Dan Gould

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).

Correct, the interview was pre-recorded, last weekend at his mansion in Texas, I believe. Then CBS put out a press release about denying PED use ("Swear?" "Swear." ) but acknowledging being injected with "lidocaine and B-12" and that got picked up and has been driving news coverage until the House Oversight committee made its announcement.

More on lidocaine from Lupica's column: Still sticking with that story, Roger?

TD, yes, it will run third in the rotation, so about 35 minutes or so after the football game ends. Might be as late as after 8:30 tonight. There is a terrific column about the art of being a tough interviewer and why Wallace is unlikely to even make Roger squirm a bit here.. Must read column, imo. As for the Congressional hearing, I would downplay the likelihood of a Sosa-McGuire farce. I would expect Randomski and McNamee to appear on one panel, answering questions and giving extensive detail on what they witnessed. Next will (or should) be Pettitte and Knoblauch. Pettitte, because he has already admitted that McNamee told the truth, and Knobby because he is another player that McNamee identified, iirc. With immunity and no pending legal investigation, Knoblauch can either A) Tell the truth, give McNamee more credibility, and put another nail in the Texas Con Man's coffin B) Take the Fifth, which will have the same effect as A) C) Take the Clemens approach and deny, deny, deny After that, out comes Roger for his own panel, to answer under oath and in front of a nation, the question of whether or not he used steroids and HGH, and if he denies it under oath, to explain why he should be believed when McNamee keeps getting more and more support (there's a very interesting interview with McNamee's lawyers in the New York Daily News in which they mention that McNamee actually predicted beforehand that Pettitte is an honest guy and he would tell the truth when the story breaks. They went on to say that there is more collaboration available than just McNamee's direct testimony about both Clemens and Pettitte.) I honestly think that in between the grandstanding by the politicians, there will be extremely compelling moments of testimony, a cut below famous moments like "At long last, sir" and the revelation about the Oval Office taping system ... but at least we can hope for an Iran-Contra "I am not a potted plant, Senator!" from Rusty Hardin.

What WAS that album? There's some other album with Harold Ousley on it on which Earl plays, but I can't think which. MG, its One More For The Road on Demon Records.

Sad news; his name was on my mind because I just picked up a Charles Brown LP from the mid-80s with May on bass, along with Billy Butler, Harold Ousley and Kenny Washington. Thought that was an interesting group with him so I snagged it. RIP.

Holy shit! I thought it just made their heads big!! More of a figure of speech. Testes shrink (yet more proof that Bonds had to know what he was using or he'd have run to his doctor in a heartbeat) but when it comes to displays of extreme arrogance, shrinking testicles didn't stop Bonds from being the same a-hole he's been his entire life. Now we'll see whether Clemens measures up.

Well, 60 Minutes and the press conference are just the aperitif, since McNamee, Clemens and Pettitte have now been "invited" to testify before a Congressional hearing on January 16th! Finally, the politicians step up to the plate and force these people to lay it on the line. Everybody goes under oath; everybody risks a perjury charge. Now we really will find out, long before a defamation lawsuit goes to trial, if Clemens has the Bonds-sized balls to lie under oath. I'd say that the press conference just got a little more interesting, but the real moment of truth is just a couple of weeks away. BTW, Randomski has been invited to testify as well, which means that he can testify to the fact that McNamee said things like "he's on the program now" in regards to Clemens - never said "he's on steroids" but it was understood what was meant.