LOL, the part about vioxx was particularly amusing. "Roger if you are called to testify, will you tell them what you told me?" "Definitely, and I will also bring up the effects of vioxx." LOL, wtf??
I think one's own personal bias(pro or con) would get out of that what they wanted. I dont have a feeling of guilt or innocence either way, and didnt get any cues from his body language. If anything, he seemed annoyed to be in the predicament.
Roger looked pretty bad tonight. Are we going to hear Barry Bonds bring up the forehead ear/teeth tractor pull now? Is that a legit excuse? The vioxx questions at a congressional hearing was amusing too. The congressional hearing should be pretty interesting.
I actually was surprised at how he presented himself in the interview overall. Not necessarily impressed, but he certainly held firm. The comments about pulling tractors and a third ear were silly, but that's what they were meant to be. I hope no one actually thought he was serious when discussing that...more of an expression than anything else. I do find it a little irritating his comments regarding the HOF. To say what he did (essentially that he isn't in the game for the glory or the HOF) is contradictory because of his great admiration for the history of baseball (ex: Nolan Ryan, Babe Ruth) and his personal relationship with higher-ups at the HOF (he was with Dale "d******d" Petrosky last summer in Cooperstown). I just want to know what this "emotional phone call" with his trainer was like. Can't wait to see which one concedes their lies!
Has any other player denied anything in the Mitchell Report? I know we haven't heard from a lot of people (Tejada, for example). But has anyone else outright denied anything in there? If not, it would seem peculiar that either Clemens' info is the only incorrect info or other people don't bother denying pretty damaging accusations. I do hope that the congressional hearing brings in Mitchell and asks about the thoroughness of the investigation, secondary evidence, etc.
The bad thing about the Mitchell report is that it is almost all circumstantial evidence and hearsay. And the credibility of the guy accusing Clemens is questionable because of the trouble he is in with the law. I just don't know....and I don't care. DD
He's not in trouble anymore, his plea bargain is signed, sealed & delivered. The only way he can get in further trouble, by getting his deal revoked, is if he's found to be not telling the truth.
I don't know if that interview could have gone any worse for Clemens...It doesn't help his case at all.
In other words, if McNamee is lying about Clemens (and others), the Feds will (figuratively) bury him 6 feet under. Translation: He has zero incentive to cook up false stories. When you combine this with Pettitte's confession, calling McNamee's testimony about Clemens "hearsay" is a stretch. Think about it: The trainer tells the truth about Pettitte but then dreams up lies on Clemens at the risk of getting his deal revoked. Yeah right.
If they specifically wanted Clemens, who is a much bigger name than AP, he did have incentive to lie about Clemens. At the same time he has zero risk of the deal being revoked since Clemens can't prove a negative - that he didn't take steroids. The only move with risk for McNamee would have been to buck the Feds. Further, it still is absolutely hearsay. What AP did has NO effect on a determination about what Clemens did - and saying it does is just silly.
Silly? If that's how you feel, fine. For some of us, it's doubtful (but not impossible) for Clemens to be "surprised" by what Pettitte acknowledged. A 1st person witness who knew Clemens for 10 years and injected him with ??? is not hearsay. Anonymous, 3rd person accounts are hearsay. Identifiable eyewitness accounts aren't considered hearsay unless your particular definition is different from everyone else's, which obviously is the case. Your take on McNamee's incentive is typical of someone who may want to give Clemens the benefit of the doubt. Thanks your right and privilege, but I'm not going to do that. When you add everything up, it looks very bad for him. I'll repeat again that Clemens was washed up at age 34 following his last 4 seasons with the Red Sox. Then suddenly he joins the Jays and wins two consecutive Cy Young awards. Workout routines don't do that. Same for Barry Bonds and his flaxseed oil at age 38.
It's also typical of attorneys who know how prosecutors work. I had clients involved in a white collar scandal. The lies the prosecutors told to get the one to snitch on the other....even going so far as telling them what to say in order to get a lighter sentence....were incredible. The guys were playing roulette with their lives and the prosecutors don't give a damn, I promise you.
Dude might be looking for a book deal, for all we know. Ratting on RC might get a book deal, while ratting on AP is a great-big-o no BFD.
No, it is silly to claim that AP having done HGH means Clemens must have. As far as what he knew about AP's use of HGH, it is at least equally plausible that AP would conceal it from Clemens because of his opinion (now expressed) about it's usage. So you don't believe someone should be innocent until proven guilty? You need to reassociate yourself with Clemens record. I guess we should put it all in one thread so I'll just answer it in the 'lying' thread.
Why would federal invesigators specifically "want" Clemens? There's nothing for them to want him for. There appears to be no ongoing federal investigation of Clemens at this time and there doesn't ever appear to have been. The only potential crime is misdemeanor possession, which would be difficult to convict years after the fact and the statute of limitation may have run anyway (I'm guessing it's 3 years but I haven't checked). Lots of athletes in the past have admitted in sworn testimony that they used drugs (Giambi, Sheffiled, etc) - not a single one has been prosecuted for possession. Nor has any of the dozens of athletes that McNamee named - even though there is a lot more physical evidence against them like cancled checks, etc. Even Barry Bonds, who has been indicted, is not being prosecuted for possession.
Let me debunk the "Roger was finished in Boston" idea. His last 4 years in Beantown: 1993: 191 ip 104 era+ 1994: 170 ip 177 era+ 1995: 140 ip 116 era+ 1996: 242 ip 139 era+ His next two years in Toronto saw some pretty big jumps, but his entire stint with NY was right in line with those Boston numbers. His NL stint saw him return to big gaudy numbers like he had with Toronto. Biggest different between Toronto's two seasons and his time in NY and his last few years with Boston? Health.
Because they are in the midst of a major steroid distributor crackdown, as has been evidenced by all the internet pharmacies they've recently gotten and such. In order to do that, they need to find the users so they can get to the source. Forcing McNamee to make up information about Clemens doesn't help them in that regard - getting legitimate information does.
Forcing McNamee to speak with Mitchell doesn't advance the goal of finding distributors at all. The feds already made their deal with McNamee. Is cannot have possibly furthered their investigation to have McNamee cooperate with Mitchell (a private citizen compiling a book of individual accusations). Getting users names from McNamee doesn't get them dealers, nor does giving McNamee a walk to get Clemens and Andy Pettite's names. McNamee got HGH for Pettite so what name could they get by getting Pettite's name in the Mitchell report? One they already had - McNamee's? If you're contending that federal agents/prosecutors don't take actions for publicity, I have to disagree.
