Tracy Ringolsby On Curt Schilling

http://www.rockymountainnews.com/news/2008/jan/04/ringolsby-wealth-of-free-agents-in-waiting/

From Tracy Ringolsby via the Rocky Mountain News:

In the midst of Curt Schilling's holier-than-thou pronouncements about late-career booms, it would be interesting to have Schilling explain how he turned a lackluster career at the age of 30 into a dominating effort in the next decade.

At 30, having played with a Philadelphia Phillies team that included Lenny Dykstra and Pete Incaviglia, who were listed in the Mitchell Report, Schilling had a career record of 52-52.

Since he turned 30, Schilling is 164-94. What's more, he was 34 before he won 20 games for the first time and has done it three times in the past seven years.

http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/01/03/60minutes/main3671585.shtml#ccmm

CBS/AP) Baseball superstar Roger Clemens denies he cheated by using banned substances and says his accuser, former trainer Brian McNamee, only injected him with the painkiller lidocaine and the vitamin B-12.

Clemens tells this to Mike Wallace in his first interview since McNamee's accusations were released in the Mitchell Report. The interview will air on 60 Minutes, Jan. 6, at 7 p.m. ET/PT.

In the scathing report on the use of banned substances in Major League Baseball produced by former Sen. George Mitchell, McNamee says he injected Clemens with steroids and human growth hormone - both performance-enhancing drugs banned by the league.

When asked by Wallace if McNamee had ever injected him with any drugs, Clemens responds: "Lidocaine and B-12. It’s for my joints, and B-12 I still take today."

Clemens calls the accusation "ridiculous" and says he "never" used any banned substances.

"Swear?" asks Wallace.

"[I] swear," says Clemens.

McNamee also accused fellow teammate Andy Pettitte of using HGH. Clemens denied the charge, while Pettitte admitted using HGH on two occasions while rehabbing an injury.

A total of 20 current and former Yankees were identified in the report.

Clemens was the biggest name in the report; the seven-time Cy Young Award winner has repeatedly denied using steroids or HGH.

Many of the allegations against Clemens came from McNamee. According to the report, McNamee said he injected Clemens with steroids in 1998 while with the Toronto Blue Jays, and steroids and HGH in 2000 and 2001, while with the New York Yankees.

Clemens posted a video last month on the Internet repeating his denials of the allegations against him in the report. McNamee's attorney, Ed Ward, has said his client stands by the accuracy of the information he gave to Mitchell.

http://riveraveblues.com/

Perusing through The Times this morning while eating breakfast, I left their coverage of the Iowa caucuses for a quick glimpse at the Sports pages. What did I find but yet another article on Johan Santana.

Today, Tyler Kepner reinforces the rumors we’ve heard of a debate between Hank and Hal over the money Santana will command. Both Steinbrenner brothers, Kepner reports, are as hellbent on winning as their father is, but Hal is concerned that the financial outlay for Santana doesn’t justify a trade.

Interesting in the Kepner article - besides, of course, the Santana question - are the descriptions of the chain of command. While Hank has become the de facto spokesperson for the Yankees ownership, Hal considered an equal in the organization and is responsible for the money. As Kepner writes, Hank, for all his bluster, “cannot and has not acted unilaterally.”

So how do the Santana economics play into this? Well, Hank is willing to sign on to GM Brian Cashman’s player development deal but wants to avoid a possible scenario where Santana ends up on the Red Sox. Hal wants to keep the payroll at $200 million, an amount that, if spent wisely, should keep the Yankees competitive forever. Santana and his contract would add substantially to the Yanks’ payroll. Kepner writes:

If the teams agreed on players, the Yankees would have to negotiate a contract extension with Santana, who would probably ask for seven years and $140 million.

For the Yankees, the $140 million figure would be compounded by an additional $56 million they would owe in luxury taxes, because they are still charged an extra 40 cents for every dollar they spend. Investing almost $200 million in Santana for seven years — and the prospects — is clearly too steep a price for General Manager Brian Cashman.

Shelling out $200 million plus prospects for the services of Johan Santana is indeed a price that is too high. As long as Hal and Cashman are on the same side, it seems like the Yanks won’t trade for the Twins’ lefty. As the Santana shenanigans continue, it’s interesting to watch the Yanks’ new organizational structure take place.

http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/7628516

ARIZONA

What's changed: RHP Dan Haren, acquired from Oakland in an eight-player trade, replaces RHP Livan Hernandez, who filed for free agency, in the rotation. Closer Jose Valverede was dealt to Houston for three role players.

Battle front: RHPs Brandon Lyon, Tony Pena and Chad Qualls will all get shots to take over the ninth-inning role that previously belonged to Valverde.

Story line: The Diamondbacks were outscored in 2007 but still won the division. They have done nothing to beef up their offense and created a bullpen question mark by dealing Valverde, but added a quality arm to the rotation.

Strength: Righties Brandon Webb and Haren give the Diamondbacks the best 1-2 rotation punch in the NL.

Weakness: Arizona is counting on young players getting better and improving the offense, but they don't have an impact bat.

Sleeper: LHP Randy Johnson is in his 40s and coming off a third back surgery. If he somehow earns his $13 million salary, Arizona could run away with the division, slipping him between Webb and Haren at the front of the rotation, and RHP Micah Owings and LHP Doug Davis in the back end.

Off-season dealings: Traded LHP Dana Eveland and five of their top 12 prospects — OFs Carlos Gonzalez and Aaron Cunningham, LHPs Brett Anderson and Greg Smith, and 1B Chris Carter — to A's for Haren. Dealt OF Carlos Quentin to White Sox for Carter. Dealt Closer Jose Valverde to Astros for INF Chris Burke, and RHPs Chad Qualls and Juan Gutierrez. Main free-agent losses were RHP Livan Hernandez and 1B Tony Clark.

Summary: Arizona defied logic to win a division title a year ago given its offensive liabilities. No reason to think they can get lucky a second year in a row.

COLORADO

What's changed: RH setup reliever LaTroy Hawkins left as a free agent, signing with the Yankees, and was replaced by RH Luis Vizcaino, who garnered a two-year, $7.5 million deal. Vizcaino will be with his fifth team in five years.

Battle front: Rookie Jayson Nix is the in-house leader to replace 2B Kazuo Matsui, who signed with Houston as a free agent, but he will have to beat out Clint Barmes and Omar Quintanilla. Rockies also might invite journeymen Marcus Giles and Todd Walker to spring training. Loss of RHP Josh Fogg to free agency opened a spot in the rotation that will be filled by RHP Kip Wells, LHP Franklin Morales or LHP Mark Redman.

Story line: Rockies had to put on strongest season-ending rally in history (won 14 of 15) to claim postseason spot. Young team will build off that success and start strong in 2008.

Strength: Lineup can do damage. With SS Troy Tulowitzki moving into No. 2 slot, Rockies have 20-plus home run expectations from everybody from second through sixth in lineup — Tulowitzki, LF Matt Holliday, 1B Todd Helton, 3B Garrett Atkins and RF Brad Hawpe.

Weakness: Rotation has potential, but LHP Jeff Francis and RHP Aaron Cook are only rotation certainties who have pitched a full year in the big leagues.

Sleeper: Nix was Rockies top pick in 2001 draft, but has never clicked offensively. He is considered a premiere defensive second baseman, and he could build off winning MVP honors at the Baseball World Cup, similar to Matt Holliday four years ago.

Off-season dealings: Traded RHP Denny Bautista to Detroit for RHP Jose Capellan, and INF Jamey Carroll to Cleveland for player to be determined. Main free-agent losses were RHPs LaTroy Hawkins, Josh Fogg and Jorge Julio, LHP Jeremy Affeldt, and 2B Kazuo Matsui. Key free-agent signings were RHPs Luis Vizcaino and Kip Wells.

Summary: Rockies need RHP Ubaldo Jimenez to step forward and pitch like a legitimate No. 3 starter. They also need LHP Brian Fuentes, a three-time All-Star closer, to accept his role as a setup man for Manny Corpas, giving the Rockies late-inning bullpen dominance.

LOS ANGELES

What's changed: After shelling out a five-year, $44 million contract for CF Juan Pierre a year ago, the Dodgers major move this off-season was to give out a two-year, $36.2 million contract to CF Andruw Jones. Plan is to move Pierre to left, replacing Luis Gonzalez, who left as a free agent.

Joe Torre will find out quickly that his new team is sorely lacking a basis to build on for the future. (Stephen Dunn / Getty Images)

Battle front: Stuck with Nomar Garciaparra for another year after the inexplicable decision to re-sign him last season for two years, the Dodgers had to move him from first base to make room last year for James Loney. Now Garciaparra will battle with prospect Andy LaRoche for the third base job.

Story line: A team that has taken the approach that wasting more money will cover up the money already wasted now has decided to bring in manager Joe Torre and hope that the calming influence he provided in New York can overcome the fractured clubhouse with the Dodgers. There's one problem. In New York there was a strong home-grown foundation built around SS Derek Jeter. In Los Angeles, there's no basis to build on.

Strength: RH Takashi Saito has become a dominant closer and had particular success within the NL West last year. He was 2-1 with a 1.52 ERA and 16 saves in 18 opportunities within the division.

Weakness: Besides SS Rafael Furcal and CF Andruw Jones there isn't an average defensive player on the field, and that takes a toll on a team's pitching staff.

Sleeper: LHP Clayton Kershaw is the top prospect in the system. If the Dodgers ever decide to truly give home-grown players a chance, the lefty will take charge.

Off-season dealings: Major free agent additions were CF Andruw Jones and backup C Gary Bennett. Major free agent losses were LHPs Randy Wolf, Mark Hendrickson and David Wells, RHP Roberto Hernandez, Olmedo Saenz and Rudy Sanchez, Cs Chad Moeller and Mike Liberthal, and OF Luis Gonzalez.

Summary: Overpaying and underachieving has created unrest in L.A., where the McCourt ownership group has had three GMs and three managers in four years.

SAN DIEGO

What's changed: Oft-injured Jim Edmonds, who wore out his welcome in St. Louis, is being asked to fill the center field void created by the free agent loss of Mike Cameron, and free agent Tadahito Iguchi was signed to fill the vacancy at second base.

Battle front: The Padres have to sort out the mess in left field, which was an ongoing problem last year. Scott Hairston, dumped by Arizona last July, is the leading candidate and Callix Crabbe, a winter draft, will be in the running along with journeyman Jeff Davanon.

Story line: The Padres always find a way to be in the mix in the NL West, even though they never matchup man-for-man.

Strength: Petco Park is a welcome sight for any pitcher, helping hide deficiencies.

Weakness: Jake Peavy, Chris Young and Greg Maddux are the basis for a rotation in which there is no sure thing for the final two spots. The Padres will run a spring tryout camp for rehabbing veterans Randy Wolf, Shawn Estes, Glendon Rusch and Mark Prior, hoping to at least hit with one of them.

Sleeper: 3B Kevin Kouzmanoff actually woke up in the second half last season, benefiting from manager Buddy Black sticking with him through early season struggles. Kouzmanoff, who hit .113 in April, hit .317 with 11 home runs after the All-Star Break to claim the third base job.

Off-season dealings: Acquired CF Jim Edmonds and $1 million from St. Louis for David Freese. Major free agent signings were 2B Tadahito Iguchi, OF Jeff Davanon, RHP Mark Prior and LHPs Randy Wolf, Shawn Estes and Glendon Rusch. Major losses were OFs Mike Cameron, Milton Bradley, Termel Sledge and Brady Clark, RHPs Doug Brocail and Brett Tomko, UTIL Geoff Blum and Rob Mackowiak.

Summary: They won't have the ability to piece together a contender in San Diego in a division that has developed depth.

SAN FRANCISCO

What's changed: Free agent OF Aaron Rowand was signed to fill outfield void created by the decision to let Barry Bonds walk. Rowand will get the initial look in center field with Dave Roberts moving over to replace Bonds in left.

Battle front: Four right-handers will get a shot at the closer job — Brian Wilson, Tyler Walker, Brad Hennessey and Vinnie Chulk.

Story line: Giants adjust to life without Bonds, who sold tickets, even if he rubbed teammates the wrong way. With the $20 million annual payment ownership has to make on the loan to build AT&T Park, concerns will develop if ticket sales drop.

Strength: RHPs Matt Cain and Tim Lincecum provide dominant 1-2 punch in rotation. Giants were willing to deal one — Lincecum preferably — if they could have added a big-time offensive player but the market wasn't there and they weren't about to give either away.

Weakness: Outfield defense is shaky at best. Rowand was adequate in center field in Philadelphia, but will be challenged in a park the size of AT&T. Randy Winn, who will be in right, and Dave Roberts, the leading candidate in left, both have already failed the center field challenge.

Sleeper: 1B Dan Ortmeier is a switch-hitter who made the conversion from the outfield during the 2007 season. He's a run producer and is athletic.

Off-season dealings: Acquired LHP Jose Capellean in the winter draft. Major free agent addition was OF Aaron Rowand. Major free agent losses were OF Barry Bonds, 3B Pedro Feliz, 1B Ryan Klesko.

Summary: Let's see, Bonds leaves, Giants say they are going to rebuild and then they shell out five-year, $60 million deal for Rowand. Go figure.

http://yankees.lhblogs.com/

Roger Clemens is willing to meet his accuser in court. He has filed suit against Brian McNamee for defamation.

The suit alleges that the federal government pressured McNamee to testify against Clemens and that he lied as a result.

Clemens becomes the first athlete to take this step. If he wins, the integrity of the Mitchell Report - and commissioner Bud Selig - will be damaged beyond repair. The question now is whether Clemens can prove it.

The Houston Chronicle story has more detail. Clemens says he will still testify before Congress.

# migames January 7th, 2008 at 9:57 am

way to go clemens…
# ummfada January 7th, 2008 at 9:58 am

IDK, I am beginning to see Clemens side of things, or is it just me? If He takes a lie detector test then I will completely believe Him. Any one can lie in front of congress.
# RangerRob January 7th, 2008 at 10:07 am

it is possible to get around a lie detector test. after all like george costanza says, “it’ not a lie if you believe it.”
# cc January 7th, 2008 at 10:07 am

Lie detectors (polygraphs) are not reliable, as Clemens said correctly if vaguely during the interview. I’m not sure if the risk is false positives or false negatives. He’s so emotional that I would think he could get false positives.
# Tim January 7th, 2008 at 10:11 am

I hope he exonerates himself and proves the so called journalists and fans that considered him and every other ball player guilty before they’ve even had a chance to prove themselves innocent wrong. I totally believe him but its a shame he has to go through all this! And then I hope that this all goes away!

One other thing for Peter, can we get a guest blogger that actually will blog about the Yankees team and what they must do to compete in 2008, and/or about the minor league system. Suggestion: Patrick at Pinstripesplus.com would be great! Come on, these other guest bloggers have been horrid to say the least.
# TurnTwo January 7th, 2008 at 10:11 am

i have to admit my skepticism in this whole situation, but seeing Clemens file suit following his interview last night has done a lot in my mind to think perhaps he is telling the truth here.

i know we have a long way to go, but i’m starting to give him the benefit of the doubt here until we see more of the evidence come forward.
# EricVA January 7th, 2008 at 10:12 am

I want to believe Clemens, and I think I do. He gave a lot of good arguments (why hasn’t he broken down like Bonds?) But, I think this suit it being filed because it’s Clemens’ word against McNamee and nobody can prove anything. That’s going to be the end result here.
# rbj January 7th, 2008 at 10:12 am

Lie detectors aren’t that easy to beat, — watch the Mythbusters show on them — but still with some training (meditation, relaxation breathing, e.g.) they can be beaten. And they do not work on pathological liars.

In a civil suit, which Clemens has here, the standard of proof is only a preponderance of the evidence. It will basically come down to whether a jury believes Roger or Brian. But I will have to withhold judgment until all the evidence is presented, such as where did the steroids come from.
# Chuck January 7th, 2008 at 10:12 am

Clemens complaint basically recites that the government brought up Clemens name first, McNamee denied knowing anything about Clemens use, the government then threatened him with prosecution (though U.S. Attorney Parrella and IRS Agent Novitsky — Novitsky is the one who got Bonds), and then the government went back to talking about Clemens.

McNamee then refused to talk to Mitchell, but the government again threatened to make him a “target” instead of a “witness.” As a result, he met with Mitchell’s people.

In front of the Mitchell investigators, the federal agent read McNamee’s previously obtained statement and then asked McNamee to confirm it.

Wow. If this is all true, it is daming to the prosecutors and to the way Mitchell obtained information for his report (patting myself on the back — I have said Mitchell screwed this up all along0. It implies that McNamee was told to implicate Clemens or face prosecution. As many lawyers will tell you, when a witness decides to lie, they will throw in truthful details (like living in the Skydome hotel with Clemens) in order to hide the lies. McNamee might have thought that they would find no evidence and his lies would get burried — why should he know that the Feds were giving all their information to Mitchell and that he would be forced to talk to Mitchell? I am pretty sure that was not public knowledge over the summer.

My meter is tilting heavily towards believing Clemens (after voting that I thought Clemens was a user in Pete’s poll a few weeks ago) — but there is certainly a lot more to play out here.
# J-Dawg January 7th, 2008 at 10:18 am

Roger is trying to draw this thing out for as long as he can, and whether he used PEDs or not, he is doing the right thing. One of his main goals throughout this whole thing is not only to prove his innocence, but to establish doubt in the minds of baseball fans everywhere. He has been seemingly straight-forward enough to draw some support and make some people believe that he is not a PED user.
# RangerRob January 7th, 2008 at 10:24 am

Clemens also knows that McNamee had no proof. There are no cancelled checks or syringes with Clemens DNA on it. So it’s his word against McNamee’s.
# Sean McNally January 7th, 2008 at 10:24 am

The problem of course is what Clemens is trying to prove. Legally, for a public figure like Clemens, he not only has to prove that McNammee’s actions caused him injury (in the legal sense) but that the injury was foreseeable and McNamee’s action’s were taken with malicious intent.

It’s a very, very, very high legal standard and the reason public figures rarely undertake such proceedings.

Beyond that, McNamee’s attorneys will be able to ask for discovery and dispose Clemens, multiple times if they wish and will comb over all his statements for any inconsistency.

This will be ugly and regardless of the outcome, will not end well.
# pat January 7th, 2008 at 10:29 am

My gut says this case never sees a court room. Clemens doesn’t care about monetary damages. The ultimate goal is winning in the court of public opinion and I think this helps that.
# Chuck January 7th, 2008 at 10:38 am

IMHO, this case will never get to trial. This was brought to beat McNamee to the courthouse, to put Clemens story out clearly and concisely, to provide a legal mechanism for Clemens to collect evidence, and — depending on who you believe — either (a) to apply additional pressure on McNamee to tell the truth, or (b) to muddy the waters even further and to an extent where it is impossible to prove anything.

I would love to see a video of the Feds talk with McNamee — but my guess is that one does not exist OR Clemens will need to fight the Feds very hard to get it.
# rbj January 7th, 2008 at 10:40 am

D’oh, you are of course correct, Sean. Clemens does have to prove malicious intent, which is extremely hard to do; though it was proven against Al Sharpton in the Twana Brawley case.
# Dee January 7th, 2008 at 10:41 am

Still don’t know if I believe Roger (I need to see more concrete evidence on both sides to presume guilt or innocence), but have to admit I’m very impressed with how he’s actively go after this report so far. His display of determination in this case has helped me further understand how he could have been so successful as an athlete, which will make it more of a pity if it turns out he did in fact have moments of weakness and resort to PEDs.

# Chuck January 7th, 2008 at 10:46 am

Dee, there is very little chance of concrete evidence. It is time for the prosecutor and federal agents to come forward with a tape or transcript of McNamee’s interview. If there is one, we can have a better idea of whether he was coerced into implicating Clemens. McNamee says that he has no physical evidence and Clemens cannot prove a negative.
# Yazman January 7th, 2008 at 10:50 am

“the standard of proof is only a preponderance of the evidence. It will basically come down to whether a jury believes Roger or Brian.”

My defense of Roger has primarily been along the lines of “innocent until proven guilty.”

Now it seems McNamee might not get a fair shake if Roger’s burdon of proof is simply “a preponderance.” If McNamee is telling the truth, he could be in a position where he has no evidence at all other than having been there. That’s the irony/convenience of the behind-closed-doors nature of McNamee’s accusation.
# Clay Bellinger January 7th, 2008 at 10:50 am

I also am believing Roger more and more, but that doesnt mean he didn’t do it. He had suspisions even before the report so that is never really going to go away. I hope he fights this thing to the end.
# murphydog January 7th, 2008 at 10:54 am

“Now it seems McNamee might not get a fair shake if Roger’s burdon of proof is simply “a preponderance.”

It’s a preponderance of the evidence as to all the specific elements Roger must prove. It’s a pretty tall order.
# randy l. January 7th, 2008 at 10:56 am

clemens obviously took a major hit from the mitchell report. but judging by reaction here and in the national press he’s gaining some support in the other direction. at least, the issues are now getting deeper and past the surface spin that the supporters of the mitchell report were putting out.

getting the feds to testify if they coerced mcnamme or not is going to be really enlightening. as murphydog has said , this may become a big problem for the feds and irs investigators for misconduct.
# murphydog January 7th, 2008 at 10:58 am

Chuck:

I’d be shocked if a prosecutor or special agent voluntarily produced an investigative record without a court order compelling him to do so. Sets a dangerous precedent for other criminal cases and investigations.

That’s why it will be so interesting to see how the defamation court handles pre-trial discovery in this case. I think the feds should lose their usual protections from disclosure as a result of their close connection and information sharing partnership with a civil enterprise. But the court will have to decide that before anything gets turned over.
# Clay Bellinger January 7th, 2008 at 10:59 am

One question that I would love to see Andy answer under oath, which will tell me alot: “Did you ever speak to Roger about using PED’s and do you have any knowledge that Roger took them?”

Wonder if Andy would lie to protect his pal.
# Yanksrule57 January 7th, 2008 at 11:01 am

After thinking about the interview a little more something is bugging me:

Clemens stated last night that McNamee never claimed to have bought steroids for him. He then asked if he used where did he get them? Someone had to have sold them to him and he challenged that person to come forward.
A guilty person doesn’t make that statement. To confidently say that on National television means to me that the person doesn’t exist.
So I ask, if McNamee and Clemens didn’t buy the PED’s, how did Roger obtain them to give them to McNamee?
# Truck January 7th, 2008 at 11:01 am

Way to go, Roger!

I’m happy either way! Because if Roger exhonerates himself, good! But if not, and we see someone come forward and say “Yeah, here’s the signed invoice for those steroids” then we can stop guessing.

That’s the one thing in the 60 Minutes interview that struck me and got me thinking: McNamee claims Roger provided the Steroids. And Roger says: Ok, why hasn’t anyone else come forward? Where is the evidence that I got them anywhere?

But I’m with Pete. If Roger wins, the Mitchell Report becomes swiss cheese.
# String Beanfellow January 7th, 2008 at 11:02 am

The problem of course is what Clemens is trying to prove. Legally, for a public figure like Clemens, he not only has to prove that McNammee’s actions caused him injury (in the legal sense) but that the injury was foreseeable and McNamee’s action’s were taken with malicious intent.

That is not true. When it states that public figures have to prove malice, it doesn’t mean that you are doing it with malicious intent, it means you are saying things you know to be false and saying them anyway.

If Clemens is found to be correct then malice (the LEGAL FORM) is a slam dunk.

I find it interesting that McNamee and Clemens also had their first talk since the Mitchell Report on Friday. Either Clemens figured slamming McNamee, like Mac did to him - where he borrowed fishing equipment just prior to the report being released but didn’t say a thing, so Clemens is getting even by filing the suit. OR Clemens and McNamee cooked this up as their way of clearing Clemens name (even though it fries McNamee) and Mac gets a few million extra in the bank.

It is possible that Clemens got some interesting information out of McNamee during the conversation that finalized them filing suit.

One further point, despite Myth Buster’s claims, Lie Dectectors are not admissable in court because they have been proven in court cases - note not just once - that they are not reliable. Yes, they work sometimes, but depending on you personality and convictions you can fool them or have false positives.

Myth Busters is a fine show, but remember, its for entertainment more than anything else, and they don’t always do a very good job at “busting” the myths.
# Chuck January 7th, 2008 at 11:07 am

Murph: I agree with you 100%. In the usual situations, the prosecutor would never give up their records of an investigation (particularly in the absense of a relevant prosecution) and should not be compelled to disclose in a collateral proceeding — but laying down with the Mitchell investigation changes everything. I don’t know if there is a relevant statute here (that might make this impossible), but if I was a judge, I would be telling the prosecution and agents that everything they have relating McNamee and/or Clemens is fair game in the civil suit.
# Yanksrule57 January 7th, 2008 at 11:09 am

Truck,

Looks like we came to the same conclusion at the same time. Wild, huh?
# Old Yanks Fan January 7th, 2008 at 11:13 am

Another question is: If Roger trusted McNamee enough to shoot him with steroids, wouldn’t he have asked McNamee if he could get the steroids? Wouldn’t Roger have thought that McNamee would know more about, and be able to possibly to do a better job procuring the right steroids? What does Roger know about ‘getting’ them?
# Paul January 7th, 2008 at 11:19 am

I’m no lawyer, but I know enough about defamation to know that Roger Clemens can’t win this.

He probably can’t prove Brian McNamee’s statements were false, but even if he could, he can’t prove that McNamee acted with actual malice.
# gayle January 7th, 2008 at 11:20 am

His suit reminds me of the Whitewater suit and that women Susan McDougal who went to jail because she would not testify for the government. The premise of her lawsuit which she won was that the feds had very specific things that they wanted her to corraborate with regard to Clinton and Whitewater. She said that she was not able to do so because she was afraid that she would be put in jail for perjury refuised to answer the questions and when she said that they put her in jail for contempt of court and obstruction of justice. She was later found not guilty by a jury for this stuff but lets say the same thing happened with McNamee. He was told that if he didnt tell the truth they would throw him in jail.Perhaps they came to him and said ok we have stuff on Clemens and you need to back this up or you will go to jail for perjury.

Again in this whole thing I am not sure who to believe, especially since Andy said what McNamee said was true as far as he was concerned. But with Clemes filing the lawsuit he has now taken it a step further than anyone else ever has.
# GreenBeret7 January 7th, 2008 at 11:21 am

Clay Bellinger
January 7th, 2008 at 10:59 am
One question that I would love to see Andy answer under oath, which will tell me alot: “Did you ever speak to Roger about using PED’s and do you have any knowledge that Roger took them?”

Wonder if Andy would lie to protect his pal.

__________________________________________________
I could see where Pettitte might not remember telling him, but, not sure that he’d lie.

It’s quite possible that Pettitte never told Clemens, his idol. Do you tell your best friend everything? Does he tell you? If you cheat on your wife, cheat on your taxes or pad your expense account, do you tell your best friend?
# Chuck January 7th, 2008 at 11:26 am

Why would Pettitte talk to Clemens about this (or vice versa)? When you are doing something you shouldn’t — breaking the law, cheating on your taxes, taking steroids — you don’t necessarily tell your “best buddy” about it. Yes, some people flaunt these things as a badge of honor (e.g., Canseco). People with a little more dignity or shame do not.
# Clay Bellinger January 7th, 2008 at 11:29 am

Green Beret, Good point, they might not tell each other everything but in this case you would think they would tell each other since they had the same trainer and were working out together almost all the time. You are right, Petitte will most likely not be able to recall.
# murphydog January 7th, 2008 at 11:43 am

Chuck:

“I don’t know if there is a relevant statute here (that might make this impossible), but if I was a judge, I would be telling the prosecution and agents that everything they have relating McNamee and/or Clemens is fair game in the civil suit”

When discovery starts and Roger’s side demands all federal investigative records, notes, memos etc., the feds will move for a protective order citing well recognized exemptions from disclosure, like the need to preserve confidentiality, the integrity of on-going investigations, the need not to divulge investigative techniques, etc. (There may be a statute that says all or most of this).

The judge however can deny the exemptions and order disclosure if, for example, it appears that the Feds acted in such a way as to waive the confidentiality of the documents and records by sharing them with Mitchell, a private person. Or Clemens could argue that based on the interview his investigator had with McNamee, there is a basis to conclude that the feds engaged in misconduct resulting in the defamatory statement being elicited and the only way he can defend his name is to get access to all the records.