The Clemens case: Is Jim Rockford available?
If Roger Clemens really did do all the things he's accused of in the Mitchell Report, the seven-time Cy Young winner is running the most audacious bluff since Chris Moneymaker snowed his way to poker immortality at the 2003 World Series of Poker with king-high zip in head-to-head play.
Since the report was issued saying that he received PED injections, Clemens has come out swinging, first with an Internet video denying all the allegations made by personal trainer Brian McNamee, who said he helped with the injections.
Clemens also agreed to be interviewed by Mike Wallace for 60 Minutes. Granted, Wallace is an admitted friend of Clemens but still, it is Mike Wallace.
And now Clemens is hiring private investigators to delve into the Mitchell Report itself.
At this juncture, I'd like to point out something rather important. McNamee said what he did for the Mitchell Report as part of a plea agreement with the federal government to avoid prosecution for drug distribution. McNamee was warned on each of three occasions that he talked to the Mitchell folks that he faced criminal charges if he failed to tell the truth.
If Clemens' investigators are about to embark on an investigation that's meant to impugn McNamee's version of events, the star pitcher is placing himself between a cooperating witness and the government. Wow, that's deep, folks.
Comments
I'm not a legal expert, but I have one quick question: given that McNamee's allegations will surely cost Clemens an untold fortune in future endorsements, appearances, speaking engagements, etc., why hasn't Clemens done the one thing any other non-guilty person would have done in his shoes, and directly sue McNamee for malicious slander and defamation of character??? Instead, he's going to investigate the veracity of the report? Huh? Look, it's either true or it isn't. I don't see what investigating the report has to do with anything. And what's with his lawyer's statement about "[being] convinced the conclusions in the Mitchell Report are false." Convinced? What? It's all a sham, and Roger's as guilty as they come...
Posted by: John Wells | December 28, 2007 6:52 AM
Aside from its obvious bias, this investigaton by Clemens' attorneys can't help but be as shaky as the Mitchell Report because, like Mitchell, Clemens has no subpoena power. I seriously doubt anything they turn up will sway anyone's opinion -- and what if they turn up even more evidence that incriminates Clemens? Would they even release that?
I still believe the only way to really get to the bottom of this is to have Clemens file a libel suit against Mitchell and McNamee and do everything he can to get into a courtroom as soon as possible. Then the three of them can go to town on each other under oath and in front of a judge and jury.
Posted by: Joe Dalhart | December 28, 2007 12:13 PM