“I believe him over Clemens and his lawyers. I think he is very believable. He was a cop. He knows the consequences of lying.”

Because I haven't yet heard McNamee speak publicly (or privately, of course), I'm not sure if he is believable or not. A lot of what Clemens has done and said since the Mitchell Report was released makes me doubt Roger's credibility. Just about everything that comes out of his attorney's drawl sounds like a load of southern fried hooey.

However, Radomski's defense is illogical in this sense: He says, “(McNamee) was a cop. He knows the consequences of lying.” Yet he was also a drug dealer. And drug dealers, I would think, tend to be liars. If McNamee's background were that he had been an honest cop who had never run afoul of the law, then his history as a police officer would be relevant. But here, that's not the case. The fact that McNamee was a drug dealer is the trump card: there is good reason to doubt a person in that line of work.

I think he is very believable. He was a cop. He knows the consequences of lying. He has more to lose than to gain by lying.

Great stuff.

The fact that McNamee was a drug dealer is the trump card: there is good reason to doubt a person in that line of work.

Yeah, but that is counteracted by the fact that he is also a rapist. Rapists are well known for their honesty.

Radomski is bitter that his former customers turned on him when he got caught. By comparison, he thinks Bonds is a solid guy.

"Radomski also said he's been influenced by the way in which some of the pro athletes he knows disavowed their relationships with him when his troubles began. Only David Segui called him, he said. Others kept their distance. Some, he said, such as Lenny Dykstra and Fernando Vina, initially either denied knowing him or denied that they'd written checks to him for drugs"....

"I think it is money," Radomski said, speculating on why Anderson hasn't spoken about Bonds. "And you know what? If that is the case, that is fine with me. He made that decision. And Bonds did the right thing there. Then Bonds ain't that bad of a guy. And he's a smart guy, at least. And he looked out for his guy."

"Why didn't Roger do that to Brian, then? You want to protect people. You want to be their friend, but friendship also has to go both ways. I guess Bonds understood that."

A lot of what Clemens has done and said since the Mitchell Report was released makes me doubt Roger's credibility.

You mean, denying it in a statement, denying it in an interview, denying it in a press conference, denying it under oath, and filing suit against the person who accused him?

"Why didn't Roger do that to Brian, then? You want to protect people. You want to be their friend, but friendship also has to go both ways. I guess Bonds understood that."

You know, some of these discussions are more and more bizarre. McNamee accused Clemens, not vice versa. Whether McNamee is telling the truth or Clemens is, the fact is that McNamee sold out Clemens. How is it that Clemens is the one who gets attacked for that?

I understand Radomski's point. The rich guy tells the steroid peddler, shut up, go to jail, do whatever but keep my name out of it...you'll be rewarded in the end.

How many years ago is it that McNamee told Jim Murray the #### was about to hit the fan? At that point could Clemens have bought McNamee's silence just as Bonds purchased Anderson's?

His point would make more sense if McNamee had got into legal trouble for giving Clemens steroids, but that wasn't the case, was it?

A lot of what Clemens has done and said since the Mitchell Report was released makes me doubt Roger's credibility.

Rich, if Clemens had simply denied it in a statement and did nothing else, you'd be complaining that he didn't sue, or testify, or talk to reporters, or whatever.

the fact is that McNamee sold out Clemens.

Would you still say that McNamee "sold out" Clemens if Clemens took steroids?

Would you still say that McNamee "sold out" Clemens if Clemens took steroids?

I think I already did, in the very sentence you're quoting from: "Whether McNamee is telling the truth or Clemens is, the fact is that McNamee sold out Clemens." It's obviously not as bad to truthfully implicate someone as it is to falsely do so, but the phrase "sold him out" can apply to either.

I think I already did, in the very sentence you're quoting from: "Whether McNamee is telling the truth or Clemens is, the fact is that McNamee sold out Clemens." It's obviously not as bad to truthfully implicate someone as it is to falsely do so, but the phrase "sold him out" can apply to either.

Obviously the term "sold out" carries a negative connotation. I guess I'm trying to decide whether a negative label should be applied to someone telling the truth to federal prosecutors.... even if he's trying to save his ass because he is still afterall telling the truth if he is indeed telling the truth.

OOC, I googled the term, and it seems like people definitely use it to describe truthful statements.

I believe Gaelan is required for a ruling on that.

"Rich, if Clemens had simply denied it in a statement and did nothing else, you'd be complaining that he didn't sue, or testify, or talk to reporters, or whatever."

Lawyers seem incapable of understanding how non-lawyers see the world. Rather than immediately coming forward, calling a press conference by himself and categorically denying the charges in the Mitchell Report, Clemens "lawyered up." That may be the smartest strategy in the world when you face criminal liability. It's possibly the worst strategy in the world when you are dealing with the court of public opinion... It suggests to me he likely has something to hide in this matter.

Nonetheless, I have not concluded that Brian McNamee is telling the truth. I have never heard McNamee speak. I've never heard him interrogated. To my mind, the burden of proof is still on the accuser, not the accused. It's an overstatement to say my mind is fully open on this question, but neither is it closed.

Kevin, since you are interested in my credibility scale, here it is from 0 to 10, with a 10 being most credible, 0 being least:

10 - Ken Caminiti, dead honest
9 - Andy Pettitte, immediate confessor
8 - Pinocchio, shnozzuz grandus
7 - Jose Cansco, admitted drug user
6 - Brian McNamee, admitted drug dealer
6 - Roger Clemens, accused juicer
4 - Sammy Sosa, "No hablo inglés!"
3 - Primer lawyers
3 - Red Sox fan
0 - OJ Simpson, acquitted murderer
0 - Kevin Hart, high school football phenom

"Why the crossouts?"

I thought the idea for the joke was a good one. Yet other than my daily Kevin Hart ha-ha, I couldn't come up with anything that struck me as funny. Hurting for material, I stuck in the two rungs you refer to, and then realized they made no sense on this list. I always believe everything you guys say. So the cross outs were the best I could do, until the writer's strike is settled.

"Rich, if Clemens had simply denied it in a statement and did nothing else, you'd be complaining that he didn't sue, or testify, or talk to reporters, or whatever."

Lawyers seem incapable of understanding how non-lawyers see the world. Rather than immediately coming forward, calling a press conference by himself and categorically denying the charges in the Mitchell Report, Clemens "lawyered up." That may be the smartest strategy in the world when you face criminal liability. It's possibly the worst strategy in the world when you are dealing with the court of public opinion... It suggests to me he likely has something to hide in this matter.

But even if that weren't loony, it doesn't match what you said. What you said was, "A lot of what Clemens has done and said since the Mitchell Report was released makes me doubt Roger's credibility." Now what you apparently mean is not "a lot of what Clemens has done" but "one thing Clemens did, the first thing he did."

Lawyers seem incapable of understanding how non-lawyers see the world. Rather than immediately coming forward, calling a press conference by himself and categorically denying the charges in the Mitchell Report, Clemens "lawyered up."

Well, he denied it on the first day, just hours after the Mitchell Report was released. (Did you want a response within seconds, or do you agree that it was reasonable for Clemens to actually have read the Report before commenting on it?)

You're making an issue of him denying it through his attorney, but I don't see why, particularly since he's personally gone on the record a number of times since then.

Contrast Clemens's same-day response with that of Pettitte, who didn't comment on the substance of the allegations until two days after the Report's release.

But even if that weren't loony

And believe me, it's Looney ############# Tunes. I don't know if it's true of most people or not, and I honestly couldn't care less. If you believe hiring a lawyer in Clemens' situation (or "lawyering up") is a bad thing, indicative of wrongdoing, or anything other than the very smartest thing he could possibly do, I don't know what to tell you. Let's see you get in that #### and not have someone with legal experience.

Rather than immediately coming forward, calling a press conference by himself and categorically denying the charges in the Mitchell Report, Clemens "lawyered up." That may be the smartest strategy in the world when you face criminal liability. It's possibly the worst strategy in the world when you are dealing with the court of public opinion... It suggests to me he likely has something to hide in this matter.

Yeah, why would someone accused of something that would cost him millions of dollars in endorsements if true want to consult an attorney? Especially someone wealthy enough that he probably has an attorney on retainer anyway?

Not one person I've spoken with away from the internet has criticized Clemens for "lawyering up". The hardcore sports fans that I've talked about it with all recognize that Clemens has a ton to lose, and that it would be stupid NOT to use an attorney in this situation.

Sheesh. How can anybody in 21st century America not realize that going into a situation like this using only machismo instead of an attorney is like bringing a knife to a gun fight? Wrongly or rightly, Clemens' very valuable reputation is at stake, and it would be asinine not to have the best legal representation he can afford (which is very good, btw).

Well said.

...it would be asinine not to have the best legal representation he can afford (which is very good, btw).

But that just can't be true. Mike Lupica has derisively called Clemens' lawyer "Matlock" several times already.

Today, Lupica wrote that Rusty Hardin is "reckless," "amateurish," "really, really loud," and "has to be removed from television cameras by forklift." Mike doesn't just pull these assessments from his ass, mind you-- he says that "lawyers without any rooting interest in this case" say so. He demonstrates this claim by quoting Richard Emery, one of McNamee's lawyers, for a dozen paragraphs in a 21-paragraph piece. No other person is quoted, either directly or anonymously. Lupica also commends Emery for "aggressively defending his guy."

Gonfalon: I went and read that Lupica piece today, and other than the fact that the Daily News is hitching its wagon to the steroid issue, I have no idea what Lupica's point was. Most of the piece consists of quoting Emery, but there doesn't seem to be any real point to it. Hardin compared Clemens to the Duke defendants; Emery represents one of those defendants. That's the entire hook for the piece, but it doesn't go anywhere.

Some people here are funny.

Waiting for evidence to come out before coming to conclusions = bad

Loud denials = guilty

Sitting quietly = guilty

Hiring lawyers = bad

Lupica's "analysis" has been a joke. He started with the premise that the Mitchell Report was 100% accurate (which forced him to accept Brian McNamee as a truth teller and Roger Clemens as a liar), and that premise has queered Lupica's analysis of each new development (*). He's simply not intellectually honest.

When Clemens was set to go on 60 Minutes, Lupica pretended that was worthless and wrote "Don't tell us. Tell Congress." But now that Clemens has been "telling Congress," Lupica has concluded that the Congressional hearings are a joke. (Now, he says, the Justice Department has to get involved.)

When Lupica heard that McNamee was thinking of suing, he said something like "Maybe that's why Brian McNamee is the one talking about suing." Hours later, Clemens filed suit. Lupica stayed silent for a week, and then McNamee's lawyer floated the idea that Clemens only sued in order to avoid testifying in front of Congress; Lupica immediately went on the Sunday morning ESPN show to trumpet that as the reason for Clemens's suit. Of course, that was wrong also.

Lupica has been nothing short of a buffoon on this issue.

(*) Note his ring-kissing of Mitchell in today's column:

Please remember how this all began: George Mitchell considered McNamee's version of Clemens' alleged steroid use credible enough to put in his report. This is the same George Mitchell who has been a judge and U.S. senator and brokered peace in Northern Ireland and could have been a Supreme Court judge if he wanted. Now he's supposed to be the amateur here because Clemens has convinced some of these committee members what a regular guy he is.

That's like derisively calling a defense attorney "Perry Mason".

Depends on whether you believe Della Street was a shapely, young secretary or motherly old secretary?

I'm surprised Clemens didn't hire Matlock. He's not that much.

For ten grand, he’ll actually sit behind us in court and read the paper. For $15,000, he’ll actually sit at the defense table. For $20,000, he’ll twice lean forward and whisper something in your ear. Oh. White suit, that’s extra.

Matlock wore a seersucker suit, not a white suit. You are thinking of Colonel Sanders.

Hardin compared Clemens to the Duke defendants; Emery represents one of those defendants. That's the entire hook for the piece, but it doesn't go anywhere.

I wonder what Lupica's take on the Duke case was at the beginning; I wonder if he was keeping an open mind as to Reade Seligmann's guilt or innocence then.

Hardin's analogy to that case essentially centered on the fact that people rushed to believe the "troubled accuser" in each case -- Mangum in that case, McNamee in this one.

Reading through the criticisms of my last post, I realize how right it was: lawyers have a blind-spot in how certain behaviors affect public opinion. No matter how many times they are exposed to this, they simply cannot see what is right in front of them. I am not criticizing their legal opinions, or unaware that their focus is on criminal liability. But regarding the court of public opinion, they are blind....

On something completely unrelated... there is an excellent TV show on A&E called, "The First 48." It regards the first 48 hours of real homicide investigations. Among the many lessons of watching that show, the best is this: always "lawyer up" when you are a suspect in a crime. Having seen a hundred or so investigations, it seems like 90% of the time the case is solved when the suspect incriminates himself, while trying to explain away circumstantial evidence or witness testimonials. The cops rarely have very much other evidence when they "solve" the cases. And in those where the suspect does "lawyer up," the charges usually are not brought.

Lupica has been nothing short of a buffoon <strike>on this issue</strike>.

Fixed it for you.

Reading through the criticisms of my last post, I realize how right it was: lawyers have a blind-spot in how certain behaviors affect public opinion. No matter how many times they are exposed to this, they simply cannot see what is right in front of them.

Did someone appoint you spokesperson for the public when I wasn't looking?

I agree with you Rich. Most people are dopes. Oh wait, that wasn't your point?

Reading through the criticisms of my last post, I realize how right it was: lawyers have a blind-spot in how certain behaviors affect public opinion. No matter how many times they are exposed to this, they simply cannot see what is right in front of them....

I'm not a lawyer. However, I don't understand how some people have such an irrational bias against people seeking legal representation. Most people don't have such a bias - most people would seek a lawyer out if possible if they were being publically attacked - but a few people seem to hate lawyers so much, and then project their feelings onto everybody else.

However, I think it's clear that the vast majority of the American public would seek out lawyers if they were publically attacked, and would understand others doing so too.

Keep in mind, this isn't a case of a conflict between neighbors over trash cans or whatever. There would be a public reaction about reaching for a lawyer first in such a situation. This is a case of multi-billion dollar group spending a lot of money to write a report publically attacking Clemens - and the evidence they have against Clemens boils down to them believing a drug dealer-rapist trying to get a better deal by naming a bunch of names. It's ridiculous that a few here believe that most of the public are turned off by Clemens daring to follow the advice of his attorney in this matter.

The Daily News apparently wipes out all their old links. But here's Lupica on "ESPN's Sports Reporters" in June 2007:

"You know who I think the real victim is? The real victim is the next actual victim of rape in one of these high-celebrity cases because when she comes forward, you know what's going to be the first thing in the conversation? The Duke case."

Reading through the criticisms of my last post, I realize how right it was: lawyers have a blind-spot in how certain behaviors affect public opinion. No matter how many times they are exposed to this, they simply cannot see what is right in front of them.

The ####? I'm applying to law schools, but you don't know that. So how on earth does this pertain to my criticism of your post in any way, shape, or form?

Rich Rifkin Posted: February 10, 2008 at 07:28 PM (#2687824)

Reading through the criticisms of my last post, I realize how right it was: lawyers have a blind-spot in how certain behaviors affect public opinion. No matter how many times they are exposed to this, they simply cannot see what is right in front of them. I am not criticizing their legal opinions, or unaware that their focus is on criminal liability. But regarding the court of public opinion, they are blind....

- well rich

i'm NOT a lawyer. and i got NO problem admitting i am nowheres near as smart as most of em here at this site. but being one of the public who's opinion is in court i can tell you this - i think that anyone who is accused of ANYTHING or who is questioned by the cops at all who says anything but "i want a lawyer" got exactly ZERO brains.

rich, you got TWO courts of public opinion -

1 - people who never been accused of anything or got questioned by cops or knows someone who is inside who was falsely accused and "represented" by a pleabargaining PD

2 - the rest of us got some sense

AND

it is more than obvious to me that most people believe that IF a person is accused of a crime, then he/she MUST be guilty of they wouldn't have never been accused in the first place

I think you have to make a distinction between the "lawyering up" of Clemens and what's usually meant by the term. Clemens has "lawyered up" in the sense of getting the best possible (?) lawyer, but neither he nor his lawyer have been playing this in the usual "lawyerly" way. Whatever you might think of Clemens' truthfulness, he certainly hasn't acted as if he has anything to hide. Unlike McGwire. And I don't see how we can (rightly) knock McGwire for ducking behind the fifth amendment and then turn around and knock Clemens for pursuing (for now, anyway) a 180 degree opposite strategy.

Of course all of this may change if the questions get too close to the perjury potential zone. He may still clam up at some point if the heat gets turned up.

And if he turns out to be lying, his strategy is neither here nor there.

But for now, I'd much rather see Clemens acting like this than acting like a scared rabbit.

i think that anyone who is accused of ANYTHING or who is questioned by the cops at all who says anything but "i want a lawyer" got exactly ZERO brains.

Especially in Texas.