I don't get this. If Clemens is innocent, and Pettitte knows it, why not back him up?

Pettitte asked out of public testimony because he did not want to say something to hurt his friend and former teammate while in the glare of national television coverage, according to a government official who spoke on condition of anonymity.

First, this could simply be that Pettitte doesn't want to bolster McNamee's credibility in the public hearing by agreeing that McNamee was telling the truth about him. It doesn't necessarily mean he would testify that he saw Clemens use steroids, and I find it hard to believe that Clemens would have taken the actions that he has, knowing all the while that Pettitte saw him use.

Second, Pettitte has already given a deposition, so his statements are already on record.

I think this makes it pretty clear. Pettitte didnt back up Clemens in his deposition and since he already crucified him in private, he'd rather not look like a rat on national tv. Personally, I think he should be lauded if he told the truth about Clemens, but who knows about the stupid ####### fraternity in baseball. Maybe he'd be treated like the scabs?

I think this makes it pretty clear. Pettitte didnt back up Clemens in his deposition and since he already crucified him in private, he'd rather not look like a rat on national tv.

Really? So you don't even need to see the deposition? Are you going to apologize if the deposition says something different than what you're implying it says?

It's also plausible that Pettitte didn't say anything that implicates Clemens, but knows that by merely testifying and supporting what McNamee said about him, it would look to the public as though Pettitte was confirming what McNamee says about Clemens, even though he isn't.

Let's wait and see what Pettitte actually said before we decide we know what he said.

So, Andy doesn't want to have to out his friend as a steroids user? Too bad, sucka, you apparently already testified to that...

Clemens is just as dirty as Bonds, and on that account, Whitlock was correct, much as it pains me to say so.

So.... over under Clemens pleads the fifth at some point?

"Facts are meaningless, you can use facts to prove anything that's remotely true! Facts, schmacts."

So.... over under Clemens pleads the fifth at some point?

Zero. He already testified under oath. If he had taken the fifth in that deposition, we'd have heard about it from "a government official who spoke on condition of anonymity." If he didn't take it then, no reason for him to take it now.

If he had taken the fifth in that deposition, we'd have heard about it from "a government official who spoke on condition of anonymity."

You forgot the addendums we've been getting to the standard descriptions of these anonymous sources:

"...who asked to remain anonymous because he was not authorized to speak publicly."

Hearing Pettitte's testimony was the only reason that I wanted to watch the hearings. That said, my heart goes out to him. This has to be a very difficult time for a truly good man.

...who asked to remain anonymous because he was not authorized to speak publicly.

Or, ...who asked to remain anonymous because then nobody can prove he isn't just a figment of the reporter's imagination.

First, this could simply be that Pettitte doesn't want to bolster McNamee's credibility in the public hearing by agreeing that McNamee was telling the truth about him.

I've stayed out of this whole issue -- and probably should keep up that policy -- but I just have to say . . . of all the amazing things I've seen BOTH sides try to trot out to explain the weaknesses in their arguments (and there have been some real beauts), this one goes way beyond the pale.

If that was all Pettitte was trying to avoid saying, there is absolutely no chance -- none -- he would beg off of this hearing. Come on. Now, I'm not saying he wants to avoid publicly corroborating Clemens's steroid use. That's probably the single most likely thing, but it's hardly certain. Maybe there's something else he doesn't want to say, perhaps about some other player. But Pettitte already affirmed about as publicly as he could that McNamee told the truth about him. To say he doesn't want to bolster McNamee about that issue . . . is just completely lame.

Is this even legal?

Doesn't look good for Roger, and all this time I was hoping he was telling the truth. And I'm not even a Roger Clemens fan.

What makes Pettitte a good man?

Pettitte is a good man because he left his NY girlfriend to live with his family and play for the Astros.

It's also plausible that Pettitte didn't say anything that implicates Clemens, but knows that by merely testifying and supporting what McNamee said about him, it would look to the public as though Pettitte was confirming what McNamee says about Clemens, even though he isn't.

About as plausible as Pettitte not wanting to testify publicly because he doesn't want to be the one to tell the world that Roger Clemens is really a woman.

What makes Pettitte a good man?

His teammates love him. Joba, Hughes, and Kennedy have said that he has been extremely helpful to then. He is supposedly a good father.

Even if he cheated on his wife, which I certainly don't know to be true, it doesn't follow that you have to be perfect in order to be good.

"Pettitte asked out of public testimony because he did not want to say something to hurt his friend and former teammate while in the glare of national television coverage."

That is quite clear: Pettitte's testimony is hurtful to Clemens.

I love the way the LCRUCS* throws in this:

"It doesn't necessarily mean he would testify that he saw Clemens use steroids."

Of course it doesn't mean he saw Clemens being injected. It likely means Pettitte believes Clemens used illegal PEDs -- probably based on conversations with Clemens and McNamee -- and if he was asked publicly if he believed Rocket Roider used, he would answer in the affirmative.

*Lawyer's Committee for the Refusal to Use Common Sense

"Pettitte asked out of public testimony because he did not want to say something to hurt his friend and former teammate while in the glare of national television coverage."

That is quite clear: Pettitte's testimony is hurtful to Clemens.

This is the same insane troll logic (tm) that people use to try to excuse McNamee. He already testified. If he was worried about hurting Clemens, it's too late for that. That simply can't be the reason.

This is the same insane troll logic (tm) that people use to try to excuse McNamee. He already testified. If he was worried about hurting Clemens, it's too late for that. That simply can't be the reason.

Are you willfully not reading, David, or just hoping nobody else will? It says:

"Pettitte asked out of public testimony because he did not want to say something to hurt his friend and former teammate while in the glare of national television coverage."

YOU may think only what he said in substance counts. But Pettitte could certainly think differently -- that the glare of the media spotlight, with live coverage on ESPN and endless replays -- hurts Clemens more. The tapes of that public testimony will love forever, and be THE highlight moment of the Clemens bios 10, 20, 50 years from now. Pettitte has lived his entire major league career knowing the power of the camera. I think he understands that a bit better than you do, and how much it would, or at least could, hurt Clemens.

This is the same insane troll logic (tm) that people use to try to excuse McNamee. He already testified. If he was worried about hurting Clemens, it's too late for that. That simply can't be the reason.

Come now, Nieporent, if you don't think this can plausibly be the reason Pettite's begging off then you're not even trying to think about the issue, or put yourself in the shoes of a man who has been publicly pitted against his friend. I can think of several reasons why Pettite would agree to a deposition yet wish to avoid testifying. Maybe he's afraid of questions on matters not fully covered in the deposition - maybe he doesn't want to look like a stonewalling McGwire if he doesn't want to answer those tough questions (which could involve being asked to rat out teammates). It's one thing to fend those questions off in a deposition; it's another thing entirely to do it on national television. Or maybe he's willing to give a deposition, but can't bear the psychological ignominy of sitting there in the room with his good buddy Roger, looking him in the eye, and selling him down the river: better to let his words do the talking while he goes somewhere far, far away for awhile. There ain't no right of confrontation for the accused in a Congressional hearing, after all.

People - especially multimillionaire athletes - aren't always rational actors. And the scenarios I've laid out are at least emotionally plausible and understandable. Took me about 10 seconds to think of them.

Obviously we're all just speculating about the length of the Emperor's nose here, since we don't know what Pettite said yet in his deposition. There could easily be any number of innocent explanations. But you're dismissing Rich's reasoning as "troll logic" waaaaay too hastily.

The current story up on ESPN doesn't look quite so damning to Clemens:

ESPN sources said that Pettitte was not a good witness when he appeared before congressional lawyers during a deposition on Monday. Pettitte often contradicted himself, so the committee agreed to his request not to appear before the committee.

Lawyers familiar with the hearings would not say if Pettitte implicated Clemens as a steroids user in his testimony. However, they said that Pettitte's testimony didn't fully jibe with Clemens' versions of events.

That's quite a distance from "doesn't want to bury Roger in public". The bit at the end is quite something too - the lawyers wouldn't say if he implicated Clemens but said that his testimony didn't fully jibe? Jibe on what? If it jibes on the "Roger didn't do drugs" part, does anyone care if Clemens and Pettitte disagree on the details?

YOU may think only what he said in substance counts. But Pettitte could certainly think differently -- that the glare of the media spotlight, with live coverage on ESPN and endless replays -- hurts Clemens more. The tapes of that public testimony will love forever, and be THE highlight moment of the Clemens bios 10, 20, 50 years from now. Pettitte has lived his entire major league career knowing the power of the camera. I think he understands that a bit better than you do, and how much it would, or at least could, hurt Clemens.

As I mentioned in post #8, given that (a) Clemens already testified under oath, and (b) we didn't hear that he confessed, we can be pretty sure that Clemens in fact denied guilt under oath.

Therefore, if Pettitte testifies that Clemens used steroids, Clemens is going to be facing prison, not ESPN highlights.

Therefore, if Pettitte testifies that Clemens used steroids, Clemens is going to be facing prison, not ESPN highlights.

I am not saying that Pettitte testified to that. What he said that might be harmful to Clemens -- and which he didn't want to do publicly when it would be part of a broadcastable record that indelibly lasts forever -- could be something short of that. Something that, for example, simply contradicts part of his story and thus undermines his credibility. Pettitte could think that it's betrayal enough on his part to have simply said this, or something like it, in a private deposition. There are all sorts of permutations where Pettitte could find it over the line to testify in the public glare. He's an athlete, after all, for whom that's a big part of his life, not a lawyer.

Are you willfully not reading, David, or just hoping nobody else will? It says:
"Pettitte asked out of public testimony because he did not want to say something to hurt his friend and former teammate while in the glare of national television coverage."

Indeed. According to someone who couldn't bring themselves to speak under the blazing glare of attribution in a news article.

Maybe Pettitte sacrificed goats on Hitler's birthday while Clemens snorted steroids off a pentagram. Or maybe Pettitte, as the old quote goes, "cannot and will not cut [his] conscience to fit this year's fashions." Or maybe both. Or maybe neither.

I look forward to more covert spinmeisters to set us straight on the truth of the matter. They've never steered us wrong on this story yet.

Sam, you're doing an awful lot of psychological parsing of something that wasn't even said by Pettitte, or his representatives, but by an anonymous government source. As Hinske points out in 23, there's not really any good reason to be putting such weight on a single paraphrase of something some guy said.

The current story up on ESPN doesn't look quite so damning to Clemens:

ESPN is just a Clemens apologist.

I would tend to think that if Pettitte said anything particularly damning in his deposition, they'll confront Clemens with it at the hearings. But from the ESPN report, it doesn't sound like he did.

About as plausible as Pettitte not wanting to testify publicly because he doesn't want to be the one to tell the world that Roger Clemens is really a woman.

Hmmmm. I've always been under the impression that Clemens was the man & Pettitte the woman in their relationship. No reason it couldn't be the other way around, of course.

"This is the same insane troll logic (tm) that people use to try to excuse McNamee. He already testified. If he was worried about hurting Clemens, it's too late for that. That simply can't be the reason."

This is your typical ferkockteh LCRUCS chazzerai™ that loses in the CoPo™.

Zero. He already testified under oath. If he had taken the fifth in that deposition, we'd have heard about it from "a government official who spoke on condition of anonymity." If he didn't take it then, no reason for him to take it now.

Well, there is also the fact that his hearing testimony might contradict his disposition, no?

I think all the steroid hearing and controversy is insane, but it sure will be entertaining.

I am beginning to believe that the only two probably realities are (a) Roger is innocent and (b) Roger is clinically deranged, to the point where he no longer has a grip on reality.

The third outcome was always that he was bluffing. But there is bluffing, and there is going all in before the flop with a deuce of clubs and a three of diamonds.

I have always suspected that Roger's grip on reality was somewhat less secure than his grip on Mr. Splitty.

Sam, you're doing an awful lot of psychological parsing of something that wasn't even said by Pettitte, or his representatives, but by an anonymous government source. As Hinske points out in 23, there's not really any good reason to be putting such weight on a single paraphrase of something some guy said.

Perhaps. But if it is accurate -- if Pettitte really truly doesn't want to publicly testify because he believes it will hurt Clemens -- then you have raised the question yourself: why would he believe that, as distinct from what he said in the deposition, would have that result? I see two logical possibilities.

The first is suggested by the ESPN report (# 23): it was only after the deposition that Pettitte realized that it didn't go well, that he may have contradicted Clemens and thus hurt him in his fight with McNamee (by undermining Clemens' credibility), and now he doesn't want to have to publicly contradict Clemens. Just because he's in for a penny doesn't mean he wants to be in for a pound. So now he's looking for whatever out he can.

The second is the one I've already suggested: he sees a difference between harming Clemens publicly and doing so in a private deposition.

But I'm certainly not invested in the report itself being accurate. It's certainly possible it could be spin by an anonymous source putting the most anti-Clemens interpretation on things.

Me, I just wanted a Congressman to settle it once and for all by asking, "Andy, when you have the glove in front of your face while on the mound are you licking the baseball? And if so, what are you thinking about at that moment?"

Me, I just wanted a Congressman to settle it once and for all by asking, "Andy, when you have the glove in front of your face while on the mound are you licking the baseball? And if so, what are you thinking about at that moment?"

And if he says, "One wild night in Louisville," don't believe him. It never happened. I deny it categorically.

Looks like a(n) (un)done deal now --

WASHINGTON (AP) - Roger Clemens and his accuser, Brian McNamee, will be the main witnesses at a House hearing on the Mitchell Report after Andy Pettitte and two others originally invited to testify were told Monday night they don't need to show up.

You could also draw the impression from the "not a good witness" comment that Pettitte's deposition was internally contradictory, and they probably were unable to untangle what exactly he knew about the Clemens-McNamee relationship. Shouldn't we also conclude that his own lawyers were concerned enough about his inability to tell a straight story that they advised him to drop out if he could?

This is your typical ferkockteh LCRUCS chazzerai™ that loses in the CoPo™.

what language is this?

WASHINGTON (AP) - Roger Clemens and his accuser, Brian McNamee, will be the main witnesses at a House hearing on the Mitchell Report after Andy Pettitte and two others originally invited to testify were told Monday night they don't need to show up.

All in an effort to get as much information about steroid use in baseball as possible.

Newsday has more details, and it doesn't quote unnamed sources. It quotes Rep. Tom Davis:

Davis said that in an affidavit given to the House Oversight Committee, Pettitte's account matches McNamee's in most details, but that in a separate affidavit to the committee Clemens said both are mistaken.

According to sources, McNamee has told investigators that in the winter of 2002 he, Clemens and Pettitte were working out together at the gym in Clemens' Houston home. The sources said McNamee claims that during a break in the workout, Pettitte went over to McNamee by himself and asked: "How come you don't give me the stuff you give Roger?" McNamee supposedly replied, "Because it's illegal."

Clemens, however, in his affidavit, said Pettitte is mistaken in thinking that in their conversations about medications he was referring to steroids or HGH.

So that seems to be the way in which Pettitte's testimony corroborates McNamee -- and what (apparently) Pettitte did NOT want to say in public.

Nice job, Rep. Davis. He tells us what Pettitte said about his conversation with McNamee, but not what he said about his conversation with Clemens. Way to keep the suspense up.

No doubt, this supports McNamee, but it isn't enough to prove anything. And it sounds like Clemens was already confronted with this in his deposition, so he's not going to be surprised by anything.

Clemens's defense seems to be shifting from trying to win in the court of public opinion to trying to avoid a prosecution.

Here's what the Times is reporting about this:

Pettitte’s recusal came amid growing indications that he made statements that linked Clemens with steroids or H.G.H., or both, in his deposition to the committee on Feb. 4. A congressional staff member and several other people familiar with the case said that Pettitte did not want to have to testify publicly, on national television, and perhaps be forced to reiterate statements that would not be in Clemens’s interest.

Lanny A. Breuer, one of Clemens’s lawyers, said in a telephone interview Monday night that Clemens would not seek a way out of Wednesday’s hearing, regardless of the absence of others.

“Whether Roger is asked questions about Andy Pettitte’s deposition or anything else whatsoever, he will answer the questions,” Breuer said. “He’s going to continue to answer them forthrightly. He never took steroids, he never took H.G.H., and that is abundantly clear and will be abundantly clear throughout the hearing.”

He added: “It’s my view that Andy Pettitte should do whatever makes sense for Andy Pettitte, and whatever makes him most comfortable.”

...

Clemens’s denials of drug use include the statements he made in a sworn deposition to committee lawyers last week. His lawyers say Clemens will testify Wednesday that he never talked with Pettitte about drug use and that he never used steroids or growth hormone.

How come the Mitchell Investigation or Congress have not talked to this guy.....

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xps3OdllZzY

what language is this?

French.

Newsday has more details, and it doesn't quote unnamed sources. It quotes Rep. Tom Davis:

Davis said that in an affidavit given to the House Oversight Committee, Pettitte's account matches McNamee's in most details, but that in a separate affidavit to the committee Clemens said both are mistaken.

It quotes Tom Davis as saying something vague. Pettitte's account matches McNamee's "in most details." But which details? Ones that prove Clemens used PEDs? Or other ones, utterly irrelevant to the central issue? Remember, we already know that Pettitte admits McNamee's claim that Pettitte used hGH.

According to sources, McNamee has told investigators that in the winter of 2002 he, Clemens and Pettitte were working out together at the gym in Clemens' Houston home. The sources said McNamee claims that during a break in the workout, Pettitte went over to McNamee by himself and asked: "How come you don't give me the stuff you give Roger?" McNamee supposedly replied, "Because it's illegal."

Note that the Newsday reporter cleverly slides from the issue of what Pettitte says to the issue of what McNamee says, implying but not actually stating that Pettitte backs up McNamee on this particular point.

But even if Pettitte does actually back him up on that discussion, note that what this particular anecdote shows is not Pettitte's knowledge of what Clemens did, but Pettitte's knowledge of what McNamee said.

But the exchange doesn't make a lot of sense. Does Pettitte know what Clemens is allegedly using? Then how is "because it's illegal" an answer? ("Why won't you deal hGH to me like you do to Roger?" "Because it's illegal"? Huh? Yes, we know it's illegal, but if you're dealing it to Roger, then obviously the illegality doesn't concern you.) And if Pettitte doesn't know what Clemens is allegedly using, then why the coy question? How does he know he isn't getting the "stuff you give Roger"? (According to the Mitchell Report, Pettitte doesn't coyly ask about 'the stuff Clemens is using'; "According to McNamee, during the 2001-02 off-season, Pettitte asked him about human growth hormone. ")

But wait, it gets even less clear: this conversation allegedly happened in 2002 -- but according to the Mitchell Report, McNamee said he stopped giving Clemens anything after the 2001 season ended, and never had any discussions with Clemens about it.

Pettitte often contradicted himself

another FBI investigation?

nope, they only break out the feds for minorities.

Could it also be that he wanted to be in camp in Florida, because he is still active?

There are all sorts of permutations where Pettitte could find it over the line to testify in the public glare. He's an athlete, after all, for whom that's a big part of his life, not a lawyer.

Why would this not apply to testifying in public to strengthen McNamee's credibility? I agree with most everything you have said in the thread, and yet can also see how this same logic would apply to Pettitte not wanting to strengthen the case against his friend, even if by just directly saying that McNamee told the truth about him. I just don't see the media making a fine distinction for Pettitte's testimony on that point. If Clemens goes down, anyone who pubicly testifies (and perhaps some that don't) will be linked to Clemens as you note.

But the exchange doesn't make a lot of sense. Does Pettitte know what Clemens is allegedly using? Then how is "because it's illegal" an answer? ("Why won't you deal hGH to me like you do to Roger?" "Because it's illegal"? Huh? Yes, we know it's illegal, but if you're dealing it to Roger, then obviously the illegality doesn't concern you.) And if Pettitte doesn't know what Clemens is allegedly using, then why the coy question? How does he know he isn't getting the "stuff you give Roger"? (According to the Mitchell Report, Pettitte doesn't coyly ask about 'the stuff Clemens is using'; "According to McNamee, during the 2001-02 off-season, Pettitte asked him about human growth hormone. ")

The more I think about this, the more I wonder about it. The glaring information not disclosed is the obvious follow up question - how did Pettitte know what Clemens was taking? My initial thought is some kind of trap for Clemens based on Pettitte's testimony (and thus the reason why Pettitte does not want to be there). But of course, leaking the information does not make sense for a trap. So if you leak, why not go all the way and leak what Pettitte said regarding the "stuff" that Clemens was getting.

I look forward to more covert spinmeisters to set us straight on the truth of the matter.


How's this: Does the questioning of Pettite have to stay on topic with regard to Clemens and McNamee? Could he have implicated others and doesn't want that known?

But the exchange doesn't make a lot of sense.

Agreed. But I can think of a way this would happen -- Pettitte saw McNamee give Roger 5 bottles of supplements while he gave Pettitte only two bottles of supplements. "How come you give Roger all that extra stuff?" "It's part of his regimen." "Why don't you give it to me?" "It's illegal." "Illegal supplements in baseball? Why I never!"

Agreed. But I can think of a way this would happen -- Pettitte saw McNamee give Roger 5 bottles of supplements while he gave Pettitte only two bottles of supplements. "How come you give Roger all that extra stuff?" "It's part of his regimen." "Why don't you give it to me?" "It's illegal." "Illegal supplements in baseball? Why I never!"

Then why doesn't this information make it into the leak? This seems even more damaging to Clemens.

More generally, this is an issue with respect to these hearings. My understanding is that the deposition transcripts and the affadivits can be kept secret, even to the different participants. That leaves us to guess on information and statements, and prevents those involved from being able to address different issues. Overall, this does not make for very clear fact finding.