A smoking syringe! How about that sports fans? CSI meets MLB in the US Congress. Roger lobbying. "I didn't know. I didn't know. It all depends on what your definition of HGH is." Tell him to change his tie and carry a Nissan cup. Wouldn't talk to any of his soon-to-be-Congressional-interrogators, though without his lawyers, one of whom btw represented Bill. The Govt, they not be his friends.

While the 'smoking syringes' may sway some of the general public, it appears they have little legal value.
http://tinyurl.com/2tnylv

2 OK, so they almost certainly wouldn't be admissable in court. But - as with the presumption of innocence - that doesn't have to be the standard we use to reach our own opinions. I'm curious to see what this really consists of before I write it off.

2 The smoking syringe revelation is a positive for Clemens, IMHO, because it really smacks of someone trying to manufacture evidence, an action usually undertaken by one who has also manufactured testimony.

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.

At best (worst) the syringes and gauze could keep Roger out of the HoF, but not put him in the pokey.

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?

Also, doesn't this revelation mean that McNamee withheld evidence from Mitchell, which further implies he didn't tell the whole truth? Hmm...I wonder what Mitchell feels about that, considering his position that McNamee wouldn't have withheld the truth for fear of the criminal implications. Again, the dubious nature of this claim is really striking.

Great stuff all around, Cliff.

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.

i know red sox supporters love to call roger the "texas con man" but it really seems like he got conned here.
certainly if he did peds he opened himself up to this, but it was nevertheless done by someone he considered a friend.
and obviously if he didn't do peds then this "evidence" is really sick on so many levels.
6 yep, roger may have done something wrong, but there is no way mcnamee shouldn't be considered a slimeball.
7 i have been to my fair share of games at shea (guess that's what happens when you have met fans friends) and it is a dump - but it is also very represnetative of when it was built which should count for something

7 Has anyone performed at the Stadium since Pink Floyd?

8 As the last remaining multi-purpose "cookie cutter" stadium, I guess it should count for something...

9 Speaking of concerts, I wonder if the team would consider re-opening the venue to musical acts on a regular basis - it'd be a great way to generate some more income in the winter months, IMO.

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

11 Speaking of the Yankee Stadium tours, I went on one a few weekends back and it was really a lot of fun. In addition to the press box, you get a glimpse of the clubhouse, a chance to sit in the dugout and then walk along the warning track (which enabled me to scoop up some gravel for posterity). I would definitely recommend it to anyone who live in the area.

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.

Ah, the holiday's over, I am about to disagree with william again (respectfully, really!)

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.

6 It may not matter much. He told everything that happened, and Mitchell's contention was that he didn't lie. In fact, this doesn't change his story of the events at all.

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?

13 What he said.

13 First off, I think now that Joe Torre is gone, more and more Banterites will find themselves agreeing with me...

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.

It's too bad that the Patriots lost the Superbowl. Bill Belichick had already purchased a new suit for his White House visit. Here's a picutre:
http://i26.tinypic.com/11tpqvt.jpg

17 Back with a bang, Bama!

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

Billy Joel is from the Guyland. Shea Stadium is his natural element.

18*-1 and smoking syringes have obviously dominated recent discussion, but I caught a bit of a Santana session with the press yesterday on the news.

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.

13 well, i will agree with your sentiment about the unsavory nature of the whole thing

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.

18 I haven't been too far away (just been lurking lately). Following the college football recruiting season has taken up a little of my time over the last couple weeks (btw, it looks like Coach Saban has started earning that big paycheck by bringing the nations #1 recruiting class to Alabama this year).

Part of why I stay with this debate is that I STILL think we fans, while getting all hot and bothered about owners and commish (I am too, and add Fehr and co.!), are still busy trying to do head-in-sand defend the boys stuff.

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.

16 I think the reason he kept syringes in particular is easy: they were what he had. Taping a conversation wouldn't have been easier than just not throwing something out. And you think a tape can't be tampered with just as easily?

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?

Anyone else see this?

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?

25 Guessing it will forever be called "The Helmet Catch" which is fine, but it doesn't acknowledge "The Escape."

How 'bout "The Houdini & The Helmet"

21 Yes, I believe his shirt and tie are pink.

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.

23 My arguments may be a "defense of the boys'" presumption of evidence in the face of a less than credible accuser, but it is certainly not head in the sand.

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.

28 "presumption of innocence", not "evidence".

25 It is a mystery how Eli escaped and Tyree's catch really stuck it to the Pats. I've had "Cloak and Dagger" running through my head the last few days in regard to that play.
Or maybe I just saw that lame 80's movie one too many times when I was a kid.

24 I should also note even if McNamee's account were true, I don't believe the alleged use of PEDs would have had a meaningful impact on Clemens career. In fact, McNamee himself stated as much. For me, I don't see this as a case of defending Clemens' career. I think his record stands on its merits, PEDs or not. Instead, it is simply a matter of not taking the testimony of a criminal (alleged and admitted) at face value, which many are doing because they either dislike Clemens or simply enjoy the pasttime of tearing down high profile individuals.

28 I really hope it is clear that I meant it when I said the disagreement is offered with respect. Especially if you write:

"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!

32 I guess you could argue why give a player the benefit of the doubt, but I prefer to question the accuser. I would extend that logic to all accused persons. The case against Barry is a lot different because the "evidence" against him extends beyond one man's word.

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?

slightly offtopic: does it surprise anyone that Pedro was caught at a cockfight?

Some Giants thoughts:

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!

horace-clarke-era: We know that many politians, including our very own president, have made many false statements. Does this therefore mean that everything they have said has been a lie?

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?

This just in on WEEI - Schilling could be out for the season:

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

Dead horse? What dead horse?

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 clear again - I profoundly doubt I would convict a man of a crime based on what we know TO THIS POINT but I also doubt I would have my common sense as to likely events tilted by Jose over Andy.

I still feel that you are torturing a storyline by introducing motive to lie for McNamee, based on the feds only giving a deal if he falsely names a SPECIFIC player. There is zip to support this, william. Yes, a Sopranos scenario (Nail the Don!) can be conjectured, but it truly requires them to be pursuing the innocent and risking their procedings against the culpable. You making Roger into Tony S? BIG stretch.

Abnd MY point remains ... McNamee tells his story, names Roger as someone he supplied. Tells it to feds, to Mitchell, now to Congress. Is disbelieved. FINE. He has his deal. He told his story.

WHERE is his personal upside from FAKING evidence? Please explain, on the scenarios you are constructing here, what he gains. You want to say the feds only keep their deal if he NAILS Roger? That is not his job, william. Nor was this ever a criminal case against Clemens. (May become one for perjury but my bet would be against it, right now.)

My point: to fake evidence is to take an action that has no upside. Easier for me to see a weak guy, who DID see Roger as his hero (and mealticket) squeezed to pieces to tell, hating it (that's the meaning of the phone call), knowing it costs him Roger's money for the rest of his life ...

Again: your take requires the feds to be after Don Roger, at expense of all else.

37 hmmm.... romney drops out of the race and suddenly curt has some career ending injury?

i smell a mccain/schilling ticket.

(smells like a used diaper filled with indian food!)

38 We clearly disagree here, but I don't think an accussed criminal lying to earn a plea bargain is a tortured story. It probably happens more than we'd like to think.

Like it or not, investigations focus on central figures. In this case, Clemens is the central figure. It is very reasonable to think the Feds would have been most interested in Clemens and McNamee, perceiving this, would have tried to appease them. Finally, as for faking evidence, well, like I said, I don't know what went on in the January meeting, but I am curious as to why the Feds called on McNamee again. The answer to that would go a long way toward pointing out possible motives for faking evidence. In fact, we this all the time in criminal cases.

38 Also, I appreciate your comments about Canseco, but they aren't convincing. It seems as if you are going out of your way to believe someone like McNamee, while summarily dismissing Canseco. That still strikes me as very inconsistent.

37 I think Bartolo Colon is still available. Oh, and Kyle Lohse.
/maniacal laughter

41 etc.

i promise i am not asking this in a sarcastic way, but off hand i honestly can't remember:

how many people named by canseco have admitted to doing what he has claimed?

as far as i can see, that is the only thing mcnamee has going for him. pettitte fessed up. roberts, too. that aside, i'd be willing to dismiss all of his statements as easily as i do canseco's.

43 How many fessed up? None. But there are players he implicated who have either proven to have taken steroids or been seriously implicated. What's more McNamee did not name Brian Roberts. He only named Pettitte, Justice, Knoblauch and Clemens. If you are keeping track, three have contradicted him directly (including Canseco), one has affirmed his statement and another has not gone public. It's not like McNamee was proven right in 10 cases aside from Clemens.

33 I'm skeptical of McNamee as well as of Clemens. I want to see where the evidence goes.

But as I've said, I consider every player from that era to be suspect, Clemens or Schilling or anyone else. I think PED use was extensive enough that I view every one of them with a jaundiced eye (and an ear for cliches). There are two types of players from that era: those who used and those who, to one extent or another, were complicit. I put the burden of proof on them.

At the same time, those players who used did so under a different set of rules and standards. Everyone in baseball, not just the players, was complicit; judging them under today's standards is grossly hypocritical.

As I've said, that's why I believe no one should have been named in the report. Everyone should be suspected, but no one should be punished.

44 to be honest, i really haven't been keeping track. i didn't mean to imply that a couple of guys (or one, apparently) backing up part of his story meant that the rest of it should be accepted at face value. i was just curious as to whether canseco's list had been corroborated at all, and you guys seem to be following this a lot closer than i have.

thanks.

I missed OYFs comments when I answered william (tag team!). Quick notes. 43 I don't think Roberts has anything to do with McNamee. He was an early 'poor Brian Roberts' figure as everyone climbed all over Mitchell. Then he admitted the report was accurate, and the climbing all over Mitchell moved somewhere else.

OYF, as to Mc making 'accusations about dozens of players'. Have you read Mitchell? I forget. Here:

"3. Brian McNamee said that he was a direct eyewitness and participant in alleged illegal use by three players who he served as a personal trainer."

He names THREE players he was directly involved with: Pettitte, Clemens, Knoblauch. We know what Andy said, I assume we'll know soon what Chuck says. And I'm willing to bet a nickel on it (not more, thanks), that it aligns with Andy.

Here, so we have it, is the passage that matters from Mitchell:

"During the Radomski investigation, federal law enforcement officials identified Brian McNamee as one of Radomski's customers and a possible sub-distributor. McNamee, through his attorney, entered into a written agreement with the U.S. Attorney's Office for the
Northern District of California. The agreement provides that McNamee will cooperate with the U.S. Attorney's Office. No truthful statements can be used against McNamee in any federal prosecution by that Office; if, however, he should be untruthful in any statements made pursuant to that agreement, he may be charged with criminal violations, including making false statements, which is a felony.

Honestly, guys, you don't think that's a disincentive to faking evidence? He is CLEAR if truthful, wide open if found not to be. Why even take a chance?

Next (sorry, I wanted this to be short!) OYF, the Pettitte story is, respectfully VERY relevant, and so will Chuck be. This is what corroboration and credibility is all about. If you say you injected 3 players and 2 say (for argument) that you did, you don't think that's RELEVANT in a pissing match with the 3rd? Really? It doesn't settle it forever, but it sure is relevant.

Me, I'm all about shades of gray here. My regret is that a possible late-career use of drugs by Roger Clemens may TURN into the black-and-white. This was a great, a magnificent competitor and player, who MAY have made a dumbass mistake, caught up in the culture of the day. So was Barry, by all accounts, read the book: it was the acclaim WE gave McGwire/Sosa that made him angry and jealous. (I know, Weeping never did it!)

And finally, let's get it RIGHT about Jose and the party. Here's Mitchell:

"Jose Canseco was playing for the Blue Jays in 1998. On or about June 8-10, 1998, the Toronto Blue Jays played an away series with the Florida Marlins. McNamee attended
a lunch party that Canseco hosted at his home in Miami. McNamee stated that, during this luncheon, he observed Clemens, Canseco, and another person he did not know meeting inside Canseco's house, although McNamee did not personally attend that meeting.

Canseco told members of my investigative staff that he had numerous conversations with Clemens about the
benefits of Deca-Durabolin and Winstrol and how to "cycle" and "stack" steroids. Canseco has made similar statements publicly.385"

and footnote 385 references 'Juiced' page 211-213. What are you citing Jose in support of Roger for? What have I missed?

47 I want to be fair in debating OYF. McNamee offers specific evidence only on 3. He does say that Justice told him he used steroids. Justice denies being a user himself but says:
"Justice denied using performance enhancing substances himself, but he provided the names of many players who, he suspected, had used steroids. He emphasized,
however, that he did not have direct knowledge of any use by these players. He stated that he had had "thousands" of conversations about possible steroid use in baseball."

I hate this stuff.

Anyway, I too rememeber Canseco coming out and saying that Roger wasn't even at that party, or something along those lines.

47 The Mitchell Report also includes the following:

"Brian McNamee recalled that Justice asked him about human growth hormone in
2000 or 2001, while McNamee and Justice were both with the Yankees. According to
McNamee, Justice admitted in this conversation that he had obtained human growth hormone from Radomski."

Justice vehemently denied this allegation, so that's another person who refutes McNamee's claims.

As for Jose Canseco, in a WEEI interview, he explicitly stated that Clemens did not attend the alleged BBQ and that he was one player Canseco would testify didn't take steroids. That's a direct contradiction of McNamee's allegation. Why isn't any one checking into this? Why didn't MItchell?

42 oh - that list goes on and on - kris benson, steve traschel, david wells, livan hernandez, jeff weaver
so there is even more maniacal laughter

at that and the red sox trying to void schill's contarct

51 weaver. please. weaver. c'mon. weaver. get weaver, theo. weaver. please. oh boy. weaver. he'll be great. did you see him in that world series? please. c'mon. jeff weaver. his brother is awesome. sign him. go on. nothing but upside. please. please. please.

52 I think Theo is smarter than that.

Now, Lucchino is another matter altogether.

53 noted.

weaver. please. weaver. c'mon. weaver. get weaver, lucchino. weaver. please. oh boy. weaver. he'll be great. did you see him in that world series? please. c'mon. jeff weaver. his brother is awesome. sign him. go on. nothing but upside. please. please. please.

emma wrote a bit about mcnamee today:
http://eephus.blogspot.com/

the title is great.

53 Lucchino's plenty smart. He's a smug, arrogant prick, but he's smart.

I think the "homegrow" deal in the NFL is less compelling than in MLB. In MLB it bespeaks a commitment to the player by the team. They watched them develop in their minor league organization, called them up etc. In football, well, Aaron Ross was playing in college last year, Hadgecock was signed after the Rams released him following week 1 of the season.

Since NFL teams don't have "minor league teams" I don't know how "homegrown" any of them can be.

56 what about henry? he looks silly in those hats... maybe someone can convince him.

Curt Schilling: Did I say blogging? No, no, no- I hurt my shoulder jogging!

34 If you're a Met fan, better hope it wasn't with Ron Jeremy or he might not be back until after the All-Star break...

Jose can you write...

XXXXXXXX

Published in January 2005 Juiced saw Canseco not only detail his rampant use of steroids and other performance-enhancement drugs but Canseco claimed to have precipitated steroid usage by Mark McGwire, Juan González, Rafael Palmeiro, Iván Rodríguez, Dave Martinez, Tony Saunders, and Wilson Alvarez.

He inferred steroid usage based on physical body changes in Jason Giambi, Barry Bonds, Sammy Sosa, and Bret Boone. He also suggested Brady Anderson, Roger Clemens and Miguel Tejada probably used steroids, based on the improvements in their performances.

In Juiced he claimed that he personally injected McGwire, Palmeiro, González, and Rodríguez when they were teammates,

XXXXXXXXX

He also alleges that Magglio Ordonez just REFUSES to accept that steroid-related blackmail is a legitimate post-career path for a guy until his #1 new bestseller comes out in time for the new season.

"WHERE is his personal upside from FAKING evidence?"
------------------------------------------
I don't know Dude. What is his personal upside in:

According to the AP, McNamee was having sex with the woman in the hotel pool and would not stop when confronted by security. When police arrived, McNamee had already helped the woman to get out of the pool and dress. The woman was taken to a hospital and found to have GHB - the so-called date-rape drug - in her system. According to documents, the woman told detectives she could not remember what happened in the pool, but that she did not give McNamee permission to have sex with her. Witnesses told detectives they heard her saying "no," according to documents.

McNamee was interviewed hours later. He denied having sex with the woman. He also would not submit a saliva sample for DNA analysis.

This is how it's stated in a different news article.
"Police said Brian McNamee denied having sex with a possibly drugged woman in a hotel pool, even though security guards and other witnesses said they saw him. "

So please tell me the 'upside' of "denied having sex" ... "even though security guards and other witnesses said they saw him."

Think about that Hoss. Not just the act itself, but lying to the cops when there were multiple eye witnesses.

Into the deep end, OYF. Really. Hard to debate when it gets this far off point. I mean that.

1. McNamee is clearly not a nice man. Though Roger and Andy obviously thought for years he was both nice and useful.

2. Accused of a crime? Denying it even though others said he did it? Wow! I guess that settles the debate! Um. Wait, that isn't Roger we're talking about. Sorry.

3. My question remains and I think, in fairness, it hasn't been touched. I showed you excerpts from McNamee's deal as revealed in Mitchell. He tells the truth he's clear, he lies, his deal's off AND he's exposed to perjury charges (specifically stated, OYF).

NOTHING for him turns on whether he's believed by Congress or Roger is. You keep missing this, I think. It is NOT a lawsuit where he needs to WIN. ROGER needs to win, McNamee can tell his story, be believed by Congress or not, and go!

So, one more time, what is his upside here? It is as red a herring as there is to cite the poolside date rape story ... he exposes himself GREATLY if he fakes those syringes and he DOES NOT NEED TO WIN this fight.

That is the point I'm making.

63 I think I can sum up my (and perhaps OYF's) feeling this way: Brian McNamee is a proven liar who has been accused of doing things far worse than Roger Clemens ever has.

He also has a motive to lie about Clemens. You keep harping on the Mitchell line ("why would he lie when all I asked him to do was tell the truth), but I find that argument naive. I find it hard to believe Mitchell and the Feds would have been interested in dealing with McNamee if he didn't have Clemens to offer. In other words, McNamee told them the "truth" he felt they wanted to hear. You can't seem to fathom that, but such scenarios are a reality in our criminal justice system.

Also once again, McNamee's incentive to fake evidence is easy...to substantiate his claims in the face of doubt (again, why did the Feds meet with McNamee in January?). By lying, there's no turning back for McNamee. He know has to support the lie, and the only way to do that is with more lies.

So, in summary, McNamee is a liar and accused rapist, so I choose to not take his word over anyone, not to mention Roger Clemens.

William, fair summary of your points, though not mine. :)

I've never harped on the Mitchell line you quote. I've quoted that he was cautioned of his legal risk before testimony there and it was consistent. I have noted that Andy says he told the truth about him. (Consider that.) I've said that I'll bet a nickel Knoblauch has (already) said the same.

I've said (but in fairness you clearly don't see it the same way) that I see no reason to fabricate evidence when you are DONE, and outa there, when you do NOT have to 'support your lie' WHY does he have to do that, william ... I honestly don't get it. He doesn't have anything to win. He says his thing and leaves the room. Is believed or not. What do you MEAN by no turning back? You mean both of them now have to stick to their stories? Yeah. But why does McNamee have to do anything more? Why does he HAVE to 'substantiate his claims' ... to what purpose? Please?

You haven't explained your take on that to me at all.

This is ALL ahead of the final curve, too, so in its own way pointless, but what I find compelling is how urgent it seems to be for the denier, amidst several (finally!) admitters, to be clean. If you surf back in here you'll see people (you? OYF?) outraged on behalf of Brian Roberts. Then he admitted. Outraged on behalf of Andy (that sleazy McNamee!) then he admitted, exactly as stated by McNamee. Now the outrage shifts over to Roger. (He was Mr Big!) Does it mean nothing in credibility ON THE DRUG ISSUE that Pettitte agrees with him?

We get Canseco, who WROTE that in his view Roger was a user, but also says McNamee's wrong about a party conversation so he's trotted out to savage the witness but ignored on Roger-as-user.

McNamee was never a legally accused or charged rapist, incidentally. If we are doing the reasonable doubt thing, let's do it, eh? Never charged. No idea why, myself, based on newspaper accounts, but never charged by those cops ... who were chased down by Roger's lawyers 6 years after. (Yankees fired him after, Roger didn't. Wonder why?) Any thoughts on it? He gave great massage and diet tips? No one else on earth was his equal?

Me, I find that stuff (background digging) ugly, and it can cut both ways ... which is what McNamee's lawyers pointed out, later in the article OYF cites, in the context of the defamation suit Clemens has not-quite-launched. Announced as coming, not launched best I see ... more PR?

And what is it to graciously do PRIVATE calls on congressional leaders BEFORE your testimony? Am I the only one here to finds that a bit odd?

65 I have explained my take, but you don't agree with it (which is fine and fair). Again, I question why did the Feds want to meet with McNamee in January? Could it be that the taped conversation raised some doubts? Perhaps they were starting to think McNamee may not have been truthful about Clemens? If so, then McNamee might have felt pressured to "corroborate" his story to solidify his position. After all, if the syringes come back negative, that doesn't mean they weren't use as he intended them to be. It's really a no-lose situation. I just don't see the risk you seem to imply.

2) I don't get your point about the "outrage" either. True or not, many people feel the allegations in the Mitchell report were unfair because the same level of investigation was not applied across the board. Is it fair that Brian Roberts was exposed for briefly dabbling with HGH when several others have escaped scott free?

3) Canseco has never stated he had evidence against Clemens. In his book he mentions Clemens because of anectdotal statistical evidence, but has also been on record as saying he DOESN'T believe Clemens used steroids. Considering that Canseco played with Clemens and was a breast of the steroid culture, you'd think he would have noticed something? So, when McNamee says Clemens and Canseco discussed steroids at a party Canseco says Clemes was never at, it becomes very relative as to McNamee's credibility.

4) McNamee was witnessed having sex with an unconcious woman in a pool. The investigators involved stated they thought McNamee was lying in his account. If you don't think that evidence is more compelling than the case against Clemens, well, that would explain your position. Unfortunately for the investigators involved, the victim in the McNamee case was unable to cooperate with the prosecution, so McNamee skated. As for why Clemens retained him after the incident, that has already been answered: McNamee made an impassioned plea to Clemens invoking his son (as he did on the taped call) and insisted he was innocent.

5) Why is it odd to meet with Congressional committe members ahead of the hearing? Clemens insists on his innocence and his doing everything to clear his name. It's funny how people hold Clemens aggressive insistence on his innocence against him.

Will we ever be able to just talk baseball again? My God, the season can't come fast enough.

These threads are starting to look like the contents of my briefcase. Unless somebody shows up with film of Roger asking for the spike with the roids in it or a tape of that scummy guy who is accusing him confessing to making all this up we are pretty much stuck in a he said she said quagmire. I pledge to be off this sauce: from where the sun now stands I will fight about Roger no more forever.

That is unless something really big breaks. :-)

"I've said (but in fairness you clearly don't see it the same way) that I see no reason to fabricate evidence when you are DONE, and outa there..."

Let see... Roger and McNamee are BOTH testifying in front of congress. Who knows if Clemens sues McNamee personally. This is how you define "DONE, and outa there"

Here is what you don't get Hoss. It seems like, to date with what we know, neither Roger or McNamee can PROVE their position. And therefore, someone else can probably NOT prove it either. It is still HeSaid-HeSaid. McNamee was on his way to jail. His testimony on Roger basically gets him out. He has little to lose with any additional efforts to 'prove' his point. We all know this 'syringe' evidence would not hold up in court. Probably wouldn't even be allowed to be admitted. But it's here now for public consumption.

And in a HeSaid-HeSaid argument, you don't thin the character of the people involved has any bearing.

And lastly, you make light of a very serious crime. You get a call at home one day from the police. You daughter was given a near fatal dose of a daterape drug. She was then raped in a near unconscious state. There are eye witnesses including TWO security guards. Out of fear, your daughter does NOT press charges, partially because she can't remember much.

Your reaction is:? "clearly not a nice man","Accused of a crime","Denying it even though others said (saw, witnessed) he did it".

And wsporter: "Will we ever be able to just talk baseball again?"
Why would we talk about baseball here?

And lastly Hoss, you now have William defending me and me agreeing with William. This is disturbing. I am considering therapy or possibly a 12 steps program.

See what you've done?

The problem is, what else is there to talk about? Last year at this time it was just as repetitive, but with more animosity.

Here's one question: has anyone else been watching In Treatment? It's the best damn therapy show (or movie) I've ever seen.

How about minor leaguers? Anyone know what the next kids at The Office are or will be up to?

Oh, bleh. Now I have OYF and william agreeing and it is MY fault?

Prove it.

But I'm actually a bit upset (I confess) about the spin on my comments on McNamee and the pool. I think it is an ugly story, I am noting that no charges were laid. That surprises me. The man is innocent till proven guilty right? Maybe THAT's why Clemens kept him around for years after? You think? I was noting that this - innocence till proven otherwise - is the core argument (really the core) of the Clemens people. I dislike having it spun as if I thought the incident, brought to trial and proven, would be other than worthy of major jail time. Okay?

Am also, reading the McNamee lawyers' press conference SO tired of this - and before Wednesday comes - that I'll leave last word to OYF and william, the allies of the day, and apologize for my own role in debating it all day.

Outa here.

73 Chill, I'm telling you guys, Pinstripesplus is the place to go for that stuff. Patrick Teale, the publisher and his staff actually see the kids (DSL, Gulf Coast, Extended Spring Training, Short Season Leagues as well as A, A+, AA and AAA) before they write about them and throughout the year. It's the best deal on the web for this stuff. Coming to a Yankee Stadium near us at some point before the end of '09 are Gardner, Jackson, Tabata, Horne, McCutchen, Marquez, Sanchez, Melancon, Miranda, Cervelli, Garcia and others. On the way are Angellini, Heredia, Nova, Vazquez, DeLeon, Mojica and guys I can't even remember. Hands down it's the best Yankees prospect content on the WWW. The free forum is pretty lame most of the time. The subscriber forum can be pretty good especially when the staff, some of whom are paid ML scouts, are chiming in; although it doesn't touch what we get here, especially on game nights. At 80 some odd bucks per year if you're into this stuff it can't be beat. Dropped my BA subscription after I realized how much stuff those guys get wrong and not just about our guys.

You really think they're going to be breaking in 11+ rookies over the next couple of years? I suppose some of them might make Jose Veras/Chase Wright sorts of appearances, but otherwise I can't see it.

Oh, God, I'd give my right arm to watch baseball!

Will winter never end!

77 Yes yes yes! Am beyond bored of all the sanctimonius blabbering about steroids and the "integrity" of the game...

So who's starting Opening Day? Got to be Wang, right?

couldn't get tix for Oakland v Boston at the Tokyo Dome, but will try the scalpers...

76 Nope, but right now each of them has a chance. If they were all going to make it the conversation would be far less interesting. We will however be talking about all of them to some greater or lesser extent and that conversation beats a discussion on who stuck what in who's ass any day. Just ones man's opinion though.

77 ,78 The Serie del Caribe wrapped up last night, with Licey winning the title...

78 I'd start Andy. He's a leader.

I'd like Andy to get the last Opening Day start at the Stadium. I think he's earned it. I'd like Whitey Ford to throw out the first pitch.