Clemens goes after Mitchell again
-
- December
- 26
In case you missed it, Roger Clemens is having his lawyers investigate the Mitchell Report. Maybe they’ll get the same detectives O.J. Simpson has searching for the real killers.
The Rocket also plans to speak to reporters on Jan. 6, the same day his interview on 60 Minutes airs.
There are two possibilities here:
1. Clemens didn’t do it and he’s fighting the good fight to clear his name.
2. Clemens did do it but he’s going to deny, deny, deny and hope the waters are cloudy enough to still get in the Hall of Fame.
Who determines the truth? Unless Clemens sues somebody, it will be the court of public opinion. Both sides have decent cases. Brian McNamee was facing jail time if he lied to Mitchell. But McNamee was a suspicious character to begin with.
Andy Pettitte’s confession didn’t help Clemens. But Mitchell’s shaky chain of evidence raised questions.
Say this for Clemens, he’s not hiding.
This entry was posted
on Wednesday, December 26th, 2007 at 4:02 pm by Peter Abraham.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Print This Post
| 
Email This Post
Peter Abraham
I’m glad he’s not cowering.
Remember how Schilling pulled a Sgt Schultz when he went before Congress and said “I know NOTHING – NOTHING!”
http://tinyurl.com/ytk47w
He choose a pretty BIG stage.
Pete,
While Pettitte’s confession hurt Roger, his not appearing in the Grimsley affidavit helped him.
So right now, the score is:
DIRECT TESTIMONY
MITCHELL REPORT 1 (McNamee testimony)
CLEMENS 1
CIRCUMSTANCIAL EVIDENCE
MITCHELL REPORT 1 (Pettitte confession)
CLEMENS 1 (No mention in the Grimsley affidavit).
Go get ‘em, Roger. And when you’re done with mitchell and McNamee, go kick Schilling’s a$$!
Off topic, did anybody else notice in that Murray Chass piece today in the Times the bit about the Twins dropping the demand of IPK in favor of Marquez? What the hell is going on there and when did that happen?
hahahaha ..this should be hilarious
Paul,
I say do an Abreu on them and pull Hughes out as well and replace him with Horne. It seems like they are running out of takers and Sox dont seem to really want him.
If all else fails, go after Sheets. He will cost us much less and could be an ace of this staff if healthy.
Pete -
Ouch! (Regarding the OJ reference)
I’m keeping arms’ length on this one. While I’d love for Roger to be “innocent,” I’m not so naive as to believe him unquestioningly. Too many disappointments in too many people over the years.
Anyone here about the Giant-Patriots simulcast now? Both CBS, NBC and the NFL network will carry it. Think Coughlin will want to win now?
Well, well, well. Finally a senator does something important. Good job, Senator Kerry.
Tomorrows assignment: Name your top 5 greatest athletes of all time.
mel,im running out of ideas here. Cant wait till spring training starts. HELP.
I still don’t understand why Andy’s confession impacts Roger.
A liar tells the truth most of the time.
Did Roger do it? I don’t know. But only Clemens and McNamee know who is telling the truth about the other. And both (IMO) may have powerful incentives.
Did Mitchell need McNamee to finger Clemens to justify his report?
If Clemens is guilty, he’s going about this the wrong way. He should go on Oprah, cry, tell everyone he’s sorry for what he did, and then promise to devote the rest of his life to warning America’s youth of the evils of performance enhancing drugs . . .
Giambi and Pettitte have come through this relatively OK. People (and probably Hall of Fame voters) tend to be forgiving if they sense remorse and see repentance. Surely, Clemen’s advisers know this and would counsel him to come clean, if they thought he was guilty and are trying to protect him from a PR disaster.
The fact is, in the absence of hard evidence or eyewitnesses, nobody but Clemens and McNamee actually know what happened. The Mitchell Report has no corroborating evidence, only McNamee’s testimony. And that’s a pretty weak case. Andy’s admission is exactly that, Andy’s admission. What Andy did has no necessary evidential connection to Clemens beyond the fact that the two men are friends and employed the same trainer. Circumstantial evidence like this is very weak.
As I see it, so far, Clemens isn’t acting like a guilty man. A innocent man be indignant at even being accused of something he didn’t do. Going on 60 Minutes would be too great a risk if there were some evidence of his guilt floating around out there. No doubt, the producers of 60 Minutes are beating the bushes for it as we speak. Those guys love the game of Gotcha.
People say Clemens should sue . . . Who do you sue? You can’t sue Mitchell. I’m not an attorney, but it seems to me that suing MLB would be like suing the Federal Government. How do you do that? Sue McNamee, maybe . . . But what would that get you? Its McNamee’s word against Roger’s. How can a jury decide that? And if a jury say that there is not enough evidence to rule in favor of Clemens? Then what? How does that look?
No, innocent men act indignant when accused of something they didn’t do. So far Clemens seems indignant (but controlled). Given the presumption of innocence, I think unless and until something else corroborates McNamee’s claims, we must presume Roger innocent. That’s the only fair thing to do.
But if Clemens is guilty and lying about it with a straight face, just to get into the HOF, then his problems go well beyond possible PED usage and approach some form of serious narcissistic disorder (NPD).
Todays assignment: Name your top 5 biggest sports cheaters ever that meant the most to their sport?
1.Ben Johnson
2.Marion Jones/Florence Joyner
3.Barry Bonds
4.Pete Rose
5.The Guy that won the Tour de France this year
Tooo Funny.
Maybe he should pull a Tom Cruise and jump up and down on Oprah’s couch.
The fact that Grimsley never named Clemens is meaningless. The only reason Clemens name is important in that regard is becauses the LA Times WRONGLY wrote Grimsley named Clemens (and Pettitte, by the way). For Clemens to say, ‘See, I told you so’ has no merit.
Grimsley never named Giambi, does that mean Giambi never juiced. The difference is the LA Times never wrote Grimsley named Giambi.
Grimsley named Jose Canseco, Lenny Dykstra, Glenallen Hill and Geronimo Berroa. He also accused Chuck Knoblauch of using human growth hormone; David Segui and Allen Watson of using performance-enhancing drugs; and Rafael Palmeiro and Pete Incaviglia of taking amphetamines, according to IRS Special Agent Jeff Novitzky’s sworn statement.
SoS,
I don’t want to see any football players, baseball players, or golfers on anyone’s top 5 list. NBA guys are fit, and steroid-free. You have to be gifted to play in the NBA, not just
steroidcornfed. I suggest top 10 athletes, because you have different eras and some are great athletes (Jordan) while others are accomplished (Tiger/Federer)Someone suggested bands (gotta go top 10) and we didn’t do actresses.
As far as I’m concerned, the evidence is in Clemens favor. Look at the guys who did heavy steroids. They got some great years out of it, but then their bodies totally fell apart. Guys like Giambi, McGwire, and Bonds can barely walk now. On the pitching side you’ve got guys like Brown and Gagne who just couldn’t stay healthy.
But Clemens? He’s in remarkable shape. Either he’s not taking steroids, or he knows something about them that no one else in baseball seems to know. Remember, even Bonds with his fortune and the BALCO lab couldn’t come up with a steroid course that could prevent his body from falling apart. That guy’s got two bad knees and a bad elbow, and the bicep tear in ‘99 he supposedly told people was due to his steroid usage.
If you can explain how Clemens didn’t fall apart from sustained steroid usage like everyone else seems to, I’ll believe he took them.
SoS: Don’t you mean last year’s Tour de France winner? I assume that you were referring to Landis…
Ed,
Some yahoo called up the Dan Patrick show and said Clemens is guilty because his face looks like the Pillsbury doughboy. I mean what middle age man doesn’t look like the Pillsbury doughboy? lol.
You can blame it all on me. I sent Roger the following URL:
http://www.weeklystandard.com/Content/Public/Articles/000/000/014/503nrnsm.asp
giving his some real evidence that the Mitchell report had some real defects.
If you take those facts coupled with the amount paid for the report, you can make a convincing case that the charges against Roger are all BS.
The best defense in this situation a good offense.
TOP 10 GREATEST ATHLETES EVER IT IS.
Top 5 actresses
1.Hale Berry
2.Susan Sarandan
3.Julia Roberts
4.Michele Phifer
5.Hillary Swank
Yes.Floyd Landis. Is it that obvious I dont follow that sport much.
If the needle dont fit you must acquit.
Aww. The Gator checks in.
http://www.nytimes.com/2007/12/23/sports/baseball/23guidry.html?_r=1&ref=baseball&oref=slogin
S.o.S.27-
Yes no basketball players are convitced of Steroids because who cares about basketball.Football and baseball is still more popular then B-Ball.And B-Ball like Football suffers from something worse then steroids.That is a sport filled with more crminal people.
Even though I’ll admit Jordan is the on my top five best sports players.
also please tell me those actress aren’t really your best.
Top 5 Greatest Athletes:
1. Babe Ruth-great pitcher and hitter
2. Wilt Chamberlain-great basketball and beach volleyball player
3. Emmitt Thomas-great running back and winner Dancing of the Stars
4. Bo Jackson- great running back and good baseball player
5. Lance Armstrong-greatest cyclist and marginal actor
Sandman,
A. i never stated not to put football or baseball players. Who knows whos taking what in the first place.
B. Honestly,I really dont know as many female actresses as I pay watch most for their physical appearance. (Barry,Beil,Alba,Jolie)
I didnt think my list was that bad though. Your thoughts?
SAndMan,
You can not possibly believe there are more criminals in the NBA than in the NFL. And even if there are, we’re talking misdemeanor. Gun charges at the worst.
In the NFL, you’ve got manslaughter, murder, DUI, resisting arrest, and felony animal abuse. And that’s just Adam “Pacman” Jones. Just kidding, but almost. You’ve got Tank Johnson and his arsenal. You’ve got a paraplegic bouncer in Vegas because some bonehead wanted to make it rain with his money. And what about the Bengals?!
And in NCAA football, you’ve got criminals in training! Thieves, DUI offenders, and cheaters.
Just because there’s a hip-hop culture in the NBA, doesn’t mean it’s full of criminals. David Stern is the best commissioner in all the major sports. The NBA does a great job in trying to get its players to be model citizens and ambassadors of goodwill. (Except for Indiana, is there something in the water?)
End of rant. Just wanted to say that the NBA is not full of criminals.
Ed — completely agree: evidence is on Clemens’ side.
I gotta love Clemens. I wish we had more guys on our team with fire like his.
Mel -
Thanks for that link. I like Gator. I can’t speak to his abilities as a pitching coach, but I love listening to him and I would value his opinion. Sometimes timing isn’t right; sometimes what you have to work with isn’t right; sometimes you just don’t get the right press. Who knows? But I sure hope he continues to be a fixture at spring training. I also hate that anyone has to lose their job. No matter what. And I like good people, and Gator just seems to be good people, ya know?
Mel: perhaps you should read the police blotters of Portland, Golden State, etc. There are just as many criminals in the NBA as the NFL.
David Stern is no longer the best commissioner. He was fifteen years ago. However, he is unable to deal with falling ratings now that Jordan and his generation are gone. He is unable to deal with the horrendous and corrupt referees. He is unable to deal with the owners as they turn on him. Just to name a few.
“There are just as many criminals in the NBA as the NFL.”
Hey, let’s not be so hard on the boys. It’s not like they’re running Haliburton and Blackwater.
Phil,
Don’t read the blotters, but I believe you when you say it’s there. Must not be felony charges. Otherwise we’d hear about it.
Golden State. Hmmm. 1/4 the roster was traded from where? Oh Yeah, Indiana.
As far as I know, the Trailblazers are no longer the Jailblazers.
As far as ratings, I can not argue that. Pro football is the kingpin. Perhaps the NBA suffers the same curse at MLB. Too many regular season games. It’s still entertaining to many. Kobe and the Lakers. KG and the Celtics. They’re still relevant. D-Wade and LeBron are stuck with terrible teams.
As far as the refs. McDonaghy? Yawn. Has not affected the NBA at all.
Selig is a horrible commish, don’t know why the owners just gave him a huge seal of approval.
Goodell? Getting there. But his problems will take years to solve. The teams need to start looking at character rather than talent. Until then, the Cincinatti blotter will continue to light up like a Christmas tree.
Stern has cleaned up the gangsta image of the league, mandated public service of his pro players, and has made the NBA a global game.
You are overlooking the refs, mel. I love the Knicks and the NBA, always have…but the horrible calls, the phantom calls, the obvious star bias…Bill Simmons and 81games.com have, at length, written about it and analyzed the games. It is a great read…and a sad truth. That, and Dolan, drove me away.
Kobe? The alleged rapist? Hmmmm…. I just pointed out two teams…there are countless more. The national press doesn’t publicize it more because the league is not relevant anymore. The NFL is the glory league and gets all of the press coverage, right or wrong. The only reason ESPN shows the highlights and features the NBA as much as it does is due to their TV contract with the league.
Stern cleaned up the gangsta image? I don’t think so, but that is all the perspective of the viewer.
That should read 82games.com
(Pete – we still need an edit button and registration.)
There’s no doubt that Roger is going full bore and trying one of the two methods that Pete mentioned above. In Roger’s mind he is John Wayne, standing tall and fighting to overcome every obstacle.
mel- I definitely agree on the NBA having less criminals, even though it obviously has fewer players than the NFL. The NBA’s biggest problem was drug abuse in the ’80s and early ’90s with guys such as Micheal Ray Richardson, Roy Tarpley, and William Bedford (he went to a GREAT school), but David Stern has done a great job of cleaning up the drug problem.
No league is completely free from offenders or criminals, but at least every professional league (as far as we know) is taking steps to correct its flaws.
Pete,
O.K. I’ll give you bad calls. Kobe gets them, and now that Bynum is becoming a star, he’s starting to get calls, too. So I don’t grumble about that. But I still get steaming mad when remember all the phantom foul calls that D-Wade got when the Heat won the championship.
I won’t defend Kobe’s behavior in Colorado, but I will say that the accuser was certifiably crazy. And a golddigger.
I say that he cleaned up the “image” by instituting a dress code. No do-rags, medallion jewelry, etc. They’re not the cleanest cut group of guys, but they dress like a million bucks (except for Dirk & Nash, lol).
Anyway, I still think that, for the most part, they’re a good bunch of guys. It seems to be getting better. Character issue guys are being passed over. You’ve got “sweet” guys like Wade, LeBron, Oden, and Durant. (Of course they can ball, but so can Artest and he’s definitely certifiable).
J-Dawg,
The last guy to get banned from the NBA for a final drug offense was a white guy. A marginal player at that.
The competition for best commish isn’t so hot in the first place
Bettman (NHL) has what, 1 and a half seasons worth of lockouts to go in his resume?
Selig’s horrible
I like Goodell, but he’s only gone 1 year so far
Don Garber, being the commish of MLS, has to contend with…well, futbol barely being recognized in this country (at least in the mass media anyway)
Stern tries, and while some of his decisions are head scratchers or plain bad, again, the competition for best commish isn’t so great… xP
Never cared for Clemens, the carpetbagger but I’ll say two things for him:
1) I always admired how he protected his teammates. I never appreciated Roger more than this season when he threw at Alex Rios (was it him?) after the Jays had hit A-Rod twice in the same series.
2) It made me realize that if I was sent to war tomorrow and I could choose one Yankee to accompany me in a fox hole, there wouldn’t be a question who I’d select.
The mettle and resolve Clemens had shown since the Mitchell Report’s release only reaffirmed the conclusion I’d reached long ago.
May he launch a metaphoric bean ball right at Mitchell’s head.
“McNamee was facing jail time if he lied to Mitchell.”
the above statement is just total illogical bs.
he actually was facing jail time if he didn’t give up a big name. if he lied about a big name how would they prove it? maybe he did lie about clemens . is mitchell investigating that to see if he was lying?
mitchell had no intention of investigating whether or not mcnamee was lying. i think it’s actually mitchell who has oj’s investigator looking for proof that mcnamee lied.
mel-
What I really meant is yes maybe Football has more Steroids and crminals but basketball is beyond not as popular then football and baseball,baseball which might not be as athletic demanding is still more popular then basketball….so who cares if basketball has less steroids like someone said before basketball players really don’t need steroids because they don’t play a 162 day sport or play a physical game.Unless a basketball player is beating up one of his fans,
A little off topic, and more on topic for the previous entry. I got puppets for my cousins children and they were a hit!! With the adults as well as the children. The adults were fighting over them and playing with them!! It was so funny!! My cousins daughter was playing with her puppet but not having it say a word!
Any how check out their site sillypuppets.com The small ones are cheap only 20 bucks!! It brought hours of enjoyment to our Christmas.
Re: Clemens’ credibility …… for those who are looking for tangible evidence that Clemens uses PEDs, check out page 14 of this week’s Newsweek. There’s a one-picture-is worth-a-thousand-words depiction of Clemens at the age of 24 and Clemens 20 years later. In the former, his body type was similar to Jim Palmer. In the latter, he looks like Dick Butkus. It’s not just that he gained 50 pounds (like Bonds). It’s that his body is actually DIFFERENT (like seeing Gary Cooper morph into Ernest Borgnine).
If I were a Yankee fan, I wouldn’t damage my own credibility by defending this guy. He’s lying through his teeth.
SAndMan,
I wasn’t arguing which is more popular.
But I do believe that you have to be a physical specimen, have incredible athleticism, and have high basketball IQ to play in the NBA. In other words, you have to be a good athelete. And the real reason why there are no steroids in basketball is that bulk is not a benefit in basketball.
Don’t get me wrong, I love all sports. Except soccer and cricket.
Randy:
McNamee was (and is) under investigation by the feds as a sub-distributor under Radomski. As part of his agreeing to rat, he had to meet with Mitchell. The interview was done with the feds present and the deal was that perjury would lead to jail time.
So McNamee had every reason to tell the truth.
FYI: So we believe McNamee but not Jason Grimsley? Both were under oath, correct? Both are scumbags, correct?
Pete: innocent until proven guilty? Where did the sense of right and wrong in the press go? You guys are like “Clemens did it, prove to us you didn’t.” Well, guess what, he is going to. Yet the pressboys will get their usual free pass with a page 6 or 7 retraction in small type.
This whole steroids thing is a bunch of BS. Honestly, who cares if Andy Pettitte took 2 HGH shots trying to rehab his elbow?
Gosh, listening to the outcry in the press you would think they would ban the morons from Chicago last year who didn’t vote ARod the MVP. Oh wait, they didn’t, did they? What about Schilling’s Cy Young clause, for one vote?
Look in the darn mirror.
A total witch hunt, and just like the witch hunts of the 1600s, next to impossible to completely prove your innocence.
I hope Clemens rips everyone a new one on TV, and calls out the press to man up or shut up. Give it to them just like and Alex Rios ball in the butt. End this hypocrisy once and for all, and lets get to Spring Training.
Roger Clemens can look at himself in the mirror and be thankful he never was or ever could be deceitful as Schilling has and continues to be.
Schilling is the prototypical legend in his own mind.
That would be “athlete” not “athelete”.
i have to agree with mel re: the nba. the dress code had a lot of critics at first, but turned out to be a great move. and even if the crime rate is or isn’t as bad as the NFL’s, it at least doesn’t seem that way and i’ll credit the commish for that as well…
there is some obvious star bias in nba calls, but the NFL is the worst in my opinion. any game would have a completely different outcome with a different set of officials out there. the NFL loses a lot of credibility with me due to their lack of consistency and it seems like rules are changing on a year to year basis. the gambling is what makes it fun. the perfect office pool sport and fantasy league (for those who think updating a lineup more than once a week is a lot),….
saucy,
The NBA does give stars treatment, while in the NFL they make BS calls against teams to make sure the spread doesn’t get covered (oops, the cat’s out of the bag).
I don’t know if you follow the Patriots, probably not, but Randy Moss gets a lot of offensive pass interference calls (unjustifiably) because of his reputation for doing that. Crews will also not give him defensive pass interference calls for that same reason. Total robbery.
“If I were a Yankee fan, I wouldn’t damage my own credibility by defending this guy.”
if i were a red sox fan i wouldn’t damage my credibility by going on yankee sites and announcing that i know from looking at a photo that i can tell if someone is using peds.
i haven’t heard of the olympics steroids photo test. i guess since it’s good enough for red sox fans , the olympic committee will be using that as the new gold standard for steroid testing.
You guys who point to Clemens’ name not appearing in the Grimsley affidavit being a point for Clemens seem to forget that when the LA Times released their erroneous report last year, the affidavit was still redacted to not show anyone’s name except Grimsley’s.
So yes, it was an erroneous report based on a bad guess by the LA Times — Grimsley was correct in the names he provided — but the Grimsley affidavit was never supposed to be all inclusive, any more than the Mitchell Report is — for obvious reasons — there aren’t a whole lot of “usual suspects” talking.
On D Ball, that article you gave a link to in your post at 5:25 PM today (Dec. 26) was one of the most whacked-out diatribes I’ve seen anywhere on the ‘Net. There were errors and mistakes (to quote a famous editor of a famous newspaper) in nearly every paragraph.
(and mygawd, some of you are WAY too obsessed with Curt Schilling and David Ortiz)
——————
One question I have for you, Pete, after you wrote, “Brian McNamee was facing jail time if he lied to Mitchell. But McNamee was a suspicious character to begin with” — did you wonder if you should follow that comment up with, “Why would Roger Clemens align himself with a ’suspicious character’ like McNamee for the better part of 10 years, pay him over and above what the Blue Jays and Yankees did, train with him and speak on McNamee’s behalf as recently as last year?”
As far as I’m concerned, that puts them in the same leaky boat. Clemens should re-examine his strategy, but he might be too self-centered and stubborn to see he’s having the exact opposite effect on the public. He should follow the example of another former Red Sox teammate, Wade Boggs. Come clean, confess to an addiction, throw yourself on the mercy of the allforgiving baseball public (and the media), and go into the HOF on the first ballot.
“So McNamee had every reason to tell the truth.”
i see it just as likely he had every reason to lie. if he had nothing worth testifying about he would likely be going to jail.
why would they give him immunity if he didn’t name some big names? what name is bigger than clemens? there is no way for the government to prove that mcnamee was lying about clemens. it’s mcnamee’s word against clemens. since there is no way to prove mcnamee is lying , he had no fear of being charged with perjury. he was free to lie if he chose to.
I don’t know what to think. When I first heard about Andy & Roger my first thought was “no way”. Then Andy admitted it and every person with press creditentials came out saying, “see we knew this for years”. But then you have boneheads offering up such proof as, “look how his body changed over the course of 20 years” (HUH? Does that mean we all do steroids?)
So I was in the “he must be guilty” camp. But for Roger to come out and make the noise that he has either sets him up to be vindicated or sets him up for the biggest fall in sports history. That’s some hand of Texas Hold ‘Em.
The only thing that will vindicate Roger at this point is a retraction by McNamee. That’s not likely to happen because 1) it’ll land him in federal prison 2) he’s already stated through his lawyer that he wants to meet with Roger and that he stands behind his testimony.
Part of me believes he’s guilty, another part believes he’s innocent, and another part just doesn’t give a spit.
“The interview was done with the feds present and the deal was that perjury would lead to jail time.
So McNamee had every reason to tell the truth.”
Pete, when it comes to explaining the game of baseball, the players, the strategies, the motives of the front office, I’m with you every step of the way. But your evaluation of McNamee’s motivation to tell the truth is too simplistic.
True, McNamee had every reason to try to convince the Feds and Mitchell he was telling the truth. It would benefit him mightily if they bought his story. And they did. But that doesn’t mean McNamee told the truth – just that Mitchell and Novitsky chose to believe him. That doesn’t make McNamee truthful.
And what of Mitchell and Agent Novitsky’s motives? They seem as though they really wanted to believe McNamee. I say that because if they chose not to trust him, there was any number of reasons to do so, including the whole Florida rape investigation where lied repeatedly and apparently drugged someone without their knowledge or consent.
Luckily for Mitchell and Novitsky, however, the burden of proof in a private corporate report is not regulated by the US Constitution and thus could be anything Mitchell says it is. Mitchell and Novitsky both knew that McNamee would never be cross-examined and there would never be a full exploration of McNamee’s past or his motivation to lie in order to get this deal.
(I’m not even sure what Novtisky and the US Attorney did was ethical. I wouldn’t be surprised if this case resulted in an executive order that the Feds may no longer participate in private investigations by making plea bargains on criminal cases solely to assist corporations settle purely civil and CBA based disputes).
Moreover, every witness talking to a Federal Agent is subject to prosecution for lying. That’s part of what’s cool about being a Fed. As for the threat of a prosecution for perjury as shoring up a witnesses’ credibility, however, I’m just not impressed in this case. A threat of prosecution for perjury is only as good as the evidence of perjury. The Feds don’t have a truth-o-meter, can’t read minds and so far as I know can’t waterboard McNamee. In short, in order to successfully prosecute McNamee for perjury the Feds would have to prove McNamee lied. In the scenario McNamee gave them on Rocket, it was McNamee and Rocket and nobody else present. So IMO, realistically speaking, there is no possible perjury prosecution of McNamee as to what he said about Rocket. Thus, the treat of perjury as to McNamee properly evaluated on these facts is virtually meaningless.
rotoworld repoting Kei Igawa name has popped up in the SAntana talks.Now thats funny.How many “Alleged” names has been talked in the past week.
Isn’t the front offies closed.Guess journalist must be desperate to either lie or like Pete talk about there love for Bostons teams.
Go Giants.
Let me guess. Clemens’s attorney is going to find out that he didn’t do PEDs.
You have to be pretty naive to believe Roger the Dodger.
Clemens, like any alleged PED user, doesn’t face a loss of life, liberty, or property by the State, so the Constitution is inapplicable.
That is by design, not luck.
Got three times face value for my tickets to the Saturday night Giants-Pats game. Go Giants.
Guys:
First off, I haven’t decided whether I believe Clemens or not. I do know that Roger, Andy and McNamee were an inseperable trio for years.
As for McNamee’s validity, he’s a bad guy by many accounts. But when the feds are sitting there and you’re testifying to a U.S. Senator, what is the upside of throwing Clemens under the bus?
The upside is you don’t know what evidence Mitchell has from elsewhere and if you lie, you could be going to jail.
Barry Bonds is under indictment for lying to the feds. He’s facing jail time. The feds do not like it when you lie to them and they make that clear.
Mitchell is no idiot. He knew naming Clemens would cause huge waves. I find it hard to believe he just tossed it in there.
The bottom line is it’s all he said, he said. I didn’t see one bit of factual evidence in the report and that makes it all BS.
It looks like most of the writers club have made up their minds in a groupthink fashion and Pete has gone with them on this. I guess it’s easier to fall in line and just go with/form public opinion.
We’ve seen this on FOX for years now.
from the mitchell report:
“During the Radomski investigation, federal law enforcement officials identified
Brian McNamee as one of Radomski’s customers and a possible sub-distributor. McNamee,
through his attorney, entered into a written agreement with the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the
Northern District of California. ”
there was a time before they came to the above agreement that mcnamee’s lawyers and the feds had to hammer out an agreement. what did they talk about then? was it agreed ahead of time who mcnamee would name? did the feds ask about clemens ahead of
time? maybe the feds had mcnamee run some names by them ahead of time before the agreement and said no to an agreement until they heard a name they liked.
i can’t put my thoughts into legal arguments like murphydog does so eloquently, but i don’t think agreements just come out of the blue without negotiations ahead of time. i would think there had to be a time before an agreement was reached that mcnamee was running names by the feds to see if any of the names was worth an agreement of immunity.
Here’s why it’s not he said, he said thing.
Unlike Clemens, McNamee’s “word†was obtained by under oath by investigators who are skilled at assessing the truth or falsity of confessions, which means that he was subjected to intense scrutiny, probing questions, as well as fact-checking, and as I said, if he is lying he is faced with the possibility of going to jail.
Clemens, in stark contrast, will not go under oath, he has not been subject to intense questioning by law enforcement personnel, nor will he go to jail if he is lying.
Instead he wants to be interviewed by an 89 year old Mike Wallace.
Was the deal with the feds completed in whole prior to the trainer’s testimony? Or was it one of those, “depending on what you give us, we’ll make it better for you deals?”
at 9:45 I commented that I haven’t made up my mind yet. In my blog posts I have consistently given Clemens credit for being proactive.
Yet at 9:46, Marc says I’m thinking like everybody else and think Clemens is guilty.
Sure thing, Marc. I’m not sure how better I can explain this: I haven’t made up my mind. I want to hear more. I want to see how Clemens handles a real press conference. I see no real reason to decide now anyway.
Phil — the deal is not a plea agreement it is a proffer agreement. Too tired to explain, but it can be found on the web. Prosecutors will tell you that McNamee was “Queen for a Day” — that really doesn’t explain it, but I love that nickname for someone who is given a proffer letter.
Whoa – you are wrong. McNamee’s statements made pursuant to his proffer agreement witht the Feds were not made under oath. McNamee did not testify before the grand jury and he was not under oath and he cannot be prosecuted for perjury… lying during a proffer can be dangerous to your well being, but nowhere near as serious as testimony under oath…
from the mitchel report :
“McNamee stated that Clemens did not tell him why he stopped asking him to administer
performance enhancing substances, and McNamee has no knowledge about whether Clemens
used performance enhancing substances after 2001. ”
let me get this straight. mcnamee kept training clemens for 6 more year into early 2007 and mc namee says he has lots of knowledge about clemens using steroids before 2001, but for some reason they just never brought it up again after 2001. so according to mcnamee we are supposed to believe that they together teamed up to have clemens use steroids until 2001 and then they just didn’t ever do it again or talk about it. for 6 more years.
huh?
that makes no sense at all. think about it.alleged steroid use for several years and then no steroid use for six year and no talk about previous use. okeydokey.
“Re: Clemens’ credibility …… for those who are looking for tangible evidence that Clemens uses PEDs, check out page 14 of this week’s Newsweek. There’s a one-picture-is worth-a-thousand-words depiction of Clemens at the age of 24 and Clemens 20 years later. In the former, his body type was similar to Jim Palmer. In the latter, he looks like Dick Butkus. It’s not just that he gained 50 pounds (like Bonds). It’s that his body is actually DIFFERENT (like seeing Gary Cooper morph into Ernest Borgnine).
If I were a Yankee fan, I wouldn’t damage my own credibility by defending this guy. He’s lying through his teeth.”
Would you do the same comparison of Schilling?
He must be on Steroids too…
The fact is most of the people put on lot of weight as they enter thier 40s.
PittsburghYankeeFan,
You missed my point. It’s not about believing anyone. Again, the only reason the Grimsley affidavit concerning Clemens is because the LA Times WRONGLY reported Clemens was named. CLEMENS was never Named when the LA TIMES misreported. The fact that the document was made public and Clemens was not named is meaningless on whether or not he used steroids. Grimsley could have lied by not naming Clemens or told the truth. McNamee could have lied or told the truth.
The Grimsley affidavit never named Clemens.
Pete —
While Mitchell may not be an idiot, he stumbled badly with this report… although I guess getting paid $20 million for no original work product while slamming players on the team you hate is a good gig if you can get it.
whoa:
I credit your position as sound and reasonable. But it’s not bullet proof. I think there is a substantial other side to the McNamee issue, and I’d have been reluctant to use McNamee as the basis of a prosecution for fear he wouldn’t survive cross examination and that he might have been less than truthful.
1. “Unlike Clemens, McNamee’s “word†was obtained by under oath by investigators who are skilled at assessing the truth or falsity of confessions… ”
True, you do your best to evaluate the witness, you test him on little things you can verify in order to evaluate his credibility indirectly on the big thing. You look for detail, use your experience and judgment and your b.s meter. But you have to keep an open mind and remember all you know about the witness, not just what is helpful to your case. And you have to suppress your desire to make the case at all costs and remain objective.
This witness has already lied repeatedly to police and drugged a person without their knowledge in a rape case. In this case, he didn’t come forward to tell what he knew. He had to be caught in the Radomski investigation. Once he was caught and facing jail, McNamee had every motive to try to sell his story and make it believable. That’s not the same as voluntarily stepping forward to tell the truth as a citizen informant. It doesn’t seem to me that a threat of perjury for lying is clearly enough to overcome all the bad that McNamee is.
As for McNamee’s word, he won’t be cross-examined in open court in front of a jury, so taking an oath in front of Mitchell and Novitsky doesn’t impress me all that much. His word won’t be tested like Roger’s will be, by Mike Wallace and numerous other reporters not limited by the rules of evidence in formulating their questions trying to expose a false story. Let McNamee face the reporters and Mike Wallace if he’s not going before a jury.
2. “which means that he was subjected to intense scrutiny, probing questions, as well as fact-checking,”
It’s not possible to fact check what happened with only Roger and McNamee in the room. That’s exactly why McNamee’s testimony was valuable to Mitchell. It was the missing piece.
3. “and as I said, if he is lying he is faced with the possibility of going to jail.”
The Feds would have to prove what he said about Roger was a lie before McNamee faces jail. See point 2. Back to he said, he said.
Do you have a cite that verfies that he wasn’t under oath?
Wrong quote of Chuck, but the question remains.
Chuck – haven’t heard the term Queen for a Day in ages.
Wasn’t that the cost of the report rather than Mitchell’s payment for services rendered?
And btw, If it was merely about slamming players on the team that he hates (although I view Clemenes as a Sock), why did Mitchell single out Theo for having information that Gagne was a roider, yet he acquired him anyway?
I don’t believe that Mitchell singled out Yankees players per se. I think he had access to two snitches who happened to have experience with the Yankees (and the Mets). The question I’m left with is why didn’t he have access to any other clubhouse voices from any other organizations? In particular, with his position on the board of directors of the Red Sox, why did he not have access to those in-the-know in Boston? Were there directions he chose not to go?
If the report was to be limited to a microcosm of the sport, that’s fine – but then don’t name names. It gives the skewed appearance that the ones named are the only ones using.
Almost forgot about this McNamee tidbit. He repeatedly told record sources that Clemens did NOT use PEDs. Combine that with all the above and he does not survive a competent cross-examination.
You always evaluate your own witnesses in part on what a good cross-examination would likely do to them. But here, Mitchell knew he could use McNamee as a sword and shield; Mitchell used what he said against Clemens (sword) but didn’t have to make Mcnamee available for cross (shield). Thus, IMO Mitchell accorded McNamee more weight than McNamee was entitled to.
In the end, it really isn’t completely about whether Clemens did it or not. The process used to get at the truth matters just as much as the truth. Mitchell shouldn’t have his cake and eat it too. It offends the sense of fair play as much as using PEDs does.
“why did Mitchell single out Theo for having information that Gagne was a roider, yet he acquired him anyway?”
what makes anyone think that mitchell as a high up red sox official would not throw that young know it all under the bus to let theo know he’s an employee?
can’t you see lucchino smiling on mitchell naming theo?
palace intrigue at it’s best. what could be better from luchinno’s perspective; the mitchell report slammed the yankees and slimed theo.
Naming names was the only means that Mitchell and/or MLB had of trying to leverage the report so that it might give at least some players pause before continuing to use PEDs.
It’s unfortunate that the MLBPA didn’t try to seize the high ground by proposing a process that they may have been willing to cooperate with if it had been accepted by MLB.
So I went to the Nets game tonight, and it was kind of depressing.
Hope everyone had a more enjoyable night =D
I can’t prove that McNamee didn’t testify under oath (I also can’t provide proof that someone didn’t use steroids) — I can only say that I have never seen it printed that he testified under oath and proffer statements are not typically made under oath. If the statements were made under oath, Mitchell would have probably said so in his report.
McNamee’s statements could be used against him in a later prosecution for perjury (for other false statements made under oath) or for obstruction of justice, but those prosecutions are difficult and highly unlikely (unless your name is Barry Bonds or Scooter Libby).
So Whoa: The real question is do you have any source that McNamee DID testify under oath? (Consider this: I see Brady talking to reporters on ESPN News right now — he said the Giants have a lot of talent and he hopes they rest their defensive stars this weekend — I would assume he was not talking under oath — but I can’t prove that either.)
Other question: $20 million+ is the cost for the services of Mitchell’s law firm in putting together report. Presumably, this is based on billable hours and expenses — but it could be a lump sum fee. Doesn’t change anything I said.
Finally, there is no corroboration (i.e., independent consistent basis) of McNamee’s statements made to Mitchell (other than a single off-the-cuff statement allegedly made to the Mets towel boy). If there were other witnesses or written evidence, Mitchell would have shown it. He didn’t.
murphydog,
What is your specialty?
randy l,
Why would they want to do that to their golden child?
murpheydog-
did you read what i said about mcnamee saying, in the mitchell report that after 2001 , that clemens and he never mentioned steroid use again.
how is that a believable story? if clemens had rebuilt his career using steroids as mcnamee stated, why would they just suddenly stop talking about it?
sis years is a long time for them to do boring repetitious training together and never mention it. it stretches belief.
Queen for a Day: What he says can’t be used against him. It’s the tease, the proffer. In other words, if my guy were to testify, this is what he’d say. He then says what he and his attorney have rehearsed in order to make the proffered evidence as enticing as possible to get the witness the best deal possible. The more useful the statement to the prosecution, the better the possible outcome for the witness. And yes, the witness and his attorney already know the general outline of what the prosecution is looking for. But here’s the rub. The prosecutors have to figure out how much Hamburger Helper is in there. The prosecutors evaluate all the possible factors, and if the witness seems credible, that Queen for a Day statement is the starting point for hammering out the cooperating witness’ part of the formal quid pro quo agreement with the prosecution.
It doesn’t matter if McNamee testified or gave a statement under under oath. There are many ways to do it. McNamee could agree to a Q and A, under oath or not, on video, or he could give a written account that bears a statement at the end something like “I have read the above and state that it is truthful and accurate. I also understand that any materially false statements made herein may subject me to prosecution for perjury.”
There is also some provision in the cooperation agreement between McNamee and the Feds (not McNamee and Mitchell) like “in exchange for truthful testimony, McNamee may receive a sentence recommendation of ….”
“Why would they want to do that to their golden child?”
mel-
larry lucchino and theo have had major power struggles forever. henry had to step in to get theo to come back. it’s seems more likely lucchino and mitchell are close than it is theo and mitchell are close. mitchell and lucchino are the elder statemen. theo is the ungrateful upstart from lucchino’s point of view.
it’s just speculation on my part, but it’s an explanation why theo would be mentioned.
randy:
I saw that. That’s the kind of hole in Mcnamee’s story that would be exploited on cross examination. It suggests a lack of plausibility, a lack of credibility. But Mitchell wasn’t saying take it our leave it, he was vouching for McNamee, saying Mcnamee was telling truth. Mitchell conveniently spared himself the trouble of seeing his star witness smacked around on his bad points, but used his testimony essentially without caveat.
murphy,
you are correct that he may have signed a statement under penalty of perjury (but we don’t have that information) or the statement may have been recorded (but if so, that has not been made available). The fact remains that we have been provided no independent means to judge McNamee’s creditability… also, it has been suggested that the fact that his proffer was shared with Mitchell likely means that they are not going after him directly or anyone else based on the information he provided (because they knew the statements would be made public and jeopardize a future prosecution)… but who knows… other than the prosecutors and possibly one elderly director of the Boston Red Sox…
mel:
I do house closings ; )
So McNamee may well have testified under oath, but we know that Clemens didn’t. Even if McNamee wasn’t under oath, making a false statement to a federal investigator is a crime.
As for the $20 million, it’s quite clear that given the cost of these investigations, that Mitchell personally received a tiny fraction of it.
McNamee’s strongest corroboration is that Pettitte confirmed that his assertions about him were accurate.
OTOH, given McNamee’s reported character issues, why doesn’t bring him to court? Granted, NYT v. Sullivan places a high bar for Clemens to surmount, but even if he can’t establish a prima facie case, there is always the possibility that jury nullification could produce a verdict in his favor.
Have you noticed a cognitive deficit in Mitchell or is that just gratuitous ageism?
Chuck:
“The fact remains that we have been provided no independent means to judge McNamee’s creditability…”
While I’m on your side, I have to be fair: there are some indications of reliability in McNamee’s accusations. I’m just not convinced that they are very strong.
You are right. The deal was cut; it’s a no-go on McNamee in exchange for his cooperation with Mitchell against Clemens. It’s not like MacNamee is completely incredible, it’s that there are huge credibility problems with him as a person, not just within the four corners of his allegations against Clemens. A witness like McNamee can never be taken at face value but that’s essentially what Mitchell did.
Whoa! NO! You can make no assumption about McNamee other than he is apparently a man of poor character making statements to save his own butt. You can’t say he may or may not have testified under oath. We must assume he did not unless we are told otherwise.
Mitchell charged a lot of money for a report that did very little other than provide a history of steroid use in baseball and lean on prosecutors to provide him any new evidence. For that, his firm charged baseball $20 million. It was a waste of money. I was saying nothing about Mitchell actually receiving that money. I am sure the firm pays him well regardless (as a former Senator) and he also gets a paycheck from the Red Saux (leading to the appearance of a conflict that Mitchell failed to adequately address when he should have — at the beginning).
whoa — I didn’t say anything about Mitchell’s cognitive ability. The word “elderly” describes his age. he is old.
So here is the subtle point you missed: Mitchell was operating under the appearance of conflict. This does not mean he did anything wrong — but as a former senator and judge, he knows that avoiding the APPEARANCE of conflict is very important. He could have recused himself and told Selig to find someone else. He did not. He could have formed an oversight committee that included representatives of other teams to review the investigation and the report to avoid conflict. He didn’t do that either. He could have stepped down from his position with the Red Sox. He didn’t.
Instead, he kept the investigation away from any other team’s insider and let the appearance of conflict envelope everything he did.
By the way: I have not decided about Clemens yet either. I agree that there are reasons to believe that McNamee was telling the truth — but they are consistently overstated here and elsewhere (so, basically, I adopt much of what Murphy has said as well — I am also an attorney with very limited criminal law experience).
Good night folks.
For alleged, un-traceable acts behind closed doors, whoever has the burdon of proof will likely lose.
If McNamee lied to suit Mitchell, he did so in a way that he likely can’t be proven a liar. To prove McNamee lied, the burdon of proof is on Clemens, and Clemens would probably lose that attempt (even if Clemens is innocent).
So McNamee could give Mitchell what he wanted without risk.
Mitchell had no burdon of proof to include people in his report, as the report (so far) has no formal consequences.
On the other hand, if Mitchell/McNamee had to prove Clemens juiced behind closed doors, they’d likely lose (even if Clemens is guilty).
Chuck,
I assume that federal investigators are skilled at assessing the truth or falsity of prospective witnesses, and that they believe that McNamee, facing extreme jeopardy if he is lying, was telling the truth, whether or not he was under oath.
Clemens, otoh, chose not to speak to investigators.
The difference in the level of scrutiny requires that their respective claims should not be viewed in equipoise.
Have you viewed Mitchell’s time sheets? How many billable hours did he put in?
MLB was faced with very few alternatives given Congress’ mandate to conduct an investigation. When the MLBPA decided to stonewall, their options were further reduced.
The MLBA cannot obstruct the investigation and then claim unfairness when they don’t like the results.
You can smear Mitchell with a bloody red sock all you want, but the man’s curriculum vitae can withstand it.
Chuck,
Seventy is the new 50. Get with it.
The conflict was disclosed. That reduces the deleterious impact of any conflict. As an attorney, you should know that.
Ed – “…but then their bodies totally fell apart. Guys like Giambi, McGwire, and Bonds can barely walk now.”
—————————————————-
Not sure if that aaplies to Bonds. At 43, he still had a 1+ OPS. Having knee injuries after 20 years of playing ball, and at his age, isn’t that unusual.
I’m not sure that the deleterious impact of his apparent conflict was dissipated one iota. If I hire an attorney who once worked for my adversary, there is a conflict of interest that I need to be aware of and be willing to waive. Mitchell’s apparent conflict of interest was of no consequence to Selig, who hired him – Selig was in no jeopardy whatsoever. It may, however, have a great deal of impact on the credibility that his report receives.
Whoa,
So many failures make your points collapse:
(1) McNamee is unlikely to face “extreme jeopardy” for his statements as it is near impossible to prosecute him for anything he says. He was Queen for a Day and we have no idea of the terms he proffered under.
(2) I would not assume anything about the prosecutors and we do not know what the prosecutors think about McNamee’s statements. We only know what Mitchell put in his report (which is pretty light on specifics and leads to many unanswered questions). For all we know, the prosecutors may have thought McNamee was full of s**t and his statements were useless to them.
(3) Clemens and EVERY OTHER ACTIVE MLB PLAYER other than Giambi (who was forced to) and Frank Thomas refused to cooperate. Mitchell also did not tell them what evidence he had — he said that they had to come in first so he could surprise them. That was unfair as well. This may not have been a witch hunt, but it was close. To single Clemens out for non-cooperation is disingenuous.
(4) Why would I need to see the timesheets? What is your point? It is on record that the bill was over $20 million and I have read a significant portion of the report. It ain’t worth $20 million. That is my opinion based on more than a dozen years working at various law firms.
(5) Baseball could have cooperated with the Union in the beginning to set up the investigation in a manner fair to all sides. Selig did not even try. He acted unilaterally and hired Mitchell. The system was set up to catch players and provided no safeguards. As an attorney, I would not have allowed my client’s to cooperate under these conditions.
(6) So you can’t answer anything I say about Mitchell except to categorize it as a smear. I didn’t say he was stupid or evil — I don’t believe he is either of those. I said Mitchell made mistakes — the biggest of which is operating under a conflict of interest in investigating and preparing the steroids report. He could have avoided it he didn’t. He could have used procedures that insured fairness to the players and gave them flexibility in presenting their side. He didn’t. He served his client — MLB — and not the players. This is not a smear — but it does taint the report. (And I generally agree with Mitchell’s politics — doesn’t mean he can’t make mistakes.)
Now I really have to go to bed. Please take your time before mischaracterizing my statements and plucking words out of context again… If you do a little research and can provide FACTS, I welcome it.
nite folks.
Chuck – that’s it exactly. The appearance of impropriety is what is important. It’s not a question of whether Mitchell behaved improperly. The appearance of impropriety – which is pretty glaring, I think – should have been avoided, could have been avoided, but was not.
OK — one more thing before the head hits the pillow — Disclosure of a conflict that was never hidden DOES ABSOLUTELY NOTHING TO “reduce the deleterious impact” of said conflict. If it was an unknown conflict, disclosure is the first step. That is not the case here.
Analogy: I disclose that I am a Yankee fan. If you already knew that, it does nothing to “reduce the deleterious impact” of my conflict of interest when critiquing the Red Sox or the players on that team. (By the way, it is not only my opinion, but a fact that the BoSaux will always suck regardless of the number of World Series they win — and Papelbon looks like a constipated three-year-old.)
Chuck – what’s your area of concentration, if you don’t mind my asking?
Well I keep lying about going to bed… Ellen — I have jumped around — I have been a commercial litigator most of my career. I have also been a hedge fund lawyer and am currently working for an insurance company in a non-litigation capacity. My relevant experience to these topics: I clerked for a Federal Judge my first year out of law school and spent a year interning in the U.S. Attorney’s Office for the Eastern District of New York during law school.
Pete – Your logic is WAY off base:
“First off, I haven’t decided whether I believe Clemens or not. I do know that Roger, Andy and McNamee were an inseperable trio for years.” — So is everyone McNamee trained guilty by association? McNamee is a scumbag but was also a well respected trainer.
“As for McNamee’s validity, he’s a bad guy by many accounts. But when the feds are sitting there and you’re testifying to a U.S. Senator, what is the upside of throwing Clemens under the bus?”. — Mitchell can NOT prove anything McNamee said. He said he shot Roger up “in his house”. It’s purely HeSaid-SheSaid. As far as gaining, if for some reason McNamee has NO names of consequence, he was probably going to jail. The “juicier” his testimony was, the better the odds of avoiding jail time.
“The upside is you don’t know what evidence Mitchell has from elsewhere and if you lie, you could be going to jail.” – Everything McNamee said was unsubstanciated, and unprovable. He said he was ALONE with Roger in Rogers house when he shot them up. If I told you I sau a UFO last night, how can you prove I didn’t?
“Barry Bonds is under indictment for lying to the feds. He’s facing jail time. The feds do not like it when you lie to them and they make that clear.” – BIG BIG difference. They ware trying to prove Bonds guilty. Any ONE person or event could turn up proving guilt. But you CAN’T prove innocence. Bond says he didn’t do it. If we find a number of people who saw his use, he’s lying. Again, you can’t prove innocence, you can only prove guilt.
“Mitchell is no idiot. He knew naming Clemens would cause huge waves. I find it hard to believe he just tossed it in there.” — No, but who defends the Tobacco industry, one of the most corrupt and harmful institutions in the history of this country.
Did McNamee have a lawyer and legal advice? Do you think he talked stategy with his representation? Coached? Told what he could say ’safely’ because it would be impossible to prove otherwise? I mean look at the help OJ got. But McNamee was NOT in court or in front of a grand jury.
Mind you, I’m not convinced that Roger IS innocent. But McNamee, like any good liar, could mix in lots of little lies along with a bunch of truth. The best liars tell the truth 98% of the time.
Good night, Chuck! We’ll talk law some other time.
Pete: A belated Merry Christmas and a big THANK YOU for your way above and beyond work on this blog. Who else would be blogging on vacation – at Christmas – to keep everyone up to date on the Yankees and baseball? All the best to you and your loved ones in 2008.
The fact that Roger is now asking his lawyers to investigate the Mitchell Report speaks volumes. After refusing Senator Mitchell’s invite to speak with him during the investigation, Roger is now trying to revise.
Here’s a line from ‘Moonstruck’ which works here:
“Just tell the truth, they find out anyway.”
Annie, as with others, you are speaking half truths. Clemens refusing to speak to Mitchell but he had no idea what Mitchell was going to ask him. Read the report. Mitchell was trying to sandbag the players. He didn’t say: “Your trainer tells me he injected you — come talk.” He said: “Come talk and I will you what I have on you (if anything) and see how you respond without time to prepare.” Whether you are guilty or innocent, it is not in your best interest to walk into an interrogation under these conditions. Mitchell acted like a cop or a prosecutor when he was neither.
The Moonstruck line makes no sense here. He says he is telling the truth now — the first time he knew McNamee said anything was when the report was filed. Should he have come out before the report was filed saying “If McNamee says I was on the juice, he is lying.” That is silly (and admits guilt).
As I have stated, I have not reached a decision on Clemens, but his failure to talk to Mitchell prior to the release of the report holds absolutely no weight with me. Not talking under the conditions set was the right thing to do at the time.
Pete — You are right to say the jury is out on Clemens. We won’t know if McNamee’s telling the truth or not at least until he undergoes cross-examination. But I’ve litigated cases where witnesses who had pleaded out with the feds and had no downside except by lying did just that. I don’t understand why — perhaps they were congenital liars and couldn’t help themselves — but it can happen and it does happen.
I don’t think Clemens can get anywhere by suing. Mitchell can probably get any case thrown out on summary judgment because, in a defamation case, Clemens would be a “public figure” and Mitchell would have to have shown “actual malice” in order to be liable. Given that Clemens refused to appear before Mitchell, it would be hard to find that Mitchell acted with “actual malice” when he relied on all of the evidence that was available to him. Clemens will probably not be able to get to examine McNamee at all if he sues.
Finally, the author of On D Ball’s Weekly Standard article is totally wrong on hearsay, Mitchell was right. What B reports A saying about himself is not hearsay in any proceeding where A is a party, because it is an admission by A. The Federal Rules of Evidence define hearsay as not including out-of-court admissions by parties. This should come as no surprise to anyone familiar with the Weekly Standard — they kept insisting that weapons of mass destruction were all over Iraq, and remember that Mitchell is Lebanese.
Chuck – are you on Clemen’s legal team?
Mr. Paul,
I have a wonderful recipe, but since I am a conservative I know you would not use it, so I will not give it to you.
I’m sure it will amaze you, but I read the NY Times even though they were wrong on WMD as well as many other things.
The particular question asked by Chris Wallace on Fox News Sunday was about that jackass who accused Roberts.
Mitchell said his admission was contrary to the tattle tales interest. This is not obvious, nobody was going put that idiot in jail.
McNamee is a liar. I got that out of the NY Times (oops, I guess you don’t believe them either because they sometimes agree with the Weekly Standard). They described what McNamee said his education was and what it really was.
Keep in mind, without Clemens name, which is based solely on the testimony of a liar who is under indictment, this report would not have gotten off the ground.
No Annie, I am not. In fact I lean slightly towards believing that Clemens used performance enhancing substances that he shouldn’t have…
What I am is someone who will reject the simplistic notion that you can convict Clemens because he didn’t talk to Mitchell (no one in his position did) or because he improved his performance in his late 30s and early 40s like no other player in history (untrue). If you think these “facts” speak volumes, you are sitting far too close to the speakers.
But Annie, should I jump to my own conclusions about you based on your failure to provide a substantive response? Hmmm.
Nov 2003 – Since more than five percent of Major League Baseball players tested positive for steroid use this year, mandatory testing for the drugs will begin next season.
Release these names !
Mitchell and the Boston Tea party is primarily a one city witch hunt. Release the names from 2003 !
How hard would that be?
I would be more apt to believe these test results. Why go to the race track and ask the trainers who won last years Kentucky Derby? – you can look it up in any newspaper. The steroid users list was compiled in 2003. Do you really think that no one in baseball knows who was on that list? The Mitchell report should be sent to Area 51 with other very suspicious materials. Selig was one terrible owner and not just by chance, he also is a really terrible commissioner. If Bud pleads not to know who was guilty in 2003, send the samples to Horatio on CSI Miami. He can get DNA results in less than a minute.
I know most of you watch baseball. If you have steroid results, you have DNA. DNA seems to be good enough to convict people of old crimes and also has been used to free innocent people. Lance Armstong’s urine from 7 years ago seems to get tested every year. Baseball fabricated this investigation when it had all that was needed from the beginning. Instead of using science, Mitchell tried bribery and threats. Sounds like Bud’s kind of guy.
http://bostondirtdogs.boston.com/Headline_Archives/2007/12/clemens_hires_d_1.html
“Mitchell and the Boston Tea party is primarily a one city witch hunt. Release the names from 2003 !”
– Ever remember as a child arguing with a sibling and you getting in trouble? Your immediate whiny reaction was, “but he/she did it too!!!”
Then your parents told you not to worry about him/her, “you worry about you.”
Who else besides Clemens is saying McNamee lied? Not a rhetorical question here; I really want to know.
My gut tells me that Clemens was a ‘roider. He can only gain by denying, muddying the waters, and making us fight about it among ourselves.
On D Ball — I am a conservative too and have been active as such for over 40 years, going back to Goldwater. I just don’t find the Standard’s journalism that trustworthy.
The admission is what came out of Roberts’s mouth being used against Roberts, and that just isn’t hearsay under the Federal Rules of Evidence. Note that Mitchell was a federal judge before he was a Senator, believe me he knows what he is talking about when it comes to hearsay.
BTW, I’m agreeing with you that the fact that McNamee’s only downside is to lie doesn’t mean he’s not still lying. I’ve seen witnesses who pleaded out and signed cooperation agreements with the gov’t continue to lie, even though that was the only way they could harm themselves. I personally don’t know one way or the other if McNamee is lying now or if he lied in the past, and I suspect we’ll never know for sure, because I don’t think that Clemens’s attorneys will get the chance to cross-examine him even if they bring the suit.
Cheers (& go Yanks).
Paul
I’m glad to see that we are not far apart. According to my memory and an ESPN report, I checked with, Mitchell said that >>>
Yes, subsequently Robert admitted to trying them once.
But the question is whether Mitchell should have included such hearsay in his report. Mitchell said yes because it was covered by the exception to the hearsay rule because it was against Bigbie’s interest. I and the Weekly Standard author don’t see that it was against Bigbie’s interest. Nobody is going to put Bigbie in Jail because Roberts said he had tried steroids.
As far as Mitchell being a former federal judge, he is also a lying politician. As conservative, you should know the SOB promised the elder Bush that he would get a vote in the Senate on lowering the Capital Gains tax. He lied.
For $20 million, even a former judge, will engage in character assassination and a cover up. And that what his report included.
[i]“Who else besides Clemens is saying McNamee lied? Not a rhetorical question here; I really want to know.”[/i]
David Justice.
“Ever remember as a child arguing with a sibling and you getting in trouble? Your immediate whiny reaction was, ‘but he/she did it too!!!’
Then your parents told you not to worry about him/her, ‘you worry about you.’”
Bad analogy. Mitchell report was supposed to be comprehensive not anecdotal. He failed to be comprehensive. In fact, he failed completely but for those caught by the Feds.
Chuck
The NY Times said that McNamee lied about his credentials. Used his lies to get a teaching job in Sports Medicine.
I posted the URL a while back.
If you want to read it, you can used the search engine at the Times site to get it.