Roger Clemens Almost Struck Out Brian McNamee

Nannygate. Misremembered. Bloody pants. On Capitol Hill, today's "Roman circus" added to pop culture. But it also gave Roger Clemens and his legal team new headaches going forward.

By the end of the day, we still don't have any definitive answers. However, it is clear to me that Brian McNamee can't be trusted either. Both Roger Clemens and Brian McNamee aren't telling the truth.

The proceedings, which included newly disclosed evidence, raised further questions about the possibility of future criminal investigations and charges.

Problems For Clemens:

First, Clemens had no solid answer for the devastating testimony and written statement from Andy Pettitte. Not only did Pettitte corroborate McNamee's testimony about Pettitte's use of HGH, he also established a chronology on Clemens' statements about HGH that could lead to a perjury charge. Responding to Pettitte's assertion that Clemens told him he used HGH, Clemens insisted on several occasions during Wednesday's hearing that Pettitte had "misunderstood" him. He suggested that the subject of the Pettitte-Clemens conversation was the use of HGH by Clemens' wife. Clemens even tried to interrupt committee chairman Henry Waxman to repeat his claim at the end of the hearing, and Waxman gaveled him into angry silence. The problem for Clemens is that Debbie Clemens' alleged use of HGH came two years after Clemens' conversation with Pettitte. And, as Waxman explained, that means Clemens "made untrue statements in his deposition [sworn testimony to the committee last week]."

Now has anyone even for a second stopped to consider perhaps Andy Pettitte was wrong with the claims he made. I like how before they gave his testimonies, they built him up to sound like Mother Teresa. Even Mother Teresa lied. Pettitte is human like you and me and that makes him just as susceptible to lying. Pettitte has a weak character and when the Government came to him with questions he crawled into a hole like a defenseless, scared rabbit and told them everything that they wanted to hear. What kind of evidence is memory from 10 years ago?? Some people can't remember what they had for lunch. The courtroom made me sick in the way they praised Andy Pettitte. If he had walked in that day, the court would have bowed and worshiped him as he sat down and took off his halo. Do they not remember that he is an acknowledged cheater too?

Second, Clemens and his legal team blundered into the possibility of a charge of tampering with a witness. The potential charge could stem from their handling of a committee request for information about a woman who once served as a Clemens family nanny. (The committee staff requested the woman's contact information last week.) The committee wanted to ask her about a barbecue luncheon at Jose Canseco's house in Miami in June 1998, and whether Clemens attended the party. The protocol for producing a witness requires that a lawyer, or an investigator for the lawyer, contact a witness and send their information to the committee. Instead of following the protocol, Clemens called the former nanny personally and invited her to his home for a meeting on Sunday. We do not yet have the entire content of their conversation, but it is clear that he discussed the inquiry with her. Waxman was clearly angry that Clemens talked with the nanny before the committee's staff interviewed her and said, "At the very least, it has the appearance of impropriety."

McNamee was attacked viciously by a few Republican members of the committee and called a "liar" and "drug dealer," McNamee performed surprisingly well. He admitted that he had been less than truthful with federal agents and the Mitchell committee. He said he withheld some of his information -- and his box of syringes, vials and gauze pads -- in an effort to "downplay the use of these drugs" and protect players. But in the course of interviews with five groups of investigators, including Clemens' detectives, he gradually revealed the information he knew and the physical evidence that he had accumulated. McNamee's statements have been corroborated by Pettitte and Chuck Knoblauch. Mitchell and his staff have endorsed his veracity on numerous occasions. It is unlikely that the committee will recommend charges against McNamee and equally unlikely that the FBI or the IRS will investigate him.

Andy Pettitte is the most important witness. Although the committee members clearly disagreed on the relative veracity of McNamee and Clemens, they all agreed that Pettitte is a man of integrity who responded to the committee's questions with truths that were painful to him. His testimony about his friend Clemens was a most painful act of integrity, both sides agreed. Both the Democrats and Republicans thought so highly of Pettitte and his cooperation that they granted his request to be excused from testifying at Wednesday's hearing. Excusing Pettitte might have been a mistake. If he had been present to tell his story of HGH and his conversations with Clemens, it could have been the most illuminating testimony in the hearing. It is of considerable benefit to Clemens that Pettitte, with his material highly damaging to Clemens, was not present to add to his problems. Any decision on the prosecution of Clemens will turn not on McNamee's credibility but on that of Andy Pettitte.

Why would McNamee claim to have injected Pettitte and Knoblauch with steroids (both of which have been confirmed to be true), but for some reason make up a story about injecting Clemens? That makes no sense and McNamee has no reason to lie. That's enough evidence for me to believe Clemens is lying.

Then again....

I didn't know McNamee was a former police officer. Why would a police officer, who is supposed to uphold the legal law, give players illegal steroids? What irony. That's like a fire truck catching on fire and shows McNamee can't be trusted.

So what happens now? Nothing is certain, but there might be additional investigations of Clemens' testimony and of the nanny situation. It could come from the committee or, more likely, from the team of federal agents who have been working on the BALCO investigation.

Roger Clemens Files Defamation Lawsuit Against Ex-Trainer Brian McNamee

Probably everyone by now has seen or at least heard about Roger Clemens' interview with Mike Wallace on 60 Minutes. What people may not know is that shortly before the interview was aired, Roger Clemens beat Brian McNamee to court, filing a defamation suit against the former trainer who claimed to have injected him with performance-enhancing drugs.

McNamee's attorney, Earl Ward, told ESPN's T.J. Quinn on Monday that McNamee is determined to file a counter lawsuit against Clemens. Ward said he spoke to McNamee on Monday morning and Clemens' statements in Sunday's "60 Minutes" interview are "a total lie."

No countersuit has been filed yet.

Clemens filed the suit Sunday night in Harris County District Court in Texas, listing 15 alleged statements McNamee made to the baseball drug investigator George Mitchell. Clemens claimed the statements were "untrue and defamatory."

"According to McNamee, he originally made his allegations to federal authorities after being threatened with criminal prosecution if he didn't implicate Clemens," according to the 14-page petition, obtained early Monday by The Associated Press.

The suit, first reported by the Houston Chronicle, states that when McNamee told others that when he first was interviewed by federal law enforcement last June, he denied Clemens had used steroids or human growth hormone. The suit quotes McNamee as saying he was pressured by Assistant U.S. Attorney Matthew Parrella and IRS Special Agent Jeff Novitzky -- key members of the BALCO prosecution -- to implicate Clemens. The suit did not attribute where the quote from McNamee was obtained.

"After this exchange, and for the first time in his life, McNamee stated that he had injected Clemens with steroids in 1998, 2000 and 2001," the suit said. "Following his recantation, McNamee has relayed that he magically went from a 'target' in a federal criminal drug investigation to a mere 'witness,' so long as he continued to 'toe the line.' "

Richard Emery, one of McNamee's lawyers, said he would seek to remove the case to U.S. District Court in Houston, then to possibly shift it to federal court in Brooklyn.

"I think it's dismissible on its face. I think it's a press release for Clemens and his career," Emery said. "The case is shoddy at best. The prosecutors acted completely professionally in this case. This is a very odd thing for me to be saying, but it's the truth. Sometimes you are bound by the truth."

The suit said that when McNamee initially refused a request from federal authorities that he speak to Mitchell, he was threatened with prosecution. Clemens said McNamee decided only then to cooperate with Mitchell and the suit said McNamee said the interview "was conducted like a Cold War-era interrogation in which a federal agent merely read to the Mitchell investigators McNamee's previously obtained statement and then asked McNamee to confirm what he previously stated."

Clemens asked that damages be determined by a jury.

"Clemens' good reputation has been severely injured," the suit said. "McNamee's false allegations have also caused Clemens to suffer mental anguish, shame, public humiliation and embarrassment."

Ward believes Clemens filing the lawsuit is the pitcher's way of getting out of testifying at next week's congressional hearing about the Mitchell report.

"[The lawsuit is an] amateur and transparent attempt to try to avoid testifying before Congress," Ward told Quinn.

Clemens' attorney has said the lawsuit wouldn't keep him from potentially testifying before the hearing.

A fiery look in his eyes and stubble on his face, Clemens told CBS' Mike Wallace during the "60 Minutes" interview that he would have spoken with baseball drug investigator George Mitchell had he been aware of the extent of McNamee's accusations.

Ward told ESPN's Quinn that he has documentary proof that Clemens hired his attorneys before the Mitchell report came out. Ward claims that Clemens sent investigators to speak with McNamee to ask him what he told Mitchell. Ward says McNamee told those investigators everything he told Mitchell, thus contradicting Clemens' claim that he didn't know what information was going to come out in the Mitchell report.

The seven-time Cy Young Award winner, who was scheduled to hold a late afternoon news conference Monday in Houston, sounded indignant and defiant in a segment of CBS's "60 Minutes" broadcast Sunday night, his first interview since McNamee accused him. The pair are approaching a potential confrontation if the pair testify under oath at a Jan. 16 hearing on Capitol Hill.

he most prominent player implicated in last month's Mitchell report, Clemens steadfastly maintained his innocence and called McNamee's allegations "totally false."

"If he's doing that to me, I should have a third ear coming out of my forehead. I should be pulling tractors with my teeth," said Clemens, who wore a lavender button-down shirt during the interview, taped Dec. 28 at his home in Katy, Texas.

On Friday, when the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform invited Clemens and McNamee to testify, the pair spoke by telephone, an individual close to the situation said, speaking on condition of anonymity because public comments weren't authorized. The conversation first was reported Sunday by Newsday.

The individual would not say what was discussed.

Clemens' lawyer, Rusty Hardin, told the Chronicle that it was McNamee who arranged to talk to Clemens on Friday but instead of getting back to Clemens the conversation was leaked "with spin" to Newsday.

"We kept thinking McNamee might change his mind and come to his senses and admit he was lying," Hardin told the Chronicle.

During the "60 Minutes" segment, Clemens said he might be willing to take a lie-detector test and was "shocked" close friend Andy Pettitte used HGH. He said -- again -- that he probably will retire.

"I thought it was an impassioned, disingenuous and desperate plea," said Ward.

One of the few revelations in the much-hyped interview came when Clemens was asked whether he conceivably would take a lie detector test.

"Yeah," he answered. "I don't know if they're good or bad."

After Monday's news conference will come the congressional hearing. Pettitte, former Yankees teammate Chuck Knoblauch and former Mets clubhouse attendant Kirk Radomski, who allegedly supplied McNamee with performance-enhancing drugs, also were asked to appear before the committee.

Lawyers for Clemens and McNamee have said their clients are willing to testify but Hardin wouldn't commit to the date.

Emery said he wanted to hear testimony from Clemens.

"If Congress calls him, he pretty much has to take the Fifth, and if he takes the Fifth, nobody will ever believe him again and all this effort has gone down the drain," Emery said. "And if he doesn't take the Fifth, it's very hard to imagine that a prosecutor isn't going to pursue this. So I think he's put himself in a terrible corner."

Clemens said his lawyer advised him not to speak with Mitchell, who spent 20 months on his investigation.

"If I would've known what this man, what Brian McNamee [had] said in this report, I would have been down there in a heartbeat to take care of it," Clemens said.

Only two active players, Jason Giambi and Frank Thomas, spoke with Mitchell, a Boston Red Sox director and a former Senate majority leader.

In excerpts of the CBS interview that were released Thursday, Clemens said McNamee injected him with vitamin B-12 and the painkiller lidocaine. In the full 14-minute broadcast, Clemens also said he was given an injection of toradol under the supervision of the New York Yankees.

McNamee told Mitchell he injected Clemens with steroids and HGH about 16 to 21 times during 1998, 2000 and 2001 -- before baseball players and owners agreed to ban performance-enhancing substances.

Eighth on the career list with 354 wins, the 45-year-old Clemens said he was angered McNamee's accusations have been accepted as truth by some.

"It's hogwash for people to even assume this," Clemens said. "Twenty-four, 25 years, Mike. You'd think I'd get an inch of respect. An inch."

Clemens said the descriptions McNamee gave Mitchell of injections "never happened."

"If I have these needles and these steroids and all these drugs, where did I get 'em?" he said. "Where is the person out there [who] gave 'em to me? Please, please come forward."

Barry Bonds' Legacy And Future Is At Stake

Today begins what could possibly be one of the biggest sports related trials in history. It's hard to believe that while Bonds was on the field hitting homer after homer, the government was compiling document after document until they had enough of a reason to nail this guy. Its as if Bonds showed the government up and they weren't going to stand for it. They were absolutely determined to nail this guy and this shows one can not hide from the government; they will find you. Here is an article from ESPN answering any remaining questions one may have before Bonds's future is decided later.

When Barry Bonds walks into the Phillip Burton Federal Building in San Francisco on Friday, it will be only the beginning of an unpredictable legal odyssey. A few days after the fourth anniversary of his BALCO grand jury testimony, Bonds will surrender to U.S. marshals, go through the bureaucratic rigmarole of being arrested and later appear in court to enter a plea on four counts of perjury and one of obstructing justice.

Outside the courtroom and all over the United States, however, debate and speculation about his fate will rage as it has since he was pulled into the biggest steroid scandal in sports history. There are those who decry the government "witch hunt" and those who say Bonds is getting what he deserves, but there remain many unknowns about the facts of the case. Those will emerge in the coming weeks and months, but as the United States versus Barry Lamar Bonds begins, here are answers to some of the questions that have been batted about during the past few weeks. What is important to remember is that, like Bonds himself, we don't know what we don't know about the government's case.

Barry Bonds wasn't the only athlete to use steroids, so why are the feds going after only him?

The short answer is: They aren't. There are two false premises to that question: First, they aren't going after him for using steroids, they are going after him for allegedly lying about it before a federal grand jury. Bonds was charged with four counts of perjury and one of obstructing justice, not drug use. As with Martha Stewart and other high-profile defendants, the government seems determined to make an example of Bonds.

When Bonds testified before the BALCO grand jury in December 2003, he was given immunity from prosecution, meaning he could have spilled his guts about steroid use the way Jason Giambi did and not faced any punishment. The feds wanted Bay Area Laboratory Co-Operative founder Victor Conte and Bonds' longtime friend and trainer Greg Anderson, not Bonds.

But Bonds testified he never knowingly took steroids or injected them. He said he thought "the cream" and "the clear" were benign substances, not two steroids designed to avoid detection. The government believed he was lying and soon began collecting evidence to prove its case.

Second, Bonds isn't their only target. Fallen track legend Marion Jones pleaded guilty in October to lying to federal investigators after she was targeted for prosecution. Her former coach Trevor Graham, the original BALCO whistle-blower, is awaiting trial on charges of obstructing a federal investigation, and former cyclist Tammy Thomas is awaiting trial on perjury charges.

Why did it take so long for the government to charge Bonds?

There has been considerable discussion about this, but really, the answer appears far less sinister than some would like to believe. Some have suggested the government must have found last-minute witnesses who convinced the U.S. attorney to seek charges or that the case involving former Mets clubhouse attendant Kirk Radomski has played a role. But in interviews with sources familiar with the government's case, those don't appear to be issues at all.

First and foremost, the feds work slowly. The only clock was the statute of limitations, which is five years in a federal perjury case. The government had until December 2008 to bring charges.

Second, the athletes were not initially targets of the BALCO probe, which started in the summer of 2002 after local agencies were tipped off about the distribution of performance-enhancing drugs to elite athletes, according to court records. Prosecutors first went after the dealers, ultimately indicting four men in 2004, and plea deals were not struck until 2005. Next, the focus shifted to any witnesses (athletes, coaches, trainers) the government believed had lied and essentially obstructed justice in the case. Bonds was on that list, but as mentioned above, he was not the only one.

Third, the case dragged for internal reasons. Among those, the U.S. attorney for the Northern District of California, Kevin Ryan, was forced from office in February, creating uncertainty in the office. At the same time, then-U.S. Attorney General Alberto Gonzalez came under fire and ultimately left his post, presenting an additional leadership vacuum.

Fourth, the feds had other cases to pursue. BALCO wasn't the only investigation based in the busy Northern District of California.

And while all of this was going on, the government was willing to take whatever time it needed to coax Anderson to testify about his client. Anderson refused, and he ultimately languished in jail for 413 days on contempt charges.

"There was nothing unusual about the timing," said Mark Corallo, a former Justice Department official with knowledge of the BALCO case.

How significant is it that the government says it has positive tests demonstrating Bonds used steroids?

It's hard to say, but it's possible it isn't significant at all. Certainly the government will need to prove Bonds actually used steroids to make its case, but there appears to be ample evidence of that in the form of documents, testimony, statements to federal investigators and even an audio recording in which Anderson discusses providing Bonds with a steroid designed to evade detection.

So, the focus on the importance of the positive tests and whether they could be problematic because of "chain-of-custody" issues seems to be a red herring. The case will not be about proving Bonds used, but rather about trying to prove he knew what he was using and that he injected some of the drugs, which he explicitly denied doing. If it turns out the government can prove Bonds was aware of the test results, that could be compelling evidence he knew what he was doing.

Is this case definitely going to trial?

There has been rampant speculation that because Bonds' criminal attorney Michael Rains has blasted the government repeatedly, there is no way Bonds will agree to a plea bargain. As Bonds looks to expand his legal team to include a veteran of the federal criminal justice system, however, he still hasn't seen the evidence against him. Whatever the government has probably will be turned over within the coming week as part of the discovery process. When that happens, Team Bonds might decide the evidence is overwhelming and he would be better off settling. Or Bonds and his team could decide the government's case is flimsy and worth fighting in court.

Whatever the case, however, Bonds is looking at a maximum of 30 months, not 30 years. Sentencing guidelines allow for 30 years, but that would apply to Bonds only if he had a long criminal history, which he does not.

Who are the witnesses?

First of all, sticking to the "we don't know what we don't know" guidelines, there might be witnesses in this case who have not been identified publicly, and sources close to the case have suggested that there are. But among the known witnesses in the case will be Arthur Ting, Bonds' personal physician; Kimberly Bell, Bonds' former girlfriend; and Steve Hoskins, a former friend and business partner of Bonds' who claims to have first-hand knowledge of Bonds' steroid use.

Former BALCO vice president James Valente, who pleaded guilty to his part in the steroid distribution scandal, also is expected to be called. In addition, the government is expected to call several players to testify, including former BALCO clients Jason Giambi, Gary Sheffield and Benito Santiago. At minimum, each player could be asked about his dealings with the lab and what he was told about the substances he took.