Baseball Steroid Thread

[Dan Gould]

Forget the two articles about body language above. This is the article everyone should read.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3244344

Body language analyst breaks down Clemens, McNamee performances

By Wayne Drehs

ESPN.com

Updated: February 14, 2008, 5:43 PM ET

ALEXANDRIA, Va. -- The first verbal knife had yet to be thrown. Roger Clemens and Brian McNamee had yet to say a single word. And yet renowned body language expert Janine Driver already had jumped off her couch, paused the TiVo and pointed to her television with the excitement of someone who had just found a lost wedding ring.

"See that!?! See that!?!" Driver said. "Did you see the way Roger pulled his thumb in? That's a hot spot. That's a hot spot. That's a potential sign of deception!"

Driver has spent the past 13 years studying just that -- the subtleties and signals of body language. She has worked for the federal government, law enforcement agencies and Fortune 500 companies. She has trained more than 20,000 police officers on interrogation techniques, and has helped hundreds of men and women improve their personal lives through body language analysis. She is currently on a government assignment that she is not allowed to discuss publicly, but it has nothing to do with the investigation into performance-enhancing drugs in professional sports.

On Wednesday, 10 miles from Capitol Hill, the woman known as the "Lyin' Tamer" applied her expertise to the congressional hearings on the Mitchell report, inviting ESPN.com into her home where she shared her impressions of the on-camera behaviors of Clemens and McNamee.

Her job, to put it simply, is to overanalyze. To critique every little thing -- from a scratch of the nose to a twitch of the eye -- to search for signs of deception. There are those who might think it is overboard, and perhaps it is. But she acknowledges there is no single behavior that indicates someone is definitely lying. Instead, there are "hot spots," as she calls them, which indicate potential deception. The more hot spots, the more likely there is deception. And right from the beginning of Wednesday's hearing, when Clemens and McNamee raised their right hands to be sworn in, Driver started noticing hot spots with Clemens.

Driver first noticed the pitcher pull his right thumb into his hand while he was being sworn. She said that noted jury consultant Jo Ellen Demetrius, who helped pick the jury for the original O.J. Simpson trial, has a theory that whenever somebody sticks their thumb in while being sworn in, he or she will be a difficult witness.

"If you're going to tell the truth your thumb and your hand are open and relaxed," Driver said. "When you're controlling what you're going to say, your thumb might be tense. And Roger's thumb is tense."

She went back and played the swearing in again and found more hot spots with Clemens. He briefly stuck out his tongue, licked his lips. And then adjusted the way he was standing.

What did it all mean?

"These are signs that are indicative of someone who is possibly going to withhold the truth," Driver said. "Does it mean he is lying? No. You have to look for these clusters of hot spots. But right off the bat, we have three of them."

Driver then listened to Clemens' opening statement and was critical of the phrase, "I've been accused of something I'm not guilty of."

Driver again excitedly paused the TiVo, bragging that she couldn't wait to show this clip to a class she teaches at Johns Hopkins University. Driver said people often say passive things like, "I'm not guilty of" when they're lying.

"Look, if I asked you if you killed your son you wouldn't say, 'I'm not guilty of that,'" Driver said. "You would say, 'Absolutely not.' It's just a passive way of dancing around the issue. It's just another hot spot to pay attention to."

At another point during Clemens' opening statement, the pitcher stuttered when he said, "I'm not saying the entire report is wrong, I'm saying Brian Mc . . . Brian McNamee's statements are wrong."

The stutter stood out to Driver.

"Look, he can't even say it without a stutter," she added. "And that's his first stutter in his entire statement. If this were a case where he were lying, his stress would increase and a stutter would happen. Hot spot."

When McNamee read his opening statement, Driver had nothing critical to say. She found no hot spots. No clusters. McNamee's hands were on the table, a position she said conveys truth and confidence. And he didn't stutter in any way.

"He comes across as genuine," Driver said. "There's nothing there. It's exactly what you're looking for. There's no signs of deception. These opening statements are a perfect example of what to do and what not to do."

It's a theme that would continue throughout much of the hearing, with Driver picking up several hot spots on Clemens, but few on McNamee. Even when McNamee, the former trainer, was being grilled by several politicians, including Rep. Dan Burton, R-Ind., Driver said McNamee came across as believable.

Sure, his hands were shaking at times and his body language said he was nervous. He even crossed his arms and rubbed his wrists, a move Driver said Martha Stewart did frequently during her trial. But Driver found him believable, referring to his slouched shoulders and crossed arms as "defeated."

"He looks like he's out of the game, like he doesn't want to fight," Driver said. "And when bad guys are about to confess, that's what they do. Their posture is less straight, they stare off. He's in an emotional place. He's a wet rag. And he gives me the indication that he's throwing up his arms and telling us everything he knows."

Even during the heated discussion over the party at Jose Canseco's Florida home, a party that Clemens and several others contended he did not attend but McNamee claimed he did, Driver said she believed McNamee was likely telling the truth. Perhaps, she said, they both were.

"I believe that Brian truly believes that Roger was there," Driver said. "There's no notable change in his behavior to signal otherwise. And the truth, remember, is nothing more than our perception of the truth. It's what we believe of it. Maybe Brian is remembering another day that Roger was there. Maybe he saw the nanny or Roger's wife. Who knows.

"[McNamee has] got serious credibility issues. There's no question about that. But body-language-wise, he comes across as sincere. There's no reason to think he's lying."

The only issue Driver had was when Burton asked McNamee whether he had kept syringes or any other evidence from clients besides Clemens and Chuck Knoblauch. McNamee's answer: "Possibly one other." That troubled Driver.

"There's more to that story," she said. "If you've saved evidence that long, you know what you have. It's one other. Not possibly one other."

Driver said she found Clemens less than convincing throughout. She noted several things that troubled her:

• On several occasions, Clemens referred to McNamee as "this man." Said Driver: "That's distancing language. Bill Clinton did the exact same thing when he said he did not have sexual relations with 'that woman.' It's a way to distance yourself from the truth."

• When asked by the committee whether Clemens had received an invitation to meet with former Sen. George Mitchell to discuss his commission's findings, Driver counted Clemens pausing 23 times before answering no. "That's a serious potential hot spot."

• When Clemens discussed pitching for Team USA and how proud he was to have those three letters on his chest, Driver noticed that Clemens' right nostril went up. That, she said, typically reveals disgust. "That's a micro-expression that shouldn't be there when he's talking about his pride in playing for his country. That's huge." During the Simpson trial, Driver said, Cato Kaelin made the same expression when lying to the prosecution about his plans to write a book on the ordeal. "It's almost a snarl. Like a wild dog. And you have to wonder why Roger did that there. Subconsciously he is leaking disgust."

• When Rep. Darrell S. Issa, R-Calif., announced that he was pleased this would be the last hearing on steroids in baseball, Driver said Clemens raised his lip. "That's contempt," she said. "It means moral superiority, essentially, 'I win.' That just shows that he is pleased that this will be the last hearing on this topic."

Driver, who has spent the past 13 years studying signs of deception, has worked for the federal government, law enforcement agencies and Fortune 500 companies.

But perhaps the most telling moment to Driver was the very end of the hearing, when committee chairman Henry Waxman, D-Calif., concluded by reiterating the deposition and affidavit given by Andy Pettitte, only to have Clemens interrupt Waxman and insist, "That doesn't mean he wasn't mistaken."

Waxman smacked his gavel on the desk in front of him and sternly told Clemens, "It is not your time to argue with me."

Driver said Clemens' red-faced look was as telling as the pitcher's hot-spot-filled swearing in. She stressed several times that those who tell the truth convey their message rather than convince you of it. In this case, Clemens was convincing.

"If he was telling the truth, he wouldn't have to speak at the end," she said. "But when someone is drowning, they want to grasp for one more bit of air. An innocent person, they look relieved after they tell the truth, like we see with Brian McNamee. But for Roger to be grasping for air in a sense of panic speaks volumes."

In the end, what does it all mean? Perhaps a lot. Perhaps very little. Unlike some of her colleagues, Driver said she refuses to "absolutely" accuse someone of lying since there is no certain body movement to reveal that. But just like the game of poker, there are "tells." And if one of her law enforcement colleagues had shown her a tape of the hearing and asked her to grade the two witnesses on their potential hot spots, Driver said she would have given McNamee a "1" and Clemens an "8" on a scale from 1 to 10, with 1 being the fewest hot spots.

"There are people who will say Roger is fighting for his life so, of course, it makes sense for those hot spots to be there," Driver said. "But you know what? When you're taking an oath there shouldn't be anxiety. And if you told the truth, there shouldn't be that anxiety and rage at the end.

"Truthful people feel a relief after a hearing like this. The truth sets them free. Just look at Brian. His body language says, 'Take it. I'm done. I've told you what I know. I told the truth.' We don't see Roger Clemens doing that. And that's what makes you have to wonder."

[Dan Gould]

And last but not least, keep an eye on this page:

http://www.statementanalysis.com/cases/

I discovered it a year or so ago when I was watching the movie about Jeffrey McDonald, the Marine doctor who butchered his family. The man who runs the site is an expert in spotting deceptive statements (the way he picks apart MacDonald's initial statement is staggering - like the way he used "distancing" language when he called for help "some people are hurt" (he's talking about his family!) but used personal language about his supposed attackers. Devastating stuff)

So, above is his splash page to different cases he's analyzed - and sometime in the last month he's put up an analysis of Roger's 60 Minutes interview and the taped phone call, which is well worth a read. I'm sure we'll see a lengthy look at his testimony as well. Keep in mind that this man only looks at words, no body language, in his analysis.

And, if the subject interests you, the other articles are very interesting too,

[Quincy]

Shall I move this to the political forum?

The whole thing is a circus.

Damn it Jim, we need a Steroid Forum!

[Tim McG]

Forget the two articles about body language above. This is the article everyone should read.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3244344

Body language analyst breaks down Clemens, McNamee performances

By Wayne Drehs

ESPN.com

Updated: February 14, 2008, 5:43 PM ET

ALEXANDRIA, Va. -- The first verbal knife had yet to be thrown. Roger Clemens and Brian McNamee had yet to say a single word. And yet renowned body language expert Janine Driver already had jumped off her couch, paused the TiVo and pointed to her television with the excitement of someone who had just found a lost wedding ring.

"See that!?! See that!?!" Driver said. "Did you see the way Roger pulled his thumb in? That's a hot spot. That's a hot spot. That's a potential sign of deception!"

Driver has spent the past 13 years studying just that -- the subtleties and signals of body language. She has worked for the federal government, law enforcement agencies and Fortune 500 companies. She has trained more than 20,000 police officers on interrogation techniques, and has helped hundreds of men and women improve their personal lives through body language analysis. She is currently on a government assignment that she is not allowed to discuss publicly, but it has nothing to do with the investigation into performance-enhancing drugs in professional sports.

On Wednesday, 10 miles from Capitol Hill, the woman known as the "Lyin' Tamer" applied her expertise to the congressional hearings on the Mitchell report, inviting ESPN.com into her home where she shared her impressions of the on-camera behaviors of Clemens and McNamee.

Her job, to put it simply, is to overanalyze. To critique every little thing -- from a scratch of the nose to a twitch of the eye -- to search for signs of deception. There are those who might think it is overboard, and perhaps it is. But she acknowledges there is no single behavior that indicates someone is definitely lying. Instead, there are "hot spots," as she calls them, which indicate potential deception. The more hot spots, the more likely there is deception. And right from the beginning of Wednesday's hearing, when Clemens and McNamee raised their right hands to be sworn in, Driver started noticing hot spots with Clemens.

Driver first noticed the pitcher pull his right thumb into his hand while he was being sworn. She said that noted jury consultant Jo Ellen Demetrius, who helped pick the jury for the original O.J. Simpson trial, has a theory that whenever somebody sticks their thumb in while being sworn in, he or she will be a difficult witness.

"If you're going to tell the truth your thumb and your hand are open and relaxed," Driver said. "When you're controlling what you're going to say, your thumb might be tense. And Roger's thumb is tense."

She went back and played the swearing in again and found more hot spots with Clemens. He briefly stuck out his tongue, licked his lips. And then adjusted the way he was standing.

What did it all mean?

"These are signs that are indicative of someone who is possibly going to withhold the truth," Driver said. "Does it mean he is lying? No. You have to look for these clusters of hot spots. But right off the bat, we have three of them."

Driver then listened to Clemens' opening statement and was critical of the phrase, "I've been accused of something I'm not guilty of."

Driver again excitedly paused the TiVo, bragging that she couldn't wait to show this clip to a class she teaches at Johns Hopkins University. Driver said people often say passive things like, "I'm not guilty of" when they're lying.

"Look, if I asked you if you killed your son you wouldn't say, 'I'm not guilty of that,'" Driver said. "You would say, 'Absolutely not.' It's just a passive way of dancing around the issue. It's just another hot spot to pay attention to."

At another point during Clemens' opening statement, the pitcher stuttered when he said, "I'm not saying the entire report is wrong, I'm saying Brian Mc . . . Brian McNamee's statements are wrong."

The stutter stood out to Driver.

"Look, he can't even say it without a stutter," she added. "And that's his first stutter in his entire statement. If this were a case where he were lying, his stress would increase and a stutter would happen. Hot spot."

When McNamee read his opening statement, Driver had nothing critical to say. She found no hot spots. No clusters. McNamee's hands were on the table, a position she said conveys truth and confidence. And he didn't stutter in any way.

"He comes across as genuine," Driver said. "There's nothing there. It's exactly what you're looking for. There's no signs of deception. These opening statements are a perfect example of what to do and what not to do."

It's a theme that would continue throughout much of the hearing, with Driver picking up several hot spots on Clemens, but few on McNamee. Even when McNamee, the former trainer, was being grilled by several politicians, including Rep. Dan Burton, R-Ind., Driver said McNamee came across as believable.

Sure, his hands were shaking at times and his body language said he was nervous. He even crossed his arms and rubbed his wrists, a move Driver said Martha Stewart did frequently during her trial. But Driver found him believable, referring to his slouched shoulders and crossed arms as "defeated."

"He looks like he's out of the game, like he doesn't want to fight," Driver said. "And when bad guys are about to confess, that's what they do. Their posture is less straight, they stare off. He's in an emotional place. He's a wet rag. And he gives me the indication that he's throwing up his arms and telling us everything he knows."

Even during the heated discussion over the party at Jose Canseco's Florida home, a party that Clemens and several others contended he did not attend but McNamee claimed he did, Driver said she believed McNamee was likely telling the truth. Perhaps, she said, they both were.

"I believe that Brian truly believes that Roger was there," Driver said. "There's no notable change in his behavior to signal otherwise. And the truth, remember, is nothing more than our perception of the truth. It's what we believe of it. Maybe Brian is remembering another day that Roger was there. Maybe he saw the nanny or Roger's wife. Who knows.

"[McNamee has] got serious credibility issues. There's no question about that. But body-language-wise, he comes across as sincere. There's no reason to think he's lying."

The only issue Driver had was when Burton asked McNamee whether he had kept syringes or any other evidence from clients besides Clemens and Chuck Knoblauch. McNamee's answer: "Possibly one other." That troubled Driver.

"There's more to that story," she said. "If you've saved evidence that long, you know what you have. It's one other. Not possibly one other."

Driver said she found Clemens less than convincing throughout. She noted several things that troubled her:

• On several occasions, Clemens referred to McNamee as "this man." Said Driver: "That's distancing language. Bill Clinton did the exact same thing when he said he did not have sexual relations with 'that woman.' It's a way to distance yourself from the truth."

• When asked by the committee whether Clemens had received an invitation to meet with former Sen. George Mitchell to discuss his commission's findings, Driver counted Clemens pausing 23 times before answering no. "That's a serious potential hot spot."

• When Clemens discussed pitching for Team USA and how proud he was to have those three letters on his chest, Driver noticed that Clemens' right nostril went up. That, she said, typically reveals disgust. "That's a micro-expression that shouldn't be there when he's talking about his pride in playing for his country. That's huge." During the Simpson trial, Driver said, Cato Kaelin made the same expression when lying to the prosecution about his plans to write a book on the ordeal. "It's almost a snarl. Like a wild dog. And you have to wonder why Roger did that there. Subconsciously he is leaking disgust."

• When Rep. Darrell S. Issa, R-Calif., announced that he was pleased this would be the last hearing on steroids in baseball, Driver said Clemens raised his lip. "That's contempt," she said. "It means moral superiority, essentially, 'I win.' That just shows that he is pleased that this will be the last hearing on this topic."

Driver, who has spent the past 13 years studying signs of deception, has worked for the federal government, law enforcement agencies and Fortune 500 companies.

But perhaps the most telling moment to Driver was the very end of the hearing, when committee chairman Henry Waxman, D-Calif., concluded by reiterating the deposition and affidavit given by Andy Pettitte, only to have Clemens interrupt Waxman and insist, "That doesn't mean he wasn't mistaken."

Waxman smacked his gavel on the desk in front of him and sternly told Clemens, "It is not your time to argue with me."

Driver said Clemens' red-faced look was as telling as the pitcher's hot-spot-filled swearing in. She stressed several times that those who tell the truth convey their message rather than convince you of it. In this case, Clemens was convincing.

"If he was telling the truth, he wouldn't have to speak at the end," she said. "But when someone is drowning, they want to grasp for one more bit of air. An innocent person, they look relieved after they tell the truth, like we see with Brian McNamee. But for Roger to be grasping for air in a sense of panic speaks volumes."

In the end, what does it all mean? Perhaps a lot. Perhaps very little. Unlike some of her colleagues, Driver said she refuses to "absolutely" accuse someone of lying since there is no certain body movement to reveal that. But just like the game of poker, there are "tells." And if one of her law enforcement colleagues had shown her a tape of the hearing and asked her to grade the two witnesses on their potential hot spots, Driver said she would have given McNamee a "1" and Clemens an "8" on a scale from 1 to 10, with 1 being the fewest hot spots.

"There are people who will say Roger is fighting for his life so, of course, it makes sense for those hot spots to be there," Driver said. "But you know what? When you're taking an oath there shouldn't be anxiety. And if you told the truth, there shouldn't be that anxiety and rage at the end.

"Truthful people feel a relief after a hearing like this. The truth sets them free. Just look at Brian. His body language says, 'Take it. I'm done. I've told you what I know. I told the truth.' We don't see Roger Clemens doing that. And that's what makes you have to wonder."

Maybe the Palm Readers need to take a whack at this, too.

Edited February 17, 2008 by GoodSpeak

[Chalupa]

Clemens jersey removed

Yogi Berra Museum concerned with steroid issues

Posted: Saturday February 16, 2008 2:04PM; Updated: Saturday February 16, 2008 2:04PM

LITTLE FALLS, N.J. (AP) -- Roger Clemens' jersey was tossed from the Yogi Berra Museum.

Museum director David Kaplan said on Saturday the museum had removed Clemens' jersey last week from a display honoring the Yankees teams of the late 1990s that won four World Series championships in five years.

Kaplan said the decision to remove the jersey was not made to generate publicity, but was done in response to allegations of steroid use by Clemens that resulted in Wednesday's Congressional hearing where the seven-time Cy Young Award winner testified.

"It was the fact that there are a lot of unresolved issues involving Roger and it was difficult for us to give answers to the kids coming through the museum," Kaplan said.

The Yogi Berra Museum and Learning Center, which opened in 1998, offers several educational programs for youths including one that focuses on sports medicine and nutrition and examines the use of performance-enhancing drugs.

Clemens' jersey had been displayed alongside former teammates Derek Jeter and Mariano Rivera. Clemens pitched for the Yankees from 1999 to 2003 and was a member of the 1999 and 2000 championship teams.

Jeter's and Rivera's jerseys will stay in the display, Kaplan said. Both were members of the Yankees from 1995.

"In light of what's been happening, we just thought the display would be well-served by having the guys who were there from the beginning of the run," Kaplan said.

Kaplan said he decided to remove the jersey with chief operating officer Art Berke. They notified Berra of their decision and the former Yankee great "was OK with it," according to Kaplan.

Clemens and Berra are friends, and the former pitcher has played in a celebrity golf event that raises money for the museum, Kaplan said.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/base...m.ap/index.html

[Dan Gould]

COULDN'T BE VERSE

CLASSICAL LOOK AT CLEMENS IN CONGRESS

By MIKE VACCARO

February 17, 2008 -- With apologies to Ernest Lawrence Thayer:

"Rocket Under Oath"

The outlook wasn't brilliant for the Waxman Gang that day:

Old Roger had his story, and was never led astray.

And Rusty did his grandstanding, and Earl Ward did the same,

And Congressmen came kissing arses, never missing aim.

The GOP called McNamee a liar and the rest

Clung to the hope that television caught them at their best;

They thought, if only W could pardon this fat cat

We'd already be on our planes to Plano and North Platte.

Then wise Elijah peppered Rocket, as did Stephen Lynch,

And the former was distinguished and the latter wouldn't flinch;

So upon that stricken multitude there rose palpable mass,

For it seemed they'd spend a month and change dissecting Roger's ass.

But Burton cried, "You fibbed! You lied!" to bring Mac's rep such sully,

(And may I say right here he's a dead ringer for Vin Scully);

And when the dust had lifted, and the GOP was done,

They'd turned the Rocket into God and Mac into a Hun.

Then from 5,000 throats and more the Congress swore to delve

Into the brilliant color schemes of Winstrol and B-12;

And mighty Waxman (like a taxman) rose amid the cavil,

Screamed "I'm in charge here (and I've large ears) listen to my gavel!"

There was ease in Rocket's manner as he listened to the fuss;

There was pride in Rocket's stride as he threw Deb under the bus.

And when the shills in Congress cheered, he winked and smiled both,

No stranger in the crowd could doubt 'twas Rocket Under Oath.

Ten million eyes were on him as he spit defiant rage;

Ten million tongues were wagging as he kept defying age.

Then while the seething Waxman banged his gavel into dust,

Defiance gleamed in Rocket's eyes, a sneer framed his disgust.

And now the smoking gun of Waxman's sped on through the air,

And Rocket stood a-watching as it raced right to his chair.

His lawyers' anger filled each pore, jammed every nook and cranny,

As Waxman's Gang revealed they'd found the reminiscing nanny.

From the gallery, the salaried and all the daily workers

Took great delight to see this sight of Rocket and his smirkers;

"Foul ball! Foul play!" did Rusty say, and Lanny screeched a groan;

And it's likely they'd a-killed him had not Rocket raised his tone.

With a smile of Christian charity great Rocket the face-saver,

Stilled the rising tumult; said, "I did y'all a favor."

He pointed then at McNamee, and said, "He lies like rugs,

"And so does Andy, Knoblauch, too, I'd never share their drugs."

"Fraud!" cried the disbelieving masses, "Cheater!" yelled the rest;

Except that Congresswoman who insisted he was blessed.

They saw his face grow dark and cold, like storm clouds in September,

And wondered what the hell he meant by saying "misremember."

The sneer was still on Rocket's lips, he could have used a matzah,

Or maybe just a sawed-off bat to chuck at Mike Piazza.

And now the pitcher held his story, said, "I'm steroid free!"

And now the air was soiled by the whiff of perjury.

Oh, somewhere in this favored land the Mets are shagging flies,

And Yanks are playing pepper and the Pats are hiring spies.

And somewhere in the middle lies the truth of what has been,

But there's no one home in Washington, they've all been offed by spin.

Edited February 17, 2008 by Dan Gould

[Tim McG]

Clemens jersey removed

Yogi Berra Museum concerned with steroid issues

Posted: Saturday February 16, 2008 2:04PM; Updated: Saturday February 16, 2008 2:04PM

LITTLE FALLS, N.J. (AP) -- Roger Clemens' jersey was tossed from the Yogi Berra Museum.

Museum director David Kaplan said on Saturday the museum had removed Clemens' jersey last week from a display honoring the Yankees teams of the late 1990s that won four World Series championships in five years.

Kaplan said the decision to remove the jersey was not made to generate publicity, but was done in response to allegations of steroid use by Clemens that resulted in Wednesday's Congressional hearing where the seven-time Cy Young Award winner testified.

"It was the fact that there are a lot of unresolved issues involving Roger and it was difficult for us to give answers to the kids coming through the museum," Kaplan said.

The Yogi Berra Museum and Learning Center, which opened in 1998, offers several educational programs for youths including one that focuses on sports medicine and nutrition and examines the use of performance-enhancing drugs.

Clemens' jersey had been displayed alongside former teammates Derek Jeter and Mariano Rivera. Clemens pitched for the Yankees from 1999 to 2003 and was a member of the 1999 and 2000 championship teams.

Jeter's and Rivera's jerseys will stay in the display, Kaplan said. Both were members of the Yankees from 1995.

"In light of what's been happening, we just thought the display would be well-served by having the guys who were there from the beginning of the run," Kaplan said.

Kaplan said he decided to remove the jersey with chief operating officer Art Berke. They notified Berra of their decision and the former Yankee great "was OK with it," according to Kaplan.

Clemens and Berra are friends, and the former pitcher has played in a celebrity golf event that raises money for the museum, Kaplan said.

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/base...m.ap/index.html

A little premature, doncha think?

As I recall, he hasn't been charged with anything.

[Dan Gould]

Reportedly, there is photographic evidence of Clemens' presence at the Canseco party:

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball...d_prove_da.html

As the congressional committee that spent nine weeks considering Roger Clemens' attack on the Mitchell Report now quietly mulls referring the entire matter to the Justice Department, federal investigators seasoned in the anti-doping game are ready to hit the ground running.

Their leads could include new photographic evidence that has emerged to potentially undermine Clemens' sworn testimony that he did not attend a 1998 party at the home of his then-teammate Jose Canseco - a party that figured both in the Mitchell Report and the Feb.13 public hearing in Washington.

The photo is owned by a young man who attended the party when he was 11 years old and took photos of his baseball heroes, including Clemens. Richard Emery, one of the lawyers for Clemens accuser Brian McNamee, was aware that such evidence had been circulating this week.

"We have reason to believe it's reliable evidence," Emery told the Daily News on Thursday. "We believe there's photographic evidence that shows Clemens was at a party he says he wasn't at."

Of course, it has to be taken with a grain of salt since the source appears to be McNamee's lawyer and no one has seen the photo yet. But its somewhat reminiscent of O.J.'s civil trial in which photos of him in the Bruno Magli shoes were introduced. I always wondered what might have happened if the prosecution had access to them.

[vajerzy]

I gave up caring about this a few weeks ago.

[Dan Gould]

I can understand that but I am enjoying seeing Roger twist in the wind too much to stop now.

And two more reasons to cast aspersions on Roger's story:

A Chicago Trib writer pointed out how unlikely it is for any athlete to pay for anything (like, say a round of golf). Everything is gratis when you reach that level, yet Clemens has a receipt?

And more to the point, Murray Chass actually manages to write something intelligent today when he points out that in Pettitte's deposition, he declared that his agents, the Hendricks, told him in August that the Mitchell people wanted to speak to him. So, we are to believe that the Hendricks spoke to Andy but didn't bother to tell Roger, just so that he could blame them and throw them under the bus when he'd be asked about it under oath? Its really fortunate for him that the Hendricks are also his lawyers. You'll never find out from them what Roger knew and when he knew it because they'll invoke attorney-client privilege. So they take their lumps in public, remain in Roger's good graces always, and Roger keeps muddying the waters about his contradictory statements about what he knew about the Mitchell report.

[Tim McG]

Uh...Dan?

I have a life, believe it or not. Been just a tad busy of late.

As to any photographic evidence...let's see it then. Because this guy claims to have a photo means nothing....more Bonds-esque evidence: Nobody actually saw anything but everybody and his uncle claims to have this damning evidence. Where is it?

I say this guy needs to: Put up or shut-up.

Edited February 24, 2008 by GoodSpeak

[Dan Gould]

Uh...Dan?

I have a life, believe it or not. Been just a tad busy of late.

As to any photographic evidence...let's see it then. Because this guy claims to have a photo means nothing....more Bonds-esque evidence: Nobody actually saw anything but everybody and his uncle claims to have this damning evidence. Where is it?

I say this guy needs to: Put up or shut-up.

The father who contacted Hardin and then Emery was put in touch with the Federal officials who have already received the bloody syringe evidence. They will now have yet one more reason to believe McNamee and consider bringing perjury charges against Clemens. You'll see the photos themselves soon enough - perhaps right around the time they get their indictment.

[Tim McG]

Uh...Dan?

I have a life, believe it or not. Been just a tad busy of late.

As to any photographic evidence...let's see it then. Because this guy claims to have a photo means nothing....more Bonds-esque evidence: Nobody actually saw anything but everybody and his uncle claims to have this damning evidence. Where is it?

I say this guy needs to: Put up or shut-up.

The father who contacted Hardin and then Emery was put in touch with the Federal officials who have already received the bloody syringe evidence. They will now have yet one more reason to believe McNamee and consider bringing perjury charges against Clemens. You'll see the photos themselves soon enough - perhaps right around the time they get their indictment.

Assuming there are any, Dan.

I think it's a bluff to put some pressure on Clemens.

[vajerzy]

Dan- I'm not a Clemens fan, believe me....at least 4 years I thought he was taking something.....after throwing that bat at Piazza that sealed it for me for not liking him.

I know people in the game- primarily in the minors- and believe me- Clemens and others are the tip of the iceberg.....and frankly- if I was in Triple A and needed a little something to get to the majors- I'd probably take something to get me to the next level.

Here are 2 names I was surprised not to hear with steroids and HGH: Javy Lopez- his last year with Atlanta coming back from injury before signing with the Orioles, and Bret Boone- from an all-star to out of baseball in 2 years.

But just my opinion......

Edited February 25, 2008 by vajerzy

[Dan Gould]

Dan- I'm not a Clemens fan, believe me....at least 4 years I thought he was taking something.....after throwing that bat at Piazza that sealed it for me for not liking him.

I know people in the game- primarily in the minors- and believe me- Clemens and others are the tip of the iceberg.....and frankly- if I was in Triple A and needed a little something to get to the majors- I'd probably take something to get me to the next level.

Here are 2 names I was surprised not to hear with steroids and HGH: Javy Lopez- his last year with Atlanta coming back from injury before signing with the Orioles, and Bret Boone- from an all-star to out of baseball in 2 years.

But just my opinion......

Well, the good thing is that MLB had the power to unilaterally institute more stringent testing + penalties in the minors. At this point I'd be surprised if there are a lot of people who are doing as you say you would do - juicing to get that final push to make it to the Show. But before 2003 or whenever the league instituted the policy, I'm sure that steroids were even more prevalent in the minors.

As far as Lopez and Boone - there's just no way to know. Its possible they used but by getting it from a source that didn't get caught up in the Mitchell investigation, they avoided being in the report. Of course, there were a lot of Orioles who had connections to Radomski, so maybe Javy was clean since he was in that clubhouse but didn't end up in the report.

To me, cheating is to be expected, and at some point people will come to grips with the era and how it should be regarded. My biggest problem is with the cheats who aren't man enough to 'fess up when they are caught. Bonds and Clemens have been coddled since they were little boys, and they both developed gargantuan egos that prevent them from ever admitting wrongdoing. Then there are people like LoDuca, who is only slightly above them in their contempt for the fans and the press. I mean, LoDuca gave the Giambi "I apologize but I won't say what for so don't ask" apology. Then when someone did ask why he's apologizing, he said, "c'mon bro. Next question."

That ain't no apology and he's still beneath contempt. (He was like that as a ballplayer, too, but that's neither here nor there.)

[Dan Gould]

Well Timmy you can forget about seeing the pictures for yourself anytime soon, but you can rest assured that they exist and that they are in the hands of Federal Prosecutors.

From ABC News:

By ARIANE de VOGUE and MATT JAFFE

Washington, D.C., Feb 25, 2008

ABC News has learned that Jeff Novitsky, the IRS agent who has spearheaded the federal investigation into the use of steroids by professional athletes, has asked to speak to former baseball player Jose Canseco about pictures that have emerged allegedly showing Roger Clemens at a party that Clemens swore, under oath in his congressional deposition, that he did not attend.

The photos, if verified, could put Clemens in legal jeopardy.

Congress may decide as early as this week whether to ask the Department of Justice to formally investigate whether Clemens made false statements to congress. House staffers have prepared several different drafts regarding a possible referral, but a final decision has yet to be made.

A lawyer for Canseco, Robert Saunooke, said his client intends to "fully cooperate," and has tentatively agreed to meet with Novitsky in San Francisco in the next couple of weeks.

In his sworn deposition, Clemens denied adamantly ever attending the 1998 party held at the house of his then-teammate Canseco. He was asked if he had been at Canseco's house at any time around the June 9 party, and he replied "no."

Clemens' initial denial of having attended the party had been an important part of his lawyers' attempts to undermine the accuracy of the Mitchell Report, the explosive findings of an investigation led by former Sen. George Mitchell, that accused Clemens of taking steroids. The Mitchell Report claims that Clemens was at the party.

Friday evening, Rusty Hardin, a lawyer for Clemens, released a statement saying he had been contacted earlier in the month by a man who said he had pictures of Clemens and his son together at the party. According to Hardin, the man told him that the pictures show Clemens in the pool with the man's then-11-year-old son. According to Hardin, the man said he'd call back but never did.

Richard Emery, a lawyer for Brian McNamee, Clemens' former trainer, who has said that he injected Clemens with performance-enhancing drugs, said that he, too, learned about the existence of the photos. In an interview with ABC, Emery said he told federal prosecutors and congressional investigators about the existence of the photos last week. Emery was told one picture was of the boy in a pool with Clemens, and the other was of the boy and Canseco.

Contacted by ABC News, the man who allegedly owns the photographs, and who wished to remain anonymous, said he couldn't comment because he was under subpoena from the federal government. Congressional sources tell ABC News that such a subpoena did not come from Congress.

"It is impossible for us to comment on the photograph itself because we haven¹t seen it," said Hardin.

Hardin had secured a sworn affidavit from Canseco and submitted it to Congress. In the affidavit, Canseco said that he held a party on June 9, but that he was "disappointed" that Clemens "did not attend." The affidavit goes on to say that the statement in the Mitchell Report, saying that Clemens was at the party, was "absolutely false."

Saunooke said he is suspicious of the alleged photographs, which he has not seen. He added that his client believes the photographs could have come from a different event on another date.

Although it's a small detail in the Mitchell Report, the Clemens team initially seized on the fact that Mitchell had gotten the fact wrong, in an effort to impugn the senator's other, larger, findings.

During Clemens' closed door deposition, another one of this lawyers, Lanny Breuer, said, "We were able to establish, and will be able to establish categorically, without question, that our client wasn't there." The lawyers gave the committee receipts from a golf outing that day, and also provided an affidavit from Canseco, saying that the slugger was disappointed that Clemens had not attended his party.

But after the deposition, the Clemens' team was contacted by the father. The Clemens camp then changed its story.

At his nationally televised hearing, Clemens acknowledged that he may have stopped by the party to drop off a family member. He testified, "Could I have gone by the house later that afternoon and dropped off my wife or her brother-in-law, the people that golfed with me? Sure, I could have."

McNamee has suggested at times that Clemens may have gotten steroids from other people present that day at the party.

Refuting those claims at his hearing, Clemens said, "I know one thing — I wasn't there huddled up with somebody trying to do a drug deal. That I know for sure."

Emery said, "I haven't seen the photo but I believe it exists. I draw the obvious conclusion. But it only corroborates totally believable testimony from Brian."

If the claim is true, legal experts will debate whether federal prosecutors could claim that Clemens lied about the party, pointing to the fact that a picture in a pool is not indicative of dropping off a family member.

With the starkly different stories between Clemens and McNamee, much of the debate has centered on the credibility of the two men.

UCLA law professor Laurie Levinson says that the half-sentence Clemens uttered at the hearing, in which he acknowledged that he might have been at the party, might work in the pitcher's favor. She said, "He could come back and say there was some confusion, something like, 'I thought they were asking me if I was there doing drugs.' Legally, it comes down to whether the prior statement was actually false, or was just incomplete. It goes to intent."

Congress is still considering whether to refer the case to the Department of Justice for further investigation. That decision could come as early as this week.

So, a picture of Clemens and the boy and Canseco and the boy, same location, boy wearing the same clothes? Good luck trying to prove they weren't taken on the day of the party.

Now, I don't know that a perjury count will come out of this (because of the fact that he backed off the claim later in his testimony), but I will say that as more evidence appears that Clemens was at the party:

• his credibility continues to fall to pieces, because the entire point of their congressional testimony was "see? we can prove Roger wasn't there - so everything McNamee says it a lie!"
  
• his contacting the nanny, inviting her to his home, talking to her about the party and telling her "the reason you don't remember the party is because I wasn't there" really starts to look more and more like willful witness tampering.
  

That may be his greatest risk regarding the party issue.

But in the meantime, the Feds will do their due diligence, starting with showing the pictures to Canseco and asking him, is this your home? Is this you and the young boy? Was Roger Clemens ever at your house on another day, with this young man, when the picture could have been taken?

When you get right down to it, I have to wonder whether the Feds are going to use this to try to "flip" Canseco. I mean, Canseco willfully prepared an affidavit stating that Clemens wasn't at the party and had that affidavit given to Congress. If he lied, its got to qualify as a Federal offense. If I'm Novitzky, the first thing I say is, "Jose, you need to be honest with us. If you know how Roger got his steroids, you better tell us now or we will prosecute you for lying to Congress."

You gotta leverage your assets, and its possible that they'll now have something to leverage on Canseco.

[Chalupa]

Breaking news from CNN.....

Congress will ask the Justice Department to investigate whether Roger Clemens made false statements to a House committee.

[Chalupa]

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3267163

WASHINGTON -- Congress asked the Justice Department on Wednesday to investigate whether Roger Clemens made false statements to a House committee.

The chairman and ranking Republican on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee said they sent a letter to Justice.

"We believe that his testimony in a sworn deposition on Feb. 5, 2008, and at a hearing on Feb. 13, 2008, that he never used anabolic steroids or human growth hormone, warrants further investigation," committee chairman Henry Waxman and ranking Republican Tom Davis wrote. "That testimony is directly contradicted by the sworn testimony of Brian McNamee, who testified that he personally injected Mr. Clemens with anabolic steroids and human growth hormone.

"Mr. Clemens's testimony is also contradicted by the sworn deposition testimony and affidavit submitted to the committee by Andrew Pettitte, a former teammate of Mr. Clemens, whose testimony and affidavit reported that Mr. Clemens had admitted to him in 1999 or 2000 that he had taken human growth hormone."

[Dan Gould]

Wait a cotton-pickin' minute! Clemens is white - why would he be the target of a steroid-perjury investigation? We all know the government is only interested in black men, like poor sainted Barry Lamar Bonds and would always give a free pass to a white man like Clemens!

Oh. You mean Timmy was wrong about that. Oh well. He's wrong so often, I figured the law of averages meant that he might be right about this.

A sad day for Clemens, one of many to come, I suspect. But as they say, he's made his bed and now he'll have to sleep in it.

Unfortunately what he is going to find out now is that:

• The Feds won't care about his 354 wins, or kissing his ass in public
  
• The Feds won't be intimidated by his glare, and there won't be any splintered bats for him to heave at them
  
• The Feds will apply all of their power to this investigation. They'll subpoena every former Blue Jay teammate to find out if he spoke about the Canseco party in the clubhouse afterwards. They'll use every forensic test they can to determine if Clemens DNA or fingerprints are on the syringes and gauze pads.
  
• The Feds won't give Andy Pettitte or his wife a free pass on testifying to all matters at issue, and in much greater depth than the committee staffers did.
  

This shit is for real now - and the Feds have a pretty good record so far in going after everyone who has lied to them or otherwise refused to play ball when it comes to steroid use/distribution.

[Dan Gould]

More from the referral letter:

Mr. Pettitte's testimony and affidavit further reported on two past conversations with Mr. McNamee that support Mr. Pettitte's recollection of the 1999 or 2000 conversation with Mr. Clemens. Mr. Pettitte's affidavit and testimony state that in a conversation with Mr. McNamee shortly after Mr. Clemens alleged admission to Mr. Pettitte, Mr. McNamee became angry when Mr. Pettitte told him that he knew that Roger Clemens had used human growth hormone because that was supposed to be confidential. According to Mr. Pettitte's deposition, he also had another conversation with Mr. McNamee in 2003 or 2004 in which Mr. McNamee told him that he had obtained steroids for Mr. Clemens. Independently, in his deposition, Mr. McNamee recalled two conversations with Mr. Pettitte, one that could have occurred in 2000 and one in 2004, about Mr. Clemens's HGH and steroid use that were similar in substance to the two conversations described by Mr. Pettitte.

Other evidence in the record before the Committee may be relevant to an investigation into the truthfulness of Mr. Clemens's assertions. That evidence relates to whether Brian McNamee injected Mr. Clemens with lidocaine in 1998; whether Mr. Clemens received pain injections from trainers on all four of his major league teams; whether he regularly received vitamin B-12 injections from team doctors and trainers; whether he ever talked with Mr. McNamee about human growth hormone; whether he was at Jose Canseco's home in Florida during the period June 8 to June 10, 1998; and whether he ever received notice that Senator George Mitchell asked to meet with him in connection with Senator Mitchell's independent investigation of the illegal use of steroids and other performance-enhancing drugs in Major League Baseball. We also understand that federal law enforcement officials may have access to additional evidence on these matters.

Under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1621, a witness commits perjury if the witness "willfully" asserts "any material matter which he does not believe to be true" after "having taken an oath" to "testify ... truly." Under 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1001, a witness commits a crime if the witness "knowingly and willfully" makes "any materially false, fictitious, or fraudulent statement or representation" with respect to "any investigation or review, conducted pursuant to the authority of any committee ... of the Congress."

Congress cannot perform its oversight function if witnesses who appear before its committees do not provide truthful testimony. Perjury and false statements before Congress are crimes that undermine the integrity of congressional inquiries. For these reasons, we take evidence that a witness may have intentionally misled the Committee extremely seriously.

We are not in a position to reach a definitive judgment as to whether Mr. Clemens lied to the Committee. Our only conclusion is that significant questions have been raised about Mr. Clemens's truthfulness and that further investigation by the Department of Justice is warranted. We ask that you initiate such an investigation. The record of the Committee's proceedings will be made available to the Department of Justice to assist in the investigation.

The highlighted paragraph shows just how many other issues the committee had testimony on that contradicted Clemens. Could there be an indictment charging perjury on all of it?

As far as McNamee goes, if he doesn't get the libel case dismissed, I would expect that he could ask for a continuance pending the conclusion of the Federal investigation. If the Feds prove perjury, the case would have to be dismissed.

Kind of funny how in the 60 Minutes interview Clemens complained about how much money it might cost him to try to undo the supposed harm from the Mitchell Report. By the time the Feds are through, Roger might need to pitch another 1/2 season just to replenish the coffers.

[alocispepraluger102]

http://sports.espn.go.com/espn/columns/sto...mp;sportCat=mlb

[Dan Gould]

And now we've got comments from old Rusty, and you gotta wonder what he's been smokin':

''Now we are done with the circus of public opinion, and we are moving to the courtroom,'' Clemens' lead lawyer, Rusty Hardin, said in a telephone interview with The Associated Press. ''Thankfully, we are now about to enter an arena where there are rules and people can be held properly accountable for outrageous statements.''

Did he not get the notification that this is now potentially a criminal matter? Is he already resigned to the fact that there will be an indictment? And that last comment - yeah, he's right. Roger will be held properly accountable for outrageous statements.

More on the specifics of what the Committee views as possible points where the truth and Roger's assertions diverge:

Waxman sent committee Democrats an 18-page memo prepared by his staff outlining reasons for the criminal referral. The memo summarizes ''seven sets of assertions made by Mr. Clemens in his testimony that appear to be contradicted by other evidence before the committee or implausible.''

Those areas involve Clemens' testimony that he has ''never taken steroids or HGH,'' that McNamee injected him with the painkiller lidocaine, that team trainers gave him pain injections, that he received many vitamin B-12 injections, that he never discussed HGH with McNamee, that he was not at then-teammate Jose Canseco's home from June 8-10, 1998, and that he was ''never told'' about Mitchell's request to speak.

And back to Rusty:

''Roger has known since December that if he publicly took the position he has taken, this would be the result. The good news is we are now going to be on a level playing field,'' Hardin told the AP. ''These matters are now going to be decided in court and by the ultimate lie detector -- a jury. I am comfortable that when a jury hears this case ... they will conclude that Roger did not use steroids or growth hormone and he is telling the truth and that McNamee's allegations are totally false.''

Good luck with all that, Rusty. At least you'll be cashing big checks even when your client ends up in the big house.

[Dan Gould]

Back to reality. Waxman asked his staff to prepare a memo regarding Clemens' credibility. Here's the summary of the evidence on Clemens' claim of receiving a "lidocaine" shot from McNamee in Toronto:

II. MR. CLEMENS'S TESTIMOnY THAT MR. MCNAMEE INJECTED HIM

\ilITH LIDOCAINE

In his deposition with Committee staff, Mr. Clemens stated that Mr. McNamee injected

him with lidocaine, an anesthetic, in an "open area" inthe team's weight training roorn.o8

According to Mr. Clemens: Mr. McNamee "gave me lidocaine once," and "it gave me some

comfort for about 2 days. It was a numbing effect, and it was in my ... lower back."4e During

the Committee hearing, Mr. Clemens confirmed this account, stating that Iv!1. McNamee "gave

me one shot of lidocaine in my lower back, and that happened in Toronto."t' According to Mr.

Clemens, this injection occurred "after [the] All Star break," which was in July 1998."

Mr. McNamee denied that these injections occurred, stating that*I never injected Roger

Clemens or anyone else with lidocaine."

Committee staff consulted medical experts, including Dr. Frederick W. Burgess, the

former president of the American Academy of Pain Medicine, about the effects and dangers of

lidocaine injections. Dr. Burgess provided a letter to the Committee stating that the numbing

"anesthetic" effect of lidocaine would last for a maximum of two hours, rather than two days as

Mr. Clemens described.s3 Dr. Burgess also informed the Committee that injecting lidocaine into

the lower back is a difficult procedure with significant medical risks. Improperly administered, a

lidocaine injection in the lower back can cause nerve damage and paralysis and, if injected into a

blood vessel, can trigger a heart attack.

The Committee interviewed the Blue Jays team doctor and the team's head and assistant

trainers to ascertain their views about Mr. Clemens's account of the lidocaine injection. They

told the Committee that the account provided by Mr. Clemens was implausible.

Dr. Ronald Taylor, the team doctor; was asked in his interview: "Doss it make sense to

you that an athletic trainer like Mr. McNamee would have been performing lidocaine injections

for lower back pain?" He responded: "No, definitely not, it does not make sense."tt He further

stated: o'It doesn't make sense to me because it borders well, it's malpractice."s6

According to Dr. Taylor, because "[y]ou're dealing with nerves there in the spinqlcqrd," it

would have been "very dangerous" for Mr. McNamee to perform this procedure.t' Because of

the risks and complications involved with injecting lidocaine in the lower back, Dr. Taylor stated

that he wo_uld not perform the procedure himself, but would refer such a case to an orthopedic

specialist. He also said that no one on the training staff was allowed to give players any

injections. Tommy Craig, the Blue Jays head medical trainer, told the Committee he was "baffled"

when he heard the claim that Mr. McNamee gave Mr. Clemens a lidocaine injection because

'othere is an array of things that could go wrong" and "t doesn't make any sense." Scott

Shannon, the Blue Jays assistant trainer, told the Committee that lidocaine "was something that

the doctors always took care of' and 'it was never anything that a trainer would go near."

Committee staff reviewed Mr. Clemens's medical records from the Blue Jays, and there

was no evidence in the records that he ever received a lidocaine injection. Dr. Taylor told the

Committee that he was not aware of Mr. Clemens receiving any lidocaine injections, and Mr.

Craig and Mr. Shannon agreed.

Mr. Clemens did receive a lidocaine injection in his lower back on October 26,2005, when he was playing for the Houston Astros. The circumstances of that injection contrast markedly with the injection that Mr. Clemens says Mr. McNamee gave

him in the Blue Jays weight room in July 1998. 'When Mr. Clemens received his October 2005

injection, he was under anesthesia, and the injection was administered by a specialist using X-ray

fluoroscopy.

At the hearing, Mr. Clemens testified that he allowed Mr. McNamee to inject him

because he thought Mr. McNamee had a Ph.D. and other appropriate qualifications. According

to Mr. Clemens, "he told me that he was a Ph.D.," and "I had no reasons not to trust him, just

like other trainers and doctors and physicians." Mr. Clemens's explanation seems impláusible.

Mr. McNamee was the bullpen catcher at the New York Yankees before he came to the Blue

Jays. He was the strength and conditioning coach for the Blue Jays, not a medical trainer. His

"Ph.D." was a degree in behavioral sciences from a diploma mill. Moreover, even if the Ph.D.

degree was in a relevant field, which it is not, Mr. McNamee did not receive the degree until "the

end of '98," after Mr. Clemens received the lidocaine injection.

The rest of the memorandum is a devastating compilation of things Clemens claimed that were explicitly contradicted by other sworn testimony and/or evidence.

http://oversight.house.gov/documents/20080227135441.pdf

And I see now that some GOP members of the committee think its ludicrous to charge Clemens on, for example, lying about the lidocaine objection. Does he really want to set a precedent where lying to Congress should only be prosecuted if its about "the big stuff"?

[Guest bluenote82]

Roger Clemens knows he used steroids. He knows he did wrong. All of them baseball players are a bunch of overpayed buttwipes.

[Chalupa]

FBI opens inquiry into Clemens' testimony

http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/02/28/con...mens/index.html