And presiding Forman, Sean, also points out that…“Roger Clemens baseball reference page was entered into evidence at his perjury trial yesterday.”

Long-time users noted that the site has been slashdotted ever since.

Roger Clemens was an amazing athlete with drive and determination, Brian McNamee was someone the New York Yankees did not like and did not trust and, oh, we have no evidence whatsoever that Roger Clemens ever did steroids of any kind.

I could see this going either way, actually. Roger Clemens's drive and determination to be the best and fight off Father Time led him to try steroids. Brian McNamee is the sort of sleazy no-good loser that would inject Roger Clemens with steroids. If the jury was leaning toward believing McNamee's version of events before Cashman testified (and admittedly, I'm not entirely sure why they would be), I could see this reinforcing, or at least being consistent with, the prosecution's overall narrative.

All the more reason why it's best to have a jury who's never even heard of Roger Clemens, since most people who've only casually "heard of" him are likely to know about his "controversial" side and not about his charity work with the Four K's Foundation.

I could see this going either way, actually.

And that's the problem with bringing this trial. If you're going to charge someone with perjury resulting from a sham hearing in which you forced the person into a perjury trap for a nothing issue, you really ought to have more than evidence that pretty much all stems from one lying liar.

Had they investigated and found more -- a paper trail; another witness pointing the finger at Clemens; etc -- it would have still been silly, but at least more justified.

But this showtrial is absurd on all fronts.

That's the problem with a lot of trials.

Yesterday the prosecutors brought forth yet another witness who harms their own case. The witness was Yankees GM Brian Cashman. The upshot of Cashman’s testimony: Roger Clemens was an amazing athlete with drive and determination, Brian McNamee was someone the New York Yankees did not like and did not trust and, oh, we have no evidence whatsoever that Roger Clemens ever did steroids of any kind.

It seems as if the prosecution is hoping that the jury is filled with people (call them Lupicas or Heymans) who have a vendetta against Clemens, and start with the conclusion that he is guilty. Otherwise, from what we've seen so far, it's going to be tough to get to BARD.

Cashman provides literally no evidence. Arguments such as "he has a lot of drive, so he must have taken steroids" cut both ways, but even if you think they cut towards steroids, you don't convict on that.

At this point, if they want evidence of Clemens lying under oath, they'd probably have better luck at confusing him and getting him to accidentally lie about something during this trial than they would at demonstrating that he did it in the past.

"Mr. Clemens, isn't it not correct that you didn't deny not using steroids?"

Nothing on the syringes yet?

Nothing on the syringes yet?

I assume they'll be introduced as evidence tomorrow, when McNamee testifies.

I assume they'll be introduced as evidence tomorrow, when McNamee testifies.

I'm not a lawyer, so maybe this makes sense, but McNamee hasn't testified yet? That seems odd that you'd lay out your corroborating witnesses (Pettitte, Cashman) before laying out the heart of the case.

I'm not a lawyer, so maybe this makes sense, but McNamee hasn't testified yet? That seems odd that you'd lay out your corroborating witnesses (Pettitte, Cashman) before laying out the heart of the case.

I think the other guys were supposed to lay the groundwork, while McNamee was supposed to finish up by tying the narrative together.

I think the other guys were supposed to lay the groundwork, while McNamee was supposed to finish up by tying the narrative together.

Was the narrative supposed to end with McNamee getting stoned to death by an enraged mob? Because that seems to be sort of the direction that it's heading.

I think the prosecutors are counting on Clemens suddenly snapping, "My existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves games. You can't handle the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at Canseco's party, you want me on that mound. You need me on that mound!"

I think the prosecution is trying to demonstrate that McNamee is scuzzy, was scuzzy, was known to be scuzzy... And yet Roger Clemens, who worked harder than anyone and was pitching for a team that could provide every advantage money could buy legally, at that point in his career didn't seem to think he could find a way to survive without this scuzzy guy working with him, insisting that the Yankees hire him, and continuing to use him for years after the Yankees decided to part ways with him.

Doesn't get you in the neighborhood of BARD on its own, I know. It is a precarious position to have to demonstrate that the guy was so obviously unsavory that he'd do illegal things to help Clemens, yet trustworthy enough that you can believe his testimony. But I think that's what the prosecution is trying to do. They are ceding the argument that McNamee is unsavory and Clemens works hard, because they can't overcome those. But I think they're going to try to sell that there should be absolutely, positively no reason why Clemens would need McNamee unless he was having McNamee do unsavory things.

I think they're going to try to sell that there should be absolutely, positively no reason why Clemens would need McNamee unless he was having McNamee do unsavory things.

I think this is going to be an even tougher sell than you make it out to be, unless they plan to have McNamee testify that he's worthless as a trainer, conditioning coach, etc except for his willingness to break the law.

It is a precarious position to have to demonstrate that the guy was so obviously unsavory that he'd do illegal things to help Clemens, yet trustworthy enough that you can believe his testimony.

I like how the prosecution has elicited testimony from various trainers to show, "Oh, no no no McNamee was not authorized to inject players with lidocaine or B12."

Er, you mean like he was not authorized to inject players with steroids and HGH?

I like how the prosecution has elicited testimony from various trainers to show, "Oh, no no no McNamee was not authorized to inject players with lidocaine or B12."

If there is no evidence that McNamee had purchased lidocaine or B12 on his own, and various trainers insist that they did not supply it to him because he's not authorized, then it stands to reason that he did not provide lidocaine or B12 to Clemens. There is evidence that McNamee acquired PEDs, and supplied them to (a) various players out of sight of the team and with the players' knowledge, as well as (b) Clemens' house. And possibly Clemens himself, if the needles indicate that. (Which we don't know.)

Again, this doesn't demonstrate he supplied them to Clemens - or, more importantly in a perjury trial, that Clemens knew he was getting PEDs. Could be that they weren't supplied to him, or even that Clemens insisted he not get steroids, so McNamee said "Oh, these? These aren't steroids. They're... B12! Yeah, that's the ticket!" But if the prosecution is going down the path I think they are, it's necessary for them to show McNamee didn't have access to lidocaine or B12 injections. For that, the trainer testimony is important, and what you quote serves their purpose better than it hurts them. (IMO it doesn't get BARD, but that's a separate issue. That governs whether they should bring the case at all, not whether they should try to support their case given that they're bringing it.)

I think this is going to be an even tougher sell than you make it out to be, unless they plan to have McNamee testify that he's worthless as a trainer, conditioning coach, etc except for his willingness to break the law.

They've already sold that Clemens works harder than anyone, and that he's naturally gifted, too. I don't think the defense will dispute that part. But testimony shows Clemens felt he needed McNamee specifically, because McNamee knew what Clemens' body needed, in a way that Clemens couldn't trust the friggin' New York Yankees to provide. The implication is that Brian McNamee is either some kind of Super Trainer or just a guy with secret sauce. I think it's already beyond a reasonable doubt that McNamee is a Super Trainer. I think it's less a need for the prosecution to demonstrate he's not than it is for the defense to show he is. (That doesn't make it a need for the defense. A good closing argument would probably suffice.)

It's a tough sell, for sure. Like I say, to demonstrate that your key witness is both unsavory and trustworthy is a very tough sell.

If there is no evidence that McNamee had purchased lidocaine or B12 on his own, and various trainers insist that they did not supply it to him because he's not authorized, then it stands to reason that he did not provide lidocaine or B12 to Clemens.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence.

If there is no evidence that McNamee had purchased lidocaine or B12 on his own, and various trainers insist that they did not supply it to him because he's not authorized, then it stands to reason that he did not provide lidocaine or B12 to Clemens.

Not at all. (And is there no evidence? Did they even bother looking?)

They've already sold that Clemens works harder than anyone, and that he's naturally gifted, too. I don't think the defense will dispute that part. But testimony shows Clemens felt he needed McNamee specifically, because McNamee knew what Clemens' body needed, in a way that Clemens couldn't trust the friggin' New York Yankees to provide. The implication is that Brian McNamee is either some kind of Super Trainer or just a guy with secret sauce.

It's pretty clear that these athletes view specific personal trainers as critical -- like a personal catcher. Pettitte testified that he would "run through a wall" for McNamee. And not because McNamee supplied him with hgh.

Pettitte testified that he would "run through a wall" for McNamee. And not because McNamee supplied him with hgh.

But because he does not fully grasp the cause and effect link between impact and pain.

As a matter of trial tactics, when you know that your main cooperator has a lot of baggage, you bring out the bad stuff (BOBS) on your own to try to draw the sting when the defense goes after him. There is a definite tension between BOBS and destroying your witness's credibility before you get him on the stand, but if you know that the defense is going to bring things out, it is ordinarily better to jump than get pushed.

It seems to me (from following TJ Quinn's twitter feed) that the Radomski Fed Ex receipt is the most important piece of evidence so far. Radomski testified that he sent HGH to McNamee at Clemens' address in Houston. The slip, if believed, is strong corroboration that Radomski sent materials to McNamee. Two glitches are: (1) the slip was not "discovered" by Radomski until years after the Federal search warrant -- he says he found it when he moved a broken TV; and (2) Radomski's book stated that Clemens' name was on the Fed Ex slip, but the slip only had the address. Radomski testified that the name may have been on a part of the slip that was not saved. Because Fed Ex does not keep data beyond five years, there is no corroboration possible on that end.

So far, Clemens' defense team seems to be suggesting that the Fed Ex slip might have been created after the fact by Radomski.

Pettitte testified that he would "run through a wall" for McNamee.

Yes, the wall of an unlicensed chemical laboratory.

I think the prosecutors are counting on Clemens suddenly snapping, "My existence, while grotesque and incomprehensible to you, saves games. You can't handle the truth because deep down in places you don't talk about at Canseco's party, you want me on that mound. You need me on that mound!"

What subject would possibly be off limits at a Jose Canseco party?

Maybe Mindy McCreary? You know, if Debbie was at the party.

It seems to me (from following TJ Quinn's twitter feed) that the Radomski Fed Ex receipt is the most important piece of evidence so far.

I'm not really sure why this evidence is supposed to be all that moving. McNamee was a sub-distributor, both to athletes and non-athletes. If Radomski sent McNamee HGH at Clemens's home... shrug.

And I'll have to review McNamee's deposition to see if he changed this part of his story (like so many other parts), but according to what he told Mitchell he injected Clemens with HGH in 2000 and not thereafter. But (a) the Radomski package couldn't have been mailed before June 2002, and (b) McNamee told Mitchell that all of the HGH injections took place in Clemens's apartment in New York -- i.e., not in Houston.

Quoting now from the Mitchell Report:

According to McNamee, during the middle of the 2000 season Clemens made it clear that he was ready to use steroids again. During the latter part of the regular season, McNamee injected Clemens in the buttocks four to six times with testosterone from a bottle labeled either Sustanon 250 or Deca-Durabolin that McNamee had obtained from Radomski. McNamee stated that during this same time period he also injected Clemens four to six times with human growth hormone he received from Radomski, after explaining to Clemens the potential benefits and risks of use. McNamee believed that it was probably his idea that Clemens try human growth hormone. Radomski instructed McNamee how to inject human growth hormone. On each occasion, McNamee administered the injections at Clemens’s apartment in New York City.

...

To McNamee’s knowledge, Clemens did not use human growth hormone in 2001. McNamee was not retained by the Yankees after the 2001 season. After that season, Clemens never again asked McNamee to inject him with performance enhancing substances, and McNamee had no further discussions with Clemens about such substances.

EDIT: From scanning McNamee's deposition, he seems to confirm the above story with regard to HGH as told to Mitchell.

Is there anyone who really truly gives a #### about this anymore?

bernal

yes, the anyones are all the people in govt who are dead set on backing up their little politician friendsie-poo george mitchell.

because this is REALLY what this is all about.

politicians cannot be defied. just deified

It seems to me (from following TJ Quinn's twitter feed) that the Radomski Fed Ex receipt is the most important piece of evidence so far. Radomski testified that he sent HGH to McNamee at Clemens' address in Houston. The slip, if believed, is strong corroboration that Radomski sent materials to McNamee.

Indeed it is, if believed. But, so what? I mean, nobody denies that McNamee was a dealer. And if he was a dealer, then he had to have a supplier. I thought we were trying to link Clemens, not McNamee, to PEDs.

It would be great if Clemens took the stand and said, "I have spent the last several years making myself immune to lidocaine powder."

But I think they're going to try to sell that there should be absolutely, positively no reason why Clemens would need McNamee unless he was having McNamee do unsavory things.

But that isn't consistent with Clemens hiring McNamee in 2007; per McNamee's own version of events (see #27 above), after 2001 "Clemens never again asked McNamee to inject him with performance enhancing substances, and McNamee had no further discussions with Clemens about such substances."

But that isn't consistent with Clemens hiring McNamee in 2007; per McNamee's own version of events (see #27 above), after 2001 "Clemens never again asked McNamee to inject him with performance enhancing substances, and McNamee had no further discussions with Clemens about such substances."

Seems in an earlier thread that folks were speculating the only reason to keep syringes, etc., around that long would be for extortion. Perhaps it was actually going on. Beats me.

Well, if McNamee testifies that he used the syringes to extort Clemens for several years before turning them over to the Feds, that would probably make the case.