BBTF's Newsblog Discussion :: Jeff Novitzky has party pictures of Roger Clemens at Jose Canseco’s home

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

Sunday, April 06, 2008

Jeff Novitzky has party pictures of Roger Clemens at Jose Canseco’s home

Clemens, Canseco and Novitzky, what a threesome.

Jim Furtado Posted: April 06, 2008 at 01:58 PM | 56 comment(s) Login to Bookmark
Tags: steroids

Reader Comments and Retorts

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.

1. Rich Posted: April 06, 2008 at 02:11 PM (#2732441)

The issue may turn on what the meaning of party is...

2. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: April 06, 2008 at 03:42 PM (#2732488)

The Daily News I-Team™ scores another earth-shattering scoop!

Canseco and Clemens were only teammates for six months. So linking them together at this particular party is crucial to the government's case. These photos, which the I-Team says "may" be from "the infamous party," are both men's one-way ticket to the Gray Bar Hotel.

And no matter what Rusty "Matlock" Hardin (©2007 Mike Lupica) might say, there is legal precedent for this. In 1919, Congress sent Eugene Debs to prison for misremembering his central role in bringing the soda to a clambake at Bart Vanzetti's house.

3. Tim Stauffer, Trot Nixon's Coming (Dan Lee) Posted: April 06, 2008 at 03:55 PM (#2732501)

In 1919, Congress sent Eugene Debs to prison for misremembering his central role in bringing the soda to a clambake at Bart Vanzetti's house.

I'd be interested to hear what Jack Keefe recalls about the Debs clambake incident.

4. Moneyball can't buy you love (Joey B.) Posted: April 06, 2008 at 06:15 PM (#2732621)

When are all the resident Lionel Hutzes of Baseball Think Factory going to jump in here to tell us once again that these photographs don't really exist because nobody has ever seen them?

5. CrosbyBird Posted: April 06, 2008 at 08:47 PM (#2732891)

The problem isn't whether the photographs exist, but whether or not they can be proven to have been taken on the day of the party.

This isn't any sort of conspiracy theory crap like photoshopped photographs which I think would be pretty ridiculous as a rebuttal theory.

6. Voros McCracken, Human Shield Posted: April 06, 2008 at 09:11 PM (#2732906)

Of everyone involved in this steroids stuff, the only person whose behavior really worries me is Novitzky. An agent of the government setting out to "get" non-violent people bothers me, but that he can freely admit it and remain secure in his position (and even applauded in some corners) is what bothers me.

In a sane world, steroids would be legal and abusing government power to punish people you don't like would be grounds for dismissal and possible prosecution.

7. Moneyball can't buy you love (Joey B.) Posted: April 06, 2008 at 09:14 PM (#2732910)

The problem isn't whether the photographs exist, but whether or not they can be proven to have been taken on the day of the party.

I've seen people here openly question on past threads whether or not they really exist.

Assuming that they actually do exist and that Novitzky has them in his possession, this almost certainly means that the kid who was eleven at the time (and would be twenty or twenty-one today) voluntarily came forward to the authorites to tell them that he was at the party, met both Clemens and Canseco there, and had photographic evidence that could back him up. I can't imagine any other way the government could have possibly have come into possession of the photos.

Why would the kid do such a thing? Who knows, maybe it was too painful for him to watch one of his boyhood heroes sitting there committing perjury left and right and lying through his teeth in front of him and a national audience.

In any event, since he released the photos I assume that he's probably going to be willing to testify under oath if he's asked to. And in a truth battle between this guy and his photos versus a couple of dirtbags like Clemens and Canseco, it's going to be a no-brainer.

An agent of the government setting out to "get" non-violent people bothers me, but that he can freely admit it and remain secure in his position (and even applauded in some corners) is what bothers me.

Novitzky has never freely admitted that he is out to "get" anyone. This is nothing but a pure fabrication.

8. Joe Bivens, Idiot Posted: April 06, 2008 at 09:21 PM (#2732913)

this almost certainly means that the kid who was eleven at the time (and would be twenty or twenty-one today) voluntarily came forward to the authorites to tell them that he was at the party, met both Clemens and Canseco there, and had photographic evidence that could back him up. I can't imagine any other way the government could have possibly have come into possession of the photos.

This is fine, if Canseco only had one party at that residence. What if he had more than one? Do you think the eleven year old knew what party he attended, and what went on there?

9. Moneyball can't buy you love (Joey B.) Posted: April 06, 2008 at 09:31 PM (#2732920)

This is fine, if Canseco only had one party at that residence. What if he had more than one? Do you think the eleven year old knew what party he attended, and what went on there?

I think a normal eleven year old American boy is certainly going to remember being at a party at Canseco's house in a swimming pool with Roger Clemens. This isn't exactly something that happens every day, and is the sort of thing a kid remembers the rest of his life.

10. Joe Bivens, Idiot Posted: April 06, 2008 at 09:32 PM (#2732923)

I know, Joey, but what if it was a different party than the one Clemens says he didn't attend?

11. Rich Rifkin I Posted: April 06, 2008 at 10:04 PM (#2732940)

Jose's follow-up book: "Convicted: Big Names, Big Liars, and The Battle to Save My Ass from Jail"

12. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: April 06, 2008 at 10:06 PM (#2732941)

Even the fully committed Daily News I-Team's coverage of the blockbuster discovery is littered with phraseology like "a statement indicates..." "...seems to suggest..." "...may have been present after all..." "...Justice Department could investigate..." "...that may link..." "...may have even used..." "...apparently attended..." "...may have stopped by..." and "...I don't know if..."

The fundamental problem is that the photos are unlikely to have little timestamped sound files attached to them along the lines of "I, Roger Clemens, am eager to solicit and follow your, Jose Canseco's, advice on illegal steroid use on this fine June (*) afternoon in 1998." (*Or whenever.) Barring that, all the photos "prove" regarding McNamee's allegations about what occurred at the party is that baseball players refract light.

Again, these two players were teammates for half a year. But it's this one specific afternoon that represents their window of opportunity to have discussed PEDs? Thus vindicating McNamee? Canseco and Clemens could have the kid on their shoulders holding up the front page of that day's Oakland Tribune, and it's not ever going to lead to a "truth battle" between an idealist young shutterbug and "a couple of dirtbags."

13. Moneyball can't buy you love (Joey B.) Posted: April 06, 2008 at 10:06 PM (#2732942)

I know, Joey, but what if it was a different party than the one Clemens says he didn't attend?

I don't know exactly what sort of notion you're trying to spin up here, but it sounds rather preposterous to me.

14. Rich Rifkin I Posted: April 06, 2008 at 10:17 PM (#2732951)

"Again, these two players were teammates for half a year."

1995 -- Clemens and Canseco played together in Boston for a full season
1998 -- Clemens and Canseco played together in Toronto for a full season
2000 -- Clemens and Canseco played together in New York for a partial season

15. E., Hinske Posted: April 06, 2008 at 10:27 PM (#2732957)

I know, Joey, but what if it was a different party than the one Clemens says he didn't attend?

I don't know exactly what sort of notion you're trying to spin up here, but it sounds rather preposterous to me.

Agree with Joey. Every party that I've ever attended (or not attended) was at a different locale with an entirely different group of people.

16. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: April 06, 2008 at 10:53 PM (#2732972)

"Again, these two players were teammates for half a year."
1998 -- Clemens and Canseco played together in Toronto for a full season

That's the one I was referring to; i.e. the half a year from March through September 1998.

1995, which I'd forgotten about, just makes the alleged momentousness of the alleged "party huddle" more fragile.

17. Moneyball can't buy you love (Joey B.) Posted: April 06, 2008 at 10:55 PM (#2732973)

Agree with Joey. Every party that I've ever attended (or not attended) was at a different locale with an entirely different group of people.

That's pretty cute, but seriously, if someone is going to try to spin up the idea that the unknown kid and McNamee are talking about two different parties at Canseco's house, I don't think either the government or a jury of peers is going to buy that silly bullcrap any more than I do.

18. Rich Rifkin I Posted: April 06, 2008 at 11:05 PM (#2732979)

Gonfalon -- apparently, this party happened the last day of S.T. in Florida, just prior to the 1998 season. It was the only party Canseco hosted that spring for his teammates. The 11-year-old photographer supposedly said he was at that party, not at any other party. And he supposedly said that at that party he took the picture in question. As such, this is either a fraud (which seems doubtful) or a clear refutation of the claim that Clemens was not at Canseco's party. It's completely unreasonable to assume that it was a party at Canseco's house on some other date. Nevertheless, it would be interesting to learn that Ozzie Canseco (Jose's identical twin) was at the party and that the confusion stems from mistaken identity.

19. CONservative governMENt Posted: April 06, 2008 at 11:23 PM (#2732988)

They should put people like Clemens behind bars is where they belong.

20. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: April 06, 2008 at 11:42 PM (#2732997)

Just to clarify: Which one of Jose and Ozzie is the evil twin?

21. CONservative governMENt Posted: April 06, 2008 at 11:56 PM (#2733004)

Just to clarify: Which one of Jose and Ozzie is the evil twin?

Which ever one it is needs to grow a goatee asap!

22. Lassus Posted: April 07, 2008 at 12:08 AM (#2733008)

Barring that, all the photos "prove" regarding McNamee's allegations about what occurred at the party is that baseball players refract light.

You obviously never read what Bat-Girl had to say about Mark Buehrle:

http://www.bat-girl.com/archives/001116.php

23. E., Hinske Posted: April 07, 2008 at 12:41 AM (#2733020)

...apparently, this party happened the last day of S.T. in Florida, just prior to the 1998 season. It was the only party Canseco hosted that spring for his teammates. The 11-year-old photographer supposedly said he was at that party, not at any other party.

Well, it would seem then, that much to Joey's stunned disbelief, that we're talking about two different parties then. From McNamee's deposition:

Q Let me ask you to turn to page 168 and look at the bottom paragraph where it reads, on or about June 8th to 10th, 1998, the Toronto Blue Jays played an away series with the Florida Marlins. McNamee attended a lunch party that Canseco hosted at his home in Miami. McNamee stated that during this luncheon he observed Clemens, Canseco and another person he did not know meeting inside Canseco's house, although McNamee did not personally attend that
meeting. Do you recall this party at Mr. Canseco's house?

A Yes.

24. Moneyball can't buy you love (Joey B.) Posted: April 07, 2008 at 12:54 AM (#2733026)

I don't recall ever reading anywhere that the party in question was on the last day of spring training. I've always read it as being in June.

Which certainly makes more sense to me for a pool party and barbecue, though in Miami I guess you could do one of those in late March or early April.

25. Gambling Rent Czar Posted: April 07, 2008 at 01:23 AM (#2733042)

i am in 99% agreement with #6.

the other 1% is this sad war between the New York Daily News, the SF Fran Chronicle, and the LA Times to see who can smear the most baseball players, as quickly as possible.

facts be damned.

we got deadlines!

26. Belfry Bob Posted: April 07, 2008 at 04:23 AM (#2733154)

Is it true that all three are wearing masks over their faces and dark socks?

27. Rich Rifkin I Posted: April 07, 2008 at 05:04 AM (#2733168)

28. Rich Rifkin I Posted: April 07, 2008 at 05:05 AM (#2733169)

"I don't recall ever reading anywhere that the party in question was on the last day of spring training."

I stand corrected. This was the one Blue Jays team party Jose Canseco held at his house in June, 1998.

29. baudib Posted: April 07, 2008 at 05:13 AM (#2733172)

It was bad enough when Tyrol lied under oath, but at least he was protecting his sleeper cylon agent lover. They can't let Clemens get away with this.

30. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: April 07, 2008 at 09:27 AM (#2733193)

When are all the resident Lionel Hutzes of Baseball Think Factory going to jump in here to tell us once again that these photographs don't really exist because nobody has ever seen them?

Look, Sock, if you're too stupid to understand that forming a conclusion without evidence does not become vindicated if evidence is later discovered that supports the conclusion, then you're really too stupid to live. And please don't ever vote.

Oh, and who do you think has seen these alleged photographs? Not any person ever quoted, on the record or anonymously. The previous stories quoted Emery. This story quotes Canseco's attorney.

I wonder if Sock got all excited when McCarthy held up a piece of paper and claimed that he held in his hand a list of names. I mean, it's a piece of paper! Nobody saw it, but it must have proved what McCarthy said, because, after all, there was in fact a piece of paper there!

That's pretty cute, but seriously, if someone is going to try to spin up the idea that the unknown kid and McNamee are talking about two different parties at Canseco's house, I don't think either the government or a jury of peers is going to buy that silly bullcrap any more than I do.

Well, Sock, jurors take an oath to decide a case based on the facts presented to them; those who have decided that someone is guilty two years ago, before any evidence was presented or any accusation was even made -- that's when the sock-wielder decided, so you must have too -- don't get to sit on juries.

31. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: April 07, 2008 at 09:45 AM (#2733195)

Just to be clear, now that we're done dealing with the lunatic fringe of the discussion: it is possible that a lot of people were lying or mistaken, and McNamee telling the truth, when the issue of whether Clemens was at a party was discussed. It is possible that photographs exist which prove the truth of McNamee's claims and the falsity of other people's claims. It is possible that Novitzky is in possession of these photographs.

But until someone with firsthand knowledge of the contents of these photographs actually says that they exist and prove McNamee's version of events, no rational person can sit there and form conclusions about them. (The fact that such a person with firsthand knowledge makes such a claim doesn't mean that this person isn't lying or mistaken, but the fact that no such person makes such a claim does mean that there's nothing to discuss.)

32. villainx Posted: April 07, 2008 at 10:12 AM (#2733197)

Do you think the eleven year old knew what party he attended, and what went on there?

Depends if Ms. Canseco showed her boobs?

33. RB in NYC (Now with New iPhone!) Posted: April 07, 2008 at 11:15 AM (#2733202)

I gotta say, if you're 11 years old, that's an awesome party. Not only do you get to meet Jose Canseco and Roger Clemens, but you also get to see boobs. Doesn't get much better than that.

34. Belfry Bob Posted: April 07, 2008 at 02:04 PM (#2733272)

You mean meeting boobs AND seeing boobs, right?

35. villageidiom Posted: April 07, 2008 at 03:05 PM (#2733316)

But until someone with firsthand knowledge of the contents of these photographs actually says that they exist and prove McNamee's version of events, no rational person can sit there and form conclusions about them.

Right.

the fact that no such person makes such a claim does mean that there's nothing to discuss.

Wrong.

36. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: April 07, 2008 at 03:18 PM (#2733326)

VI: we can discuss it in the hypothetical, of course; "If the pictures exist, then such-and-such." I meant that there's nothing to discuss from the point of view that Sock was taking, of "Ha ha I was right."

37. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: April 07, 2008 at 03:21 PM (#2733332)

I gotta say, if you're 11 years old, that's an awesome party. Not only do you get to meet Jose Canseco and Roger Clemens, but you also get to see boobs. Doesn't get much better than that.

You mean meeting boobs AND seeing boobs, right?

And all four of them artifically enhanced!

38. Shredder Posted: April 07, 2008 at 05:09 PM (#2733476)

Look, Sock

Alright, someone want to explain "sock" to me? Was Joey caught using a sock puppet?

39. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: April 07, 2008 at 05:14 PM (#2733484)

No; being one. Joey's only role on Primer is to parrot what Kevin says about steroids, only less coherently, as hard as such a feat is to believe.

40. Moneyball can't buy you love (Joey B.) Posted: April 07, 2008 at 06:35 PM (#2733613)

I've got to give you credit Niepothead, no matter how often you turn out to be completely wrong, you keep showing up here to embarrass yourself again and again and again.

Say, how's your buddy Barry Bonds doing this season? I can't seem to find his numbers anywhere.

41. Moneyball can't buy you love (Joey B.) Posted: April 07, 2008 at 06:55 PM (#2733661)

42. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: April 07, 2008 at 07:00 PM (#2733672)

"former cyclist Tammy Thomas was convicted on three counts of perjury and one count of obstruction of justice"

I read that she got hair on her chest from all the drugs she was taking. That's just nasty.

43. JPWF13

Posted: April 07, 2008 at 07:17 PM (#2733724)

I read that she got hair on her chest from all the drugs she was taking. That's just nasty.

Remember when Joe Piscopo did those beer commercials saying he was with the East German Women's Olympic Swimming Team????

44. Shooty: Applying to be Fearless Leader

Posted: April 07, 2008 at 07:21 PM (#2733734)

Remember when Joe Piscopo did those beer commercials saying he was with the East German Women's Olympic Swimming Team????

Ironically, I bet he did/does more steroids than they did. Carrot Top and Piscopo should throw down. Fox needs to make this happen for us.

45. Boots Day Posted: April 07, 2008 at 07:44 PM (#2733771)

46. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: April 07, 2008 at 07:51 PM (#2733778)

Oh, God, it's even worse than I remembered:

Tom McVay, a tester for the U.S. Anti-Doping Agency, told a jury in U.S. District Court in San Francisco that on March 14, 2002, he was assigned to locate Thomas at the Olympic Training Center in Chula Vista, east of San Diego, and collect a urine sample for a steroid test.

The visit was memorable, McVay said, because of Thomas' appearance when she answered his knock on her apartment door.

"It appeared to be like shaving cream on the left side of her face around her ear," he said.
[...]
Thomas had a deep voice, full beard, chest hair and even signs of male pattern baldness, Dr. Margaret Weirman testified. -SF Chronicle

47. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: April 07, 2008 at 07:54 PM (#2733780)

P.S.: Oh, by the way Niepothead, did you happen to notice that on Friday, former cyclist Tammy Thomas was convicted on three counts of perjury and one count of obstruction of justice?
You're a lawyer, so you certainly know what this means, don't you? Yep, that's right: she's going to prison, just like Marion Jones, Dana Stubblefield, and most likely Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens at some point as well. By my count, that's Jeff Novitzky three, drug cheats zero. Sucks for you and your ilk to constantly be on the losing end, huh?

Take that, all you women's cycling apologists!

Other people will know the legal details better than me, but Tammy Thomas had failed two drug tests, was banned for life by her sport, and two of her drug suppliers testified against her. Barry Bonds has never failed a steroid/HGH test, and Greg Anderson and Victor Conte are on Bonds' side as witnesses. Also, the feds didn't initially botch Thomas' indictment. Which may or may not be important in the long run but does indicate a certain lack of precision that can't be a confidence-builder for those applauding Bonds' doom.

After batting approximately .150 on Barry Bonds predictions to date, though, I guess your, ahem, ilk are grateful for whatever you can get.

48. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: April 07, 2008 at 08:01 PM (#2733791)

These pictures at Jose Canseco's house remind me of the Rose Law Firm billing records. They are completely tangential to the issue at hand, and are proof of nothing of any importance, but people have decided that if these pictures exist, Roger Clemens must have taken PEDs.
But if they are found to exist, what exactly do they show? That Clemens went to Canseco's house? That he misremembered the occasion for which he was there? That he'd rather lie than show any sort of connection with Jose Canseco? How do you get from that to "Roger Clemens took steroids"?

There's no reason to think the photos don't exist. But the jump isn't just from the existence of the party photos to "Roger Clemens took steroids," but all the way to "it was shortly before or after this photograph that Roger Clemens had an unrecorded conversation with an unnamed third person which led to Clemens using steroids." And then Clemens has to be indicted on the inference. Uh huh, good luck with that.

49. Moneyball can't buy you love (Joey B.) Posted: April 07, 2008 at 08:06 PM (#2733801)

After batting approximately .150 on Barry Bonds predictions to date, though, I guess your, ahem, ilk are grateful for whatever you can get.

You're not too much better at math than you are at reading the tea leaves. And speaking of Bonds, I still can't find his numbers on the season anywhere.

Stay in that bubble of yours, bubble.

50. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: April 07, 2008 at 08:12 PM (#2733825)

Other people will know the legal details better than me, but Tammy Thomas had failed two drug tests, was banned for life by her sport, and two of her drug suppliers testified against her. Barry Bonds has never failed a steroid/HGH test, and Greg Anderson and Victor Conte are on Bonds' side as witnesses.

Exactly. In fact, there's really no similarities between the cases. Thomas had clearly used steroids -- she had failed actual drug tests taken under controlled conditions, and had done so on multiple occasions, and actual witnesses had testified against her on this point -- and so was reduced to making desperate arguments:

Thomas's attorney, Ethan Balogh, said the substances she took weren't banned until a year after her grand jury testimony and that Arnold's girlfriend, not Arnold, sent her substances. He also said Thomas's testimony about Arnold wasn't influential to the grand jury because the panel was investigating Balco's owners, not Arnold.

Claiming that your testimony wasn't material is a hail mary in perjury cases; even if true, you're basically hinting to the jury that it should ignore your lies in a case in which you were charged with perjury. Very tough sell. (Even so, Thomas actually was acquitted on two counts.) She was also making some legalistic arguments -- that she didn't lie when she said she didn't get drugs from Arnold because she actually got them from Arnold's girlfriend, who got them from Arnold. Another tough sell to a jury.

In the case of Bonds, however, he's arguing that he didn't lie at all. And at present nobody -- not Conte, Arnold, Anderson -- is contradicting him.

51. Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Griffin (Vlad) Posted: April 07, 2008 at 08:13 PM (#2733826)

"Stay in that bubble of yours, bubble."

An echo, suddenly silenced.

52. David Nieporent (now, with children) Posted: April 07, 2008 at 08:15 PM (#2733831)

There's no reason to think the photos don't exist.

Correction: there's no reason to think that some photos don't exist. Whether these photos are "the photos" which actually show Clemens at a party at Canseco's house is another story.

But the jump isn't just from the existence of the party photos to "Roger Clemens took steroids," but all the way to "it was shortly before or after this photograph that Roger Clemens had an unrecorded conversation with an unnamed third person which led to Clemens using steroids." And then Clemens has to be indicted on the inference. Uh huh, good luck with that.

Hey, if Clemens is caught in this lie, he'd only have about 15 more to go before he caught up to McNamee's total.

53. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: April 07, 2008 at 08:32 PM (#2733875)

And speaking of Bonds, I still can't find his numbers on the season anywhere.

Don't ever quit with that line, Joey, it's classic comedy.
I couldn't find you his 2008 batting average or home runs, but I found some other Barry Bonds stats:

$15,533,970.00-- the amount Bonds lost in 2007 because "no team would sign him."
~450-- the number of days Greg Anderson spent in jail before finally agreeing to be a hostile witness against Bonds.
0-- the number of 755-HR hitters who dignified the Bonds celebration with their participation.
0-- the number of "countdown" games attended by Bud Selig.
42,497-- the number of Padres fans who deafeningly booed Bonds' 755th home run, as predicted.
708-- Bonds' lifetime home run total, after his ruined knees gave out and ended his career.

54. phredbird

Posted: April 07, 2008 at 11:19 PM (#2734258)

Carrot Top and Piscopo should throw down

eeuw.

55. Gonfalon Bubble Posted: April 08, 2008 at 11:09 PM (#2735731)

Carrot Top and Joe Piscopo are the comedy equivalent of Mike Morse and Carlos Almanzar.

56. Der Komminsk-sar Posted: April 08, 2008 at 11:47 PM (#2735771)

For some reason this headline makes me think of Wyckyd Sceptre.

You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.

<< Back to main

Sunday, April 06, 2008

Jeff Novitzky has party pictures of Roger Clemens at Jose Canseco’s home

Reader Comments and Retorts

Support BBTF

Bookmarks

Hot Topics