What does Craig have to say about this?

"Clemens, now 47, was once considered a lock for the Hall of Fame"

Clemens is probably the best or second best pitcher of all time, depending on if or how you adjust for the quality of his era. At the very least he's in the argument for the best. Yet because of his PED use and because of his behavior vis-a-vis Brian McNamee and the Mitchell Report, I wonder if there won't be an even stronger, anti-Clemens reaction among members of the BBWAA the first time he is on the HOF ballot, so strong that he fails to get 5% of the vote first time out. Now that would be interesting...

so strong that he fails to get 5% of the vote first time out.

Won't happen.

so does this mean that there is proof jeter and rivera knew who was juicing on the yankees?

edited to add i guess we can taint them as users

Don't think it will ever happen. Clemens' case was more less killed by the trial court's immunity ruling (which is what the appeal is about). If Clemens loses the appeal -- which my vague memory of looking at the ruling a few months back suggested to me was likely -- McNamee's suit will be all that is left. Granted it's Clemens we're talking about here, but if he has a single brain cell in his head, he'll settle with McNamee for attorneys fees and a little something for his trouble with a confidentiality order on the side, thus ending it.

Of course Clemens has not done a single smart thing since December 2008, so maybe I'm wrong.

Of course Clemens has not done a single smart thing since December 2008

2008? What was so smart about the things he did between January and December of that year? He did exactly what the lunch mob said would convince them of his innocence. It certainly has worked out beautifully for him, hasn't it?

but if he has a single brain cell in his head

That would take a leap of faith on our parts.Clemens seems intent to spend millions beating his head against the wall.

so strong that he fails to get 5% of the vote first time out.

Never.

so does this mean that there is proof jeter and rivera knew who was juicing on the yankees?

edited to add i guess we can taint them as users

It's a slam dunk if either of them have had any alleged bacne! Has Jeter posed with his shirt off for SI?

Of course Clemens has not done a single smart thing since December 2008, so maybe I'm wrong.

I assume you mean December 2007, and I couldn't disagree more. Clemens did the only thing he could possibly do to try to get his reputation back -- the only thing the lynch mob said would satisfy them: follow the blue print they laid out.

That people were lying when they said they'd give Clemens the benefit of the doubt if he did these things is known now, but was not known then. Perhaps it could have been predicted, but the only reasonable thing Clemens could do was take the steps he took.

Of course Clemens has not done a single smart thing since December 2008, so maybe I'm wrong.

Exactly; there have been debates here and elsewhere about this all along, and a frequent comment was "there's no way he/his lawyer is dumb enough to do this if evidence exists he's used PEDs" Well, as we've seen, that's a questionable assumption.

One thing that has changed since then is that he's replaced/augmented the Texas-based enabler he began with leading his legal team with experienced DC criminal counsel. Presumably, those guys have a different perspective on this and are sharing it quite clearly with him.

The lynch mob and the lunch mob both wanted the same thing, which is pretty rare. Usually it comes down to a disagreement over ham sandwiches vs. hanging someone.

As an aside to that very important point, I don't know that this was the only reasonable thing he could do, but I agree with Ray and What the Hell on a general level that he's done what people have asked him to do, only to have the goal posts moved on him repeatedly. It's sort of funny (but mostly sad) that people have reacted to his lawsuit in the exact opposite fashion that they promised to.

I assume you mean December 2007, and I couldn't disagree more. Clemens did the only thing he could possibly do to try to get his reputation back -- the only thing the lynch mob said would satisfy them: follow the blue print they laid out.

That people were lying when they said they'd give Clemens the benefit of the doubt if he did these things is known now, but was not known then. Perhaps it could have been predicted, but the only reasonable thing Clemens could do was take the steps he took.

Sorry, meant 2007.

As for Clemens behavior, I'm referring to his legal strategy, not the usual PED/hall of fame/legacy politics. Maybe filing a defamation suit is part of the playbook, but not when you have the history Clemens had with McCreedy and maybe other women, and not when part of your case necessarily involves throwing your wife under the bus in myriad ways. You also don't go on 60 minutes and hold press conferences when you know that every utterance you make is going to be watched by defendants' counsel and will become the subject of deposition questions later, and you don't hire an attorney with an arguable conflict of interest the way he has, which created a distraction in the form of the motions to disqualify Hardin as counsel, not to mention the expense all of that involved.

I think we can all agree by now that there is no right answer if placating the baseball media is your goal -- they'll find a way to slam you regardless -- but there are good legal decisions and poor legal decisions, and Clemens has made the former just about every single time since the Mitchell Report came out.

There is one obvious answer: change your name to Andy Pettitte.

I don't think Clemens was looking for the best legal results, I think he was looking for the best results for his legacy. And to achieve that, he needed to deny vehemently from the get-go, stand up and answer questions in public fora (like 60 Minutes), and go after his accusers. He did all of those, it just didn't get him the results he wanted. What would you have advised him to do if he wanted to clear his name (not win the legal case, necessarily)?

I'm not a PR professional so I can't say what the best course would have been in that regard, but I do know that anyone who wants to use the legal system for PR purposes is insane, especially in the defamation context. By doing do you, by definition, place your own reputation at legal issue. By simply holding a press conference or going on TV you may inspire someone to try to dig up dirt on you, but by filing suit you (a) require them to do so lest they lose the case in which they've been sued; and (b) give them power of subpoena with which to dig that dirt.

But it's Sunday, I'm sitting in airport and I'm bored, so let's pretend I know something about PR. If I was Clemens lawyer and he was adamant that he did not do steroids, I would have told him to issue a statement saying so (one that itself did not rise to the level of arguable defamation against McNamee); state that while he strongly considered suing over it, he realized that doing so would be both difficult given the high legal standard and, even if that wasn't the case, the entire process would be difficult for his family and not worth the hassle. I'd have him end the statement with some philosophical words about the no-win situation he's in, but that he doesn't feel the need to apologize for a single thing he ever did on the field and that his legacy speaks for itself, etc.

If, after sharply interrogating Clemens-the-Client he admitted to me privately that he did use PEDs I'd tell him to take the Andy Pettitte route.

Perfect? Nah. The baseball media is completely insane with this stuff and they'd still go crazy in some way. But either of those approaches would have caused him less grief than he's experienced to date.

What would you have advised him to do if he wanted to clear his name (not win the legal case, necessarily)?

Not releasing that bizarre taped phone call would have been a good start. Not having it come out that he was tagging every piece of ass that he saw on the street was another, and making sure that one of those pieces of ass wasn't 15 years old when they met was a third. Ratting on his wife was a fourth.

Clemens was basically doomed from the start on the PR front - he's a guy who, while being a hell of a pitcher, has also developed a solid reputation as an unlikeable jackass throughout his career. People like that rarely get the benefit of the doubt.

Wait, how is Clemens a "pinstripe hero"?

"He did exactly what the lunch mob said would convince them of his innocence."

He did. But it didn't work because he's not innocent.

Unless you have a strong bias against his accusers and a very strong (lawyerly) presumption of innocence--keep in mind we are really talking about the court of public opinion, not the court of law, where presumption of innocence is required--the testimony of McNamee and Pettitte and the conclusions of George Mitchell and the use of PEDs by Clemens's wife and the allegations by at least one of his paramours and Clemens's great career rebound in Toronto and then his awesomeness in Houston after age 40 and the context in which he played, when using PEDs was common and untested and/or untestable, any unbiased observer would conclude he is not innocent.

So if a person is guilty*, it's assinine to follow the script of innocence. Such a person ends up getting caught up in unbelievable denials and idiotic statements about his close friend, an admitted user who knew he was using, saying the friend "misremembered."

It is entirely different if the accused is credible and the accusations are not. If someone falsely accused me of a crime, I would profess my innocence until kingdom come. I would testify on my own behalf. I would freely blather everything I knew, if I were truly innocent. I would sue my accuser for defamation, etc.

All of that (in my non-lawyerly opinion) is the natural reaction and the right reaction--if I really am innocent of the crime for which I am accused.

That is what "the lunch mob" told people who had been falsely accused of using PEDs. It is not what "the lunch mob" said the guilty, like Clemens, ought to do.

* Never mind that in my opinion using PEDs was not a "crime" against baseball, in that every player was either using them or knew that they were being used and, if a player was not using, could have accessed them easily, and that, due to the actions of MLB and the MLBPA, there was no testing and no real negative consequences other than possible health issues for using them.

The lynch mob and the lunch mob both wanted the same thing

Yes. Better proof-reading.

Clemens did the only thing he could possibly do to try to get his reputation back -- the only thing the lynch mob said would satisfy them: follow the blue print they laid out.

And this was not a smart thing.

I did everything the witch hunt asked! I beckoned to Satan and urged him to turn me into a bat in exchange for all the great work I had done in his service. They said if I remained a human being, I was not a witch. Well, I turned into a bat, but who cares.

I don't know that this was the only reasonable thing he could do, but I agree with Ray and What the Hell on a general level that he's done what people have asked him to do, only to have the goal posts moved on him repeatedly. It's sort of funny (but mostly sad) that people have reacted to his lawsuit in the exact opposite fashion that they promised to.

No part of this is accurate, unfortunately...it's basically the Roger Clemens press conference of posts.

Has Jeter posed with his shirt off for SI?

Yes.

If I was Clemens lawyer and he was adamant that he did not do steroids, I would have told him to issue a statement saying so (one that itself did not rise to the level of arguable defamation against McNamee); state that while he strongly considered suing over it, he realized that doing so would be both difficult given the high legal standard and, even if that wasn't the case, the entire process would be difficult for his family and not worth the hassle.

Craig, that would have gotten Clemens precisely nowhere. The "Why doesn't he sue!?" ship of fools wouldn't have been satisfied one iota.

Again, the only path where it was reasonable to assume would possibly gain him some benefit of the doubt was the avenue he took.

And "arguable defamation against McNamee"? McNamee is an accused-rapist self-confessed drug dealer. There's not much reputation to defame. And again, keep in mind what Clemens has said about McNamee: "You. You did NOT sell me illegal drugs."

As Darren alluded to, it would have been one thing if the anti-steroids jihadists had said, "No, we've changed our minds -- you actually don't get any benefit of the doubt from suing." Instead they said "You sued! That's further evidence of your guilt!"

Not sure why Debbie Clemens's HGH use is relevant.

Rich:

He did. But it didn't work because he's not innocent.

Keep in mind that after over two years of the feds investigating Clemens, no indictment has been brought. You may say, "well, I'm not talking about the standard of proof required in a court of law," but keep in mind that the two concepts are not entirely unrelated. In real life, as in a court of law, one still must use facts to form a conclusion. Is there _any_ evidence not tied to McNamee corroborating Clemens's guilt? (That doesn't mean one can't take McNamee at his word, but it also doesn't mean that the lack of corroborating evidence is not important.)

Unless you have a strong bias against his accusers and a very strong (lawyerly) presumption of innocence--keep in mind we are really talking about the court of public opinion, not the court of law, where presumption of innocence is required--the testimony of McNamee and Pettitte and the conclusions of George Mitchell and the use of PEDs by Clemens's wife and the allegations by at least one of his paramours and Clemens's great career rebound in Toronto and then his awesomeness in Houston after age 40 and the context in which he played, when using PEDs was common and untested and/or untestable, any unbiased observer would conclude he is not innocent.

Pettitte's testimony, of course, is more telling for what it _didn't_ reveal. Two longtime friends and teammates who trained together, with Clemens supposedly repeatedly taking steroids and HGH -- including during a time period when there was no witchhunt going on -- and what did Pettitte witness? Precisely nothing. Pettitte witnessed nothing, he saw nothing, he had no personal knowledge of anything. Just one obscure conversation from 10 years earlier where Pettitte thought Clemens had told him Clemens used HGH, a story which, after another conversation years later, Pettitte HIMSELF accepted that he was simply mistaken.

Doesn't it seem odd to you that Pettitte didn't have the goods on Clemens? Shouldn't Pettitte have been able to recite chapter and verse of Clemens's usage?

His late career surge is evidence of precisely nothing, whether inside a court of law or out. We don't suspend the rules of logic because we're not in a courtroom.

As to Mitchell, I'm not sure Mitchell "concluded" anything, other than he had evidence (from McNamee) which was enough to get Clemens listed in the Report.

So if a person is guilty*, it's assinine to follow the script of innocence. Such a person ends up getting caught up in unbelievable denials and idiotic statements about his close friend, an admitted user who knew he was using, saying the friend "misremembered."

Once more: Pettitte did not witness anything. And Pettitte ACCEPTED for years after their second conversation that Pettitte may have gotten the first conversation wrong.

It is entirely different if the accused is credible and the accusations are not. If someone falsely accused me of a crime, I would profess my innocence until kingdom come. I would testify on my own behalf. I would freely blather everything I knew, if I were truly innocent. I would sue my accuser for defamation, etc.

Clemens did testify and sue, of course.

Craig, that would have gotten Clemens precisely nowhere. The "Why doesn't he sue!?" ship of fools wouldn't have been satisfied one iota.

The general point is that suing while being guilty will alienate your fans because it brings your falsehoods to the forefront. That is idiotic legal tactics. People who believe that Clemens is guilty and wrong from the outset won't be swayed one way or the other.

The general point is that suing while being guilty will alienate your fans because it brings your falsehoods to the forefront.

I'll bite: What "falsehoods" have been brought to the forefront by virtue of the litigation Clemens initiated?

Please list them.

I'll bite: What "falsehoods" have been brought to the forefront by virtue of the litigation Clemens initiated?

Look, if you're asking me to list the number of times that Clemens has lied or changed his story over the course of his career, you're asking for an essay plus a book. I'm not going to do that, something that I suppose will give you further fodder for argument. He *could* have just stepped up and admitted wrongdoing and then moved on. People actually like that, but it isn't in his personality to do so (seemingly). There's evidence of that littered throughout his playing career. I could pick a hundred examples, but the obvious one is Piazza, where Clemens claimed that he didn't attempt to plunk Mike with the shattered bat piece because...?

"Not sure why Debbie Clemens's HGH use is relevant."

That question defies common sense. You have to have a strong bias to even make that statement: either a pro-Clemens bias or a lawyer's bias. Maybe you have both. I don't know.

I have neither of those*. I am looking at this with clear eyes. The fact that Roger played in a game full of PEDs and that the woman in his house was using PEDs adds up to me as clear evidence that Clemens was surrounded by PEDs and knew about PEDs. When you put that together with the Pettitte statement and the McNamee claims, it is very relevant that Clemens's wife was using the same product, HGH, that Clemens has been charged with using. I am quite sure that had she not been married to a PED-user, she would not have known about HGH or used them. I don't think most housewives were getting injected with HGH. I don't think it is a mere coincidence that Debbie Clemens was taking HGH.

*You might not believe me, but I have no bias for or against Roger Clemens or PED usage. I greatly admire Clemens the pitcher; and because I do have a Presentism bias and an Integrationism bias and an Athletes are just way better in everyway today than they were in Walter Johnson's time bias, I think Clemens was the best pitcher of all time.

"Keep in mind that after over two years of the feds investigating Clemens, no indictment has been brought. You may say, "well, I'm not talking about the standard of proof required in a court of law," but keep in mind that the two concepts are not entirely unrelated. In real life, as in a court of law, one still must use facts to form a conclusion."

There is a huge difference. In legal terms, you can't just use common sense to draw obvious conclusions. You have a much higher burden of proof. You almost have to completely ignore the most important fact: that Clemens played baseball in the PED era.

"Is there _any_ evidence not tied to McNamee corroborating Clemens's guilt?"

Again, that is more lawyerism. I am sure your intent is to be fair to Clemens, to ultimately give him every benefit of the doubt. But I am not trying Clemens in court. I have no interest in that. I am simply putting together the known facts and allegations in context and the conclusion is obvious that Clemens used HGH.

To me, it is parallel with legal cases in which guilty parties are found not guilty. It happens. Sometimes the proof is lacking or the jury is stupid. Obviously OJ Simpson murdered his wife and her waiter. Only morons and the severely prejudiced think otherwise. And to conclude that (in the court of public opinion) you don't have to look at the DNA or the cut on OJs hand or that he crashed into Kato's AC unit or the guy who was walking his dog and heard OJ's voice at his wife's house. Just look at the context: the wife of a violent man, with a long series of domestic violence who was paying a massive alimony to support a woman who was using "his money" to sleep around with other guys he was jealous of, gets killed in front of her home and her ex-husband had no alibi--duh, of course he killed her.

"Pettitte's testimony, of course, is more telling for what it _didn't_ reveal. ... Pettitte witnessed nothing, he saw nothing, he had no personal knowledge of anything."

My take is that Pettitte tried his best to cover for his friend who he liked. Before he realized it would hurt Roger, Andy admitted what he admitted about what Clemens had said to him, but then realized that saying more would harm his friend and at that point Pettitte shut up to protect his friend.

If Pettitte had not been a close friend of Clemens and had not liked him personally, Pettitte would have told the whole truth. The notion that he "witnessed nothing," etc., does not make sense.

"Doesn't it seem odd to you that Pettitte didn't have the goods on Clemens?"

I am quite sure Pettitte knows a lot more than he has said. Not just more about Roger, but more about a lot of his other teammates he has never ratted out.

Look, this kind of thing is nothing new. Everyday in courtrooms around the country, cops who witness other cops (their friends) acting improperly will cover for them or lie or deny knowing anything. It is human nature. The only surprising thing about Pettitte's testimony is that he partially ratted out Roger, and I think he did that without realizing at the time that his friend was going to bullsh!t his way through Congress and lie and lie and lie.

"His late career surge is evidence of precisely nothing, whether inside a court of law or out."

LOL.

...Clemens, now 47, was once considered a lock for the Hall of Fame, but the killer instinct that made him great on the mound was disastrous in the legal arena, according to the brief, signed by McNamee’s lead attorney Richard Emery.

I love the Daily News, in that it doesn't even pretend to be doing anything other than issuing press releases for Richard Emery.

Craig, that would have gotten Clemens precisely nowhere. The "Why doesn't he sue!?" ship of fools wouldn't have been satisfied one iota.

So he sued. And now he's worse than nowhere. He's the subject of an interminable federal investigation and his serial infidelities -- including with a minor -- are public fodder. If he didn't sue some people who would criticize him no matter what he did would have criticized him.

Again, the only path where it was reasonable to assume would possibly gain him some benefit of the doubt was the avenue he took.

It was ridiculous even at the time to assume that he would have gained benefit by suing. As I wrote at the time, even if you didn't do what your defamer said you did, the odds of winning a defamation suit are very long given the exceptionally high standards at play for a public figure. It meant that even if he never did PEDs, legal defeat was more likely than not (i.e. even if you prove that the statement was false, you fail to prove malice, you lose the case). Given the level of legal sophistication on the part of his detractors (low), a loss in the case would have been considered damning to Clemens ("Rocket's case dismissed! McNamee wins!" the headlines would have screamed).

You simply can't win PR battles by suing people. Someone should have told that to Roger Clemens at the time. And if they did, Clemens should have listened.

And "arguable defamation against McNamee"? McNamee is an accused-rapist self-confessed drug dealer. There's not much reputation to defame. And again, keep in mind what Clemens has said about McNamee: "You. You did NOT sell me illegal drugs."

Yet somehow McNamee's countersuit is still viable and Clemens' has been dismissed by the trial court. Huh.

As Darren alluded to, it would have been one thing if the anti-steroids jihadists had said, "No, we've changed our minds -- you actually don't get any benefit of the doubt from suing." Instead they said "You sued! That's further evidence of your guilt!"

They're morons. Everyone knew it then as we know it now. Playing to that crowd and letting their anticipated responses dictate his actions was the dumbest thing Clemens ever did.

I'll bite: What "falsehoods" have been brought to the forefront by virtue of the litigation Clemens initiated?

See, Ray, to some people, "falsehood" means "A statement that has been contradicted by credible evidence." For other people, "falsehood" means "A statement I don't believe."

It was ridiculous even at the time to assume that he would have gained benefit by suing. As I wrote at the time, even if you didn't do what your defamer said you did, the odds of winning a defamation suit are very long given the exceptionally high standards at play for a public figure. It meant that even if he never did PEDs, legal defeat was more likely than not (i.e. even if you prove that the statement was false, you fail to prove malice, you lose the case). Given the level of legal sophistication on the part of his detractors (low), a loss in the case would have been considered damning to Clemens ("Rocket's case dismissed! McNamee wins!" the headlines would have screamed).

Craig, as I'm sure you know, "malice" doesn't mean malice. Malice means that McNamee knew the statement was false when he made it. Given the nature of the statements, if Clemens proved it was false, he would necessarily have overcome the malice hurdle as well. Clemens' legal difficulty was that the court bought this ridiculous procedural claim that talking to a private investigator should somehow fall under the rubric of privilege merely because it was done at the behest of a government agent.

the odds of winning a defamation suit are very long given the exceptionally high standards at play for a public figure. It meant that even if he never did PEDs, legal defeat was more likely than not (i.e. even if you prove that the statement was false, you fail to prove malice, you lose the case).

Are you saying that even if Clemens proved that McNamee never sold him any PEDS Clemens might lose because he didn't prove that McNamee knew that he never sold him any PEDs?

The fact that Roger played in a game full of PEDs and that the woman in his house was using PEDs adds up to me as clear evidence that Clemens was surrounded by PEDs and knew about PEDs.

Yes. That's not what we're discussing, though. We're discussing what Clemens did, not what other people did.

When you put that together with the Pettitte statement and the McNamee claims, it is very relevant that Clemens's wife was using the same product, HGH, that Clemens has been charged with using.

Well, not exactly. McNamee did mention hGH, but he also claimed to have given actual PEDs -- i.e., steroids -- to Clemens.

I don't think most housewives were getting injected with HGH.

Come on. This is ridiculous spin. Debbie was not a "housewife," like she was sitting around the living room and going to PTA meetings. She was a swimsuit model.

If Pettitte had not been a close friend of Clemens and had not liked him personally, Pettitte would have told the whole truth. The notion that he "witnessed nothing," etc., does not make sense.

Unless, of course, he witnessed nothing. See, the problem here is that you're not using "common sense," which is just a euphemism for making-stuff-up-without-evidence anyway. You're starting from the assumption that Clemens is guilty and then working backwards.

Look, this kind of thing is nothing new. Everyday in courtrooms around the country, cops who witness other cops (their friends) acting improperly will cover for them or lie or deny knowing anything. It is human nature. The only surprising thing about Pettitte's testimony is that he partially ratted out Roger, and I think he did that without realizing at the time that his friend was going to bullsh!t his way through Congress and lie and lie and lie.

Oh, come on. Two years earlier, it was (falsely) reported that Clemens and Pettitte had been accused by Grimsley. Both Pettitte and Clemens denied that they had ever used PEDs. According to Pettitte, when he discussed it with Clemens privately at the time, Clemens denied both using and having previously discussed using. When the Mitchell report came out, Pettitte himself lied about his own use. So, no, it is simply not rational to say that Pettitte "didn't realize" Clemens would deny using. Of course he realized it.


What's really bizarre is that there are two people in this story who are known to have lied, because they've since admitted it: Pettitte and McNamee. And yet somehow their version of events is credited, while the one guy whose story has never been challenged by any hard evidence is deemed to be lying. In other situations, everyone says, "Hey, look, Canseco turned out to be telling the truth about all these steroid users." But Canseco backed Clemens, not McNamee, and yet people ignore that.

Debbie was not a "housewife," like she was sitting around the living room and going to PTA meetings. She was a swimsuit model.

There's not a lot of information about her past available online in an easy to access format, but as near as I can tell, she only ever did the swimsuit modelling thing on one occasion, and that was for the SI spread with her husband. To call her a swimsuit model seems a bit like referring to Brett Favre as an actor because he appeared in "There's Something About Mary" - technically true, but extremely misleading.

But Canseco backed Clemens, not McNamee, and yet people ignore that.

You're really going with that? You're saying that Clemens' denial has weight because it's supported by Canseco? Really, that's your argument? Did I totally misunderstand what you are saying...that is possible?

Clemens' legal difficulty was that the court bought this ridiculous procedural claim that talking to a private investigator should somehow fall under the rubric of privilege merely because it was done at the behest of a government agent.

That's not ridiculous, actually, as a matter of precedent. Whether it's good policy is a different question.

And yet somehow their version of events is credited, while the one guy whose story has never been challenged by any hard evidence is deemed to be lying.

There's several examples of Clemens story being contradicted, actually...one just has to be a bit more objective about reviewing the evidence than you have ever been.

To call her a swimsuit model seems a bit like referring to Brett Favre as an actor because he appeared in "There's Something About Mary" - technically true, but extremely misleading.

It also implies, misleadingly, that being a swimsuit model would make Roger Clemens's wife infinitely more likely than a hausfrau to be an HGH user. I don't know what percentage of actual female swimsuit models use HGH, but I would guess it is a far smaller percentage than the erstwhile clients of Brian McNamee.

"You're starting from the assumption that Clemens is guilty and then working backwards."

That is simply untrue. I didn't start with the premise that Clemens was guilty or innocent. I looked at all of the circumstances and drew the only reasonable conclusion.

By contrast, you seem to be intentionally erring on the side of his innocence. That is fine. It's your right. And being a lawyer, that makes sense for you. But by doing so, you are missing the forest for the trees, when it is plainly obvious that the entirety of the evidence suggests to anyone looking at this objectively, not trying to pick apart every possible flaw in the evidence like a defense attorney, that Clemens used PEDs.

Having done so, to my mind, does not make Clemens a bad guy. Bonds did it too, and I love Bonds. But the fact that they used PEDs is evident to everyone but the guy who puts his hands over his eyes and claims to be blind.

I'm looking forward to Jeter being scolded by the prosecutor, for responding with a fist pump.

DA: "Mr. Jeter, you must respond by speaking into the microphone, your Honor, I would like the record to reflect, that Mr. Jeter pumped his fist in the air, indicating that he was pleased with your ruling on the objection to allow him to answer the question."
Judge: So ordered, the witness is instructed to refrain from fist pumping.

There's several examples of Clemens story being contradicted, actually...

All of which are conveniently unidentified.

That's not ridiculous, actually, as a matter of precedent. Whether it's good policy is a different question.

Judge Ellison didn't identify a single case in which a communication to a purely private investigation was privileged. The cases he cited involved statements made to government investigators. Judge Ellison simply held, conclusorily, that because the government ordered McNamee to talk to Mitchell, his statements to Mitchell somehow were "in the course of a judicial proceeding." But it's hard to see how that follows. This was not a case where the government simply allowed Mitchell to sit in on the government's interrogation of McNamee; this was a case where the government ordered McNamee to repeat his proffered testimony to a private individual conducting a private investigation. It makes little sense as a matter of policy to treat that as privileged, and there doesn't appear to be any precedent requiring it. (I am not an expert on Texas defamation law, to be sure -- but as I said, the judge failed to cite any relevant cases.) If Parrella had ordered McNamee to go on 60 minutes and tell his story, would that put the whole broadcast under the umbrella of immunity?

rich

you gotta be kidding about saying - what "housewife" knows about hgh (NOT a PED). there is a clinic right here in houston which pimps "anti-aging" hormones. there is another right in memorial where the clemens live which does the same. BIG ads. the question you SHOULD be asking is - what rich woman in houston does NOT get hgh and all the rest of those anti aging shots

it doesn't have anything to do with - did roger clemens use STEROIDS

interesting that all those syringes that mcnamee supposedly saved for 7 years haven't had anything to support his claim

fact is that you believe clemens did drugs BECAUSE HE WAS ACCUSED. period. and it is sickening how many people really really do believe that anyone who is accused of anything is actually guilty, or they wouldn't have been accused in the first place

and it is bullstuff to insist that a person who is accused should - just confess. interesting that a couple of other people have strongly denied the accusations in the mitchell report, but don't nobody care because they aren't HOF quality players

It also implies, misleadingly, that being a swimsuit model would make Roger Clemens's wife infinitely more likely than a hausfrau to be an HGH user. I don't know what percentage of actual female swimsuit models use HGH, but I would guess it is a far smaller percentage than the erstwhile clients of Brian McNamee.

I think that a swimsuit model is a lot more likely to use hGH than a random housewife, given that the only actual effect of hGH is cosmetic. Although I suppose that even as a housewife, an extremely wealthy person like Debbie Clemens would be somewhat more likely than average to use hGH. In any case, I'm not sure what the point of arguing this is, since all parties agree that Debbie Clemens used hGH for her swimsuit pictorial. Thus the issue is not <u>whether</u> a model would be an hGH user; the only issue is whether she used it because she saw a TV show about it and asked McNamee for it, or because Roger requested that McNamee do it.

That is simply untrue. I didn't start with the premise that Clemens was guilty or innocent. I looked at all of the circumstances and drew the only reasonable conclusion.

You looked at the fact that Pettitte didn't testify that Clemens used and said, "It makes no sense that Pettitte didn't testify that Clemens used," which is bizarre unless you started with the conclusion that Clemens was guilty. Otherwise, the most "reasonable conclusion" would be that Pettitte didn't testify that Clemens used because he didn't have any knowledge that Clemens used.

But Canseco backed Clemens, not McNamee, and yet people ignore that.

You're really going with that? You're saying that Clemens' denial has weight because it's supported by Canseco? Really, that's your argument? Did I totally misunderstand what you are saying...that is possible?

I am not the one who held Canseco up as a reliable source; the steroids jihadists did. Given that they believe him to be reliable, it's strange that they suddenly ignore his testimony when he provides exculpatory evidence. Given that Canseco has not been the tiniest bit shy about accusing a myriad of players by name of involvement with steroids, it's interesting that he suddenly picked Clemens to support.

the question you SHOULD be asking is - what rich woman in houston does NOT get hgh and all the rest of those anti aging shots

I concede my first-hand knowledge of the Housewives of Harris County is zilch.

I dunno. Feels pretty silly to ignore that much circumstantial evidence. And then there are the innumerable examples of Clemens lying or waffling in print. I don't particularly care if Clemens used steroids, but it seems pretty reasonable to assume that he did. Taking a frank it-can't-be-proven stance is pointless everywhere outside of a court of law.

alex

WHAT circumstantial evidence? you mean that his trainer got some for pettitte, clemens BFF? why does this make you conclude that therefore clemens used it too, because the trainer, a drug dealer and rapist, was telling mitchell whatever he wanted to hear so he could stay out of prison

there IS no other "evidence"

except for - well, lots of guys used stuff

and what is it clemens lied about?

and what is it clemens lied about?

Cheating on his wife? Look, I don't care. Barry Bonds is my favorite player, and I reckon he *also* took steroids and cheated on his wives.

I dunno. Feels pretty silly to ignore that much circumstantial evidence.

What "much circumstantial evidence"?

And then there are the innumerable examples of Clemens lying or waffling in print.

Examples which I am still waiting for. So far, the only example provided is that you disbelieve his explanation for the Piazza-bat incident (and that's not really so much an example of him lying as an example of you not believing him). In any case, assuming he lied about that, I'm sure he has driven over the speed limit and then lied about it when stopped by the traffic cops, too -- but what does that have to do with steroid use?

I don't particularly care if Clemens used steroids, but it seems pretty reasonable to assume that he did. Taking a frank it-can't-be-proven stance is pointless everywhere outside of a court of law.

I'm taking a frank it HASN'T been proven stance. Of course it "can" be proven. But the sole evidence being the uncorroborated accusation of a drug-dealing-suspected-rapist doesn't do it.


Incidentally, I'm still waiting, in all these interminable discussions, for someone to explain exactly why it's okay not to need evidence "outside a court of law."

alex

i do believe he admitted cheating on his wife when confronted about it, not that i don't understand his
not coming forward to tell all when he didn't have to

but where is ANY evidence to support mcnamee, who, to me, is not exactly a credible witness. what exactly lies has clemens been caught in that has anything to do with doing drugs?

mind, i'm not insisting that clemens did NOT do drugs. but i would like some evidence. and i'm not a lawyer neither

I'll bite: What "falsehoods" have been brought to the forefront by virtue of the litigation Clemens initiated?

Look, if you're asking me to list the number of times that Clemens has lied or changed his story over the course of his career, you're asking for an essay plus a book.

That's not what I asked at all. I simply asked you to support your point, which was:

The general point is that suing while being guilty will alienate your fans because it brings your falsehoods to the forefront. That is idiotic legal tactics.

Again, what falsehoods did we learn about Clemens, related to the steroids issue, as a result of him suing McNamee?

If you can't answer that, you're just talking out of your ass.

I'm not going to do that, something that I suppose will give you further fodder for argument. He *could* have just stepped up and admitted wrongdoing and then moved on. People actually like that, but it isn't in his personality to do so (seemingly). There's evidence of that littered throughout his playing career. I could pick a hundred examples, but the obvious one is Piazza, where Clemens claimed that he didn't attempt to plunk Mike with the shattered bat piece because...?

Whatever you believe about the Piazza thing, it has utterly nothing to do with the discussion.

To me, it is parallel with legal cases in which guilty parties are found not guilty. It happens. Sometimes the proof is lacking or the jury is stupid. Obviously OJ Simpson murdered his wife and her waiter. Only morons and the severely prejudiced think otherwise. And to conclude that (in the court of public opinion) you don't have to look at the DNA or the cut on OJs hand or that he crashed into Kato's AC unit or the guy who was walking his dog and heard OJ's voice at his wife's house. Just look at the context: the wife of a violent man, with a long series of domestic violence who was paying a massive alimony to support a woman who was using "his money" to sleep around with other guys he was jealous of, gets killed in front of her home and her ex-husband had no alibi--duh, of course he killed her.

That "context" is obviously relevant to consider OJ a suspect, but not to base a near 100% "of course he killed her" conclusion on.

In order for me to get to 100% I needed other pieces of circumstantial evidence (e.g., blood, cuts, DNA, or whatever).

"His late career surge is evidence of precisely nothing, whether inside a court of law or out."

LOL.

LOL indeed.

Isn't McNamee's credibility helped by the fact that both Pettitte and Knobloch confirmed his stories relating to them? I mean I know he's a dirty rapist who has lied in the past, but he's at least batting .667 when it comes to his steroid tales.

What's really bizarre is that there are two people in this story who are known to have lied, because they've since admitted it: Pettitte and McNamee. And yet somehow their version of events is credited, while the one guy whose story has never been challenged by any hard evidence is deemed to be lying.

It's just "common sense." :P

Isn't McNamee's credibility helped by the fact that both Pettitte and Knobloch confirmed his stories relating to them? I mean I know he's a dirty rapist who has lied in the past, but he's at least batting .667 when it comes to his steroid tales.

Not exactly, no. Pettitte and Knoblauch confirmed that they received hGH (but not steroids, as claimed about Clemens) from McNamee. They did not confirm his stories relating to them. Pettitte has some differences, although perhaps one might deem them to be minor. But Knoblauch? There are huge discrepancies.

Meanwhile, McNamee's story about Clemens at Canseco's house fell apart due to the testimony of multiple people, and all the alleged evidence to the contrary (remember the photographs some kid supposedly had?) has fallen apart. And of course that blackmail material that McNamee had somehow hasn't panned out, at least not with enough credibility for an indictment.

But the sole evidence being the uncorroborated accusation of a drug-dealing-suspected-rapist doesn't do it.

I thought the "rapist" smear only came out to show that McNamee can't be defamed. (**) You and Lisa (and probably Ray; I haven't got to his comments) are using the smear to impugn McNamee's credibility.

What "much circumstantial evidence"?

Users of that term understate the evidence, at least when it comes to press reports of the gauzes, needles, and other effects related to McNamee shooting Clemens up. That kind of evidence is direct, not circumstantial.

McNamee's testimony under oath (in Congress and in his Congressional depo) -- subject to very aggressive cross -- is also direct evidence.

Circumstantial evidence would be shooting up in distinctly private quarters, under the medical supervision of a non-doctor or hack. Both present here.

Clemens always has the "but, but, but I thought it was only B-12" defense ... which it looks like he's deploying.

(**) Itself false, by the way. To the extent McNamee's reputation isn't pristine, it can't be as highly damaged. That doesn't mean it can't be defamed, only that damages might be lower.

Incidentally, I'm still waiting, in all these interminable discussions, for someone to explain exactly why it's okay not to need evidence "outside a court of law."

Because none of us are empowered to impose criminal or civil liability on Clemens, as are courts of law and juries.

Users of that term understate the evidence, at least when it comes to press reports of the gauzes, needles, and other effects related to McNamee shooting Clemens up. That kind of evidence is direct, not circumstantial.

McNamee's testimony under oath (in Congress and in his Congressional depo) -- subject to very aggressive cross -- is also direct evidence.

Well, there was hardly "aggressive cross," but I agree with your point - except, notice something about what you listed? It's all Brian McNamee. It's not "much" evidence; it's one guy making an accusation several times. That doesn't mean people can't choose to believe him; of course they can. But they need to realize/admit that they're deciding that Clemens is guilty not because of the cumulative weight of lots of evidence, but because one guy says so.

Here's what we know about the gauze, syringes, etc: so far it hasn't been sufficient to convince a prosecutor/grand jury to proceed. Here's what we're pretty sure about: the government, the media, and perhaps Emery, have talked to many many people in Houston hoping to find someone who sold to Clemens or who witnessed him use something. Here's what's likely: they haven't found any helpful witnesses. Certainly not enough so far to convince prosecutors or a grand jury to act.

Well, there was hardly "aggressive cross," but I agree with your point - except, notice something about what you listed? It's all Brian McNamee. It's not "much" evidence; it's one guy making an accusation several times. That doesn't mean people can't choose to believe him; of course they can. But they need to realize/admit that they're deciding that Clemens is guilty not because of the cumulative weight of lots of evidence, but because one guy says so.

Yes, and that's after more than two years of this. It's after a Congressional investigation and hearing, after two years of an ongoing federal investigation, after two years of pending litigation, after dozens of witnesses have been interviewed, after multiple witnesses have been deposed and have testified including the accused, after two years of an ongoing I-investigation by the I-Team...

sugar bear

it's like this - the ONLY person saying he gave/saw clemens use is mcnamee. there is ZERO other witnesses/evidence

so i consider the source. and the source is a rapist/drug dealer who is doing whatever he has to do/say to stay out of prison

so i don't think real too much of THAT source

which is why i want some additional evidence before i decide that clemens is a felon

just like if female X says - male Y hit her, i want more than just say so. or do you want me to believe that if woman X tells the truth about one thing, than she tells the truth about EVERYthing