Roger Clemens went high and tight on his former trainer, Brian McNamee, by taping their phone conversation and trying to get to the bottom of what is going on. Instead of backing McNamee off the plate, it looks like the conversation might have been all for naught....
Here is what I know, and this is fact....Clemens was injected by McNamee. Clemens has said that was done. Now, Clemens says that has a B-12 shot (hold your laughter) and McNamee says otherwise, so that is where we are left. I believe that if Clemens was willing to take a B-12 shot then he was willing to take PED's. That's my opinion. Yours may be different.
As many of you probably did, I listened to the entire conversation Clemens had with McNamee (located below for your convenience) and I came away from it thinking that Clemens was trying to get McNamee to break. It didn't happen. Never did McNamee say he lied to the Feds about the situation. He did say that the had to tell them or face going to jail, which he didn't wan to do, but he didn't say he lied to them, or just made up a name to get them off his back.
On top of that, McNamee and Clemens talk about the Kurt Radomski, the former Mets clubhouse attendant talked about at length in The Mitchell Report, and how McNamee supposedly gave Clemens' team the heads up on what might go down with that guy. That seemed pretty suspicious to me and made me think that maybe McNamee had possibly bought some meds from Radomski. Again, this is just my opinion.
Clemens and McNamee will be heading in front of Congress on the 16th of January and it will be a circus. No one will know who is telling the truth or who is lying because, without physical evidence, it's just he said/he said. Check out the video below of the taped conversation and make your own decision.
10 Comments
Mack
said
The congressional hearing will not be an examination as it pertains to what Clemens or McNamee did or did not do. From all the information that I have heard and read it is a hearing on PEDs within professional sports, namely baseball. Also, no counsel in his/her right mind is going to allow his/her client to comment on information that may have an effect on a court case (Clemens's defamation suit against McNamee, and most likely McNamee's countersuit).
So for those of you waiting to have some unheard information brought forth in this congressional hearing you are barking up the wrong tree. That information, and following circus, will not occur until the defamation suit begins.
But they will ask Clemens/McNamee questions under oath, which will be the first time Clemens has the opportunity to do so. If he doesn't ask for immunity and answers all questions that Congress has for him, regardless of pending suits against McNamee, and denies using, that is going to do a lot for Clemens; at least in the court of public opinion. If he goes to Congress and refuses to answer any questions, then he's probably worse off than he was at the beginning as people will think he was a user.
Clemens isn't being charged with anything criminally but his entire legacy depends upon him proving his innocence. It's a bit sad, because as Clemens said, it seems that nowadays you are guilty until proven innocent. To me, it just seems that there are too many signs pointing towards usage on his part.
I'd put my money on Clemens using. That phone call was so weird, by the way. About 20 times McNamee says "What do you want me to do?" or "What can I do?" Never did Clemens say, "Tell them the truth." Doesn't that seem like the obvious answer to that question?
I guess the call wouldn't have served his purposes if he had said, "Tell them the truth" and McNamee responded, "I did."
There's also no way Congress doesn't flat out ask him if he used roids. That's what this whole dog and pony show is all about.
Bruce, this is an off subject question, but are you the one who runs RedBirdsFan.com? I must be retarded or something to have not noticed your sign in name link until now.
Mack
said
Has anyone read Clemens's defamation complaint? If you want to see some spin doctoring by his counsel read that thing. The "facts" section is quite funny, especially how they try to show McNamee is a rapist.
The complaint is one of the worst written complaints I have ever seen. It seems like it should appear on Page Six of the New York Post. Here is a brief synopsis:
Roger is god, he holds all these records, won all these games, still finds time to be a great dad and community man . . . Brian is scum, he is a rapist, liar, cannot hold a job (other than my client's feeling sorry for him and allowing him to train him), and all-in-all bad guy.
Where are the legal statutes at hand? He never sets forth a full case for defamation, libel, or slander. I am not fully versed in the Texas Rules of Procedure for pleadings, but I think this falls way short.
2008 Cubs Preview
The congressional hearing will not be an examination as it pertains to what Clemens or McNamee did or did not do. From all the information that I have heard and read it is a hearing on PEDs within professional sports, namely baseball. Also, no counsel in his/her right mind is going to allow his/her client to comment on information that may have an effect on a court case (Clemens's defamation suit against McNamee, and most likely McNamee's countersuit).
So for those of you waiting to have some unheard information brought forth in this congressional hearing you are barking up the wrong tree. That information, and following circus, will not occur until the defamation suit begins.
But they will ask Clemens/McNamee questions under oath, which will be the first time Clemens has the opportunity to do so. If he doesn't ask for immunity and answers all questions that Congress has for him, regardless of pending suits against McNamee, and denies using, that is going to do a lot for Clemens; at least in the court of public opinion. If he goes to Congress and refuses to answer any questions, then he's probably worse off than he was at the beginning as people will think he was a user.
Clemens isn't being charged with anything criminally but his entire legacy depends upon him proving his innocence. It's a bit sad, because as Clemens said, it seems that nowadays you are guilty until proven innocent. To me, it just seems that there are too many signs pointing towards usage on his part.
I'd put my money on Clemens using. That phone call was so weird, by the way. About 20 times McNamee says "What do you want me to do?" or "What can I do?" Never did Clemens say, "Tell them the truth." Doesn't that seem like the obvious answer to that question?
I guess the call wouldn't have served his purposes if he had said, "Tell them the truth" and McNamee responded, "I did."
There's also no way Congress doesn't flat out ask him if he used roids. That's what this whole dog and pony show is all about.
I agree, when I first heard the call I actually thought that Clemens had edited out some of McNamee's answers because of how it went.
Roger's spin doctors need to go back to school and audit their courses. This is such a clusterf***, it's almost comical.
Bruce, this is an off subject question, but are you the one who runs RedBirdsFan.com? I must be retarded or something to have not noticed your sign in name link until now.
Has anyone read Clemens's defamation complaint? If you want to see some spin doctoring by his counsel read that thing. The "facts" section is quite funny, especially how they try to show McNamee is a rapist.
Do you have a link?
http://assets.espn.go.com/media/pdf/080107/mlb_clemens.pdf
the factual background is pretty much a biography. kind of odd
The complaint is one of the worst written complaints I have ever seen. It seems like it should appear on Page Six of the New York Post. Here is a brief synopsis:
Roger is god, he holds all these records, won all these games, still finds time to be a great dad and community man . . . Brian is scum, he is a rapist, liar, cannot hold a job (other than my client's feeling sorry for him and allowing him to train him), and all-in-all bad guy.
Where are the legal statutes at hand? He never sets forth a full case for defamation, libel, or slander. I am not fully versed in the Texas Rules of Procedure for pleadings, but I think this falls way short.