Did anyone else imagine a picture that involved McNamee's hand and Clemens' butt?

editerrorize Orson Welles with his directorial debut..."The Other Side of the Winstrol”!

shouldn't that be Hitchcock, and "Rear Winstrol"?

Did anyone else imagine a picture that involved McNamee's hand and Clemens' butt?

I think I can safely say that no matter where on the PEDs debate you fall, you want no part of seeing Roger Clemens' ass.

If Roger was proven to be at the party there goes Joes Canseco's integrity, which must reduce his first ballot chances.

Hehe.

Indeed. If this story is really true and this guy has pictures and is willing to testify, Clemens is going to prison.

Having read the article, this sounds like "Emery called me and told me there's a photo out there." The News clearly hasn't seen it. Most of it is just a rehash of what's been going on. And I realize Clemens is the one who made the issue out of the party, but nobody's being convicted of lying to Congress over that. (It does hurt his credibility, but overall it's not that big of a deal.)

I recall that RC said he may have attended for a few minutes, but that he wasn't there 'to do a drug deal'. So this is a non-story, non?

What kind of parent lets an 11 year old within a mile of Jose Canseco?

What kind of parent lets an 11 year old within a mile of Jose Canseco?

The Clemens

I recall that RC said he may have attended for a few minutes, but that he wasn't there 'to do a drug deal'. So this is a non-story, non?

From the deposition:

Q Jose Canseco was playing for the Blue Jays in 1998. On or about June 8 to 10, 1998, the Toronto Blue Jays played an away series with the Florida Marlins. McNamee attended a lunch party that Canseco hosted at his home in Miami. McNamee stated that, during this luncheon, he observed Clemens, Canseco, and another person he did not know meeting inside Canseco's house, although McNamee did not personally attend that meeting. Canseco told members of my investigative staff that he had numerous conversations with Clemens about the benefits of Deca-Durabolin and Winstrol and how to cycle and stack steroids. Canseco has made similar statements publicly. What is accurate or not accurate about that paragraph?

A Well, first of all, it is very offensive. Because Brian McNamee has me being a drug dealer. And, second of all, I never was at the party.

Q Let me ask a couple -- you said you were not -- you were not at this -- you weren't at this party?

A That's correct.

...

(Q) Let me just go back here. So you have or you haven't been to Mr. Canseco's house?

A I sure could have been. I wasn't here at this -- at a party that he had. I could have gone by there after a golf outing. So -- but I was not at this party.

Q And could you have been at his house during this time period, June 8th to 10, 1998?

A No.

Q Why do you say that?

A I wasn't at the party. I know I wasn't at the party.

I've long felt that I would be a terrible witness if I ever saw a crime. I have absolutely no idea where I was between June 8 and June 10, 1998. And if you told me that a friend had a party and I was there, I sure wouldn't remember any details of what we talked about.

Let us all try and remember off the top of our heads where we were between June 8th and 10th in 1998.

Looking at a calender for that year, I can say that I was in San Francisco and there was a massive perormance of the Mahler 8 that I was singing in on the 24th of June (which I remember specifically as it was the 10th anniversary of my graduation from high school). So the chances are very good that at least one of those nights - and possibly two - I was in the bowels of Davies Hall. Otherwise, I'm not entirely sure. I didn't exactly have a lot of parties I was going to at the time so if I was reminded of one I was at I might recall it. Maybe. Probably I was home reading and irritated that I WASN'T out at a party, nerd that I was.

next?

I've long felt that I would be a terrible witness if I ever saw a crime. I have absolutely no idea where I was between June 8 and June 10, 1998. And if you told me that a friend had a party and I was there, I sure wouldn't remember any details of what we talked about.

Frankly, Greg, I'm a little offended. I threw a party, and you were there. We doubleteamed those dirty sorority girls, and as we injected steroids afterwards, you told me you would never forget this night.

Let us all try and remember off the top of our heads where we were between June 8th and 10th in 1998.

My 1L summer. Would have been at my apartment in NY, either doing my write-on for the law review or research for a professor.

I think maybe I was at the beach or something - I know I went sometime in June and I was sick the last week in May (until this summer, that was the last time I needed antibiotics). Dunno, I guess I'm in trouble if Congress ever summons me about that date.

I graduated high school in june 1998 but can't find any proof on the internet right now.

We doubleteamed those dirty sorority girls

Ahem... those weren't sorority girls, that was me, and my buddy Ralph. Boy, are you forgetful.

I've long felt that I would be a terrible witness if I ever saw a crime. I have absolutely no idea where I was between June 8 and June 10, 1998. And if you told me that a friend had a party and I was there, I sure wouldn't remember any details of what we talked about.

Hmm, I was finishing up middle school.

I think I can safely say that no matter where on the PEDs debate you fall, you want no part of seeing Roger Clemens' ass.

I want no part of even reading about it.

I think I can safely say that no matter where on the PEDs debate you fall, you want no part of seeing Roger Clemens' ass.

I did not willingly go, and am still trying to leave. Kind of like Roger and his party.

Boy, are you forgetful.

I believe he misremembered.

I've long felt that I would be a terrible witness if I ever saw a crime. I have absolutely no idea where I was between June 8 and June 10, 1998. And if you told me that a friend had a party and I was there, I sure wouldn't remember any details of what we talked about.

If you named someone from my past and asked if I attended a party at their home / apartment / whatever in the last 20 years, I could confirm or deny it - or at least discuss its plausibility - pretty easily. The more details I was fed, the more details I could confirm/deny. But if you asked me to narrow it down to a three-day window ten years ago, I doubt I could. Same goes for visiting someone at their home, doing something at work, some specific errand, eating at a specific restaurant, or whatever. It's even worse if you give me nothing but the date range and ask me to fill in the details of what happened.

I think it's pretty reasonable for someone to think, "Yeah, it's possible I was at XYZ's home during that time, because I'd go there every now and then for whatever reason - but I don't really know for sure whether one of those visits was in that specific period." Clemens admits that he might have been to Canseco's house around some of his golf outings down there, and can't pinpoint the dates, all of which is perfectly reasonable.

But in the testimony above he's absolutely certain it wasn't during the weekend of the party. Why? Because he wasn't at the party. Unless it was a 72-hour party, I don't understand how he can say with certainty he couldn't have been there in that 72-hour period. He doesn't remember when he was there, but he's certain it wasn't in that period - and not because he remembers what he was doing in that period, mind you. That's where things are unreasonable.

Let us all try and remember off the top of our heads where we were between June 8th and 10th in 1998.

Off the top of my head, that was 2-3 weeks before the birth of my daughter. Among the things I could have been doing in that period, other than sitting at home trying to put the bassinet together, include: attending a baby shower for mrsidiom, either at her job, at my job, or elsewhere; playing softball; attending one of our final Lamaze classes; general errands; etc. Jose Canseco wasn't at any of the baby showers.

The exercise, though, shouldn't be to remember what you were doing in that date range ten years ago, but to recall whether in that period you did something that you did occasionally in the years surrounding that period. For example: did I eat at Olive Garden in my hometown during the period of June 8 to 10, 1998? Beats me. I probably ate at that Olive Garden half a dozen times that year. I can't say with certainty that it was or wasn't in that period.

Unless there was a party, in which case I was never there.

I have no idea whether a photo exists or whether it proves anything. But, reading the NY Daily News article, the best I can gather is: the Daily News has been told that a photo exists or is in "circulation," whatever that means; the Daily News apparently hasn't seen the photograph; and the Daily News believes that Novitsky might try to track down the photograph, if it exists. This is pretty close to lacking any news value. This falls somewhere near the threshold of "rumor" rather than "news." The NY Daily News should hold stories like this until they can confirm what the hell they are writing about.

Ahem... those weren't sorority girls, that was me, and my buddy Ralph. Boy, are you forgetful.

Uhhhh...heh heh...what are the odds you would be on this site too? Boy, do I feel embarrassed.

My 1L summer

My 18th year of practice, my 9th year in Honolulu

Pessimist that I am, I see a corralation between Canseco denying that Clemens was at the party and Magglio Ordonez accusing Canseco of extortion.

My first daughter was born about two weeks before then, so I was likely at home cooing and doting, or at Jose's house shooting up Roger with some wild steroid cocktail.

"If this story is really true and this guy has pictures and is willing to testify, Clemens is going to prison."

My guess has been that Clemens was at the party, but only for a short time after his golf outing, and that it's not material one way or the other in proving or disproving the credibility of Clemens or McNamee. Clemens could have legitimately forgotten that he was at a certain party, especially if he only stayed a few minutes. McNamee could have legitimately confused his memory of being at the party and seeing Clemens some other time with Canseco.

What strikes me as less than honest, in light of the testimony of the nanny about the Clemens family sleeping over at Jose's house, is this:

Q. So you have or you haven't been to Mr. Canseco's house?

A I sure could have been.

Clemens clearly was at Canseco's house at some point. And he certainly knows that. So when he says "I sure could have," he implies that he has some doubts. And to me, that kind of intentional deception harms his credibility far more than (possibly) innocently not remembering attending one party, which he may have been at for a very small amount of time.

My guess has been that Clemens was at the party, but only for a short time after his golf outing, and that it's not material one way or the other in proving or disproving the credibility of Clemens or McNamee.

It's only "material" because Clemens made it so. Clemens's presence at the party doesn't really do anything to bolster McNamee's credibility or make it more likely that Clemens used steroids. He and Canseco were teammates for two years, it's not like there was never any opportunity for Canseco to introduce Clemens to the wonders of steroids outside of that one party.

If it can be proven that Clemens was at this party (and I'm not sure that a single photo can really do this unless it's somehow verifiably time and date stamped), then I think it really undercuts Clemens' credibility and I could see the Feds pursue perjury charges precisely because Clemens made such a big deal about this and was so adamant that he absolutely, positively didn't go to Canseco's house that weekend.

Meanwhile, let's see the photo.

It's only "material" because Clemens made it so.

There were only a few claims in the Mitchell Report specific enough to refute. This was one of them. If Clemens wasn't at the party, he had to dispute the claim.

Clemens's presence at the party doesn't really do anything to bolster McNamee's credibility or make it more likely that Clemens used steroids. He and Canseco were teammates for two years, it's not like there was never any opportunity for Canseco to introduce Clemens to the wonders of steroids outside of that one party.

It goes to McNamee's credibility, which is essentially the entire case against Clemens: that McNamee says so. McNamee recounted a very specific item about the party -- that Clemens had a "meeting" with Canseco and somebody else (and then magically brought steroids to McNamee shortly thereafter).

McNamee stated that he has that memory seared -- seared -- in him. Since the case against Clemens rests on McNamee's credibility, if McNamee is wrong about the party, McNamee's credibility takes a hit.

There were only a few claims in the Mitchell Report specific enough to refute. This was one of them. If Clemens wasn't at the party, he had to dispute the claim.

Ray, don't you mean there were only a few claims ambiguous enough to dispute?

No.

McNamee said he didn't keep records. As a result, his claims weren't specific enough as to dates, number of injections, substances, etc.

Here are some verbatim examples from the Mitchell Report:

"During the middle of the 2000 season..."

"During the latter part of the regular season..."

"Later that summer..."

"Toward the end of the road trip... or shortly after the Blue Jays returned home to Toronto..."

"McNamee injected Clemens in the buttocks four to six times from a bottle labeled either Sustanon 250 or Deca-Durabolin..."

How is Clemens supposed to refute those kinds of claims, other than to simply issue a general denial? That's why items such as the party (and the bottle of steroids that McNamee allegedly gave Canseco -- which Canseco disputed under oath) are significant in establishing McNamee's credibility.

I mean, did you see Clemens dispute the needles and syringes hadn't been sunk into his ass?

Huh? Clemens disputed that he was injected with needles and syringes containing steroids or HGH.

But again -- all he could do was issue a general denial.

I have absolutely no idea where I was between June 8 and June 10, 1998.

If I was paying lawyers the amount of money Clemens surely is they had better damn well be sure to remind me and make me remember where I was on a certain date. Even if Clemens was there for 15-30 minutes that is plenty of time for McNamee to observe him meeting inside the house. As for Clemens extrapolating that McNamee is calling him a drug dealer for saying he was at that party and meeting with Canseco, well that is on Roger and in his imagination. How he gets drug dealer from that statement is beyond me.

Go ahead, pick this apart.

he has that memory seared -- seared -- in him

You naughty boy.

I was most likely working on June 8, 1998. Probably making some gazpacho. I can give you the address of the place if you care to verify.

Here's the picture of Clemens at the party. While this picture was taken after.

Okay, this entire topic is really bizarre. There were something like 3 or 4 dozen people at the party, right? Now, obviously, many people won't have any idea. But someone must remember. I'm sure most of them don't want to get involved, but at some point someone is going to subpoena them.

Wow. This is the picture of Clemens, Canseco, and the unknown person meeting at the party. Heyman broke the story.

You can see the 'roid rage in Clemens's eyes.

The other dude in that photo looks like Robin Leach.

Winstrol wishes and Anadrol dreams.

Rich (39): You should've mentioned the first photo is nsfw

Rich (39): You should've mentioned the first photo is nsfw

Sure it is, under The Superficial guidelines.

What kind of place do you work where that is NSFW?

Tehran.

"What kind of place do you work where that is NSFW?"

Omar is Roger Clemens's pool boy.

This is pretty close to lacking any news value. This falls somewhere near the threshold of "rumor" rather than "news." The NY Daily News should hold stories like this until they can confirm what the hell they are writing about.

How dare you impugn the Daily News I-Team™!?! For all the I-journalism and I-advocacy the Daily News I-Team™ has provided, you should be down on your knees thanking the Daily News I-Team™, just like Mike Lupica!

Oh, wait. Lupica's not kneeling, he's standing.


editerrorize Orson Welles with his directorial debut..."The Other Side of the Winstrol”!
shouldn't that be Hitchcock, and "Rear Winstrol"?

I'm thinking "The Magnificent Greg Amberson."

Let us all try and remember off the top of our heads where we were between June 8th and 10th in 1998.

In Sydney, recovering after a kidney operation. I was in hospital from May 23 for two weeks , then at our flat till I was well enough to travel home (10 days).

I can't believe I remember that, but I do. Cool

I admit it. I was at Jose Canseco's party sometime between June 8-10, 1998.