Dan Gould

Good points. I think the proof that he knows he didn't lie is in the taped conversation - when asked what he should do, Clemens never said "tell the truth". That's not because of the risk of a charge of witness tampering. How can advising someone to tell the truth constitute witness tampering? Its encouraging someone to be forthright and honest! If he tells him what to say, that is witness tampering. But to tell him to tell the truth cannot possibly constitute tampering. But, Clemens can't say "tell the truth" because he knows that the truth destroys him. And as for the whole "he won't take a lie detector test" statement by the sleezy lawyer: When the question is a he said/he said situation, and its a battle for public opinion, don't you think any lawyer worth his salt would order up a polygraph? If he passes it, you trumpet it everywhere you can as "proof" that he is telling the truth. The fact that he won't take one is compelling evidence to me that he took one and failed it.

Because GEE Dumbya needs a smoke screen for his failed Iraq War, housing/mortgage crisis and environmental gaffs. Bush is all about the cover not the reality. Gosh, didn't know Harry Waxman was on the Bush payroll as well! http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2007/12/14/...in3618383.shtml Thanks for revealing the latest asinine statement. It really is nice to know that the Democratic majority in the House is doing the President's bidding.

On that I disagree, T.D., to the extent that Clemens and Bonds will not and should not get away with false testimony under oath. Should there be legal or baseball penalties for those who juiced? No, I don't think so. But Bonds and Clemens have or intend to testify falsely, and there should be a penalty for it.

They did a nice job because often its tough to make these edits "work" unless the person used a lot of "down" inflections. When you make a statement, you naturally speak with a down inflection - if there were "up" inflections, the edited sentences would sound off. But getting past the fun people have messing with his words, I saw on SI - or maybe it was ESPN, something no one else has seemed to notice - that when Wallace asked him whether he'd had contact before the Mitchell report, and he mentioned the email about fishing equipment. Roger said that he didn't say anything about "he was fixin' to bury me". Notice it wasn't "fixin' to lie about me to the Mitchell report". "Fixin' to bury me." Wouldn't we all agree that in common usage, "bury me" means "betray me" or something similar?

Some good points there, Eric. To clarify what I meant about Rice - if you put him in, there's no reason to stop voting for him subsequently (unless you really really hate his home/road splits and think he was just a by-product of Fenway) - otherwise, those changes you mention generally started working in his favor, once the issue of PEDs broke through. I've always been a more inclusive guy when it comes to the Hall - but I do draw the line at Jack Morris.

Well, the Hall of Fame votes are in and while I am disappointed that Jim Rice won't be joining Goose Gossage in the Hall, I have to believe that 15 will be the charm, considering that he fell 16 votes short, and had a higher percentage in his penultimate year than Goose did in his. I'm also glad to see the Hawk getting some support, despite his terrible OBP, he was a complete player for a long time, as well as reaching a couple of milestone numbers that traditionally get you in. Blyleven too ought to be in, and is overwhelmingly more qualified than Jack Morris. Its a shame too that Tim Raines has started with only 24.3% in his first year. Sure, he had a low slugging percentage and that cocaine scandal, but his OBP, steals, steal percentage, and several other stats I can't think of at the moment, make him a no-doubt hall of famer. Too bad its going to take some time for him, too - probably another 8 or 9 years. It would be really screwy if his vote total actually goes down next year when Rickey Henderson is on the ballot, as if voters would be foolish enough to decide he is so "inferior" that he should get fewer votes while Rickey is on the ballot. But that just reminds me of how much bullshit the voters put out, year in and year out. In my opinion, the following votes should be grounds for immediate dismissal from the electorate: Anyone who votes for any of the new nominees, the ones who haven't any possible claim to qualifying. And yet every year, some idiot writer puts Chuck Knoblauch or this year, Todd Stottlemeyer or Shawon Dunston. You vote for crap, you lose your vote. Period. Anyone who changes their vote from year to year based on who the top candidates are. Nothing has changed for Jim Rice since he retired. Either he belongs or he doesn't. Yet every year, the marginal candidates have votes that go up or down based on who is at the top of the ballot. If you don't understand that you are supposed to vote for up to 10 players and that no one is a Hall of Famer one year, not a Hall of Famer the next year, and then a Hall of Famer the next year, you're out. Period. Ever since Rice topped Gil Hodges, everyone has assumed that he'd get in eventually, since no one with a higher vote percentage than Gil has been denied - I just hope that is the case, especially now, and that Rickey's slam-dunk candidacy doesn't perversely take away too many votes in his last year. In a way I do think it is appropriate that Rice will wait til his last year. He is a marginal candidate. If he hadn't broken down and lost it at a relatively young age, he'd have reached those milestone marks like 2500 RBI and 400 homers. Heck, if he had only averaged a single hit more for his 15 year career, he'd have hit .300 overall. So this will mean that next year, Rice will be the focus of discussion and commentary. He's practically at the goal line, so feets don't fail me now.

In Texas and New York (among other states) it is legal to tape so long as one party is aware of it. California and some other states require that both parties are aware. Yes, it really does sound like a sad breakup, with McNamee in the role of the spouse who is sorry for hurting the other. That has been Clemens' MO for a very long time. It will be really interesting if he tries to bully the committee members next week - and interesting too if they turn into brown-nosers in his presence. I think there is still a chance for a tough interview, but it really looks like Roger is taking the Pete Rose - Barry Bonds express route to infamy. I wonder if he'll ultimately regret that "take your Hall of Fame vote and shove it" attitude?

And it very much sounds like someone who is distraught at having hurt a friend - not because he was forced to lie to do so but because he knows its the truth and he had to be candid in order to avoid criminal charges. I stopped listening and can't yet find a transcript anywhere - but did McNamee ever say "I'm sorry for lying about you"? Did the word "lying" ever come out of his mouth? Clemens was smart from a legal perspective to not say anything that might be construed as witness tampering, but it doesn't make the tape any sort of "smoking gun". In fact, SI.com has an 'exclusive' interview in which McNamee does come across as truly regretful that he had to tell the truth about Clemens and that he doesn't feel that Clemens was anything like the other steroid users in the game - that he only used it in July/August, seemingly to finish a season strong. Considering how Clemens used the phone call to boost himself, the ball is very much in McNamee's court as to how to respond. He may just have to give his own press conference before the Congressional hearing.

Did anyone change their mind based on the phone call Clemens taped and played at his press conference? Did the press conference change anyone's opinion? As for the latter question, I have less confidence in the likelihood that congressmen will stand up to Clemens, but on the other hand, once he is sworn in, he doesn't get to say "I've said enough" and storm off. It will be real impressive if he tries to use his supposed outrage to browbeat anyone into accepting his story. The phone conversation is certainly interesting. But just as Rusty Hardin points out that McNamee never says "you know I am telling the truth", as many times as Clemens says "I need you to tell the truth", McNamee also never says that he lied to the Feds or Senator Mitchell. Never does he say "you're right Roger, I am sorry I lied, I never should have done it, please forgive me. I am going to tell the world that its not true that you used steroids." In fact, it seems to me there is only one way to interpret the most important statement on the tape: He's saying, I don't want to hurt you or your family, but I also have to tell the truth. Otherwise I'll go to jail. I also find that Hardin displays extraordinary chutzpah when he says that the defamation suit in no way accuses the Federal government of misconduct, when the explanation of why McNamee supposedly testified falsely was the insistence by the Feds that he serve up Clemens. You can't have it both ways, and the biggest question becomes, exactly how was the interview conducted? His lawyers insist it was "non-coercive" and that the Feds were surprised that he identified Clemens. Since they witnessed the interviews, if they saw coercion being used, aren't they duty-bound as an officer of the court to report such misconduct and not to further what is basically a conspiracy to destroy Clemens reputation? And as far as what McNamee might have said to the investigators - isn't it just as likely that, feeling guilty about ratting out Clemens, he told them that he was forced to say these things by the Feds, rather than telling them that he simply told the truth?

Thanks for the recommendation, Peter - I have the first two recordings Eddie has done with Scott Hamilton and they make a very tasty mainstream combo.

When ballplayers who are looked up to by millions of impressionable kids, Congress has an interest in looking at steroid use in the game. Spare me. Somehow I doubt Congress has taken such an interest in this because "of the children". I am sure you're right, and they didn't actually include in the 2005 hearings the father of a High School football player who killed himself after he stopped using steroids. Oh wait. Yes they did.

Looks like Clemens has already been caught in a lie in the 60 Minutes interview - when he said that he had no idea about the Mitchell Report until it was released. According to Newsday, his attorneys sent their private investigators to talk to McNamee before the Mitchell Report was released. That's how they got the supposed info about how the Feds browbeat him into ratting on Clemens. Makes perfect sense since there is no way McNamee would talk to Clemens PIs after the report came out - but admitting that he sent private investigators to interview him shows that Clemens had something to be worried about ahead of time, and that doesn't jibe with his claim of innocence. Much better to proclaim that he was "shocked" when the report was released. Yet another thing for the reporters to ask about three hours from now.

I really don't believe Pops would have put it in those exact words.. Maybe it was Miles.

Since our old, and long absent, friend Bill Fenohr was trying to complete the entire output of many labels, I'm pretty sure that is how he organized his vast collection. Going deeper, I have no idea if he organized alphabetically or by catalog number.

The lawsuit's claims about how Mitchell got his information can be contradicted by McNamee's own lawyers, who told the NY Daily News. Compare this part of the News' interview with the lawyers: To the claims made in the defamation suit: Now, his lawyers could testify as to how the interview was conducted, but as witnesses I think they'd have to recuse themselves from representing him. So is this partially a ploy to get rid of the talented lawyers who have (iirc) taken the case pro bono?

AKA, Definitely a favorite from years back, I need to revisit it.

Well now it really is game on since Roger followed up his 60 Minutes appearance by filing his defamation lawsuit. Apparently it hangs on a claim that McNamee "admitted" that Federal agents bullied him into speaking ill of Clemens. Funny, I seriously doubt that McNamee would ever say anything like that, even if it were true, because he'd know what it does to his credibility and his legal risk. Furthermore, since he hired a lawyer right after Clemens and his lawyers went after him, how did they manage to have private investigators interview McNamee? Doesn't his lawyer tell them "you can depose him when a suit is filed"?

I am sure that you had an enjoyable time interviewing Eddie, who is truly a gentleman, but none of this is new to those who read my two-part Eddie Higgins interview that was published in Cadence, mentioned here. In fact, I didn't even have to nag him to get the full story about his declining to join the Messengers.

Issued under license from Upside Records (could that be what Paul was thinking of instead of Blueside?) and yes, Demon Records is in Brentford, Middx.

Well, the first day's testimony will be by Bud and Don (and I think a couple of other people but I am not sure) and they did the same thing last time around, so I think that Congress has at least to a tiny extent, gone after the ones who should have been on top of it. I do tend to agree with you that its more MLB's fault than the players/Union because it seems painfully obvious that MLB didn't want to know what was going on, especially in the aftermath of the '94 strike and the way that McGuire and Sosa "saved" the game. What I do find ridiculous is the idea that a guy who never rose above low "A" ball with a high-80s fastball is talking about leading a class-action suit against MLB for allowing steroids to give some players an edge and hurting those who didn't partake. You can read about his claim here.

(Now I really need to put on that record soon, if two members give it raves - as well as other Earl May recordings. And I have to take note that on my version, only "You Changed My Life" is missing. The other three tunes Paul mentions as appearing on one release but not on the other are all there.)

Baseball has an anti-trust exemption from Congress. That gives Congress an interest in how they conduct the business. Congress has for a significant period of time, increased the regulation of, and upped the penalty for, the distribution of steroids and other performance enhancers. When ballplayers who are looked up to by millions of impressionable kids, Congress has an interest in looking at steroid use in the game. And furthermore, the idea that Congress is somehow "wasting money" when there are more pressing national concerns is utterly ludicrous. There are 450 members of the House of Representatives. They are well capable of doing a whole bunch of different things (poorly) all at the same time.

One more observation, hopefully info will come out from Mitchell or his staff, what did they tell people when they gave them the opportunity to respond to allegations? Did they just say that there have credible information and you can come to talk to us about it, or did they give any other info about where it might have come from? That would go to whether or not he really would have come running to try to refute McNamee's statements if he knew about them.

Oh, Bunning made a big stink the last time they dealt with steroids - basically complaining about players who don't get worse as they age, they get better, and how unlikely that is without chemical assistance. Watching the start of the interview - Wallace starts reading from the Mitchell report, and Clemens nods along. I may be wrong but I believe that's a non-verbal cue that he agrees with the statements. If they were false, the impulse should be to shake his head throughout - and he only starts to shake his head a couple of minutes later, probably when he remembered what his lawyer told him to do. Who told him to claim that a "third ear would grow out of my forehead" if he used steroids? Does anyone else think it was suggested he say something ludicrous to imply that he really, really, doesn't know anything about steroids? Now he's talking about lidocaine and B-12 - someone has to ask Clemens tomorrow where those injections took place. If he says it was in the ass, the statement by the sports medicine Doctor quoted in New York Daily News proves he's lying, as the Doc says that you don't shoot it in your ass and you don't have a buddy shoot it either. If he says that McNamee shot him in the elbow, then the question is, why a non-medical professional?? As for that ludicrous answer about why McNamee would lie: Isn't it true that liars often have a little kernel of truth in what they say? "Evidently not going to jail" is the perfect answer why McNamee is telling the truth - and if he read the report, he knows precisely what McNamee's motivation is to tell the truth.

Not to ruin the suspense, but CBS has released the transcript of tonight's interview: Pretty pathetic performance from Wallace, who doesn't even bother to mention that he has described himself as Clemens' "friend" and is a regular guest in old George's box at Yankee Stadium. He can't even be troubled to directly challenge Clemens on McNamee's incentive to tell the truth and nothing but - and of course there is no follow up to Clemens' nonsensical reply: Excuse me, Roger, but the Feds told him "no Federal charges so long as you tell us everything you know and don't ever lie to us". How does he get that to "not going to jail"? The fact is that if the Feds generated their own evidence that McNamee shot Clemens up with steroids and HGH, he'd be up shit's creek sans paddle had he neglected to mention that he supplied Clemens with the stuff. And the claim that Pettitte's situation is "totally separate" - uh, no, Rog, it goes directly to McNamee's credibility. And that Vioxx shit and the story about his pain killer shot before his WS start? What the fucking hell is that about? Has absolutely nothing to do with the issue at hand, and he thinks he's going to learn the oversight committee about what ... poor regulation by the FDA? I hope Roger thinks this was worth it. From this moment on, its downhill for him. Starting at 5 pm ET on Monday, he'll deal with journalists with a little more guts than Mike Wallace who are going to hammer him on all the reasons why he is losing the battle for the hearts and minds of the public. And then when it comes time to be sworn in and testify under oath, he better be ready to take it all the way to the end (minimum, libel suit; maximum, felony charge of lying to Congress).