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.

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.

David Justice.

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.

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).

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.

Then your parents told you not to worry about him/her, “you worry about you.”

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.

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.