Bet they were there drinking Miller Lite.

“Roger wasn’t even at this party.”

When McNamee came to Jose's
I wasn't even at that party!
I'd already moved out to New York City

During the telecasts, Hardin said, TV announcers can be heard discussing Canseco’s party and noting that Clemens wasn’t there.

This seems odd to me (yeah, yeah, because God knows everything else surrounding this has been so god-damned normal). Why would TV announcers mention that Clemens wasn't at Canseco's party? How does that come up?

"Man, that party at Canseco's was a great one, wasn't it Hawk?"
"Yeah, Wimpy, it sure was, but you know who wasn't there? President Clinton"
"I noticed that, Hawk, and you know who else wasn't there? Roger Clemens."
"You can put it on the board, yes!"

Hardin has lost his mind.

He might be great at winning a case in a court of law but he doesn't have a clue how to win one in a court of public opinion.

[punches effigy of Hawk Harrelson over and over]

It is weird that the announcers would talk about who showed up at one of Jose Canseco's parties - but apparently they did. And Clemens has the Canseco affidavit confirming AND a receipt showing he was playing golf. Now, it's not really a big point whether that was where Clemens allegedly got the idea for doing steroids - he could have gotten the idea elsewhere, and McNamee just misremembered. But since it's one of the few contested points that are likely to go beyond Clemens' and McNamee's disputed words, I'd think it significant that the evidence seems to support Clemens on it.

Assuming that the evidence that Clemens wasn't at the party stands, Clemens will be able to show that McNamee didn't tell the whole truth to Mitchell, since he withheld the supposed syringe evidence, AND McNamee either lied or misremembered another part of his testimony. I'd suspect that most juries would tend to stop believing a drug dealer rapist by that point.

He might be great at winning a case in a court of law but he doesn't have a clue how to win one in a court of public opinion.

I don't know - showing that McNamee was wrong about one of the few things he accuses Roger of doing in public seems like a good starting point for winning in the court of public opinion - at least among the majority of the public who would maintain even a slightly open mind on the matter. The closedminded are a lost and worthless cause anyway.

I don't know - showing that McNamee was wrong about one of the few things he accuses Roger of doing in public seems like a good starting point for winning in the court of public opinion

But has he really done that, akrasian? This looks like more of the "statistical analysis shows Roger didn't do steroids" kind of evidence.

He might be great at winning a case in a court of law but he doesn't have a clue how to win one in a court of public opinion.

That may or may not be true, but you judging that is like Rush Limbaugh being asked to judge whether Nancy Pelosi has done a good job. If McNamee came out and made a public statement, which he later repeated under oath, that he had lied and that Clemens never used steroids, you'd claim this proved Clemens' guilt.

Well, then tell me, Dave. What has been so effective about Hardin's defense of Clemens so far?

I ain't seein' it.

How would you be handling his defence kevin? I actually haven't thought that it's been half-bad. Pretend for a minute that he's entirely innocent. The majority of the case is he said/he said. What the hell else can you do but try to make the other guy look dishonest/unreliable. If you can nail him on the stuff that can be proven, you do it.

I wouldn't have released the report but other than that I have a hard time quibbling.

But has he really done that, akrasian? This looks like more of the "statistical analysis shows Roger didn't do steroids" kind of evidence.

It doesn't look like that at all. McNamee said that Clemens was at the party, and got the idea for doing steroids from being cloistered with Canseco there. Clemens has supplied multiple pieces of evidence that he wasn't at the party - including an affidavit from the host, as well as very public statements on the matter from independent people years before it would have made sense for them to be pressured to lie on the matter - oh, and physical evidence that Clemens was elsewhere. If public opinion comes down to either believing McNamee or believing Clemens, without either other trustworthy witnesses weighing in or believable physical evidence that Clemens did steroids - then if Hardin can show that McNamee lied about (at least) some things, most people would tend to dismiss the rest of his evidence.

This doesn't mean that Clemens' troubles are over - however, it IS a very useful step in achieving that goal, and it is ridiculous to blast Hardin for jumping all over part of McNamee's testimony that is verifiably false.

Again, openminded observers are likely to be influenced - at least somewhat - by evidence that McNamee has changed his story, or is claiming things that can be proven false. In terms of legal cases, McNamee has to be very careful here now. In terms of public opinion, stories showing that McNamee was lying about (at least) some things are going to help Clemens. Now how does that show Hardin is ineffective?

Hardin points out evidence that shows McNamee has problems with telling the truth, but somehow this is a bad strategy for him. Ooooookay.

I love the illogicality.

How would you be handling his defence kevin?

Well, I certainly wouldn't have tried that statistical thing. That seemed like he was grasping at straws. And the secretly taped phone conversation seemed manipulative and dishonest.

I would have taken a much lower profile approach. They're trying to control the media frenzy by trying new and improved forms of rebuttals but all they are doing is feeding the beast. Send Clemens away on a long vacation to a deserted isle with no landing strip. Instead, Clemens is in front of the camera every day and he isn't moving the credibility needle one millimeter. Or, if it is moving, it's moving away from him.

Instead, Clemens is in front of the camera every day and he isn't moving the credibility needle one millimeter. Or, if it is moving, it's moving away from him.

Well, you know, except in the article you're actually commenting on. You know, the one that is talking about evidence that Clemens is telling the truth and McNamee is lying. How exactly does that show that credibility is moving away from Clemens?

Seriously, you are the one who stated that "Hardin is losing his mind", in relation to this article - you know, the one that provides evidence that McNamee's evidence isn't truthful. Please explain what the heck you were talking about, since most sane people would believe that evidence that an accuser is a provable liar is valuable information to establish for a lawyer defending the accusee. You've tried to change the subject - but actually explain what you were saying, if you can defend it. Or admit that you attacked Hardin as a knee jerk reaction.

What's interesting to me is how Canseco has become such a sudden supporter of clemens when about three years ago he accuses clemens of using steroids in his book because of his late career success. One minute canseco says clemens shows "classic signs of steroid use", another minute he's on a radio show defending clemens.

Very interesting indeed. There's something fishy going on here.

I would have taken a much lower profile approach. They're trying to control the media frenzy by trying new and improved forms of rebuttals but all they are doing is feeding the beast. Send Clemens away on a long vacation to a deserted isle with no landing strip.

Of course, if Clemens actually did this (hide on an island), you'd be the first person to pipe up with "It's obvious that Clemens is guilty because he is trying to hide from the prying eyes of the media. If he was innocent, he'd stand up in front of the media to defend himself."

You'd then immediately point out that he's fled the country to avoid being summoned by Congress to testify.

They're trying to control the media frenzy by trying new and improved forms of rebuttals

Like providing evidence that proves some of McNamee's claims are lies?

At #18, it's so true that it's sad.

RTG: I refer you to post 9.



Marko: He explicitly says he never saw Clemens use steroids, and the partial phrase you're quoting is not accurate. He says that Clemens complained about batters using steroids. Then he says, "I can't give chapter and verse on Roger's training regimen. But I'll tell you what I was thinking at the time: One of the classic signs of steroid use is when a player's basic performance improves later in his career." He certainly goes on to imply that Clemens could have used steroids -- but in direct contrast to many of the other players in the book, he declines to accuse him of it. He does not say that Clemens had classic "signs" of steroid use -- at most, he says that he had one. Aw, hell, here's the full paragraph:

One of the classic signs of steroid use is when a player's basic performance improves later in his career. One of the benefits of steroids is that they're especially effective in countering the effects of aging. So in Roger's case, around the time he was leaving the Boston Red Sox--and Dan Duquette, the general manager there, was saying he was "past his prime"--Roger decided to make some changes. He started working out harder. And whatever else he may have been doing to get stronger, he saw results. His fastball improved by a few miles per hour. He was a great pitcher long before then; it wasn't his late-career surge that made him great. But he certainly stayed great far longer than most athletes could expect. There's no question about that.

That's it. That's the whole discussion. It's not exactly a ringing proclamation of innocence, but it's also not the sort of accusation he hurls around in other parts of the book.

EDIT: DMN got here first.

What's interesting to me is how Canseco has become such a sudden supporter of clemens when about three years ago he accuses clemens of using steroids in his book because of his late career success. One minute canseco says clemens shows "classic signs of steroid use", another minute he's on a radio show defending clemens.

There's nothing inconsistent about (1) suspecting Clemens used steroids, but (2) knowing that he didn't appear at your lunch party.

Mitchell stooped pretty low to include that item (the lunch party) in his report anyway, even if it were true. Mitchell basically just threw it out there hoping that people would infer that Clemens, Canseco, and this other random person were talking about steroids when there was absolutely no evidence that that was the case -- given that McNamee himself admitted that McNamee "did not personally attend that meeting." (And note how Mitchell describes a random conversation as an official-sounding "meeting.")

If Mitchell wanted to write (which he did in the very next sentence) that Canseco said that he'd had discussions with Clemens about steroids, then he should have just written that. Instead, he tried to play games, and if it's true that Clemens wasn't there, it hurts the credibility of his report and of McNamee.

Ray, I was talking about Canseco's defense of Clemens on WEEI. His stance regarding clemens alleged steroid change3d drastically compared to what was written in his book.

Well, you know, except in the article you're actually commenting on. You know, the one that is talking about evidence that Clemens is telling the truth and McNamee is lying. How exactly does that show that credibility is moving away from Clemens?

Well, I don' think this does that. The information Hardin is providing could be incorrect (none of us have actually heard the taping so we really don't know what the actual evidence is) like the the stats stuff he threw against the wall, hoping a little might stick, or it could be that McNamee might not remember the metadetails (it could be a different party or a different venue that Canseco and Clemens spoke). That doesn't make him a liar.

But the bigger issue for Roger is that a feeding frenzy has descended upon him and he needs to get his fat face off the cover page of the NY Daily News. All the publicity he's getting is bad publicity and the harder he tries to clear his name, the more desperate he appears.

He started working out harder. And whatever else he may have been doing to get stronger, he saw results.

It's not exactly a ringing proclamation of innocence, but it's also not the sort of accusation he hurls around in other parts of the book.

It's not. Roger always bragged about working out hard when he was still with the Red Sox, before the performance surge he saw with the Jays. That song about working out harder was the same one Bonds played to explain his performance too.

Clemens’ side has turned over evidence to congressional investigators, including an affidavit from Canseco, to support that the pitcher wasn’t present at Canseco’s home that day, the attorney, Rusty Hardin, said in a telephone interview with The Associated Press.

I bet Clemens will be Executive Producer of Canseco's movie too.

What has been so effective about Hardin's defense of Clemens so far?

I ain't seein' it.

thats cus you are close minded.

Wow.
just a few things here ..

the video .
the taping of the phone call .
an investigative unit ...

lobbying congress for god sakes ..


you think those were Rogers ideas?? lol

lobbying congress for god sakes ..


That seems like an excellent strategy. So far it seems to be somewhat successful...at least, when you consider that the objective is to allow congressmen to see Clemens as a real person. I would advise anyone testifying before a legislative committee to talk to the members one on one before the meeting.

Well, I don' think this does that. The information Hardin is providing could be incorrect (none of us have actually heard the taping so we really don't know what the actual evidence is) like the the stats stuff he threw against the wall, hoping a little might stick, or it could be that McNamee might not remember the metadetails (it could be a different party or a different venue that Canseco and Clemens spoke). That doesn't make him a liar.

Well, since there are at least three different reasons to believe that McNamee is wrong about a detail he stressed in his testimony, we have good cause to think he's wrong in part of his testimony. It might not make him a liar - but it DOES damage his credibility. Which is what Hardin is trying to do. So any sane evaluation of Hardin's tactic in this case would have to be that he's succeeding. Again, it doesn't put Roger in the clear - but it helps Roger's case, both in the court and in public opinion. All over the internet this morning there are news articles with this evidence that McNamee was wrong in his testimony - which either makes him careless in his testimony, or a liar.

Oh, and in terms of the libel case - if the jury believes that he was careless in his testimony or is a liar, he will lose it. And if Clemens wins the case, he will win in the court of public opinion. So how is this ineffective for Hardin?

Anyone else surprised Clemens' didn't just send a huge dump truck full of cash to McNamee's door step to shut him up? I kind of am, to be honest.

Not really. That would require reflection on Roger's part and reflection isn't his long suit.

Assuming that Clemens really was not at this party -- a minor detail if there ever was one -- this redounds more poorly on Senator Mitchell and his team of investigators than it does on Brian McNamee. Because the government was trading immunity for the truth, the Feds should have fully investigated every claim McNamee made (and Mitchell published as truth) to see that it was 100% true.

What I suspect happened -- if McNamee is not a total, Kevin Hart-esque liar -- is that McNamee confused a couple of different events in his mind, told the story as he remembered it and got this detail wrong. (All of us do this sometimes.) That does not destroy his credibility in and of itself. However, it does suggest that his recall was imperfect and deserved to be investigated by the federal government that gave him the benefit of the doubt.

Was it included in the report? I thought this was something that had recently emerged in McNamee's defense of himself from Clemens' onslaught.

Was it included in the report? I thought this was something that had recently emerged in McNamee's defense of himself from Clemens' onslaught.

Kev...

The first mention of Clemens' name in the Mitchell report is on page 167. On the very next page comes McNamee's account of "a lunch party that Canseco hosted at his home in Miami."

"McNamee stated that, during this luncheon, he observed Clemens, Canseco, and another person he did not know meeting inside Canseco's house, although McNamee did not personally attend that meeting," the Mitchell report says.

link

I would have taken a much lower profile approach. They're trying to control the media frenzy by trying new and improved forms of rebuttals but all they are doing is feeding the beast. Send Clemens away on a long vacation to a deserted isle with no landing strip. Instead, Clemens is in front of the camera every day and he isn't moving the credibility needle one millimeter. Or, if it is moving, it's moving away from him.

Ah, the unbeatable Mark McGwire defense. Shrewd!

Repoz, you can't expect Kevin to read the report he bases his entire argument on; he was too busy out on maneuvers.

Anyone else surprised Clemens' didn't just send a huge dump truck full of cash to McNamee's door step to shut him up? I kind of am, to be honest.

You mean, besides the fact that this would be about six major felonies? And that it would turn a difficult-to-prove issue ("What did Clemens put into his body a decade ago?") into an easy-to-prove one ("Where did Clemens' money go last week?")

Did you see this part, Dave?

The report goes on to say that Canseco told Mitchell's staff "he had numerous conversations with Clemens about the benefits of Deca-Durabolin and Winstrol and how to 'cycle' and 'stack' steroids."

So, whether he had the timing of the party right or wrong, the description by McNamee of Canseco counseling Clemens on steroid use is corroborated by Canseco himself. That means that Hard-on is going to have to discredit Canseco as well as McNamee. Now, under ordinary circumstances, that night not be too hard to do. But when you have to hold Clemens up as the guy who should be believed instead... well, you know how that goes.

I can understand how you might have missed that. Those latrine buckets fill up awfully fast.

You mean, besides the fact that this would be about six major felonies?

It didn't stop Bonds, Dave.

ZZzzzz....just go away Roger...and take your fancy lawyer with you...

I still haven't seen any followup on the fact that McNamee's [reported] claim that he injected Debbie Clemens with HGH in 2003 at Roger's bidding directly contradicts the Mitchell Report (which says McNamee never discussed PEDs with Roger after 2001)

That means that Hard-on is going to have to discredit Canseco as well as McNamee.

Um, no he doesn't. Canseco evangelizing steroids to Clemens does not need to be refuted, because Clemens isn't charged with talking to -- or, in this case, listening to -- Canseco. If steroid use was as prevalent and open as Canseco claims, then lots of people "discussed" steroids. Hell, any of us here at BTF can be described as having "conservations" about the benefits of Deca-Durabolin and Winstrol and how to 'cycle' and 'stack' steroids. That doesn't make us users -- although, Kevin, you certainly need something to enhance your performance. If you read the very next sentence in the MR -- I know reading hurts your head -- it says, "Canseco has made similar statements publicly.385" But the footnote is to the book Juiced, and the book has Clemens complaining about hitters using steroids, not asking Canseco for lessons on how to use.

You mean, besides the fact that this would be about six major felonies? And that it would turn a difficult-to-prove issue ("What did Clemens put into his body a decade ago?") into an easy-to-prove one ("Where did Clemens' money go last week?")

Since when do rich people play by the rules? If Clemens wanted McNamee to be quiet, he would've shut him up way before the Mitchell Report was even a dream in Uncle Bud's cranium.

So, either Clemens really trusted McNamee...or he's an idiot...or he's so high and mighty that he figured no one would darequestion him about steroids.

Or maybe he didn't think McNamee would turn into Kevin Hart?

So, either Clemens really trusted McNamee...or he's an idiot...or he's so high and mighty that he figured no one would darequestion him about steroids.

Or, you know, he's innocent.

he was too busy out on maneuvers

lol .. he had guard duty.

A lawyer for Roger Clemens said Saturday the pitcher can prove he didn’t attend a June 1998 party at Jose Canseco’s home described by Brian McNamee in the Mitchell Report.

I just can't believe that McNamee wouldn't be truthful!

Luckily for all concerned, I've been away for a few days, so I'm just catching up. But I have to say that IMO Clemens has done a very good job of presenting his defense.

Of course if McNamee has the goods on him, and his denials are merely a bombastic bluff, it's all a moot point. But in general, Clemens' whole approach strikes me as a lot more convincing than McGwire's, at least from a PR standpoint. I know damn well if I'd been accused of juicing, I sure as hell wouldn't have just clammed up and let everyone think the worst. I'd have done more or less exactly what Clemens has done, come out with both barrels firing.

I'm still not at a point where I can figure out exactly why McNamee would be inventing all these charges about one player alone, so if I had to put my money down I'd still believe him. But up to this point Clemens has certainly acted the part of an innocent man far more than McGwire.

Of course it may well be all just an act, born of desperation and a sense of nothing to lose. But hopefully we'll be able to find a few more things out before too long. And I sure hope Clemens is telling the truth.

he was too busy out on maneuvers

That's hilarious.

"Or maybe he didn't think McNamee would turn into Kevin Hart?"

Hey, I copyrighted that joke!

Am I missing something here? Clemens can prove he wasn't at the party because he was playing golf? Does Canseco have breakfast parties? Does Clemens golf at night? I don't think his golf is an excuse. And the "hey, guess who wasn't at the party?" is just f'ng bizarre.

Am I missing something here?

Yes. It was a luncheon. So depending on what time Clemens played golf, it would have interfered with attending the party.

Of course it may well be all just an act, born of desperation and a sense of nothing to lose.

If he thinks he has nothing to lose perhaps he needs to have a chat with his lawyer about the possible penalties for lying in front of congress.

Thanks, akrasian. Now I have to figure out how I missed that.