The thing is, if it is only Roger's word vs. Brian's word, then it is going to be hard to prove perjury beyond a reasonable doubt.

Roger's other option is to take the Fifth, which basically is tantamount to a confession; just not something you can use in a courtroom.

Rocket's got some heavy thinking to do here.

our economy is going to the shitter, we're still occupying iraq, and oh yea, one sport out of the five major sports is testifying in congress (again). you dont think they use drugs in football? hockey? fuck it, they even use it to win RACES.

it sucks because baseball was the only one to 'play ball' with congress, so it is the only sport that will continue to be held under the microscope. its like the snitch from a mob movie, the one that was promised immunity, and is constantly badgered for information every time a crime is brought to the police.

the criticism that they should have answered mitchell the first time around is obviously now a moot point, because this would have been a subsequent activity no matter what they did. why aren't they asking anyone else to come in?

will they use the fifth? i would. i would if i was andy, and i would if i was roger. especially after they go after bonds and try to send him to jail. i dont agree that this is "tantamount to a confession", because that is why the 5th amendment was created.

as we enter the playoffs in football, it just reminds me that the level this has reached is absurd. i read somewhere (here i believe), that football players are regarded as warriors, while baseball players are supposed to represent the everyday man, doing things we all can or have done on a sandlot- which is why the steroid problem strikes us so dearly. but federal prosecution for the use of steroids is an embarrassment, THE PUNISHMENT DOESN'T FIT THE CRIME. would the players have used steroids if they knew congress would prosecute them? i bet they wouldn't have.

the mitchell report failed to answer the questions that we all wanted to know, and instead went the route of naming who might have known someone who's roommate may have tested positive for pot oops i mean steroids.

think im mad about this? :)

Perhaps it will be hard to prove perjury beyond a reasonable doubt. But it would be incredibly stupid for Roger to perjure himself under that assumption. He's got an enormous amount to lose and relatively little to gain - a HOF plaque, perhaps, though just being prosecuted might well put that at risk. If people believe he's a liar, it may not matter if he's convicted of it (cf. Mark McGwire).

Among other things, he'd better hope that he never said a word about it to anyone else, like Andy Pettitte. Again, maybe it wouldn't be enough to convict Clemens - but no one would believe Clemens over Pettitte, certainly not under oath. There's zero chance that Andy will swear to God and then lie.

still though, he's not really as nutty as George in the early days were... yet.

No. Baseball is held under the microscope because it's the only sport that has antitrust immunity. Congress can decide to take that away, as they should have done decades ago.

the criticism that they should have answered mitchell the first time around is obviously now a moot point, because this would have been a subsequent activity no matter what they did.

I agree, that criticism has been poorly thought out to begin with. Let's say Clemens had spoken to Mitchell; what would have happened? The report would read exactly the same way, with one sentence added: "Clemens spoke to our investigators and categorically denied the allegations." Like that would help?

i dont agree that this is "tantamount to a confession", because that is why the 5th amendment was created.

In legal terms, that's true. But in terms of public opinion, 1 is correct. Outside a courtroom, we're not bound by the Fifth Amendment - and people will indeed see it as tantamount to a confession.

Besides, as I said, I would expect them to receive transactional immunity, so they can't take the Fifth.

federal prosecution for the use of steroids is an embarrassment, THE PUNISHMENT DOESN'T FIT THE CRIME. would the players have used steroids if they knew congress would prosecute them?

They're not being prosecuted, and I don't expect that they will be (unless they perjure themselves). As far as I know, there's been no federal prosecution for simple steroid possession and use. Congress certainly isn't prosecuting anyone because, other than impeachment, they can't. They're being called to testify, and if they're offered immunity, the testimony can't be used against them.

The punishment is that being called before the idiots in congress is punishment because everyone assumes anyone called is guilty. If you watched the previous "hearings" you saw a bunch of really ignorant congressmen make completely irrelevant speeches condemning MLB and especially Fehr, the players, and the union while giving Selig and the owners a pass.

This shows what a joke the "investigation" was: no Red Sox, lots of Yankees, a couple of guys making a deal being the key (only?) sources. It was a witch hunt to discredit the union, and congress is following suit.

That's why baseball is constantly bowing and scraping whenever Congress says boo.

This is real serious business and the people who ask the questions are usually far better prepared than the people who are answering them. While allowed to speak with counsel, every consultation will be scrutinized, especially since the taking of five (not to be confused with an intentional walk) will be considered by our Bill of Rights skeptical public as a tacit admission. Remember, too, how well Markie, Sammie and Raffie did?

"Now that the NFL is adopting strategies to limit distribution of game programming to their own networks, Congress may need to reexamine the need and desirability of their continued exemption from the Nation's antitrust laws."

That got the NFL's attention, no doubt about it.

I really hope Roger is telling the truth. I have to think his lawyers told him that opening this can of worms MIGHT lead to congressional testimony. His lawyer DID warn him of this, right? He knew this might happen, right?

Is his ego that big that he would go this distance even if he was guilty? Would he risk his entire rep and possibly purgery charges out of 'false indignation'?

Honestly, early in his career I thought he (and Boggs) were 2 of the biggest redneck assholes in baseball. As Yankees, I gained some respect for both, especially Clemens for his work ethic. But if he IS guilty, then this truly puts him on Keith Olbermann's list of 'worst persons in the world'.

I mean this gives 'Hot Stove' a whole other meaning.

I assume you mean "no big name Red Sox" (besides Mo Vaughn, Clemens, and Canseco) -- IIRC, weren't there nearly as many Sox players as Yanks?

On a more serious note, it does concern me that the final decision rests with Hank. I realize that the Yankees have been very successful with an all powerful owner overriding his GM, but in this case, I think Hank is far less seasonsed than his dad had become and may be more apt to make an impulse decision. It also concerns me that Cashman may get fed up with this arrangement and the team will wind up with a merry-go-round of YES men GMs as in the 1980s.

As for Clemens and Congress, if he testifies that he didnot do what is alleged, I think he should be given the benefit of the doubt until proven otherwise. If he declines, well, then whether he is innocent or not, he can't complain about how he is judged.

http://tinyurl.com/3cn3ce
http://tinyurl.com/37x8rm

among others.

You were dead-on balls accurate about lidocaine and B12. Thanks for the info. Man, that B12 shot must hurt like hell.

If you're not concerned with the recovery aspects of banned substances, OK. But it seems to me that recovery time would be essential for an aging athlete. Also keep in mind that the testing program had Swiss-cheese holes.

Finally: yeah, that is a pretty complicated story. It's not a straightforward account of a guy with incentive to lie, because you have to make up the incentive. Maybe they said this, and maybe he thought they said that, and that they really meant the other, so there's his incentive. Lots of inference with no real basis.

But if you look at it the other way, it really is easy. We know that McNamee had an incentive to tell the truth - that's not guesswork - and that Clemens would have an incentive to lie. Everything falls into place.

Here's my take. He was motivated to save his ass and stay out of jail, or get the most lenient time/conditions he could. Whether that amounted to telling the truth or lying is anyone's guess.

The guy is no saint, and has been shady a lot of his life. I think giving someone enough date-rape drug to almost kill them, with the intent of molesting their unconscious body, tells us a great deal about this guy's true character.

I view every player who was active at that time with skepticism. A lot of them were clearly using. What reason do I have to believe that Clemens wasn't?

22 So if it turned out (and I'm not saying it did) that lying would ultimtely put him in a better place in terms of lesser punishment, that he would be truthful anyway?

This guy was a cop for 3 years and all but raped a female Yankee employee. He is not dumb and no virgin. I believe he would say whatever gets him out from under.

As for the Swiss cheese holes in the testing program, I think that's not really accurate. Sure, there was 24 hours notice and other small loopholes, but there's no way one could take the anabolic Clemens was accused of and hope to avoid detection unless you wanted to play Russian roulette.

As for McNamee's motive, well, I disagree with your take. I happen to think he was assuming ZERO risk by lying about Clemens. Because there is no way Clemens can prove he is lying, it makes perfect sense that he would offer up Clemens with the expectation that such a big fish will ensure he does not do jail time. In my opinion, that doesn't require any assumptions other than McNamee decided to do whatever it takes to avoid going to jail.

It seems as if you have a predisposition to believe that Clemens took steroids. That's fine. You're entitled to an opinion. My only point is that if one truly tries to be objective, the evidence against Clemens isn't very compelling, especially when there is a lot of evidence suggesting McNamee is not the most trust worthy witness (i.e., he was accused of rape, he lied about his involvement with steroids in the past and both David Justice and Canseco have claimed portions of his testimony is untrue).

30 Why do I need to draw the line? I know for certain that a lot of players were using. I see all of them as equally likely, or unlikely.

And seriously - when you heard the news, did you think, "Roger Clemens? Steroids? That's unpossible!" Pettitte surprised me, but was anyone really surprised by Clemens? Not just "presumption of innocence," but genuine surprise that it could be Clemens?

28 That's just BTUU trash talk, it stands for: "Where's the freon?" and naturally it means that you're not cool... ;-)

Anyway, it doesn't matter; in the court of public opinion, he's a juicer, and even if he provides evidence to the contrary, it won't mean anything.

33 Sir, I applaud you. Thanks for the laugh :)

34 That's not what I said at all.

T - 42 and counting.