User Comments, Suggestions, or Complaints | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertising
Buy MLB playoff tickets, plus 2011 World Series, 2011 ALCS tickets and NLCS game tickets. We also have Texas Rangers playoff schedule, tickets to Red Sox games and Yankees game tickets. Plus, buy Phillies baseball tickets, Tigers playoff tickets and the biggies like ALDS baseball tickets and 2011 NLDS tickets. |
Demarini, Easton and TPX Baseball Bats
|
AllianceTickets.com has cheap MLB Tickets. Get all your Colorado Rockies Tickets, Seattle Mariners Tickets, San Francisco Giants Tickets and all your favorite baseball tickets here. We also carry cheap Denver Broncos Tickets, Seattle Seahawks Tickets and Denver Nuggets Tickets. |
Page rendered in 0.7653 seconds
55 querie(s) executed
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.
That is what that article is about, right?
At least it isn't daleks. I hate those guys.
Of course. After all, his years of training as a pitcher have surely given him a strong understanding of the American legal system.
This article is dumber than dumb.
A disgrace to elitists everywhere. They should be playing golf.
Lay also had the good sense to die before exhausting his appeals, so the conviction was abated and his victims couldn't seek punitive damages. Clemens should be so clever.
That Robert Kiprono Cheruiyot is a crafty one. And he'd better hustle if he wants to win the Chicago Marathon. Patrick Makau Musyoki and Sammy Wanjiru promise to give him a run for his money.
A disgrace to elitists everywhere. They should be playing golf.
Except that real elitists play one pocket.
At least it isn't daleks. I hate those guys.
Full disclosure: as only a semi-fan of Dr Who, I pronounced their names as "DALL-eks" until I saw a more recent episode and discovered it was "DAY-leks". (Exterminate, indeed!)
(Dershowitz gets one detail wrong: Clemens was not under a subpoena. But the reports that Clemens "asked" and "almost demanded" to testify are also wrong; I researched this last week, and I found no statements by either Clemens or Hardin saying that Clemens wanted to testify in front of Congress. The sequencing was that Clemens was "invited" to testify (he surely would have been subpoenaed had he declined), and then agreed.)
Quoting now from Dershowitz's column. Note to Murray Chass: Dershowitz has no problem referring to his column as a "blog," although, ironically, I'm not sure it is.
I've never had one particle of interest in Dr. Who (Gives a Damn?), but I'm going to assume the pronunciations in the Clash's "Remote Control" & Dalek I Love You's "Dalek I Love You" are correct, in which case so is this pronouncement. (It's probably borne out as well by the Art Attacks' "I Am a Dalek," but I don't remember that one well enough.)
I wouldn't trust a single word out of a banker's mouth. If Jamie Dimon told me the sun rises in the east, I'd double-check my compass.
After finishing up the par-4 18th hole at True Blue - Clemens began his round on the 9th hole
Why, Clemens didn't shoot a 42 at all. He's a goddamned cheater!
But there were some gripes among people who came to watch their family members or friends play True Blue. A local rule prohibits family members from following players during competition but some people were complaining that the rule was put in place because Clemens was on the course. Clemens' wife Debbie is also participating in the event.
"I came to see my son and they told me I couldn't go out on the course," said Bob Ranken of Mt. Holly, N.J., referring to his 19-year-old son Bobby, who was playing True Blue. "I'm going to send an email about this."
Tough nuts, loser. You should've named your kid Kobby.
The problem is that "telling the truth" doesn't insulate one from a perjury charge. If the authorities have their own version of the truth, and yours -- even though the actual truth -- differs from it, you're S.O.L.
And so if Hardin followed your advice and told Clemens he would be ok if he simply told the truth, he did Clemens a monumental disservice.
Assume for a moment that McNamee is lying about giving Clemens steroids and HGH. In that case, Clemens told The Truth -- but is being prosecuted anyway.
That is precisely why Dershowitz noted that this was a perjury trap. Everyone knew the essence of what McNamee and Clemens were going to say before they gave their committee depositions. Everyone knew that McNamee was going to say X and Clemens was going to say Not X. And so once each of them was put under oath, it was simply a question of who Congress and the feds were going to believe: the sainted drug dealing suspected rapist, backed by George Mitchell, or the star pitcher accused of Using Steroids.
It wasn't difficult to see who most people would believe.
That's why the hearing should have been called off, Tom Davis, before the depositions.
Many people seem to have forgotten that Clemens absolutely insisted on testifying--and it was clearly against Hardin's advice and wishes. One of Clemens statements at a press conference that cheered me up is he said he didn't do it, he was going to maintain he didn't do it, and if this jeopardized his election to the Hall of Fame, they could shove their ballots up their ass. (The last part is only slightly exaggerated. He was obviously pissed. He soon learned that passionate avowals aren't enough.)
Also, I don't see too many people discussing the incentive someone like McNamee would have to spike someone like Clemens's B12 injections without his knowing. Or doing something else along those lines without telling the person he's doing it to.
Again, he didn't really "insist." Others (the media and general public, who had already concluded he was guilty) insisted/demanded that he testify in order to prove himself. He was then "invited" by the committee to testify. He then agreed.
From everything I can find, Neither Clemens nor Hardin uttered the word "Congress" in public until after Clemens was already invited to testify. (Mike Wallace did ask Clemens, in an interview that was filmed in late December, if Clemens would testify before Congress if called, and Clemens (essentially) said yes. That is not an insistence, but is merely an acceptance to a hypothetical question. The interview aired after Clemens was invited to testify.)
Clemens said this in a press conference after he was invited to testify:
One of Clemens statements at a press conference that cheered me up is he said he didn't do it, he was going to maintain he didn't do it, and if this jeopardized his election to the Hall of Fame, they could shove their ballots up their ass. (The last part is only slightly exaggerated. He was obviously pissed. He soon learned that passionate avowals aren't enough.)
You're referring to this statement, which he made at that same press conference:
For what it's worth, in Clemens's deposition he tells of a time McNamee apparently slipped him an amphetamine (disguised as a vitamin) before one of his workouts. Quoting now starting on page 105 of Clemens's deposition:
This is nonsense, top to bottom. Perjury is probably atop the list of ratio of occurrences to prosecutions (see, in this particular context, Rafael Palmeiro).(**) The idea that truth tellers are regularly, or even infrequently, brought up on perjury charges is comical.
There's also a bit of a misconception afoot about the term "perjury trap." In its purest sense, it doesn't mean "the government is holding a hearing in the hope/belief that you'll lie." It means more "the government is putting you in the dilemma of having to choose between (a) admitting something that for extralegal reasons you don't want to admit (Clemens and steroids, Clinton and Monica) or (b) lying.
(**) Not that this should necessarily sway anyone, but I've been In the Arena in this area.
No, the best choice is take the 5th. Telling the truth doesn't guarantee you won't be prosecuted.
Nothing in life is an absolute guarantee, but if Clemens had told the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth the odds of him being prosecuted would have been lower than Mario Mendoza winning the Triple Crown. If the choice was between (i) taking the 5th; and (ii) testifying as he did then, yes, taking the 5th would have been the much better option.
Perjury cases are tough to prove, which is why many cases of perjury are never prosecuted, and the government might lose the Clemens case.
With that said, it's plain as day that McNamee isn't their only witness and it's silly for laymen discussing Clemens's "competitive guilt" to pretend that he is.
Tell me - how often are private citizens invited to testify before Congress so that Congress can decide who is telling the truth in a "liar, liar, pants on fire" dispute?
You can't pretend this entire sham of a hearing was typical, and then talk about what's atypical.
The Mitchell Report named dozens of players. Why did Congress take a peculiar interest in Clemens over the others?
And the point remains: one can be indicted for perjury despite being innocent. And look at what some of the charges are -- that Clemens lied to Congress about saying there were "four or five needles" of B12 "already lined up and ready to go" in the trainer's room after games; for saying "I couldn't tell you the first thing about" HGH; for saying that he had "no idea" that Mitchell wanted to talk to him.
I don't know what that last part means exactly, but private citizens are brought to Congress to testify all the time, often about controversial subjects. See, e.g., the tobacco company CEOs.
Clemens sitting next to McNamee was a bit theatrical and I confess to not remembering the precise details leading to that setup. I can say that when the DC US Attorney's office and grand jury determined whether perjury charges were warranted, that setup was irrelevant.
You can't pretend this entire sham of a hearing was typical, and then talk about what's atypical.
What do you mean by "sham"? There was some theatricality involved that may not have been necessary, but that hardly makes it a "sham." Congress has jurisdiction over the baseball industry, over steroid distribution and regulation, and likely over other things motivating the desire to obtain evidence and information.
And the point remains: one can be indicted for perjury despite being innocent.
One can be indicted for perjury and be found not guilty by a jury. Indeed Clemens might, and that still wouldn't mean he told the truth, just that he wasn't proven guilty beyond a reasonable doubt of all the elements of a perjury charge. Indictments of people the Justice Department believes told the truth to Congress are extraordinarily rare, if not nonexistent. Far more common are non-prosecutions of people the Justice Department believes didn't tell the truth to Congress -- see, e.g., Rafael Palmeiro.
I can build a perjury case against McNamee. My evidence would start with Clemens's statements, under oath, that McNamee is lying. I would then show that McNamee was a proven and self-confessed liar. I would show that McNamee is of questionable character, and has precious little credibility. I would then show that nobody else involved -- not Pettitte, not Knoblauch, not CJ Nitkowski -- witnessed anything. I would then show that Radomski was not aware that any shipments were for Clemens. I would then show the lack of a paper trail for shipments (canceled checks and such, like with others in the Mitchell Report), the lack of any evidence for Clemens's use not connected to McNamee (aside from the wishy washy Pettitte 1999 conversation, which is not powerful evidence of anything, and can be easily explained using Pettitte's own testimony), the lack of any other dealers or suppliers or players or clubhouse attendants or friends or fellow trainees that have knowledge about any HGH or steroids use by Clemens. I would show that Clemens passed all drug tests given to him by MLB or for the Olympics.
(All of this is based upon what we know now, of course. I've noted multiple times the plausibility that the feds have uncovered other evidence for Clemens's use that we don't yet know about.)
Clemens could be lying. Nobody really knows who is telling the truth, and if they say they do, they're talking out of their ass. They've simply chosen who they want to believe. What is truly interesting to me is how 99% of the public heard the story being told by an admitted liar, a drug dealing suspected rapist, and swallowed it whole. Yes, since we're dealing with illegal substances it is inherent that a drug dealer would be the one pointing the finger at Clemens -- it's not typically nuns who are dealing illegal drugs -- but that doesn't mean we have to accept his story without examining the whole of the evidence.
You'd have to start with his (allegedly) knowing false statements and build out from there. Lack of independent verification of a person's statements isn't a basis for a perjury charge. You need a false statement and affirmative proof of its falsity.
What are the knowingly false statements you believe McNamee made?
I always thought this was part of his schtick, along with a love of East Bumfuck Ohio and pretend colleges.
What a ####### joke.
When Clemens is found guilty Ray still will be holding the candle. He isn't interested in the truth. He is a big fanboy.
I am moving to Indiana.
Where in Indiana?
Go Boilers.
If I'm targeting McNamee, we can start with the bit about the party, and bring in Clemens and Canseco to testify that Clemens wasn't there. We can move to the Debbie Clemens hgh bit, and bring in Clemens and Debbie to say McNamee lied.
Someone hired Bernal? To do what, pull up a chair at public discussions people are having and spew profanity-laced insults at some of the participants?
(I must admit to finding it curious why Bernal posts here. I know it's for the purpose of insulting people he doesn't like, but I would think that would get old after a while. The next time he contributes substantively to a discussion will be the first.)
This is a good start. Is the new job dangerous? Any hope you'll wind up killing yourself by accident?
What do you mean by "bit"? Were there statements made by McNamee in relation to those things that you believe were knowingly false?
It's certainly possible that both perjured themselves, but indictments for perjury need particular statements that were false. They don't proceed based on ephemeral concepts like "I don't think he was telling the truth," or "He looks like a liar."
Dick move, pal.
Yes, I'm aware of that. I'll pull out some specific statements later.
I'm thinking yes.
Regent law professor explains why you should never talk to police officers.
And then a 3L ex-police investigator is given an opportunity to respond. Great stuff.
The Canseco party:
McNamee deposition: "Roger showed up after golf, I believe. Maybe he was golfing. I don't know if he was golfing. He might have showed up a little bit later, but no, he was there the whole time for the most part. He was in the house."
Clemens deposition: "I wasn't at the party. I know I wasn't at the party."
Canseco affidavit: "I specifically recall that Clemens did not come to the bar-b-que. I remember this because I was disappointed that he did not attend. I later learned that he had a golfing commitment that day and could not attend the party."
Thus, a statement made under oath by McNamee, disputed by two witnesses. (And the feds seem to think this party is material, since it forms the basis of at least part of the indictment of Clemens.)
-----------------
The injection of Debbie Clemens:
McNamee deposition: "He called me into... the residence... And I don't know if he met me at the door or the kitchen, but I ended up going into his wife's bedroom; and in the bathroom there was -- he had two mixtures, the mixture of water and the mixture of powder, of growth hormone and a syringe. But I also did notice in one of his travel bags he had other bottles of growth hormone in there, and I know his wife was asking him a lot of questions... And he said his wife wanted to do it. He had it and he wanted me to teach her how to do it. And I walked in and I actually taught her how to draw it, the water, and then put it into the bottle, and then you have to turn it upside down... And he just looked at her and said, He injects me why, can't he inject you? And she is a short woman and I really felt uncomfortable of bending down in front of her. So I reached around with my left hand and I grabbed the fat tissue from her right belly button side, which was above the scar, and I showed her that you have to inject it, and I injected it diagonally. And that was it."
Clemens deposition: "My wife received a shot of HGH from Brian McNamee at my house. I think it was in our master bedroom. The year, I'm going to say 2003 possibly. I believe there was an article, from what I understand, about HGH in the USA Today that came out a couple days earlier that week. I don't know if it was the only article my wife had read. And he gave her a shot of HGH. She tells me that it happened extremely quick. He was gone after it happened, literally gone. He went to the airport, I found out. I was not present at the time. I found out later that evening. And the reason I found out, because she was telling me that something was going on with her circulation, and this concerned me."
Debbie statement: [I can't find the transcript of her statement so I'll quote from espn's story on it.] "Clemens read a statement from his wife contending that McNamee touted its benefit during a visit to the family's Houston home, then provided the HGH and she injected herself."
Thus, four statements made by McNamee, disputed by two witnesses:
1. Clemens was present for the HGH injection of his wife;
2. The injection was Clemens's idea;
3. Clemens supplied the HGH [in fact Clemens testified that McNamee supplied it and Clemens even went through his bags later to try to find it];
4. McNamee performed the injection.
If so, I demand a recount or something. I had no idea such a job was available. It won't take me long at all to dust off my resume.
But that's precisely my point: assuming they don't have other evidence on Clemens that we don't know about (which they may well have), they have simply chosen to believe McNamee. Had they chosen to believe Clemens instead, they could have brought charges against McNamee instead. I showed, I think, how that was possible, on at least two of the issues in dispute.
They almost certainly have other evidence, but even your underlying point makes it sound like they flipped a coin or found some other frivolous reason to believe McNamee was more credible. Playing the parlor game you want to play, and putting demeanor aside: (a) McNamee's testimony writ large is against his interest, Clemens's is self-serving; and (b) baseball players in Clemens's era -- a lot of them -- used steroids and HGH. Those are two entirely neutral reasons to favor McNamee as a witness over Clemens.
In the real world, of course, there is going to be evidence beyond McNamee -- likely even for the Canseco party. Which raises at least the possibility that Canseco changed his story -- more precisely, remembered "better" than in his affidavit -- when he testified to the grand jury.
I don't get this assertion. The entirety of McNamee's statements are given in order to keep his ### out of jail (or in support of that original effort.) Not only are his statements self-serving, he's the only one who had any reason to bring any of this up. Couple that with the extraordinary fact that McNamee was a drug dealer who insists that he kept physical evidence of his dealing in his own home (to say that such is unusual doesn't even scratch the surface) and I would have to say McNamee is the least credible witness I have ever seen outside of a bad movie.
It's one thing to make an abstract decision about which guy is being honest and which guy isn't. It's quite another to ask 12 people to pronounce one guy a liar and, effectively, to send him to prison. To try and get those 12 people to do that with the "force" of McNamee's representations is going to be a really tall order. We're all assuming there is more evidence, but there really isn't any reason to assume that the other evidence is better than what we know about other than the fact that no one can imagine pushing this thing to trial with what we know. And if the "other" evidence is as shaky as what we know, the jurors will be wearing Roger Clemens jerseys by the time its over..
Admitting to a crime is a statement against one's interest, practically by definition.
It's quite another to ask 12 people to pronounce one guy a liar and, effectively, to send him to prison.
That's what charging someone with perjury is all about, again by definition. There's absolutely no reason to believe the government acted frivolously in making the charges. Congress didn't make the charges; an entirely different body of government did.
To try and get those 12 people to do that with the "force" of McNamee's representations is going to be a really tall order. We're all assuming there is more evidence, but there really isn't any reason to assume that the other evidence is better than what we know about other than the fact that no one can imagine pushing this thing to trial with what we know. And if the "other" evidence is as shaky as what we know, the jurors will be wearing Roger Clemens jerseys by the time its over..
That appears to be your subjective prediction about who will win at trial. It's possible the government will lose. Perjury cases are hard to prove, and fanboys are tough to keep off juries.
If the govt already had enough evidence to make a conviction likely and McNamee knew it, then trying to work out a deal by testifying against Clemens, even if it required McNamee to admit to his crime, is not against his interest.
Yes there is. The government is going to trial with an awful witness as the foundation of its case. Even if they have other evidence, McNamee's testimony remains critical. That's a challenging effort- to put it charitably- by any measure.
Now, such doesn't prove that the prosecution is "frivolous" or even poorly thought out. But we're all assuming (including you in #69) there is other, sound evidence. We need not do that. It's fair to make that assumption given the the fact that few prosecutors like to get embarrassed, but it's also fair to say that the government has a lousy case until the government shows that it doesn't. To date, the government hasn't done that. Obviously they don't have to at this point, but the fact remains, this case looks shaky and its only salvation is evidence we are assuming is going to be provided later. That should happen- but there's no guarantee it will.
I also realize Congress didn't file the charges, but it's not inconceivable that they were filed at the urging of Congress because certain memebers saw Clemens' testimony as a direct attack on Mitchell. I suspect you would concede that political pressure can cause prosecutors to do things they otherwise wouldn't do in some instances. Prosecuting for such a reason may sound absurd, but given the nature of the hearing itself, and the cast of tards at the center of this stage, there is no reason to foreclose that possibility.
If I was the gummint, I'd be watching out for with children named Kelly or Korbin or Kendrick or K-Love.
We can't know whether they did that until we know whether they have more evidence, but I've seen nothing yet to indicate that the government isn't acting frivolously here, other than the sole fact that they are pursuing the indictment. We'll have to wait until we see the rest of their case.
The public at large certainly seems to have believed McNamee based on frivolous reasons, as did Congress (see the ridiculous letter Congress sent to the feds asking the feds to resolve the issue; see Elijah Cummings misrepresenting Pettitte's testimony during questioning of Clemens at the hearing). There is no way at present to cut through this and come to a firm conclusion as to who is lying.
Point (a) is silly, as Donde Campaneris has pointed out, and the part about Clemens's testimony being "self-serving" is odd because it doesn't point to Clemens being a liar. If McNamee made it all up, then of course Clemens would appear "self-serving" when he disputes it.
The idea that Canseco changed his story is pure fantasy on your part. There is absolutely nothing to indicate that.
Wow. If this is any indication of how you type, remind me not to borrow your keyboard.
The self-serving part is saying it was B-12 in the syringes. There's no dispute about whether McNamee gave Clemens shots, just the substance of the shots.
If Clemens's story is that McNamee is a liar, then why would he trust McNamee's word about what was in the syringes? It's not as if Clemens knew what was in them. Yet he says strenuously that he did.(**) Reason #653 why he makes a poor witness.
(**) And of course the only party who does know is McNamee. So McNamee's testifying about something he's in a position to know; Clemens about something he isn't in a position to know. Putting aside the admissibility of it, we know another famous player who's publicly stated that a player can't really know what's in the needles, since Rafael Palmeiro says there were steroids in a shot he thought was B-12.
Miguel Tejada.
Umm, because (according to Clemens's story) at the time he was getting injections from McNamee, he trusted McNamee? See below from his deposition: "I had no reason to believe this guy would harm me."
Incidentally, there is a point in the deposition where Clemens speculates on why McNamee is (according to Clemens) lying about him. He fumbles around and basically concludes that he's not sure what McNamee's agenda is; he thinks it might be money (at other times Clemens has stated what Donde said above about McNamee trying to stay out of jail). Clemens points to some things McNamee was upset about or was causing trouble about.
Quoting now:
Does Clemens say anywhere, in words or substance, "Brian McNamee (or somebody else) told me the syringes he was putting in my ass contained B-12 and only B-12"?
That's a critical point, since both Barry Bonds and Rafael Palmeiro have said they took substances they weren't told were steroids that turned out to be steroids. I don't recall this type of thing being Clemens's story and if it's true, as Bonds and Palmeiro seem to indicate, that star players simply took what other people gave them to take, Clemens really doesn't, in a meaningful way, know what was in the shots.
Which is, I suppose, another, or related way, of asking whether the people doing the depositions and Congressional testimony got into the B12 vs "B12" issue.
Sure, except when the story is flipped around and the players themselves use it as an excuse. Then, to some, it becomes highly plausible. See, e.g., Rafael Palmeiro ("All I did was shoot myself with B-12 Miguel Tejada gave me"), Barry Bonds ("My trainer gave me this stuff he called the cream and the clear and I just took it") and the anti-anti-steroid bunch ("Nobody can disprove what Palmeiro and Bonds say.")
So when Miguel Tejada tells Rafael Palmeiro, "This is B12," he doesn't really mean it, but when drug-dealing rapist Brian McNamee tells Roger Clemens "This is B-12" (**), well, that you can take to the bank.
(**) Assuming Clemens says he did.
His story is essentially that McNamee was giving him B12, and McNamee supplied the B12, and he doesn't know where McNamee got the needles from, and he didn't give it a second thought since McNamee was a trainer employeed by a major league team.
Note that his story is that McNamee only gave him B12 on 4-6 occasions, total (and lidocaine on just one occasion).
As to B12 being "code," Clemens had the following comment. It's interesting to note that his comment in bold forms one of the charges against him in the indictment, and it was Breuer and Hardin -- his own attorneys -- who walked him down that path.
Quoting now:
Later:
See, Bernal, this is dishonest. I've never said there is no way Clemens could be lying.
You're mischaracterizing Palmeiro's position, but, regardless, Clemens's story is not that he doubted what McNamee was giving him.
Quoting now:
How does Clemens know this -- that's the question and it should have been asked directly.
Concerns, other than what I talked about as the pill that he gave me that -- it could have been some form of an amphetamine, that was a concern. But again, I trusted him.
I'd forgotten that Clemens said McNamee gave him an amp without Clemens knowing about it. Makes it all the more implausible that Clemens would simply trust McNamee -- not merely a drug-dealing rapist, but a drug-dealing rapist who'd already slipped him a mickey.
Without knowing the conversation that took place when the topic of B12 and shots came up in the first place, and what both parties said about it, it's hard to make a final judgment. And that assumes the right questions were asked.
I don't really understand what you're getting at. According to Clemens, McNamee told him he was giving him B12, McNamee whipped out a needle, the needle was filled with red or pink juice which looked like B12 (*), and McNamee injected him.
What Clemens is saying above is that he wasn't using B12 as "code" for anything.
(*) I've never seen a B12 shot but from what I can gather from The Google, B12 can be pink or red.
Asking Clemens how he knew it was B12 gives him the opportunity to say that's what he expected he was getting, that's what he requested, but "golly, the evil liar shot me with steroids instead, evidently". I'd prefer not to hear that nonsense.
(Okay, except the "their friend" part, which was merely implicit.)
The previous steroids show trial at least purported to be legislative in nature; Congress pretended it was examining the issue of steroids in sports to determine whether legislation was needed. Here there wasn't even a pretense. They were just deciding which witness to believe.
(1) Congress has no such jurisdiction, but I know the constitution hasn't mattered in quite a long time.
(2) Even under the expanded New Deal version of the constitution, Congress does not have jurisdiction over individual criminal acts. Whether someone used steroids or lied in a press conference or lied to George Mitchell or lied to prosecutors is a matter for the courts, not Congress.
And as a player who thought he was taking B12 would say. Again, this gets us nowhere.
Well, that's not what Clemens is saying. He's not questioning that it was B12. (That may change, but it's not what he's doing now.)
The thing is that there is a real chance for the feds to dig up some evidence on Clemens here, if McNamee is telling the truth. There are a number of ways to go, but there's one specific way: McNamee's story is that Clemens over the years had possession of HGH and steroids (for himself; for Debbie in that one disputed incident). So unless Clemens used his chemistry degree to cook the stuff up in the lab in his basement, there are other suppliers and dealers out there that Clemens had to have gotten it from. That's one reason why the feds were checking out Kelly Blair and the gym and such.
I apologize for not following this case very closely to date, but is there any evidence besides McNamee's testimony that Clemens did not in fact receive B12 shots, but in fact received steroid injections?
Sorry, but you're going to need a biology degree if you want to cook up hGH in your basement. Or your mom's.
The only thing I can think of is the materials McNamee turned over and whether the feds can prove anything from that mess.
Or perhaps Clemens described some of the details of the B12 shots wrong -- such as the color. But that seems unlikely, since it seems clear that he did get at least some B12 shots over the years from team trainers, so he should know what B12 shots look like.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main