Dan Gould

UP, since Clemens is roasting on a spit right now. Get your shirts today.

Wow, Clemens has no clue at all. He just can't see how Pettitte himself (with his wife) has proven him a user, and I suspect a serial perjurer by the time this hearing is over. But its so typical for him. I am sure that he really believes he didn't do it - but the evidence on HGH is overwhelming and devastating. There's no possible way to get around Pettitte. Plus, it will only get worse now because Pettitte is going to get plenty of questions. He has to keep confirming the info, because he did it under oath. The NY press will ask: are you sure? You have no doubts? And you know Pettitte will confirm it. Its really kind of sad because you're clearly seeing the end of a friendship (whether it was as close as portrayed or not).

On the basis of what the chair just said about Clemens, Pettitte and Pettitte's wife, it is completely over for Clemens. There is no way to get around it: He told Pettitte in 1999-2000, and Pettitte told his wife at the same time. That's corrobarative, and devastating. Beyond the fact that Andy's wife offers contemporaneous statements about Clemens use, if Clemens and McNamee agree that the injections of Debbie took place in 2003, it is impossible for Clemens to have told Andy in the earlier time period that he was referring to his wife. This is completely devastating to Clemens' claim of never using. Period. It doesn't prove that McNamee has told the truth as far as steroids go, but I am pretty sure he told Mitchell about HGH injections in the same period that Pettitte says Clemens told him he used, so that is corraborative as well. The last disposative bit of evidence will be the lab results of the evidence McNamee qualified - that is, disposative as to McNamee's honesty and Clemens lawsuit against him. But I would say that right now, the FBI agent could slap the cuffs on Roger if he wanted to. Based on nothing that McNamee has said, Clemens has already committed perjury.

Back to what matters, steroids in baseball, and specifically, PEDs and Roger Clemens. I thought Clemens was in trouble last night, but now the Times shows that he is in really deep doo-doo. Furthermore, apparently Pettitte executed an afidavit that was delivered Friday night, in lieu of testifying in public, and its that affidavit that says that Clemens told Andy in 1999 or 2000 that he used HGH, then covered up in 2005 by blaming his wife. I think it would be truly hysterical if Clemens defense today amounts to "Congressman, Andy has notoriously poor listening comprehension skills." So, don't forget to buy a shirt! Be the first on your block to own one!

With pleasure! 1) Great stuff! First thought was Hank – 50s BN Hank – then I wasn't so sure on the little "wail" towards the end of the solo, which sounded like someone more directly "blue" than Hank, say Ammons or Lock. But I'll stick with that guess. 2) More good swinging fun but no names leap to mind. I think I caught a "click" though so I will say it’s a needle drop track. 3) Guess I shouldn't be that surprised that Johnny Mathis did an album of standards. I'm guessing this was included for the backing but I can't pay much attention cuz I can't really get into the vocals. Oh well. 4) Oh yeah, man preach me some of those blues! It may be simple and not so hip but it always satisfies. At least it does for me. I'm going to say Stanley T. here but I am probably wrong. 5) More good stuff but no obvious names are coming to mind. 6) What's not to love? Wild guess – could one tenor be Clifford Scott? 7) Not as great as some of the previous tracks but enjoyable nonetheless. No guesses. 8) This is a song off a BN album … without wanting to check, I think its from that Tippin The Scales Jackie Mac album that didn't come out at the time and some thought it shouldn't have (I seem to recall DEEP expressing that opinion, in his inimitable manner). If I'm wrong, well … I'm sure it’s a BN recording I have. May have to check the thread later to see if I was right. 9) A lovely ballad but no one is leaping to mind. Sounds like an older trumpeter though, maybe Buck Clayton? 10) Finally a tune that didn't really appeal much to me. 11) Back to the good stuff – but why the heck didn't he tell us who HE is? 12) Another good 'un … Trummy Young? Just throwing out names here. 13) Not enough knowledge of this category of singer to identify her. 14) No guesses … 15) No guesses again – and probably similar to track 10 in not really engaging me much but I have to give major props to Jack for coming up with one of the nicest BFT comps in the many years of this Organissimo Tradition. Kudos, sir. And kudos again.

Not cool, not warning us in advance that link would launch some godawful Dave Koz music.

Stick a fork in him, he's done. Number one, note that this is totally separate from the question of what Pettitte might have said to McNamee in 2002. And number two, let's think about Clemens attempt to weasel out in 2005. "I was talking about my wife". Yeah, we're supposed to believe that you didn't use HGH but your wife did. Who's idea was it? Did you tell her, "honey, I don't use it, but Mac thinks this stuff will help you." What a sad pathetic joke. I now suspect that Clemens will be asserting his fifth amendment rights before tomorrow's hearing is over.

Pettitte, Knoblauch and Radomski are excused.

I know nothing about Fogelberg, but I know that ain't Liza, that's Julia Louis Dreyfus. Liza was in his sig at the time. He frequently changes sigs (hey, I enjoy looking, but he's featured far more attractive ones than JLD (or Liza for that matter) IMO). Gotta say you're wrong there - that is a prime photo of JLD.

Mine was indeed in today's mail and I've already typed up responses as I listened. So bring on the discussion thread!

Looking forward to 'em, Al!

I'm running out to the mail box now hoping my copy is there. Getting back into the BFT makes me think I should sign up for go-round number three. But give everybody a curveball and not include a single blues in the whole thing.

If its any consolation, Jon, the saturation coverage will be over after Thursday, though you will have to deal with even more crap between now and then. But afterwards it will all settle down - until the lab results come back or Clemens gets indicted.

Well, usually its been the Daily News, and to a lesser extent the Times and Post, breaking the stories on Clemens. But this time its Newsday getting into the act, and just as I said last night, if Pettitte had nothing to give but the testimonial equivalent of a glass of warm milk, he wouldn't have a problem testifying in public about his friend. Let's think about this ... is it remotely plausible to believe that Clemens was referring to "medications"? That's about as plausible as the claim that McNamee injected him with Lidocaine, which only a doctor could possess and McNamee has no training in administering. What "medications" would Clemens be referring to? Are there other things McNamee was giving him, and how did he obtain them? If Clemens says "lidocaine" then he's a really contemptible liar because that is something that lasts one to two hours and no one would think its such a big advantage to be receiving. If indeed McNamee responded "because its illegal", what did Pettitte say? That is the real question, because its not an issue of faulty memories, he's just spoken to Clemens, and then asked McNamee about the "stuff". If they really didn't understand, why wouldn't Pettitte say, wait a minute - I'm not talking about steroids, I'm asking about the medications you're giving Roger. The more you think about it, the more you realize that the committee is still erring when they let Pettitte avoid public testimony. You've got three witnesses to a conversation. Why have only two testify, and use one guy's words to challenge one of the others? You need Pettitte up there, to respond directly to Clemens. Mr. Pettitte, is it possible that Roger was speaking of "medications" not steroids? Mr. Congressman, he knew exactly what we were talking about. Remember too that Pettitte was deposed before Clemens. They didn't hear that Clemens claimed that they have faulty memories and that he was referring to "medications". So they never had the chance to seek clarification from Andy. As incomplete as this testimony may be, its still particularly damaging. The committee members can kiss Clemens ass all they want - when the world hears about this, if its not game, set, match, I think we're at Triple Headache Point (as old Bud Collins used to refer to love-40 ).

Huh?? It's important to stop steroids, period. Everyone knows and understands they are harmful - including the ball players. You seriously think they don't already understand that, and that we all need to become more educated about steroids before we actually *DO* something about them?? No, Aggie. What I am saying is the uproar over steroids and HGHs is hypocritical if we aren't also willing to look at then curb the wanton physical abuse of athletes, and on a wholesale basis, to keep them in the game. That is far and away more insidious and permanently harmful to the athlete than any steroid or HGH ever used. And you can bet the ranch on it. Please read this first before responding, OK? I'd really apprecaite it, Aggie. Don't you get it, Aggie? Pitchers play with pain, and then they blow out their elbow, and Tommy John surgery is painful, and it really should be as illegal as steroids because it helps you pitch better and players go through so much to stay in the game. Its all just so bad, and so wrong. We shouldn't let steroids pervert the game, and we shouldn't let modern medicine extend careers. Its wrong, wrong, wrong, and its hypocritical if you can't understand that.

I personally believe that the government is over-reaching in trying to get these MLB players names when the tests were understood to be anonymous, but the fact is that the whole article - and let's remember that this is the LOSING side of this issue that is doing the bitching and moaning - is about that issue alone, except for this little tidbit: This statement is 100% false, unless you describe items seized by a warranted search as somehow tainted because Novitsky was in the room. Virtually everything that the prosecutors asked Bonds about in the grand jury room related to documents, including the infamous drug calendars, obtained from Greg Anderson's apartment when a search and arrest warrant was executed by DOZENS of agents. Its an outrageous attempt to smear the man when its implied that he's the one who found them, and he's such a bastard (Bonds never saw them before, doncha know) he probably manufactured them, too.

I have the same problem as Tom. I always presumed the site continues to grow and grow in popularity and they aren't keeping up with server/broadband capacity.

Thinking more about it, if Pettitte had nothing but helpful things to say about Clemens, he would be unlikely to have begged out of appearing. So it makes more sense that, as is being reported, he simply doesn't want to repeat them in front of the world and with Clemens sitting next to him. The Times broke the story first, and here is what they had to say:

Well that is certainly interesting. Why would Pettitte be such a "bad witness" and why would he continuously "contradict himself"? Is that a legitimate inability to remember things, or a refusal to commit to the truth in order not to bury Clemens? I would presume that at minimum, the committee will release transcripts of Pettitte's and Knoblauch's interviews, so that people can see what was asked and how it was answered. Here is what the Daily News is reporting: If Pettitte has already given testimony in his interview that would hurt Clemens, why the reticence to do it in public? He doesn't want to tell the truth with Roger sitting next to him? I think the real problem for Pettitte is going to be the fact that the New York press is going to keep pushing him about what he knows and what he said. If he were smart he'd answer the questions on Wednesday, and then when he shows up at camp on Thursday, he could have simply said, "I answered all questions truthfully under oath at the committee hearing. I'm not here to talk about the past."

As John McEnroe used to say "you can't be serious". And yes, I did watch the video as I had never heard of Paramore or Hayley Williams. BTW - skank is a little harsh, I think she (Winehouse) looks more like a modern day Ronnette. Who knows - maybe she'll hook up with Phil Spector? We can only hope he shows her his gun collection ...

This morning, in his memory, I recited a line from that film that, every time it is broadcast, I feel compelled to repeat: "I'm not talking about pleasure boatin' or day sailin', chief. I'm talking about workin for a livin, I'm talkin' about sharkin'!" I tell ya, its great fun, and its sad to hear that Roy Scheider has died.

Apt metaphor, and hardly surprising in this day and age. I'd say there are a lot of things made with less attention to detail and craftsmanship.

When I first saw this thread last night, all I could think was, Chuck is watching the Grammys? I haven't paid a dime's worth of attention to any Grammy broadcast in nearly 20 years, and couldn't have cared less about who performed/who sucked (they all do)/who won.

Now SI is reporting that Waxman, the chairman, has sent a letter to Hardin to, in effect, watch his mouth:

Well thanks for tugging my shirt toward this sale ... no jazz purchased, but six blues CDs including a Magic Slim disc that I once saw offered for like $29. $5.95 flat rate shipping sounds pretty good, too.