Thanks for posting David. Its no secret that Gov't witnesses are often bad dudes, but this guy is amongst the scummiest that I am familiar with (in my handful of years working state/fed cases).

especially since Rusty Hardin doesn’t know how to use Adobe Acrobat to redact secret information.

Or does he? His "incompetence" allows the info to get out there while making it appear he tried to redact it.

On the redacted info, why is it redacted?

The thing is -- and I know I'm beating a dead horse here -- the government's use of those "bad dudes" is usually justified by the desire to get worse dudes... not to keep baseball players out of the HOF. In a sense, this is even worse than the Bonds prosecution; at least Bonds was collateral damage in their attempt to get BALCO (the dealers). Here, the sole purpose of the investigation was to get Clemens.

And if it's really true that the government's entire case is (a) McNamee's direct testimony and (b) Pettitte's vague recollectons, then the only way the government possibly wins is by keeping all this info about McNamee from the jury.

True indeed.

One thing the Gov't typically does when they put these 'bad dudes' on the stand is to air the laundry up front in order to deflate the party balloon the defense is waiting to pop upon cross-examination. If done properly it is quite effective and the attention can be turned to the 'bad dudes' testimony in the case actually being presented to the jury. It isn't like the Government has anything past McNamee.

The thing is -- and I know I'm beating a dead horse here -- the government's use of those "bad dudes" is usually justified by the desire to get worse dudes... not to keep baseball players out of the HOF. In a sense, this is even worse than the Bonds prosecution; at least Bonds was collateral damage in their attempt to get BALCO (the dealers). Here, the sole purpose of the investigation was to get Clemens.

This is getting to be more and more what it looks like, even for someone who hasn't been following the trial all that closely, and whose instincts up to now have leaned towards believing McNamee in spite of his shady past. That instinct is slowly beginning to evaporate, though I still want to see how Pettitte's testimony stands up under cross-examination.

And if it's really true that the government's entire case is (a) McNamee's direct testimony and (b) Pettitte's vague recollectons, then the only way the government possibly wins is by keeping all this info about McNamee from the jury.

What do you think that the chances are that the government will succeed in doing this?

Unless I'm misremembering Pettitte's vague recollections (entirely possible), I don't think you could possible convict unless the jury finds McNamee credible, and that's only plausible if the Govt' wins this motion in its entirety.

And if it's really true that the government's entire case is (a) McNamee's direct testimony and (b) Pettitte's vague recollectons, then the only way the government possibly wins is by keeping all this info about McNamee from the jury.

Or if the jury decides they believe McNamee anyway. Which is why you should always invoke the fifth, even if you're innocent.

While I agree that one should always remain silent, assuming the facts are as alleged in Clemens' motion papers, we're talking about a guy who was pushed out of the NYPD for, in part, evidence tampering. Who obstructed justice repeatedly, who lied under oath. Who changed his story several times between the Mitchell report and the hearings. A jury would have to be insane to believe him b.a.r.d.

I'm kind of shocked that the government went to war with McNamee and whatever little Pettitte provides (*), but that appears to be what they've done.

(*) And as I've said, I think Pettitte's testimony helps Clemens overall. Here were two close friends; longtime teammates; trained together. And what did Pettitte witness? Nothing. What did Pettitte know? Almost nothing. An obscure conversation from years earlier which he thinks he understood properly, but allows for the possibility that he did not, and in fact for years following the 2005 conversation figured that he did not.

This is getting to be more and more what it looks like, even for someone who hasn't been following the trial all that closely, and whose instincts up to now have leaned towards believing McNamee in spite of his shady past. That instinct is slowly beginning to evaporate, though I still want to see how Pettitte's testimony stands up under cross-examination.

What's to stand up? "I think I heard Roger tell me in 1999 or 2000 that he used HGH, but, yeah, I guess I could have been mistaken." If Pettitte doesn't allow for the possibility that he was mistaken, Clemens's attorneys (not Hardin) will ask him to explain his committee deposition. If Petttitte suddenly has more damning testimony, Clemens's attorneys will ask him to explain his committee deposition.

Clemens's attorneys will get Pettitte to concede that it was possible he was mistaken, and then they will ask:

"How many years were you teammates with Roger?"
"How many years did you train with Roger?"
"In all of those years, did you ever witness Roger using HGH?" [No]
"In all of those years, did you ever witness Roger using sterods?" [No]
"Did Clemens ever tell you he had used steroids?" [No]

If Pettitte does not answer "No" to the latter three questions, he will be directly contradicting his committee deposition, given under oath.

Aha! It's all been an elaborate perjury trap to get Pettitte!

Clemens's attorneys will get Pettitte to concede that it was possible he was mistaken, and then they will ask:

"How many years were you teammates with Roger?"
"How many years did you train with Roger?"
"In all of those years, did you ever witness Roger using HGH?" [No]
"In all of those years, did you ever witness Roger using sterods?" [No]
"Did Clemens ever tell you he had used steroids?" [No]

Yes. Unless Pettitte changes his story, this is going to be the most gentle cross-examination ever. He has no firsthand knowledge of anything, and has a hazy memory of a single sentence from a conversation a dozen years ago, which he admits he may have misremembered.


My recorded recollection at the time of the Congressional hearing was that McNamee did not make a good witness (setting aside the impeachment issues). His testimony was internally illogical and inconsistent, and he did not sound impressive. The government is going to have spent a lot of time coaching him in recent months, though.

Yes. Unless Pettitte changes his story, this is going to be the most gentle cross-examination ever. He has no firsthand knowledge of anything, and has a hazy memory of a single sentence from a conversation a dozen years ago, which he admits he may have misremembered.

Right. This isn't a question of Pettitte "holding up" against cross examination at all. If Pettitte testifies as expected, per his committee deposition, they will not state, imply, or suggest that he is lying. There will be absolutely no need. They're happy to take every word of his committee deposition as the truth.

Now, if he suddenly says "I saw Mac inject Roger with steroids," then, yes, they will pounce on him and beat him over the head with his committee deposition, in which he testified under oath that he never saw Clemens use steroids or even HGH.

Is it perjury if Pettitte says he lied during his deposition under oath or is that applicable only in a jury trial?

Jose, it would be perjury, same as Clemens is charged with.

Though I doubt the government would care, since they're playing Get Clemens.

Not exactly going out on a limb there, Ray. At the start of the hearing, Tom Davis (or was it Waxman? Cummings? I don't remember.) expressly announced that McNamee had lied to prosecutors - a felony - but they said "nevermind" and went ahead and put him on as their star witness anyway.

...especially since Rusty Hardin doesn’t know how to use Adobe Acrobat to redact secret information

I wonder why Hardin attempted to obscure the B&E, but not the tax fraud, DUI, loan fraud, rape, forgery, etc.

Not exactly going out on a limb there, Ray. At the start of the hearing, Tom Davis (or was it Waxman? Cummings? I don't remember.) expressly announced that McNamee had lied to prosecutors - a felony - but they said "nevermind" and went ahead and put him on as their star witness anyway.

IIRC it was Waxman, reading his prepared opening statement.

And as Alan Dershowitz pointed out in advance of the sham hearing that served no legislative function, Clemens was walking into a perjury trap because everyone knew that he was going to say X under oath and McNamee was going to say Not X.

The thing is that McNamee could have been charged with perjury just as easily, instead of Clemens, if McNamee were the one in the cross hairs. Both men were basically pointing a finger at each other under oath. If you have clear evidence at the outset that Clemens was the one lying, fine, prosecute him, even given the sham hearing. But it was a waste of money to investigate this "liar, liar, pants on fire" dispute in the best of circumstances. And judging from the government's opening statement - though granted I only read a news account of it - no further evidence has been found against Clemens, despite all of the investigating. Which makes this trial completely insane.

Have McNamee's syringes with Clemens' blood on them been thrown out of the trial? I thought that was the new evidence, however weak it may be.

Were they actually found to have Clemens' blood after all, or was that just a prosecution attempt to taint the jury pool?

Have McNamee's syringes with Clemens' blood on them been thrown out of the trial? I thought that was the new evidence, however weak it may be.

IIRC the syringes were known before Clemens testified before Congress.

From what I read last week (I think I saw Hardin stipulate to this this), the syringes do have (a) steroids and (b) Clemens's DNA. I don't know whether the syringes also have B12 or lidocaine (I presume not). And I don't know whether it would be possible for McNamee to take a syringe containing Clemens's DNA and B12/lidocaine and (1) remove the B12/lidocaine while (2) keeping Clemens's DNA in there. I am not a chemist but it would seem, to me, far fetched to believe that McNamee could have done that.

I'm waiting to hear what the experts on each side might have to say about this issue. I understand the syringes are going to be admitted as evidence.

Here are the snippets I found particularly interesting from the court papers filed by Clemens that David linked to.

Quoting now:

------------

"Brian McNamee is the only person in the entire world who has ever said that he witnessed Mr. Clemens use steroids or human growth hormone at any time in his storied career. But... [a]s the Government acknowledges through the lengths it is taking to secretly protect him, Mr. McNamee is a serial liar who has engaged in myriad episodes of relevant misconduct."

"The Yankees security officer told the agents that, on the night of the rape, Mr. McNamee asked the security officer to 'get rid of' a plastic water bottle near the pool where Mr. McNamee was found naked with the incoherent victim. That water bottle contained GHB that had drugged the woman."

"[T]he evidence will show that in 2001, the last year Mr. McNamee contends he injected Mr. Clemens with performance enhancing drugs and the same year in which he also contends he saved so-called physical evidence of an injection he gave Mr. Clemens, Mr. McNamee repeatedly lied to law enforcement officials conducting a felony criminal investigation in Florida. The investigation concerned a woman who met Mr. McNamee and others at a post-game gathering of New York Yankees players and personnel (other than Mr. Clemens) at a hotel in St. Petersburg, Florida on October 6, 2001, and the circumstances by which she was rendered incoherent from unknowingly ingesting the “date rape” drug GHB and was found naked and intertwined with Mr. McNamee in the hotel swimming pool later that night. During the subsequent criminal investigation, the Government concedes, as it must, that Mr. McNamee provided false statements to Florida law enforcement officials who were investigating the rape incident... Mr. McNamee lied to investigating police officers regarding his involvement in the sexual assault, his relationship to the Yankees, and his knowledge of other Yankee personnel at the hotel that night. Mr. McNamee also obstructed with evidence by attempting to tamper with the water bottle containing GHB at the crime scene. Indeed, there is no question that Mr. McNamee committed obstruction of justice in the Florida rape investigation — the very crime the Government seeks to convict Mr. Clemens of in this case."

"The evidence will show that Mr. McNamee engaged in at least three actions during his time on the New York City police force that are likely to be relevant at trial: (i) he misplaced an issued weapon and other equipment then lied to supervisors in order to reduce his possible punishment and degree of perceived culpability; (ii) he tampered with evidence at a crime scene by putting a “discarded beer can” in the hand of a female corpse and then lied to a supervisor when asked about it; and (iii), taking Mr. McNamee’s version of events as true, he lied to cover up a supervisor’s failure to adequately oversee the suspect charged to Mr. McNamee’s care."

I wonder why Hardin attempted to obscure the B&E, but not the tax fraud, DUI, loan fraud, rape, forgery, etc.

I have not reviewed all the filings in the case, but I gather, from what I did read, that the other items can be independently corroborated, but that the information about the B&E may have come solely from McNamee's divorce papers, and that information may be sealed or subject to sealing in some fashion.

From TJ Quinn's running twitter feed from the courtroom on Pettitte's direct testimony: "Roger mentioned to me that he had taken HGH and that it could help with recovery." Direct not yet concluded; waiting to hear cross.

From reading Quinn's feed, nothing earth shattering happened w/r/t Pettitte. (Though the cross of Pettitte will continue tomorrow.)

This article makes it sound as if the day went pretty much as Ray and I discussed above: Pettitte provides his one bit of testimony - the very old conversation - and then spends the rest of the time discussing his lack of actual evidence.

Have McNamee's syringes with Clemens' blood on them been thrown out of the trial? I thought that was the new evidence, however weak it may be.

Am I correct in assuming that Clemens will argue that McNamee doctored this evidence? Or is there other defense out there that Clemens might use?

This article ...

I don't know how much faith to place on an article that calls Pettitte an "elite" pitcher ...

More importantly, it states, "Pettitte is key to the prosecution’s case because he acquired HGH from Brian McNamee, Clemens’ former strength trainer." (emphasis added) However, as discussed here last week, the Court has excluded testimony regarding the source of Pettitte's hGH and later in the article the writer even talks about the AUSA dancing around that during direct.

IIRC the syringes were known before Clemens testified before Congress.

From what I read last week (I think I saw Hardin stipulate to this this), the syringes do have (a) steroids and (b) Clemens's DNA. I don't know whether the syringes also have B12 or lidocaine (I presume not). And I don't know whether it would be possible for McNamee to take a syringe containing Clemens's DNA and B12/lidocaine and (1) remove the B12/lidocaine while (2) keeping Clemens's DNA in there. I am not a chemist but it would seem, to me, far fetched to believe that McNamee could have done that.

I'm waiting to hear what the experts on each side might have to say about this issue. I understand the syringes are going to be admitted as evidence.

Isn't this the whole case then?

McNamee's uncorroborated testimony isn't worth a bucket of warm spit. But, if they've got Clemens' DNA on steroid needles, Clemens better have a good theory on how that evidence was doctored.

McNamee's uncorroborated testimony isn't worth a bucket of warm spit. But, if they've got Clemens' DNA on steroid needles, Clemens better have a good theory on how that evidence was doctored.

Options here:

a) I never knowingly took PEDs. MacNamee told me it wasn't, but he's a lying liar.

b) Chain of custody. Encourages the prosecution to demonstrate how unlikely it would be for someone to be able to rig the syringes successfully. Not sure how effective this line would be.

c) ...? IANAL, so I run out of strategies/tactics pretty quickly. And my first two aren't that great.

McNamee's uncorroborated testimony isn't worth a bucket of warm spit. But, if they've got Clemens' DNA on steroid needles, Clemens better have a good theory on how that evidence was doctored.

Presumably McNamee had access to Clemens' blood through serendipitous ways. Perhaps Clemens accidentally scratched him for whatever reason and McNamee is there with a band aid. He then mixes it with steroids and hides it away. Should be interesting to see if a jury believes that. If you can remove the B12/lidocaine while keeping Clemens's DNA, a much more plausible theory could be created by Clemens.

McNamee kept syringes tainted with steroids while he was being investigated for distributing steroids?

Also, if McNamee had the foresight to save Clemens's syringes, he would also have had the foresight to either a) take some untainted blood or b) maybe even slip him a syringe full of steroids from time to time.

Presumably McNamee had access to Clemens' blood through serendipitous ways. Perhaps Clemens accidentally scratched him for whatever reason and McNamee is there with a band aid. He then mixes it with steroids and hides it away. Should be interesting to see if a jury believes that. If you can remove the B12/lidocaine while keeping Clemens's DNA, a much more plausible theory could be created by Clemens.

I guess, but that requires an awful lot of forethought. If Clemens wasn't using, why would McNamee have wanted evidence he was, way back then?

I find it very hard to believe you could remove all traces of B12/lidocaine while keeping the DNA.

Kudos to all of you, from all of us who just couldn't stick with this one for all these years. Really.

I want to read interested opinions from those who still fight on, but I worried that there might be nobody left at this point....

I find it very hard to believe you could remove all traces of B12/lidocaine while keeping the DNA.

Why do you think there would be "traces of B12/lidocaine" in the first place? Is there some reason to think it would be around after 10 years?

McNamee kept syringes tainted with steroids while he was being investigated for distributing steroids?

Well, he intended those syringes for blackmailing purposes. He's a scum bucket after all.

I was wondering why someone would keep old syringes. Either a scum bucket--or someone with great foresight and heightened sense of self-preservation?

I guess, but that requires an awful lot of forethought. If Clemens wasn't using, why would McNamee have wanted evidence he was, way back then?

Well, why would he save the stuff to begin with?

His answer: "In case Clemens one day threw me under the bus."

The problem: It was McNamee who threw Clemens under the bus.

“He just said, ‘What are you talking about?’” Pettitte said. “I said, ‘Didn’t you tell me that, you used it?' ” He said Clemens told him, “I didn’t tell you that, I told you my wife Debbie used it.”

“Obviously, I was a little flustered because I thought he told me that he did,” Pettitte said. “I thought, it’s no good asking him or talking to him about this now and walked out.”

Did they argue? “There was nothing to argue about,” Pettitte said. “He said he didn’t use it.”

If Clemens is innocent, it's not hard to see how this conversation could have happened. In Clemens's mind, he never tells Pettitte he used HGH in 1999/2000. So when Pettitte approaches him in 2006, Clemens thinks to himself, "Huh? Oh, I must have told him that my wife used it [in 2003]."

Actually, even if Clemens is guilty... why would he immediately recall, in 2006, an obscure conversation that had happened half a decade earlier? People seem to be assuming that Clemens and Pettitte are each crystal clear in 2006 as to exactly what was discussed and what wasn't, to the point where Clemens immediately concocts this lie about having told Pettitte his wife had used HGH.

EDIT: From what I can see from scanning Clemens's committee deposition, in recalling the 2006 conversation he doesn't reference having told Pettitte, "No, I told you my wife used HGH." He basically just says he told Pettitte, "I'm going to tell the media the truth."

Options here:

another option would be to attack the testing crew. Attack their credentials, attack their credibility. Anything they did, anything they said in the past.

Or cast doubt on the test results. "What does it mean that the dna is CONSISTENT with that of Mr. Clemens? Does it mean no one else can have it? How close is other people's DNA anyhow?

Or if the jury decides they believe McNamee anyway. Which is why you should always invoke the fifth, even if you're innocent.

THis one sort of loses me. What does the 5th amendment have in common with McNamee? Explain to me again. Or is it that CLemens should not have said something that McNamee now contradicts.

Lately, we have seen a little more behind the federal veil here in DC. THere was the Ted Stevens case which seems to have created some sort of ethics lapse/investigation on the part of the FEds. THe CLemens first trial I guess was pretty goofy/arrogant mistake by prosecution; when you come to think of it. And something else I heard about evidence being withheld back in the 80s or 90s...

does anyone get the impression that a typical day at the courthouse is like shooting fish in a barrell for Federal prosecutors? And they get a really big fish like CLemens on the line. ANd they've been working this case for what 5 years and they really want a win? Is it possible they smell blood in the water, when the rest of the public opinion has passed them by some time ago?

No reason to "attack the testing crew." Not a single person is saying that they Clemens use steroids... except McNamee, a man with a long history of lying. Not a single piece of physical evidence exists... except as provided by McNamee, a man with a history of falsifying evidence.

Or cast doubt on the test results. "What does it mean that the dna is CONSISTENT with that of Mr. Clemens? Does it mean no one else can have it? How close is other people's DNA anyhow?

You only go down that path if you know it leads where you want it to. Otherwise it's like having OJ "try on" the glove.

Why do you think there would be "traces of B12/lidocaine" in the first place? Is there some reason to think it would be around after 10 years?

If the steroids and DNA survived 10 years, why wouldn't the other contents (if there were any)?

Well, why would he save the stuff to begin with?

His answer: "In case Clemens one day threw me under the bus."

The problem: It was McNamee who threw Clemens under the bus.

Right. But that logic works only if he was supplying Clemens with steroids. In that case, it's perfectly logical.

But, if McNamee was dealing to other people, but was only injecting Clemens with legal stuff, what's the logic behind saving syringes, and doctoring them with steroids, and just holding on to them? Blackmail fails as a motive, b/c you'd do that right away; Clemens had much more to lose while he was playing.

None of this is to say that bringing the case wasn't a ridiculous waste of time, money and effort. It was.

"What does it mean that the dna is CONSISTENT with that of Mr. Clemens? Does it mean no one else can have it? How close is other people's DNA anyhow?

Depends on the exact properties of the profile in question. Generally, it's at least several hundred million to one. Often higher. Certainly that part is waaay BARD.

Right. But that logic works only if he was supplying Clemens with steroids. In that case, it's perfectly logical.

Let's say Clemens is guilty, and that McNamee was injecting him with steroids.

What are the circumstances under which Clemens would throw McNamee under the bus by saying, "Yes, Mac injected me with steroids"? Because Clemens isn't just going to offer that information up without a reason.

* A criminal investigation. The government says to Clemens, "We know you used. We'll give you immunity if you finger McNamee." Clemens then fingers McNamee.... but how does it HELP McNamee to have saved the evidence of McNamee's guilt?

* Clemens blackmails McNamee. "I'm going to tell them you injected me unless you..." pay me the pittance that's in your bank account? What? But let's go with it. How does it HELP McNamee to have saved the evidence of McNamee's guilt?

The only way it possibly helps him is if he does it because _he_ would throw _Clemens_ under the bus. The government comes to him and says "We know you injected Roger. We'll cut you a deal if you finger him." Which is what happened. Now McNamee fingers Clemens, and Clemens denies it, and McNamee produces the syringes. But the problem is (a) it would be odd for McNamee to predict, years before the steroids issue erupts, that the government will go down the chain to target the users instead of the dealers. Would McNamee really risk storing evidence of his guilt in his home based on that hail mary? And (b) if McNamee is willing to save syringes to throw Clemens under the bus later, then he's probably willing to manufacture evidence to do the same, or for some other reason.

But, if McNamee was dealing to other people, but was only injecting Clemens with legal stuff, what's the logic behind saving syringes, and doctoring them with steroids, and just holding on to them? Blackmail fails as a motive, b/c you'd do that right away; Clemens had much more to lose while he was playing.

Hardin and Clemens have floated the theory that McNamee was trying to write a book about him. And, in fact, they have the manuscript.

The only way it possibly helps him is if he does it because _he_ would throw _Clemens_ under the bus. The government comes to him and says "We know you injected Roger. We'll cut you a deal if you finger him." Which is what happened. Now McNamee fingers Clemens, and Clemens denies it, and McNamee produces the syringes. But the problem is (a) it would be odd for McNamee to predict, years before the steroids issue erupts, that the government will go down the chain to target the users instead of the dealers. And (b) is McNamee is willing to save syringes to throw Clemens under the bus later, then he's probably willing to manufacture evidence to do the same, or for some other reason.

First, I agree with your (b). It's well within McNamee's character - based on what I know about it - to manufacture evidence. The key question, to me, is whether the science can tell us how likely that is.

But, as to the rest, I think it's important to remember that Brian McNamee isn't some evil criminal mastermind spending hours concocting his evil scheme, carefully constructing it to be sure it's foolproof. From what we know, he's kind of a schmoe, so not thinking things all the way through doesn't necessarily strike me as implausible. I could see him thinking it through in some sort of "underwear gnome" way - save Clemens's used syringe, ..., PROFIT! Blackmail, sell it on e-bay, I could see him thinking he could figure out that next part when the time came. Heck, maybe he just wanted a souvenir.

Blackmail fails as a motive, b/c you'd do that right away;

Clemens was McNamee's biggest source of income for several years. McNamee had chronic financial issues and is a scummy guy. I can imagine that he was always worried about the day when Clemens would no longer need him. This hush money could have been a pension plan for his post-Roger years.

I was wondering why someone would keep old syringes. Either a scum bucket--or someone with great foresight and heightened sense of self-preservation?

both.

Let's assume that Clemens knowingly used, why did McNamee keep the syringes all this time?
Just in case? Just in case he wanted to blackmail Roger? Just in case he got in legal trouble in the future and needed a bargaining chip? Given his background and history this is plausible. Of course given McNamee's background and history it is just as plausible that he doctored this stuff up later (which still likely requires him having stored a sample of Clemens' blood for some reason).

T.J. Quinn tweeted that "Pettitte just said he's only 50% sure he understood Clemens correctly when he said he used HGH." I would think that pretty much eliminates him as a useful witness under a "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard. It seems like it's going to have to come down to the syringe.

#46, he still needs some reason to save the stuff. Here's what he testified to in his deposition about why he saved it:

-------------

A I kept them -- well, because throughout my time with Roger Clemens, it was -- there was always somewhat in the back of my mind I distrusted him to a degree, and my gut feeling and my -- the fact that I was an ex-cop, I just felt -- and I think there were like bits and pieces coming out in the paper. I just felt that if I was going down, I wasn't going to go down alone because I never felt good about this. I never felt comfortable about it. I didn't promote it and I felt bad about it and I kept it.

Q What was going through your mind when you decided to deep? Did you anticipate some way in which you might need to use it in the future?

A I didn't anticipate it. And I didn't feel even good about keeping it. But I just had a gut feeling, I had a gut feeling about it. I can't explain that.

Q And what was your concern exactly? And how would retaining this stuff address that concern?

A My track record for trying to do the right thing for people and getting hurt and my family getting hurt and my gut feeling told me that I needed to protect myself.

...

Q Did you ever retain items like this that related to injections you provided to anyone other than Mr. Clemens?

A I believe -- I'm not 100 percent sure, but I believe -- can I take a second to talk to my attorneys real quick?

The Witness. I know that in that can there is another syringe and that is Clemens' and I think there is a GH, a growth hormone syringe in there that could be Clemens' or Knoblauch's. I'm not certain. But I might have kept Knoblauch's, just one, maybe. So I was thinking -- Knoblauch was with the Yankees in 2001 -- maybe one of Knoblauch's, or it could all be Roger's, or there is a diabetic type syringe in there that might be Knoblauch's.

Q Do you recall intending to save material related to Knoblauch? Is that what you were trying to do?

A Yeah, I kind of was thinking like -- I think there was an article written by -- there was an article in the paper -- see, I would have to check. But my thought pattern was, I think this stuff was coming out in baseball, like, it was getting more exposure and I just thought that I should cover myself. I had a gut feeling about it. I can't explain the gut thing, but yeah, I didn't -- you know what, I could have had a hundred of these things, I just did it towards the tail end of 2001 and that's it, it happened.

Q So with respect to Knoblauch, do you remember wanting to save material relating to him as well?

A Kind of.

Q Any other players?

A That's all I really know. Those guys are the only ones that I -- you know, Andy, it was in 2002, but how was I going to get the syringe back to -- I don't know. I don't think so.

Q Did you have a similar suspicion about Chuck Knoblauch that you said you felt about Roger Clemens?

A No, not similar, but --

Q So was there a different reason for saving Knoblauch's material?

A Yeah. I mean, it wasn't similar, but I didn't trust Knoblauch either. But he had other problems. He had other issues which could have blown up in his face.

Q Why did you save his stuff?

A I think because I could.

Q You said earlier it was to protect yourself.

A Yes.

Q Can you elaborate on that? You saved this material relating to Clemens because you figured you might need it to protect yourself. Is that essentially what you said?

A Yes, protect -- I was coming from my family and the career that I had built.

Q And can you just elaborate what you mean by that? How this material would help you protect yourself?

A Well, I shouldn't have been doing what I was doing. And to protect myself was -- I didn't -- there was no good relationship with agents. They are looking out for number one, their player. No one is going to look out for a trainer and my gut feeling so I could go on for maybe hours -- I don't know. My gut feeling is it is and --

Q Do you know -- other than the items depicted in this series of photographs, have you retained any other material relating to providing steroids or HGH to major league players?

A No.

Q Did you provide these materials to the Mitchell Commission?

A No, I didn't.

Q Did they ask for materials like this or corroborating evidence?

A I believe -- I don't think they did. I think they just elaborated on other player also in what I gave the Federal investigators.

...

Q Why didn't you provide this to the government sooner?

A I was trying not hurt the guy.

Q The guy is Roger Clemens?

A Roger Clemens.

Q Can you explain that?

A I felt awful for being in the situation I put myself into and I didn't want to be there, there was a feeling of betrayal and I guess as a police term ratting out somebody and holding on to this and not to giving it up to them is something I shouldn't have done but it made me at least feel good about it, it was the only thing I felt good about.

Q You had told the Federal investigators about Clemens' use; is that right?

A Yes.

Q But you withheld this physical evidence, but that distinction -- why did you draw the distinction there?

A My assumption was he was going to either -- he was going to deny it and it would go away with time post Mitchell release when he -- and I felt good about this because I thought this would have been more damning, and I tried to help him post release by talking to his private investigators and this is something that would have been damning and I was trying to be as honest with the Federal investigators and Senator Mitchell, but I didn't want to hurt him as bad as I could.

Q What made you change your mind? What prompted you to --

A He came after my family.

Q How did he do that?

A He released a tape about my son's medical condition on national TV.

Q So it was after seeing his press conference in January that you decided to --

A It was the very next day.

Q Release this evidence to the government?

A Yes.

T.J. Quinn tweeted that "Pettitte just said he's only 50% sure he understood Clemens correctly when he said he used HGH." I would think that pretty much eliminates him as a useful witness under a "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard.

Yes, that helps Clemens.

he still needs some reason to save the stuff

But he doesn't need to have a fully-formed, foolproof plan for what to do with it once he saved it. Reading that transcript, it sounds very much like I suggested: he hung on to something because he thought it might come in handy later - and, lo and behold, it did! (either way, as a convenient piece of evidence that McNamee's telling the truth, or as a convenient way to set up Clemens)

What's the law where McNamee was at the time he saved the syringes on doing something like that without the consent of client? Can violation of privacy factor in?

For what it's worth, here is what Clemens testified to in his committee deposition re the two conversations with Pettitte:

----------------------

Q Have you ever had a discussion with Andy Pettitte about anabolic steroids?

A I have not. Again, I don't -- I have not talked to Andy about growth hormones or steroids.

Q Not about human growth hormone either?

A Again, just in general, if there would have been the topic of the day or, you know, a conversation about it. But nothing in detail.

...

Q And I wanted to follow up on two particular areas with regard to that. I had asked you during my first round whether or not you had had any discussions or conversations with Andy Pettitte about HGH. And I wanted to know, did you want to expand on your answer to that question?

A I do. And when I say in depth, it would be like the HGH, or how it worked, or what it does for you or anything like that. From my understanding, what we talked about, that Andy Pettitte is trying to recall that he point blank asked me about using HGH. And I told -- I think he remembers that I told him that I did. And it never happened. The conversation, again, in my gym would have been something to the effect, the story about the men playing golf, having quality of life, being able to play golf, the older men that I think I talked about earlier. ... He would ask me other questions. Andy and I talked openly about Hydroxycut and Thermacor, which he took, I think, more often, more regularly than I did. We always talked about that. We would -- we talked about. I'm sure the subject came up when the young man died from Baltimore.

Mr. Hardin. She's asking if you ever had a conversation with him about HGH. Was there an incident in which you all had a conversation?

The Witness. The only other that I can bring in -- and I don't even think the conversation was -- that the word HGH was brought up. In 2006, towards the end of the season that we had the -- it's when The L.A. Times report surfaced, and the allegations came. And I remember Andy walking into the manager's office. I think Andy pitched the day before. And obviously this all makes sense to me now. Andy looked like he had seen a ghost and was wringing his hands in front of me and says, what are you going to tell them? And now it would make sense to me. And I went out there and told him, I told him exactly what the truth is, that I've never done any of this stuff, and I'm going to let them know. And I think if you get my -- the video highlights clips, whatever it might be on this subject, you'll see that. I was very upset about it. Of course, I had to -- again, I've got tire marks on my back from that story for a whole year that I've denied, and we now know it's not true.

...I know that I've heard different stories from Andy that, well, maybe I thought, maybe I did -- maybe this, maybe that. I've never told Andy Pettitte that I was using HGH. And if I did tell him that, he would have come to me again and asked me, because he would have thought that I was using it or that I had taken it after he had taken it, that he would have asked me about doing it. I'm convinced of it. It didn't happen. The conversation did not happen. There might have been something in general, again, about quality of life. So that's what I remember about that situation, but it was nothing in depth.

...I think she's asked me at the beginning, though, if I've had any conversations with Andy. Nothing in depth. The one in my gym other than about I know that some -- I had seen some older men had quality of life. That's -- I've seen a show. I don't think it was an article. I think it was a show.

Q So that was a very general conversation?

A There was nothing in depth, and really there was nothing in depth of the -- of course, it makes more sense to me now, but there was nothing in depth with the conversation in Atlanta. He just basically came down, sat on the couch. .....He basically, from what I can recall, said, what are you going to tell them? Because I was holding -- I said, I'm talking to the media. And I think that he knew he was going to have to answer to the media.

Q So you had previously said, I'm going to address these allegations?

A Of course. When this came out, of course you are going to have to answer to the media. When I leave here, I am going to have to answer to them. But I think he asked me what I was going to say, and I told him I was going out there to say the truth. And I -- again, I think if you ask Andy, he will recall that story also.

What's the law where McNamee was at the time he saved the syringes on doing something like that without the consent of client? Can violation of privacy factor in?

I'm pretty sure there's no trainer-athlete privilege. And merely "saving" the syringes wouldn't violate any privacy right anyway.

T.J. Quinn tweeted that "Pettitte just said he's only 50% sure he understood Clemens correctly when he said he used HGH." I would think that pretty much eliminates him as a useful witness under a "beyond a reasonable doubt" standard. It seems like it's going to have to come down to the syringe.

While I never thought Pettitte's testimony had much probative value, I do want to point out that this is a misapplication of the beyond a reasonable doubt standard. B.A.R.D. (or whatever evidentiary standard is applicable in a given situation) is applied to overall guilt, not to individual pieces of evidence. If Pettitte is 50% sure and that's the only evidence, it obviously means acquittal. If Pettitte is 50% sure and you have other evidence, then Pettitte's testimony bolsters that other evidence. To be sure, in this case, the "other evidence" is so shady that I don't think it matters.

The only way it possibly helps him is if he does it because _he_ would throw _Clemens_ under the bus. The government comes to him and says "We know you injected Roger. We'll cut you a deal if you finger him." Which is what happened. Now McNamee fingers Clemens, and Clemens denies it, and McNamee produces the syringes.

No, I think saving it would obviously be for blackmail, not for helping prosecute Clemens. For precisely the reason you describe: there would have been no reason to think at the time that the latter would ever come into play.

EDIT: Which would explain why McNamee was so inarticulate at trying to explain why he kept it. He couldn't rightly say, "I kept it for blackmail purposes."

Defense asked to toss Pettitte's testimony because he's not sure of the HGH conversation. They're going to brief the issue tonight, but I'd be shocked if the judge agrees to strike it.

No, I think saving it would obviously be for blackmail, not for helping prosecute Clemens. For precisely the reason you describe: there would have been no reason to think at the time that the latter would ever come into play.

Blackmail, or something to give the Feds if you get caught.

Defense asked to toss Pettitte's testimony because he's not sure of the HGH conversation. They're going to brief the issue tonight, but I'd be shocked if the judge agrees to strike it.

Is there potential damage, then, in asking for it to be tossed? Is there a danger it comes off as "strenuously objecting", essentially giving the court the opportunity to state the value of the testimony and thus make it seem more crucial than it actually is?

(And by citing A Few Good Men I demonstrate that IANAL.)

Blackmail, or something to give the Feds if you get caught.

But again, the latter doesn't really make sense, because McNamee would have to predict in advance that the government would suddenly start targeting the users.

If McNamee rightly thinks that the government is more interested in the dealers, then saving the evidence of his guilt only hurts him.

He has to have saved it for blackmail purposes. Or writing the book. Or whatever.

And I quoted his extensive answer above to show, also, that he didn't save anything w/r/t the other players. Yes, he thinks he "might have" saved one of Knoblauch's needles, but he's not sure.

Blackmail, or something to give the Feds if you get caught.

(1) As Ray pointed out above, McNamee would be saving evidence of his own guilt; if he were worried about "getting caught," that would seem an odd thing to do.
(2) At the time he supposedly did it, there would have been no reason to consider that a possibility anyway. First, the government wasn't interested in steroids at that time, and second, dealers don't generally get anything for flipping on users.

#61 and #62, I think y'all are giving McNamee too much credit. The fact that there's a logical flaw in what McNamee did (because we know for a fact that he saved a syringe (or something with Clemens's blood on it), right?) could just mean that McNamee did something stupid. Knowing what we know about McNamee, is this really a surprise?

(1) As Ray pointed out above, McNamee would be saving evidence of his own guilt; if he were worried about "getting caught," that would seem an odd thing to do.
(2) At the time he supposedly did it, there would have been no reason to consider that a possibility anyway. First, the government wasn't interested in steroids at that time, and second, dealers don't generally get anything for flipping on users.

Well, we all know McNamee is no genius. I do think that, dealer or not, he would have a reasonable belief that a prosecutor would care about ROGER CLEMENS user, a lot more than Joe Schmo dealer.

Well, we all know McNamee is no genius.

He seems to be smarter than Clemens or Pettitte, from a pure intelligence standpoint - though I don't want to derail the thread into a discussion of IQ and intelligence. It's just that - while Clemens is the one with a reputation of being generally dense, and it's for the most part earned - I've been surprised at how dumb and simpleminded Pettitte sounds when he speaks.

When they talk about pitching or baseball in general they obviously sound smart. But in general conversation -- granted testifying under oath is not that -- they sound particularly dumb.

Lol:

T.J. Quinn ? @TJQuinnESPN
Judge: "We're driving this jury crazy." Sick of all the interruptions and waiting around. Judge has dr appt, calling lunch break until 2.

If this case ends up with a cartoonish "Bonds result," Clemens will be acquitted on the accounts of lying about steroids/HGH, but convicted of lying about whether he knew George Mitchell was trying to reach him.

Well, we all know McNamee is no genius. I do think that, dealer or not, he would have a reasonable belief that a prosecutor would care about ROGER CLEMENS user, a lot more than Joe Schmo dealer.

Ironically, McNamee would have been correct in so believing -- but I don't think that belief would have been reasonable. Consider this: that has not happened to a single other athlete in this whole scandal. Even Bonds -- nobody at BALCO was given a deal for flipping on Bonds.

I find McNamee's reason for saving syringes somewhat plausible. What I think he is saying is that he wanted to having something "on Clemens" (i.e, blackmail or counter-blackmail) in case the relationship when sour. It is criminal blackmail to subtly let someone know that you could blackmail them or get them in trouble? Without, you know, actually asking for money?

Would be funny if the particular model of syringe or the type of beer can McNamee put the stuff in weren't on the market until 2007 or whatever.

Michael A. Scarcella ? @MikeScarcella
AG Eric Holder Jr., at press conference today, calls Roger #Clemens perjury case a "justified use of our resources." #DOJ #MLB

Does the Clemens investigation/trial have a price tag yet?

Is there somewhere we can talk about Junior Seau?

EIGHT member sof the1994 champion chargers are dead already. EIGHT. WTF?

Is there somewhere we can talk about Junior Seau?

EIGHT member sof the1994 champion chargers are dead already. EIGHT. WTF?

The NFL thread.

Granted, Rodney Culver died in that ValuJet crash, but point taken...

Is there somewhere we can talk about Junior Seau?

The NBA or NHL threads. Or in the lounge.

Jeff Novitzky is up now.

Hilarious from the McNamee Deposition:

Q And what was your concern exactly? And how would retaining this stuff address that concern?

A My track record for trying to do the right thing for people . . .

Like how he kept that semi-conscious girl in the pool from drowning while he was raping her. Yeah, real humanitarian.

Is there potential damage, then, in asking for it to be tossed? Is there a danger it comes off as "strenuously objecting", essentially giving the court the opportunity to state the value of the testimony and thus make it seem more crucial than it actually is?

It all depends on how much the jury heard of the motion, and how it was couched. Was the motion made in the presence of the jury? How much of the colloquy took place in the presence of the jury?

An uninformed column by Les Carpenter of Yahoo Sports. Did the journalists writing about this case just not bother to read Pettitte's deposition? Pettitte did not "backpedal on the witness stand." He testified exactly as expected. Attanasio did well to get Pettitte to agree to a number on how sure he was of the conversation (50-50), but Pettitte did not change his testimony at all. He didn't put a number on it when he testified the first time, because he wasn't asked to. His testimony was always more complex than Elijah Cummings and everyone else pretended it was.

Quoting now:

Prosecutors did not expect Pettitte to say the very thing Clemens has maintained all along, that he "misremembers" the 2002 conversation.

He said he *may have* misunderstood the conversation, and, yes, prosecutors did expect that, and the conversation was in 1999 or 2000.

When Clemens first spilled that word, everybody laughed. In a believability test of baseball players, Pettitte will always be chosen before Clemens. "Misremember" seemed to come from some fantasy world manufactured in Clemens's head. Now suddenly Pettitte was saying that Clemens might be right.

Once again, the government's attorneys who bungled the first Clemens trial last year are on their way to blowing the case.

...But how much does Pettitte know? It's hard to imagine his memory has turned hazy, yet Clemens is a hard man to defy.

...It must have been an intimidating sight for anyone there to send Clemens to prison: this vision of a staring Clemens listening to every word and taking notes. So when Attanasio tossed Pettitte a chance to escape the glare and come back to his old friend, Pettitte ran toward it.

Did Pettitte crack? Did he decide it was better to break the heart of the government than risk the ire of Roger Clemens? Or was this the plan all along: To answer the prosecutor's questions literally while hoping for something that could send him running back to Clemens's side?

Or maybe it was the ultimate act of friendship in a relationship broken by this case.

Whatever the reason, the man who came to put Roger Clemens in handcuffs, threw him a get-out-of-jail-free card instead.

Did Pettitte crack? Or does Les Carpenter simply not know how to do his job?

Even if you view the prosecution of ballplayers for drug use as completely insane, this case may turn out to be one to make some of these prosecutors look before they leap into the next one.

And while from a legal standpoint Clemens may have been crazy to openly challenge his accuser, in the long run---unless further developments or evidence is revealed, which seems doubtful---Clemens may actually benefit from having done so. With one key prosecution witness backtracking, and the other one's credibility hard to verify without any accompanying material evidence, at this point it's getting harder not to give Clemens the benefit of the doubt. Sometimes even the messiest of cases can turn out right in the end, even if none of us would ever want to live what Clemens has had to go through.

And kudos to those who saw through the government's case from the beginning, Ray and David in particular. I tended to lend more credibility to the prosecution's case than I should have to begin with, but the one saving grace of a trial like this is that eventually the more likely truth will come out. I just hope that the writers will let this case sink in, and bear it in mind when they start pontificating on players like Bagwell. That may be a futile hope, but hope springs eternal.

Great, now the Edit function's not working. Glad

It would be great if the writers would take this as a lesson, but more likely the story will be "and Clemens gets off anyway."

If Clemens is acquitted, the "story" will be that Pettitte cracked, as opposed to the prosecution going to showtrial on the back of a hopelessly non-credible witness. As choreographed by Les Carpenter above.

The world of a sportswriter has to be awesome. Take this case as an example:

1. Do your job so poorly that you assume a mistaken premise, i.e., that Pettitte's testimony is damning and rock solid.

2. When your mistaken premise meets reality, instead of seeing that you were mistaken all along, declare that Pettitte "cracked" and "backpedaled" and "threw his old friend" a "get-out-of-jail card" which "may have been Pettitte's ingenius plan all along."

3. Announce that Clemens "got off" because Pettitte backtracked.

And all the while the vast majority of your readership is as stupid or uninformed as you are, and so nobody is there to call you out on it. Instead, your readers nod in approval.

It's good work, if you can get it.

Other than scanning Ken Davidoff's pieces, I have not really been following the trial. Are most members of the media at the Federal courthouse baseball or judicial reporters?

I guess, but that requires an awful lot of forethought. If Clemens wasn't using, why would McNamee have wanted evidence he was, way back then?

Blackmail? Something to get him off with the feds when they caught him? "Hey, if you go easy on me, I can give you Roger Clemens."

It would be great if the writers would take this as a lesson, but more likely the story will be "and Clemens gets off anyway."

Exactly. After all, this McNamee guy seems trustworthy--he said Roger Clemens used HGH, and we all know that he did. Because this McNamee guy said so.

In a believability test of baseball players, Pettitte will always be chosen before Clemens.

Yet Pettitte is the one who has been caught lying in this whole thing.

"Misremember" seemed to come from some fantasy world manufactured in Clemens's head.

You'd think that a professional journalist would know that "misremember" is an actual word.

You'd think that a professional journalist would know that "misremember" is an actual word.

That's another thing that is bizarre about this whole thing. That reporters are so bad at their jobs that they don't understand that "misremember" is a word, and they make fun of Clemens for using it, mocking him for "making it up," when all the while the stupid is on them.

-----------
mis·re·mem·ber? ?/?m?sr??m?mb?r/ Show Spelled[mis-ri-mem-ber] Show IPA
verb (used with object), verb (used without object)
1. to remember incorrectly.
2. to fail to remember; forget.

Exactly. After all, this McNamee guy seems trustworthy--he said Roger Clemens used HGH, and we all know that he did. Because this McNamee guy said so.

Don't forget "I already know that Clemens is a dirty cheater, and this guy says it too, so it must be right."

That's another thing that is bizarre about this whole thing. That reporters are so bad at their jobs that they don't understand that "misremember" is a word, and they make fun of Clemens for using it, mocking him for "making it up," when all the while the stupid is on them.

That's the part that makes me most annoyed by this whole thing. It's the lamest "gotcha" ever.

Especially since "gotcha" isn't even a real word!

It's not like misremember sounds made up either, it sounds perfectly cromulent.

That's another thing that is bizarre about this whole thing. That reporters are so bad at their jobs that they don't understand that "misremember" is a word, and they make fun of Clemens for using it, mocking him for "making it up," when all the while the stupid is on them.

No, that's just general illiteracy on the sportswriters' part. What makes them "bad at their jobs" is that they never bothered to read Pettitte's deposition testimony, to the point where some of them were completely astonished that he testified that he wasn't sure, and accused him of suddenly changing his story.

Charles Robinson, the self-described "Senior Investigative Reporter" for Yahoo Sports, tweeted: "Stunned by Andy Pettite's agreement that it's "50-50" he may "misremember" his conversation w/ Clemens about HGH. Crushing blow to the feds." Yes, that's right: he was "stunned" that Pettitte testified exactly how he testified before.

"Misremember" seems to appear in quotes in every article that I see on this as well. It could just be to emphasize that this was exactly what Clemens said the first time, but it seems unnecessary. You could just as easily leave the quotes out and be just as accurate, which makes me think they're trying to make fun of him in some way.... for using a real word... correctly.

Edit to add:

No matter how much goes Clemens's way here, I'm just assuming that, in the end, they'll manage to pin something on him. That just seems to be the way the whole affair has gone.

No matter how much goes Clemens's way here, I'm just assuming that, in the end, they'll manage to pin something on him. That just seems to be the way the whole affair has gone.

Yeah, he'll get the Barry Bonds "we're convicting you of something minor for being a jackass" verdict.

One thing that is particularly striking when one steps back here is how awful an idea it was for Clemens to have the "I'm innocent" press conference, and then to testify. I have no idea of course what advice Hardin gave him about either of those, but in terms of protecting his client each of those separately (and certainly together) really come close to requiring walking away so that your client gets the message this is an awful idea, seems to me.

Re: #94 Clemens was subpoenaed to testify, so he didn't have a lot of choice. Also, I'm not sure if you're saying it was a bad idea because of possible legal problems or because of what it did to his reputation.

Re: #94 Clemens was subpoenaed to testify, so he didn't have a lot of choice.

I remember seeing an interview with Alan Dershowitz where he said he would have advised Clemens to take the 5th. He said he knew it was a lousy thing to do from a PR perspective but from the legal perspective letting him testify was a huge mistake.

Re: #94 Clemens was subpoenaed to testify, so he didn't have a lot of choice. Also, I'm not sure if you're saying it was a bad idea because of possible legal problems or because of what it did to his reputation.

The lawyers can better handle the legal question, but from a reputational standpoint, Clemens is better off now than he was before he proclaimed his innocence. Obviously there are writers / fans who have their minds made up irrevocably and will refuse to consider what we've seen in the past few days, and perhaps nothing will ever bring Clemens back to where he was before the government and McNamee came along. But for those of us who aren't in the camp of "accusation = certain guilt" or "no legal conviction = innocence", the way this trial has proceeded so far has gone a long way to move the narrative in the direction of Clemens' version of the story.

Again, some people grasped the shakiness of Pettitte's original testimony a lot faster than others. And it's certainly possible that Clemens is still lying. But with everything that's come out to date, it's hard for me not to think that Clemens has been vindicated.

One thing that is particularly striking when one steps back here is how awful an idea it was for Clemens to have the "I'm innocent" press conference, and then to testify. I have no idea of course what advice Hardin gave him about either of those, but in terms of protecting his client each of those separately (and certainly together) really come close to requiring walking away so that your client gets the message this is an awful idea, seems to me.

The Congressional hearing and committee deposition was a perjury trap, and everyone knew it. I would be utterly shocked if Hardin didn't tell him so. Hardin obviously did.

I don't really see that the press conference got him in any hot water legally. If it (and the Mike Wallace interview, etc.) egged Congress towards the sham hearing, that's still an issue of it being a bad idea, legally speaking, to appear at the sham hearing.

Re: #94 Clemens was subpoenaed to testify, so he didn't have a lot of choice.

He wasn't actually subpoenaed, but he was certain to be.

The lawyers can better handle the legal question, but from a reputational standpoint, Clemens is better off now than he was before he proclaimed his innocence. Obviously there are writers / fans who have their minds made up irrevocably and will refuse to consider what we've seen in the past few days,

"What we have seen in the past few days" was absolutely nothing new. There was no Perry Mason Moment. Andy Pettitte did not break down on the stand, or backpedal, or decide to protect his old friend. He testified exactly as he was expected to.

and perhaps nothing will ever bring Clemens back to where he was before the government and McNamee came along. But for those of us who aren't in the camp of "accusation = certain guilt" or "no legal conviction = innocence", the way this trial has proceeded so far has gone a long way to move the narrative in the direction of Clemens' version of the story.

And that's what's so frustrating. That "those of you" who weren't paying attention before, yet drew conclusions anyway, now suddenly think you're seeing something new.

You claim not to be in the camp of "accusation = certain guilt," but how much better is the camp you're in, Andy, when it took you four years to wake up to the fact that Pettitte's testimony wasn't as certain as it was portrayed? You weren't giving Clemens the benefit of the doubt before; if you had been, you'd have bothered to learn the facts.

And if I seem harsh here, it's because people like you brought us to this point. (Yes, you'll sneer at this, and go right ahead. I will not accept your professed Fair Mindedness on this issue, not when you've refused to treat amps users of past generations the same as you've treated steroids users of this generation.)

In actuality, it's been the people who don't hold steroids use against a player who have been most informed on this issue.

Again, some people grasped the shakiness of Pettitte's original testimony a lot faster than others. And it's certainly possible that Clemens is still lying. But with everything that's come out to date, it's hard for me not to think that Clemens has been vindicated.

Actually, he hasn't been "vindicated" at all. It's just that people are now realizing that the case against him isn't as strong as they had thought.