Roger's butt causes reasonable doubt

Seems that the abscess on Clemens’ butt is causing reasonable doubt. Conflicting medical reports. Rep. Davis “protecting” Clemens from answering about a medical report he has yet to review. Tide turning.

Again, score another for Clemens. Enough reasonable doubt and maybe this doesn’t get to a perjury case….

This makes your case inconsistent” – Rep. Davis (to McNamee)

Lawyers out there… help?

UPDATE #1: With a BIG THANKS to Shysterball, in an email, said the following: “That said, I think that McNamee has gotten a bit of a free ride a bit too long for the simple reason that he isn’t as newsworthy as Clemens. When you get down to a testimony situation, his previous lies just utterly sink him. In the law, credibility is the only thing that matters.Continue reading Roger's butt causes reasonable doubt

Score one for Roger

2/13/08, 10:40am

Sen. Burton CLEARLY is on Clemens’ side, skewering McNamee repeatedly. This, to me, is a STUNNING turn.

Burton called/proved McNamee a liar.


UPDATE #1: Jayson Stark captured the give-and-take between Burton and McNamee and it’s brutal:

12:14 p.m. ET Rough time for McNamee.
Rep. Dan Burton was all over McNamee, wondering about a question many of us have asked:

Why would he ever have held onto vials and syringes for five years that could implicate a friend?

“He was my employer,” McNamee answered.

Burton: “You do this to all your employers?”

McNamee stammered an answer about how he’d “done things before for other people and gotten hurt by it, so I might as well hold onto it.”

Burton asked why he didn’t give this evidence to the Mitchell investigators immediately.

“Because I felt horrible being in the position I was in,” McNamee said.

Burton: “You kept needles for five years … and kept working for him … and now you say you felt bad?”

McNamee: “No, sir.”

Burton: “My goodness.”

Not the pinnacle of McNamee’s day.

Continue reading Score one for Roger

Rusty chokes on own words

Looks like Rusty Hardin must be choking on his own words! Remember this: The fine line between bold and stupid

And now we hear from Clemens’ agent, good ole Rusty Hardin, that Clemens is not worried about whatever Pettitte might say when he testifies, well, I think that’s just false bravado. There’s a fine line between being bold/aggressive and stupid. I think Clemens & Co. are crossing the line. Why even make the statements. Just keep quiet until required to talk. They’ve talked enough. No need to say any more.

Clemens’s lawyer said Pettitte would help, not hurt, his former teammate. “We have nothing to fear about what Andy may testify to,” Rusty Hardin, Clemens’s lawyer in Houston, said in a telephone interview. “Everyone says Andy is honest; we have no reason to believe he will lie.”

What if 1) Everyone universally agrees that Pettitte IS honest and 2) He tells the truth and that contradicts everything Clemens has said? Then what, Rusty? An indictment, I guess. Or, are you going to accuse Pettitte of lying under oath?

Rather than accusing Pettitte of lying, Roger’s telling everyone Pettitte misunderstood, or “mis-remembers”. I had to check to see if that was even a word (it is, sadly).

More later. Continue reading Rusty chokes on own words

Yanking Wang around


Pardon the horrible double entendre, but I think everyone has to make some sort of lame quip on Chien Ming Wang’s name at some point. There, I got it over with.


Why aren’t the Yanks interested in locking up Wang in a longer term contract? Why the hesitation? A shoulder situation in 2005? Around 200 IP the last 2 years dispells that worry, methinks.

Said yesterday in an article:

I want to,” Wang said of inking a multi-year contract. “They told me it’s not the time because for pitchers it’s hard to stay healthy.”

Smacks of hypocrisy since they were strongly giving consideration to giving Johan 6 years, but not Wang? Not the same caliber pitcher, no question, but Wang’s not yet 28. Why are the Yanks playing hardball with Wang? Why not offer him a 4 year deal for $32M (or 5/$40M), buying him out of arbitration and a few years of free agency? [EDIT: The Yanks have Wang under control via arbitration thru the 2011 season. I did not realize this at the time I created this posting. My apologies.] Still below market for even a mediocre starter. I don’t get this stance by the Yanks.

It just seems totally hypocritical of the Yanks to toss up the “injury concern” thing regarding Wang but were willing to ignore it (to a degree) with Johan (and his lousy 2nd half and reported decreased velocity).

I would be pretty excited if the Yanks could lock down Wang for 4-5 years at a reasonable rate, something less than journeyman/mediocre pitchers like Carlos Silva, Kyle Lohse, etc. all seem to be getting. That’d be a smart move, in my opinion.

Put that in your pipe and smoke it. Or not. Continue reading Yanking Wang around

Clemens throws wife under bus; declared batshit crazy

In an amazing, yet not completely surprising, twist, Roger Clemens has proven himself to be completely batshit crazy by tossing HIS WIFE under the bus.

Once Clemens learned that Pettitte’s recent affidavit claimed that Roger told Andy that he used HGH, Clemens summarily hurled Debbie Clemens under the bus.

Clemens responded by saying Pettitte misunderstood the previous exchange in 1999 or 2000 and that, in fact, Clemens had been talking about HGH use by his wife in the original conversation.

I’m flabbergasted that Clemens is this desperate. this delusional, this batshit crazy to toss his wife under the bus. Once this trial is over, assuming he’s guilty as most people think, all he’ll have left is his family and I can’t imagine Debbie Clemens was thrilled with being ‘outted’ that way. I also can’t imagine that Debbie told Roger to use her as a decoy. My wife would be calling Raul Felder instantly.

Clemens had BETTER be innocent. He HAS to be, otherwise, what excuse could he have for his actions?

Also, feel free to visit Shysterball as he’s got the legal expertise to help mere mortals like me grasp some of the legalese.

Some other HGH/Steriods stuff found here:

Continue reading Clemens throws wife under bus; declared batshit crazy

The fine line, redux

Dan Wetzel from Yahoo Sports had the same slant as I had posted way back on February 4th when I penned the entry The fine line between bold and stupid. My belief, simply, was:

There’s a fine line between being bold/aggressive and stupid. I think Clemens & Co. are crossing the line.


I think Rusty should just keep quiet and stop trying to win the battle for the court of public opinion. That will be determined on February 13th.

What if 1) Everyone universally agrees that Pettitte IS honest and 2) He tells the truth and that contradicts everything Clemens has said? Then what, Rusty? An indictment, I guess. Or, are you going to accuse Pettitte of lying under oath?

I still think Clemens has the “unknowingly” phrase packed away, but ready to use when testifying. “I THOUGHT McNamee was giving me only B-12 and Lidocaine; if he gave me anything else, he did it without my knowledge or permission.” Yes, that’s how I see Clemens playing this out in 10 days.

Select View Full Post to continue reading.

Continue reading The fine line, redux

Pettitte asks out; has the truth already been told?

Fearing implicating his bestest buddy former teammate, Andy Pettitte has asked to be excused from appearing in front of the House Oversight Committe on Wednesday.

Pettitte asked out of public testimony because he did not want to say something to hurt his friend and former teammate while in the glare of national television coverage

Interestingly, according to the report, Chairman Waxman agrees with Pettitte and is consulting his Republican counterpart. I think I know why Waxman’s agreeable to this.

I can completely appreciate Pettitte’s stance; I mean who wants to rat out a friend, particularly when doing so would likely result in a perjury charge and jail time for that friend. However close Pettitte and Clemens are or might have been, Andy surely feels a debt of gratitude for Roger helping elevate his game and fitness training. Not everything Clemens did or achieved is due to PEDs; you have to have the god-given talent in the first place. Clemens took Pettitte under his wing and showed him how to work his rear-end off and Andy’s career blossomed as a result.

But, and it’s a HUGE BUT, doesn’t Pettitte’s request look like a fear of telling the world that Roger is lying on TV? It does to me. Guessing that I won’t be alone come drive-time radio tomorrow. What is also likely is that Pettitte has already implicated Roger via deposition and sitting and pointing the finger ON TV could simply be too difficult for Pettitte, who’s known to be a sensitive and introverted guy. It’s my guess that Andy has validated McNamee’s story in the deposition and Waxman is giving him a break so he doesn’t have to do it for the whole world to see.

Waxman and Co. already got what they need from Pettitte; an admission of guilt, a confirmation of McNamee’s story and enough rope to hang Clemens. Waxman will let Pettitte go with the Committee’s thanks.

Now, steering this back towards the on-the-field stuff: I’m really wondering how Pettitte will perform this year. If he is the one to effectively hang Roger, does he become a cheered-for villian around the league? Will he be applauded for his honesty? Or will he be booed as one of The Mitchell Gang? Most Yanks get booed on the road regardless, but Pettitte would seem to be too plain vanilla to be booed in most visiting parks. Not so much anymore. Tell ya one thing: I know Cashman is expecting Pettitte to hand deliver 16 wins and a 3.75 ERA.

What do we, the fans, want the outted users to do? Apologetic, repentant, hat-in-hand? Defiant, loud, aggressive? Slink away into the darkness? Make a statement and that’s it? I don’t know, either. Continue reading Pettitte asks out; has the truth already been told?

Good question

OK, so I can’t keep my eyes (and hands) off this trainwreck. Oh well.

So much for letting the Clemens Affair go persona non grata for 2 days. Barely a few hours and I finally got to Buster Olney’s blog and he posted this and it really made me wonder (emphasis mine):

A lawyer for Brian McNamee says Roger Clemens may face a perjury probe, and Rusty Hardin wonders how he would know this, Ron Blum writes.

But Hardin told the Daily News late Sunday night that he fears Clemens will face a probe.

Within the same piece, one member of the committee drew a comparison between what is happening now and the era of McCarthyism. And there is this from the Michael O’Keeffe and Teri Thompson story:

Hardin pointed out a peculiarity of the Mitchell report that many legal experts have
noticed: That a document created by a private citizen commissioned for a private corporation was turning the wheels of the justice system.

Right now nobody is suggesting that there is any prosecutable crime that has occurred so far,” Hardin said. “The way to create one is to take the position that a person is committing perjury if he publicly defends himself contrary to the Mitchell report. That’s a helluva note — that you’re going to use a privately commissioned report, to say that it has such talismanic qualities, to say that anybody who disagrees with it is committing perjury.

Made me wonder if this is the “out” that will save Clemens from perjury, if he’s otherwise not cleared from the accusations. I’ll keep sticking to my guess (2/4/08) that Clemens escapes perjury (if not otherwise cleared) this way:

  • I still think Clemens has the “unknowingly” phrase packed away, but ready to use when testifying. “I THOUGHT McNamee was giving me only B-12 and Lidocaine; if he gave me anything else, he did it without my knowledge or permission.” Yes, that’s how I see Clemens playing this out [on February 13, 2008].

If any lawyerly types are out there who care to weigh in, please do. More questions…

  • Is there any precedent here (regarding a private document serving as the basis for a perjury charge)?
  • Can Clemens still face perjury charges in a he-said/he-said affair?
  • Does it come down to whatever our elected officials think happened?
  • Does Clemens’ touring of Capital Hill effectively corrupt the “voters”?
  • How outrageous is that, that Clemens is actively campaigning those who might determine his fate?
  • Does the Mitchell Report have any bearing?
  • Will Debbie Clemens get called to testify and might she face perjury charges, too?
  • If Clemens can prove that he wasn’t at this Canseco party that McNamee claims, does that torpedo McNamee’s other claims?
  • Can Carl Pavano make it on the field for more than 15 TOTAL appearances in 2008? Does anyone care?

‘Splain us, please!

Continue reading Good question