Well then. Clemens obviously realizes that he might as well lie his ass off at this point, since he's got everything to lose.

Everything to lose?

The man's made over $150MM just in MLB salary. He is not exactly the Marquise de Merteuil wiping off her make-up, you know...

(BTW - I'm holding out judgement on Clemens, one way or the other).

So, does McNamee file a lawsuit next week?

I'm using the Bonds Standard here. He's an a-hole and he's been named as a user by somebody more important than me (George Mitchell, not Brian McNamee). Therefore, he did it and is even more of an a-hole than he was before. Simple enough, right?

ADA Jack McCoy: "Were you lying then? Or are you lying now?"

When did "60 Minutes" turn into "60 Minutes of Baseball Player Apologia and Dishonesty"?

So, does McNamee file a lawsuit next week?

Since Clemens is jeopardizing a criminal plea agreement McNamee made (and almost certainly lying), you'd hope so.

The devil will be in the details.

When did "60 Minutes" turn into "60 Minutes of Baseball Player Apologia and Dishonesty"?


I'm a huge sports fan, but I hate when 60 Minutes does sports interviews. And they've had a ton lately - LD Tomlinson, Tom Brady, Vince Young, A-Rod, now Clemens. Interviews with athletes is about the most boring thing in the world. For the most part, they are not particularly interesting people.

I'm a huge sports fan, but I hate when 60 Minutes does sports interviews. And they've had a ton lately - LD Tomlinson, Tom Brady, Vince Young, A-Rod, now Clemens. Interviews with athletes is about the most boring thing in the world. For the most part, they are not particularly interesting people.

It's not exactly a phenomena. You get life handed to you on a silver platter, what could possibly be interesting in your life outside of the things people watch you do? I suppose the same could be said of actors, really, yet people still care about what they say. As a brief aside, am I the only one in the world who thinks that boxers are universally the most interesting atheletic personalities? Is there a particular reason for this?

I fail to see how McNamee's plea is jeopardized by Clemens's statements? Is the DA going to switch horses and use the statements as fact? Is he going to use them to bring a case against McNamee? I don't think so. Especially where some of what McNamee said about others has been verified.

If McNamee lied about Clemens, it is Clemens that is going to have to pursue a remedy or live with the lies. George Mitchell, MLB, the DOJ and Congress have no incentive to undermine McNamee.

Mitchell cites no relevant evidence to support what McNamee says except that they worked together. There are no checks or other records to support Clemens' usage. One of the supposedly supporting facts in the Mitchell report is Clemens' denial of usage and continued support of McNamee in the aftermath of the false LA Times story about Clemens's supposed appearace in the Grimsley affadavit. It's comical.

As a brief aside, am I the only one in the world who thinks that boxers are universally the most interesting atheletic personalities? Is there a particular reason for this?

Repeated blows to the head?

As a brief aside, am I the only one in the world who thinks that boxers are universally the most interesting atheletic personalities? Is there a particular reason for this?

Because to be a boxer, you need to be either extremely desperate or have a pathological personality or both?

As a brief aside, am I the only one in the world who thinks that boxers are universally the most interesting atheletic personalities? Is there a particular reason for this?

I agree with you on boxers. It's probably due to the unique circumstances and motivations (often sad, but still) that lead them into the sport. It's not like a bunch of kids like to play "boxing," some are better at it than others, and so they decide to make a career out of it. Something different is going on that makes one want to fight other people, and that's what makes them interesting.

Agreed mostly on ballplayers. The Bill Lees of the world aside, the most interesting thing they do is play ball.

What is a pathological personality, exactly?

What is a pathological personality, exactly?

The kind of personality that enjoys inflicting pain on others.

So, does McNamee file a lawsuit next week?

And if he doesn't, will all the fanatics use their "If he doesn't sue, he's admitting the charges" logic against McNamee?

(As Srul pointed out last week, it would be surreal for an admitted drug dealer/accused rapist to sue someone on the grounds that calling him a liar damaged his reputation.)

6. Joey B. Posted: January 03, 2008 at 12:15 PM (#2659118)
When did "60 Minutes" turn into "60 Minutes of Baseball Player Apologia and Dishonesty"?

7. SugarBear Blanks Posted: January 03, 2008 at 12:28 PM (#2659136)
So, does McNamee file a lawsuit next week?
Since Clemens is jeopardizing a criminal plea agreement McNamee made (and almost certainly lying), you'd hope so.

So, that's two of the three stooges. Where's Kevin?

I'm a huge sports fan, but I hate when 60 Minutes does sports interviews. And they've had a ton lately - LD Tomlinson, Tom Brady, Vince Young, A-Rod, now Clemens. Interviews with athletes is about the most boring thing in the world. For the most part, they are not particularly interesting people.

I have nothing against occasionally being light (the Andy Rooney role), but with everything going on in the world right now you'd think they wouldn't have much time to waste shilling for professional athletes. There is this network after all called ESPN that almost everyone in America has access to now.

60 Minutes is a fairly venerable program, but it's probably past time for CBS to push the remaining tired old glue horses out the door and get some fresh young blood in there.

I have nothing against occasionally being light (the Andy Rooney role), but with everything going on in the world right now you'd think they wouldn't have much time to waste shilling for professional athletes.

I obviously think it's a nothing issue -- but if it's a big enough issue that Congress can repeatedly hold hearings on it, it's a little hard to fault a news organization for covering it. You of course don't like it because anything that involves steroids that doesn't involve a lynch mob is "shilling" to you.

I have nothing against occasionally being light (the Andy Rooney role), but with everything going on in the world right now you'd think they wouldn't have much time to waste shilling for professional athletes.

I agree. I think their ratings are falling and they're trying to keep the viewers watching football to stay on CBS.

I think boxers have more personality, because their sport requires them to be showmen. They are always "on".

(As Srul pointed out last week, it would be surreal for an admitted drug dealer/accused rapist to sue someone on the grounds that calling him a liar damaged his reputation.)


I love it when you get all fanboy.

As if distributing steroids to salivating cheaters makes you an "admitted drug dealer," (ooohhhh!!) and being accused of a crime means you have no reputation to protect.

Please.

Happy New Year, Niepothead!

With Bonds under indictment and probably out of the game for good, McGwire on the ballot again, Clemens and others under the cloud of the Mitchell report, and the upcoming ten months of hate also known as the presidential election, 2008 is bound to be an exciting year around this place, don't you think?

As a brief aside, am I the only one in the world who thinks that boxers are universally the most interesting athletic personalities? Is there a particular reason for this?

Boxers, yes, but pool hustlers, too. Boxers even more, because they're risking their lives when they enter the ring, but OTOH pool hustlers are about the only athletes who generally aren't playing with house money. It's the winner take all (or lose all) aspect that sets them apart.

Doesn't mean that all of them are going to be interesting, but there's more potential there for those two sets of athletes than there is for any other sports.

And yes, I know that there's one on one gambling in other sports besides pool, but pool is still the only physical sport (as opposed to cards) where gambling with one's own money is at the very heart of the game.

As if distributing steroids to salivating cheaters makes you an "admitted drug dealer," (ooohhhh!!)

It does. Which part of that confuses you? I could try using smaller words.

and being accused of a crime means you have no reputation to protect.

Please.

Well, I'll take your legal analysis for what it's worth. But as a question of black letter law, you have to show that your reputation has been harmed, and McNamee's reputation seems rather difficult to get much lower. And since this is a matter of public concern, he has to demonstrate actual financial damages; they can't be presumed.

As if distributing steroids to salivating cheaters makes you an "admitted drug dealer,"

I don't think you know what "admitted drug dealer" means.

As if distributing steroids to salivating cheaters makes you an "admitted drug dealer," (ooohhhh!!)

This is akin to Bush saying in 2000 saying that Democrats thought Social Security was some kind of government program.

Well, I'll take your legal analysis for what it's worth. But as a question of black letter law, you have to show that your reputation has been harmed, and McNamee's reputation seems rather difficult to get much lower. And since this is a matter of public concern, he has to demonstrate actual financial damages; they can't be presumed.

McNamee isn't going to win the case and even if he does, he isn't going to get much in damages.

The thing that makes this an interesting scenario, if not an interesting legal matter, is that he should just really want this thing to go away because he wants the issue of whether his plea falls apart to go away. The more the question of whether he's lying remains up in the air, the more threatened the plea is and if he sues, the question stays up in the air. It's the kind of thing, if you're smart, you just let go.

McNamee isn't going to win the case and even if he does, he isn't going to get much in damages.

Agreed. Him suing would be foolish, as the Rocket probably has more money stuck under his couch cushions than McNamee has to his entire net worth.

But man, wouldn't seeing Clemens put through all the rigors of the discovery process still be great though?

Report: McNamee's lawyer says he may sue Clemens

A lawyer for Brian McNamee, the man who told investigators for the Mitchell report that he injected steroids and human growth hormone into Roger Clemens, told The New York Times he will sue Clemens if he accuses McNamee of lying in a "60 Minutes" interview scheduled to air Sunday.

. . .

Clemens has issued denials both through his lawyer and in a video posted on his Web site.

"Let me be clear, the answer is no. I did not use steroids or human growth hormone, and I've never done so," Clemens said in the video. "I did not provide Brian McNamee with any drugs to inject into my body. Brian McNamee did not inject steroids or human growth hormones into my body."

It seems to me that Clemens has already stated, loudly and publicly, that McNamee is lying. So why isn't McNamee's lawyer saying that they are already preparing to file suit? In fact, they should have filed suit already, before the 60 minutes thing, to put people on notice that they were serious, and then then amended it to add everyone involved in that broadcast.

It seems to me that Clemens has already stated, loudly and publicly, that McNamee is lying. So why isn't McNamee's lawyer saying that they are already preparing to file suit? In fact, they should have filed suit already, before the 60 minutes thing, to put people on notice that they were serious, and then then amended it to add everyone involved in that broadcast.

You want his lawyer to work over Christmas just to file a bogus lawsuit?

But good point. The ESPN story you link referenced the NY TImes article; although it isn't a direct quote in the Times, it's sort of bizzare:

The lawyer, Richard D. Emery, said in a telephone interview that Clemens should try to keep the segment off the air or face a lawsuit for damaging McNamee’s livelihood.

“He’s got a chance to protect himself,” said Emery, who is based in New York and specializes in libel and defamation actions. “We’re not going to sue him if he doesn’t do it. But if he does it, we’re going to sue him.”

He should "try to keep the segment off the air"? The weirdest legal strategy I've ever heard. It's okay for Clemens to issue a statement through his lawyer calling McNamee a liar; it's okay for Clemens to personally call McNamee a liar in a web video. It's okay for Clemens to tape a segment with 60 minutes wherein he tells a journalist that McNamee is a liar. But if the segment airs, then they'll sue?

By the way, for "damaging McNamee's livelihood"? Is "snitch" actually a "livelihood"?

Larry, that's one of my favorite Bushisms:

"They want the federal government controlling Social Security like it's some kind of federal program."—St. Charles, Mo., Nov. 2, 2000

* * * *

By the way, for "damaging McNamee's livelihood"? Is "snitch" actually a "livelihood"?

That's a fair question. And, not to defend McNamee, but I suppose that since he "cooperated" and named names, and is presumably no longer selling steroids, then in a few years he could spin himself as a "reformed drug dealer" or some such, and become a motivational speaker. Stupider things have happened, and I can picture an ESPN story on him in 2013 "Picking Up the Pieces," showing McNamee addressing high school students on the dangers of PEDs. (Not that I am in favor of this future unfolding, mind you.) In that case, Clemens convincing the world that McNamee was lying about him could conceivably hurt McNamee's "reputation" and future livelihood. Just speculating.

Houston Chronicle has Rocket saying he got B-12 and painkiller shots.

So if eveyone else is doing B-12, is Raffy owed an apology?

ESPN.com has the same thing re the 60 Minutes interview. Admission of injection by McNamee, but not of substances McNamee alleges.

Really the only plausible position for Clemens to take. He could even fall back to "McNamee told me they were B12 and lipocaine" if need be.

If he'd said the same thing to the Mitchell people, it's unlikely he would have been named and that would have been the better strategy.

What the hell does Roger Clemens need to take injections of Vitamin B-12 for? Is he suffering from pernicious anemia?

Unless I'm missing something, Brian McNamee isn't licensed to practice or dispense medicine anwyhere, and therefore isn't qualified to diagnose and treat this kind of disorder.

SI.com: Rocket tells 60 Minutes shots were lidocaine, B-12

Bwahahahahahaha

Wait...now he was injected with something? I thought McNamee never injected him with anything.

Now he's taking the Barry Bonds/Raffy Palmerio route...

Swear?" CBS's Mike Wallace asked Clemens.

"Swear," Clemens responded.

Well, Im convinced. If Clemens swears to his buddy wallace that he didn't cheat, it has to be true!

Unless I'm missing something, Brian McNamee isn't licensed to practice or dispense medicine anwyhere, and therefore isn't qualified to diagnose and treat this kind of disorder.

You mean "isn't allowed," perhaps. Not "isn't qualified." A license is legal permission, not magic. (He may not be qualified, but whether he has a license isn't proof of that.) Besides, McNamee used to go around calling himself "Dr. McNamee," according to an ESPN report. Based on his PhD. From a mail-order diploma mill. Sounds credible and qualified to me.

In any case, whether correctly or incorrectly, a lot of players -- a lot of people -- get B-12 shots for fatigue unrelated to anemia.

So is Clemens pleading no contest to everything in Mitchell other than the contents of the syringes?

This is akin to Bush saying in 2000 saying that Democrats thought Social Security was some kind of government program.

Here's the full quote:

But you know what else has changed on this issue? There are thousands of younger workers who understand if our government does not think differently, they're either going to have pay huge payroll tax increases or have major reductions in benefits. It doesn't have to be that way, so long as we trust individual workers. And so our plan says, we're going to keep the promise to our seniors, but we'll allow younger workers at their choice to invest some of their own money in the private markets to get a better rate of return, so that the Social Security System promise will be kept.

This frightens some in Washington because they want the federal government controlling the Social Security, like it's some kind of federal program. We understand differently though. You see, it's your money, not the government's money. You ought to be allowed to invest it the way you see fit.

Ignore Me: exactly. It's an example of lack of elocution on Bush's part, but not, in context, an example of Bush not understanding Social Security. It's not like John Edwards showing himself to be a complete airhead:

"I'm going to be honest with you -- I don't know a lot about Cuba's healthcare system," Edwards, D-N.C., said at an event in Oskaloosa, Iowa. "Is it a government-run system?"

ESPN.com has the same thing re the 60 Minutes interview. Admission of injection by McNamee, but not of substances McNamee alleges.

Really the only plausible position for Clemens to take. He could even fall back to "McNamee told me they were B12 and lipocaine" if need be.

Not really. The Report states that McNamee said Clemens supplied him with the Winstrol he injected into Clemens.

Not really. The Report states that McNamee said Clemens supplied him with the Winstrol he injected into Clemens.

And it also says the bottles were labeled as steroids, so Clemens can't fall back on that, either.

Wait...now he was injected with something? I thought McNamee never injected him with anything.

In Clemens's youtube video he states: "I did not provide Brian McNamee with any drugs to inject into my body. Brian McNamee did not inject steroids or human growth hormones into my body, either when I played in Toronto for the Blue Jays or the New York Yankees."

Well, Im convinced. If Clemens swears to his buddy wallace that he didn't cheat, it has to be true!

If Wallace asks direct questions in the interview, then I fail to see of what relevance it is that he and Clemens are (apparently) friends.

I think this is the classic John Edwards gaffe:

EDWARDS: I think he was right because what happened with the Defense of Marriage Act is it took away the power of states, like Vermont, to be able to do what they chose to do about civil unions, about these kinds of marriage issues...

I think these are decisions that the states should have the power to make. And the Defense of Marriage Act, as I understand it -- you're right, I wasn't there when it was passed -- but as I understand it, it would have taken away that power. And I think that's wrong. That power should not be taken away from the states.

...

HUME: I just want to follow up with on the Defense of Marriage Act, which of course is the law of the land.

EDWARDS: Yes.

HUME: Does not the Defense of Marriage Act specifically say that the court rulings in one state, which might, for example, recognize a gay marriage, may not be imposed on anther state? In other words, doesn't the Defense of Marriage go to the very position which you yourself take?

EDWARDS: No, the Defense of Marriage -- first of all, I wasn't in the Congress, I don't claim to be an expert on this. But as I understand the Defense of Marriage Act, it would take away the power of some states to choose whether they would recognize or not recognize gay marriages. That's my understanding of it.

I think you're right; Ray; I had forgotten about that one, but I actually blogged about it at the time.

Hey, David, do you and RETARDO comment at each other's blogs, or is there a mutual ban and/or gentlemen's agreement in effect?

I think you're right; Ray; I had forgotten about that one, but I actually blogged about it at the time.

I remember watching the exchange. Hume looked incredulous as he asked his follow up question.

I remember watching the exchange. Hume looked incredulous as he asked his follow up question.

Probably my favorite moment of the 2004 debate season.

Edwards was also involved in the runner-up moment, Cheney's response to his attempt to drag Mary Cheney's lesbianisn into the open during the Vice-Presidential debate as part of a clumsy "scandalize the fundies" move.

EDWARDS:Now, as to this question, let me say first that I think the vice president and his wife love their daughter. I think they love her very much. And you can't have anything but respect for the fact that they're willing to talk about the fact that they have a gay daughter, the fact that they embrace her. It's a wonderful thing. And there are millions of parents like that who love their children, who want their children to be happy.

[...]

IFILL: Mr. Vice-President you have 90 seconds.

CHENEY: Well, Gwen, let me simply thank the senator for the kind words he said about my family and our daughter. I appreciate that very much.

IFILL: That's it?

CHENEY: That's it.

Stone cold, man, stone cold. I don't like Cheney at all, but he crushed Edwards with that one.

Ignore Me: exactly. It's an example of lack of elocution on Bush's part, but not, in context, an example of Bush not understanding Social Security.

Exactly. Well, except for the part about it being your money. And the government keeping their promise (of no-risk financial security) by letting individuals invest in the private markets. And that bit about the government thinking differently will allow the avoidance of higher taxes or reduced benefits. Other than that, it so shows that he understands Social Security.

So now Clemens admits he was lying.

First he says "I did not provide Brian McNamee with any drugs to inject into my body."

Now he says McNamee did inject him.

Which is it Roger? This sure helps his credibility.

So now Clemens admits he was lying.

First he says "I did not provide Brian McNamee with any drugs to inject into my body."

Now he says McNamee did inject him.

I'm not seeing the lie; there's nothing inconsistent about those two statements.

David,

Why not compare Bush's lack of elocution moment to one of the many times when he himself has shown himself to be an idiot or a criminal? For instance, his elocution was excellent when he mocked Karla Faye Tucker's pleas to be spared the death penalty.

It's kind of funny that the incorrect leak now being corrected is somehow being held against Clemens.

Exactly. Well, except for the part about it being your money. And the government keeping their promise (of no-risk financial security) by letting individuals invest in the private markets. And that bit about the government thinking differently will allow the avoidance of higher taxes or reduced benefits. Other than that, it so shows that he understands Social Security.

Is that what social security is supposed to be? "No risk financial security"? Is that actually what it was sold to the public as by FDR?

Why not compare Bush's lack of elocution moment to one of the many times when he himself has shown himself to be an idiot or a criminal? For instance, his elocution was excellent when he mocked Karla Faye Tucker's pleas to be spared the death penalty.

I don't understand what these statements are supposed to mean. I know what incidents they refer to; I don't quite see what that has to do with 'elocution' at all. It seems like a way to take a shot at Bush on a completely irrelevant topic. (As for criminal, I think that would be Tucker.)

Is that what social security is supposed to be? "No risk financial security"? Is that actually what it was sold to the public as by FDR?

You're just figuring that out?

It wasn't supposed to mean "a sufficient retirement income," if that's what you mean. But the whole point of Social Security was to provide a stable, no risk, supplementary old age income. Which is exactly what Bush's plan would have eliminated---the only "risk free" part of his privatization plan would have been the lack of risk to the stockbrokers' commissions---they get their money no matter what happens to their clients' portfolios.

I didn't see the relevance of the Edwards quote. It sounded like you were trying to say that while Bush tends to misspeak, Edwards says actual stupid stuff. In fact, though, Bush has said many, many stupid, ignorant things on a wide variety of subjects. Other times, as in the case I cited above, he speaks very well but in so doing reveals himself to be a complete #######. Meanwhile, Edwards is generally quite knowledgeable.

On the other hand, what kind of libertarian favors the death penalty?

All right, so that was a cheap shot.

As for "no risk," last I checked, people who get social security paid taxes for decades; they put up their own money.

I didn't see the relevance of the Edwards quote. It sounded like you were trying to say that while Bush tends to misspeak, Edwards says actual stupid stuff. In fact, though, Bush has said many, many stupid, ignorant things on a wide variety of subjects. Other times, as in the case I cited above, he speaks very well but in so doing reveals himself to be a complete #######. Meanwhile, Edwards is generally quite knowledgeable.

For the most part, Bush is one of the least articulate people in public life I've ever seen, and he certainly doesn't strike me as intellectually curious. Edwards, though, is just dumb. He makes your average beauty pageant contestant look like a Mensa member.

On the other hand, what kind of libertarian favors the death penalty?

All right, so that was a cheap shot.

There's no libertarian position on the death penalty per se. A libertarian can oppose it on the same grounds a liberal can -- cruel, unnecessary, expensive, whatever -- but not based on libertarian principles. Some libertarians oppose it on pragmatic grounds: government isn't competent and reliable enough to be allowed to execute people. We're far more interested in, and can agree upon, slashing the criminal code by about 90%, though.

McNamee isn't going to win the case and even if he does, he isn't going to get much in damages.
The thing that makes this an interesting scenario, if not an interesting legal matter, is that he should just really want this thing to go away because he wants the issue of whether his plea falls apart to go away. The more the question of whether he's lying remains up in the air, the more threatened the plea is and if he sues, the question stays up in the air. It's the kind of thing, if you're smart, you just let go.

Oh, no, no, no. If McNamee doesn't immediately sue, and sue hard, it's tantamount to a full guilty plea in the court of public opinion. I just know I read that someplace.

Oh, no, no, no. If McNamee doesn't immediately sue, and sue hard, it's tantamount to a full guilty plea in the court of public opinion. I just know I read that someplace.

Actually, now that you mention it, he never sued when he was accused of rape either...

We're far more interested in, and can agree upon, slashing the criminal code by about 90%, though.

And that's why I'd vote for you for President.