Don't Get Me Wrong

I've been piling on McNamee this morning, but that's mostly because no one else seems to be doing it, and I'm just one of those guys who likes balance and proportionality whenever I can get it. But in case it was unclear, I want to point out that I carry no water for Roger Clemens. In fact, I agree 100% with these comments from Bill Simmons' latest mailbag:

When you're an athlete in trouble and you have to throw the most important people in your life (wife, best friend, agents and players' union) under the bus to defend yourself, it's definitely time to re-evaluate things. I'm just saying.

and

Along those same lines, imagine the validity of this scenario if I had pitched it to you two years ago: There's a famous baseball player whose career will have a curious resurgence well after his prime, and eventually there's going to be evidence pointing to his possible usage of steroids and HGH ... but as it turned out, only his best friend and his wife used HGH! And he wasn't involved at all! You would not have believed me.

McNamee is a bigger liar on the mirco level, and for that reason, no one will ever be able to use him to make a credible case against anyone. Clemens, however, has macro covered, and what he has done and why since all of this broke seems pretty damn inexcusable to me.

More McNamee Deception

Since we're reading tea leaves to figure out if Roger Clemens is honest, it's probably worth noting that Brian McNamee has a few tells of his own. For example, check out the picture on the right, taken during Wednesday's hearing.

ShysterBall reader Bryan Patrick, M.D. writes in with the observation that there doesn't appear to be any refraction in the lenses of McNamee's glasses, indicating that his lawyers have pulled the old put-the-scumbag-in-glasses-to-make-him-look-respectable trick. No judgments here, though. It's a good trick! I've used it myself!

In more substantive news, we've learned of yet another McNamee lie, this one possibly under oath:

In the conversation with [Clemens agent Jim Murray], McNamee does most of the talking, explaining how he had provided illegal drugs to both players. McNamee tells Murray that he ultimately had to cooperate with baseball's steroids probe because of pressure from the government, which was working with Mitchell. McNamee claims that Parrella -- whom he misidentified as "Adam Peralta" -- "looked me in the eye and he said, 'If you don't speak to Senator Mitchell, you're going to get locked up.'"

However, in testimony Wednesday before Congress, McNamee said he never had a deal with the government nor was he coerced to cooperate.

That passage, taken from Mark Fainaru-Wada's story on ESPN.com today, is sort of ignored in the rush to make the point that Clemens' people knew that he would be named in the Mitchell Report beforehand. Why the point that it stands as some of the clearest evidence of perjury coming out of Wednesday's hearing is ignored is beyond me.

UPDATE: David Nieporent at BTF points out to me that the pressure-from-the-government thing was mentioned in Clemens' defamation complaint, and that McNamee's lawyers have said that McNamee was lying when he said that to make Clemens feel better.

So, probably not perjury. Just a garden variety McNamee lie.

Now he tells us . . .

Henry Waxman is not just a grandstander, he's a spineless one:

A day after a dramatic, nationally televised hearing that pitted Roger Clemens against his former personal trainer and Democrats against Republicans, the chairman of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform said Thursday that he regretted holding the hearing in the first place . . .“I’m sorry we had the hearing. I regret that we had the hearing. And the only reason we had the hearing was because Roger Clemens and his lawyers insisted on it.”

Roger Clemens and his lawyers insisted on it? Mr. Waxman, you're the chairman of a congressional committee. If you don't want that hearing to happen, it doesn't happen.

And let's be accurate here. Henry Waxman doesn't regret that the hearing happened. He regrets that, a day later, lots of people are decrying the spectacle and waste of government resources he created in the interests of demigogging the steroids issue.

And Speaking of Lies . . .

That report yesterday that Barry Bonds (remember him?) failed a drug test after breaking the home run record in 2001? Not so much:

Federal prosecutors mistakenly filed court papers Thursday that incorrectly stated that Barry Bonds failed a steroids test in November of 2001 -- one month after breaking the single-season home run mark.

U.S. attorney spokesman Josh Eaton now says that the reference in Thursday's government court filing regarding Bonds testing positive was actually referring to a November 2000 test that was previously disclosed in the indictment of Bonds and had already been reported.

It probably goes nowhere, but if I'm Bonds' lawyer I yell and scream at the top of my lungs that the feds are trying to taint the jury pool by releasing false information.

And if you're keeping score at home, yesterday's final score is Roger and Barry 2, McNamee and feds, 0.

Another McNamee Lie

While the crucifixion of Roger Clemens continues, we are informed of yet another Brian McNamee lie:

The day before the Mitchell Report was released, Brian McNamee lied to investigators for Roger Clemens when he told them that federal authorities had additional evidence about Clemens’s use of performance-enhancing drugs. McNamee’s lawyer said Thursday that McNamee made up the story in order to explain his own discussions with the authorities.

“They said they had video cameras from clubhouses,” McNamee told the Clemens investigators, who secretly recorded the conversation.

“They said they had — they already talked to players. They said they had testimony from other clubhouse people, some other stuff, whatever. So this is what the government’s telling me.”

Earl Ward, McNamee’s lawyer, said Thursday that McNamee lied to the investigators as a way of justifying why he had turned on Clemens and Andy Pettitte.

The fact that such a sharp bluff was ignored by Clemens means that he is either absolutely crazy or that he's actually telling the truth. The fact that McNamee is admitting to yet another lie means that we're even less likely to ever know which one of those things is the case.

Update: Yet another McNamee lie, this one possibly under oath.

Overanalysis is a Kind of Analysis

In our never-ending quest to determine which of two people who are very obviously lying are lying more, we've called in the body language experts:

The first verbal knife had yet to be thrown. Roger Clemens and Brian McNamee had yet to say a single word. And yet renowned body language expert Janine Driver already had jumped off her couch, paused the TiVo and pointed to her television with the excitement of someone who had just found a lost wedding ring.

"See that!?! See that!?!" Driver said. "Did you see the way Roger pulled his thumb in? That's a hot spot. That's a hot spot. That's a potential sign of deception!"

Apparently John Edward was busy talking to dead people and was unavailable.

But maybe I'm too cynical. I can appreciate that non-verbal cues may very well indicate deception. There's some science behind it. And, really, who am I to quibble with the expert who provides the basis for this story:

Driver first noticed the pitcher pull his right thumb into his hand while
he was being sworn. She said that noted jury consultant Jo Ellen Demetrius, who
helped pick the jury for the original O.J. Simpson trial, has a theory that
whenever somebody sticks their thumb in while being sworn in, he or she will be
a difficult witness.

And if you can't trust the judgment of the person responsible for the O.J. jury, whose can you trust?

Great Moments in Selection Bias

The New York Daily News reports that its readers don't believe Clemens is telling the truth:

Seventy-nine percent of the 1,200 readers who voted in a poll on our Web site as of 5:30 p.m. Wednesday said they believed former trainer Brian McNamee was telling the truth - and not baseball legend Roger Clemens.

"The only person [at the hearing] who looks supernervous and cannot give a straight answer is Clemens," posted a reader with the user name Sparks8. "Clemens has dug himself a nice hole ... and he's burying himself."

"Roger is going to jail!" Sparks8 added.

Now that Sparks8 has spoken, I suppose the matter is closed.

Not that I don't agree with Mr. 8 (well, not the jail part). I'm just having a hard time featuring anyone caring all that much about yesterday's hearings unless they were steroid news-crazy, and I can't imagine anyone being steroid news-crazy unless they already thought anyone ever mentioned in the same sentence with the stuff was as guilty as sin (misguided bloggers notwithstanding).

In other words, I have this sneakin' suspicion that the Daily News' survey is slightly less than scientific.

"I see Hugo Banzer won the Presidential election in Bolivia. Did you see that Jose?"

Joe Posnanski has the exclusive transcript of the famous Jose Canseco-Roger Clemens steroid conversation. He's a reporter, so it's understandable that he has better access to this kind of stuff.

The Argument for PEDs

Voros McCracken is pro-PED, and he has video support for his position.

I Knew It!

This whole Congressional hearing thing was nothing more than a clever ruse to allow Pettitte to report to camp late. He must have tickets to the slam dunk contest or somethin.'

Cubs to Win World Series

Ryan Dempster is predicting big things for the Cubs:

"Funny when people make predictions or they say things and people are like, 'How could you say that?' . . .Like you believe it, you really do . . . Enough of all the . . . you know the curse this, the curse that, the goat this, the black cat, the 100 years, whatever it is. We're a better team than we were last year, I truly believe. And last year we made it to the playoffs."

It ain't exactly Churchill. Heck, it ain't even Namath or even Jimmy Rollins, but I suppose it's something.

What A Day!

Today's hearing certainly didn't lack for drama. Someone obviously lied. Actually both of them probably lied about numerous things, and I don't know that we have any clearer picture of the central question -- did Roger 'roid -- than we had when the day began. Far too much was said about Roger Clemens' butt. All in all it was kind of pathetic on about eleven levels, but we knew it would be.

I was somewhat surprised that, Rep. Elijah Cummings' opening fusillade notwithstanding, McNamee took way more fire than Clemens did. Clemens was outright coddled by Rep. Tom Davis and others didn't unload on him in the way in which I thought they would. Some have suggested that this is the result of Clemens' recent lobbying efforts. That may be, but I think a lot more of it has to do with the nature of Congressional hearings and the nature of the legal system.

As to the first point, McNamee probably had an easier go of it in the press before today because he simply isn't as famous as Roger Clemens. "Drug trafficker may have lied" just isn't as newsworthy as "star athlete used steroids." Congress may occasionally get star struck, and they certainly are grandstanders, but they aren't newspapers. Rather than reveal something salacious, Congressmen want to appear to be tough. To be getting down to the bottom of things. To wag their fingers with righteous indignation while looking over the tops of eyeglasses which have slid ever so slightly down their nose. Because Clemens has been in the press so much and because McNamee has been relatively quiet, McNamee represented far cleaner canvass upon which Congress could paint.

As to the latter point -- and you may scoff hearing this from a lawyer -- I cannot overstate just how utterly important the concept of credibility is in the legal system. If you have lied in the past -- even about stuff that has nothing to do with your current testimony -- you are almost useless as a witness. If you cannot provide some overwhelmingly good reason for the lie -- like you had to save lives or something -- your word is spit. Thieves, murderers, rapists, and felons of all stripes routinely provide snitch testimony which puts people in jail. Liars almost never do.

Congress, lest we forget, is made up largely of lawyers, and the staffers who prep them for these hearings are almost exclusively members of the bar. Given their background and predispositions, they are going to react with great vengeance and furious anger at anyone before them with a reputation for lying. That's Brian McNamee, by his own admission. When you marry this with their interest in finger-wagging you have a perfect storm. McNamee never stood a chance today, because it's too easy to take shots at a liar in any kind of legal forum.

Not that Clemens came off wonderfully. He was still rough around the edges in that impatient, petulant, and cocky way in which we've all come to expect. Maybe he was trying to coach his nanny (although I think that exchange made Waxman look worse than Clemens). I still have no idea why he has fomented all of this. All that said, he came out the other side surprisingly intact, and I can't see any basis for thinking less of him today than we did a week ago. Many will probably think better of him for not losing his cool as much as they thought he would.

One thing we didn't learn today is whether or not Roger Clemens took steroids. The old circumstantial stuff was rehashed, and the new stuff came with equal amounts of he-said/he-said. I suppose the closest we came to real information was during the investigation of the abscesses on Clemens' right buttock. If finding out the definitive truth in this matter requires a closer examination of that, however, I may have to temporarily suspend this blog, because I don't think I can bring myself to think about it anymore.

So what did we get today? Here's a partial list:

Muck. Drama. Deceit. Drugs. Anger. Stupidity. Banality. Loyalty. Betrayal.

All we get tomorrow is pitchers and catchers reporting. And not a moment too soon.

Guns-a-blazin' (periodic liveblog of the Clemens business)

Still not liveblogging, Ok, I'm sort of liveblogging.

You gotta love Clemens' opening statement. Defiant, unequivocal. A bit over-heated, but that's the Clemens we know and love. You can also tell that Roger wrote his statements himself as opposed to reading something Hardin' put together (Hardin, by the way, has the look of a man who has no control over his client. He's peaceful. Resigned. Thinking about some motion he has pending in another case).

McNamee has now directly contradicted Clemens. Someone has now lied under oath.

Bonus: "While I liked and admired Roger Clemens, I never trusted him." I don't think sympathy is all that relevant here, but McNamee -- for all of his faults -- comes off as the far more sympathetic figure here.

While I still think this is a waste of Congress' time, this is grand theatre.

Bonus part II: Before the first question to Clemens, Congressman Elijah Cummings asks Clemens if he knows he is under oath.

You're not going to have a good day when that's your first question.

Update: Elijah Cummings is pretty much a moron. Clemens says Andy Pettitte "misremembers" what Clemens told him. In order to impeach him, Cummings offeres what Andy Pettitte's wife, prefacing it by saying that all of her info is based on what Andy Pettitte said. Dude, if Andy "misremembers" how can his wife have any better information?

Update: Clemens won't admit that he told Pettitte that his wife took HGH. Fine line to walk, there, Roger.

Update: "Mr. Clemens, you testified during your deposition that Mr. McNamee injected your wife in your bedroom without your knowledge."

We know what he meant, but man, that's something that doesn't read well in a transcript . . .

Update: Now McNamee is being hammered over keeping the syringes and his own multiple lies.

For entertainment purposes, this thing has definitely delivered. For legal purposes it's an utter mess. Neither of these guys look good. Neither of them have a viable civil case against the other. When this is over, both need to stand down and simply go away for a while.

Update: With apologies to Dave Barry, I'd like to note that "Palpable mass on the right buttock of Roger Clemens" would be an excellent name for a rock band.

Update: Waxman accuses Clemens of trying to influence his ex-nanny's testimony! The only other time I've seen a lawyer stand up and angrilly point his finger at a Congressional committee was Tom Hagen in Godfather II!

This is just awesome stuff.

Update: Forgive me, but ESPN's feed doesn't always have the names of the representatives up on the screen, so I'll have to identify the current questioner as the gray-haired African American gentleman." Sorry. Anyway, he's asking Clemens why his investigators asked McNamee if there was a paper trail, etc., with the insinuation that Clemens' people were up to no good. At times like these I wish I had the ability to jump in someone's brain a-la Being John Malkovich. If I did, I'd make Roger say "well, I suppose I could have told my investigators to go out and do a half-assed investigation which provides me no information, but I decided to go in the other direction."

Update: The distinguished former prosecutor with the silve combover opines that that the legal case against Clemens -- not that there actually is one at the moment, but still -- is "weak." I agree. If they had him dead to rights on perjury, we would have seen more of it today. As for "did he do steroids," well, that's a weak case too, even if I tend to think he actually did. Ultimately, this is a matter of evidence, not belief, and we need to remember that.

Update: Clemens is getting the hang of this thing. His current "I'm an easy person to find" monologue is pretty sweet, even if it has nothing to do with anything.

Update: I would have wagered $1000 that Roger wouldn't know what a vegan is. I'm glad he didn't let me down. Dude probably brushes his teeth with cow marrow.

Update: The "why would you take B-12 if it wasn't medically indicated" and "why would you let McNamee make chiropractic adjustments if he's not a chiropractor" questions are pretty obtuse. He's a pro athlete. Remember: pro athletes are nuts.

Update: A congressman asks McNamee if he thinks his previous lies hurts his credibility. McNamme says no. Response: "Well shame on you."

Update: Congressman with slicked-back hair and red tie notes that this was supposed to be about steroids in baseball, not all McNamee-Clemens. He's right, but since no one else cares, why should Congress? He also called it a "show trial," which is even righter. By the way, I love this guy. His next question is about how McNamee can both know that his phone call with Clemens was being taped and then later claim surprise and outrage that the substance of the conversation -- McNamee's son's health -- was aired like it was. Pretty good question.

Update: I gotta go into a meeting, so I'm offline for a while. If this is still going on when I'm done, I'll continue. If it's not, I will have a wrap up post later this afternoon.

Stark Liveblog

I'm just not set up to liveblog today's hearings (I have to at least pretend to work, right?) but Jayson Stark is doing it. He did a great job during the last go-around, and I highly recommend that you check him out today.

The Boss?

An interview with Joe Girardi. This sticks out:

C- What is your relationship like with Hal Steinbrenner?

G- “It’s good. I mean, obviously, it’s not an everyday conversation at this point. I’m sure it will be in spring training. I talked to Hal the other day and Jenny. I always enjoy talking to the Boss because I always needle him about Northwestern . . ."

We're calling Hal "the Boss" now? Has he really earned that yet? More to the point, does this comment support the notion that Hank, for all of his bluster, isn't really in charge?

Let the Perjury Investigation Begin!

We've been sort of shuffling up to this point, but as near as I can tell, this is the first article to report testimony that (a) could actually nail Roger for perjury; and (b) utterly sink his defamation case:

Roger Clemens told Yankees teammate Andy Pettitte nearly 10 years ago that he used human growth hormone, Pettitte said in a sworn affidavit to Congress, the Associated Press learned Tuesday . . .

. . . According to the person familiar with the affidavit, who said it was signed Friday night, Pettitte also said Clemens backtracked when the subject of HGH came up again in conversation in 2005, before the same House committee held the first hearing on steroids in baseball.

Pettitte said in the affidavit that he asked Clemens in 2005 what he would do if asked by the media about HGH, given his admission years earlier. According to the account told to the AP, the affidavit said 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 say this actually sinks him because, unlike everything else we've heard, Pettitte's testimony of Clemens' admission is admissible evidence under the Rules of Evidence.* Moreover, unlike McNamee's contradictions of Clemens' denials, Pettitte isn't facing legal process or financial ruin or anything else that may inspire him to lie.

Yes, there's some wiggle room in there regarding Clemens' backtracking and talking about his wife, but if that's what Clemens is relying on, aren't we're starting to get into "Ok, fine, I shot him. But I didn't mean to; the gun went just went off" territory? At the very least we now have an admission of HGH in the Clemens home, and the prospect of a nice, uncomfortable deposition of Debbie Clemens if the civil suit goes forward.

Oh, and we now know why Clemens' people didn't act all outraged the other day when McNamee spouted off about Debbie Clemens. Roger is apparently so compromised that he can't even take the high road when his family is involved. Makes you wonder if Hardin knew that when he agreed to take the case and go on the offensive back in December.

I'm going to watch with interest this morning to see what Clemens has to say about it, but the concrete certainly appears to be setting.

*Yes, I know the Rules of Evidence aren't important for today's Congressional scrum. But as I've said before, I think Clemens can survive all of this if he (a) can avoid a perjury rap; and (b) can prevail, somehow, in his civil case, even if everyone goes to sleep tonight believing he's a liar. I think this because the civil case happens last, and today's Congressional hearings will eventually come to be considered more dubious than everyone seems to want to admit today.

In Case You Haven't Had Enough of This . . .

Ron Shelton, the guy behind Bull Durham, White Men Can't Jump, and Tin Cup, is set to make a movie based on Game of Shadows:

How does Shelton see “Game of Shadows” as film?

“It’s not really about Bonds and it’s not really about Clemens,” he said, although how the Clemens situation plays out may enter into it just as Bonds is certain to be a part of it. “It’s more about the uncovering of the details, more like ‘All the President’s Men’, which wasn’t really about [ Richard] Nixon specifically."

Shelton -- a man whose signature successes are based on thoughtful human stories about endearing losers set in the milieu of sports -- chooses to invest himself in a banal, technical anti-drama which, even if done well, will not contain a single sympathetic character.

Yeah, that should work out well.

(link via BTF)

Join MLB And See the World!

Kris Benson will likely sign with the Phillies. Add that to Pittsburgh, Baltimore, and New York and you have a career that spans literally tens of miles. He and Sean Casey (Cleveland, Cincy, Pittsburgh, Detroit) ought to get together to write a travel book.

Superstitions

Headline: Docs: HGH alone doesn't help athletes;

A Nation Cries Out (maybe): Then why, oh why do these ballplayers do it?!

Response: Have you ever met a ballplayer?

Let's remember folks, baseball is full of guys who believe in the rally cap. Who won't step on foul lines. Who won't talk to a guy throwing a no-hitter. Who don't change their underwear for a week if they have a hitting streak going. Who eat chicken every night for eighteen years. Who play amazing baseball for six months but then refuse to shave for October lest they suddenly forget how to hit. Who draw crucifixes in the batter's box. Who jam their toes into the ground and remove their batting gloves before every pitch. Who talk to baseballs. Who think that being featured on the cover of certain magazines will kill their career. Who believe in curses, momentum, ju-ju, and the whammy.

In short, baseball players are nuts.

It's totally understandable, then, that if patient zero in baseball's PED explosion (Canseco? Tom House? Brian Downing? Napoleon Lajoie?) says he took HGH and then played well, several dozen other guys are going to follow suit without the benefit of double-blind experimentation. These are guys who would eat scrapple, dance jigs, and join political movements of dubious provenance if someone told them it would raise their average a few points, so it's no surprise that they'd take HGH.

In other news, I have this feeling that no one will mention the inefficacy of HGH during tomorrow's Congressional hearings. After all, baseball players don't have the irrationality market cornered.

Zing!

From an article discussing the possible new austerity in Hollywood as a result of the settlement of the writers' strike comes this gem:

Will the studios stick to their new vows of restraint? Perhaps there's an instructive comparison with another business run by big egos in search of talent, Major League Baseball.

Every few years, the baseball owners announce that there's a new austerity in the air and that they won't overspend on players. But just before spring training starts, they get nervous and suddenly a pitcher like Ted Lilly — the baseball equivalent of an assistant gag writer on "Two and a Half Men" — gets something like $10 million.

In his defense, Lilly has been slightly above average for his career. I don't watch "Two and a Half Men," but I'm guessing it's closer to, I dunno, Sterling Hitchcock quality.