Isn't it just a perfect coincidence that Clemens started retiring - so he would not be subject to testing in the off season - once the penalties were put into place in 2003 and every single year after that. And isn't it a coincidence that Clemens would retire long enough to do a cycle of steroids and then come back at some later date when he "felt ready" once the steroids would have cleared his system.

Maybe it's just me, but these things are just too perfect.

Why go through all the trouble only to go through tougher testing standards in the WBC?

Clemens' repeated retirements were a great way to get rich while working part time and also riding freely into the HOF. I don't think you can infer from his behavior a concern for being caught for using PED's.

I'm not saying he was clean, just that when people put together pieces of evidence on one side of an argument and without the counterargument or case, everybody named in the report looks "guilty" but with little consideration of the weight of the evidence, the credibility of the informants, or the impact on any player's career.

Isn't it just a perfect coincidence that Clemens started retiring - so he would not be subject to testing in the off season - once the penalties were put into place in 2003 and every single year after that. And isn't it a coincidence that Clemens would retire long enough to do a cycle of steroids and then come back at some later date when he "felt ready" once the steroids would have cleared his system.

Uh, yes, and yes?

Mostly because it isn't true. Although he did announce his retirement at the end of the 2003 season, he signed as a free agent two months later, in January, right after Pettitte signed with them. That's a normal time for a free agent to sign, not an unusual off-period. After the 2004 season, he said he was considering retirement, but re-signed as a free agent a month later, in mid-December; that's only a month when he wouldn't have been testable.

He did do what you said after the 2005 season -- but one little problem: he spent months in the interim on the U.S. team preparing for and pitching in the World Baseball Classic, which had more stringent testing than MLB had. And then re-signed with the Astros in May, which was the first time he was allowed to (because they hadn't offered him arbitration.)

It wasn't until this past offseason, before the 2007 season, that he did what you said. A single year, not a pattern.

Clemens says he's going to be on 60 Minutes, and I can only assume (or hope) that Mike Wallace is going to invite McNamee onto the show as well. I'd love to believe Clemens' denial, since I like and admire just about everything else about him as a player. But considering the fact that Pettitte has already confirmed the truth of what McNamee's said about him, I can't think of any serious reason why McNamee would be gratuitously lying about Clemens.

So much for the criticism of Clemens because he spoke through an attorney, or because he wasn't clear. You can call him a liar, but no more of the pretend-lawyers like Kevin trying to parse his words to pretend he said something other than what he said. He named steroids, he named HGH. He said he never used either, and that the accusations were false.

I can't think of any serious reason why McNamee would be gratuitously lying about Clemens.

Because it's a conspiracy!

1. Eugene Freedman Posted: December 23, 2007 at 11:56 AM (#2652667)

I HATE ROGER CLAMENSN~!!!!!!

Well, whatever opinion one has about Clemens and possible PED use, I think it's safe to say that this story has legs....

I can't think of any serious reason why McNamee would be gratuitously lying about Clemens.

Whether someone had a reason to lie is a reasonable question to ask. And if someone had a reason -- like, say, an ex-girlfriend -- we should be skeptical. And if someone has no reason, we should give it more credence. But we shouldn't automatically assume that because we don't know a reason for the person to lie, that there isn't one. Maybe he thinks Clemens owes him money. Maybe he's mad because Clemens fired him as trainer. (Hell, maybe he thinks Clemens slept with his girlfriend.) Maybe prosecutors wouldn't give him a deal unless he fingered Clemens; he would hardly be the first felon in the history of the United States to falsely implicate someone else in exchange for leniency.

I can't think of any serious reason why McNamee would be gratuitously lying about Clemens.

Whether someone had a reason to lie is a reasonable question to ask. And if someone had a reason -- like, say, an ex-girlfriend -- we should be skeptical. And if someone has no reason, we should give it more credence. But we shouldn't automatically assume that because we don't know a reason for the person to lie, that there isn't one. Maybe he thinks Clemens owes him money. Maybe he's mad because Clemens fired him as trainer. (Hell, maybe he thinks Clemens slept with his girlfriend.) Maybe prosecutors wouldn't give him a deal unless he fingered Clemens; he would hardly be the first felon in the history of the United States to falsely implicate someone else in exchange for leniency.

And maybe one or all of these explanations is true. Which is why, as a Yankee fan and a Clemens fan, I'm anxious to hear both Clemens and McNamee both speak their piece on 60 Minutes, ideally face to face without commericial interruption, and without any lawyers present. You might be able to outdraw the Super Bowl with that one.

But until then, none of those explanations ring true, especially when combined with Pettitte's admission.

But until then, none of those explanations ring true, especially when combined with Pettitte's admission.

So if some of the people HUAC fingered were Communists, that's evidence they all were?

and without any lawyers present.

I would love to see every person who has ever said this be falsely implicated in a crime and then watch how long it takes for them to sniffle their way through asking for a lawyer. I wouldn't talk to ANYONE about potential illegal behavior on my part without my lawyer present. That's just plain stupid. And I'm someone who has never done anything more illegal than that which would warrant a traffic ticket. Saying that Clemens should agree to talk to ANYONE on the record about the steroid stuff without a lawyer present is the equivalent of saying that I should diagnose my chest pains by surfing the internet. Lawyers, mechanics, doctors... it's all the same thing. When facing a serious issue, you need a professional and you don't #### around.

Clemens says he's going to be on 60 Minutes, and I can only assume (or hope) that Mike Wallace is going to invite McNamee onto the show as well.

McNamee might not show up even if invited. He is facing criminal charges, and I'm not sure his immunity would extend to statements made on 60 Minutes.

60 Minutes is usually good about giving both sides access to the story. Sometimes they will slant a piece, but they will not do so like a Censor.

I am optimistic the piece will shed light on the steroid issue. You do have to hand it to Roger, he has been going all guns blazing. He is leaking it out slowly, but he's not backing down. That could come around and stab him in the ass, but at least he isn't being a pansy about the issue.

"That could come around and stab him in the ass"

pun intended, I assume...

So if some of the people HUAC fingered were Communists, that's evidence they all were?So if some of the people HUAC fingered were Communists, that's evidence they all were?

If someone had a reason to lie, that does not necessarily mean they were lying.

It's one thing to cheat. It's another not to have the balls to stand up for yourself when you got caught. But really, what can we really expect from Roger Clemens?

Is it just me, or is the "War on Steroids" starting to bear an eerie resemblance to the "War on Terror"? Major targets releasing underground videos explaining their positions while on the run from justice. American politicians making unsubstantiated claims, and using certain events/situations as justification for the pursuit of unrelated goals. The American public in an uproar. It's all there.

(Just as a clarification, I'm not saying this to make light of terrorism or any specific events (i.e. 9/11). Rather, this parallel (to me, at least) shows just how ridiculously overblown this whole steroids issue is. Sure, it is a big sports story, but people need to step back, take a deep breath, and view whole situation objectively. This particularly applies to people in the media and in government. My question to them is: Don't you have more important things to do?)

HUAC! A blast from the past.

The SACB (Subversive Activities Control Board) was a less public smear-meister but on equally shaky grounds. One time they held a hearing on the Communist Party of Oregon, and it turned out that of the 5 members of the CPO, 3 were over age 70 and the two younger ones were paid informants/infiltrators of the FBI. That was one dangerous organization!

Maybe prosecutors wouldn't give him a deal unless he fingered Clemens; he would hardly be the first felon in the history of the United States to falsely implicate someone else in exchange for leniency.

That's the thing that has me wondering; it reminds me of the waterboarding discussion--victims will say whatever they think his interrogators wish to hear to avoid undergoing the torture. This could be the case with MacNamee--especially when it was thought that Clemens was named in the Grimsley affidavit.

Threats/torture will get you the information you seek regardless of whether it is factual or not.

Best Regards

John

pun intended, I assume...

Definately.

Is it just me, or is the "War on Steroids" starting to bear an eerie resemblance to the "War on Terror"?

Its just you.

This could be the case with MacNamee--especially when it was thought that Clemens was named in the Grimsley affidavit.


I don't think McNamee was waterboarded, and it would not serve any purpose to threaten him on anything beyond "telling the truth."

I'm looking forward to the 60 minutes interview. I hope it goes something like this:

"Somebody had to take the trainer home. Then I noticed he was sitting on [splice] his sweet [splice] steroids. [splice] -- o I grab those -- [splice] sweet steroids. [splice] Oh, just thinking about [splice] those [splice] steroids [splice] I just wish I had his -- [splice] sweet [splice] sweet [splice] s-s-sweet [splice] steroids."

But until then, none of those explanations ring true, especially when combined with Pettitte's admission.

So if some of the people HUAC fingered were Communists, that's evidence they all were?

That analogy would make a lot more sense if you'd referred to any specific HUAC informant, rather than "HUAC" as a generic entity. HUAC was a committee with a life of roughly four decades, with scores of members and many hundreds of informants.

If you want to make a proper HUAC analogy, your question should be "Is McNamee 'Whittaker Chambers', or is he 'Harvey Matusow'?" These were perhaps the two most notable informants in that committee's history.

And what can we "learn" from their examples?

Well, it's been pretty clearly demonstrated that Whittaker Chambers was a credible witness, in spite of the persistent efforts of Victor Navasky et al to show otherwise. Alger Hiss tried to sue him for slander, but Alger Hiss was the one who wound up in jail, not Chambers.

Whereas Harvey Matusow's testimony was complete rubbish, as he later admitted himself. Congress had been completely suckered by him.

So you really can't learn that much one way or the other by asking about "HUAC."

And although I'm not exactly an historian of that sorry-assed period, I'm unaware of any cases where any specific informant's testimony brought about a confession from one party and a denial from another, wherein it then turned out that the informant was a sort of half-Chambers and half-Matusow. But that's exactly the scenario you're posing here.

And although I'm not exactly an historian of that sorry-assed period, I'm unaware of any cases where any specific informant's testimony brought about a confession from one party and a denial from another, wherein it then turned out that the informant was a sort of half-Chambers and half-Matusow. But that's exactly the scenario you're posing here.

Leaving HUAC aside, do you deny that this happens in criminal cases? Nieporent is right--sometimes the prosecutors push you to give them a big name. I have no idea if that happened here, but I wouldn't be surprised. Prosecutors are known to compete with each other. Having Clemens's name could have turned out to be as noteworthy as Bonds.

pun intended, I assume...

It's Backlasher. "Pun intended" is an implicit postscript to every post he's ever made.

And although I'm not exactly an historian of that sorry-assed period, I'm unaware of any cases where any specific informant's testimony brought about a confession from one party and a denial from another, wherein it then turned out that the informant was a sort of half-Chambers and half-Matusow. But that's exactly the scenario you're posing here.

Leaving HUAC aside, do you deny that this happens in criminal cases? Nieporent is right--sometimes the prosecutors push you to give them a big name. I have no idea if that happened here, but I wouldn't be surprised. Prosecutors are known to compete with each other. Having Clemens's name could have turned out to be as noteworthy as Bonds.

I'd like to see some specific examples of this half-truth, half-perjury scenario, especially one where it turned out that a "big name" had been railroaded by false testimony.

And to posit such a hypothetical in this case requires a belief in quite an elaborate coverup conspiracy---not to mention some breathtaking daring and stupidity on everyone's part. If McNamee is lying, I'd be willing to bet that Nieporent alone could catch him in a web of contradictions within the first fifteen minutes of cross-examination. It's hard to believe that any prosecutor would be willing to take that sort of a potential career-ruining risk---or that if it weren't a conspiracy dreamed up by the prosecution, that McNamee would be willing to expose himself to a perjury charge just for the sake of some personal grudge. Because if McNamee were inventing this stuff up on his own, that's exactly what he'd be facing, not to mention all the potential libel suits.

IOW this whole idea of a frameup or a setup may be a theoretical possibility, my friend, but I wouldn't bet the family farm on it.

I don't think McNamee was waterboarded, and it would not serve any purpose to threaten him on anything beyond "telling the truth."

You're probably right--my encounters with the seedier side of human nature has taught me not to discount any possibility.

Clemens is coming out firing and it will be interesting to see how much stamina he has in pursuing this. Is he firing bullets or blanks?

Best Regards

John

Yeah, I upgraded from a question to an assumption with an edit, but even that was unnecessary.
:)

I'd like to see some specific examples of this half-truth, half-perjury scenario, especially one where it turned out that a "big name" had been railroaded by false testimony.

I wish I could give you one off the top of my head but I can't. Some would say Bill Burns did that to Joe Jackson, but I don't think it is clear or will ever be clearly known what really happened there.

Whatever you think of Clemens, this ruly goes to show what a no-win situation he's now in. His attorney issues a statement that explicitly states he didn't use steroids or HGH and some still believe "lawyering" was going on. He now issues a strong denial right from his own mouth, says he's angry about the allegations and will face the decrepit Mike Wallace. And ... well, he's a dirty liar! That would have to be incredibly frustrating.

Just for some fun completely subjective body language analysis, when he's talking about the LA Times article where we know he's telling the truth about that specific article being false he bobs his head backwards and/or to the side, when he's going on about how McNamee never injected him he bobs his head forwards. If this was poker, I'd call his bluff. Strong is weak (Palmeiro), weak is strong.

Strong is weak (Palmeiro), weak is strong.

How is weak strong with regard to PED allegations? If you don't defend yourself everyone just assumes you did it.

McNamee might not show up even if invited. He is facing criminal charges, and I'm not sure his immunity would extend to statements made on 60 Minutes.

You'd think McNamee would have transactional innunity and thus this wouldn't be an issue, but annything is possible

Regardless of that, I agree that it's still dumb to speak on the show since you never know what other avenues (including perjury for prior statements) might be illuminated in this situation.

Nice, AJM.

I hope to be recognizing Simpsons references on my deathbed.

I hope to be recognizing Simpsons references on my deathbed.

I've learned that there is a Simpsons reference for every possible situation.

How is weak strong with regard to PED allegations? If you don't defend yourself everyone just assumes you did it.

No no, body language weak/strong. Palmeiro stuck his finger out and wagged it for the world...that's the strong I'm talking about. Don't take it too seriously though I'm half tongue in cheek.

"Clemens issues video denial"

I was hoping that the video would have Clemens denying the existence of the Holocaust, but it's just more stupid steroid crap.

Denying Christ three times would also have been acceptable.

If I'm Mike Wallace or one of the producers for 60 Minutes, I have both Clemens and McNamee on the show, but I don't ask either of them any questions.
Instead I bring along an FBI agent trained in administering polygraph tests, and let him ask the questions.
How hard is that?

If McNamee is lying he sure decides to lie about strange things. Specifically two parts: During the 1998 season (around the time of the injections), Clemens showed McNamee a white bottle of Anadrol-50. Clemens told McNamee he was not using it but wanted to know more about it. McNamee told Clemens not to use it. McNamee said he took the bottle and gave it to Canseco. McNamee does not know where Clemens obtained the Anadrol-50.


Why would he mention this? Why not just leave that part out, or say clemens used the drugs? It makes NO SENSE that McNamee would go out of his way to say this.

Another is:McNamee concluded from Clemens's statements and conduct that Clemens did not like using human growth hormone (Clemens told him that he did not like the "bellybutton shot"). To McNamee's knowledge, Clemens did not use human growth hormone in 2001.

Again, why mention that Clemens didn't like HGH? Why not just say Clemens loved using HGH? Why not say Clemens kept using it over and over again?

If McNamee is a liar, he's a very weird one.

Awesome - now we've got a real potboiler. I was getting tired of named players just rolling over and copping to it. Finally, some action!

We can all pretty much agree on the following points:

1.) McNamee is a credible witness. McNamee's allegations about Pettite have been vindicated, and marko (#40) points out that his allegations re Clemens have several points of verisimilitude and extraneous detail that suggest he's giving an honest recollection.

2.) However, Clemens has denied the allegations without qualification or weaseling. There's no wiggle room between these two accounts, no lawyering of language in Clemens' denial.

3.) Therefore one of them is lying. This can't be a question of mistake or differing perceptions, for obvious reasons, so we actually have a situation where one of these guys is flat-out lying through his teeth.

Beyond that, it's just a question of who you believe and how you analyze motivations. There are arguments for both sides. All I'll say is that since Palmeiro, forthright denials don't carry the same weight they once might have.

Sorry Roger, I don't believe you...just walk away...

Sorry Roger, I don't believe you...just walk away...

Sorry Roger, I don't believe you...just walk away...

how sad.

But considering the fact that Pettitte has already confirmed the truth of what McNamee's said about him, I can't think of any serious reason why McNamee would be gratuitously lying about Clemens.

But because you can't think of a serious reason doesn't mean one doesn't exist. And a number of possible reasons have been presented to you over the past several days anyway.

Andy, there's nothing wrong with asking these types of questions -- they're good questions to ask -- but this kind of analysis can only take one so far. And not far enough, in this case, where the only evidence against Clemens (admittedly a strong piece of evidence) is McNamee saying under oath that he injected Clemens.

I'm not at all saying we need to have been there to form a conclusion -- just that we need more information than we have right now.

IOW this whole idea of a frameup or a setup may be a theoretical possibility, my friend, but I wouldn't bet the family farm on it.

Well, I don't see why it needs to be a "frameup" for McNamee to be lying, but regardless, I haven't seen anyone on this site express certainty that he is. So your comment doesn't really respond to anyone.

On the other hand, I have seen people expressing certainty that Clemens is lying.

And I wouldn't "bet the family farm" on McNamee.

1.) McNamee is a credible witness. McNamee's allegations about Pettite have been vindicated, and marko (#40) points out that his allegations re Clemens have several points of verisimilitude and extraneous detail that suggest he's giving an honest recollection.

There's as much evidence that McNamee is a rapist as there is evidence that Clemens used steroids. There's also the fact that McNamee said Clemens (and Pettitte) didn't use steroids, then changed his story. But yeah, he's a credible witness, if you are already convinced of what he's saying before the fact.

But considering the fact that Pettitte has already confirmed the truth of what McNamee's said about him, I can't think of any serious reason why McNamee would be gratuitously lying about Clemens.

Then you're stupid, because people have given you several "serious" reasons.

You'd think McNamee would have transactional innunity and thus this wouldn't be an issue, but annything is possible

Perhaps, but if McNamee's going to continue to be a witness for the government in any proceeding, I don't think the prosecutors will agree to let him speak publicly, certainly not without their, uhm, handholding. It is too easy for him to make an inconsistent statement in an interview that could be used later to attack his credibility. In fact, it is somewhat interesting that the USAO and the IRS sat in on McNamee's interview with Mitchell (not sure if this is true of Radomski). I would think it likely that Mitchell agreed with the Feds not to ask McNamee and other government witnesses about the ultimate targets of the investigations or that if he did, they asked that those questions and responses, if any, be off limits and/or not mentioned publicly. First and foremost the Feds want to protect their investigations and prosecutions.

If you were a defense attorney for McNamee, you also would not want him to testify publicly except as required by the Feds at this point. No upside--you can only repeat what you said, and if you say anything inconsistent it could even subject him to penalties on his deal with the Feds.

Instead I bring along an FBI agent trained in administering polygraph tests, and let him ask the questions.

Then they should bring on a trained medium to check the color of their auras.

I'm sorry that was kinda rude. I just have real problems with the polygraph being seen as anything more than an intimidation tool when interrogating someone.

There's also the fact that McNamee said Clemens (and Pettitte) didn't use steroids. He wasn't under Oath in the past.

Voros, I have a couple of questions regarding how you have your blog set up. Please contact me via e-mail

Oath = TRUTH SERUM!!!~!!1!1!11

Then they should bring on a trained medium to check the color of their auras.

I'm sorry that was kinda rude.

I don't see how it's rude since frankly the medium would be a better tool to see who's telling the truth than a polygraph. There are mountains of evidence that polygraphs are no more reliable than flipping coins, not to mention huge numbers of anecdotal stories of both innocent people whose lives have been ruined by a failed polygraph, and guilty people who evaded capture for much longer than they should have simply because they passed polygraph tests. The more quickly people are rid of the idiotic notion that polygraphs are useful the more quickly we can spend our time and energy on investigative techniques that are actually useful.

Edit: One thing I should be clear on is that I'm not including the so called "guilty knowledge" polygraph tests, which do genuinely appear to work(these are tests when you ask a series of questions where the investigators would know the correct answer-what the murder weapon is for example-but such information is not publicly available nor available to any innocent person. In such cases there still exists the serious issue of false negatives, but false positives are much rarer). I don't see any way you could conduct a guilty knowledge polygraph here since it appears that all the serious relevant information has been leaked.

IOW this whole idea of a frameup or a setup may be a theoretical possibility, my friend, but I wouldn't bet the family farm on it.

Well, I don't see why it needs to be a "frameup" for McNamee to be lying, but regardless, I haven't seen anyone on this site express certainty that he is. So your comment doesn't really respond to anyone.

Really? What about post #24?

Nieporent is right--sometimes the prosecutors push you to give them a big name. I have no idea if that happened here, but I wouldn't be surprised. Prosecutors are known to compete with each other. Having Clemens's name could have turned out to be as noteworthy as Bonds.

If this doesn't pose a scenario of a prosecutor trying to coerce false testimony out of McNamee in order to "frame up" Clemens' reputation, then what would you call it?

On the other hand, I have seen people expressing certainty that Clemens is lying.

I've never said that, but I'd call it about a 99% probability at this point. Why on earth would McNamee risk a perjury charge?

And I wouldn't "bet the family farm" on McNamee.

As a person, I wouldn't either. And I sincerely hope that it turns out that I'm wrong, since I've always admired Clemens as a pitcher. But in this case, I'd sure bet on the truth of McNamee's testimony versus Clemens' denial. The facts and logic of the case to date point pretty much in one direction.

---------------

But considering the fact that Pettitte has already confirmed the truth of what McNamee's said about him, I can't think of any serious reason why McNamee would be gratuitously lying about Clemens.

Then you're stupid, because people have given you several "serious" reasons.

"Serious" reasons that essentially boil down to one of two scenarios, both of which are best swallowed with four other impossible things before breakfast:

McNamee has some (unspecified) personal grudge against Clemens, and therefore gratuitously lied to Mitchell in order to ruin his reputation---even as he told the truth about Pettite; or

Some unnamed prosecutor wants to make an "example" of a "big name" like Clemens and somehow was able to coerce McNamee into giving false testimony to Mitchell.

There sure must be a lot of serious Clemens haters out there.

Of course the first scenario would expose McNamee to perjury charges, and you can bet that the government would pursue them, having just seen the Mitchell Committee been made into a laughing stock after having given immunity to one of its star witnesses.

And the second scenario would necessitate an enormous risk that the whole plot could unravel and not only ruin its instigator's career, but conceivably discredit the entire Mitchell Report.

That would either have to be some crazy prosecutor, or an even more delicious counterplot by the steroid trust that would put Oliver Stone himself to shame.

I don't see how it's rude

It was rude because it was needlessly snarky to someone who simply said something I disagreed with. I should save 'rude' for those that earn it.

Some unnamed prosecutor wants to make an "example" of a "big name" like Clemens and somehow was able to coerce McNamee into giving false testimony to Mitchell.

Prosecutors do this all the time. "Come on, we know Clemens was doing this, we just need you to confirm it and we'll give you immunity". Indeed, it's quite possible that the prosecutor believes all this and simply thought he was forcing the truth out of a reluctant witness.

I have no idea what the likelihood of this scenario is, but I can't conceive of how anyone would discount this so quickly. The idea that everything has to be black/white (either he's telling the truth or it's a vast conspiracy against Clemens) is ridiculous, since it's entirely possible that the prosecutor both believes Clemens is guilty and the informant is lying.

I do think it's likely that this testimony is truthful, but a lot of people seem to be placing an awful lot of faith in a system that routinely railroads innocent people.

What are you talking about? Prosecutors in drug cases do not seek downstream behavior. They want to know the suppliers, not the users. They work upstream.

That is why this was nonsense during BALCO as well. Prosecutors wanted BALCO. No users have been prosecuted in any drug investigation. Perjurors that impacted the case against the BALCO bunch were prosecuted. Grimsely, who was allegedly a distributor may have received some sanction, but I don't remember.

What are you talking about? Prosecutors in drug cases do not seek downstream behavior. They want to know the suppliers, not the users. They work upstream.

While this is generally true, that's because that's where the incentives are. Prosecutors, like almost everyone else, follow the money/power/career building. In most drug cases, that means pursuing suppliers. In this case, it may well mean pursuing high profile users.

There is no high profile case for getting a simple possession or solicitation charge in a case that is very hard to make. You need to put the foil hat back on. That's way too much conspiracy.

There is no career mobility in that. Handling such a case proves nothing upstream, and it doesn't impress voters.

and it doesn't impress voters.

I wonder, then, what congress thinks they've been doing by grandstanding and interviewing players and threatening intervention these past few years since such things don't impress voters.

Backlasher.

Why was the chemist who invented this "cream" and "clear" only given three months? He snubs his nose at the govenrment to this day. Says he would do it again ..

three months?

Conte only got four months ..
Greg Anderson, four months ..
Remi Korchemny is sentenced to one year of probation ..


Meanwhile Barry Bonds has an IRS agent assigned to dig thru his trash for four years.
Just trying to get somebody, anybody, just please come and rat this man out ...


why do you think that was?

"Come on, we know Clemens was doing this, we just need you to confirm it and we'll give you immunity". Indeed, it's quite possible that the prosecutor believes all this and simply thought he was forcing the truth out of a reluctant witness.

But this scenario is triply risky: The prosecutor would be risking McNamee's possible reversal, especially since Clemens would have every incentive (and lots of available money for private eyes) to bring it about; McNamee would risk perjury; and the Mitchell Committee, if it had simply accepted false testimony at face value without fully vetting McNamee, would risk having its credibility blown to smithereens.

It also assumes a scenario in which a prosecutor was willing to threaten McNamee with some sort of unnamed punishment for failing to "cooperate," knowing full well that any coerced false testimony could very well come back to haunt him.

I have no idea what the likelihood of this scenario is, but I can't conceive of how anyone would discount this so quickly. The idea that everything has to be black/white (either he's telling the truth or it's a vast conspiracy against Clemens) is ridiculous, since it's entirely possible that the prosecutor both believes Clemens is guilty and the informant is lying.

That's what you're posing above, and it's like a table with two legs trying to support an elephant.

I do think it's likely that this testimony is truthful, but a lot of people seem to be placing an awful lot of faith in a system that routinely railroads innocent people.

My opinion of this case has nothing to do with any generic "faith" in the moral rectitude or ethical standards of prosecutors in general, or in Mitchell or any of his informants in particular. It has to do with the specific circumstances surrounding the testimony of this particular informant, including the fact that his veracity has already been verified by one of the accused players.

Maybe Congress is trying to clean up a drug ridden sport. I presume you do understand the difference between legislation of an activity and prosecution of existing crimes.

GR,

No aluminum foil needed. Anderson could have had zero days all he had to do is testify. Bonds could have had zero liability. All he needed to do is not lie. I'm sure you have invented some reasons, but its simple, the players that didn't lie, didn't have problems. THe players that did lie had problems.

the players that didn't lie, didn't have problems. THe players that did lie had problems

you sure about that?

and remember, we don't know if Barry even lied or not. we don't. you may have an opinion. but you don't know.

and it doesn't impress voters.

I wonder, then, what congress thinks they've been doing by grandstanding and interviewing players and threatening intervention these past few years since such things don't impress voters.

I'd love for you to cite one example of any congressman on that "steroids committee" whose re-election could even be remotely connected to his part in those hearings. I was a big fan of those hearings myself, but if I lived in Kentucky, I wouldn't exactly be voting for Jim Bunning, and if I lived in California, it wouldn't take any steroids hearing to make me vote for Henry Waxman.

For my own part, I think that Bunning may be one of those "old farts" who thinks that baseball was much better, more wholesome, etc., back in his day, and that he saw it his duty to "clean up the game" by any means at his disposal. You can dismiss his views for all that, but that's not the same thing as voter pandering.

And I think that even Mr. Nieporent might acknowledge that Henry Waxman has a sincere view on the topic of steroids, and that he scarcely needed this issue to be re-elected for the 15th straight time in a safe Democratic district.

They want to know the suppliers, not the users. They work upstream.

The prosecutors are trying to tell the whole story from upstream suppliers to end users. They may not be interested in prosecuting downstream, but they may want names to complete the story, for PR and to make the entire cycle more compelling. Quite legitimately, they may also want names so as to inquire if anyone that was an end-user was harmed, and consider the impact of that injury on charges and penalties against the upstream suppliers.

Andy, I am confused by your reference to my post 24. You seem to be arguing that I claimed as a certainty "a McNamee is lying scenario" in a sentence in which I said "I have no idea what happened." That means I am completely uncertain.

It's amazing to me how many Primates can answer the question, "What do you enjoy doing in your spare time?," with: "I like to endlessly debate questions about PEDs in baseball." I get worn out with these threads after only a hundred hours or so a week. I'm envious of those of you can who debate this one topic ten times that much, week after week.

ut if I lived in Kentucky, I wouldn't exactly be voting for Jim Bunning, and if I lived in California, it wouldn't take any steroids hearing to make me vote for Henry Waxman

but to be fair Andy, you are not your typical ESPooNfed "water cooler pamphleteer" either.

The prosecutors are so interested in "working upstream" toward the suppliers that they offered supplier McNamee immunity for his information about alleged user Clemens.

Do you even take yourself seriously when you write this crap?

Do you even take yourself seriously when you write this crap?

is that not what happened. the pusher didn't get leniency to name his users?

what am i missing.

Rich
Drop me an email and I'll send you an autographed copy of a primer thread. For a donation to WADA, we offer a color photograph signed by all members of the union.

Handel,

If what you say is true, then the last thing they want is false names of users.

Darren, LOL. Before you start a thread on Sox Therapy about this, you might want to learn the difference between a plea agreement and a proffer. Moreover, you might want to see how many indictments result from the proffer.

Andy, I am confused by your reference to my post 24. You seem to be arguing that I claimed as a certainty "a McNamee is lying scenario" in a sentence in which I said "I have no idea what happened." That means I am completely uncertain.

Handel, here's what you wrote, within the full context of the post of mine that you refer to:

IOW this whole idea of a frameup or a setup may be a theoretical possibility, my friend, but I wouldn't bet the family farm on it.

Well, I don't see why it needs to be a "frameup" for McNamee to be lying, but regardless, I haven't seen anyone on this site express certainty that he is. So your comment doesn't really respond to anyone.

Really? What about post #24? [this was yours]

Nieporent is right--sometimes the prosecutors push you to give them a big name. I have no idea if that happened here, but I wouldn't be surprised. Prosecutors are known to compete with each other. Having Clemens's name could have turned out to be as noteworthy as Bonds.

If this doesn't pose a scenario of a prosecutor trying to coerce false testimony out of McNamee in order to "frame up" Clemens' reputation, then what would you call it?

Re-reading this, I can see the operative phrase from your POV is "I have no idea," and I should have noted that in my own comment that followed it. And I'm glad that you're doing nothing more than throwing it out there as a mere mathematical possibility.

Nevertheless, the scenario itself is so farfetched, for reasons I've already spelled out, that when you wrote that sometimes the prosecutors push you to give them a big name. I have no idea if that happened here, but I wouldn't be surprised, you can perhaps pardon me for suspecting that your agnosticism seems more than a bit qualified.

But I should let you speak for yourself: Just how "surprised" would you be to discover that the scenario you lay out was in fact operative here? What "serious" chance do you think there is that it took place? 1%? 10%? 30%? I'm sorry to be so insistent, but there seems to me to be a lot of waffle room between "completely uncertain" and "but I wouldn't be surprised."

As I said earlier, my own sense of the probability of any scenario that involves McNamee lying is about 1%.

That 1% would almost certainly have to center on some sort of a complete mental breakdown on McNamee's part---a breakdown that would in turn be hard to conceal, and which would likely cause any prosecutor to hedge his bets on making any such testimony central to his case against a defendent.

What's your intuition on this? Do you really think that your generic (and often justified) suspicions about prosecutors could possibly apply to this particular case?

It's amazing to me how many Primates can answer the question, "What do you enjoy doing in your spare time?," with: "I like to endlessly debate questions about PEDs in baseball." I get worn out with these threads after only a hundred hours or so a week. I'm envious of those of you can who debate this one topic ten times that much, week after week.

Rich, what do you think the over/under might be on the number of windows I have open on this computer of mine at any given time?

Hint: It ain't a small number. And even old farts can multitask pretty easily with a little practice.

I've never said that, but I'd call it about a 99% probability at this point. Why on earth would McNamee risk a perjury charge?

He's not risking a perjury charge, for the same reason that he's not risking a defamation lawsuit -- except even more so, because the standard of proof is "beyond a reasonable doubt" in a perjury case, rather than mere preponderance of the evidence. And because prosecutors have every incentive to protect their witness once they've relied on him.

What are you talking about? Prosecutors in drug cases do not seek downstream behavior. They want to know the suppliers, not the users. They work upstream.

That claim -- that prosecutors "want to know the suppliers, not the users" -- is belied by the fact that McNamee's deal with prosecutors was conditioned on his cooperation with Mitchell in naming names. Yes, ordinarily prosecutors don't care who the users are -- but ordinarily, the users aren't big names.

David,

IThe prosecutors aren't pursuing charges against any of the named players. They offered a proffer of immunity on what was stated to Mitchell. To my knowledge, the prosecutors have not expressly conditioned a deal on any specific testimony, and we may not know the extent of what was given to the prosecutors independent of Mitchell. The prosecutors do not appear to care at all about end users. In BALCO, they only wanted them to make their cases against the distributors. That was complicated b/c Bonds and Jones decided to lie.

I've never said that, but I'd call it about a 99% probability at this point. Why on earth would McNamee risk a perjury charge?

He's not risking a perjury charge, for the same reason that he's not risking a defamation lawsuit -- except even more so, because the standard of proof is "beyond a reasonable doubt" in a perjury case, rather than mere preponderance of the evidence. And because prosecutors have every incentive to protect their witness once they've relied on him.

That presumes that the "case" (meaning the case in the court of public opinion, since Clemens isn't facing any criminal charges) simply comes down to a matter of he said / he said, and not a finding that McNamee deliberately gave false testimony.

At that point, however, it's hard to believe that with all the financial resources at his disposal, and driven by the entirely understandable desire to get back his reputation, Clemens wouldn't overturn every pebble on Long Island in order to find someone---anyone---who had knowledge of McNamee's false witness. And it would take just one person---a friend of McNamee's, perhaps, whose conscience began to bother him---to begin McNamee's downward spiral.

I know damn well I wouldn't want to be in McNamee's position then. Perjury charges might seem a more pleasant prospect than what a now-proven innocent Clemens might be able to bring to bear against him.

And of course beyond all of these equally hypothetical scenarios on my part, there's still the matter of what would have caused McNamee to have born false witness against Clemens in the first place, an issue which neither you nor anyone else has addressed with anything beyond generalized suspicion and innuendo.

As I said earlier, my own sense of the probability of any scenario that involves McNamee lying is about 1%.

And "your own sense" is not based on any understanding of the legal system, but based on the fact that you applaud the whole anti-steroid crusade. The fact that McNamee told the truth about one person means he probably isn't a delusional attention seeker -- but it doesn't by any means demonstrate that he told the truth about other people.

It also assumes a scenario in which a prosecutor was willing to threaten McNamee with some sort of unnamed punishment for failing to "cooperate," knowing full well that any coerced false testimony could very well come back to haunt him.

Yes; it's not like this happens every single day of the week -- maybe not Sundays -- in prosecutor's offices across the country. Look, few law enforcement people -- prosecutors or cops -- actually want to prosecute ("frame," to use your typically misleading term) innocent people. But once they decide someone is guilty, the kindest way to put it is that they get tunnel vision, ignoring credibility problems with their own witnesses, disregarding contradictions in their case, and discounting possible exculpatory evidence. Do you think Mike Nifong is the first guy who ever thought that he should pursue a flimsy case? (And speaking of Durham, let's not forget Mark Gottlieb -- a cop who didn't take notes of his witness interviews, but reconstructed them later, in ways that just happened to match the prosecutor's case (but not the contemporaneous notes of his partner)).

49 & 53: Uhhh wrong, lie detector tests work, have you never seen Maury?

"Rich, what do you think the over/under might be on the number of windows I have open on this computer of mine at any given time?"

47.5

Andy,

If you enjoy the debate, it's all good.

IThe prosecutors aren't pursuing charges against any of the named players. They offered a proffer of immunity on what was stated to Mitchell. To my knowledge, the prosecutors have not expressly conditioned a deal on any specific testimony, and we may not know the extent of what was given to the prosecutors independent of Mitchell. The prosecutors do not appear to care at all about end users. In BALCO, they only wanted them to make their cases against the distributors. That was complicated b/c Bonds and Jones decided to lie.

I didn't say that they were pursuing charges against the players. Nor did I say that they expressly conditioned his deal on "specific testimony." I said that they conditioned McNamee's deal on his cooperation with the Mitchell investigation. (Which wasn't even a governmental investigation. How often does the government require that someone cooperate with a purely private inquiry of no legal significance?) Doesn't the fact that they did so suggest -- in fact, prove -- that they do "care about" end users?

I don't understand any way to square "you must cooperate in naming names of users" with not caring about the identity of users.

That presumes that the "case" (meaning the case in the court of public opinion,

No. You asked, why would he risk a perjury charge. A perjury charge means a case in court, not a case in this imaginary "court of public opinion."

since Clemens isn't facing any criminal charges) simply comes down to a matter of he said / he said, and not a finding that McNamee deliberately gave false testimony.

At that point, however, it's hard to believe that with all the financial resources at his disposal, and driven by the entirely understandable desire to get back his reputation, Clemens wouldn't overturn every pebble on Long Island in order to find someone---anyone---who had knowledge of McNamee's false witness. And it would take just one person---a friend of McNamee's, perhaps, whose conscience began to bother him---to begin McNamee's downward spiral.

You can't convict someone of perjury -- even if anyone were interested in doing so -- based on "just one person."

I know damn well I wouldn't want to be in McNamee's position then. Perjury charges might seem a more pleasant prospect than what a now-proven innocent Clemens might be able to bring to bear against him.

This is gibberish. Unless Clemens knows a Gotti, there's nothing he can "bring to bear" against McNamee. No matter how many times you try to spin this, McNamee is not risking anything in this situation -- not criminal charges, not civil ones -- unless Clemens is so blessed by the gods that he can find a hidden videotape of McNamee discussing his plan to falsely accuse Clemens.

And of course beyond all of these equally hypothetical scenarios on my part, there's still the matter of what would have caused McNamee to have born false witness against Clemens in the first place, an issue which neither you nor anyone else has addressed with anything beyond generalized suspicion and innuendo.

False. I've given very specific reasons. Hypothetical ones, to be sure, since I'm not privy to the truth here. But specific ones nonetheless.

McNamee must be telling the truth because he was under oath and could face perjury charges but Bonds in same situation is obviously lying? Is that right?

49 & 53: Uhhh wrong, lie detector tests work, have you never seen Maury?

Did they ask him if he thought he deserved his 1962 MVP?

McNamee must be telling the truth because he was under oath and could face perjury charges but Bonds in same situation is obviously lying?

That pretty much nails it, but there's no time for consistency in the days of steroid hysteria. It's too bad we're past the days of propaganda flicks like Reefer Madness. I'd like to see PED Madness complete with a scene where McNamee injects steroids into Clemens' ass and Clemens immediately gets wild eyed and starts firing 98 MPH fastballs at Mike Piazza's head.

Do we have anybody here who does investigating as a profession?

I'm no expert but if he was on the other side of a poker table I'd be pretty sure he was bluffing, which in this case means either straight out lying or not telling the whole truth. (based on the way he looks in the video)

I didn't say that they were pursuing charges against the players. Nor did I say that they expressly conditioned his deal on "specific testimony." I said that they conditioned McNamee's deal on his cooperation with the Mitchell investigation. (Which wasn't even a governmental investigation. How often does the government require that someone cooperate with a purely private inquiry of no legal significance?) Doesn't the fact that they did so suggest -- in fact, prove -- that they do "care about" end users?


They get no individual benefit from the end users. They do not get to say, "I took down Roger Clemens" They don't get Roger Clemens on their resume. In fact, to most of the world, they are anonymous. People will not even know their names. Any "cred" from this inures to Mitchell.

Second, I'm not sure their deal is conditioned on them talking to Mitchell. I think that is something that has been added to the story. All I've seen reported is a proffer was offered for information regarding distribution of steroids, the proffer's immunity extended to the Mitchell investigation, and investigators attended those investigations.

I don't know what the "deal" is, nor do I know what it is "conditioned on".

In this vast conspiracy we are building, how does it go down.

(a) Are the investigators looking to subborn perjury?
(b) Are the investigators sure Clemens is guilty, so when McNamee is talking to Mitchell, they make sure to give the right fertive glances to ensure that Clemens gets mentioned to Mitchell. While they in turn don't indict and Mitchell doesn't recommend punishment.
(c) Or is it Mitchell that is sure that Clemens is guilty and the investigators just agree to a little water boarding because helping Michell gets them ...?

I understand Darren not being able to keep the parties straight, but you know at some point you know there has to be a unified story. How do the feds profit from this conspiracy? How does Mitchell profit from the conspiracy?

I thought the conspiracy was suppose to be about race? No, strike that, the conspiracy is about home run hitters. No, the conspiracy is about Yankees players.

If this was just Bonds and Nowitski, that bedtime story about a vendetta might hold up. But I don't think you can sell a vendetta by every cap and every informant out there. You espeically can't when about 75% of the people getting fingered come out and admit it.

Barry is going the way of Marion Jones. Those ledgers make awful nice reading. As for Roger, I hope he is telling Morley a better story than a conspiracy.

Second, I'm not sure their deal is conditioned on them talking to Mitchell. I think that is something that has been added to the story. All I've seen reported is a proffer was offered for information regarding distribution of steroids, the proffer's immunity extended to the Mitchell investigation, and investigators attended those investigations.

Well, if it's "something that has been added to the story," it wasn't by me or any of the posters here, or by a reporter, but by Mitchell himself. Quoting from the Mitchell report:

The plea agreement required Radomski to cooperate with the U.S. Attorney’s Office, which directed Radomski to provide complete and truthful information to me and to my investigative staff as part of his cooperation. [...] The U.S. Attorney’s Office has agreed to recommend that Radomski receive a more lenient sentence if it concludes that he cooperated completely and truthfully, including with regard to the information he provided to me.

As part of his cooperation with the U.S. Attorney’s Office, and at its request, McNamee agreed to three interviews by me and my staff, one in person and two by telephone.

Please, BL, don't adopt Andy's line about "conspiracy." It doesn't require a "conspiracy." All it requires is a single prosecutor believing Clemens is guilty, and pressing McNamee to name him. People have been to known to falsely implicate themselves with enough pressure from interrogators; it would hardly be a shock to find them willing to falsely name someone else with far less pressure.

After reading these posts again, it pretty much all comes down to:

We all believe that the likelihood that McNamee is lying about Clemens is slim to next to none.

And as far as I can see, what we're arguing about is that some of us are convinced Clemens' glass is about 99% empty, while others insist it may be 5% or 10% full.

Sometimes I think that Rich (in #67) has a point.....

The irony is that one of the more stubborn members of the first group is among Clemens' bigger fans, and he'd be thrilled with delight if he were to be proven wrong.

After reading these posts again, it pretty much all comes down to:

We allAndy hopes that if he repeats it enough, he'll believe that the likelihood that McNamee is lying about Clemens is slim to next to none.

So you think it's more than "slim," then? I'm glad to know this. And I hope you're right.

I think that McNamee is a better witness than Kimberly Bell, because he's not an ex-mistress who sold his story to Playboy and because his accusations have been made in a legal forum rather than in the media. And because he claims to have firsthand knowledge of Clemens' steroid use. With McNamee, there's no possibility of misinterpretation or the like. There's no possibility that he misheard something or made an incorrect assumption or that he's relaying the idle pillow talk of a player. Either he's telling the truth and Clemens used, or he's lying and Clemens didn't. (*)

But I think the chances that he's lying are more than "slim," yes. I'm not saying I think he's lying; I'm saying that it's plausible that he has a motive to lie, and there's no reason this early in the dispute to foreclose that possibility.


(*) Actually, even if he's lying, Clemens could have used from some unrelated source -- but then, so could any other player in baseball. I'm talking about these specific allegations.

Fair enough, David. But I'm still leaning towards that 1% end of the spectrum, which in my dictionary is much closer to "none" than to "slim." Though again, in spite of my views about steroids, I'd be much happier to see McNamee exposed as a liar with a grudge against Clemens than I'd be to have to go from 99% to 100% in my conviction that McNamee is telling the truth.

And hell, I'd say the same thing about Bonds. A proof that Bonds was being framed all along, and that he achieved all those records on the up-and-up, would be a much better outcome for me than to have my 99.9% certainty about his guilt confirmed. I could easily live with being exposed as a gullible fool on a BTF website in circumstances as joyful as that.

Me: I have no idea if that happened here, but I wouldn't be surprised,

Andy: you can perhaps pardon me for suspecting that your agnosticism seems more than a bit qualified.

I appreciate your reading of my scribbles better now.

Andy:

But I should let you speak for yourself: Just how "surprised" would you be to discover that the scenario you lay out was in fact operative here? What "serious" chance do you think there is that it took place? 1%? 10%? 30%? I'm sorry to be so insistent, but there seems to me to be a lot of waffle room between "completely uncertain" and "but I wouldn't be surprised."

I'd say the chances of McNamee lying are not quantifiable. My intuition is that, without more facts, nothing would surprise me either way. I would not be surprised if he was truthful nor if he was untruthful.

I don't think of it as waffling, by the way. I think of it as having an open mind that requires more evidence to be willing to conclude that Roger Clemens took PEDs.

I'm not here to prognosticate. I'm not a gambler nor a pundit. I have no stake in correctly stating in advance what will ultimately happen in this case.

By the way, what I would like to see is something relevant from an evidentiary angle with respect to Roger Clemens that corroborates his PED use. I don't find it very helpful in evaluating Clemens that McNamee has been corroborated with respect to other folks.

Darren,

When Lasher's talking specifics of law he's always 100% serious. Doesn't mean he can't be mistaken or (when the law isn't clear in a given area) have an off-beat point of view. (As it happens I think he's wrong and you're right in the specific matter you're discussing. No matter, it's a good faith wrong if you know what I mean. He's giving you his honest take on the situation)

And if you're willing to engage in good faith debate, well my personal experience is that he always responds in kind.

I'd say the chances of McNamee lying are not quantifiable. My intuition is that, without more facts, nothing would surprise me either way. I would not be surprised if he was truthful nor if he was untruthful.

I don't think of it as waffling, by the way. I think of it as having an open mind that requires more evidence to be willing to conclude that Roger Clemens took PEDs.

I don't have any problem with that, but you might acknowledge that having an open mind doesn't necessarily preclude believing in a strong preliminary hypothesis that points clearly in the direction of guilt. An open mind only requires that you factor in all the evidence before convincing yourself of the correctness of that hypothesis, and a willingness to consider any new evidence as it may emerge.

And while you certainly should allow for the sort of possible scenarios that have been raised that would exonerate Clemens, you also have to weigh those possible scenarios in terms of their actual likelihood. Which is this case seems next to nil to me, if not to you.

You also say that you "don't find it very helpful in evaluating Clemens that McNamee has been corroborated with respect to [Pettitte]." I guess that I find it even less helpful to extrapolate from what some other prosecutors might have done in cases and circumstances wholly unrelated to this one. At least my extrapolations have some connections to the specifics of this case, as opposed to meanderings about HUAC or memories about some rogue prosecutor out to railroad a mob leader. (And here I'm not referring to you, but rather to the generic point.)

Ok question.

whats next for McNamee?
Is he facing prison time, and why did we never hear about him having charges against him?
Or
Is he free to go. Free to go and do an interview with Barbara Walters?

anybody know.

I mean his name is being trashed about here also. So does he get to tell his story to a judge or a scribe.
I can't believe that Senator Mitchell and Jeff Novitsky are the only ones that get to hear the story from his mouth.

this is nuts.

Well, if it's "something that has been added to the story," it wasn't by me or any of the posters here, or by a reporter, but by Mitchell himself. Quoting from the Mitchell report:


I'm not accusing you of anything here David, but that quote is illustrative of what I am saying. There was not a plea deal whose sole term was that McNamee speak to Mitchell. THere was a proffer in which McNamee speak truthfully and cooperate with the USAO. As a part (not the entirety) of that deal, consideration would be given on talking to Mitchell.

The USAO is not pursuing users. Mitchell has gone on record saying that there should be no sanction for users.

All it requires is a single prosecutor believing Clemens is guilty, and pressing McNamee to name him.

Ok, lets go with that hypothetical --- a single prosecutor thinks Clemens, Sosa, and McGwire have taken PEDS. What is the payoff for pressure to mention this to Mitchell? The USAO isn't prosecuting them; their involvement in getting the testimony is lost in history (credit belongs to Mitchell); they don't get a raise; they don't get votes for an office.

For this to happen, it would seem a bit far fetched.