Sorry here is the article: By MARY FLOOD and DAVID BARRON Copyright 2008 Houston Chronicle In a defamation lawsuit filed Sunday night, Roger Clemens claims Brian McNamee, his longtime trainer and chief accuser of steroid abuse, was threatened with jail if he didn't connect the pitcher to steroids. The lawsuit was filed electronically with the Harris County civil courts Sunday evening just before CBS locally aired Clemens' interview on 60 Minutes. "I don't know if I'll ever get the naysayers back. I don't know what I'm going to get. Maybe some of my name back," a frustrated Clemens said Sunday. Clemens said this lawsuit will not keep him from testifying before Congress, which he plans to do without asking for immunity or invoking any rights. The former Houston Astro is being called to testify about McNamee's allegations that the trainer injected Clemens with steroids and human growth hormones between 1998 and 2001. The lawsuit doesn't request a specific dollar amount and Clemens' Houston lawyer, Rusty Hardin, said they filed the suit not to get money, but to clear Clemens' name and discover how the allegations against Clemens came about. Hardin said they want to learn exactly what was done and not done by federal agents and other investigators who helped U.S. Sen. George Mitchell implicate Clemens in a report on steroid use for Major League Baseball. "This has ruined Roger's reputation with a large percentage of the public," said Hardin. "All of McNamee's accusations are false and defamatory per se," the lawsuit states. "They are not true, and they injured Clemens' reputation and exposed him to public hatred, contempt, ridicule, and financial injury. McNamee made the allegations with actual malice, knowing they were false." Clemens' lawsuit also asks a Texas court to declare that he has not defamed McNamee. McNamee's New York lawyers have threatened to sue Clemens for defamation, depending what Clemens said on 60 Minutes. Hardin said Clemens, following the advice of his lawyer, agents and others, waited almost a month since the Mitchell Report was made public to sue McNamee. "We kept thinking McNamee might change his mind and come to his senses and admit he was lying," Hardin said. But, Hardin said, instead McNamee arranged to talk to Clemens Friday and, rather than getting back to Clemens as promised, their conversation was leaked "with spin" to Newsday. The lawsuit first details all the McNamee allegations in the Mitchell Report. The lawsuit said a link between steroids and Clemens' success "is untrue and maliciously ignores Clemens' consistent record-setting performances before and after" the years McNamee alleges the wrongdoing. Met in 1998 In the suit, the careers of Clemens and McNamee are chronicled, including that they met in 1998 and "discovered a shared intensity for grueling, military-style workouts." It lists Clemens' formidable litany of successes before and after the McNamee allegations. Hardin said the idea is to assess the history and credibility of both Clemens and McNamee. Clemens' suit does not favor McNamee, of course. The lawsuit notes that McNamee was a suspect, but never charged, in an alleged date rape in Florida in 2001. The New York Times has mentioned the accusation and McNamee's lawyer, Earl Ward, noted no charges were filed. A Florida prosecutor concluded there was insufficient evidence. The lawsuit and the New York paper state that the Florida investigation led to McNamee's termination from the Yankees as a trainer. The lawsuit also includes a quote from a conversation Hardin's private investigators had with McNamee after the Mitchell Report was made public. The lengthy McNamee quote indicates he was persuaded to talk about Clemens after a federal prosecutor and agent threatened him. According to the lawsuit, McNamee told Hardin's investigators a federal prosecutor and federal agent talked about how he already had two strikes against him for possessing and delivering steroids and could get a third — lying to a federal agent — and go to jail. He said it was soon after that he was asked "So what about Clemens?" 'Trying to defend my name' McNamee is quoted as saying a federal agent said since McNamee trained Clemens, he should know that the pitcher was taking steroids. McNamee said a piece of paper was thrown at him and then the prosecutor spoke: "He goes, 'We know about (sic) more about you than you know about yourself.' He goes, 'You're going to jail.' My attorney just sat there. And they said 'Let's go back to when you first met Clemens in '98.' " The lawsuit alleges McNamee said that after he said he injected Clemens with steroids, McNamee "magically" became a witness instead of a target in a criminal federal drug investigation that preceded the Mitchell Report. The suit further states McNamee was threatened with being prosecuted if he didn't repeat his story to the Mitchell Commission in a "cold war era interrogation" where the trainer was asked to agree after a federal agent read his previous statements. Hardin said Clemens has taken the advice of his lawyer and others in working to clear his name. He said the lawsuit doesn't accuse Mitchell or Major League Baseball because there isn't information to show anyone but McNamee defamed Clemens. "We don't know what McNamee told (Mitchell). We don't know what vetting he did," Hardin said. Clemens said he was reluctant to file the lawsuit and has been unhappy with this entire episode. "I'm going to shell out millions trying to defend my name," said Clemens. Clemens mentioned a 2006 Los Angeles Times story that falsely connected him with steroids but has since been shown to have been based on a legal document that didn't mention the pitcher at all. "When you see the people who are absolutely trashing me and my name and my family, like I said, after a year with the LA Times, at the end of the day I got an apology. Maybe I'll get that again. Maybe I'll get an apology that 'I'm sorry about the lies. I'm sorry that we did what we did,' " Clemens said.
Those are some pretty bold claims his lawyers are making, and if true, could mean vindication for him. But I wonder why federal investigators were so intent on going after Clemens...it's not like they're weren't other big names in the Mitchell Report....Pettite isn't just some average joe pitcher...but then again, Pettite only used HGH a couple of times to recover faster from injury. Maybe they wanted the biggest fish possible...but that still doesn't quite make much sense to me. If none of this is true...then Clemens can not only forget about the Hall, but he'll probably have to going into seclusion like McGwire and Palmeiro. I sure wish we had some hard evidence instead of all this hearsay.
Agreed. There is no hard evidence at all. Sometimes you have to wonder how credible testimonies are...especially if they are threatened and harassed.
It's gonna be he said vs. he said on both sides, it will all be circumstancial evidence. But for McNamee , he's been correct/truthful so far... They both have an out, Roger "I thought it was B12", McNamee it was labeled "xxx" so unless some magically video/drug test comes out, we'll never know...
That's a fairly bold assumption there, plee. Of course, it's an assumption everyone is willing to make in their desire to crucify Clemens. Not that I blame them -- people feel betrayed, and they want blood. That's why you see everyone coming out after the 60 minutes interview and saying "he was blinking a lot" and "IANAP but his body language looked inconsistent to me" etc. etc. Maybe he took steroids, maybe he didn't. The point is that the guy has already been accused, tried and convicted in the court of public opinion before he was able to defend himself, so no matter what Clemens does or regardless of his innocence/guilt, he's never going to get a fair shake.
I assume he was referring to the parts that we know one way or another for sure (Pettitte). Fair shake and "court of public opinion" have never gone together, though. I don't think any celebrity gets a fair shake in the court of public opinion - good or bad. If Clemens DID cheat, then he got tens of millions of dollars out of it and millions of fans cheering for him over that time as a benefit of cheating. If Clemens ddin't cheat, then he's being unfairly treated now. In either scenario, he didn't get a fair shake - we just don't know which way.
Well, do we have a quote from Lance Berkman, yet? Seriously, I thought the players named in the Mitchell report had a chance to address the accusations levied against them?? I thought it was odd Clemens needed to go into seclusion before responding to the report. If Clemens is guilty, does it mean Pettitte would have to lie under oath?
It's weird that so many people said 'if he's telling the truth then why doesn't he sue McNamee for defamation?' Now he is and we're not seeing many retractions.
He is probably just doing this so when he goes to congress he can say i cant say anything i dont want to compromise my court case
Retraction? Any monkey with a filing fee can file a lawsuit. It's another matter if he lets it proceed all the way through discovery and to trial, which opens him up to all sorts of potential problems. If roger is sincere, he should let it do that, since he's not going to make any money off this. I doubt that it happens though as I imagine the suit gets dismissed or settled in the short term. In the meantime it is cheap PR in his favor, which appears to be what Rusty Hardin was hired for. If I were roger I would fire Rusty and get a lower key, white collar defense type lawyer, preferably a former US attorney. Rusty started out with the scorched earth strategy. But within the span of a week, roger has backpedaled from "i've never done anything ever ever ever" to "oh i thought it was just painkillers and b-12 the guy was putting in my ass." A high stakes game that he could really lose if he has to testify before congress as well. That's a pretty good thought, I don't know if it's legal but it sounds good.
Yes, retraction. As I said in the earlier post, there are plenty of people who pointed to the lack of a suit and implied it proved his guilt. If you were one of those people, then you should retract your condemnation. If you aren't then don't worry about it. Or at a minimum I would think that if that was 'a' consideration in someone's conclusion they might step back and withhold judgement for now.
There is a big difference between saying "I never did steroids or HGH, I did get injections of b-12 and lidocaine" and "I thought it was just painkillers and b-12." Clemens said the first and not the second. No reason for you to create the strawman.
The other thing that's hurting Clemens here is his seeming stupidity. Here's his statement from Dec 23rd: “Let me be clear, the answer is no. I did not use steroids, or human growth hormone and I’ve never done so,” Clemens said. “I did not provide Brian McNamee with any drugs to inject in to my body. Brian McNamee did not inject steroids or Human Growth Hormones into my body either when I played in Toronto for the Blue Jays or the New York Yankees.” If you believe his story, then technically, yes this is true. But if you WERE injected with B-12, why not mention it it at the time? "Yes, McNamee injected me as described - but with B-12, not steroids or HGH". His first denial tried to give the impression that McNamee didn't inject anything into him. If you parse the statements carefully, you can see that's not what he said. But the problem is that Clemens just doesn't seem upfront about any of this.
I don't know if I was one of those people, but I refuse to print a retraction if I was. In fact I demand you retract your demand for my retraction, and while I'm at it I am going to protract my earlier statement in the event that i made one.
Except there is no reason to admit to b-12 and lidocaine at all. If McNamee's still got the syringes then Clemens is toast anyway. He could have just straight denied that McNamee ever injected anything in his butt. You're saying his word choices are poor, but he isn't a lawyer, he's a baseball player.
Create a strawman? LOL - Roger was the one who did that. If he didn't want to create a strawman, he should have disclosed it in his fire & brimstone inital denial. Not wait till a few days later and say "whooops, by the way, the guy was shootin me up with all kinds of stuff, just nothing I thought was illegal!"
