Before this revelation, the argument about why McNamee had no credible corroboration could have been refuted by saying he had no reason to document his actions. Well, now that McNamee is claiming he kept syringes because he thought he might need to prove Clemens did steroids, well, now that excuse doesn't work. If he was willing to save medical waste, why didn't McNamee tape a phone conversation, confide in another person, keep a diary, etc. Admittedly, I have defended Clemens from the onset, but I think this ploy by McNamee could ultimately backfire on him big time and wind up really working in Clemens favor.

McNamee's explanation doesn't make sense to me. He keeps them (evidence of a crime) just in case his coconspirator years down the road denies the crime? WTF? Wouldn't they both want to say that nothing happened?

music and baseball:
Why isn't Billy Joel closing Yankee Stadium too? Perhaps he will sometime around or after the All-Star game?

Anyway, I'll make it over to Shea for Billy's show. He was my first concert ever. The Garden, June 1980. I was 14 years old. First time I saw a joint. Guy in the men's room was dealing them out of the chest-pocket of his overalls. Me and my buddy laughed at the scene, and proceeded to share our first concert beer that his older brother scored for us.

Raised in Flushing (til I was 10), Shea was obviously where I saw my first Major League game, 1971. Fun way to say goodbye to the old park.

Play the Bronx, Billy! Wrecking ball style.

Might make up for the loss on all the 'historical' tours they probably won't be conducting anymore - heh.

Also, after the tour, I spent a few minutes conversing with the guide and he mentioned that the Yankees are currently in the process of restoring every championship banner so they can be flown all around the new Stadium on its opening day. I thought that was a pretty cool idea.

4 Not so, to my mind, and I also agree with 2 ... OJ was acquitted, you figure that makes everyone feel he's innocent? We have a system that is NOT designed to convict everyone who did something but to ensure - in principle - that a minimum of innocents are convicted. So the rules of evidence in COURT are careful and stringent (I want to say syringent...) but common sense is also something WE can bring to bear.

I agree that 'common sense' can produce varied results for different people. I find it utterly logical, for example, that someone in a vulnerable position OR someone thinking blackmail down the road (or both or either!) might keep things that support his position. Those saying 'why didn't he also keep OTHER stuff' ... well really. How is that an argument against what he DID keep? We're going to need to see what this stuff is, before we can assess it. I'm not sure of the law on whether Roger can be compelled to give blood for a match, btw.

5 Not so, if they are deemed credible enough to keep him out of HOF they could be credible enough to support perjury charges. As many have said: the game changes a LOT the minute Roger says something under oath. And he now has.

6 william, I find this a vg question, too. Not sure what the answer is, what his 'duty' to Mitchell was. As I understand it, it was to tell the truth or risk his deal with the feds. If Mitchell asked, 'Do you have anything that corroborates this?' and McNamee didn't mention these things, maybe he's at-risk, but then he did surrender them to feds (when, do we know?).

8 October gal, I find this way too harsh. Yeah, McNamee has hurt Roger and Andy. But, Andy admits McNamee told the truth about him (has everyone forgotten this, as going to McNamee's credibility? It IS relevant in courts and surely in public opinion.)

The other optic is McNamee was a friend to Roger, did all R asked him, was HIS steroid guy (maybe only briefly) as others had theirs, and when the shit hit the fan(s) McNamee wouldn't take a major jailtime fall and told truth.

One 'rule' of criminal law is that it is rare to be involved in stuff like this with people who are NOT unsavory. I keep coming back to Roger letting McNamee guide him and train him for YEARS after, and Andy, too. Is this because he had a 'hold' on them (which speaks to Mc being truthful now) or just because they felt he'd been good and helpful ... and trustworthy till the feds arrived.

And 4 : first of all, I don't think there were any explanations made - or needed - as to why McNamee had no corroboration. Clemens was just smart enough not to leave a paper trail.

More important, that seems like a tortured argument. McNamee saved some evidence that was readily available to him; therefore, the fact that he didn't take other actions is suspicious?

1) I think you can question "what McNamee kept" because it's illogical. If I really wanted to prove a future claim, I would have taped a conversation. It's easier, cleaner and more conclusive. Not only is retaining medical waste disgusting, the evidence is likely to either be discredited or degraded. So, it becomes relevant to ask why syringes? If the answer is because you can taint a syringe after the fact, but you can't do that with a taped conversation, well, it raises doubts about why McNamee kept what he did.

2) McNamee didn't turn over the syringes until January, after the Feds questioned him about the taped conversation and Clemens repeated denials. The timing alone is curious. Did the Feds demand more corroboration? Did McNamee feel threatened by this follow-up? Regardless, McNamee withheld evidence from Mitchell, which seems to contradict the terms of his deal. I guess you could argue that Mitchell never asked for corroboration, but if that's true, you can burn the Mitchell report and the Senator's reputation.

3) Canseco and Justice have both stated McNamee didn't tell the truth about them. Along with a history full of incidents that call into question hsi credibility, I don't think Pettitte's admission does much to bolster McNamee's claims.

Eli fired off a good one against Belichick last night with that "guess he was trying to beat traffic" line.

Though I'm glad we hung on to our guys, I admit to a slight twinge of envy in seeing how smoothly Johan handled the media, and daydreaming about him as our Game 1 starter in a playoff series. But I look forward to seeing Phil and the others continue to grow, and belated congratulations to the Mets for acquiring the stud.

17 nice one. is his shirt and tie pink?
were you effected by the tornadoes - sounds like it was near the ga/al border - though my mom kept insisting they hit west of hunstiville, but her sense of direction would get her lost in a paper bag.

I have already accepted in another thread that Weeping is innocent of wanting extra home runs. :)

But when I read Jose Canseco cited as ... well, support for a proposition in a legal or criminal context. Wow. Not only is he another slimeball trying to cash in on the steroid thing, he's all over the map on it. (And yes, I do agree we may owe him a favor for being an early whistle-blower.) Justice, like others, has a current career to protect.

William, your position here requires that you accept that Mc was a pipeline to drugs for one athlete but INVENTED stories regarding other(s) and FABRICATED evidence ... Jeez, man, he was already in so much trouble. He cut his deal, told his story. Isn't that a simpler analysis? Doesn't make him anything like a good guy.

One more thing, if he is fabricating steroids on a syringe he is NOT telling his lawyers. They can be disbarred for adducing fake evidence. The man HAS his deal. His condition is to tell truth ... if Roger is believed it does NOT add to McNamee's punishment, you know. He doesn't HAVE to win a pissing contest. (Hmm, in context, I like the phrase!) Roger does, big time. Think it through: what does McNamee gain by faking evidence? What is he risking if, in the end, Roger is believed or it is left inconclusive? Nothing. But if McNamee's found to be faking evidence that is perjury for HIM. Whole new charge, whole new jail issues. Major ones.

I don't think anyone has raised or considered this here, you know.

Finally, you haven't been watching your Sopranos reruns enough: ya sweat a LOT when ya wear a wire. You can sleep wid da fishes. (Yeah, right, the Marlins.)

Isn't there a difference between KEEPING something you have and deliberately going out and obtaining taping equipment to try to incriminate someone, in the event ...? One is passive, easy, stick it in a baggy in a drawer. The other ... is very tricky.

After all this, I still don't get why you defend Clemens so fervently, why you rush so quickly to judgment. What's he ever done to earn your complete lack of skepticism?

http://tinyurl.com/2lsqka

Cone returns to YES, and Bob Sheppard is apparently not doing well health-wise.

Finally, going back to 18 and 1, Shaun O'Hara chats at ESPN today:
http://tinyurl.com/2tpjbl

David Tyree's chat yesterday(?) at ESPN was hilarious. Have 'they' decided what "The Play" is going to be called yet, or is "The Play" the name?

How 'bout "The Houdini & The Helmet"

That tornado touched down about 20 miles from my house in a little town called Pisgah (you were right about it being close to the GA border). It damaged several houses (one house got picked up and rotated 180 degrees) and sadly one lady lost her life. Please keep those families in your thoughts and prayers.

That aside, I'll take your points individually:

1) Canseco has flat out said that McNamee lied about the infamous summer BBQ in 1997. He directly contradicted McNamee's account. If anything, that deserves further scrutiny. What's more, if you are going to discount Canseco on credibility, please don't tell me you are going to accept McNamee's word.

2) I believe that McNamee was a pipeline for drugs. He may have done this for many players, but there is no proof that he did so for Clemens, pure and simple. Without rehashing all of my arguments that litter the past month's archives, I think it is very reasonable to think that if McNamee did not offer up Clemens, he wouldn't have received the "please bargain" he sought. So, yes, I think McNamee was/is desperate enough to lie about Clemens if he thinks it will save his skin.

Also, you seem to be contradicting yourself here. On the one hand, you discount Canseco's credibility because of his past history, even though he has been proven to have told the truth on some matters. Yet, you absolve McNamee's shady past simply because he was right about Pettitte. Why the double standard?

3) What does McNamee have to gain by manufacturing evidence? The same thing he had to gain by manufacturing testimony. If McNamee did lie originally, and the Feds came calling for more corroboration, well, some aforeto unmentioned evidence would come in handy. Keep in mind that McNamee's "deal" can be rescinded. Also, there is a potential civil trial. Finally, McNamee may not like the perception that he lied, and might be willing to lie further to fight it. Finally, as with his original lies, it would be impossible to prove that McNamee faked the evidence. If the tests prove negative or positive, McNamee can always claim they are genuine. It really is a no lose proposition.

4) I don't think Clemens regularly searched McNamee for a wire, nor do I think he would murder him if one was found. It is very easy to tape a phone conversation, or even wear a wire. If I was really concerned about future corroboration, this method would make so much more sense, even before taking into account that an old syringe is not likely to remain a viable piece of evidence. Instead, the syringe looks to be the easiest way to produce retroactive evidence. What's more, it is also very provocative. The test could wind up being inclusive and still not refute McNamee's contention. In many ways, the allegation could simply be a ploy.

24 Tampering with a taped conversation is not easy...in fact, it's very very difficult.

As for why I defend Clemens, well, that's easy. I defend him fervently because he has been widely condemned so fervently. I am of the mindset that a person should be given the benefit of the doubt until faced by credible evidence. McNamee's uncorroborated testimony isn't close to being credible. You are presuming that Clemens deserves skepticism, but he is the accused. I prefer to be skeptical of the accuser, and McNamee's past opens him up to a lot of questions.

"As for why I defend Clemens, well, that's easy. I defend him fervently because he has been widely condemned so fervently. I am of the mindset that a person should be given the benefit of the doubt until faced by credible evidence."

This is, in obvious fact, a bedrock issue in our criminal justice system. We can all note that this is NOT (absent perjury charges) a criminal matter we are assessing. It is a collective baseball (and other sports, like the Tour de France, and Olympics, say) culture of drug use. And I'd say some of us here are trying to note common sense as something WE can apply in our perceptions of the story playing out.

You could say, 'This is one player I'm defenidng not all steroid users,' but then the quesiton becomes why this one, and which guys are you (forgive me) ready to give up? Or will you say 'Hang Selig!' and leave it at that ... no one convicted beyond a reasonable doubt (maybe Barry?). This is what I meant when I talked about just sticking with the boys/heroes, and head-in-sand. I think JL25 is making some of the same points on this.

This gets too long to go point by point, but I'll just note I do disagree on your analysis of McNamee's possible upside. You now require the feds to be 'after' Roger specifically, to be forcing him to falsify to get his deal. What is THEIR angle, in bringing a high profile case on limited evidence? Honestly, it gets tortuous, william. FAR easier, seems to me, to note Pettitte confirming McNamee, Clemens staying with him for years, and the downside of an amateur evidence forger getting caught for it (not as easy as you think!) when he HAS HIS DEAL. What will revoke it is perjury, not telling the truth!

I think you are misunderstanding my "motive" argument. I am not suggesting the Feds are trying to frame Clemens. Instead, I think it is very reasonable to think that they are only interested in Clemens (kind of like a mob task force looking for info on a don as opposed to soldier). I am sure the Feds would have gladly walked away if McNamee didn't have info on Clemens. Of course, they'd also be taking their deal with them. If McNamee perceived this, that would be all the motive he would need to lie. In other words, no Clemens, no plea deal.

Once McNamee ties his freedom to Clemens being a PED user, he now becomes compelled to defend the story. As I mentioned, I am not sure what the Feds asked McNamee in January, but why were they meeting with him again in the first place? If it was to further test hist story, well, that would explain the sudden appearance of corroborating evidence.

Of course, the easiest thing would be to look into McNamee's past, see how dishonesty is a reocurring theme in his past, and then conclude he has little credibility.

Not to beat a dead horse, but could you explain my point about the double standard you seem to have toward Canseco and McNamee?

Tyree's catch should be called "Perfection" both for what it was and what it ended.

Giants are keep Spagnuolo for three years at $2M per, making him the highest paide D coordinator in the NFL. Well earned, I say. Would have hated to see him with the Redskins.

Great, great Super Bowl.

Now, Let's Go Yankees!

Conversely, Bush has made many statements that are true. Does this therefore mean that everything he has said is true?

If McNamee told the truth about Pettitte, it has no bearing on the other things he said. I simply don't know how "he told the truth about Pettitte" can be offered as prove of anything else, when he made accusations about dozens of other players. Is it your position that either everything McNamee said is true, or else that everything McNamee said is a lie?

You make statements that are black and white, where the truth is almost always some shade of grey.

We can not be sure about Clemens. Maybe he did, maybe he didn't. But it seems to be pretty much a fact that McNamee has lied many times before (under pressure) and appears to be a professional liar and manipulator.

Remember, on the taped phone call, how poor McNamee was crying and begging Roger to tell him 'what do you want me to do'.?

Well, I guess the answer was to produce 7 year old syringes and gause pads. I for one, would like to hear a logical explaination for why a guy, who distributed and shot up many athletes, would save bio-waste from only Clemens for 7 years. My only thought is that he planned on blackmailing Roger after Roger's career was over and he was eligible for the HOF.

Have you read any articles on the 'alledged' rape by McNamee? Just how much integrity do you think this guy has? You think that because he is facing jail time that he just opened his heart and poured the truth about everything, without any plan what-so-ever?

http://www.bostonherald.com/sports/baseball/red_sox/view.bg?articleid=1071967&format=text

33 "Not to beat a dead horse, but could you explain my point about the double standard you seem to have toward Canseco and McNamee?"

Easy enough. Jose is all over the steroid story. And I am prepared to note that his raising it should end up being a 'good thing'.

Jose accuses some players of using, they deny. Jose accuses McNamee of lying about an incident. Mc denies lying. Pettitte confirms Mc told the truth about him. Mc can lie and/or tell truth.

Jose's motives? Money and fame (producing money ... book sales).
Roger's motives? HOF and avoidance of a taint that is all over the game.
Andy's motives? Truth, seems to me.
McNamee's motives? Make a deal with feds to tell his story.

Canseco would be, at best, a collateral incident in the Clemens story (so would the swmming pool rape story) undermining credibility. Fair enough. Pettitte is credibility booster in same way, and - frankly - closer to the point. (Two clients, same kind of evidence given for both by Mc.)

So it is really Pettitte vs Canseco to my mind. And - to be cl