opinion.  I am not very comfortable with this McNamee fellow, so whatever foibles Clemens has as a person seem to be dwarfed by Brian McNamee's shortcomings.

Hardin has done well by Clemens in the public opinion, now it's onward and upwards to the legal side of things.  If good old Rusty does as credible of a job in that end, McNamee doesn't stand a chance.

[pravata]

...Hardin has done well by Clemens in the public opinion, now it's onward and upwards to the legal side of things.  If good old Rusty does as credible of a job in that end, McNamee doesn't stand a chance.

McNamee's attorney is more than a match for Hardin.  Also, I've seen the complaint Hardin filed, "thin" doesn't begin to describe it.  Most of the document is a description of Clemen's career.  http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/0107081clemens1.html

And, as if there's not enough trouble,

The congressional hearing involving Roger Clemens, Andy Pettitte and former trainer Brian McNamee was postponed Wednesday until Feb. 13 so lawmakers can gather evidence and coordinate their investigation with the Justice Department.
http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=ap-congress-clemens&prov=ap&type=lgns

Pettitte's newly-hired lawyer Jay Reisinger on Tuesday told 1050 ESPN New York it was "premature" to say if Pettitte will attend the hearings.
http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=txpettitteattorney&prov=st&type=lgns

[Noe]

Counterclaims provide a basis for contingent recovery.

Ed Ward, Brian McNamee's defense lawyer hired Richard Emery before Clemens sued his client.  He was hired a week before Clemens was to appear on 60 minutes.

Trainer's attorney says Clemens should thread lightly

How McNamee can afford Richard D. Emery on a trainer's salary is a question for another time. But he's on board, and the civil liberties lawyer made it clear right away that Clemens and his equally high-priced attorneys better step carefully if they don't want to end up in front of a judge themselves.

Clemens, it turns out, isn't the only one with a reputation to protect.

"He's at the edge of a cliff, and he's going to have to decide whether to back away or jump," Emery said Monday in a telephone interview. "He'll be putting his head in the noose of a profoundly powerful civil case, and could also potentially be putting himself in a very serious perjury situation. If he wants to be that foolhardy, be my guest."

So what if Clemens said nothing on 60 minutes or never submitted a lawsuit against McNamee, does Emery walk away with nothing?  Or does he submit a bill stating he was retained by Ward and he is owed at least a little something for his trouble?  Or was the intent all along to sue Clemens at some point and time?

It keeps pointing back to getting money out of a high profile celebrity to me, but I am entirely naive about this whole process.  I fully admit that.

[Noe]

McNamee's attorney is more than a match for Hardin.

Which one?

Also, I've seen the complaint Hardin filed, "thin" doesn't begin to describe it.  Most of the document is a description of Clemen's career.  http://www.thesmokinggun.com/archive/years/2008/0107081clemens1.html

So Hardin is going to lose legally in your opinion?  He's walking into "a war" with a pop-gun offense and even weaker defense?

And, as if there's not enough trouble,

The congressional hearing involving Roger Clemens, Andy Pettitte and former trainer Brian McNamee was postponed Wednesday until Feb. 13 so lawmakers can gather evidence and coordinate their investigation with the Justice Department.
http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=ap-congress-clemens&prov=ap&type=lgns

How is this trouble?

Pettitte's newly-hired lawyer Jay Reisinger on Tuesday told 1050 ESPN New York it was "premature" to say if Pettitte will attend the hearings.
http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=txpettitteattorney&prov=st&type=lgns

This was Sammy Sosa's lawyer when he appeared before Congress.  So I guess Pettitte can't use the lack of English skills as an excuse, so he's just not going to show up.  It's his right to do so (it's in invitation at this point, no?) unless he's forced to go and I guess at that point he pleads the fifth to protect himself.

[pravata]

Which one?

Emery

So Hardin is going to lose legally in your opinion?  He's walking into "a war" with a pop-gun offense and even weaker defense?

Looks like fluff and filler to me, at this point.  That document is a place holder.  He filed before the Wallace interview, knowing what was coming and sure that the other side was going to file, to get the case in Texas (for now).  His Country Corn Porn Cyber Chicken Lawyer act plays well for the locals.

How is this trouble?

One word, "Justice Department".  At the very least they hang around for a while.

(it's in invitation at this point, no?) unless he's forced to go and I guess at that point he pleads the fifth to protect himself.

There's "invitations" and there's "invitations".  And asserting his right against self incrimination wouldn't improve anybody's mood.

[Noe]

Emery

Agreed.

Looks like fluff and filler to me, at this point.  That document is a place holder.  He filed before the Wallace interview, knowing what was coming and sure that the other side was going to file, to get the case in Texas (for now).  His Country Corn Porn Cyber Chicken Lawyer act plays well for the locals.

In a civil lawsuit in Texas, a high price New York city slicker lawyer has already one, maybe two strikes agin him with a jury.  Defending a rapist is probably strike three. At the very least, I expect Hardin to say "aw shucks... wasn't that a pretty speech, y'all?" to the jury after his opponent talks to them.  Heck, any and all chances he gets.

One word, "Justice Department".  At the very least they hang around for a while.

But would it also work in favor of Clemens to have the Justice Department say "we have no money trail, no documentation, nada... only McNamee's word" to Congress, at which point maybe the congressional hearing is just an invitation to allow Clemens to say his peace once again?  I'm asking because I don't know what eggszactly Congress intends to do... convict someone?  Cart Roger Clemens away in a striped suit to Federal Prison?  What?

There's "invitations" and there's "invitations".  And asserting his right against self incrimination wouldn't improve anybody's mood.

But it's your right as an American, so if he doesn't have the protection that his lawyer is comfortable with, I would be surprised if Pettitte did anything to give this circus any more fodder.  It's about time many of these guys just said "no thanks" to chances to appear before the cameras on this subject.  Unless Congress intends to really investigate federal criminal activity, why would anyone go to meet with them?

[pravata]

Agreed.

In a civil lawsuit in Texas, a high price New York city slicker has already one, maybe two strikes agin him.  Defending a rapist is probably strike three.

But would it also work in favor of Clemens to have the Justice Department say "we have no money trail, no documentation, nada... only McNamee's word" to Congress, at which point maybe the congressional hearing is just an invitation to allow Clemens to say his peace once again?  I'm asking because I don't know what eggszactly Congress intends to do... convict someone?  Cart Roger Clemens away in a striped suit to Federal Prison?  What?

But it's your right as an American, so if he doesn't have the protection that his lawyer is comfortable with, I would be surprised if Pettitte did anything to give this circus any more fodder.  It's about time many of these guys just said "no thanks" to chances to appear before the cameras on this subject.  Unless Congress intends to really investigate federal criminal activity, why would anyone go to meet with them?

Anybody says the word "rapist" in court for this trial, that'd be an immediate mistrial.   That stuff is for the consumption of the potential jury pool.  I don't know what Congress intends.  Nor the Justice Dept.  It can't be good and reputations will suffer. 

[Noe]

Anybody says the word "rapist" in court for this trial, that'd be an immediate mistrial.   That stuff is for the consumption of the potential jury pool.

Right, that's what I implied. 

I don't know what Congress intends.

"Grandstand" is what most are saying.

Nor the Justice Dept.

I would think insofar as the Justice Department, it is to ascertain Federal criminal activity and bring forth justice.  I don't think they're into "grandstanding".  So is this now about convicting Roger Clemens of a federal offense?  Is this the turn it's taken?  I know Barry Bonds has this problem facing him (perjury), so is this about gaining some evidence to convict Clemens of a federal crime?

If so, what Senator Mitchell said has totally lost it's flavor and intent.  He said that federal prosecutors often times go after the drug labs and distributors of drugs, not the users or even guys like McNamee.  They provide them with immunity in return for giving up the distribution outlets.  I would think if what Senator Mitchell said is true, then the Justice Department is looking for the big fish of distribution and manufacturing, not user.  Clemens and McNamee are just conduits to the big fish the Feds want.... no?

It can't be good and reputations will suffer.

And thus why "move on" that Senator Mitchell recommended now rings so hollow and so far away.  Seems everyone wanted a circus and it's here, with as many rings as you'd like.

[Arky Vaughan]

Counterclaims provide a basis for contingent recovery.

True, but I'd be surprised if the caliber of lawyers McNamee has retained are willing to work pro bono up until the point he files his own suit or a counterclaim. It seems like McNamee's getting some representation that would typically require a retainer and hourly fees as opposed to the usual plaintiff's contingency arrangement.

[pravata]

... Seems everyone wanted a circus and it's here, with as many rings as you'd like.

At this point the circus has only one act.  And he has positioned himself at each point to be exactly where he wants to be.  Clemens doesn't sic Rusty's gang on McNamee, there's nothing at this point.  We covered this.  The telling moment for me was at the press conference when Clemens complained that he couldn't be at Gustafson's sons funeral.  The service was at 2, in Austin.  Houston is a 45 minute flight.  He could have easily been back by 6, press conference at 7:00.  Instead, they kept it at 4:00.  He was exactly where he wanted to be on that day. 

[Noe]

At this point the circus has only one act.  And he has positioned himself at each point to be exactly where he wants to be.  Clemens doesn't sic Rusty's gang on McNamee, there's nothing at this point.  We covered this.  The telling moment for me was at the press conference when Clemens complained that he couldn't be at Gustafson's sons funeral.  The service was at 2, in Austin.  Houston is a 45 minute flight.  He could have easily been back by 6, press conference at 7:00.  Instead, they kept it at 4:00.  He was exactly where he wanted to be on that day. 

Clemens is an a-hole of a person, no doubt.  Enough to say he's the one to blame entirely for this show?  I don't think so.  He was quiet after Mitchell's report, offering only Hardin's reply.  The media came after him because he's Roger Clemens and the biggest name on the list.  At that point, anything he did that was not "shut the fuck up and move on" better damn well be calculated.

The tail was invited, nay... absolutely begged to wag the dog.

[Noe]

don't know if this has been posted.  C.J. Nitkowski was interviewed on 1560 the Game this morning(Wednesday).  He has trained with McNamee quite a bit and gives some interesting insights in support of McNamee.  I think it is or will be available on podcast at www.1560thegame.com

It is an interesting interview.  Thanks.

[Bench]

True, but I'd be surprised if the caliber of lawyers McNamee has retained are willing to work pro bono up until the point he files his own suit or a counterclaim. It seems like McNamee's getting some representation that would typically require a retainer and hourly fees as opposed to the usual plaintiff's contingency arrangement.

Heck, I'm just answering questions. If McNamee came to me you can be damned sure I'd require one hell of a retainer to go up against Clemens and Hardin, and I don't know shit.

ETA: There are infinite ways to craft creative compensation arrangements. There's little point in guessing at the arrangement McNamee has with Emery (who is reputed to be an excellent defamation attorney).

[matadorph]

Footer gives her take in an MLB.com video (around the 3 min mark):
http://mlb.mlb.com/media/video.jsp?video=200801072341251

Thank you sir! I watched that three times but I have no idea what she said.

[JimR]

True, but I'd be surprised if the caliber of lawyers McNamee has retained are willing to work pro bono up until the point he files his own suit or a counterclaim. It seems like McNamee's getting some representation that would typically require a retainer and hourly fees as opposed to the usual plaintiff's contingency arrangement.

surprising things happen every day.

[JimR]

yes, you are.

he hired him to fire a shot across DQ's bow before the 60 Minutes interview. he said clearly he would sue if Clemens defamed his client on the program. Hardin sued first to get venue in Texas. pravata explained that already.

[Noe]

[quote author=Noe in Austin link=topic=104718.msg175521#msg175521
  but I am entirely naive about this whole process.  I fully admit that.


yes, you are.

he hired him to fire a shot across DQ's bow before the 60 Minutes interview. he said clearly he would sue if Clemens defamed his client on the program. Hardin sued first to get venue in Texas. pravata explained that already.

Thanks.

So pravata, explain this to me:

Why would McNamee want immunity in his Congressional hearings testimony?  Doesn't he already have immunity from prosecution (federal) as long as he tells the truth?  I don't get why he needs additional immunity from Congress, is it because his civil liberties lawyer (Emery) just knows you cannot go before Congress without the protection you need?  Does McNamee plan to say additional stuff to Congress that may be somewhat contradictory to his federal testimony?  If McNamee is not granted immunity, do you think he'll plead the fifth?

BTW - I'm so glad I'm now the one asking questions of someone else... it's so liberating!

[Froback]

Thanks.

So pravata, explain this to me:

Why would McNamee want immunity in his Congressional hearings testimony?  Doesn't he already have immunity from prosecution (federal) as long as he tells the truth?  I don't get why he needs additional immunity from Congress, is it because his civil liberties lawyer (Emery) just knows you cannot go before Congress without the protection you need?  Does McNamee plan to say additional stuff to Congress that may be somewhat contradictory to his federal testimony?  If McNamee is not granted immunity, do you think he'll plead the fifth?

BTW - I'm so glad I'm now the one asking questions of someone else... it's so liberating!

I am speculating here, but...

McNamee is still in the middle of a federal investigation/case.  As such I think he is not allowed to discuss certain things because of that.  I am guessing he is looking for immunity because of this.  What I mean is he might be asked something by Congress that might get him in trouble with the Federal case he is involved with now.

Just a thought.

[Limey]

Thanks.

So pravata, explain this to me:

Why would McNamee want immunity in his Congressional hearings testimony?  Doesn't he already have immunity from prosecution (federal) as long as he tells the truth?  I don't get why he needs additional immunity from Congress, is it because his civil liberties lawyer (Emery) just knows you cannot go before Congress without the protection you need?  Does McNamee plan to say additional stuff to Congress that may be somewhat contradictory to his federal testimony?  If McNamee is not granted immunity, do you think he'll plead the fifth?

BTW - I'm so glad I'm now the one asking questions of someone else... it's so liberating!

I'm no lawyer, but...

This whole process stinks of perjury trap.  For both McNamee and Clemens.  Obviously, being truthful is the easiest way to avoid such a trap, but you can be damn sure that both camps are very unhappy at the prospect of having to be truthful, on the record, before they can play out their little drama in the press courts.

[pravata]

Some interesting developments here,

Why didn't Clemens press McNamee during the "phone call" to say he lied?  He was coached, that's why,

Hardin said he advised Clemens to be very careful about baiting McNamee. McNamee "is a federal witness now," Hardin said, adding that Clemens had to be careful not to appear to persuade a federal witness or to offer McNamee anything in return for him saying he had lied.
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/writers/david_epstein/01/07/clemens.questions/2.html

About the fee for Emery and Ward, first off, when a lawyer says "This is war." they've pretty much stopped thinking about their billables, and Emery and Ward,

They've worked together off and on for almost 20 years, taking on cases for the New York Civil Liberties Union and then in private practice. Their offices are on the same Rockefeller Center Plaza floor, about 20 feet apart, although they don't work at the same law firm.

"He took my job," jokes Richard Emery, the founding partner of Emery, Celli, Brinckerhoff & Abady, glancing over at solo practicioner Earl Ward. Both were staff attorneys for the NYCLU.

They might even bring in more lawyers

EMERY: We've been focusing on the defamation. Now we have a whole new job ahead of us, to focus on the congressional hearings. It's certainly a specialty in its own right. We're probably going to enlist some help for that.
http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/2008/01/05/2008-01-05_brian_mcnamees_lawyers_set_record_straig-2.html?page=0

on another topic, anybody spot Richard Justice in this crowd?
http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/yankees/2008/01/08/2008-01-08_brian_mcnamee_bitter_over_taping_of_call-4.html

[Limey]

on another topic, anybody spot Richard Justice in this crowd?
http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/yankees/2008/01/08/2008-01-08_brian_mcnamee_bitter_over_taping_of_call-4.html

Three rows back, in the middle, red shirt...maybe.  Or were you being rhetorical or am I being dumb?

[pravata]

Three rows back, in the middle, red shirt...maybe.  Or were you being rhetorical or am I being dumb?

Thanks, I couldnt spot him.

[pravata]

I am speculating here, but...

McNamee is still in the middle of a federal investigation/case.  As such I think he is not allowed to discuss certain things because of that.  I am guessing he is looking for immunity because of this.  What I mean is he might be asked something by Congress that might get him in trouble with the Federal case he is involved with now.

Just a thought.

Along those lines,

Meanwhile, Jeff Novitzky, the federal agent leading the Justice Department’s five-year-old investigation of steroids criminal activity, and Matthew A. Parrella, an assistant United States attorney from California, have scheduled a meeting Thursday in New York with McNamee and his other lawyer, Earl Ward. It will focus on activity that has occurred since the Mitchell report was released, notably Clemens’s denials, Ward said.

Novitzky and Parrella were accused in the Clemens lawsuit of pressuring McNamee to implicate Clemens. Both were already headed to New York for the sentencing Friday of the track star Marion Jones, who pleaded guilty Oct. 5 to lying to federal investigators about steroid use and a check-cashing scheme.

There is no indication that Novitzky and Parrella are now pursuing the Clemens-McNamee contradictions, and perhaps seeking a meeting with Clemens. The Department of Justice seems to be giving that job to Congress.

“We have to be sure Brian is not prosecuted for what he testifies about,” Emery said. “To cross our t’s and dot our i’s, we have to make sure we get the same deal from Congress.”

Hardin, Clemens’s lawyer, said, “I smile at the delicious irony of a man who chides us for not telling the truth but is asking for more immunity.”
http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/10/sports/baseball/09cnd-clemens.html?hp

[Noe]

So let me, Mr. Naive (of course, I'm not kidding, me very stoopid) repeat what I hearing:

McNamee (or his lawyers) are concerned about being asked additional questions about what he knows by Congress that may... *MAY*... cause the federal investigation to be derailed and/or re-visited in terms of what McNamee gave up initially?

Is it something like this:

(Congressman): Mr. McNamee, did you inject Roger Clemens with steriods, specifically XXX (insert chemical name here)?
(McNamee): Yes.
(Congressman): Where did you get XXX?
(McNamee): That was provided by Mr. Clemens.
(Congressman): How was this provided by Mr. Clemens, did he hand you the viles of XXX or provide you the money to purchase the XXX?
(McNamee turns to lawyer, said lawyer whispers in his ear): Sir, I'm afraid I can't answer that.
(Congressman): Why?

Is this what McNamee is afraid of, having to get much more specific than what he's done with the Feds, who by and large did not want McNamee nor Clemens but the lab manufacturers and distributors?  Is McNamee afraid he would have to devuldge how much more deeper he was involved (possibly) with drug distribution?  Or at least be percieved as being much more involved?  I heard CJ Nitkowski say in his interview that the perception that McNamee was deeply involved in distribution is an incorrect preception.  If true and he's nowhere near being a distributor and involved in possible federal racketeering charges (which is something I don't think the Fed investigation in Balco or any other has linked him to RICO or made such a connection), what else can he possibly fear from testifying to Congress?

[pravata]

So let me, Mr. Naive (of course, I'm not kidding, me very stoopid) repeat what I hearing:

McNamee (or his lawyers) are concerned about being asked additional questions about what he knows by Congress that may... *MAY*... cause the federal investigation to be derailed and/or re-visited in terms of what McNamee gave up initially?

Is it something like this:

(Congressman): Mr. McNamee, did you inject Roger Clemens with steriods, specifically XXX (insert chemical name here)?
(McNamee): Yes.
(Congressman): Where did you get XXX?
(McNamee): That was provided by Mr. Clemens.
(Congressman): How was this provided by Mr. Clemens, did he hand you the viles of XXX or provide you the money to purchase the XXX?
(McNamee turns to lawyer, said lawyer whispers in his ear): Sir, I'm afraid I can't answer that.
(Congressman): Why?

Is this what McNamee is afraid of, having to get much more specific than what he's done with the Feds, who by and large did not want McNamee nor Clemens but the lab manufacturers and distributors?  Is McNamee afraid he would have to devuldge how much more deeper he was involve (possibly) with drug distribution?  Or at least be percieved as being much more involved?  I heard CJ Nitkowski say in his interview that the perception that McNamee was deeply involved in distribution is an incorrect preception.  If true and he's nowhere near being a distributor and involved in possible federal racketeering charges (which is something I don't think the Fed investigation in Balco or any other has linked him to RICO or made such a connection), what else can he possibly fear from testifying to Congress?

We don't have enough information.  I don't know what else is going on that [eta] Ward (not Wade) feels he has to cover for.

[Noe]

We don't have enough information.  I don't know what else is going on that [eta] Ward (not Wade) feels he has to cover for.

Knowing that there is a court of public opinion going on concurrently with the legalese, one would think McNamee's lawyers would understand why Hardin would take full advantage of public perception of such flaws (asking of immunity, rape charges, taped conversations).

Reacting as if they've been undermined legally is one thing ("this is war!"), understanding that they have a client who has given the fodder over to the opponent to make the "for public consumption" items low hanging fruit is another.  I guess in the private time, six o'clock cocktail hour, neither Ward nor Emery really believe that Hardin is playing dirty with said fodder.  I'm sure I'm not saying anything Ward/Emery don't know already either, but Hardin is having a field day with the court of public opinion.  And that is with having an a-hole client like Clemens to boot.

Looks like Ward and Emery are more involved in preparing a client for legal issues and not so much for public opinions.  Should they?  Probably not given that McNamee is not a celebrity but a guy who is right up there with the Richard Jewels of our society.  Clemens on the other hand has two things to worry about: reputation (public perception) and legal matters.  Clemens and his attorney are doing what they can to handle both things at the same time.

[pravata]

Knowing that there is a court of public opinion going on concurrently with the legalese, one would think McNamee's lawyers would understand why Hardin would take full advantage of public perception of such flaws (asking of immunity, rape charges, taped conversations).

Reacting as if they've been undermined legally is one thing, understanding that they have a client who has given the fodder over to the opponent to make the "for public consumption" items low hanging fruit is another.  I guess in the private time, six o'clock cocktail hour, neither Ward nor Emery really believe that Hardin is playing dirty with said fodder.  I'm sure I'm not saying anything Ward/Emery don't know already either, but Hardin is having a field day with the court of public opinion.  And that is with having an a-hole client like Clemens to boot.

Meanwhile he has filed suit.  A case which will require a jury.  Pretty soon the judge is going to have to tell him to shut the hell up.  Hardin can grin an caper all he wants for now.  But when this gets into court he has to hope that the groundwork has already been laid to influence a jury because he's not going to be able to pull this in front of the judge. 

[Houston]

Three rows back, in the middle, red shirt...maybe.  Or were you being rhetorical or am I being dumb?

Yes, that's him sitting next to Alyson Footer and probably copying her notes.

[Noe]

Meanwhile he has filed suit.  A case which will require a jury.  Pretty soon the judge is going to have to tell him to shut the hell up.  Hardin can grin an caper all he wants for now.  But when this gets into court he has to hope that the groundwork has already been laid to influence a jury because he's not going to be able to pull this in front of the judge. 

So we have one side where the client faces federal charges of distribution of steriods.  The other side, at minimum libel charges, at maximum perjury (although Emery said that perjury in a civil suit is usually not something that happens).

So given what one side faces in terms of liability over what the other side faces, I can see why the lawyers position their clients in the fashion that they have.  Where Congress fits in all this is kind of strange, but they seem to be saying that they want to pursue the Mitchell Report because they were the ones who asked Selig to have this done in the first place.  The pursuit of the Mitchell Report is to see if they are successful in having the sport clean itself up.

The talk is that when it comes to steroids, the MLB will fare well with it's testing program in place.  When it comes to HGH, the outcome will be different, although it is not the fault of the MLB that no testing mechanism has been contrived to test for and detect HGH.  So Congress will be satisfied and move along that they've done what they set out to do with the MLB and with the request that Senator Mitchell conduct his investigation on said entity.

So:

1. Randomski - will be sentenced for Federal charges of distribution (Feb. 8 )
2. McNamee - will not be charged with distribution, will not be charged with lying to federal investigators but must maintain his stance that he has been honest and forthright with everything he knows in terms of the distribution of steriods and HGH in MLB.
3. Mitchell Report - will have satisfied the requirement put forth on the MLB to investigate where they were and where they are today and where they need to be in the near and far future.
4. Clemens - will fight for his reputation and swear under oath that he was not a recipient of steroids or HGH, opening himself up for federal perjury charges similar to Barry Bonds.  He will also pursue legal action against his accuser that he was a user/recipient of steroids and HGH, even the smallest of quantities that his own accuser said it was.  Said legal action is a civil case where the burden of proof is not "without a reasonable doubt" but more in line with "who do you believe, who is more credible".

So given what is laid out, Radomski is about getting a reduced sentence because he's already pleaded guilty to being a distributor.  McNamee is about avoiding Federal prosecution of the same as Radomski and also avoiding Federal prosecution of lying to investigators just like Marion Jones.  He must also defend himself in a civil lawsuit of defamation.  Clemens is about reputation and civil lawsuits and if he does not pay close attention, federal prosecution if he is found at fault in his Congressional testimony.  So there we have it, what they are facing tells us how and why they are being advised by their attorneys.

Correct?

[pravata]

1. Randomski - will be sentenced for Federal charges of distribution (Feb. 8 )
2. McNamee - will not be charged with distribution, will not be charged with lying to federal investigators but must maintain his stance that he has been honest and forthright with everything he knows in terms of the distribution of steriods and HGH in MLB.
3. Mitchell Report - will have satisfied the requirement put forth on the MLB to investigate where they were and where they are today and where they need to be in the near and far future.
4. Clemens - will fight for his reputation ...

Correct?

I don't think the hearing on the 13th will have an effect on the sentencing on the 8th.  As I read the articles closely, this seems to be the reason the DoJ wanted the hearing moved.  So his testimony wouldnt have any influence on his sentencing.  I don't know everything that's going on with McNamee.  Clemens is facing no punishments, from the legal system or baseball (unless he says something stupid during the hearing) so his issues are completely about reputation.  And since he's said he gives a "rat's ass" about the Hall, reputation at this point equals money.

[Noe]

I don't think the hearing on the 13th will have an effect on the sentencing on the 8th.  As I read the articles closely, this seems to be the reason the DoJ wanted the hearing moved.  So his testimony wouldnt have any influence on his sentencing.  I don't know everything that's going on with McNamee.  Clemens is facing no punishments, from the legal system or baseball (unless he says something stupid during the hearing) so his issues are completely about reputation.  And since he's said he gives a "rat's ass" about the Hall, reputation at this point equals money.

Which goes back full circle where we began:

The Mitchell Report was not intended to indict any players, but the usage of names were necessary for the impact the report could have on Congress that this was a very conclusive investigation of where the league was at one time.  Now look at the league and it's very comprehensive testing and penalty structure.  Without the history you could not appreciate the present and look towards the future with hopes of doing even more.

End of report.

Radomski has his legal problems, McNamee avoided his federal problems by giving up the names he did.  Clemens should have just shut up and moved on.  His denial via Hardin on the day of the report release only led the media to want more.  Calls for Clemens to say more (from the media and fellow players) opened up the side show it's now become.  Clemens has little to lose in terms of penalty because Hardin won't allow him to perjure himself in a federal Congressional investigation.  I'm sure they're prepared to plead the fifth when necessary.  Congress can also go softball on Clemens because who really wants to punish a user?

Nobody, that's who.

A distributor?  Yes.  A manufacturer?  Yes.  A User?  I don't think so.  So Clemens must avoid the perjury trap (Barry Bonds) or lying to investigators rap (Marion Jones) at all cost.  The rest is about handling your business in terms of your reputation and if you believe for a minute he doesn't care about the HOF and his image, you can just put that out of your mind right now.

He cares, all it took was a little push from the media about his credibility and his HOF credentials and *boom*, we got some action here.

[matadorph]

McNamee claims to be broke and have a son who is sick and because of all of that, he just needs to avoid prison.  So it sounds like to me that McNamee is trying to position Clemens into a negotiation.  That being the case, do you think that the lawyers for McNamee are trying to get money (for Mac and themselves) instead of getting the truth out there?

I can't imagine a guy who is supposed to be broke can afford the big time lawyers he has going for him.  So I imagine it's about money, for McNamee's side and that is what will happen, some sort of out of court settlement.  Not the truth, not anywhere near that... it will be the same as the Kobe incident: money makes the accuser go away.

And the problem then becomes who lied?  Roger?  McNamee?  Both?

We will never know if this is about getting money out of Clemens to get McNamee to shut up already and go away.  The problem seems to be that Clemens is hell bent on fighting this instead of just paying off this accuser.  So right now, I have more of a jaded view of McNamee with my healthy reservations of Roger Clemens... but not entirely for doing anything illegal, but because he's egotistical enough to carry this circus to the nth degree.

Noe, as Bench pointed out earlier in the thread, this theory makes no sense. McNamee doesn't have the leverage to force a payoff from Clemens to just shut up and go away, nor could Clemens offer a payoff without committing a crime himself.

You drew a comparison between this case and the Kobe Bryant rape case, but you neglected an obvious difference between Kobe Bryant's accuser and Roger Clemens' accuser: one was an alleged victim whose cooperation was necessary to the state's case against the defendant, whereas the other is an alleged criminal facing the possibility of jail time if he doesn't tell the truth. What McNamee says about Clemens is inconsequential to Clemens' aside from his public reputation because Roger Clemens is in no legal jeopardy whatsoever. Brian McNamee has already been questioned by federal prosecutors, so his ass is in the hot seat. He cannot simply recant what he told those prosecutors without subjecting himself to federal charges.

[Noe]

Noe, as Bench pointed out earlier in the thread, this theory makes no sense. McNamee doesn't have the leverage to force a payoff from Clemens to just shut up and go away, nor could Clemens offer a payoff without committing a crime himself.

You drew a comparison between this case and the Kobe Bryant rape case, but you neglected an obvious difference between Kobe Bryant's accuser and Roger Clemens' accuser: one was an alleged victim whose cooperation was necessary to the state's case against the defendant, whereas the other is an alleged criminal facing the possibility of jail time if he doesn't tell the truth. What McNamee says about Clemens is inconsequential to Clemens' aside from his public reputation because Roger Clemens is in no legal jeopardy whatsoever. Brian McNamee has already been questioned by federal prosecutors, so his ass is in the hot seat. He cannot simply recant what he told those prosecutors without subjecting himself to federal charges.

Sure sounded like he was close to asking for money to shut up in the tape conversation.  But then again, what do I know.  Nothing, nada, zip, zero, zilch.  All I know is that if credibility in a court of public opinion, of which I am one, is important (and it is) then the credibility issues with McNamee are much more plausible at this point and time... regardless how I personally feel about Clemens as a person, McNamee makes him look saint-like with his background.

It carries a lot of weight with me that McNamee is perhaps a person who got away with rape.  Rape.  That doesn't go away easily when you say to yourself "Yeah, but Clemens is an asshole".

Sorry.

[MusicMan]

It carries a lot of weight with me that McNamee is perhaps a person who got away with rape.  Rape.  Doesn't go away easily when you say to yourself "Yeah, but Clemens is an asshole".

Sorry.

There's nothing to be sorry for with that opinion.  However, doesn't it say something that it clearly carried no weight with Clemens that McNamee was perhaps such a person?

[Duman]

There's nothing to be sorry for with that opinion.  However, doesn't it say something that it clearly carried no weight with Clemens that McNamee was perhaps such a person?

That was my wife's take "Doesn't say much for Roger that he would keep him around after that kind of situation".

[Noe]

There's nothing to be sorry for with that opinion.  However, doesn't it say something that it clearly carried no weight with Clemens that McNamee was perhaps such a person?

I had a huge problem with it.  Then I read some give and take on the matter that made it plausible that friendship between the two is beyond just a professional relationship.  If indeed it is a deep friendship, the possibility exist that when McNamee told his friend that he was "trying to save the woman's life", Clemens allowed his feelings for the man to interfere with sound judgement.

Is he guilty perhaps of standing by a friend?  Yeah, I think that is very possible.  Should he now pay for such a decision?  Well, yes he is because some are willing to dismiss the weight of McNamee's alledged rape onto Clemens decision to stand by him (a worse offense?).  One thing that is known amongst those who appreciate Roger Clemens as a friend and teammate is his loyalty.  Clubhouse talk about Clemens may center around his selfishness when he asked for and was granted days off from the team when not pitching.  But by and large, many players stick by him because of his willingness to do whatever he could do to help a buddy or teammate.

Flaw?  Yes, in some ways.  Apparently in this case, perhaps a fatal flaw.

Remember that Andy Pettitte stood by McNamee after the rape accusation as well, and many are calling Pettitte a man of impecable character throughout this affair.  I also listened to CJ Nitkowski's interview about McNamee, again Nitkowski is a man that is of a strong Christian belief and abides by a strong moral code, and the things Nitkowski says about McNamee is in the same vein of loyalty towards a personal friend (and not just a trainer).

[Noe]

That was my wife's take "Doesn't say much for Roger that he would keep him around after that kind of situation".

http://www.orangewhoopass.com/forums/index.php?topic=104718.msg175462#msg175462

Big mistake on Roger Clemens part?  Now it is.  Back then?  50/50 toss up that it wasn't anything more than a friend standing by his friend.  At some point, we're going to have to make our own judgments about things, that's what the court of public opinion is all about.  This one particular item of Clemens standing by McNamee is one I struggled with but found myself believing more and more that a reasonable explanation for it could be had.

[matadorph]

I had a huge problem with it.  Then I read some give and take on the matter that made it plausible that friendship between the two is beyond just a professional relationship.  If indeed it is a deep friendship, the possibility exist that when McNamee told his friend that he was "trying to save the woman's life", Clemens allowed his feelings for the man to interfere with sound judgement...

Respectfully, I think you're getting carried away with psychoanalysis. This as irrelevant as the rape allegations against McNamee--and yes, they are completely irrelevant. McNamee may be a scumbag, but scumbags can be effective, truthful witnesses. What does he have to gain from lying about Clemens' steroid use? Nothing. He told the truth about Pettitte, so why would you be inclined to think he lied about Clemens?

It makes no sense.

[homer]

Respectfully, I think you're getting carried away with psychoanalysis.

Seconded.

When do pitchers and catchers report?

[pravata]

Seconded.

When do pitchers and catchers report?

Valentine's Day.

[Jacksonian]

Seconded.

When do pitchers and catchers report?

35 days from now.  Go time go!

[S.P. Rodriguez]

Respectfully, I think you're getting carried away with psychoanalysis. This as irrelevant as the rape allegations against McNamee--and yes, they are completely irrelevant. McNamee may be a scumbag, but scumbags can be effective, truthful witnesses. What does he have to gain from lying about Clemens' steroid use? Nothing. He told the truth about Pettitte, so why would you be inclined to think he lied about Clemens?

It makes no sense.

I disagree.  You have no idea what information he used to bartar for his immunity.  None of us do.  And I have read articles that this FBI guy out in SF wants Clemens as much as they want Bonds.  Is it all media hoopla?  Probably.  The one opinion I am steadfast in is Clemens does own some responsibility for associating with this guy and therefore getting dragged into this giant cluster-fuck.  How's the saying go "You can judge a man by the company he keeps"?  Yeah, I think that's the one....

[MusicMan]

Seconded.

When do pitchers and catchers report?

One day after pitchers and trainers report to Congress.

[Noe]

Respectfully, I think you're getting carried away with psychoanalysis. This as irrelevant as the rape allegations against McNamee--and yes, they are completely irrelevant. McNamee may be a scumbag, but scumbags can be effective, truthful witnesses. What does he have to gain from lying about Clemens' steroid use? Nothing. He told the truth about Pettitte, so why would you be inclined to think he lied about Clemens?

It makes no sense.

I have tried to carefully step between "court of public opinion" and the legal system.  I guess I have not done a fair enough job 10 pages later.  I will respectfully ask if you've bothered to even read the entire thread and give and take between those I've asked questions to and also my own admission to ignorance and stupidity?

If so, you're just piling on to what I've already said about myself any way.

But again, in the "court of public opinion" and I'm certainly one of the participants, the rape allegation and the opinion of the police matter a whole lot.  See, that is how one draws an opinion!  You're talking about the legal system however, so while I talk oranges (or at least think I am), you come back to me with your bushel of apples.  I like apples like everyone else, but not when it's being crammed down my throat... apologies to Reggie Jackson.

So again, the rape allegation matters a whole bunch... it is not irrelevant and I can see clearly why and how Hardin is using it.  Knowing full well as pravata has kindly and patiently provided for me, that in a court of law it will not be allowed to be introduced *during the trial*, but most certainly can be used at the pre-trial jury selection.

thanks.

[Noe]

One day after pitchers and trainers report to Congress.

Disagree, it's one day after the media turns off the camera lights and goes home.  Everyone else involved in this circus will do the same soon afterwards.  AND THEN we get back to baseball.

[matadorph]

Sure sounded like he was close to asking for money to shut up in the tape conversation.

I didn't get that impression at all, but I can understand why others might have. However, even if he was trying to get paid, why would he do it this way? Let's assume Roger didn't take steroids and McNamee has made the whole thing up. If McNamee is willing to go to jail for Clemens and is solely motivated by money, why lie? Doesn't it make more sense for him to just tell the truth to the federal investigators? If Roger truly didn't do it and McNamee was willing to emphatically defend him and even go to jail for him, wouldn't that be the best way to keep the gravy train going? Wouldn't Roger owe him everything for defending his reputation? The only way your theory makes any sense is if MLB and the feds actively conspired to bring down Roger Clemens. Do you really believe that?

[pravata]

rape allegations...will not be allowed to be introduced *during the trial*, but most certain can be used at the pre-trial jury selection.

thanks.

That wont be in the jury questionaire for Hardin.  What he's trying to do is put these stories out in the general media so that they might be in the back of a potential juror's mind.  Oh yeah, I heard something about that McNamee guy something sleazy.  Can't remember exactly what it was.  McNamee's attorney might come right out and ask.  Have you ever read or heard anything about McNamee being accused of rape?  Yes?  You can go, thank you for your time.

[Bench]

I have tried to carefully step between "court of public opinion" and the legal system.  I guess I have not done a fair enough job 10 pages later.  I will respectfully ask if you've bothered to even read the entire thread and give and take between those I've asked questions to and also my own admission to ignorance and stupidity?

If so, you're just piling on to what I've already said about myself any way.

But again, in the "court of public opinion" and I'm certainly one of the participants, the rape allegation and the opinion of the police matter a whole lot.  See, that is how one draws an opinion!  You're talking about the legal system however, so while I talk oranges (or at least think I am), you come back to me with your bushel of apples.  I like apples like everyone else, but not when it's being crammed down my throat... apologies to Reggie Jackson.

So again, the rape allegation matters a whole bunch... it is not irrelevant and I can see clearly why and how Hardin is using it.  Knowing full well as pravata has kindly and patiently provided for me, that in a court of law it will not be allowed to be introduced *during the trial*, but most certainly can be used at the pre-trial jury selection.

thanks.

I think the rape allegation is irrelevant to the question of "did Clemens use steroids or not?" You can weigh the merits of each person's entire life all you want, but that won't change the answer to that question. Scumbags can be right at times just as Popes can sometimes be wrong.

The reason Hardin is using it is to get the exact reaction he is getting from you.

[Noe]

I disagree.  You have no idea what information he used to bartar for his immunity.  None of us do. 

That seems to be the crux of Clemens' defamation lawsuit.  McNamee gave up the names under the pressure put forth by the feds.  The Feds are now going to meet with McNamee and Ward to ask politely "What the fuck is Clemens saying and why?" in said lawsuit.  The lawsuit by Clemens will live or die (civil case) by how credible his lawyer can make it for the jury that McNamee would cave under Federal pressure... or any sort.  Why? Because he's a man of shaky background and prone to such.

Again, I'm no legal expurt... but that seems clear cut what is the strategy and also in the interim, whilest setting up the offense in the civil case... they get to affect the public perception of Roger Clemens, that wasn't too good several weeks ago.

Or am I wrong on this and wasted 11-12 pages of this thread trying to sort this all out?

[matadorph]

I think the rape allegation is irrelevant to the question of "did Clemens use steroids or not?" You can weigh the merits of each person's entire life all you want, but that won't change the answer to that question. Scumbags can be right at times just as Popes can sometimes be wrong.

The reason Hardin is using it is to get the exact reaction he is getting from you.

Well said, counselor.

McNamee's moral turpitude may be an issue in the court of public opinion, but it's effectively rebutted by Pettitte's corroboration. With regards to McNamee's credibility, the rape allegation is far less significant than Andy's admission of guilt.

[Noe]

I didn't get that impression at all, but I can understand why others might have.

Thanks, so I'm not entirely out of line then?

However, even if he was trying to get paid, why would he do it this way? Let's assume Roger didn't take steroids and McNamee has made the whole thing up. If McNamee is willing to go to jail for Clemens and is solely motivated by money, why lie? Doesn't it make more sense for him to just tell the truth to the federal investigators? If Roger truly didn't do it and McNamee was willing to emphatically defend him and even go to jail for him, wouldn't that be the best way to keep the gravy train going? Wouldn't Roger owe him everything for defending his reputation? The only way your theory makes any sense is if MLB and the feds actively conspired to bring down Roger Clemens. Do you really believe that?

No.  They were not after the "user".  They were after the distributors and manufacturers.  If a Federal investigation turns up nothing but users, the case would be one that brought back a whole bunch of nothing.  Senator Mitchell (goodness, I thought we went over this already!) said that a Federal prosecutor bargains with users in order to get to the distributor and manufacturer.  McNamee's lawyers said that they warned McNamee that he faced a very real chance of being put on the "distributor" column by the Feds if he did not cooperate (like Radmonski).

So McNamee talked.

So in light of that, he gave up people close to him that came out and said "yes, he's telling the truth... but only twice" (Pettitte).  The one guy that he gave up that was the biggest fish of them all in terms of users was Roger Clemens.  Why?  To help his cause in immunity?  I dunno, that's what Hardin claims.  But later on, when Clemens made remarks that it was not true, the talk of defamation and civil lawsuits came into play and both side prepared for it.

Money is now the name of the game in terms of what will have to happen in the civil case.  The problem is that the Federal case is now wide open again because Congress and the Feds are now back in play.  Oh-oh... or as pravata told "Nothing good comes from that (when Congress decides to investigate)".  ESPN's legal analyst (Munson?) said the same thing.

What I've been saying is that Hardin has handled the court of public opinion well.  He has to worry about the civil case next (legal) and now prepare for a much more intense Federal case than just having a camera lights affair in Washington with a bunch of congressmen.  So how will Clemens and McNamee prepare for that new item?  I dunno, neither did pravata... it's wait and see now.  But prior to this, sure seemed to me that McNamee was making overtures of being bought out so he can go away (in the civil matter).

But then again, I am the worse person to ask about this... I'm ignorant.

[Noe]

That wont be in the jury questionaire for Hardin.  What he's trying to do is put these stories out in the general media so that they might be in the back of a potential juror's mind.  Oh yeah, I heard something about that McNamee guy something sleazy.  Can't remember exactly what it was.  McNamee's attorney might come right out and ask.  Have you ever read or heard anything about McNamee being accused of rape?  Yes?  You can go, thank you for your time.

Cool, thanks for the clarification on the strategy.

[Noe]

I think the rape allegation is irrelevant to the question of "did Clemens use steroids or not?" You can weigh the merits of each person's entire life all you want, but that won't change the answer to that question. Scumbags can be right at times just as Popes can sometimes be wrong.

The reason Hardin is using it is to get the exact reaction he is getting from you.

GOOD LORD!!!! How many times do I have to repeat the same thing over and over again... what you said is exactly what I said... it's about getting the public opinion on Clemens side.  And when it comes to me, I find it hard to fall into the side of a rapist (*alledgedly*) as being the most truthful in any matter.

It's my *OPINION*.  Are some of you just ignoring what I actually say and instead go with what you think I am saying?

[Noe]

Well said, counselor.

McNamee's moral turpitude may be an issue in the court of public opinion

IT'S WHAT I SAID!  *sigh*

but it's effectively rebutted by Pettitte's corroboration. With regards to McNamee's credibility, the rape allegation is far less significant than Andy's admission of guilt.

I'm sure the legal system will play itself out and why I asked many questions of people here.  Instead, I was not given the benefit of the doubt that I really don't know squat about legality and that is why I was asking questions in that regard.  What seems to be going on is that I am ascribed having a profound legal opinion on this matter... and I DON'T!

Seriously folks, I'm a nobody with an opinion just like everyone else in this matter.  And McNamee is just a bad fellow to align with in my not so humble opinions.  Opinions about legality I will leave to others with experience and know how... pardon me for asking questions for my own clarification sake.

[Bench]

IT'S WHAT I SAID!  *sigh*

I'm sure the legal system will play itself out and why I asked many questions of people here.  Instead, I was not given the benefit of the doubt that I really don't know squat about legality and that is why I was asking questions in that regard.  What seems to be going on is that I am ascribed having a profound legal opinion on this matter... and I DON'T!

Seriously folks, I'm a nobody with an opinion just like everyone else in this matter.  And McNamee is just a bad fellow to align with in my not so humble opinions.  Opinions about legality I will leave to others with experience and know how... pardon me for asking questions for my own clarification sake.

For the sake of clarity, let me state that I'm confining this comment to the "court of public opinion."

I just don't see it as "aligning" oneself with one or the other. This isn't a matter of picking a popularity contest or winning a beauty pageant. The correct inquiry should be "who is telling the truth" and to determine that it helps to ask "why would McNamee be more likely to lie or to tell the truth in this instance." Saying he probably raped someone several years ago (and I agree with Noe in my court of public opinion verdict that he probably did) has little bearing to me on the instant issue and is more of a red herring than anything else.

If McNamee recants, he loses his immunity and faces jail time. I don't think namedropping Clemens individually is what got him his immunity. Obviously, Rusty wants us to believe he dropped Clemens name because it would take a "big fish" to get him his immunity. The fact that he's rapist does not make him more or less likely to take that course of action. It just makes him someone I really don't like, and am not "aligning" myself with at all. It has little bearing to me on evaluating what motivated each party's course of action. As Anna Nicole famously said, "screw you Rusty." It's an irrelevant, albeit likely true, smear.

[Limey]

I think the rape allegation is irrelevant to the question of "did Clemens use steroids or not?" You can weigh the merits of each person's entire life all you want, but that won't change the answer to that question. Scumbags can be right at times just as Popes can sometimes be wrong.

The reason Hardin is using it is to get the exact reaction he is getting from you.

Isn't the point that McNamee is a douche who aided athletes in their cheating?  If he was an angel, he would know shit about shit about what the Rockitte did.

[JimR]

Seconded.

thirded.

[Bench]

Isn't the point that McNamee is a douche who aided athletes in their cheating?  If he was an angel, he would know shit about shit about what the Rockitte did.

Exactly. If you've ever sat through the voir dire of a criminal trial involving accomplice/informant/co-conspirator testimony you would hear "Now, you do realize that criminals spend time with other criminals, right? And that to find out what one criminal has done, often the only other person who sees it is another criminal, right? Now we'd love to have the Pope come in here and tell you all that he saw that person commit the crime, but the Pope just doesn't hang out with criminals like that -- other criminals do. Understand? So, accepting the fact that we have to make do with the best evidence we can get, and that often is the testimony of other people who have done bad things because they are the ones hanging out with people who commit crimes, who here would be unwilling to accept as true what someone who might not be a good person says about this defendant, just because that witness has done some bad things himself? Anyone? Be honest now, because none of us likes taking the word of someone who has committed bad deeds, it's just that it's often necessary in cases like this because that's the only person with knowledge. Anyone?"

[Noe]

For the sake of clarity, let me state that I'm confining this comment to the "court of public opinion."

I just don't see it as "aligning" oneself with one or the other. This isn't a matter of picking a popularity contest or winning a beauty pageant. The correct inquiry should be "who is telling the truth" and to determine that it helps to ask "why would McNamee be more likely to lie or to tell the truth in this instance." Saying he probably raped someone several years ago (and I agree with Noe in my court of public opinion verdict that he probably did) has little bearing to me on the instant issue and is more of a red herring than anything else.

[court of public opinion jury room, me and bench sitting next to each other and discussing this]

And we can disagree.  There is nothing wrong with that.  It has a bearing with me personally in the shaping of my opinion on believability.  Two people can have differing opinions in the court of public opinion, it's allowed.

If the only person in the entire world who says "Roger Clemens took steroids" is a person who commits a rape, I got a big problem with that person's character.  It will be hard for me to listen to that person after that.  If, however, said person who commits a rape said "Here is a voided check, some photos, a video, the name of the person who was in the room at the time, an apartment manager who walked in on us, a cleaning lady...", then I can leave the rape to the side and say that I can at the very least listen to what the guy has to say.

Is that going to happen and if so, why has it not happen yet?  Remember, its at best a "he said, he said" proposition and if it's a rapist on one side, it's just going to be hard for me to listen.

[jury room discussion can continue or we can move on]

[JimR]

Exactly. If you've ever sat through the voir dire of a criminal trial involving accomplice/informant/co-conspirator testimony you would hear "Now, you do realize that criminals spend time with other criminals, right? And that to find out what one criminal has done, often the only other person who sees it is another criminal, right? Now we'd love to have the Pope come in here and tell you all that he saw that person commit the crime, but the Pope just doesn't hang out with criminals like that -- other criminals do. Understand? So, accepting the fact that we have to make do with the best evidence we can get, and that often is the testimony of other people who have done bad things because they are the ones hanging out with people who commit crimes, who here would be unwilling to accept as true what someone who might not be a good person says about this defendant, just because that witness has done some bad things himself? Anyone? Be honest now, because none of us likes taking the word of someone who has committed bad deeds, it's just that it's often necessary in cases like this because that's the only person with knowledge. Anyone?"

this is the very excellent point that Noe seems to not understand or accept. informants are rarely nice people, and that is why they are valuable to law enforcement and grand juries.

[Noe]

this is the very excellent point that Noe seems to not understand or accept. informants are rarely nice people, and that is why they are valuable to law enforcement and grand juries.

Like Sammy the Bull Gravano?  I understand, but if Sammy the Bull was not backed up by police surveillance tapes, how quickly do you think a prosecutor would put forth a prosecution of the accused with only the testimony of Sammy the Bull?

Don't you need.... ahum... evidence?

Isn't that the best way to keep from having your star witness discredited?

Wasn't the star witness in the Duke LaCrosse rape case the victim and the prosecutor went full steam ahead with said witness who turned out to be very unreliable and caused all sorts of problems for the prosecutor?  Didn't he get reprimanded or disbarred because of it?  Didn't he just have the victim as his evidence and that was it?

I'm asking because I don't understand.

[matadorph]

Like Sammy the Bull Gravano?  I understand, but if Sammy the Bull was not backed up by police surveillance tapes, how quickly do you think a prosecutor would put forth a prosecution of the accused with only the testimony of Sammy the Bull?

Don't you need.... ahum... evidence?

Isn't that the best way to keep from having your star witness discredited?

I'm asking because I don't understand.

His testimony IS evidence! You need to corroborate his credibility, which Pettitte has provided.

[EasTexAstro]

Don't you need.... ahum... evidence?

Sir Bedevere: What makes you think she's a witch?
Peasant 3: Well, she turned me into a newt!
Sir Bedevere: A newt?
Peasant 3: [meekly after a long pause] ... I got better.

[JimR]

Like Sammy the Bull Gravano?  I understand, but if Sammy the Bull was not backed up by police surveillance tapes, how quickly do you think a prosecutor would put forth a prosecution of the accused with only the testimony of Sammy the Bull?

Don't you need.... ahum... evidence?

Isn't that the best way to keep from having your star witness discredited?

I'm asking because I don't understand.

what the informant says IS evidence. then one tries to find more evidence corroborating his testimony, such as dramatic change in body size, fits of rage and admissions by best buddy/training partner.

i think you understand. you're not dumb.

[Noe]

His testimony IS evidence! You need to corroborate his credibility, which Pettitte has provided.

Difference is that Pettitte has said he told the truth in his case (only twice, no more... sorry, it was experimentation if you will, not a profound dive into the world of steroids).  No word if Pettitte is willing to say he was in the room in Toronto when Clemens was getting it in the arse by McNamee (I know, went for the cheap humor there, sorry).

So again, in my opinion in the court of public opinion, a "he said, he said" playing out for me has some heavy credibility issues when one side has a rapist involved (alledgedly).  Pettitte comes out tomorrow and says "I saw Roger Clemens getting shot up with Wistrol", then everything changes.

[Noe]

what the informant says IS evidence. then one tries to find more evidence corroborating his testimony, such as dramatic change in body size, fits of rage and admissions by best buddy/training partner.

i think you understand. you're not dumb.

I saw voided checks in the Mitchell report.  I saw other things to corroborate Radomski and McNamee's claims.  I saw nothing other than what McNamee *said* about Clemens.  I was willing to go with that until he turns out to be a very shaky fellow.  Is it too much to ask from me that perhaps they need more than just McNamee's word as evidence that Clemens is guilty?  I'm serious, am I just asking for more because I'm uncomfortable with this fellow right now and would like to see a voided check?  Can Emery and Ward do something like that for me in this court of public opinion?

In my chair as a juror in the court of public opinion, I got a problem with McNamee.  Dumb as I am.  Rape is not easily dismissed.  But it can be set aside with some corroborating evidence because just believing McNamee alone is hard for me to do right now.  Sure can make things easier with some hard evidence.

[Noe]

Sir Bedevere: What makes you think she's a witch?
Peasant 3: Well, she turned me into a newt!
Sir Bedevere: A newt?
Peasant 3: [meekly after a long pause] ... I got better.

Funny thing is, a witch hunt does not require much evidence, just hysteria.

[Jacksonian]

Difference is that Pettitte has said he told the truth in his case.  No word if Pettitte is willing to say he was in the room in Toronto when Clemens was getting in the arse by McNamee (I know, went for the cheap humor there, sorry).

So again, in my opinion in the court of public opinion, a "he said, he said" playing out for me has some heavy credibility issues when one side has a rapist involved (alledgedly).  Pettitte comes out tomorrow and says "I saw Roger Clemens getting shot up with Wistrol", then everything changes.

Because Pettitte said McNamee was telling the truth about him, I'm more likely to believe McNamee is telling the truth about Clemens.

[EasTexAstro]

Funny thing is, a witch hunt does not require much evidence, just hysteria.

Can a witch hunt == court of public opinion? Hysteria?

[MusicMan]

Because Pettitte said McNamee was telling the truth about him, I'm more likely to believe McNamee is telling the truth about Clemens.

Bingo.  Pettitte came out and confirmed EXACTLY what McNamee said.  If McNamee had Pettitte on the HGH, and was just making up things to appease the prosecutors, then why wouldn't he just stick to PEttitte?

[Noe]

Because Pettitte said McNamee was telling the truth about him, I'm more likely to believe McNamee is telling the truth about Clemens.

That's perfectly fine.  I can't get passed McNamee's rape (as I've said all along).  I need more.

[matadorph]

But prior to this, sure seemed to me that McNamee was making overtures of being bought out so he can go away (in the civil matter).

This is where you're losing me. Por supuesto, soy muy estupido, so maybe I'm missing something that's staring me right in the face.

I just don't get how this would work. Are you saying that McNamee concocted a scheme to falsely implicate Clemens with the expectation that Clemens would file suit, only to then pay off McNamee in the settlement process? I don't get it. Why would a totally innocent plaintiff pay off a defendant who lied about him and ruined his reputation?

[Noe]

Bingo.  Pettitte came out and confirmed EXACTLY what McNamee said.  If McNamee had Pettitte on the HGH, and was just making up things to appease the prosecutors, then why wouldn't he just stick to PEttitte?

Hardin's lawsuit claims that the aggressive investigator (Novitzki?) asked for Clemens.  Plausible?  It's up to the person to decide if there is plausibility that Clemens name was dropped for McNamee to give up, after he denied that Clemens did anything wrong (again, according to McNamee's interview with the Clemens and Pettitte investigators).  I'm not quite sure what the interview said exactly, but I think it was something near "It was like an interogation".  So now Novitzki and another investigator are going to visit with Mr. McNamee to make sure they understand exactly what it was he said on that tape to the Clemens investigators.

Of course, McNamee now claims he didn't say that and would like to have that tape given to him and his lawyers to review *prior* to the Congressional hearing.  He may need it to prepare for said hearings.  Hardin is refusing to give up the tape until his client is deposed by the Congressional investigators.

So is it plausible for me to believe that McNamee gave up Clemens because *he was asked to give him up*?   Until I get more in terms of real evidence, it's sounding more and more plausible.  I don't want to go with McNamee's word alone unless he is sworn under oath before Congress and then we'll see what sort of story comes out.  Both by Clemens and McNamee.

Right now?  I have my doubts and McNamee's character is what is causing said doubts.  I cannot, at this time, fall squarely into a comfort zone that Clemens is guilty as charged (in my court of public opinion).  It bothers me that I have to believe McNamee 100% to do so *right now*.

[Noe]

Can a witch hunt == court of public opinion? Hysteria?

Yes.  I feel like I'm in an Ox-Bow Incident right now and I'm not sure what I'm defending any more... if anything!

[Noe]

This is where you're losing me. Por supuesto, soy muy estupido, so maybe I'm missing something that's staring me right in the face.

I just don't get how this would work. Are you saying that McNamee concocted a scheme to falsely implicate Clemens with the expectation that Clemens would file suit, only to then pay off McNamee in the settlement process? I don't get it. Why would a totally innocent plaintiff pay off a defendant who lied about him and ruined his reputation?

What I'm saying is pretty simple actually.  I believe that the civil action will be settled out of court to make it go away.  But no one counted on a Federal/Congressional defense happening and this is a whole new ballgame.  It's why I engaged my friend pravata to help me out so I can understand.  I think McNamee may of thought his fight was with Clemens only and it was limited to defamation and the telephone conversaton kind of eluded to a settlement to make it all better.  Clemens may of thought the Congressional hearing was going to be a side show with cameras so the "wrestler can come in and do his show" (Emery has a great sense of humor, he's really good for paraphrasing), that originally that had very little relevence to the real fight in civil court.  Pravata informed me that all of Hardin's manueverings to date was for a venue change or better still, for the civil fight to happen right here in Texas.

And then the two would square off and it's who you believe at that point... unless McNamee was going to provide a out of court settlement of some sort or wanted to.  I'm not quite sure any more.

Turns out it's not a simple matter of making a civil matter go away.  It's Federal now baby!

[pravata]

His testimony IS evidence! You need to corroborate his credibility, which Pettitte has provided.

Right, and the only thing we've heard about so far that has the chance to descredit McNamee is the little chit chat McNamee had with Hardin's operatives right before the Mitchell report came out.  Hardin is keeping that close, but Congress is going to be able to hear that. The phone call stunt that Hardin tried to pull gave him nothing he can use in court.  Which is why we heard it.  Nothing else we've heard is going to be admissable.

[Jacksonian]

That's perfectly fine.  I can't get passed McNamee's rape (as I've said all along).  I need more.

It sounds like there is some personal piece to this for you that you haven't explained.  If so, please don't.

[pravata]

Bingo.  Pettitte came out and confirmed EXACTLY what McNamee said.  If McNamee had Pettitte on the HGH, and was just making up things to appease the prosecutors, then why wouldn't he just stick to PEttitte?

Far more important to this case is that Pettitte's corraboration will be admissable in court.  Even if he did not watch McNamee give Clemens any shots it speaks directly to McNamee's credibility on this subject.  The rape allegation, dismissed by the police, (and even if he had been convicted) is not admissable and will likely get Hardin admonished if he even mentions it.

[Noe]

It sounds like there is some personal piece to this for you that you haven't explained.  If so, please don't.

Rape?  Personal?  Oh come on!  I'm a human being and rape is no little thing!  I don't like Clemens, but if you ask me to take the word of a rapist (alledgedly) to convict him in my own mind, you're asking a lot out of me.

[Noe]

Right, and the only thing we've heard about so far that has the chance to descredit McNamee is the little chit chat McNamee had with Hardin's operatives right before the Mitchell report came out.

Yup, the Feds are visiting with McNamee and Ward right now to ask what exactly did McNamee tell those operatives because if he said anything near to what Hardin claims "It was an interrogation!", there can be some 'splaining to do to Congress.

Hardin is keeping that close, but Congress is going to be able to hear that.

Yup, Hardin said he would give it up only after Clemens is deposed and not sooner.

The phone call stunt that Hardin tried to pull gave him nothing he can use in court.  Which is why we heard it.  Nothing else we've heard is going to be admissable.

(okay, notice here folks, I'm going to the court of public opinion now... m'kay)

And it made those listening wonder about McNamee, some perhaps for the first time in this affair.

[Noe]

Far more important to this case is that Pettitte's corraboration will be admissable in court.  Even if he did not watch McNamee give Clemens any shots it speaks directly to McNamee's credibility on this subject.  The rape allegation, dismissed by the police, (and even if he had been convicted) is not admissable and will likely get Hardin admonished if he even mentions it.

Interesting.  Can Hardin produce character witnesses from McNamee's police days that maybe speak to a pathological liar?  (again, I'm asking because shouldn't that be his counter move?)

BTW, can CJ Nitkowski be asked to testify?  He provides a wonderful character witness for McNamee as well.

[pravata]

Yup, the Feds are visiting with McNamee and Ward right now to ask what exactly did McNamee tell those operatives because if he said anything near to what Hardin claims "It was an interrogation!", there can be some 'splaining to do to Congress.

Yup, Hardin said he would give it up only after Clemens is deposed and not sooner.

(okay, notice here folks, I'm going to the court of public opinion now... m'kay)

And it made those listening wonder about McNamee, some perhaps for the first time in this affair.

Okay, this two track discussion is getting confusing.  The court of public opinion is a fickle thing and Rusty Hardin can only affect that incrementally.   It's not what he's getting paid for once he filed that paper at the Harris County Courthouse. More to his purpose, and his job, right now, is that by digging up and putting this type of information in the press he is trying to influence the pool of people likely to be called to jury duty.  He wont be able to pull these stunts in the courtroom so he's doing it now.   Also, Congress, (3rd track, note that McNamee's lawyer suggested they'd need some whole nother set of lawyers for that) of itself, has no power to punish Roger Clemens at all.  Unless he gets caught in a lie.

[pravata]

Interesting.  Can Hardin produce character witnesses from McNamee's police days that maybe speak to a pathological liar?  (again, I'm asking because shouldn't that be his counter move?)

BTW, can CJ Nitkowski be asked to testify?  He provides a wonderful character witness for McNamee as well.

Yes to the police days.  In fact McNamee may call some of those people too.  From what I read he was a great cop.  And yes to Nitkowski as well.  Also, I'd expect to see a foam core board on an easel with numerous quotes from Roger Clemens about McNamee's character as exhibit A.

[matadorph]

Interesting.  Can Hardin produce character witnesses from McNamee's police days that maybe speak to a pathological liar?  (again, I'm asking because shouldn't that be his counter move?)

BTW, can CJ Nitkowski be asked to testify?  He provides a wonder character witness for McNamee as well.

The court would first have to determine that the impeaching witness is qualified to testify about McNamee's general reputation, but McNamee would have the right to cross-examine that witness about how s/he knows McNamee and what that person's judgment is based on before the witness could answer any of Hardin's questions about McNamee's reputation. Um, I think.

[Noe]

Okay, this two track discussion is getting confusing.  The court of public opinion is a fickle thing and Rusty Hardin can only affect that incrementally.   It's not what he's getting paid for once he filed that paper at the Harris County Courthouse.

At the presser, Hardin said something to the effect of having to do all this stuff to feed the hungry opinion-makers.  So I not so sure he is not about getting some of the public opinion back on Clemens camp for at least a little more than slanted all the way towards the other side.

More to his purpose, and his job, right now, is that by digging up and putting this type of information in the press he is trying to influence the pool of people likely to be called to jury duty.  He wont be able to pull these stunts in the courtrooms so he's doing it now.

Understood.

Also, Congress, (3rd track, note that McNamee's lawyer suggested they'd need some whole nother set of lawyers for that) of itself, has no power to punish Roger Clemens at all. 

Isn't lying to Congress a punishable offense? (Okay, nevermind you answered it already)  I hear Clemens is not going to ask for immunity, so why would he even need immunity if he can't get punished?  Also, McNamee wants immunity... is that because his testimony will be punishable and thus by whom?  If he seeks immunity from Congress, then isn't only against Congressional punishment that he can be safe from?  Didn't the Feds say that if McNamee were to change his story and later recant that Clemens did nothing, he was going to jail?  Can Congress protect him from that?

[Noe]

Yes to the police days.  In fact McNamee may call some of those people too.  From what I read he was a great cop.  And yes to Nitkowski as well.  Also, I'd expect to see a foam core board on an easel with numerous quotes from Roger Clemens about McNamee's character as exhibit A.

But the fact remains that Hardin can dig up folks who can say that McNamee is a pathological liar and that would be a counter-move to McNamee being seen as a very reliable and truthful defendant?  Isn't this a civil case and as such what Hardin has to do is discredit McNamee in some fashion?  I guess McNamee is the defendant in this case, no? (Clemens filed first).  So does that give Hardin some leeway to prove that the defendant has some character issues that causes him/her to defame such a person as Clemens?  Do you believe Hardin won't go after McNamee's character?  Can Hardin portray Roger Clemens as a duped friend that was taken in by the Swengali McNamee (or is that not a good idea)?

Just asking, because this is not a criminal case, it's a civil and I'm sure this will be covered by Roger Cosack at some given time, but may as well ask you now... eh?

[Noe]

The court would first have to determine that the impeaching witness is qualified to testify about McNamee's general reputation, but McNamee would have the right to cross-examine that witness about how s/he knows McNamee and what that person's judgment is based on before the witness could answer any of Hardin's questions about McNamee's reputation. Um, I think.

Does the fact that McNamee is the defendant and not the plantiff have any bearing on who can testify?

[matadorph]

Does the fact that McNamee is the defendant and not the plantiff have any bearing on who can testify?

No, the credibility of any witness can be attacked by either party, including the party calling the witness. FYI I am not a lawyer, I just play one on the interwebs. I have a copy of O'Connor's Texas Rules sitting next to me. I cribbed it from the book.

[Noe]

No, the credibility of any witness can be attacked by either party, including the party calling the witness. FYI I am not a lawyer, I just play one on the interwebs. I have a copy of O'Connor's Texas Rules sitting next to me. I cribbed it from the book.

For not being a lawyer, you're doing well.  I don't even pretend to know any of this stuff.  I know me and what standards I hold true to and McNamee right now does not pass the smell test.  Doesn't mean he's lying, doesn't mean he's telling the truth.

It means, personally, I can't believe him yet until I hear more in the coming days.  Right now, the rape case has me locked in to not believing him.  The tape had me a little concerned that money was an issue as well.

[Noe]

No, the credibility of any witness can be attacked by either party, including the party calling the witness. FYI I am not a lawyer, I just play one on the interwebs. I have a copy of O'Connor's Texas Rules sitting next to me. I cribbed it from the book.

BTW - do you think Hardin will pass up any opportunity to discredit McNamee in the civil case?  Isn't a civil case all about who is more believable in the eyes of a jury?  In a criminal case, the burden of proof is "without a doubt" but in a civil case it's who do you believe more... correct?

So this civil case will boil down to what Emery can do to discredit Roger Clemens perhaps in the eyes of fellow Texans and prop up his guy McNamee as a very credible and reliable person.  Hardin, it seems to me is going to go after McNamee within the boundaries of the law, but still, he'll go after him as perhaps a manipulator and cheat and liar... no? 

Is this what's going to happen?

We haven't even begun to talk about the very real chance that Emery will counter sue and move that to New York... correct?

[matadorph]

For not being a lawyer, you're doing well.  I don't even pretend to know any of this stuff.

Thanks, but don't be fooled by the pretense. I don't know jack shit compared to the law dudes on the board.

I do know this, however. The same evidentiary rules apply to DQ that apply to McNamee. Clemens is no rapist, but he is a gigantic bag of dicks who has some credibility issues himself. I'd love to hear him take the stand and face cross-examination. Judging from what we saw this week, he'd make a poor witness at trial.

[matadorph]

BTW - do you think Hardin will pass up any opportunity to discredit McNamee in the civil case?  Isn't a civil case all about who is more believable in the eyes of a jury?  In a criminal case, the burden of proof is "without a doubt" but in a civil case it's who do you believe more... correct?

Oh, definitely. Hardin will attack him mercilessly. And the burden of proof is "by a preponderance of the evidence."

So this civil case will boil down to what Emery can do to discredit Roger Clemens perhaps in the eyes of fellow Texans and prop up his guy McNamee as a very credible and reliable person.  Hardin, it seems to me is going to go after McNamee within the boundaries of the law, but still, he'll go after him as perhaps a manipulator and cheat and liar... no? 

Dingdingding.

Is this what's going to happen?

We haven't even begun to talk about the very real chance that Emery will counter sue and move that to New York... correct?

That seems like a very strong possibility. As Jim and pravata already pointed out, venue is a key battle in this little war.

[Noe]

Thanks, but don't be fooled by the pretense. I don't know jack shit compared to the law dudes on the board.

I do know this, however. The same evidentiary rules apply to DQ that apply to McNamee. Clemens is no rapist, but he is a gigantic bag of dicks who has some credibility issues himself. I'd love to hear him take the stand and face cross-examination. Judging from what we saw this week, he'd make a poor witness at trial.

Of course, it's who do you believe and both sides will do their best to discredit the other side's defendant/plantiff.  Because this will play out in Texas (if Hardin has his way), does Clemens get some leeway with potential jurors?  I'm just wondering out loud, but we know some of the things that can point to Roger Clemens being a "dick" thanks to KayJay.  Since he is a very public figure, he also has a whole set of PR stuff in his closet that can be carted out and presented to the jury, you know his foundation work, the stuff he's done with charities, helping fellow ballplayers... or is that not allowed?

McNamee is an unknown right now and to take down a Clemens in his home state will require some pristine clean stuff on his side as well.  I guess he can do what pravata said may happen and trot out a whole slew of cops who worked with him and they can attest to his good guy-ness.

This should be fun.

[Bench]

We haven't even begun to talk about the very real chance that Emery will counter sue and move that to New York... correct?

I'd be very surprised if this got transferred to New York. First, Emery would probably have to remove it to Federal court (which he'll probably do as a matter of course; Federal court is better for defendants, especially when you have a rich influential local plaintiff), and then file a motion to transfer venue for the convenience of the parties and the interests of justice, which in this type of case is a harder sell than usual. He can't just sue Clemens in NY based upon the same issues, he has to bring such a claim in this current litigation, which is why Clemens' rush to the courthouse before the 60 minutes interview aired matters so much in the posture of the case.

As far as evidentiary matters, defamation as a cause of action necessarily invokes the plaintiff's reputation. When truth is the defense, the defendant's credibility is very much at the center of the debate. Have no doubt that Rusty will try his damndest to shoehorn McNamee's rape history under the rubrick of a reputation for honesty. Emery will equally strain himself to exclude all mention of that incident on the grounds that it is unduly prejudicial, a position which I think this very conversation shows has great merit.

[Noe]

I'd be very surprised if this got transferred to New York. First, Emery would probably have to remove it to Federal court (which he'll probably do as a matter of course; Federal court is better for defendants, especially when you have a rich influential local plaintiff), and then file a motion to transfer venue for the convenience of the parties and the interests of justice, which in this type of case is a harder sell than usual. He can't just sue Clemens in NY based upon the same issues, he has to bring such a claim in this current litigation, which is why Clemens' rush to the courthouse before the 60 minutes interview aired matters so much in the posture of the case.

As far as evidentiary matters, defamation as a cause of action necessarily invokes the plaintiff's reputation. When truth is the defense, the defendant's credibility is very much at the center of the debate. Have no doubt that Rusty will try his damndest to shoehorn McNamee's rape history under the rubrick of a reputation for honesty. Emery will equally strain himself to exclude all mention of that incident on the grounds that it is unduly prejudicial, a position which I think this very conversation shows has great merit.

Thanks bench, that was very informative and well laid out.  I agree that introducing the rape history in some way will cause prejudicial emotion in a jury.

[KayJay90]

Yes to the police days.  In fact McNamee may call some of those people too.  From what I read he was a great cop.  And yes to Nitkowski as well.  Also, I'd expect to see a foam core board on an easel with numerous quotes from Roger Clemens about McNamee's character as exhibit A.

[caveat: I'm not squarely on anyone's side in the Clemens vs. McNamee situation, I'm just trying to dig out everything that helps make our viewpoints balanced ones]

Noe, you should read this November 14, 2006 article by SI.com's Jon Heyman, particularly the captions under the pictures on Page 2 & 3.  One is of Roger Clemens working out with McNamee in February 2006; the other is of Andy Pettitte and Roger Clemens, captioned, "[they] came to McNamee's defense after the L.A. Times story broke in October [2006]"

Also, on Page 1 there is a couple of paragraphs relating to McNamee saying he "is not involved in steroids".  Possibly meaning, "at this point in time I am not involved in steroids [=in late 2006]"?   A word play, perhaps.     And perhaps in 2006 he still was taking the hit for his buddies, just like he did when he was a cop, and like he MAY have done in that hotel pool when the Yankees were partying around on their last road trip of the season.

He said, "No one's concerned about Brian McNamee [he must have picked up the 3rd-person referral to himself from some of those more famous and egotistical people he hung around with] or how it affects my life.  They just want to use me to get to them [Clemens and Pettitte].  And I'm the one getting hit by the bus.  I got hit, and I'm still standing there.  And the bus has kept going."    Seems to me late 2006 would have been the time to go to Roger Clemens and ask for that payoff people think he's angling for now, long before the Mitchell Report was even commissioned or the Feds cornered McNamee. 

As of the November 14, 2006 story, "his professorship at St. John's University, has been suspended and some of the deals he was working on with fitness facilities and nutritional companies dried up.   A couple clients even backed away."      Not either Roger Clemens or Andy Pettitte.  They both spoke up for Brian McNamee in the wake of the Grimsley affidavit 2 years ago.

Rick Down, the Yankee hitting coach in 2002 (same capacity for the Red Sox in 2001), who's known McNamee for years, "recalls that McNamee 'took the hit' for that "alleged rape case" that's been dragged out of the past by Rusty Hardin.  Yet, Noe, you point to the statement by the Florida investigative officer as damning to McNamee in that very case.   One of McNamee's own partners in the NY Police Dept. said, "he's probably the best police officer I've ever been around," and "he was probably loyal to a fault".    Do you think Down is protecting McNamee?

I would agree that some of the other statements McNamee made as reported in that article are definitely at odds with what's now reported he did.   

However, I can see -- if he's such a loyal person to his peers and those he admires -- that at some point in time he might agree to inject Clemens, Pettite, and maybe others if they seemed determined about trying PEDs.   It's conceivable he thought it'd be safer under the supervision of someone who cared about the players rather than them getting clandestine injections from some other player (Canseco?) or some non-baseball-insider person -- since it was certain they wouldn't be getting injections via prescription or from the team doctor or any other MD/DO.  I can also see that as a reason the chiropractor and the sports psychologist Randy Hardin dug up never saw Clemens and steroids in the same room.

For all that, at some point in time, I can see why McNamee might lie for them.

And at a later point in time, when threatened with jail if he lied again, I can see why he might cave, and give them up to the Feds.

[Noe]

[caveat: I'm not squarely on anyone's side in the Clemens vs. McNamee situation, I'm just trying to dig out everything that helps make our viewpoints balanced ones]

Noe, you should read this November 14, 2006 article by SI.com's Jon Heyman, particularly the captions under the pictures on Page 2 & 3.  One is of Roger Clemens working out with McNamee in February 2006; the other is of Andy Pettitte and Roger Clemens, captioned, "[they] came to McNamee's defense after the L.A. Times story broke in October [2006]"

Also, on Page 1 there is a couple of paragraphs relating to McNamee saying he "is not involved in steroids".  Possibly meaning, "at this point in time I am not involved in steroids [=in late 2006]"?   A word play, perhaps.     And perhaps in 2006 he still was taking the hit for his buddies, just like he did when he was a cop, and like he MAY have done in that hotel pool when the Yankees were partying around on their last road trip of the season.

He said, "No one's concerned about Brian McNamee [he must have picked up the 3rd-person referral to himself from some of those more famous and egotistical people he hung around with] or how it affects my life.  They just want to use me to get to them [Clemens and Pettitte].  And I'm the one getting hit by the bus.  I got hit, and I'm still standing there.  And the bus has kept going."    Seems to me late 2006 would have been the time to go to Roger Clemens and ask for that payoff people think he's angling for now, long before the Mitchell Report was even commissioned or the Feds cornered McNamee. 

As of the November 14, 2006 story, "his professorship at St. John's University, has been suspended and some of the deals he was working on with fitness facilities and nutritional companies dried up.   A couple clients even backed away."      Not either Roger Clemens or Andy Pettitte.  They both spoke up for Brian McNamee in the wake of the Grimsley affidavit 2 years ago.

Rick Down, the Yankee hitting coach in 2002 (same capacity for the Red Sox in 2001), who's known McNamee for years, "recalls that McNamee 'took the hit' for that "alleged rape case" that's been dragged out of the past by Rusty Hardin.  Yet, Noe, you point to the statement by the Florida investigative officer as damning to McNamee in that very case.   One of McNamee's own partners in the NY Police Dept. said, "he's probably the best police officer I've ever been around," and "he was probably loyal to a fault".    Do you think Down is protecting McNamee?

I would agree that some of the other statements McNamee made as reported in that article are definitely at odds with what's now reported he did.   

However, I can see -- if he's such a loyal person to his peers and those he admires -- that at some point in time he might agree to inject Clemens, Pettite, and maybe others if they seemed determined about trying PEDs.   It's conceivable he thought it'd be safer under the supervision of someone who cared about the players rather than them getting clandestine injections from some other player (Canseco?) or some non-baseball-insider person -- since it was certain they wouldn't be getting injections via prescription or from the team doctor or any other MD/DO.  I can also see that as a reason the chiropractor and the sports psychologist Randy Hardin dug up never saw Clemens and steroids in the same room.

For all that, at some point in time, I can see why McNamee might lie for them.

And at a later point in time, when threatened with jail if he lied again, I can see why he might cave, and give them up to the Feds.

I read everything you posted but for the life of me I don't understand any of the points you're trying to make.  You have to be more clearer for me because I don't catch on too quickly what you're trying to say.  Is it that McNamee is a good guy?  That he is a friend of Pettitte and Clemens?  That many people befriend him (see: Nitkowski, CJ) and think highly of him?  That Rusty Hardin is going to have a damn hard time finding someone who dislikes McNamee?  That in your opinion Hardin won't go after McNamee and his credibility in the civil lawsuit because it will be useless for him to do that?  That the LA Times story had in some way exonerated McNamee or perhaps erroneous in the eyes of Pettitte and Clemens?  That Brian McNamee is Mother Theresa in sweat pants? What?

Yes, I know that guys like McNamee pretty much as a friend, but...

I also know that a police detective report filed in St. Petersburg provided some pretty damning *evidence* to go along with said detectives opinion on McNamee's involvement in rape, including a refusal to give DNA evidence on the part of McNamee.  I think Rick Down is standing up for a friend and it's as admiralable as when Pettitte and Clemens did it and how Nitkowski is doing now (we've really, really, really been through all this already).  If you want to *clearly* say he's not guilty of rape, just say so and be done with it.  It's okay by me that you have that opinion of McNamee, it doesn't hurt my feelings.  It is also okay that you dislike Roger Clemens so much, that doesn't hurt my feelings either.

I have a totally different opinion of McNamee right now and will probably need some evidence to help me overcome the low opinion of McNamee and believe what he's saying about Clemens.  Just McNamee's word alone as the evidence is shaky because I find him to be a shady character (PHd and all).

[matadorph]

Chuck Knoblauch speaks...

“I have nothing to defend,” Knoblauch said. “I have nothing to hide at the same time.”

[Noe]

And McNamee meets with the feds again...

While McNamee's lawyer Earl Ward wouldn't comment on what was said during the meeting with Assistant U.S. Attorney Matthew Parrella and federal agent Jeff Novitzky, another person familiar with the case said he believed the agents discussed McNamee's 17-minute phone call last Friday night to Roger Clemens, who the trainer says he injected with steroids and human growth hormone.

McNamee repeatedly asks Clemens, who played the taped call in a press conference Monday, "What to you want me to do, what do you want me to do?" - a question that might be interpreted as McNamee offering to change his story.

"He's hurting himself as a witness when he makes that call," said the source, who asked not to be named. "The prosecutors would want to know the genesis of the call, why he made it. The more statements he makes like that, the more likely they'll become inconsistent. I'm sure they told him they're not happy with that call."

Finally, Emery explains why he's seeking immunity from the Congress...

Richard Emery, another McNamee attorney, said he continued to talk to the committee’s lawyers yesterday to get immunity for his client. McNamee has received protection from prosecution from the U.S. Attorney in San Francisco as long as he doesn’t lie, but he could conceivably be prosecuted in New York for steroid trafficking, depending on what he says to Congress. That is a highly unlikely scenario, however, according to one lawyer, and Clemens' lawyer has said he is not seeking immunity for his client.

So Emery claims that New York can prosecute McNamee for steroid trafficking because he received immunity in California.  Does that sound right to you?  The article says that according to one lawyer, it highly unlikely scenario.

Interesting and at least Emery is now explaining why they are seeking immunity.

[matadorph]

That article also says that McNamee is doing what many defendants do--ducking the process server. This is important because the Texas court can't gain jurisdiction over McNamee until he is properly served.

Question for the board attys: Is this just a matter of Ward making it as difficult as possible for Clemens' lawsuit to go forward, or is there a  clever legal strategy behind the maneuver? Would this be helpful to a motion challenging the Texas forum? Or is it just a matter of Ward buying time to get his shit together to file a removal motion and get the case into a federal court in New York?

[JimR]

That article also says that McNamee is doing what many defendants do--ducking the process server. This is important because the Texas court can't gain jurisdiction over McNamee until he is properly served.

Question for the board attys: Is this just a matter of Ward making it as difficult as possible for Clemens' lawsuit to go forward, or is there a  clever legal strategy behind the maneuver? Would this be helpful to a motion challenging the Texas forum? Or is it just a matter of Ward buying time to get his shit together to file a removal motion and get the case into a federal court in New York?

one does not need to buy time to remove a case, but i have no idea re stategy. no defendant wants to be served. it starts clocks ticking.

removal is merely a matter of forms.

[Bench]

one does not need to buy time to remove a case, but i have no idea re stategy. no defendant wants to be served. it starts clocks ticking.

removal is merely a matter of forms.

Just to expand on that, the clock started when McNamee got served with the suit. He has a 30 day window to remove it to Federal court in Houston. If he misses that window, he loses his right to removal.

This case can be removed at any time during that window, it could have been done the day after he got served. Clemens is a Texas resident, McNamee a New York resident (I assume NY, but it applies if he is a resident of any state other than Texas). Therefore federal diversity jurisdiction is conferred on this suit and it is removeable. All he has to do is serve the notice of removal and pay the federal filing fee.

ETA: I see now from the discussion above that he likely hasn't yet been served. The 30 days start ticking upon service of process.

[Bench]

And McNamee meets with the feds again...

Finally, Emery explains why he's seeking immunity from the Congress...

So Emery claims that New York can prosecute McNamee for steroid trafficking because he received immunity in California.  Does that sound right to you?  The article says that according to one lawyer, it highly unlikely scenario.

Interesting and at least Emery is now explaining why they are seeking immunity.

The U.S. Attorney in California can only confer immunity for his own jurisdiction, he can't speak for any other U.S. attorney's district or any state jurisdiction. While it may be unlikely that the NY feds would go after him for the same conduct he's been granted immunity for in California, it is very prudent for McNamee to get as much protection as possible. It sure would be frustrating for him and his attorneys to go through all this only to have some other politically appointed prosecutor looking to make a splash in this high profile issue who has some jurisdictional hook to go after him.

[Noe]

The U.S. Attorney in California can only confer immunity for his own jurisdiction, he can't speak for any other U.S. attorney's district or any state jurisdiction. While it may be unlikely that the NY feds would go after him for the same conduct he's been granted immunity for in California, it is very prudent for McNamee to get as much protection as possible. It sure would be frustrating for him and his attorneys to go through all this only to have some other politically appointed prosecutor looking to make a splash in this high profile issue who has some jurisdictional hook to go after him.

This is why it makes sense to ask for immunity from Congress, even though on the surface it was reported he already had immunity by the Feds.  This is a case of the lawyers doing well by their client and getting the expansion of his immunity in place because of jurisdiction.

[pravata]

That article also says that McNamee is doing what many defendants do--ducking the process server. This is important because the Texas court can't gain jurisdiction over McNamee until he is properly served.

Question for the board attys: Is this just a matter of Ward making it as difficult as possible for Clemens' lawsuit to go forward, or is there a  clever legal strategy behind the maneuver? Would this be helpful to a motion challenging the Texas forum? Or is it just a matter of Ward buying time to get his shit together to file a removal motion and get the case into a federal court in New York?

"Nobody is avoiding service. That is an absolute fabrication," Emery said. "If he has a stupid, incompetent process server, that doesn't mean that Brian is avoiding service."
http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news;_ylt=AgdLkQT33yWxUSt0mWvieXcRvLYF?slug=ap-clemens-steroids&prov=ap&type=lgns

[KayJay90]

I read everything you posted but for the life of me I don't understand any of the points you're trying to make.  You have to be more clearer for me because I don't catch on too quickly what you're trying to say.  Is it that McNamee is a good guy?  That he is a friend of Pettitte and Clemens?  That many people befriend him (see: Nitkowski, CJ) and think highly of him?  That Rusty Hardin is going to have a damn hard time finding someone who dislikes McNamee?  That in your opinion Hardin won't go after McNamee and his credibility in the civil lawsuit because it will be useless for him to do that?  That the LA Times story had in some way exonerated McNamee or perhaps erroneous in the eyes of Pettitte and Clemens?  That Brian McNamee is Mother Theresa in sweat pants? What?

Yes, I know that guys like McNamee pretty much as a friend, but...

I also know that a police detective report filed in St. Petersburg provided some pretty damning *evidence* to go along with said detectives opinion on McNamee's involvement in rape, including a refusal to give DNA evidence on the part of McNamee.  I think Rick Down is standing up for a friend and it's as admiralable as when Pettitte and Clemens did it and how Nitkowski is doing now (we've really, really, really been through all this already).  If you want to *clearly* say he's not guilty of rape, just say so and be done with it.  It's okay by me that you have that opinion of McNamee, it doesn't hurt my feelings.  It is also okay that you dislike Roger Clemens so much, that doesn't hurt my feelings either.

I have a totally different opinion of McNamee right now and will probably need some evidence to help me overcome the low opinion of McNamee and believe what he's saying about Clemens.  Just McNamee's word alone as the evidence is shaky because I find him to be a shady character (PHd and all).

I guess the point I was trying to make is, for me this whole thing isn't a black-or-white matter regarding either McNamee or Clemens (he's a rapist/he's not a rapist; he's a liar/he's not a liar; he's a PEDs user/he's never used PEDs; he doesn't give a rat's ass about the HOF/the HOF has been his ultimate goal since 1984; etc.).   I'll certainly concede there's about a 5% chance in my mind that Clemens is totally clean on PEDs and has always been.   

Mike and Mike In the Morning (see podcast from 1/8/08) had an interesting suggestion about how to deal with MLB's past in PEDs, and what to do about it going forward, as far as considering the best players for the  HOF for the span of time from Canseco's confessed first usage back in the '80s, to approximately 2003.    Either ignore the fact that the PEDs existed, and vote them in -- Bonds, Clemens, McGwire, etc. -- or vote NO ONE in for that agreed-upon span of time.  This picking and choosing who "deserves" induction for the PEDs Era is just a crock.

[Astroholic]

So people like Biggio will not be voted in?  Asinine.

[KayJay90]

So people like Biggio will not be voted in?  Asinine.

Of course it's asinine.  Biggio certainly isn't the only guy -- who's never been suspected/implicated of using PEDs -- who will be affected by this furor.

But remember, Craig Biggio is one of many, MANY members of the MLBPA who went along with the majority (or who may have been part of the majority) who agreed to keep silent about how widespread PED use was in MLB.

Certainly if he didn't speak up, THAT'S not a reason to keep him out of the HOF.  But being part of the "silent majority" who agreed to toe the line set by their MLBPA union leaders doesn't make Biggio more special than anyone else 1) who might be considered for the HOF in these times, and 2) who was not implicated with PEDs in any way.

----------------------------

BTW, I've made comments similar to this on Yankee message boards regarding Pettitte, Clemens, Sheffield, Giambi, etc.   Of course I'm not favorably looked on for making these comments because it's obvious I'm not a Yankee fan, and I don't march in lockstep supporting guys wearing their team's uniform.

I like the Astros significantly more than I do the Yankees, but I'm also not a diehard Astro fan.

I'm a baseball fan, and I'd like to see MLB clean its house of PED use, I'd like to see MLB ownership, MLB leadership and MLBPA leadership sanctioned for their "see no evil, hear no evil, speak no evil" purposeful ignorance of PED use, and I'd like to see some kind of penalty meted out to the players who used.

Since all of those entities have made it impossible to know who used and who didn't for most of the PED era,  it's a case of 1) ignore the effects of PEDs and "just move on" -- which doesn't discourage future use of well-masked PED use;  2) punish the guys who got caught or who were stupid enough to leave evidence (as ones named in the MR) -- which affects more minor leaguers, fringe players and journeymen than it does the premium users; or 3) withhold "rewards".

It just boggles my mind that the vast majority of MLB players knew all these years why they were undergoing testing, yet didn't speak up against PEDs, they just complained about BEING TESTED. 

[Noe]

Hysteria brings out the worse in people.  Even good people.

[homer]

Clemens' agent gets defensive in Web report

Hendricks' report, which includes 38 charts, in some ways resembles a salary arbitration case. One of the charts shows Clemens' ERA was lower than the league average in all but two of his 23 major league seasons. The report also compares variations in Clemens' career with those of Randy Johnson, Curt Schilling and Nolan Ryan, and maintains slumps often can be correlated with injuries.

[Limey]

Clemens' agent gets defensive in Web report

Hendricks' report, which includes 38 charts, in some ways resembles a salary arbitration case. One of the charts shows Clemens' ERA was lower than the league average in all but two of his 23 major league seasons. The report also compares variations in Clemens' career with those of Randy Johnson, Curt Schilling and Nolan Ryan, and maintains slumps often can be correlated with injuries.

It is a tale, told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.
 - Macbeth

[Col. Sphinx Drummond]

And you, my father, all you've done for the game we play,
Curse, bless me now with your fierce tears, I pray.
Do not go gentle into that good night.
Rage, rage against the dying of the light.

 - Koby Clemens channeling Dylan Thomas

[Houston]

Clemens' agent gets defensive in Web report

Hendricks' report, which includes 38 charts, in some ways resembles a salary arbitration case. One of the charts shows Clemens' ERA was lower than the league average in all but two of his 23 major league seasons. The report also compares variations in Clemens' career with those of Randy Johnson, Curt Schilling and Nolan Ryan, and maintains slumps often can be correlated with injuries.

But with Clemens, any time he has an off game, it's because of an "injury," especially in the post season.

[Taras Bulba]

Clemens' agent gets defensive in Web report

Hendricks' report, which includes 38 charts, in some ways resembles a salary arbitration case. One of the charts shows Clemens' ERA was lower than the league average in all but two of his 23 major league seasons. The report also compares variations in Clemens' career with those of Randy Johnson, Curt Schilling and Nolan Ryan, and maintains slumps often can be correlated with injuries.

"Custer was a fool and he rode to his death."

Sitting Bull

[homer]

"Custer was a fool and he rode to his death."

Sitting Bull

"Custer was a pussy."

Sergeant Major Plumley

[homer]

Clemens' agent gets defensive in Web report

Hendricks' report, which includes 38 charts, in some ways resembles a salary arbitration case. One of the charts shows Clemens' ERA was lower than the league average in all but two of his 23 major league seasons. The report also compares variations in Clemens' career with those of Randy Johnson, Curt Schilling and Nolan Ryan, and maintains slumps often can be correlated with injuries.

Penn professors say Clemens report based on "selection bias"

[toddthebod]

Penn professors say Clemens report based on "selection bias"

Go Quakers!!!