The LoHud Yankees Blog

A New York Yankees blog by Chad Jennings and the staff of The Journal News


Clemens “vehemently denies” charges

Posted by: Peter Abraham - Posted in Misc on Dec 13, 2007 Print This Post Print This Post | Email This Post Email This Post

Roger Clemens had attorney Rusty Hardin issue this statement:

Clemens Denies Claims in Mitchell Report
False Accusation Comes from Troubled Witness Under Threat of Criminal Prosecution

(Houston, TX) – December 13, 2007 – Roger Clemens vehemently denies allegations in the Mitchell report that he used performance-enhancing steroids, and is outraged that his name is included in the report based on the uncorroborated allegations of a troubled man threatened with federal criminal prosecution. “Roger has been repeatedly tested for these substances and he has never tested positive. There has never been one shred of tangible evidence that he ever used these substances and yet he is being slandered today,” said Clemens attorney Rusty Hardin.

“The use of steroids in sports is a serious problem, it is wrong and it should be stopped,” Hardin said. “However, I am extremely upset that Roger’s name was in this report based on the allegations of a troubled and unreliable witness who only came up with names after being threatened with possible prison time.”

Brian McNamee, a former trainer who worked with Clemens on the Toronto Blue Jays and the New York Yankees, has repeatedly denied these current claims, including in June of this year when he was first contacted by federal investigators. According to McNamee, after a day of repeated denials to federal investigators, he changed his story under the threat of federal criminal prosecution. He says he was then forced by those federal prosecutorial authorities to tell the same story for inclusion in the Mitchell report.

“I am at a total loss to understand how it is proper for federal prosecutorial authorities to use the threat of criminal prosecution to help in a private business investigation,” Hardin said.

“I have great respect for Senator Mitchell. I think an overall look at this problem in baseball was an excellent idea. But I respectfully suggest it is very unfair to include Roger’s name in this report. He is left with no meaningful way to combat what he strongly contends are totally false allegations. He has not been charged with anything, he will not be charged with anything and yet he is being tried in the court of public opinion with no recourse. That is totally wrong.”

Comments

comments

 

Advertisement

74 Responses to “Clemens “vehemently denies” charges”

  1. cupaJOBA December 13th, 2007 at 6:15 pm

    I’m sure every other player accused will follow suit.. except Grimsley and Lo Docu who have receipts, checks and pretty much used needles photocopied in the report.

  2. mel December 13th, 2007 at 6:15 pm

    Where is this Mr. McNamee now?

  3. Mehdi the Arsenal fan December 13th, 2007 at 6:16 pm

    first

  4. Ethan December 13th, 2007 at 6:16 pm

    The statement doesn’t mention suing Mitchell for slander. If he really believes it was slander and is telling the truth, he could at least consider suing to clear his name.

  5. Ryan December 13th, 2007 at 6:17 pm

    “Rusty Hardin”

    heh heh

  6. SJ44 December 13th, 2007 at 6:17 pm

    Mitchell can’t be sued. He is indemnified from legal action by MLB.

  7. kd December 13th, 2007 at 6:19 pm

    I agree with the last paragraph, there is absolutely nothing a player can do. Roger will defend himself tooth and nail, this is a very tough situation

  8. Jaewon December 13th, 2007 at 6:19 pm

    What a mess. In my mind Clemens definitely did it though. I don’t think we’re gonna have to worry about Clemens saying “I’m 90% going to retire… I signed with the Yankees/Astros.” That was getting old. :)

  9. ryanloghry December 13th, 2007 at 6:20 pm

    I can’t believe it.

  10. Willard December 13th, 2007 at 6:20 pm

    Mel :

    Brian McNamee was spotted with Kirk Radomski trying the get over the Triboro Bridge. Both had large blocks of cheese and rodent costumes.

  11. Motown Yankees Fan December 13th, 2007 at 6:22 pm

    SJ44 – I’m confused about this statement: “Mitchell can’t be sued. He is indemnified from legal action by MLB.”

    Isn’t it more correct to state that Mitchell will not be on the hook monetarily for any liability by virtue of an indemnification from MLB and that therefore if Roger sues, MLB would pay damages that Mitchell would otherwise be liable for?

  12. Chicago Dave December 13th, 2007 at 6:22 pm

    Just took a break at work to catch up on all the comments posted today. All I can say is, “What the heck ever happened to that great idea Pete once had about registration?!”. I’ve never seen so many moronic trolls bust out of the woodwork as I have seen today. So ready to seek out the names of anyone who ever had even a cup of coffee in a Yankee uniform and then call the Yankees “cheaters” who “stole” their championships.

    Well, just look at the list. I don’t see anyone of consequence other than Andy, Roger and Giambi (I’m not counting Knoblauch…Lord knows he never amounted to anything in a Yankee uniform!). Mostly it’s nobodies or extreme fringe players who contributed absolutely nothing to the Yanks’ success, nor were they with the team for anything more than a season (if even that long). Most of these guys (including Roger and Giambi) also started using ‘roids before the played for the Yanks.

    Nevermind the fact that the report itself rests mainly on the testimony of two flunkies trying to save their own skin, or that it was authored by a man with clear ties to the Red Sox. Why didn’t he ask Canseco about his time with the Sox? Gee, I wonder?! Let’s see, he did his darndest to find anyone that ever had anything to do with the Yankees, but barely lifted a finger to do the same with the Sox. Such biased, unsubstantiated crap! This report should be tossed in the trash like a copy of the National Enquirer.

  13. Vince December 13th, 2007 at 6:23 pm

    Donald Fehr standing at a podium is far more professional than Bud “Mr. Integrity” Selig could ever hope to be.

  14. Save Phil Hughes! December 13th, 2007 at 6:23 pm

    lol
    Good Luck with this Roger

  15. pat December 13th, 2007 at 6:26 pm

    Can’t sue the messenger? Clemens can sue McNamee.

  16. doug December 13th, 2007 at 6:26 pm

    Mel,

    Question of the night. Where is this Mr. McNamee?

  17. RosterRooster December 13th, 2007 at 6:28 pm

    “it is very unfair to include Roger’s name in this report.”

    I see.

  18. Mark McCray December 13th, 2007 at 6:29 pm

    Well..so what Mr. Mitchell….It’s the 21st century…Pete uses his blog as a perfomance enhancer why cant roger use steroids?…riddle me that lolol

  19. pat December 13th, 2007 at 6:32 pm

    Thankfully Scott Brosius wasn’t named so he can still be held up as the beacon of things not A-Rod-like.

  20. mel December 13th, 2007 at 6:32 pm

    Willard, lol.

    doug,

    Watching ESPN news and they keep saying that McNamee talked to avoid jailtime. What was he busted for? Did Mitchell’s panel have prosecutorial power?

  21. GL December 13th, 2007 at 6:33 pm

    Credit to Michael Kay…

    No Rafael Palmiero (positive test), Mark McGwire, Guillermo Mota (suspension due to positive test)…how can that be?

  22. Brian (Red Sox Fan) December 13th, 2007 at 6:34 pm

    This is a “non-denial denial.” In effect, Clemens has said:(1) I am outraged that my name is in the report based on the testimony of a dubious witness in a federal criminal case, and;
    (2) I have never tested positive for PEDs.

    The statement from Clemens Camp is lawyerly drivel which NEVER answers the question, “Have you taken PEDs?” He could have answered this question for the Mitchell Group, but declined the opportunity. He was often “retired,” so the union did not drive that personal decision.

    Parse the words. He has denied NOTHING! He is putting up the standard defense of demonizing the witness (see Johnny Cochrane) and deliberately misinterpreting the basic issue (see Bill Clinton). In this case, you don’t have to believe Mitchell …. believe your “lying eyes,” as the joke goes.

  23. Ray December 13th, 2007 at 6:35 pm

    I believe they used waterboarding to get this testimony!

  24. RVA Yanks December 13th, 2007 at 6:36 pm

    The reporting of the Mitchell Report on the major networks is TERRIBLE. It’s mostly a laundry list of names and then extended talking about Clemens. ABC at least didn’t go into much criticism if at all of the report in their story.

  25. foobar December 13th, 2007 at 6:36 pm

    ” 6. SJ44 December 13th, 2007 at 6:17 pm
    Mitchell can’t be sued. He is indemnified from legal action
    by MLB.”

    Wrong. He can be sued. Why would an indemnity clause protect a private citizen from lawsuits?

    Even as a yankee fan, if some of the named names don’t react with a lawsuit, I’ll find that damning.
    Even though the report per se is still a joke.

  26. I conducted my own report December 13th, 2007 at 6:38 pm

    No Varitek? Thats how you know Mitchell is on the Sox payroll.

  27. helno51 December 13th, 2007 at 6:39 pm

    my favorite part of today was the moronic comments from russo. a few months ago in a discussion on wfan about clemens place in history dog bad mouthed clemens post season accomplishments and said he was along for the ride. today he was saying how he pitched a bunch of big games in the 2000 postseason. i know he hates the yankees but could he be a little less transparent.

  28. Deryck December 13th, 2007 at 6:40 pm

    In order to be guilty of slander, one must knowingly provide false information in an attempt (or as a result) to damage someone financially or “socially”.

    If the Jays guy knew what he was saying was untrue, was their a maliciousness to what he was saying? Of course, he also wasn’t providing this to public sources, so I think it may be difficult to prove he was trying to damage Clemens. Of course the opposite could be true, too. He could very well have known this would become public.

    Where does the line between perjury and slander fall in this unique case?

  29. Deryck December 13th, 2007 at 6:42 pm

    “No Varitek? Thats how you know Mitchell is on the Sox payroll.”

    Of course their was no Brady Anderson, Roberto Alomar, etc on their either. Thats how you know Mitchell is on the other teams payrolls.

    Actually, as he said, there are many names not on there. The names that are are the ones that came as a result of the interviews and info he got. I can’t believe Mitchell is a guy who would put players on the team he is partly an owner of before justice. Of course that sounds naive, but I believe that in him

  30. foobar December 13th, 2007 at 6:42 pm

    More info on what the indemnity clause covers http://www.nytimes.com/2007/11.....f=baseball

    * The report’s incompleteness and superficiality is a joke
    * The clear conflict of interest in having a Red Sox director conjure up this drivel for $60M is moronic and ridiculous
    * That said, if some of the named names don’t react with a lawsuit against Mitchell (and hence MLB) for slander, I’d deem that damning… am a yankee fan, but willing to be fair

  31. ThatWasMe December 13th, 2007 at 6:44 pm

    brian(red sox fan)
    Yeah I guess we should just believe you and Brian McNamee then.

  32. pat December 13th, 2007 at 6:46 pm

    David Justice is going to be on YES in a few minutes to comment.

  33. Ranting Guy December 13th, 2007 at 6:46 pm

    In the time it took me to type this, two new threads started. I’ll re-post:

    *************************************

    People (especially my fellow Yanks fans) who write Pettitte off for being in the report need to be reminded that HGH was legal when he had his shots. And if they were for the purposes we’ve heard (assuming that info is true) then its no different than having a cortisone shot to heal an injury. Cortisone is also a steroid … was cortisone part of the investigation? If it was like that, then he wasn’t doing what Bonds or Giambi were doing.

    Sox trolls: You’re getting a little too pumped up on what amounts to hearsay for your own good. Note the limited sources of information. Note some obvious omissions from other teams. If trainers from the other 28 teams (or Canseco) were questioned and if they obliged with answers, then the list of players would increase proportionally. So would the number of players from that list being undeservedly slandered by the likes of you.

    You sound pretty … arrogant (how ironic) … considering how limited the report apparently is.

  34. BWH December 13th, 2007 at 6:46 pm

    First, to be nitpicky, Mitchell would be sued for liable, not slander.

    Second, MLB has agreed to pay for any/all legal costs and liabilities should Mitchell be sued.

    Here’s a good article on the subject:
    http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/.....id=3142722

  35. Deryck December 13th, 2007 at 6:46 pm

    “* That said, if some of the named names don’t react with a lawsuit against Mitchell (and hence MLB) for slander, I’d deem that damning…”

    Again you mean to say “lible”, but this time from a more reputable source:

    Lible
    An untruthful statement about a person, published in writing or through broadcast media, that injures the person’s reputation or standing in the community. Because libel is a tort (a civil wrong), the injured person can bring a lawsuit against the person who made the false statement. Libel is a form of defamation , as is slander (an untruthful statement that is spoken, but not published in writing or broadcast through the media).

  36. CB December 13th, 2007 at 6:47 pm

    MLB agreed to cover Mitchell for any liability that arises from the case.

    He can be sued – but MLB will essentially defend him, pay for his lawyers and pay for any damages that may ensue if the player wins.

    Essentially, if someone sues Mitchell it will be as if they are suing MLB.

    That was what the indemnity clause was about – it was part of Mitchell’s agreement when he decided to take Selig’s offer to head up the investigation.

  37. Deryck December 13th, 2007 at 6:48 pm

    of course it would be better if I could spell…

  38. Steve December 13th, 2007 at 6:49 pm

    Brian

    This is what Roger’s lawyer put out

    “Roger Clemens vehemently denies allegations in the Mitchell report that he used performance-enhancing steroids”

    How is that a non denial denial? It seems like a denial to me.

  39. mel December 13th, 2007 at 6:49 pm

    From our lips to the Senate’s ears. Legislator’s calling for Selig & Fehr’s heads.

  40. NYY December 13th, 2007 at 6:50 pm

    If CLEMENS is so sure that he didn’t use steroids why didn’t he threaten with a lawsuit. This clearly shows that CLEMENS used steroids and is just trying to save his ass.

  41. BWH December 13th, 2007 at 6:50 pm

    Ugh – I try to correct the “slander” thing and I mis-spell “libel.” That noise you hear is me getting off my high horse.

  42. Deryck December 13th, 2007 at 6:50 pm

    I’m not sure Mitchell would be successfully sued except on the grounds of hearsay. I don’t know the legal aspects of that, but most/all of the information he was given was just a regurgitation of what he had been told, uncovered, or received from the federal prosecuters interviews.

    I think the only conjectures he and his team created were towards MLB and who was at fault.

  43. Steve December 13th, 2007 at 6:51 pm

    You know if there ever was a guy who I thought might sue it would Clemens. He seems to be arrogant enough and competitive enough to do something like that.

  44. Deryck December 13th, 2007 at 6:51 pm

    “If CLEMENS is so sure that he didn’t use steroids why didn’t he threaten with a lawsuit. This clearly shows that CLEMENS used steroids and is just trying to save his ass.”

    You’d make a better politician than a lawyer

  45. mel December 13th, 2007 at 6:52 pm

    http://www.metacafe.com/watch/.....100_years/

    Any Mets fans here? Did this really happen?

  46. Deryck December 13th, 2007 at 6:53 pm

    I wonder if Giants fans would vote Clemens into the Hall of Fame

  47. mel December 13th, 2007 at 6:54 pm

    Oops. A link might be helpful.

    http://sportsillustrated.cnn.c.....index.html

  48. Jimmy December 13th, 2007 at 6:55 pm

    Sweet. I hope Roger sues MLB and Mitchell.

  49. GL December 13th, 2007 at 6:56 pm

    “People (especially my fellow Yanks fans) who write Pettitte off for being in the report need to be reminded that HGH was legal when he had his shots. And if they were for the purposes we’ve heard (assuming that info is true) then its no different than having a cortisone shot to heal an injury. Cortisone is also a steroid … was cortisone part of the investigation? If it was like that, then he wasn’t doing what Bonds or Giambi were doing.”

    Thanks Ranting Guy!! How come no one is giving this attention?? This whole thing is starting to make me sick…

  50. Ranting Guy December 13th, 2007 at 6:57 pm

    I have to admit I’m surprised that the report isn’t as thorough as it could have been and (apparently) seems to focus on a limited number of sources or teams. And I’m surprised there hasn’t been an acknowledgment of this by its author(s) considering the potential for perceived conflicts of interest. Not even 24 hours ago I was one of several posters who honestly expected to be hearing about a report with a much broader cross-section of sources/info.

  51. Mike R. December 13th, 2007 at 6:59 pm

    BWH December 13th, 2007 at 6:46 pm

    First, to be nitpicky, Mitchell would be sued for liable, not slander.

    Second, MLB has agreed to pay for any/all legal costs and liabilities should Mitchell be sued.

    Here’s a good article on the subject:
    http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/.....id=3142722

    Now it’s my turn. Not to be picky, but it’s libel, not liable.

  52. JDnotDrew December 13th, 2007 at 7:03 pm

    every1 saying when Pettitte took shots it was legal are wrong. MLB just started enforcing the rules on drugs in 2002, they were there long before that. Still hope Pettitte never used and will continue to support him and the Yankees.

  53. Brian (Red Sox Fan) December 13th, 2007 at 7:03 pm

    Steve …. look at that senetence in context. The Mitchell report is largely based on witness staements. The Clemens “denial” demonizes the Mitchell witness. Hence, the report conclusions can be questioned.

    It’s sophistry, pure and simple. He has denied NOTHING. He has NOT answered the basic question, “Have you taken PEDs?”

    P.S. You can bet that he won’t sue. Testimony under oath becomes a dicey proposition (see Bonds, Barry). He would be asked the core question (see above).

  54. BWH December 13th, 2007 at 7:03 pm

    Mike R- I realized my mistake and corrected it above. Still, it was rather stupid of me…

  55. Ranting Guy December 13th, 2007 at 7:05 pm

    Regardless, its no different than having a cortisone shot.

  56. Steve December 13th, 2007 at 7:07 pm

    David Justice is live on YES Network defending himself against these outrageous allegations. He says he never took steroids or HGH.

  57. Steve December 13th, 2007 at 7:09 pm

    Roger said through his lawyer that he denies the allegations that he used PED’s. You cant get any clearer than that.

  58. Brian (Red Sox Fan) December 13th, 2007 at 7:12 pm

    I’m clearly not bright enough to realize that. Give me a few more minutes to throw down another six-pack. My apologies to you, kind sir.

  59. Jimmy December 13th, 2007 at 7:14 pm

    Rogggaaahhh Clemenssssss is innocent.. Oh my gawwwd, Rogaaah Clemens is victim of another Red Sox scumbag… Oh my gooooodness, Roggaaaahhhh

  60. Brian (Red Sox Fan) December 13th, 2007 at 7:30 pm

    I’m flattered ….. someone else (who is throwing down his own six pack) has stolen my “name.”

    Back when I was drinking, in college, I attained an English degree that enabled me to decipher arcane syntax. The Clemens’ “denial” is no such thing. He has demonized the witness and obfuscated the basic issue.

    P.S. Do you really think that Clemens is PED free? The weight gain? better at 44 than 34? the retirement sabbaticals to avoid random testing? are you really that naive?

    Have another beer yourself. Happy Holidays.

  61. GRRRRRRRRRR December 13th, 2007 at 7:30 pm

    When all is said and done, Mitchell and Selig will look like fools and their reputations will be the ones to take a big hit on this.

    The Players Union is gearing up for a lot of action.

    “He is left with no meaningful way to combat what he strongly contends are totally false allegations. He has not been charged with anything, he will not be charged with anything and yet he is being tried in the court of public opinion with no recourse. That is totally wrong.” This was from the statement that Roger’s lawyer made, so you are wrong Brian the Red Sox idiot. That statement right there is a denial that the allegations have any weight.

    This whole thing was a joke, and it will show that George Mitchell is joke as well.

    The lawyers of all the players named in such an insensitive manner with little regard to many such being hearsay will all be busy over the next few weeks.

    Get the popcorn ready because the real show is about to begin. With the reputations of these players being damaged by this, with the flimsy evidence, it shows that Mitchell was just doing this as he did with Ireland. Just looking to make a name for himself and garner credit that he did not deserve. If he, acting in any capacity as a judge, were to get such weak evidence in a court, were to accept it and proceed with the case, he would be out of a job.

    There was no real attempt to cover all of baseball, this hinges on NY primarily. Mitchell is a tool and has lost what little respect people might have had for him.

  62. hmmm December 13th, 2007 at 7:37 pm

    “It’s sophistry, pure and simple. He has denied NOTHING. He has NOT answered the basic question, “Have you taken PEDs?””

    “Roger Clemens vehemently denies allegations in the Mitchell report that he used performance-enhancing steroids”

    WTF are you talking about?

  63. Jimmy December 13th, 2007 at 7:40 pm

    “Back when I was drinking, in college, I attained an English degree that enabled me to decipher arcane syntax. The Clemens’ “denial” is no such thing. He has demonized the witness and obfuscated the basic issue.”

    Brian, since you attained an English degree, wouldn’t you know how to use commas correctly? Shouldn’t it be “Back when I was drinking in college, I attained…”

    Thanks for your abrupt response.

  64. Jimmy December 13th, 2007 at 7:41 pm

    Hmmm,

    Brian is just a bit confused. He’s throwing words out there that he probably doesn’t even know the meaning of. Roger denied the use of any PEDs, however, Brian is just like any other Red Sox fan…a moron.

  65. zeke December 13th, 2007 at 8:13 pm

    Do you all seriously believe Roger Clemens didn’t use steroids or HGH? Really? He grew in size since Toronto, suddenly improved his lagging performance from his last years in Boston. I’m a lifelong Yankee fan, but get real.

    The liar liar pants on fire is always the defense used to refute a witness immediately after the attack their credibility.

    Clemens cheated. The names in the report are the ones that Mitchell’s team felt they had proof on. They just didn’t have proof on the others – like Pudge Rodriguez,…

    Here’s a good question – right now what does Roger have to lose LYING about not taking steroids? He’s not in court so there is no perjury.

    I feel bad about Pettite – I’d like to think he wasn’t a hardcore user like Clemens and just did it to recoup as the report suggested. I’d also like to think that his statement is just to hold time while he decides whether he will fess up to a small mistake or take the Clemens route.

  66. Ken Clay stole my identification and credit cards December 13th, 2007 at 8:13 pm

    Say Goodbye to the Hall of Fame, juicer. We all knew Clemens was juicing. He has shamed the Yankee uniform (just like Giambi).

  67. Russell NY December 13th, 2007 at 9:43 pm

    It wasn’t Roger Clemens, they just spelt Jason Varitek wrong.

  68. Jimmy December 13th, 2007 at 9:46 pm

    Kind of like you “spelt” spelled incorrectly.

  69. Mike P December 13th, 2007 at 10:20 pm

    Just to make clear:
    Whatever the many wrongs of taking steroids, no one in Baseball ‘CHEATED’ by taking them before 2003. MLB is trying to spin an incredibly one sided blame story where the players take the blame. And the vehicle is this ridiculous report. If you work high up in a corporation and produce such a pathetic piece, you probably get fired. Blame the players all you like (taking PEDs is not exactly ethical, to say the least), MLB comes out of this as incredibly hypocritical and derisive.

  70. Vincent December 13th, 2007 at 11:09 pm

    Notice that in this statement, it was never said that Roger never used steroids. That will be a pattern in the denials that we will see coming out over the next few days.

  71. New England December 14th, 2007 at 10:54 am

    Brian, since you attained an English degree, wouldn’t you know how to use commas correctly? Shouldn’t it be “Back when I was drinking in college, I attained…”
    _________________________________

    Actually, no. His use of commas is correct. He surrounds the “in college” with commas because they hold no direct weight on the outcome of the sentence.
    The sentence reads the same with or without the “in college” reference. The “in college” addition was purely put in to inform the reader of where he did his drinking, but to leave it out doesn’t change the sentence at all.
    If the “in college” was important and changed the outcome or structure of the sentence in any way, then Brian would have been correct in starting the sentence that way.
    EX: “When I used to drink while in college”..
    This would mean that the ONLY place Brian used to drink was in college, thus an important piece of his sentence.

    Thanks.

  72. New England December 14th, 2007 at 11:07 am

    How’s that moron thing working out?
    I’m just sayin…

  73. how to get oil off driveway August 10th, 2014 at 11:23 pm

    I think this is one of the most vital info for me.

    And i am glad reading your article. But want to remark on some general things, The web site style is ideal, the articles is really great : D.

    Good job, cheers

    Now if how to get oil off driveway doesn’t work to suit your needs,
    avoid getting dissuaded. There are other options
    you’ll be able to investigate.

  74. https://www.facebook.com/kindergartenandpreschoollasvegas August 16th, 2014 at 7:54 pm

    Fantastic items from you, man. I’ve keep in mind your stuff previous to
    and you are simply extremely excellent. I really like what you’ve bought here,
    certainly like what you’re saying and the best way wherein you are saying it.

    You’re making it entertaining and you still take care of to stay
    it wise. I cant wait to learn far more from you. That is
    really a terrific website.

Leave a comment below


Sponsored by:
 

Search

    Advertisement

    Follow

    Mobile

    Read The LoHud Yankees Blog on the go by navigating to the blog on your smartphone or mobile device's browser. No apps or downloads are required.

Advertisement

Place an ad

Call (914) 694-3581