The Mitchell Report isn't crap because it slams the cheating players, the Mitchell Report is crap because it tiptoes daintily around the cheating owners. It's as if the army killed Qusay Hussein but let Uday walk.

I disagree. For one thing -- as has been said before -- I don't know what people think the owners were supposed to do, in terms of specific players. Really, the most one could complain about is that the owners didn't care about the issue, and so they didn't push it in negotiations. (Even that is overstated, however; the issue really came to the fore in the mid-90s. At that time, there was a strike going on which had wiped out the postseason, so the owners had something a little more crucial to the game to worry about. The very next CBA was the 2002 one, and they did begin to address it then.) What else were they supposed to do? Refuse to acquire a player because they were suspicious of him? Release such players? Without testing or the ability to punish players, there wasn't much for owners to do.

I would say -- I have said -- that the Mitchell Report is crap for a different reason: because it spent 20 months to give us no information we can use for anything meaningful. The only information that came out of the report was some names (and those names weren't even uncovered by Mitchell! Which brings up the question of what the #### he was doing for those 20 months.) But what good do those names do us if they don't even purport to be the least bit comprehensive? We can't put the era in perspective, and we can't put individual players in perspective, when we don't know whether these represent the tip of the iceberg or the bulk of it. Were Radomski's clients just unlucky that he happened to get nailed? Or was he the most prominent source? Yes, if you're a vindictive ####, you might like any names to be released, even if the list is so incomplete as to amount to selective prosecution. But for people who honestly think steroid use is a problem and want to do something about it prospectively, what good does the list do?


The recommendations Mitchell made weren't worthless, but, well, any five Primates could have spent a weekend and come up with them for the price of beer and pizza. MLB didn't need to spend millions of dollars on lawyers.

I don't really care if Clemens roided or not, I do care why he hired a F!@3ing rapist for a personal trainer.

and count up the number of posts about gary bennett, evil confessed to drug using human vs roger clemens/barry lamar/sammy sosa/mcgwire evil ACCUSED of drug using humans

got any idea as to why it just might could be that almost no one posts on the ryan franklin/brian roberts/alex sanchez/jc romero threads?

Of course the high profile guys get the most attention, how many casual fans even know who the hell Gary Bennett or Ryan Franklin are?

And while they appear to be just as guilty its awhole lot easier to understand why they might look for that edge than a player of Bonds or Clemens caliber who were well on their way to HOF careers anyway.

I do care why he hired a F!@3ing rapist for a personal trainer.

I imagine Clemens would hire Mike Piazza to inject him in the ass if it led to another ridiculous contract.

Lasher,

Thanks for the comment. Having re-read the report after your comment it seems clear that there's a simple avenue to winning a suit. McNamee claims to have given some stuff he got from Clemens to Canseco.

Of course there's the issue of Canseco's credibility, but if he denies such a thing happened. ...

Can't see anything else in the report that is possible to refute.

Assuming Clemens (if you prefer, imaganine similar accusations against Jerry Koosman) came to you wanting to sue McNamee (I assume you would not advocate going after Mitchell since he appears to have been repeating the accusations in good faith). Again assuming that Canseco was willing to testify that McNamee never gave him a bottle of Anadrol-50, would you advocte going forward? Canseco seems a pretty frail reed to rely on. Particularly since (as Mitchell notes) in Juiced Canseco claims to have discussed the ins and outs of using steroids with Clemens.

Oh yeah, on the subject of Roberts (and Cust), what I said was that I thought the sections on those two weakened the report, because that was essentially gossip and took focus away from the fact that there's quite a bit of evidence against most of the people named.

Still don't understand the decision, but if it was some far-sighted tactical plan to draw people out, it worked very well.

Oh yeah, on the performance side of thing as evidence of use just don't see it. Sure he was awesome on the second half of 1998. It's perfectly in line with his 1997.

Yeah I suppose he could have been using something in 1997, stopped at the start of 1998, started something else in the second half of 1998, stopped in 1999 (when he had a really bad year by his standards) and presumably held off until 2004 -- when he restarted -- despite the presence of a testing program.

That's an awfully complicated timeline if you want to make a creation of steroids argument. And it really doesn't square with what's in the report.

Personally I'm inclined to believe Mcnamee (presumably backed by Canseco, albeit indirectly)

As for the overall performance in his mid to late 30s, Lefty Grove is worth a look. Sucked at 34 (ERA+ of 73) followed by ERA+ of 175, 188, 158, 160, 185. Sure Clemens has another bounce back at 41. SO did Cy Young, and I'm reasonably confident that he wasn't using steroids.

Warren Spahn was slightly better than his career average at 41 and 42.

Yeah comps are few and far between. But you'd bet on the great players to be the outliers.

while i cant prove it, I think Clemens started in 97, not 98.

Roger is not the only player to come out and claim inaccuracy's in the report.
We heard all kinds of rumors from the Mitchell Report of trainers being asked to "guess", and being pressured to "name names".

the bottom line is this is all he said/he said. nothing more.

in that sense, Roger is right.

After 25 years, you all turned on him at the word of a dope pusher trying to save his ass.

thats all you know. period

congratulations

So Roger Clemens was never suspected of using anything before the Mitchell Report came out? The only shred of "evidence" we have is McNamee's word? Of course being a "rapist" McNamee's word isn't worth #### because we all know that if you do something wrong once in your life you can never ever tell the truth about anything else. I mean if a rapist came in my office right now and told me the sky was blue I wouldn't believe him because you know, he is a rapist.

As for rushing to judgement, DMN, you kow that this is an internet board not real life, of course there is no benefit. Unless I am missing something we aren't getting paid to voice our opinions on here.

I think Clemens is lying. He knows that he did steroids. That's what I believe.

So what's that mean? Are we all supposed to boo and hiss at him and view him with disdain now?


I think Pettitte's apology was weak.

Uh, what difference does the "strength" of his apology make? Are you liable to have less disdain for a "strong" apology?

I also believe that he used hgh more than twice

Then what difference does an apology make whatsoever? Are you of the opinion that out of mere overwhelming sense of character, that he admit to more then he is even accused of? Because I guarantee you, no matter what you say, that you wouldn't, and nobody else here would. So have disdain for him for being intelligent enough to do that, which takes utterly no intelligence. And why would you think this anyways? Just 'cause? Just 'cause you want to have disdain or feel like being vindictive or cynical. Ok whoopdedo.


I believe that Barry Bonds has been lying about his steroid use all along. I also think that a huge number of people unfairly singled him out as the example of steroid user in baseball, when ample evidence existed suggesting others.

What an ignorant statement. Tell me, did the first congressional hearing have just Barry Bonds? Has no one failed or been accused of using steroids but Barry Bonds since the CBA? Barry Bonds is the most prominent player connected with steroids, therein receiving the most prominent coverage. But him being "singled out" is an ignorant, frankly, retarded assertion of your own imagination.


I would have no problem with players who used steroids, hgh, genetic manipulation or any other performance enhancer if they simply admitted it without qualification.

No, but see, you would. Because for you it is apparently not enough to admit use, you have to hear about believable quantities and lengths of use -- something abundant and seemingly dastardly, because experimentation has no luster and reminds you of your own faults, which nobody wants to see in the people they're trying to condemn. Bull #### dump.

I have used creatine, lsd, marijuana, and probably some over the counter things that are illegal in the NFL.

Since when is creatine illegal in the National Football league, and who cares if you've smoked barbecue goat fur? I don't give you an indirect paycheck to watch you at your job and therefore, I frankly don't give a damn what you do.

I imagine Clemens would hire Mike Piazza to inject him in the ass if it led to another ridiculous contract.

Thanks for sharing that.

Roger is not the only player to come out and claim inaccuracy's in the report.
We heard all kinds of rumors from the Mitchell Report of trainers being asked to "guess", and being pressured to "name names".

the bottom line is this is all he said/he said. nothing more.

GR, the question I had last night (I don't even remember which thread it was on) still applies: Since Pettitte's already acknowledged that McNamee was telling the truth about him, why should we assume that he was just blowing it out of his butt about Clemens?

Look, I'm a Yankee fan and I'd like nothing better than to see McNamee's testimony disproven, but even though I suppose it's theoretically possible that he's telling the truth in one case but lying in the other, it still wouldn't make much sense to me.

The only possible "explanation" for this is that somewhere on Mitchell's team there was "a Met fan" or "a Red Sox fan" who wanted to "get" Clemens, and threatened McNamee by telling him something along the lines of "you mentioned Pettitte, but we all know that you were associated with Clemens for all those years, and we want Clemens---no deal if you don't include Clemens." And then somehow blackmailed him into not just testifying about Clemens, but making up stories about him.

It just doesn't add up to anything more than another conspiracy theory. If I'm going to get into conspiracy theories, the ones involving coverups by the owners and Selig have a lot more inherent plausibility, given the financial stakes involved.

It just gets sadder every day. The Catholics sure knew what they were talking about when they included greed among the seven deadly sins. Because that's what this whole stinking mess has been all about from day one.

just like can't none of you PROVE you never raped a grrl you had a date with some years ago and yall were alone. what would you do if she accuse you 5 years later, says she was too afraid/intimidated to go get a rape kit? you can't sue her for libel because you have to prove you DIDN'T rape her and she don't have to prove you DID.

I have absolutely no idea how you can believe that any of this paragraph is true.

You are innocent until proven guilty, if a girl accuses you of rape the burden of proof is on her, not you.

The steroids issue is in the court of public opinion, it's a completely separate issue. Thankfully, the court of law is held to higher standards than the court of public opinion, of which there is, of course, no problem in having a public opinion.

None of us are acting as MLB or Clemen's lawyers here and some documents forged by some old dead white dudes give us the freedom in most instances to voice that opinion in public forums.

bernal,
i hear good christian andy pettitte left NY for the first time because he was, um, knowing - yeh, that's the word, a woman who was not his wife. why on earth would someone shoot HGH into their ass? you shoot it into the arm or stomach skin in kidz

You're lucky Andy Pettitte can't sue you for this because he can't prove you didn't not say it.

Or something.

Or he's mentally instable. Like it appears some people in this thread are.

So someone who thinks you are a ##### for not expressing or allowing yourself to form an opinion about a friggin baseball player is mentally unstable. I don;t think that holds up to you high standard of proof.

I imagine Clemens would hire Mike Piazza to inject him in the ass if it led to another ridiculous contract.

That certainly would open up an entirely new discussion, wouldn't it?

Since Pettitte's already acknowledged that McNamee was telling the truth about him, why should we assume that he was just blowing it out of his butt about Clemens?

Until one week ago, I had never heard McNamee's name. Maybe in passing while thumbing through an article or something. I follow these roids threads fairly throughly, and I did not even know Roger Clemens trainer was busted. I didn't know the feds had him facing a crime. Did you? Maybe I missed it.

Researching him a little, 18 Months ago, SI did a piece on him. McNamee said the feds were pressuring him to give up Roger then.

apparently Novitski got to him. Probably set up a perjury trap.

I don't know what to think anymore, but if Roger says he didn't do it, I'll give him the benefit of doubt. he has earned that.

Roger: When it’s going to take a serious turn for me is when one of my sponsors pull out, then somebody’s going to be responsible for that. Then my lawyers will take over from there.

GR, I respect your right to judge the issue for yourself and I certainly can't prove you're wrong. But how has Roger "earned" the benefit of the doubt anymore than anyone else in the game? He's been a great pitcher and good draw for the league but none of us know the man. If it's he said/he said, the best that you can come up with - what we all really ought to come up with is that we don't know. I have no reason to believe Roger in this issue over McNamee. The latter may be scum, but that doesn't automatically mean he's lying. I tend to think Roger used, but I tend to think most players used.

Anyway, I'm just curious if there is something other than he was a great player for a long time that would make you assume he's an honest man?

tis true. we don't know.

But Roger will still get the benefit of doubt from me.

Roger has denied use muliplte times. His trainer has denied it multiple times. I just linked one article, and there are more scattered around BTF. Just search McNamee.

The thing is, now Jeff Novitski is in the picture again, and he does not strike me as an honest man. his whole thing is sneaky.

is there anybody here that knew Rogers and Andy's trainer was facing federal charges? did I just miss it? was this not a Major news story?

I don't know what to think anymore, but if Roger says he didn't do it, I'll give him the benefit of doubt. he has earned that.

What difference does it make? I'm still waiting for an explanation about a lack of spikes that steroids generate.

ok Flipping thru the report, maybe he is not facing charges, but the feds were certainly leaning on him.

As part of his cooperation with the U.S. Attorney’s Office, and at its request, McNamee agreed to three interviews by me and my staff, one in person and two by telephone. McNamee’s personal lawyer participated in the interviews. Also participating were federal prosecutors and agents from the F.B.I. and the Internal Revenue Service.

On each occasion, McNamee was advised that he could face criminal charges if he made any false statementsduring these interviews, which were deemed by the prosecutors to be subject to his written agreement with the U.S. Attorney’s Office.

Gambling Rent, I don't have anything against giving Clemens the benefit of the doubt if you're skeptical / cynical about McNamee's credibility. But then how do you explain the fact that Pettitte's already acknowledged that what McNamee said about him was true? What explanation would you have for McNamee's telling the truth about Pettitte and yet lying about Clemens? It just doesn't add up, at least not on the surface.

Well McNamee outed four people.

Roger
Andy
Justice
Knoblauch

Both Justice and Roger have denied it. What are we to make of that?
Andy's admission is Andy's admission. It should have no bearing on Roger.

Have we heard from Knoblauch?

Have we heard from Knoblauch?

He sent an email to the New York Times but it wound up in junk mail at PS 159.

But again, why would McNamee be telling the truth about Pettitte if he's just lying about those other three players? What would be a rational explanation for that?

Those four are (or were) Yankees, and I'd love to see them all exonerated, but I'm not holding my breath.

Stanton denied it ..
I've done absolutely nothing wrong. I've never met Radomski and couldn't even pick him out of a lineup. The reports are outrageous and unfair." -- interview with MLB.com

Justice denied it ..
"I don't even know who Kirk Radomski is. If he walked up to me right now and said, 'Hello,' I would not know who he was. I want to see the check that shows me paying something to a Kirk Radomski, because I don't even know who he is. I didn't pay for human growth hormone, ever." -- interview with YES Network

Alex Cabrera:
"I couldn't have used the substances that are identified. I never had possession of the alleged box that supposedly contained the pharmaceutical drugs." --statement on Web site of the Caracas Lions of the Venezuelan winter league.

Gregg Zaun:
"I am stunned by the allegations set forth in Senator Mitchell's report. I emphatically deny these allegations but am not prepared to comment further at this time." -- statement released by Blue Jay

Jim Parque:
Denied buying and using steroids: "Either someone isn't telling the truth, or steroids really don't work because I was throwing 80, 81 mph before the report said I took them, and I was throwing 80, 81 mph after I allegedly took them." -- interview with MLB.com

F.P. Santangelo
admitted using human growth hormone but disputed report's allegations he took anabolic steroids and testosterone. "I don't know where that came from. I never did any of that. But I did growth hormones. interview with Sacramento Bee

are they all liars?

This is as good a place as any to post:

From today's Boston Globe Letters to the Editor:

What the Batboy Saw:

From 1988 through 1991 I was the visiting team batboy for the Cleveland Indians. I was the envy of many baseball fans, as I got to spend the bulk of my teenage years with every American League team that traveled to Cleveland.

One of my pregame responsibilities was unpacking the players’ travel bags and organizing their lockers, which often meant unpacking a variety of medicine bottles and unlabelled containers of powders and creams. There was little doubt about the contents of these various containers, just as there was never a question about the likely use of the needles packed in eyeglass cases and travel toothbrush carriers….

Mark Haas
Cohasset, MA

What would be a rational explanation for that?

don't know. Maybe he was pressured. It appears they leaned on him and his income for a year and half. I don't know.

Maybe he told them what they wanted to hear, and andy IS guilty too ..

There is nothing rational about this whole situation.

are they all liars?

Probably. If the report named so many correctly, what would be the need to make up names?

andy,

just because someone tells the truth about one thing does not automatically mean he is telling the truth about everything.

the FEDS are leaning on this guy

and as soon as i heard novitsky was involved with this i got suspiscious. remember he is the guy who was trying to force grimsley to say stuff about bonds, a guy he didn't know...

The players had (have) more incentive to lie than McNamee, IMO.

are they all liars?

Quite possibly.

Remember a few years ago when a half dozen tobacco execs got up in front of Congress and swore Tobacco wasn't addictive? They were ALL lying. Not mistaken, not a matter of opinion, all lying.

In many large scale (numbers) RICO and other conspiracy prosecutions you will frequently get multiple defts, who all lie. (The shame of it is that with so many people lying to save their own skin, after awhile claims of innocence get routinely ignored, and sometimes the accused are innocent and are not lying)

I just want to complain about this, from Dan Graziano's column in today's Star-Ledger. (It's not worth a new thread.)

The evidence against Clemens in Mitchell's report is more extensive than that on anybody else (possibly excepting Jason Giambi, who provided his own), and Clemens has more to lose.

More extensive? Um, it's longer, maybe because Mitchell wanted to give the big sexy name the most attention (and I'm not going to condemn him for that), and also because that's where all the background info on McNamee is. But all they have on Clemens is McNamee's testimony. That may be enough for people, and I do think that Clemens juiced. But it doesn't compare to the level of evidence they have on some other people. (Hi, Paul!)

I also agree that Pettitte's confirmation of his own use of HGH does give more weight to McNamee's statements. But the argument in the media (and you can throw in today's Lupica column as well) that it wouldn't make any sense for McNamee to lie about Clemens with the feds in the room isn't dispositive. I do tend to believe him, but not because of "Oh no, no one would be dumb enough to lie in that spot".

If we assume, just for argument's sake, that Clemens wasn't using, does this scenario make sense? You've got Clemens' trainer, not the classiest guy in the world, who is providing steroids to other players (per Pettitte and Radomski). He gets busted by the feds, and is grilled until he agrees to give up a big fish. Then he's handed over to Mitchell, and repeats his story, and the feds tell Mitchell that he's being consistent. That doesn't seem impossible to me. I strongly doubt that's what happened, but there's nothing totally unreasonable about that scenario.

3 other things.
First, I really hope Bonds goes to trial if it means that Novitsky will have to testify. That may clear some things up, one way or another.

Second, I wonder what happens if they call Pettitte up in front of Congress and ask him about Clemens. Will he give him up? Will Congress accept it if he doesn't?

Third, looking at McNamee's testimony in the Mitchell report, this just strikes me as odd. Before he started getting steroids from Radomski, he says that Clemens provided them. Once he hooked up with Kirk, he says he bought the steroids for Roger. But he says that Clemens never gave him money specifically to buy PEDs. He was paid for his expenses and got "extra money" from time to time, and I guess that covered it, but it still seems like an odd detail to me.

If we assume, just for argument's sake, that Clemens wasn't using, does this scenario make sense? You've got Clemens' trainer, not the classiest guy in the world, who is providing steroids to other players (per Pettitte and Radomski). He gets busted by the feds, and is grilled until he agrees to give up a big fish. Then he's handed over to Mitchell, and repeats his story, and the feds tell Mitchell that he's being consistent. That doesn't seem impossible to me. I strongly doubt that's what happened, but there's nothing totally unreasonable about that scenario.

There most certainly is something totally unreasonable. The whole point of getting someone to give up "a big fish" is that the feds want to nail someone more responsible. They don't want the drug dealers, or their bosses; they want the suppliers. They don't want the middle-management document-shredder; they want the executive most directly responsible for allowing the illicit behavior to happen. In short, they want to cut off the problem at the head, not the fingers.

Falsely accusing Clemens doesn't help the feds at all. If the feds leaned on him until he told them whatever story would get them to stop, a story about Clemens wouldn't have done it. Relative to McNamee he's downstream, not upstream.

It's perfectly fine to come up with a plausible-sounding motive for each scenario. But you have to keep asking the questions from there, and each motive begets another scenario needing a plausible-sounding motive. "McNamee was being leaned on by the feds" seems plausible enough because we've all seen some TV show where something like that happened; but the feds have nearly no material motivation to coerce false testimony about Clemens.

My test: explain each scenario with a motive; each motive is in itself another scenario. Test them recursively until you reach dead ends; then compare the plausibility of the dead ends.

Doing that so far, I have been unable to come up with anything to acquit Clemens that doesn't rely on a vast conspiracy of players, MLB executives, and the law enforcement community, all petty enough to comply in a fabrication simply meant to tarnish Clemens' image, risking their respective livelihoods in the process. It's not nearly as plausible as the scenario of "Clemens used, was outed, and is lying to protect the image of his career accomplishments".

They already had McNamee's supplier, that's who they got his name from. They wanted a big-name player for publicity value. That's all they could get from him. They're trying to create a panic about steroids because they think it will reduce their usage. And in that scenario, there's no vast conspiracy. Mitchell believes what McNamee and the feds tell him, why wouldn't he?

There most certainly is something totally unreasonable. The whole point of getting someone to give up "a big fish" is that the feds want to nail someone more responsible. They don't want the drug dealers, or their bosses; they want the suppliers. They don't want the middle-management document-shredder; they want the executive most directly responsible for allowing the illicit behavior to happen. In short, they want to cut off the problem at the head, not the fingers.

except in this case, that is not true.
In this case, the Big Fish, is the player name .. not the suppliers.

Page 20 of the Mitchell report; In separate law enforcement proceedings in 2007, two pharmaceutical companies agreed to settlements with federal prosecutors relating to off-label sales of human growth hormone for anti-aging, cosmetic, or athletic performance purposes. in order to avoid punishment.

Company Agrees to a Fine Over Shipments of H.G.H., N.Y. Times,
* Sept. 19, 2007, (Specialty Distribution Services, Inc. agrees to $10.5 million fine and deferred prosecution agreement);
* (Apr. 2, 2007), Press Release, Pfizer Inc., Pfizer Subsidiaries Reach $34.7 Million Settlement with DOJ
(Pharmacia and Upjohn agreement to $15 million fine and deferred prosecution agreement).

edit: Not to mention, in this case, they are giving lighter sentences to "pushers" to turn on the players. Not their suppliers.

They already had McNamee's supplier, that's who they got his name from. They wanted a big-name player for publicity value. That's all they could get from him. They're trying to create a panic about steroids because they think it will reduce their usage. And in that scenario, there's no vast conspiracy. Mitchell believes what McNamee and the feds tell him, why wouldn't he?

"No vast conspiracy"---except one that would require every last person in on it never to spill a word about it. With all the power of the federal government behind them, neither Nixon nor Clinton could cover up either a "third rate burglary" or a third rate blow job---and we're supposed to believe that this could be covered up.

"They wanted a big-name player for publicity value....They're trying to create a panic about steroids because they think it will reduce their usage."---as if adding one more big name in addition to Bonds, McGwire and the others is going to accomplish that end. Maybe they've done demographic surveys of high school steroid users and found that most of them were Texans whose first names began with a "K."

I'd still like for someone to depict a plausible scenario in which McNamee just randomly fingers guilty and innocent players alike, one in which he, the feds and/or Mitchell decide to ruin one, two, or three players' reputations just for the sheer hell of it.

I'd like to believe such a scenario, but though I was born at night, I wasn't born last night.

I'd still like for someone to depict a plausible scenario in which McNamee just randomly fingers guilty and innocent players alike, one in which he, the feds and/or Mitchell decide to ruin one, two, or three players' reputations just for the sheer hell of it.

Scenario A:
Feds: "We'll need names. And not the little fish either, if you know what we mean. Winkwinknudgenudge."
McNamee: "Oh, right. Clemens juiced. Winkwinknudgenudge."

Scenario B:
Anderson: "The cream and the clear really aren't steroids. Winkwinknudgenudge."
Bonds: "Whatever you say, man! Winkwinknudgenudge."

So someone who thinks you are a ##### for not expressing or allowing yourself to form an opinion about a friggin baseball player is mentally unstable. I don;t think that holds up to you high standard of proof.

Actually, I wasn't referring to you, and it was a joke anyway. (I was more referring to comments such as #70.)

Although I do find some of your comments to be immature ("Grow a pair!").

Although I do find some of your comments to be immature ("Grow a pair!").

Well, you just don't know Bernal well. All his comments are immature.

Scenario A:
Feds: "We'll need names. And not the little fish either, if you know what we mean. Winkwinknudgenudge."
McNamee: "Oh, right. Clemens juiced. Winkwinknudgenudge."

Scenario B:
Anderson: "The cream and the clear really aren't steroids. Winkwinknudgenudge."
Bonds: "Whatever you say, man! Winkwinknudgenudge."

And Scenario C:

Tooth Fairy: "Here's that farm in Georgia I promised you because you believed in me."

Andy beat me to it. They had big-name players already. This report has had plenty of publicity for the last two years, and every day there's another player commenting on it. They didn't need Clemens to get publicity.

In separate law enforcement proceedings in 2007, two pharmaceutical companies agreed to settlements with federal prosecutors relating to off-label sales of human growth hormone for anti-aging, cosmetic, or athletic performance purposes. in order to avoid punishment.

According to the NYT article cited:

As part of a deferred prosecution agreement, the company, Specialty Distribution Services, Inc., agreed to pay the fine and cooperate with the government’s investigation over the next 36 months.

First, the feds were interviewing Radomski and McNamee prior to Mitchell's first interview with them, back in June/July 2007. The article you cite (from September 2007) suggests SDS will comply going forward. For your theory to connect any of this to their efforts to nail Clemens, you'd need to grant that someone involved has harnessed time travel. (The Pfizer press release fits the timelines better - but the infraction has to do with Genotropin, which in turn is not linked to Clemens in the MR.)

Second, the MR cites these cases as examples of the FDA not allowing use of HGH for cosmetic, anti-aging, or athletic performance purposes. It does not cite that any cooperation from these companies with federal authorities is related to player investigation. EDITed to summarize: There is no evidence linking one investigation with another.

Third, deferred prosecution agreements generally call for companies to cooperate with authorities by demonstrating over an extended period that their internal practices have changed so as to prevent such misdeeds from occurring again. The "cooperate with investigation" tagline for DPAs is generally in reference to an investigation of that company's internal practices. You're really stretching it to suggest that the DPAs were done to elicit cooperation in a witchhunt for baseball players.

Roger is not the only player to come out and claim inaccuracy's in the report.
We heard all kinds of rumors from the Mitchell Report of trainers being asked to "guess", and being pressured to "name names".

the bottom line is this is all he said/he said. nothing more.

Well, it's a little more than that, since McNamee would open himself to criminal prosecution if any of his statements are false. The same isn't true for Clemens. At least not until Congress decides to grandstand again.

Again, I think Clemens is a juicer. I'm just doing this for creativity's sake.

Here's the thing. Nobody who follows this stuff is really surprised to see Clemens figured. With his late-career bounceback after leaving Boston, his pitching into his mid-40s, far outstripping his contemporaries, and Jose Canseco dropping his name off-the-record, there was lots of circumstancial evidence pointing at him.

So the Feds catch Kirk Radomski, he agrees to fess up, and he tells them "I sold steroids to Roger Clemens' trainer." So now they REALLY think Clemens is a juicer. So they push McNamee, maybe they figure he doesn't want to give up Clemens because Roger's his buddy. McNamee's afraid of perjury charges, he caves, and tells them all kinds of details. They can't really corroborate it, since only those two guys were involved, but it makes sense to them.

Maybe they believe McNamee. Maybe they have some doubts, but not enough to stick their necks out. Maybe McNamee isn't totally believable, but when you throw in everything else, it makes sense. And it's not like Clemens is going to jail or something.

It's not a vast conspiracy. You don't have to cover stuff up. All you need to do is believe McNamee.

BTW, who did they have from Radomski? Kevin Brown, Mo Vaughn and maybe Miguel Tejada were the big names. (Tejada came from Adam Piatt, which I don't know if the feds had, but Radomski said Piatt told him he was buying them from Tejada. But we don't know when that all came together.) Those are big names, but they're not huge ones. Clemens moves things onto a whole different level. They may not have needed him to get publicity, but they knew they'd get even more with him involved.

Well, you just don't know Bernal well. All his comments are immature.

They are not ya big loserhead.

GR, the question I had last night (I don't even remember which thread it was on) still applies: Since Pettitte's already acknowledged that McNamee was telling the truth about him, why should we assume that he was just blowing it out of his butt about Clemens?

We shouldn't "assume" that at all, obviously. Anyone who has suggested that is off base.

The bottom line is that I don't think we know enough about the situation yet to make any solid determinations about this.

Mind you I think the fact that Pettitte admitted it bolsters McNamee's credibility a bit. But I still don't think that gets us very far with regard to Clemens. There are still a lot of questions with the case against Clemens -- no corroborating witnesses, no paper trail, etc.

We're not talking the case against OJ here.

The only possible "explanation" for this is that somewhere on Mitchell's team there was "a Met fan" or "a Red Sox fan" who wanted to "get" Clemens, and threatened McNamee by telling him something along the lines of "you mentioned Pettitte, but we all know that you were associated with Clemens for all those years, and we want Clemens---no deal if you don't include Clemens." And then somehow blackmailed him into not just testifying about Clemens, but making up stories about him.

We don't have to get that fanciful. McNamee could have simply felt pressure to come up with a big fish, or he could have wanted the notoriety, or he may have thought he could get a book deal, or he could be mentally imbalanced, etc.

Of course, he could also be telling the truth. As I said, I don't think we know enough yet to judge that.

Most of the juicelovers have had fun skewering Mitch, but it looks like Mitch has been pretty fair. The rallying point of him being a hitter was Brian Roberts, and that is now backfiring on the juicelovers

I was mildly critical of the Roberts thing, and then owned it in the Roberts thread. I also noted the Larry Starr omission, which King Kaufman picked up on in Salon, and linked to BTF in his column. I also noted you, by name, WRT Bones thing/Starr, in that thread. But as I said in that thread, I would like to see a reporter ask Mitchell why Starr is not in the report. He was supposedly interviewed four times and pointed the finger right at Selig--and at Fehr.

Oh, and just for fun. There's a hospital wing down in Texas named for Clemens that deals with sports medicine. Their spokeswoman said that they're disappointed he was named in the report and that they oppose the use of PEDs, but they have no plans to change the name. Her name? Alex Rodriguez.

There most certainly is something totally unreasonable. The whole point of getting someone to give up "a big fish" is that the feds want to nail someone more responsible. They don't want the drug dealers, or their bosses; they want the suppliers.

And their reason for getting into bed with Mitchell here, who was trying to out players in his report?

From today's NYT, through a circuitous (and registration-free) route:

Brian McNamee, the former New York Yankees strength coach who says he injected pitcher Roger Clemens with steroids and human growth hormone, signed a proffer agreement with federal prosecutors last summer, McNamee's lawyer said Monday.

The one-page agreement, which had not been previously disclosed, referred to illegal activity McNamee said he knew of, and in return for his disclosure of that information, the Department of Justice agreed not to use that testimony against McNamee in a possible drug distribution case as long as he cooperated, said Earl Ward, McNamee's lawyer.

...

The proffer agreement, to some, appears to add credibility to McNamee's testimony against Clemens because of the punishment he would face if he lied, several former prosecutors said Monday.

EDIT: Did I say today's NYT? OK, I'm a little late.

And their reason for getting into bed with Mitchell here, who was trying to out players in his report?

From the article I linked in #153:

Bradley Simon, a former assistant United States attorney in New York, agreed, adding that he thought, "It sounds to me like they're not planning to go further or they wouldn't have offered them up to the Mitchell commission." Simon said the government must have concluded the Mitchell commission was a good partner in attacking steroids.

Underlining by me.

wasn't there a former player who came out and said Mcnamee had no reason to lie?

wasn't there a former player who came out and said Mcnamee had no reason to lie?

Relevance?

GR, the question I had last night (I don't even remember which thread it was on) still applies: Since Pettitte's already acknowledged that McNamee was telling the truth about him, why should we assume that he was just blowing it out of his butt about Clemens?

We shouldn't "assume" that at all, obviously. Anyone who has suggested that is off base.

The bottom line is that I don't think we know enough about the situation yet to make any solid determinations about this.

This is true in a legal sense, just as it's true about Bonds. But I wasn't referring to legal assumptions, only the sort of assumptions derived from what we can put together with what we know.

Mind you I think the fact that Pettitte admitted it bolsters McNamee's credibility a bit.

Exactly. And this is all I meant in my posts on the subject. I still haven't seen any plausible reason why McNamee should be lying about Clemens (or Knoblauch or Justice) in particular. Neither Mitchell nor the Feds "need" to make up stuff about any big time player in order to make their point, since there are plenty of those out there who've been named already.

But I still don't think that gets us very far with regard to Clemens. There are still a lot of questions with the case against Clemens -- no corroborating witnesses, no paper trail, etc.

And if you're now back to the legal case, I'd agree. But the heart of the "case" against Clemens isn't a legal one, any more than it is against any other juicer, including Bonds. It's about whether or not it's fair to conclude, putting all things together, that any or all of them are (were), in fact, juicers. I'm more than willing to let the lawyers sort out the legal cases.

a third rate blow job

I think this is an unprincipled and unsupported attack on Ms. Lewinsky's abilities -- unless you have some first hand knowledge you would care to share.

Neither first hand nor first tongue, Srul. But by what I can see in the papers I think her talents would best be enjoyed by the likes of Stevie Wonder or Jose Feliciano.

I think the expression is "shot through the forest and hit every tree."

But by what I can see in the papers I think her talents would best be enjoyed by the likes of Stevie Wonder or Jose Feliciano.

My dad is about your age. At the time, he said, "Kennedy made it with Marilyn Monroe. Clinton is making it Monica Lewinsky. The country is going to hell."

My dad is about your age. At the time, he said, "Kennedy made it with Marilyn Monroe. Clinton is making it Monica Lewinsky. The country is going to hell."

Well, if Dennis Kucinich ever got elected, and his wife didn't ditch him, at least that particular trend would be reversed.

With his late-career bounceback after leaving Boston, his pitching into his mid-40s, far outstripping his contemporaries

Like Maddux, Glavine, Moyer, Rogers, Wells, Schilling, and Johnson?

2005-2007 featured far more wins by 40+ old pitchers than any period in baseball history.

Kevin, those discussions are in the report, but they're specifically tied to the time before McNamee started shooting Clemens up. And didn't Mitchell interview Canseco? That probably came from him anyway.

AROM, I was theorizing about why the feds would think Clemens was on steroids, and thus pressure McNamee to say so. I'm not arguing it as any kind of evidence.

The bottom line is that I don't think we know enough about the situation yet to make any solid determinations about this.

This is true in a legal sense, just as it's true about Bonds. But I wasn't referring to legal assumptions, only the sort of assumptions derived from what we can put together with what we know.

It's true in a logical sense. Your constant harping on "legal sense" is a red herring. All we're talking about is how logically to approach the issue and assess the information we have.

If that's true, then why do keep throwing up legal roadblocks to a rational analysis of the evidence? This isn't a court of law.

What "legal roadblocks" have I thrown up? Questions about corroborating evidence, for example, are not just "legal" questions -- they're logical ones.

Why not approach it from a scientific or investigatory standpoint instead, where you aren't bound to ignore or limit the examination of pertinent evidence for extraneous or irrelevant reasons?

Have I said we shouldn't analyze all of the evidence? You're trying to get me to weight it a certain way, and I won't do that absent a good reason.

Is it "scientific and investigatory" to make hard conclusions based on a single data point?

Look at Kennedy's women. Now look at Clinton's. One could argue that Bill improved a lot more than Jack did upon ascension to the White House.

Kevin, even assuming that the story about the affadavit is accurate (and as we all know, the U.S. Attorney said the story was inaccurate), Grimsely didn't say he was a dealer for Clemens. He named several players as users, without saying how he knew. I agree as a teammate he'd be likely to know, but right now we don't really know what his story is. We don't have any facts about Grimsley - it could be evidence against Clemens, but it isn't yet.

Here's the page of the affadavit that presumably has Clemens' name on it.

But there is corroborating evidence- multiple witnesses. Why are you ignoring three separate wittnesses that are fingering Clemens?

Who are the three witnesses? Because from the Mitchell report there is one -- McNamee -- and if anything he's more like 3/4 of a witness, since he previously told the exact opposite story of the one he's telling now.

The bottom line is that I don't think we know enough about the situation yet to make any solid determinations about this.

This is true in a legal sense, just as it's true about Bonds. But I wasn't referring to legal assumptions, only the sort of assumptions derived from what we can put together with what we know.

It's true in a logical sense. Your constant harping on "legal sense" is a red herring. All we're talking about is how logically to approach the issue and assess the information we have.

Which is what I'm saying as well. But let me rephrase my point in terms of a question:

Five or ten years from now, when presumably more evidence about Clemens will have emerged one way or the other, whose account of what Clemens did or didn't do WRT steroids is likely to appear more credible---that of McNamee, or that of Clemens himself?

And if you had to place a futures bet on one or the other, on whom would your money ride?

And yet at the same time, it's also entirely possible that Clemens will never be asked to appear in court; hence the question of his legal guilt or innocence may never be settled.

All I'm saying is that while we may not know enough now to make any sort of a legal judgment---we may never "know" that much---we already know that one of the four players named by McNamee has corroborated his testimony. And so we're left to sift through various farfetched scenarios and conspiracy theories in order to come up with some kind of a rational reason why he'd then be lying about the other three. I''ll grant the "possibility," but at this point it seems the sort of possibility that'll never make it to double digits.

Who are the three witnesses? Because from the Mitchell report there is one -- McNamee -- and if anything he's more like 3/4 of a witness, since he previously told the exact opposite story of the one he's telling now.

Was McNamee under oath the first time around?

"and if anything he's more like 3/4 of a witness, since he previously told the exact opposite story of the one he's telling now. "

Was a possibility of him going to jail an issue before?

Plenty of people have denied stuff and later have changed. Roberts, along with Segui ad the Orioles denied his use...and then suddenly he admits it.

Five or ten years from now, when presumably more evidence about Clemens will have emerged one way or the other, whose account of what Clemens did or didn't do WRT steroids is likely to appear more credible---that of McNamee, or that of Clemens himself?

How the <expletive deleted> would I know?

hell...when canseco's book first came out mcgwire denied the allegations. then at congress he doesn't talk about the past.

Five or ten years from now, when presumably more evidence about Clemens will have emerged one way or the other, whose account of what Clemens did or didn't do WRT steroids is likely to appear more credible---that of McNamee, or that of Clemens himself?

How the <expletive deleted> would I know?

I think I get the drift.

Was a possibility of him going to jail an issue before?

Seems like a pretty good reason to lie the second time.

Seems like a pretty good reason to lie the second time.

and risk getting into huge trouble? if clemens is innocent, why didn't McNamee just focus on Pettitte?

Five or ten years from now, when presumably more evidence about Clemens will have emerged one way or the other, whose account of what Clemens did or didn't do WRT steroids is likely to appear more credible---that of McNamee, or that of Clemens himself?

I wouldn't put any money on Clemens being innocent. Between the two longtime companions I would have been a lot more likely to believe a denial from Pettite. Now that Andy's admitted it would be pretty foolish to think Roger is innocent. What steroid(s) is Roger supposed to have used? If he's buying it from a clubhouse attendant it doesn't seem like we've got a BALCO type designer steroid thing here.

Among the players named, if there were lies being spread by Mitchell and his sources, Roberts and Pettite are among the ones I'd most believe were being smeared. Now that they've admitted, I don't see any reason to believe anyone else in the report who's denying. I'd like to see the focus shifted to why the random drug testing didn't work - most of these players from the report had no trouble passing their steroid tests. Are all the players getting tipped off like Bonds reportedly was? Were they using steroids that weren't being tested?

I think most of the stuff in the report is pre-testing.

I think most of the stuff in the report is pre-testing.

If Clemens' use was pre-testing, then it doesn't explain his incredible seasons with the Astros.

But replacing AL hitters and DHs with NL hitters and pitchers, and Derek Jeter with Adam Everett goes a long way to explaining his success.

I'd be willing to bet that Clemens choice of Drug during his stint with Houston was HGH.

Have I said we shouldn't analyze all of the evidence? You're trying to get me to weight it a certain way, and I won't do that absent a good reason.

Is it "scientific and investigatory" to make hard conclusions based on a single data point?

It must take you 3 hours to decide what to order in a restaurant.

Seems like a pretty good reason to lie the second time.

and risk getting into huge trouble? if clemens is innocent, why didn't McNamee just focus on Pettitte?

Because Jack Ruby emerged from below and passed on the secret instructions from the CIA. Duh and double duh.

and risk getting into huge trouble? if clemens is innocent, why didn't McNamee just focus on Pettitte?

I'm not saying Clemens is innocent, just that trying to get immunity (or whatever) from the feds is good reason to lie.

I'm not saying Clemens is innocent, just that trying to get immunity (or whatever) from the feds is good reason to lie.

That's what the people on the other side of this issue don't seem to understand. We're not saying Clemens is "innocent" at all -- just that we don't think there's enough information from which to form a conclusion yet.

See? this is what I'm talking about.

Why the #### are you requiring ALL THREE WITNESSES TO BE PRESENT IN THE SAME REPORT????

What, is the Mitchell Report the first and last word on steroid abuse????

According to a lot of people, it seems to be.

But no, of course it's not the "first and last word" on anything. But since Mitchell stooped to the gossip level in order to include some of the names in his report, it would seem odd that there would be credible eye witness testimony on Clemens that Mitchell did not include.

Who are these other two witnesses?

RonJohn,

Its very difficult to judge the value of a case at this distance. From what we know, Clemens does not have a great case. Even if McNamee is lying like a rug; he is looking more plausible with every story, and we don't have anything from Roger that shows any overt negative statement.

Even the best lawyers can't create facts, and contrary to many older lawyer shows, really aren't often capable field investigators. If Roger is prepared to go all out to show he's clean and McNamee's a liar, what he needs is a good investigator. I think Rog would want to dissect the statement, look for ways he can show evidence of McNamee's untruthfulness and prepare an investigatory plan. Then send out your investigator and see if you come back with anything solid.

You don't want to start a lawsuit, where your case in chief is just screaming "Liar, liar pants on fire."

Many people, with an offer of immunity, have "lied" to police and prosecutors, telling them what they wanted to hear. Outfits like the Innocence Project have spent a great deal of time liberating the victims of these helpful witnesses.

Not that McNamee is one of them. Clemens is guilty as sin. He is the one the feds should have been going after, not St. Barry. But because he is a good ol' boy, while the Beloved Barry is just another uppity n*gg*r, you know who they went after. Clemens just fell into their lap. But is he going to be prosecuted. NOOOOOO.

Oh when will this long national nightmare end?

Pray for Barry.

Unless Clemens had blood tests or hidden buttcamera footage how does he prove that McNamee did not give him steroids?

I suppose he might discover that McNamee told someone he was making it up, but I am not sure its a good investment to make that sorta investigation on spec. A reputable investigatory firm like Kroll is going to cost a pretty penny. You're looking for something that may not exist, and yet the absence of its existence should not be prejudicial one way or the other. Nonetheless, when (not if) it gets out that there was an investigation, less than neutral observers will choose to use that fact as supporting the witness's credibility. I think it is a tough call on whether to attempt a legal strategy even if he is completely innocent.

Perhaps, the only reason to do it is to counteract the people that say if you don't do something you are guilty. It distresses me that there is widespread consent that this is a fair point.

Anyway, I gotta go. Time to re-read The Crucible.

He is the one the feds should have been going after, not St. Barry.

Clemens may be guilty, but Barry is certainly no less guilty. I doubt Clemens juiced to the extent that Barry did.

I'm not saying Clemens is innocent, just that trying to get immunity (or whatever) from the feds is good reason to lie.

- -

Many people, with an offer of immunity, have "lied" to police and prosecutors, telling them what they wanted to hear.

- -

McNamee had a signed agreement for immunity in place before testifying. Google "proffer mcnamee" (without the quotes). Once it's signed, he has NO INCENTIVE TO LIE. This wasn't a handshake deal or immunity conditional on his testimony implicating Clemens; it was blanket immunity for whatever testimony he was to produce.

If he lied to get the proffer agreement, I don't know; but once he had it, he appears to have had no incentive to lie.

If he lied to get the proffer agreement, I don't know; but once he had it, he appears to have had no incentive to lie.

As Srul said it happens. And book deal. Revenge. Notoriety. He may be telling the truth, but don't say there is no incentive. There could be.

Sure, he runs the risk of punishment if he is outed as a liar, but keep in mind that once the government gives you immunity to make you its star witness to go after other people criminally, the government will protect you from other people undermining your credibility. They routinely tell those in private investigations how far they can go in questioning their stars. Private companies often go out of their way not to undermine the credibility of star witnesses so as to not raise the ire of the government. I don't know if that happened here but I would be unsurprised.

197 posts and so far there's still no scenario beyond convoluted near-conspiracy theories to explain exactly WHY McNamee had any particular reason to lie about Clemens, or WHY the government would have any particular reason to have it in for him. Clemens isn't exactly a member of the mafia, the Black Panther Party, or the Hugo Chavez Re-Election Committee. And he isn't even being threatened with prosecution for anything.

I suppose this makes me naive, credulous, etc. But just because poor black people get railroaded in local courts in Georgia or Louisiana, and just because Janet Reno once stormed an armed camp in Waco, it doesn't necessarily follow that the federal government has nothing better to do than to ruin the reputation of one the top baseball pitchers of all time---not to mention those of a spastic second baseman and a nearly forgotten first baseman. But maybe it's just a perverse form of racial reparations, after hearing all the BS about prosecuting Bonds "because he's black"---they had to pick on a good ole boy like Clemens just to show that their evil persecutions were evenhanded. They're just so f*ck*ng evil.

Andy, there's no "the government." There's a prosecutor, or a LEO. Why did "the government" have it in for the Duke lacrosse players? It didn't; a rogue prosecutor and a rogue cop did. Sometimes prosecutors like -- believe it or not -- to make headlines. (Gasp. It's true.) Going after an athletic trainer nobody has heard of doesn't garner as many headlines as exposing Roger Clemens. And who says that they were out to get Clemens? Perhaps they just wanted a big name, without caring who it was. Perhaps McNamee didn't have any big name, so he gave them Clemens.

Who are these other two witnesses?

Kevin's delusions. He keeps lying about Jason Grimsley, who we have no evidence said Clemens name, and even if he did, did not say that he "witnessed" anything. Nor did Canseco.