BBTF's Newsblog Discussion :: NYT: Lawyer Says 2003 Clemens Drug Test Was Negative (RR)

Baseball Primer Newsblog
— The Best News Links from the Baseball Newsstand

Saturday, July 04, 2009

NYT: Lawyer Says 2003 Clemens Drug Test Was Negative (RR)

Cool! Now we’re working backwards to see who’s on the list. 686 to go!

In recent months, Alex Rodriguez and Sammy Sosa have been linked to the list of 100 or so players who tested positive for performance-enhancing drugs in 2003, the first season such tests were conducted by Major League Baseball. But Roger Clemens is not on that list, says his lead lawyer, Rusty Hardin.

In telephone interviews this week, Hardin described how he obtained Clemens’s test results, then handed them over to Congress. Hardin said that before Clemens testified before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform in February 2008, the panel requested the results of his 2003 test; under baseball’s agreement with the players union, those initial tests were supposed to remain anonymous.

Hardin said that after the panel’s request, one of the lawyers on Clemens’s defense team contacted Comprehensive Drug Testing, the company that oversaw the 2003 testing program, and said that Clemens would waive his right to have the results kept private. Hardin said the drug-testing company provided him with the results for Clemens and he then forwarded them to the House committee.

“The results show Roger was negative in every respect, performance-enhancing drugs and masking agents,” Hardin said.

Repoz Posted: July 04, 2009 at 08:05 AM | 14 comment(s) | Login to Bookmark
Related News: General, Special Topics, Rumors, Steroids, NY Yankees

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.

Page 1 of 1 pages

1. Guapo Posted: July 04, 2009 at 10:45 AM (#3242008)

See? You CAN prove a negative.

2. Best Regards, Larry Mahnken (Dewey is a slacker) Posted: July 04, 2009 at 10:47 AM (#3242010)

The results show Roger was negative in every respect

Well, that's a lousy attitude to have.

3. Guapo Posted: July 04, 2009 at 11:01 AM (#3242012)

Subject was presented with 8 ounces of water in a 16 ounce glass. When asked to describe the glass, subject's response was that the glass was half-empty.

4. Walt Davis Posted: July 05, 2009 at 12:00 AM (#3242340)

One odd thing: the reporter (apparently) didn't ask and Hardin (apparently) didn't offer to provide the reporter with, ohh, a copy of the alleged report.

5. RayDiPerna

Posted: July 05, 2009 at 12:40 AM (#3242351)

One odd thing: the reporter (apparently) didn't ask and Hardin (apparently) didn't offer to provide the reporter with, ohh, a copy of the alleged report.

That's because the media is in the tank for Clemens.

Look, it would be foolish for Hardin to be lying. The report was provided to Congress and so plenty of people are aware of the results.

As for the bizarre notion in this story that the 2003 report doesn't help Clemens, of course it would, to anybody who was being objective. It's not much, but it provides another data point to support Clemens's proclamation of innocence. And one of the charges leveled at Clemens is that PEDs were responsible for his late-career Houston run. 2003, just before the run, would seem to be relevant that.

6. Freeballin' (Tales of Met Power) Posted: July 05, 2009 at 12:47 AM (#3242353)

I agree. I hate Clemens, but this is meaningful to me. Of course, it doesn't contradict McNamee in any significant way ...

7. Srul Itza Posted: July 05, 2009 at 01:20 AM (#3242358)

Of course, it doesn't contradict McNamee in any significant way ...

Given that he is an admitted liar, as well as a drugging, lying rapist sack of crap, his credibility is already shot.

8. Freeballin' (Tales of Met Power) Posted: July 05, 2009 at 01:34 AM (#3242361)

There's a lot of corroboration for what McNamee has said about Clemens.

9. Darren

Posted: July 05, 2009 at 01:43 AM (#3242364)

There's a lot of corroboration for what McNamee has said about Clemens.

By whom?

10. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: July 05, 2009 at 02:19 AM (#3242379)

There's a lot of corroboration for what McNamee has said about Clemens.

There really isn't, unless you count McNamee repeating himself as corroboration.

11. Barry`s_Lazy_Boy Posted: July 05, 2009 at 02:26 AM (#3242380)

Given that he is an admitted liar, as well as a drugging, lying rapist sack of crap, his credibility is already shot.

Which one are you talking about?

12. jwb Posted: July 05, 2009 at 06:00 AM (#3242446)

There really isn't, unless you count McNamee repeating himself as corroboration.

And we all know that anything repeated often enough is the truth, or at least indistinguishable from it.

13. Tripon Posted: July 05, 2009 at 06:09 AM (#3242448)

Hey, everyone pat yourself on the back!

14. The Grich Who Stole Christmas Posted: July 05, 2009 at 07:38 AM (#3242454)

It's too late to proclaim innocence. As far as my son knows, Roger Clemens was a lying, cheating sack of good-for-nothing. In fact, I'm so full of rage about Clemens that I don't know if I even WANT kids.

Page 1 of 1 pages

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

<< Back to main

Saturday, July 04, 2009

NYT: Lawyer Says 2003 Clemens Drug Test Was Negative (RR)

Reader Comments and Retorts

Support BBTF

Bookmarks

Hot Topics