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 0.7777 seconds
54 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.
1. Shooty: Applying to be Fearless LeaderMitchell's office made a request to the US Attorneys office to interview McNamee, Radomski (and possibly others). The USAO agreed to the request provided that McNamee tell the truth. While he has not stated anything directly, it appears that McNamee thought that cooperation with Mitchell would continue to help his cause.
Spare me the pathetic sight of 45 year old men whining on how they wanted to steer athlete to "safer" drugs. They are still illegal and dangerous. You could have said no and live an honest although poorer life. But nnnoooo!!!
Here's hoping McNamee and Clemens (along with Michael Vick and Jim Leyritz) spend a few years in prison getting something in the butt besides "B-12" shots.
Ageism! And possibly sexism as well!
I know the article is more than that, but how exclusive can someone standing by their story be?
If you read the whole Mitchell Report (which assumes that, like me, you have no life) a very strong picture emerges of the sales pitch of steroid dealers. You talk to player X who says he's pumping himself full of crude anabolics, wow him with your knowledge of various drugs with some commentary on what is "safe" an what isn't, and he quickly becomes your customer. In some instances the pitch actually is that some drugs are safer to use than others in terms of side effects and whatnot, but it's inescapable that the pitch is more about what is safe in terms of detectibility.
From the bits that I heard, that was a pretty pathetic phone call on both ends -- both sounded like 12 yo boys whose parents told them to make up. I assume that Clemens informed McNamee that he was taping, true?
It was somewhat pathetic. My view was that Roger was (rightfully) coached to avoid saying anything that could be construed as tampering or coercion, so erred on the side of saying nothing (and God knows after last night's performance, he is inclined to be a loose cannon, so it had to be difficult for him to say nothing). I think McNamee is truly in an awful place right now and his life sounds like a trainwreck.
He did not have to. In Texas and New York, only one party needs to be aware that you are taping the call.
@6
kevin, that's what passes for "RDF" in your tainted little brain? A bit of obvious and juvenile humor about prison rape?
When I got home from work, New York 1 was showing Roger Clemens at a desk listening to the tape. It was very surreal. I don't think the tape does Roger any good, either. Why would McNamee have to go to jail for him unless he was going to refuse to testify or if he was going to perjure himself? Bizarre that Clemes would play that tape is if it were an exoneration. Barry Bonds is as smooth as Stringer Bell compared to Clemens' act.
Is that the general opinion? It seemed more like calculated outrage on Clemens' part to me. He was surprisingly coherent for a man supposedly disgusted and in a blind rage. But then, I am a bit of a cynic.
Its going to get interesting 2012 if Bonds doesn't catch on anywhere. 7 time cy winner and 7 time MVP both on the ballot. Will either of them get in first try..
In fairness to Clemens, I think he played that tape because the press had been reported, ~"a phone call between Clemens and McNamee on Friday where Roger broke down into tears." There was a tone being used that made it sound like Roger was breaking down and confessing his sins.
In some instances the pitch actually is that some drugs are safer to use than others in terms of side effects and whatnot
McNamee: Rocket, I'll get you some safe drugs. If you use that sh1t Bonds is using, a third ear will grow out of your forehead. You may not be able to pull tractors with your teeth on my stuff, but its better than this bottle of Canseco juice you gave me.
everyone in the MSM is screaming for tough questions of Clemens, and yet Heyman goes over to McNamee's house for the evening, and watches him troll the internet
Do you really want fill our jails and prisons with casual drug users who hurt no one but themselves, so we can release thugs and rapists early due to "overcrowding"? Oh, wait, we already do that!
What is Clemens trying to establish playing that tape? That somehow McNamee was coerced, that McNamee doesn't exactly have it all together and is under lot of pressure? Cos I don't see how that tape is generating any sympathy or positive press cuttings for Clemens.
Link
-- Brian McNamee
Roger might have saved himself by saying the same thing...
You're a sick piece of garbage. Prison assault is a serious and horrible thing. Nobody...NOBODY...deserves some extra-legal punishment for their crimes beyond the sentence determined by judge and jury. Our constitution also protects people from cruel and unusual punishment, and yet you are advocating physical assault and rape as a punishment for a steroid pusher and an accused steroid user. Cheering prison rape/assault is the same as cheering lynching. Go #### yourself.
Clemens' lawyer seems like a smarter cookie than I am (certainly more experienced) but in the handful of cases I have had in which there has been media interest, I have found that there is very little upside to publicity of any kind. You can never get your message out just the way you want it, and it almost always comes back to bite you in some way later.
Of course, I'm usually interested in, you know, defending lawsuits. For Clemens, on the other hand, the PR war is everything, with the lawsuit being the petty annoyance which he probably wishes would go away (I think he jumped the gun in filing it, thinking he had to in order to thwart McNamee's threatened suit which, in hindsight, probably wasn't going to come).
EDIT: as for the reason for playing it, I think his legal team thought that it made McNamee sound like a liar or, at the very least shifty. They may not be 100% wrong, but I don't think it was nearly as clear cut as I would have wanted such a thing to be before making such a risky PR move.
Well, because the call wasn't natural -- Clemens knew it was being taped and had to be careful about what he said and McNamee likely at least suspected that someone was listening in -- they never seemed to get to the heart of what this discussion otherwise would have been: either Clemens saying "Why the ####### did you lie about me?", or McNamee saying "You know I'm telling the truth."
That was the 800 pound gorilla of the phone call, wasn't it?
Clemens got hammered for taking the silent approach just after the Report.
IADNAL, but last time I heard, Texas and New York law were not relevant here. If the call crosses state lines, isn't the call under federal jurisdiction?
Greg
If Clemens came out and asked that, or pushed McNamee in that direction, would that not constitute witness tampering and possibly obstruction of justice? Those are easier cases to make than a possible perjury rap I think, but I'll defer to the esteemed partners of Primates LLC Attorneys at Law.
I'd agree with this - it seems that even though Clemens is the plaintiff here - his legal team is running a defense, rather than an offense insofar as they are acting like Roger is the target of a criminal prosecution, rather than the aggressor of a civil action.
I kind of like the strategy but I'd guess that its logical end result is a stalemate: 30% of people will believe McNamee and the report, 30% won't and 40% won't be sure.
Its not exactly going to clear Clemens' name, but its a start.
But the federal law doesn't trump the state law, it only fills in the holes. (In this case.) You then look to the state law for guidance. You then have to pick which state's laws are applicable - which you do in one of two ways: the state of origination, or every state in which the call takes place. California has a funky set of lawsuits on if its laws apply to phone calls that come from, for example, Georgia.
Here, Hardin said it didn't matter - both Texas and NY are one party consent states.
No. In two-state calls, the law of the two states involved is what matters. If the states have different laws, the state whith the stricter one (i.e. two party consent) is going to be more relevant in that a person taping without the other one's knowledge risks being prosecuted in the two party state (assuming he can be hailed into court there). EDIT: Didn't see Josh's post before putting this one up.
Absolutely. Prosecutors will always try to make the easy case if it's available, and witness tampering in a taped call would be about the easist there is.
That having been said, that whole call sounded to me like McNamee was trying to set Clemens up.
To me, it sounded they were trying to set each other up. There was a lot of unintentional comedy on that tape. I laughed, I cried, I reached for a taco...
He has lawyers in the room and is recording it. Who setting up who?
McNamee said he was on a cell phone. Can a person making a cell phone call easily record it?
Yes, but also vice versa. Someone counted how often McNamee asked Clemens to "tell me what to do," and it was 21 requests in 17 minutes. Meanwhile, Clemens was noodling around, trying to get McNamee to say he was pressured into making the statements he did. Their respective motives in the phone call seemed pretty obvious; playing such a strained and unenlightening tape at the press conference is, I think, just trying to throw a handful of sand into the air and hoping it gets into some people's eyes.
What a weak piece from Heyman.
You could have said, "Another piece from Heyman" and saved yourself some typing.
I thought it sounded like Clemens was setting up McNamee, and I had more sympathy for McNamee afterwards - but I think of lot of that is how you started off. There was nothing concrete there, so the lack of information does leads people to use their imaginations and reinforce their already held beliefs. There is a good post about how judges do something similar to this in a different context over at Jack Balkin's blog, for what it is worth.
And it was McNamee who instigated the call in the first place. (Clemens physically placed the phone call, but after McNamee reached out to him and said "Call me.")
Well, I had sympathy for him either way. Whether he was telling the truth or lying, he was doing it under duress from federal prosecutors under the threat of going to jail. What kind of sick country is it where someone can go to jail for selling a consenting adult a drug?
kevin, I'm getting sick and tired of you constant Guyana bashing. Cease and desist!
Yes, nuetral evidence is very dangerous. People tend to have a story in their head and everything they see fits the story.
Nevertheless, I think Clemens may have had to play the tape in this instance. I think he outflanked himself a little.
I don't pretend to know McNamee's original motivation for sending the email to Roger. What we have gathered is that he does have lots of anxiety and he appears to be upset at losing a friend. It could have been for good reasons; it could have been to try and get more evidence for a fight. I don't think it was a good idea for McNamee to have sent the email in the current climate. It could be interpreted to be trying to trap Roger and that is going to be dangerous for any Roger supporters.
I don't think it was at all proper for Roger to have made the call. I would have advised a client to have responded back and had a meeting take place with the attorneys present. By calling back, taping the call, having your attorney present and not telling the other person. It is then definately going to look like you are trying to be sneaky.
Once Roger made the call and it was leaked that he had "the tearful conversation"; I don't think you have room to maneuvre. You can deny it. Your detractors will never believe the denial. If the tape is ever found (and it would likely be found in discovery) you really look like your hiding something. It doesn't help you with your detractors b/c its somewhat neutral, but it hurts you with a lot of people if you (1) Leave the crying out there and (2) get caught later with the tape.
Which country is that a non-punishable offence? By drug, I assume you mean some illegal substance.
Guyana?
The good people of Georgetown are considering a defamation suit! The issue will be decided at a council meeting, where they will also test the latest batch of green
Though, he looks like he is hiding something, as the long quote in paragraph 27 of the complaint wasn't on this tape, and appears to have been part of earlier (taped?) conversations b/w Clemens and/or his investigators and McNamee...
1. I'd bet McNamee was wearing a wire, or otherwise having the call taped. His constant "what do you want me to do?" reeks of him trying to set Clemens up. Clemens said repeatedly that he wanted the truth out. He didn't prompt McNamee to do anything, probably the one piece of advice he took from his lawyer. Clemens was trying to exculpate himself; McNamee was trying to implicate him. That is the overall flavor I draw from it.
2. They obviously disagree (at least now anyways) on what happened. Just as I didn't hear Clemens say "why did you lie?," we did not hear McNamee say "you know you did it." Clemens repeatedly said he was clean or words to that effect. McNamee refused to take the bait. Sounds to me like a guy trying to walk a fine line with the Feds. If he can set Clemens up he is will get a better deal.
3. "I will go to jail for you if I have to." This is no big promise. McNamee is going to jail almost for sure. He is, presumably, offering to lie under oath. Again, what is important about Clemens' response, legally, would be that he agrees McNamee should lie, which equals witness tampering and conspiracy to commit perjury. The substance of his response, whether Clemens denied or admitted drug use, is secondary. It's a trap. Clemens didn't fall into it. If Clemens had said, "well you know I'm innocent and I want you to just tell the truth," he is asking McNamee to incriminate himself. Clemens obviously knew before the conversation started that McNamee wasn't going to admit to lying.
4. Clemens does not sound like an ideal client for a lawyer. He is emotional, rough edged, tempestuous, implusive, aggressive, not careful with his choice of words and more interested in the PR angle than the legal angle. He is saying way more than most attorneys would want their clients to say. I get the impression the attorneys are gritting their teeth, knowing Rocket is more concerned about reputation.
5. Reading between the lines I think the call points towards Clemens' innocence. McNamee, despite his protests, has a lot to lose.
Then why did Anderson spend time in jail? Why didn't he testify?
Who knows? The human animal is a complicated beast. But Anderson going to jail is on him, not Bonds.
That's true for the press conference and interviews, but with respect to the taped phone call Clemens seemed quite reserved and obviously played by the rules Hardin gave him in preparation for it.
Yes, but the PR angle is obviously the main interest for Clemens here; otherwise he'd have issued a simple statement denying the accusations and wouldn't have commented further.
Didn't McNamee mention at one point in the call that he told Clemens's representatives in *2004* that he was a bridge between Radomski and Clemens, or did I not hear that right? (I think this was the point where he said he met with Clemens's rep "who was carrying that stupid note pad" or whatever.)
It's funny how 2 people can hear the same thing, but see it totally differently.
It sounded to me like Clemens was a bully, and that McNamee was someone who was very sorry for hurting Clemens by telling the truth, but had no other choice.
(*) Only the true bottom of the barrel prosecutor in terms of ethics -- the Nifong end -- will actually pressure someone into falsely accusing a third party. But law enforcement types (like Kevin) have a remarkable tendency to assume they know the truth, and will therefore assume that the third party is guilty. And they have no problem putting as much pressure on someone as it takes to get him to accuse someone that the prosecutors think is guilty. And that isn't actually limited to third parties; it applies for getting people to confess, too. Only the true slimeballs will try to force an innocent person to confess, but one they target someone, they think he's guilty, so they have no qualms doing whatever it takes to force him to confess.
I hate to ask such a trite question, but what evidence do you have for that last sentence? And what do you even mean by it?
Not entirely. If Bonds comes out and says "yes that's my name on the calendars", Anderson doesn't spend a day in jail for contempt.
Bonds refusing to tell the truth is throwing Anderson under the bus.
Of course, it could be that he IS telling the truth. (I know, I know). But if Anderson is letting himself be held in contempt because Bonds doesn't want to plead guilty to a crime, I just don't see how you can reasonably put that on Bonds. Barry Bonds is not the mafia. Greg Anderson's family and pets aren't in danger. Greg Anderson is all grown up and his decisions are his decisions. Or maybe we just don't agree on what the phrase "thrown under the bus" means. Dick Cheney threw Scooter Libby under the bus. Rafael Palmeiro threw Miguel Tejada under the bus. That's how I define it.
McNamee repeating "what do you want me to do" sounds like a set up.
Bonds refusing to tell the truth is throwing Anderson under the bus.
You're assuming that Bonds isn't telling the truth.
However, if they believe -- rationally or irrationally, correctly or incorrectly -- that B is guilty, they will put extensive pressure on him to confess. No matter how many times B denies it, they won't accept it. If heavy interrogation won't do it, if tricks (such as lying about the evidence they possess -- a common, and legal, police tactic) won't do it, they'll threaten him with punishment for something else. Or they'll threaten to prosecute a family member too. And the same applies to their treatment of third parties; if they think B is guilty, they'll put extensive pressure on C to implicate B. They'll threaten to punish C as an accomplice, or for obstruction, or whatever, unless he inculpates B.
But let's remember, Bonds is now accused, not of steroid use, but of perjury. If he's indeed guilty, in what way did he perjure himself? By refusing to testify against Greg Anderson before the grand jury. In other words, if he's guilty, Bonds perjured himself to protect Anderson. Of course, Anderson was ultimately indicted and pleaded guilty anyway, but that's not Bonds' fault. It's hard to see how it constitutes "throwing Anderson under a bus" to not want to go to jail now for trying to keep him out of jail before.
And that's assuming he's guilty. If he's innocent, it obviously does not constitute throwing Anderson under the bus to refuse to falsely incriminate himself.
It's the same reason cops often lie under oath: not to frame an innocent person but to secure a conviction against a "guilty" one. Alan Dershowitz has referred to this as "testilying," or "dropsy testimony" (not sure if he coined the terms), basically where a cop "knows" someone is guilty and so lies on the stand about it (or tells some other lie in order to justify the search).
In the "dropsy testimony" example, the cop "knows" the drugs belong to the suspect, so he lies and says he saw the suspect drop the drugs. Or to justify the search, he says he saw a bulge in the suspect's jacket pocket that he knew to be the drugs.
It's pretty common in law enforcement. What happened in the Duke case -- i.e., the extent of the misconduct -- is not as prevalent but it does happen, and attorneys always have to be vigilant of it. Specifically with regard to the Duke case, if Brad Bannon hadn't locked himself in a room and learned about DNA enough to study the thousand-page DNA report from the independent lab and cross examine Brian Meehan, the bogus case may never have collapsed in the way that it did. If the defendants didn't have money, they'd probably have been forced to accept a plea and Nifong & Co.'s misconduct in this particular case would never have been revealed. No way a public defender had the time to do what Bannon did. No way.
EDIT: In the Duke case law enforcement clearly pressured the cab driver -- one of the main defense witnesses -- to change his story. And they coached the accuser as to what hers would be, with respect to the identification of her "attackers."
I'm not so sure. He was on a cell phone and apparently his message for Roger specified to call his son at home...? If he's capable of recording calls on his cell phone, and wants to record Roger, why specifically tell him to call a different phone? It would help to hear/read the exact message, but given the "sick kid"/"home phone" angle, it's not entirely clear right now that McNamee wanted to speak directly to Roger, much less that he was ready to record him over the phone.
You're assuming that Bonds isn't telling the truth.
Why wouldn't I? Even the feds agree with me.
Bonds had the keys to let him out and never used them.
If Anderson wasn't going to, it seems pretty silly for Bonds to do so.
Where did I say that I based my opinion on what the government said?
I said they agreed with me, not that I agreed with them.
Your responses seem to be made without reading what was posted. Can't see through those rose colored glasses?
And you have the nerve to call my post stupid and offensive??? haha
Good for you. That still doesn't mean he's not telling the truth.
"McNamee still holds Clemens in high regard, in part because he admires the pitcher’s tireless work ethic, and also because he believes that Clemens was only one of many players using performance enhancers. “It’s sad,’’ McNamee says. “He was a mentor to me. Roger is an unbelievable family man. I learned how to treat my kids from Roger. And Roger was in no way an abuser of steroids. He never took them through our tough winter workouts. And he never took them in spring training, when the days are longest. He took them in late July, August, and never for more than four to six weeks max ... it wasn’t that frequent.’ "
........
That is, the idea that Clemens used steroids - but not that often, and a lot of guys were 'worse'?
It's not all that palatable to either the lynch-Clemens or Clemens-martyr crowds, obviously.
I can't believe no one has gone here already but hmmmm... emotional, rough edged, tempestuous, implusive, aggressive, more interested in image...It almost sounds like he is on some sort of drug that seems to bring out these characteristics..
what is that all about. Not the hugging, though I will admit even that is odd.
But the 'Nodding'.
Question for the primer legal crew; Is that common practice, A federal agent reads what you said, and you just sit there and nod?
Nice investigation by Mithcell. wow
It's not all that palatable to either the lynch-Clemens or Clemens-martyr crowds, obviously.
For me, steroids are the least interesting aspect of this whole steroid crisis. The people watching is much more interesting. My training is in literature, though, so I have a weakness for greed and cowardice and bravery and the complete lack of any logical behavior coming from anyone. It's good stuff! There are many interesting stories to tell from this whole saga. Greg Anderson and Rafael Palmeiro would be the two stories I'd like to tell.
Nice investigation by Mithcell. wow
Man, do I wish I could go into business as an independednt investigator. How much did baseball spend on this? Is there anything Mitchell uncovered that the MSM or the feds didn't uncover first?
I think I read $15M. Nieporent's post in the Colby Cosh thread that was linked by Calcaterra, and then by Neyer via Calcaterra, made some good points about the issue.
It's especially rich when you take into consideration that if the situation were reversed, Barry Bonds would roll over on his "buddy" before he'd voluntarily spend so much as a day in jail.
I hate to ask such a trite question, but what evidence do you have for that last sentence? And what do you even mean by it?
I see I've gotten two answers for this, neither of which even mentioned Kevin's name, let alone providing any evidence connecting him to any such practice or belief. Maybe try again, fellas.
When exactly was Barry Bonds ever ordered to offer testimony under oath against Greg Anderson under threat of contempt of court and jail time? I have absolutely no idea what the heck you're talking about.
(Again, the alternative is that Bonds was telling the truth then -- but if he was telling the truth then, then he can't possibly be "throwing Anderson under the bus" now by not confessing to something he didn't do.)
If you need evidence that Kevin has a remarkable ability to assume that he knows the truth and that people are guilty, then I suggest you haven't read a single steroids thread over the last six years. The most egregious example is the 'Grimsley Affidavit.' After the LA Time reported Clemens was named, prosecutors said he wasn't, but Kevin pretended that they meant that there was a missing punctuation mark in the affidavit. And now that we've actually seen the affidavit, remarkably, Kevin still refuses to admit that Clemens wasn't named in it.
Andy, this is completely non-responsive.
Spreading rumors and then patting yourself on the back because other people spread the same rumor is pretty ridiculous even for you. Not one player who has ever actually proven to have used have you ever named before he was proven.
Shooty, now that you have whiffed like Jack Cust on New Hampshire and Iowa, I was hoping you would become involved in the "The Chronicles of Backlasher."
I'm pretty sure Kevin and Joey are asserting that should he have taken steroids, he would have motivation to lie like a run to the Grand Jury. That motivation would not be to protect Greg Anderson. The motivation would be to protect public image and self image. Any benefit Anderson received would be collateral.
I'm pretty sure that Andy is stating that you have no evidence that Kevin ever has or ever would apply pressure to extract a statement from any party.
As for the Congressional Hearings, that surprised me. What is even more surprising is that they stated they were going to depose the witnesses prior to public testimony. Andy may be getting his wish much sooner than he thought. The "cross examination" he wants will be live and on JC-Span. I don't even think think the Congressmen have any rule of procedure limiting leading questions.
Odd. Why would Clemens need to be deposed? I thought they were just calling him so they can learn more about the effects of steroid use in order to help them make future legislation.
If and when they do say it, it will just show how comically biased they are. "The fact that Bonds won't help Anderson shows that Bonds is bad." "But he did help Anderson." "Well, but Bonds is bad, so he couldn't have been doing it to help Anderson." Once we get out of mind-reading, the objective fact is that he refused to testify against Anderson.
Well, yes, I realized that the second time around, but that's such a silly misreading of my statement that I was assuming Andy was more intelligent than that. Since Kevin washes test tubes for a living, obviously he isn't in a position to pressure criminal defendants to confess. The "like Kevin" obviously referred only to the fact that he starts by presuming he knows the truth, and then interprets all evidence in that light, rather than starting with an open mind.
You must be Registered and Logged In to post comments.
<< Back to main