Please sign in to complete your action
 
DONE!
Cheer and debate with
6,000,000+ fans!
My Team:
Charlotte
My Team:
Michael
My Team:
Britney
1/9/08
McNamee's Checkered Past Shouldn't Be A Factor in the Clemens Case
After it broke late yesterday that Roger Clemens's trainer Brian McNamee may have lied to authorities about an alleged rape in 2001, it'd only be natural to wonder how truthful his current testimony about the pitcher really is.

After all, the St. Petersburg police records that were released yesterday were very detailed about what McNamee did in 2001, and how he allegedly lied about the incident. The case was eventually dropped, despite the fact that police were confident that McNamee had committed rape.

Clemens is already using this as fodder that McNamee is a liar and can’t be trusted.

As heinous an act as McNamee may have committed in 2001, that doesn't mean his testimony about Clemens in the Mitchell Report should fall flat.

People with questionable backgrounds and questionable motives can indeed tell the truth.

The problem is that, for the most part, we prefer the individuals that expose people like Clemens to be stand-up people - not alleged rapists who are looking to escape jail time for providing illegal drugs to athletes.
 

But the truth is that if we just look back in time, we find that many people who exposed cheats and liars were not exactly pure of heart themselves.

Jose Canseco was derided for being a crackpot out for vengeance when he started spouting off names of people with whom he had used steroids when his career abruptly ended. On one level, Canseco was out for vengeance, but on another more important level, he was telling the truth. His best catch was likely Rafael Palmeiro, a player who I never would have guessed was on steroids. Palmeiro, for the most part a stand-up guy, even stood before Congress and shook his finger saying he'd never used steroids. Yet he had been. We had been fooled and Jose had indeed been right.

Even more serious than Canseco and Steroidgate was Watergate, where we assumed for years that Deep Throat was a diligent U.S. citizen who stepped forward anonymously to help take down Nixon. Instead it was Deputy Director Mark Felt, who was basically mad that Nixon didn't make him head of the FBI.

There are a variety of reasons why people with murky backgrounds and somewhat questionable intentions begin to make the truth known. They're facing jail time. They're mad they didn't get to play longer. They want revenge for not getting a promotion.

But despite those less than ideal reasons, they're still telling the truth.

For McNamee, he provided Mitchell with page after page of excruciating detail as to how he injected Clemens. If he's found to be lying, he'll be going to prison for perjury. And when confronted by Clemens on the phone, he didn't change his story either.

And let's remember that Andy Pettitte, one of McNamee's clients, also admitted to using HGH, lending more credibility to McNamee.

The point is that even though McNamee may have raped a woman in 2001, that isn't the issue, despite what Clemens may say.

What matters is McNamee's testimony in the Mitchell Report and his refusal to back down from it, thereby making it clear what Clemens was doing - steroids.
9 comments
Vote!
Comment!
Your votes determine top comment

1/9/08
1

Roger didn't kill anyone, but the way he is going about this is very OJ'ish.  He is making it a circus, bringing in information, (rape) although a legitimate way of discrediting someone, just to confuse everyone and get them thinking about other things, its going to be a circus.  Clemens will bring out so much irrelevant information that we won't know what the original case is about. 

 

The only thing we can do is, see if it fits.  That is, lets see if the needle fits Clemens ass.  Then we will absolutely know, just like in OJ's case.


1/9/08
1
What's unfortunate about the obvious ending of this situation is that Roger's wealth advantage over McNamee is going to win out over the truth. God Bless America.

1/9/08
0
Has anyone corroborated McNamee's allegations in the Mitchell report?

1/9/08
1
That's what I thought... I didn't remember it being corroborated in the Mitchell Report itself (unless it's implied Rodomski corroborated it). I wasn't sure if something else came out after that that I'm not aware of.

Yeah, it's true that a lot of cases are made based on "witnesses" with a sordid past. But this isn't a criminal trial, it's a defamation lawsuit... so anything Clemens can do to discredit McNamee will only work in his favor. It might also shed some light as to why he would lie to the Feds. If what is in the lawsuit is even remotely true (that McNamee was pressured to dish dirt on Clemens, even if no such dirt happened in reality, otherwise face prison), then that is plenty of motivation for McNamee to lie about Clemens. Because like Clemens said, how do you prove a negative?

1/9/08
0
McNamee would have no reason to lie because lying in a Federal investigation is a felony. He would have to be damn sure of everything he said if he didn't want his ass sued off.

1/9/08
0
The Wakka Man wrote:
McNamee would have no reason to lie because lying in a Federal investigation is a felony. He would have to be damn sure of everything he said if he didn't want his ass sued off.
Just to play devil's advocate with you...

1. McNamee also came across as someone who is in a mentally fragile state. You are making the assumption that this man was/is being rational.

2. Suppose the assertion made in Clemens' lawsuit is true: That the federal investigators pressured McNamee to give them dirt on Clemens or else he would go to jail... but the reality is McNamee had no dirt to dish because Clemens never took steroids... feds wouldn't accept this as an answer, so in order to stay out of jail, he lied to feds and told them Clemens used.

1/9/08
0
JewelOfSong wrote:
Just to play devil's advocate with you...

1. McNamee also came across as someone who is in a mentally fragile state. You are making the assumption that this man was/is being rational.

2. Suppose the assertion made in Clemens' lawsuit is true: That the federal investigators pressured McNamee to give them dirt on Clemens or else he would go to jail... but the reality is McNamee had no dirt to dish because Clemens never took steroids... feds wouldn't accept this as an answer, so in order to stay out of jail, he lied to feds and told them Clemens used.
If Clemens was so unbelievably not guilty ... then it might be the poorest decision by a lawyer in history for him not to discuss more specifics during his phone conversation.

I would have said, "Brian, you know I didn't take steroids. The truth just needs to come out." He said a more ambiguous form of that leaving even more questions.

As I understand it, McNamee is in a fragile state now, not then, as a result of being forced to tell the truth and rat out a good friend.

1/9/08
0
CriticalFanatic wrote:
If Clemens was so unbelievably not guilty ... then it might be the poorest decision by a lawyer in history for him not to discuss more specifics during his phone conversation.

I would have said, "Brian, you know I didn't take steroids. The truth just needs to come out." He said a more ambiguous form of that leaving even more questions.

As I understand it, McNamee is in a fragile state now, not then, as a result of being forced to tell the truth and rat out a good friend.
I'm not going to pretend that I know more than I do about the law... but from what I understand, if Clemens comes right out with a question like that, it might be considered witness tampering, especially given McNamee's fragile mental state. Although, Clemens' lawyer, Hardin, did say that maybe they coached him too well and that he could have been more direct with some of the things he said to McNamee.

Next week should be very interesting in front of Congress though. The fun thing about legislative hearings is they can ask you whatever they want, it doesn't have to be particularly relevant to the issue at hand... and your lawyer can't do much more than just sit behind you, they can't object or keep questioning on a certain track b/c Congress can go on whatever the hell tangent they want. Plus, I'm almost positive no one will be granted immunity, so it'll be hot seat for Pettitte, Clemens, Knoblauch, McNamee, and Rodomski (assuming they all show).

 
Notify me by email about comments that follow mine.
Preview


BEST OF THE WEB
SHOP
MLB GEAR
Reebok NFL Equipment New E..
$79.95
New Era New York Yankees N..
$33.95
adidas Los Angeles Lakers ..
$24.95
MLB TICKETS
Loading...
MEET OUR FANS
Tonique
Stacey
 more
12,798,192+
ANSWER TODAY'S POLL
 more
PLAY NEVER-ENDING TRIVIA
Detroit v. Chicago
Seattle v. Portland
New York v. LA
Utah v. Houston
 more

TAKE A QUIZ
 more

PREDICT THE SCORE
NFL
NBA
NHL
NCAABB
Soccer
 more
2,555,658+
rajvivek0 joined the WWE league Fans of Undertaker.
Just now!
rajvivek0 joined the WWE league WrestlingFans.
Just now!
cdprasanna8 joined the Cricket league Fans of Indian Premier League.
Just now!
Just now!
cdprasanna8 joined the Cricket league CricketFans.
Just now!
banhi80 joined the Tennis league Fans of Boris Becker.
Just now!
banhi80 joined the Tennis league Tennis Fans.
Just now!
mike_camba2005 joined the NBA league Celtic Pride.
Just now!
mike_camba2005 joined the NBA league NBA Fantasy.
Just now!
 

Join Today
About FanIQ
Terms of Use
Privacy Policy
DMCA Policy
Contact Us
Report A Bug
Help