whats next for McNamee?


GR,

This is one of the things that I refferred to in my earlier statement. We don't know the specifics of his deal, and we don't know the information McNamee gave to the USAO before he talked with Mitchell.

If McNamee had other sources of supply or other distribution end points other than MLB players, there would likely be ongoing cases. (I presume any such case would be near its conclusion b/c the suppliers would be getting hellishly nervous by now).

Now that I've read a few more posts from Nieporent, I can say that I agree with his position. Its certainly possible that McNamee's naming of any person was a result of prosecutorial pressure. It just doesn't seem likely. The USAO and any individual USDDA do not have much to gain by any invidual MLB player being named. That theory has some traction with Nowitski and Bonds, but it doesn't seem to have any angle here at all.

There was an SI interview a year and half ago where McNamee claimed that the prosecutors were pressuring him to name Rocket.

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.

This is odd, because I think it's illustrative of what <u>I</u> am saying.

I didn't say it was the "sole" term -- but why was that "part" of the deal at all? Since when is cooperation with a non-legal proceeding part of a plea deal? This is not a situation where someone is prosecuted for fraud, and as part of his plea deal he has to cooperate with attorneys representing his victims in civil suits in attempting to get them restitution. That's not that unusual. This is a purely private investigation by an employer of the employer's private rules. If a dealer were arrested for distributing cocaine to people including IBM employees, do you think that one of the conditions of his plea bargain would be that he tell IBM which programmers he sold cocaine to? That would be unheard of.

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

The USAO is not legally pursuing users. But he's inexplicably cooperating in an extra-legal pursuit of users, which -- I reiterate -- is hard to square with the claim that he "doesn't care" about users. If he doesn't, why did he involve Mitchell at all? And as for Mitchell,

(1) he didn't quite say that; he said that there shouldn't be sanction unless the conduct was "serious."
(2) he didn't bother to say this until the end of the investigative process; he knows that there are no guarantees one way or the other. The "let's not punish players" was a perfunctory tack on comment with no binding force.
(3) the primary focus of the report he generated was naming names.

I think you ignore the "court of public opinion" that Andy is so fond of discussing. These players may not face formal legal sanction in the form of criminal penalties. They may not face formal professional sanction in the form of fines or suspensions. But the players face sanction in the form of opprobrium and possible career termination. (See Mr. McGwire or Mr. Palmeiro.) That may be too much for some of us and not enough for others of us, but I don't think you can say that it's inconsequential. If I hated steroid users and wanted them punished, I'd be happy with that outcome for Clemens.

There was an SI interview a year and half ago where McNamee claimed that the prosecutors were pressuring him to name Rocket.


Do you have a link to that GR?

Since when is cooperation with a non-legal proceeding part of a plea deal?

When someone has enough political clout to make it happen. If the Congressional Oversight committee still had open hearings, I could see it happen as well.

he doesn't, why did he involve Mitchell at all?

I imagine Mitchell called him.

This doesn't seem extraordinary to me. Mitchell calls the USAO, says he is getting nowhere with the investigation and asks for access to Randomski and McNamee. Alternatively, Mitchell contacts those two individually (but I doubt it b/c that would be bad form).

The USAO probably doesn't want either to talk. If they are building cases against others, they don't want any inconsistent statements in the record. They relectuantly agree because its Michell, but make the proffer it must be truthful so their cases don't go to hell.

If its not Mitchell, it probably doesn't even happen (which is a reason why he may have been the best person for the job).

I just have trouble seeing the alternative, even if its the lone dickweed theory. In that you have an attorney trying to make a case, and instead of focusing on his case or other people he can prosecute he suspends those things. He keeps saying, "What about that ####### Clemens?"; then after he gets him to finger Clemens, he pulls out the phone book, calls Mitchell and says "I got a guy who will give you the Rocket."

That has so many different ways in which his case can ###### without any individual reward.

I'm sure he asked about Clemens. THe man followed Clemens from Toronto to NY; it would be irresponsible not to ask. But I can't see how it would be productive to ruin an investigation, and get nothing back just because you have a woodie for Clemens. Hell, I wouldn't even do that and you guys have me labeled as a steroid hawk.

SI interview

McNamee stated several times that he is not involved in steroids, that he has not spoken with anyone from the U.S. attorney's office

"No one's concerned about Brian McNamee or how it affects my life," he said. "They just want to use me to get to them [Clemens and Pettitte]. And I'm the one getting hit by the bus. I got hit, and I'm still standing there. And the bus has kept going."

"I don't have any dealings with steroids or amphetamines," McNamee said. "I didn't buy it, sell it, condone it or recommend it. I don't make money from it, it's not part of my livelihood and not part of my business."

"I have no idea why I'd be mentioned in the same breath with Grimsley, other than that he was a relief pitcher on a team with Clemens and Pettitte," McNamee said. "I barely even knew Grimsley."

believe what you will.

I think you ignore the "court of public opinion" that Andy is so fond of discussing. These players may not face formal legal sanction in the form of criminal penalties. They may not face formal professional sanction in the form of fines or suspensions. But the players face sanction in the form of opprobrium and possible career termination. (See Mr. McGwire or Mr. Palmeiro.) That may be too much for some of us and not enough for others of us, but I don't think you can say that it's inconsequential. If I hated steroid users and wanted them punished, I'd be happy with that outcome for Clemens.

Just to be a little more precise about that, Palmeiro's career termination ensued not from being "named," but from his failing a drug test and his subsequent falling off in productivity; and McGwire's opprobrium took place three years after his retirement. Neither of their playing careers were actually affected by anyone's testimony.

And there's also quite a distinction between opprobrium and career termination. No current player's career is likely to be terminated by evidence of steroid use, except in a case where a test makes him go cold turkey and his productivity declines rapidly upon his return from a suspension. And in the case of retired players, the only ones seriously affected by "opprobrium" are the handful of HoF prospects---a relatively small number to date. This is what BBC is complaining about---that this "opprobrium" hasn't reached down much below the level of the "name" players.

The perjury prosecution of Bonds aside, you're absolutely right that no user is facing any criminal penalties. So what this fuss is really all about is how we (or the HoF voters) should look upon players who've been named as juicers by people whose testimony seems credible to most of us, but without the sort of smoking gun that some of you seem to want to require as proof. It isn't really much more than that, since I haven't seen anyone here calling for jail time for juicers per se.

And after three years of these arguments in the aftermath of the congressional hearings, I don't see that any of our opinions have changed, when it comes to what the level of burden of proof should have to be for us to think of a player as a confirmed juicer. All of which might give Rich even more cause to smile and think about calling for the butterfly nets.

believe what you will.

I'm more worried about your belief of "McNamee claimed that the prosecutors were pressuring him to name Rocket."

I don't know how you got that from the article. McNamee obviously lied in his interview, but he has stated that HE HASN"T EVEN TALKED TO THE USAO. Second, he doesn't even mention Clemens by name, the SI reporter writes that in, and also assumes Pettite, who we know was illicitly assinjecting.

There is nothing here that even remotely suggests taht prosecutors were pressuring him about Clemens.

I wasn't the one to bring up HUAC in the first place, but I'd only note for Gambling Rent's benefit that Whittaker Chambers refused to name Alger Hiss as a spy for many years, before he finally agreed to tell the truth. And that prior reluctance did Hiss absolutely no good.

That obviously doesn't have anything to do with whether or not McNamee was lying then or is lying now, but it does show that stories don't always change in one direction. And unless the heat is on and he's under oath, what earthly reason would cause McNamee, or any pesonal trainer, to name one of his "clients" as a juicer? What would he ever gain by that?

No current player's career is likely to be terminated by evidence of steroid use,

I think David's issue, which I will concede, are the Canseco, Bonds, and Clemens cases. In all three cases, the players were productive enough to have MLB jobs and it looks like they may be getting blackballed because of their assinjecting ways.

I don't see that any of our opinions have changed, when it comes to what the level of burden of proof should have to be for us to think of a player as a confirmed juicer.

I doubt that is any of our goals in this discussion. The Darrens of the world will never understand our conversation. The other side has their POV. Its the rare robinreds that will actually be influenced by one or more arguments.

At this point, its more the exchange of information between the various parties. Its also to combat some of the more nonsensical arguments being made either way.

Backlasher ..

McNamee: "They just want to use me to get to them

WHO wants to use him?

I don't for a minute believe that he hadn't talked to the feds at the point of the interview. If I remember correctly, he was named prominently in the Grimsley affidavit months prior. Are we to believe that Novitsky hadn't called him? Please.

WHO wants to use him?


You tell me:

The secret cabal of the New World Order
The Man

I have no idea: it could be reporters; it could be Nowitski; it could be haters.


But I just want to make sure I understand you--you think that McNamee lied about everything in his interview, except for "They want to use me to get to them." You are sure "They" means the USAO, and "them" means Clemens and Pettite. And you think this statement means that THEY are presuring him to lie, but he just happened to tell the truth about Pettite by sheer coincidence.

Just to be a little more precise about that, Palmeiro's career termination ensued not from being "named," but from his failing a drug test and his subsequent falling off in productivity; and McGwire's opprobrium took place three years after his retirement. Neither of their playing careers were actually affected by anyone's testimony.

Incorrect. Because you're not an Orioles fan you probably don't follow the team closely, but I do. There was no "falloff in productivity" for Palmeiro; he was declared persona non grata the moment he was suspended. (He came back for two games, was benched for two weeks, played 3 or 4 games, and was told to go home and not come back.)

Indeed, checking with bbref, I see that July, the month before he was suspended -- but after he found out he had tested positive -- was his second best month of the season. (And he actually played in 5 games, not 3 or 4.)

And there's also quite a distinction between opprobrium and career termination.

There's quite a distinction between AIDS and getting hit by a bus, too, but I wouldn't want either to happen to me. (Or, more analogously, I would be happy if either happened to someone I hated.)

No current player's career is likely to be terminated by evidence of steroid use,

Clemens' career may well be.

And in the case of retired players, the only ones seriously affected by "opprobrium" are the handful of HoF prospects---a relatively small number to date. This is what BBC is complaining about---that this "opprobrium" hasn't reached down much below the level of the "name" players.

So what? How is that relevant to the point, since we're talking precisely about name players right now? I don't think it likely that the USAO, Mitchell, or anybody else pressured McNamee to name Dan Miceli. We're discussing whether McNamee was pressured to name Clemens.

But I just want to make sure I understand you--you think that McNamee lied about everything in his interview, except for "They want to use me to get to them." You are sure "They" means the USAO, and "them" means Clemens and Pettite. And you think this statement means that THEY are presuring him to lie, but he just happened to tell the truth about Pettite by sheer coincidence

as I have said before.
I don't know. Based upon the numerous lies and half truths in that interview, I don't know.
And until then Roger will get my benefit of doubt.

one thing we do know for sure, McNamee seems very comfortable rambling off lies, and you have no qaums about beleiving him.

No current player's career is likely to be terminated by evidence of steroid use

really ..
How about ..

Grimsley ..
Palmero ..
Alex Sanchez .. Sanchez was a 28 year old hitter with a career .296 batting average. He can't get a job, even on a bench?

hello boys

all yall might could want to take a look at this - it is a video and a partial transcript of a reporter's interview with rusty hardin

http://blogs.chron.com/baseballblog/archives/2007/12/clemens_release.html

and, of course, i must pimp my own self and tell yall that i am writing an entry on clemens for the hardball times for later this week - probably wednesday

and yes i am a crazy person to have agreed to that because of me knowing REAL too well i am hardly able to get time to sleep just before santa comes

- so anyhow, i luuuuvvvv all yall boys

and oh yes,

barry lamar ROOLZ. yes. you heard that right. roids or no roids. ROOLZ!!!!!!!!!!!

merry christmas to the christians and happy holidays to the non-christians

thanks bbc.

this is a great interview.

Merry Christmas

edit: I hope you all go listen to it

bbc,

Thanks for the interview link. I wish Hardin would have given more though. As I see it, he's saying:

(1) I misjudged the reaction to this and gave Roger bad advice on his PR.
(2) you have to ask Roger why McNamee would lie.
(3) I can't explain why he'd lie about Roger and tell the truth about Pettitte. I know it doesn't look good for us.
(4) My plan of attack is going to be convincing you that this is how Mitchell should do an investigation. I won't show you anything that he did is wrong; I'll just keep asking why didn't you do x; why didn't you do y; like it was a criminal trial and I want to preserve reasonable doubt.

IOW, he offered no affirmative case, nor any information to impeach. He's going to try to sell "sloppy investigation"

merry christmas to the christians and happy holidays to the non-christians

Yes, Merry Christmas and Happy Holidays to all.

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

Wouldn't the first two months of the 07 season be an ideal time to serve his 50-game suspension. And a great way to not tell the public what was happening to boot.

Our baseball leaders work hard to protect knowledge of Clemens's use; prise the tainted accomplishments of McGwire, Sosa, and Clemens; and villifies Bonds for his use as well as denigrating his accomplishments. Wouldn't it be nice to have a consistent standard.

Wouldn't the first two months of the 07 season be an ideal time to serve his 50-game suspension. And a great way to not tell the public what was happening to boot.

I also hear that while he was serving his 50 game suspension, Roger went out gambling with Michael Jordan, discussed the secret plan for 9/11 with George Bush and went to retrieve some "things" from the grassy knoll.

I won't take a side until I view the "Leave Roger Alone" video on YouTube

Its the rare robinreds that will actually be influenced by one or more arguments.

Well, I'm more gullible than most people here. I was going to say some stuff about Hardin but bbc's link was much more useful. I am not sure that the video was "bad PR" though. Yeah, some people will say, "Screw him, I think McNamee is telling the truth" but stout, non-qualified denials--even if people have serious doubts about their veracity--carry a certain amount of PR weight.

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.

Why would I do that? As I said, I have no stake in getting ahead of the facts and hypothesizing based on speculation about the facts. I'm not an investigator or a pundit. I also think if you are inclined to make such hypotheses, that it is only fair to the individuals concerned not to convince oneself of the correctness of one's hypothesis based on minimal facts. Others may not care for that sort of ethic, but I think it is worth considering it.

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.

I "have" to do that? I find it far less aggravating and unharmful to myself and the people in question to be patient and wait for the facts to develop. Perhaps others are so gifted at predicting outcomes that you don't need to have the same concerns. I am jealous of those with great vision for this kinda thing.

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.)

I'm not a trial lawyer, but I don't think anything about Pettitte is legally relevant evidence with respect to Clemens. Therefore, I would not readily extrapolate anything from it. My extrapolation from other prosecutions in general informs not my judgment as to what happened here, per se, but my inclination to reserve judgment. I guess I have an inflated sense of worth of my own opinions and should be less reticent about even stating my preliminary hypotheses, conclusions and judgments,, but that's just the way I roll, or more precisely, the way I aspire to roll.

I will, however, predict that the Patriots will not win the Super Bowl this season. :)

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.

Why would I do that? As I said, I have no stake in getting ahead of the facts and hypothesizing based on speculation about the facts. I'm not an investigator or a pundit. I also think if you are inclined to make such hypotheses, that it is only fair to the individuals concerned not to convince oneself of the correctness of one's hypothesis based on minimal facts. Others may not care for that sort of ethic, but I think it is worth considering it.

Since I'm only forming an opinion in my own mind, and calling attention to what I see is the logic of the situation, I'm not sure what brings "ethics" into this. Neither of us "knows" whether Clemens is guilty or not. Neither of us is calling for criminal charges to be brought against him. Both of us presumably want to give him full opportunity to present his side of the story, and want him to answer the obvious questions that have arisen. Nobody's against "fair play." But you're making it sound practically vindictive or sinister even to express any opinion one way or another beyond "let's wait and see," which to me is just silly. This isn't a courtroom.

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.

I "have" to do that? I find it far less aggravating and unharmful to myself and the people in question to be patient and wait for the facts to develop. Perhaps others are so gifted at predicting outcomes that you don't need to have the same concerns. I am jealous of those with great vision for this kinda thing.

Obviously neither of us "has" to do anything except wait in a cave until either Clemens or McNamee either admits to lying or is exposed as a liar. I'm not sure there's any particular virtue in that, as opposed to expressing a working hypothesis of his guilt based on the sort of questions that have been raised and not answered (so far) with anything much beyond conspiracy theories and/or strained conjectures.

I'm not a trial lawyer, but I don't think anything about Pettitte is legally relevant evidence with respect to Clemens. Therefore, I would not readily extrapolate anything from it.

I'm not a lawyer either, and I'm not extrapolating anything from Pettitte's admission except a rather obvious question: Why would McNamee lie about one player and not another? But until Clemens comes up with a plausible response to that, and to other questions, I certainly am likely to think that it's Clemens who's lying, and not McNamee.

My extrapolation from other prosecutions in general informs not my judgment as to what happened here, per se, but my inclination to reserve judgment.

Fair enough, but some of us may be more interested in the particulars of this case, as opposed to what's happened in unrelated cases. But in any event, my opinion about Clemens' guilt, while pretty damn strong at this point, is still only preliminary. Clemens may at one point come up with a plausible explanation for McNamee's testimony. It's just that I'm not holding my breath.

I guess I have an inflated sense of worth of my own opinions and should be less reticent about even stating my preliminary hypotheses, conclusions and judgments,, but that's just the way I roll, or more precisely, the way I aspire to roll.

I have absolutely no illusions that anyone at all cares what I think about any of this, or that more than a handful of Primates even bother to read through some of my paragraph-long sentences. I just try to call em as I see em.