User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Buy MLB playoff tickets, plus 2011 World Series, 2011 ALCS tickets and NLCS game tickets. We also have Texas Rangers playoff schedule, tickets to Red Sox games and Yankees game tickets. Plus, buy Phillies baseball tickets, Tigers playoff tickets and the biggies like ALDS baseball tickets and 2011 NLDS tickets. |
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
Page rendered in 2.6782 seconds
40 querie(s) executed
Reader Comments and Retorts
Go to end of page
Statements posted here are those of our readers and do not represent the BaseballThinkFactory. Names are provided by the poster and are not verified. We ask that posters follow our submission policy. Please report any inappropriate comments.
Well, I think Emory's right in that Congress is likely to add Pettitte to the witness list, and then ask Pettitte (A) if he has any knowledge that Clemens was using, and (B) if Clemens knew Pettitte used human growth hormone.
Got that? McNamee's lawyer thinks Clemens was so unbelievable, that a jury may actually believe him, so they're not going to bother suing.
This is a short, right-after-the-fact article, but its implications are huge. McNamee and his lawyers are clearly backing down. If he's not willing to put it on the line to sue Clemens over the 60 Minutes interview, what will he possibly be able to provide a Congressional committee looking to slap Clemens with a perjury rap? Nothing, that's what. Clemens will now be able to say pretty much anything he wants to Congress later this month, secure in the knowledge that McNamee is in no way willing to forcefully contradict him. Doesn't matter if (like me) you actually believe McNamee.
The end game of this three week chess match is near, and Roger Clemens is poised to win handily. He has denied McNamee's charges, McNamee has now blinked when challenged, and unless Pettite or someone provides first-hand, eyewitness testimony calling Clemens a liar -- fat chance -- Congress will have no basis for questioning whatever story Clemens decides to tell them, true, false, or otherwise. The cement that constitutes the record of this whole affair is beginning to set, and given what will appear to be effectively unsubstantiated charges forcefully rebutted in numerous contexts, it is setting in favor of Clemens.
Likewise, there are several commentators out there -- including every Hall of Fame voter who has denied McGwire because "if the charges were false he would deny and/or sue" -- who, sooner or later, are going to have to either vote him in to Cooperstown or else explain why they too have done the moonwalk away from their previous position.
Good times ..
A bridge too far if you ask me, especially in light of McNamee's lawyers seeming to back down.
No. They think Clemens was so unbelievable, that potential clients and/or employers of McNamee will not be scared away by anything Clemens said about him. IOW, they think McNamee's reputation is not hurt by Clemens because, they contend, Clemens was obviously lying. I think it's a stretch to apply Hustler v. Falwell to this, but they could actually believe it's appropriate here.
Your greater conclusion could still be correct, but you completely whiffed on the interpretation of their quote.
On the Clemens side of the ledger, we have the lawsuit - which if I'm not mistaken will require Clemens to prove that McNamee is lying in order for the suit to be successful. At the time of the interview, he had no idea how he could prove his innocence. So, from this we get either:
(a) he thinks he has enough to prove it - and gained that in the last week or so; or
(b) based on all the misguided "if he's innocent he should sue" public blather, he's trying to win the PR battle, not the lawsuit; or
(c) they're trying to spend McNamee into financial ruin to "pay him back" for all this; or
(d) I misunderstood, and Clemens doesn't have to prove McNamee is lying.
I'll leave it to the lawyers among us to rule on (d). If I'm not misunderstanding it, though, I find it hard to believe that Clemens went from "How can you prove your innocence?" and clear unease with spending on a lawsuit to solve the problem to "Let's start up a lawsuit because we have enough to prove McNamee is lying" in the span a week or so.
Maybe. But the fact is they threatened suit on Thursday or Friday if Clemens said McNamee was lying, Clemens said basically what they warned him not to say, and now they're strongly indicating that they're not suing. I don't know how that exchange doesn't amount to a victory for Clemens.
The fact that Clemens sued may change that -- McNamee would have to file a counterclaim, right? I mean, he's retreating even further if he doesn't -- but ultimately, Clemens legacy depends upon him looking like he's willing to engage the issue while his accusers shrink (i.e. the exact opposite of what McGwire and Bonds have done), and on that score, Roger is making that happen.
and yeh, roger has a no win lawsuit since he can't prove he didn't ever use. but how many people INSIST that roger must be guilty because if he wasn't he would file a suit?
mcnamee has not got finances to ruin. his lawyer isn't charging him
looks like roger IS gonna fight back even if he can't win
what's that old expression - if rape is inevitable, fight like heck until your last breath
You're right: Clemens does have to prove that McNamee is lying. Personally I don't think McNamee is lying, and so I wonder what in the hell Clemens is thinking. If I'm advising him I play this to the PR hilt, but stop short of a lawsuit. I take that back: if I'm advising him I have him shut the hell up lest this turn into Oscar Wilde v. Queensberry, but that's neither here nor there.
Re: the quote: I see your point re: potential clients/employers and Clemens' overall lack of credibility, but what, exactly, changed on that score between Thursday and last night? Emory said he's going to sue if Clemens says what he said on Sunday. Clemens said it. Now it's so outlandish that McNamee's rep isn't in any danger?
you are assuming clemens committed the crime.
his lawyers are assuming he didn't. do you tell your clients who insist they are innocent to plead guilty/take a plea anyhow and do the time/go to the chair/whatever?
and it just might could be that the investigators DID dig up evidence, youneverknow.
Pettitte was already invited. Despite the delusion of one troll over in the long thread on the subject, Congress isn't calling Clemens to "learn about steroids." Congress is calling Clemens to 'catch' a steroid user. They invited all the people associated with McNamee -- Clemens, Pettitte, Knoblauch, McNamee. Possibly Justice; I don't remember whether I saw his name too.
My personal feelings on Clemens don't enter into the advice I'd give him re: lawsuits. Even if I assumed that Clemens was innocent -- actually, especially if I assumed he was -- I'd be extremely wary of filing a lawsuit over it. That's because defamation, as many have discussed here, is an outrageously hard claim to win on, especially a public figure. Even if Clemens is 100% telling the truth, there's a good chance he could fail to establish all of the necessary elements of the claim, or have it fail on some other technical basis. If that happens, the final verdict in the public's eye is that "Roger sued for defamation and lost, so he must be lying." Because of this, suing to clear one's name in a defamation action often has the opposite effect.
As for my general advice to clients, it depends on their goals. I do civil work for the most part. There have been numerous times where my clients insist upon their lack of liability (and I believe them) yet I recommend that they settle (and they do) for any number of reasons, be it hassle, expense, or risk of really getting boned if they contest. In some cases I would give the same advice in a criminal context (if you're being offered a no jail-time plea deal but risk five years if you fight it, there are just as many clients who will take that deal as who will fight for ultimate vindication). It's not a perfect system, and our job is to achieve the clients' goals within an ethical construct.
True, though with the burden shifting involved here (in many ways I'd rather be a defamation defendant than plaintiff) it may be a tougher call than usual. I assume that this gets removed on diversity grounds. Don't know enough facts to know if there's a venue issue here, but given how often McNamee was likely in Texas and where the alleged injections ocurred, I'd have to guess transferring is out of the question.
Clemens is a Somdomite?
No, but he once played Gwendolyn in a UT production of The Importance of Being Earnest.
True story.
Also, if you're worried about the court of public opinion, if the headlines show McNamee suing, you look really bad, so you might as well take the initiative. Of course, all of my statements are based upon the assumption that Clemens (Hardin) believed McNamee's (Emery's) threats.
The one really bad part I see for Clemens in suing is that, (a) McNamee settling without admitting liability wouldn't help Clemens, and (b) given the context in which McNamee made the statements, I just don't see how McNamee can back down. Nobody gets in trouble for lying <u>for</u> the government -- prosecutors have too much stake in backing the credibility of their own witnesses -- <u>unless those lies end up embarrassing the government</u>. But if McNamee comes out and admits he lied, unless he can demonstrate very clear-cutly that they specifically threatened him, they may well retaliate against him.
As David notes, I don't know how McNamee could sign on to such a settlement given how pissed it would make the government. Any admission, tacit or otherwise, on McNamee's part that he was lying causes him huge problems.
I'll admit, I don't know the terms of McNamee's agreement with the US.
The one really bad part I can see for Clemens would be if he buckles under cross-examination, and McNamee doesn't. But if it turns out to be the other way around, and Clemens' lawyers can trip up McNamee in a series of contradictory statements that he can't explain away, then this defamation suit might very well be the magic bullet for Clemens, regardless of whether or not he can "prove" his innocence. At some point in a trial like this it's conceivable that the "balance of probability" in the eyes of the public might shift from McNamee to Clemens---and that would make those lawyers' fees than a bargain for Clemens---it sure as hell would for me.
Maybe it would - I should ponder that over lunch.
Other than that, I think it unlikely that Clemens can trip him up on cross. McNamee <u>was</u> his trainer, or the trainer for the teams he was on, so there's no issue of access to Clemens or anything like that, and there's presumably documentary evidence of their relationship. It was a long term relationship, so it's unlikely Clemens can trip him up on a timeline. McNamee presumably <u>did</u> deal in steroids, or he wouldn't have needed to cooperate with prosecutors at all, so there's no issue of access to the substances. Clemens admits that McNamee gave him shots, so it's not as if he can trip McNamee up on the birthmark that McNamee doesn't know about.
Finally, this whole "buckles under cross-examination" thing comes primarily from people who've seen too much television. Unless one of the lawyers is really incompetent, there are no surprises. Witnesses know exactly what will be asked and what they'll be confronted with, and are prepped for those questions. People who invent elaborate stories can contradict themselves, but McNamee's story is quite simple. There's not going to be a "You can't handle the truth!" moment.
I wasn't suggesting a "you can't handle the truth" moment, but I can see a possibility that a skilful lawyer might make a lying McNamee appear quite uncomfortable, and hence less credible in the public's eye.
Of course the operative word here is "lying." If McNamee's telling the truth, I doubt even that scenario would be likely to happen. Even you (David) might grant that it's an advantage to have the truth on your side.
Second, even for the small number of people in the courtroom who would see him, why would McNamee "appear uncomfortable" anyway, unless the skillful lawyer has a hidden taser? As someone already pointed out, what is it with people who think that they're Bill O'Reilly's body language experts? We're going to decide whether he's lying by whether he shifts in his chair? Again, he has a simple story, which is at least partly true -- he had access to steroids, he trained Clemens, and he gave Clemens injections. Unless he's really dumb, it's going to be hard for him to get confused on that story.
Did Canseco ever say if he gave steroids to other players?
It's a pretty uncomfortable process to be a witness at trial. Unless you're a professional witness or very comfortable speaking in public, even completely truthful people feel the anxiety of talking out loud, to a group of total strangers, in a high-stakes situation. Trials almost always are about weighty matters because they are so expensive.
Add to that normal anxiety the (correct) perception that opposing counsel generally is trying to ask the questions in such a light as to make you look as stupid or dishonest as possible. If someone looks very confident on the stand, and doesn't betray that in the responses to be simple arrogance, that says to me that they've simply been well-coached.
2. Clemens apparently filed suit BEFORE the segment aired (although after it was taped, obviously), and thus before Emery made his statement. He may have jumped the gun.
3. Having jumped the gun, he jumped it in the right place. Whether in State or Federal Court, my experience of Texas justice has been that it is different, and that if there is any place in the US where you DO NOT want to be home-towned, Texas is at the top of the list. And that includes a federal court. If I were Emery, I wouldn't even bother with a pro hac vice appearance -- find a good Texas lawyer, and work in the background.
i think that pretty much everyone is already convinced that clemens is guilty of committing the crimes and best i can see, the ONLY 2 ways clemens will ever clear his name is
1- mcnamee says he made the whole thing up to please the feds/get even with roger/whatever
2- roger can find urine drug tests results every single day from 1996 to right now
- nope forget #2 - people will say he used someone elses piss.
maybe clemens would like to clear his name because he doesn't want to be tagged as a criminal who can't be prosecuted for the rest of his life. which is what he is libeled as, i mean labeled as right now. yeh, criminal. buying/using controlled substances is a criminal act.
he don't need endorsements. hes got himself a personal services contract with the astros for 10 years, he part owns 2 successful minor league teams, he has hundreds of millions from work. and maybe it isn't about getting into the HOF. not everybody pimps themself like gossage/parker/rice/rose
If you assume that they're both telling the truth the positions are about the same: a wronged Clemens has always been competitive and doesn't want to see a HoF career defaced by some punk just trying to avoid prison, whereas McNamee was just trying to get out of a bad place with the Feds and probably doesn't want more trouble (doubly so when he hasn't got the legal money that Roger or the Feds do.)
In short, it feels right that Roger is going to press harder than McNamee's camp to follow these up and win. I don't think you can deduce much about anyone's veracity based on who is suing whom.
I think even if McNamee is completely discredited... like it comes out that he is a pathological liar, with an actual report by a licensed psychotherapist, from Harvard Medical School... that just means "well, this guy was lying, but Rocket found a different source for his stuff."
There are people, many people, who are 100% convinced that Clemens, like Bonds and McGwire, used steroids or something similar, and would be completely unshaken in that certainty in the face of all but absolute evidence against it. Think about the standard of proof required to put, say, Kevin even on the fence for the proposition that Bonds might be innocent.
Take your best possible result for Clemens in this whole scenario: McNamee is found guilty of defamation and publicly recants his testimony. Even this is probably an outrageously unlikely turn of events. What percentage of people that believed yesterday that Clemens used steroids have a sudden reversal?
(2) What I saw of the segment (a few clips on the news), Clemens did pretty much everything he could with regard to the charges. He also looked decent in front of the camera. I still think the : "He injected me, but it was B12." and the "shocked, shocked" at Petting is pretty shaky.
A little petting is usually very important before you stick something in someone's ass.
I agree, also, that Clemens came off OK PR-wise on camera. Not great, but not bad.
This is not only untrue, it is insulting,and the complete opposite of the situation as it occurred. Kevin, and many others including Andy, started with suspicion which increased as new evidence was made known. Its been many, but not all of their opponents, who were insulting about the inference, and would make some of the most outlandish apologetia for each new piece of evidence that was uncovered.
I thought the statement was in reference to Bonds and his use of steroids.
I don't know what the tipping point was for Kevin or how sure he may be of Clemens use of steroids. I haven't been present in as high a percentage of steroid threads during the recent relevations as I was during the original batch of steroid threads.
I do know that on Bonds, we both started to get the grilling when we commented on Bonds association with BALCO.
And as it pertains to Bonds, Kevin was calling him a steroid user and leaving no room for doubt years ago, before BALCO, when the only reason to think so was he looked bigger and hit a lot of homers.
There were people who started with suspicion in the case of Bonds, but doubts, and our suspicions grew as the evidence mounted. And you guys called such people "steroid apologists".
I can see how you might have got that tone from past discussions but it wasn't meant to be a criticism of how those opinions were developed or how legitimate they are. I think those discussions have been pretty well exhausted and will lower the tone of the thread.
This is solely about how people feel right now. Those who are completely convinced at this point around going to change their mind with any reasonably likely result from this trial. Weighed against the overwhelming amount of public discussion on Clemens and steroids, there aren't a lot of people for which this series of events is going to tip from once side to the other.
(EDIT: I mean people on either side of the debate.)
At this point, it's really neither here nor there, but this is not true, and Kevin can point you to the catalogue of threads that'll show this.
Anyway, I will grant that Kevin seems rather immovable on Bonds and Giambi. He may be right that they're still cheating (or were still cheating), but the fact of their continued success under the testing regime does elevate doubts in my mind.
I don't think this place existed before Bonds was involved with BALCO.
He may be right that they're still cheating (or were still cheating), but the fact of their continued success under the testing regime does elevate doubts in my mind.
What is more important is if everything is being done to curtail their illicit PED use, including to catch any present acts.
I have no desire to throw them or Clemens or Ryan Franklin out of baseball. The prescribed penalty for any drug use caught by a test is sufficent. I also believe the commission has the power to sanction, and should sanction illicit drug use that is made known to the Commissioners office and proven by a preponderance of the evidence at a hearing before the Commissioner with adequate due process protections.
I, personally, found Bonds suspicious, but I had serious doubts before BALCO and was uncomfortable with people jumping to conclusions. I personally have been called a steroid apologist.
At this point I don't have much if any doubt that Bonds used, and for the most part I agree its neither here nor there, and I'm happy moving on.
But don't you try and tell me its not true. That I can't move on from.
True, but I'm talking about when the BALCO investigation became public. That was around 2003? 2004? Plenty of steroids talk around here before that.
It'll be interesting, his case against McNamee.
I ain't crying about it, and I'm sure you've been called worse. The only thing that bothers me is the revisionist history, pretending it didn't happen.
Kevin, you forgot to accuse the federal judge of doctoring the Grimsley affidavit before releasing it so as to make you and the LA Times look stupid.
If that has any merit, it's pretty damn clever. I doubt that it's true, though. I think Nieporent got it right above: Clemens realized he was better off in the PR war being the suer than the sued.
I saw this too. They also said that Clemens says he plans to testify, but they pointed out that just because someone says that doesn't mean they will. Even if that isn't the reason, it's awfully convenient.
What advantage is there with an injection of a vitamin over taking it orally? And if there is an advantage, why are other vitamins, such as Vitamin C or E not injected?
Rich: if you would have quoted the rest of my post you would have seen that the my purpose in talking about the legal merits was directly related to the PR aspect of it.
That aside, don't you think that losing a defamation lawsuit might have a slight impact on the PR relating to all of this? Suing and losing -- depending on how he lost -- could be far more devestating than merely saying nothing at all.
Congress is not the press corps, and I'm not aware of any privilege that keeps a civil litigant from having to answer questions under oath in another context. Sure, it's possible that Congress would defer to such a thing and not pursue the matter further, but I can't exactly see that happening. You can bet your bippy that if Clemens pulled something like that he'd immediately be served with a subpoena (they will probably have one at the ready the day of his testimony) forcing him to talk about it.
Isn't there something about B12 being difficult to absorb and stomach problems making it even harder? I know that some people have to take very high doses of B12 or they don't get benefits.
No idea really, I know they do it but have no clue why, but if one can trust Wikipedia (That's a big if but... B-12) the digestion of B-12 seems to be one big Rube Goldbergish machinery.
cmon boy, do you REALLY think that there is any evidence WHATSOEVER that you could show kevin about barry lamar Himself that would persuade kevin that bonds did not shoot up?
you, yes. andy, yes. jc, i'm not real too sure, but kevin?
crosbybird,
i remember watching this episode of forensic files last year where this poor guy had been in prison for like 10 YEARS for rape and they finally cleared him with DNA and then they interviewed the DA who said - and i'm not joking - well, i STILL think he's guilty because the victim picked him out of a lineup. and they weren't gonna look for the REAL rapist
and it sure show how close minded people are
If there were a criminal indictment, Congress would likely back off so as not to interfere with it; they screwed the pooch on that one with Ollie North. That's why Bonds won't be called. But a civil suit?
I don't recall the names, but in one of the threads on polygraph, I posted the names of two guys who served long prison terms based on strong interrogations that produced false confessions. Both police departments chose to continue heavy interrogation as a result of a failed polygraph exam.
First time I've seen Sam M called a troll.
Wrong again. Sam has stated that he does not believe that this is the reason why Congress is calling him. He believes that, regardless of their actual motives, they have the power to call him, and that power is not and should not be subject to question.
yeh i remembered a show on forensic files about some guy who gave a false confession after "flunking" a lie detector test - the cops had actually taped the entire 7 hours where they grilled him and wouldn't let him even go to the bathroom and after a while he started repeating their sentences and then they made him write it down.
i wouldn't be even a little bitty bit surprised if the feds seriously leaned on or got a statement out of mcnamee like that. it happen too many times in this country.
and yeh a polygraph is most definitely used by the cops to get what they want and they use false results to intimidate people. far as i'm concerned i disbelieve any results from them
I realize you're simplifying, but that's not a fair characterization of Clemens's arguments, AROM. That was one of them, but he did set forth a number of reasonable arguments, which I detailed in another thread. Of course, none of them -- taken separately or together -- "prove" that he didn't use steroids, since that's not possible for him to do given the facts/allegations as we know them at the moment.
And as for the "third ear," it's hyperbole, but is the substance of that argument any different from people accusing Bonds of having an expanding head?
And that's not what he said either. He was simply asking for the benefit of the doubt, or at least some benefit of the doubt. Which is reasonable as well.
His quote:
Yeah, but committee counsel, who will be sitting in, will advise them otherwise.
I think Clemens has decided, "In for a penny, in for a pound", and is going whole hog. I think he will testify before Congress.
he got 2 choices right about now -
1 - he shrugs, disappears like mcgwire, EVERYBODY thinks he committed the crimes because he can't prove he didn't and he didn't waste time fighting a charge he can't prove is false
2 - he fights as best he can, testifies, and a couple people might could think it is possible he didn't commit the crimes.
but best i can tell, his reputation is gone. completely. because most people feel like kevin. a drug dealer/rapist accuses of, what 7 felonies, then you ARE unquestionably, undeniably guilty. end of story.
Does that mean he'll cry, too?
got no idea
but like i keep telling everyone, most people here in houston STILL think calvin murphy is a child molester even though he was found not guilty in court. he's finished.
i never understood why people immediately decided that accused = guilty. in a country that is now supposed to sneer at all the old witch burnings and lynchings, most of us still do exactly that
Some will vote against him regardless, believing that he used PEDS.
Some who will vote for him regardless, totally ignore steroids because "everyone did them"
Some will "discount" his records, and then vote Or not vote for him, based on the results of that discount.
But some will be on the fence, and torn about it. If he puts up a vigorous public defense of himself, there will be some who will end up saying, there was no positive proof, just the word of a criminal, and Roger really fought, so I will give him the benefit of the doubt. Those are the votes he may be able to sway.
Will it be enough? I expect him to do a lot better than McGwire, so maybe it will be.
That's my guess as well. It'll look bad if he pulls out of the Congressional testimony -- no matter the reason -- and he's basically taken every single step that he said he would take, and more.
For those who thought he was lying when he told Wallace he would consider a lawsuit... think again.
Though filing suit is risky even if he's innocent, so I hope he wasn't goaded into that step in order to satisfy a lynch mob that might not be satiable.
I just don't see what 24 years has to do with it. I don't see any more reason to believe him than I would Homer Bailey, veteran of one year. Clemens' comments seemed a bit strange, and seemed to express a sense of entitlement. People who want to believe the worst about Clemens have their pick of incidents to look at - like throwing a bat shard at Piazza. What did Clemens ever do to make people think he's an exemplary human being? Nothing that I can think of. Great pitcher, yes, but nothing to distinguish himself as a great person.
I having posted much in the Clemens threads. I'm not one of his BTF prosecuters, I'm just saying he didn't come across very well in that interview. Just my opinion.
He did seem very confidant that whomever supposedly supplied him with steroids would not come forward. Roger must have already had him taken care of.*
*Just kidding
Probably not, but I've always been inclined to say jack squat about my deliberative process.
McNamee may have just crapped his pants.
McNamee: I know man.
That's not going to look good in a motion for summary judgment.
It is pretty damn ambiguous, tho.
What is untrue: What Roger said, or what McNamee said?
Does he hate it because he is being lied about, or because he is telling lies?
So should Clemens have his kids taken away?
I'm just being flip.
So much for picking Wallace for a softball interview.
Clemens is taking all questions. He's testy to be sure, but he's taking all questions. No one, though, has asked him a really really tough question yet.
Personally, I like his lawyer, but then again I'm a pushover for southern folks.
[EDIT] Mostly live. There is obviously a five second delay or something, because they just bleeped him saying "I don't give a rat's a** about records or heroes."
Classic. He is going to be tough to coach for a trial.
Damn. That was amazing.
"I need money." "I'm willing to go to jail." "What do you want me to do?"
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main