I have no idea right now what to think, this has really become something else.

As I see it, no one is going to come out a winner. There will be so much collateral damage that everyone who is involved will be affected. No matter what happens, this is going to be nasty and both men are in the fight of their lives.

Dear Mr. Ordine:

Mr. McNamee is obviously a man under a great deal of pressure. The greatest pressure might have nothing to do with Roger Clemens, however.

Regardless, the pressure that he was under when he spoke to the eminent George Mitchell's investigation was that he was in legal jeopardy if-- and only if-- he lied. The same held true during his earlier interviews by federal prosecutors.

If one is to suppose, as Mr. Clemens and his lawyer would have us do, that this pressure caused him to lie-- the exact opposite of its intended effect-- then one needs to explain why that precise pressure-- not a distinct and separate case, as Mr. Clemens would have it, per his "60 Minutes" interview with his geriatric fan-cum-friend, Mike Wallace-- caused him to claim that Mr. Clemens' best friend and training partner, Andy Pettitte, was likewise guilty-- which Mr. Pettitte has since admitted to be true.

The crux of the call is this: Roger Clemens, doubtless with his attorney present and instructing him to do so, placed a call to Mr. McNamee, and secretly recorded that private phone call with the very intent of using it as public evidence at his already-scheduled news conference three days later. At no time, however, was Mr. Clemens able to get Mr. McNamee to say that he had made up the accusations, or that they were otherwise untrue or inaccurate. The notion that the recorded call-- or, the portion of it that Mr. Clemens' lawyer was willing to have played publicly-- exonerated Roger Clemens of using performance-enhancing drugs is patently absurd.

Mr. Clemens lied to his friend Mike Wallace, and his audience, when he said that he did not know what would be in the Mitchell Report about himself, as his investigators had already been told by Mr. McNamee what he had told the investigation. Mr. Clemens also, in giving his dubious claim to having been given shots of a prescription anesthetic by Mr. McNamee, was confessing to a crime, since he had no prescription, and Mr. McNamee, a mere athletic trainer, was not legally authorized to dispense such drugs. The fact that a local anesthetic in the butt provides no relief to the body parts that Mr. Clemens claims he was having treated then further casts doubt on his veracity.

Roger Clemens was perhaps the biggest surprise to most people in the Mitchell Report; but, suspicions about both his rejuvenation as a dominant pitcher in the late 1990s, and his ability to pitch effectively well into his 40s, were rife for many years before his name was released in the report, with the supporting testimony, under penalty of law, by Mr. McNamee-- who, as both admit, could not have been closer to Mr. Clemens during the past decade or so that they worked together.

The notion that this is merely a "he-said-he-said" case with no substantive support to the underlying claim is something that only those untrained in the law can use to comfort themselves. Contrary to what so many bloviators have stated, Mr. McNamee's testimony is neither hearsay nor circumstantial. It is direct evidence, and it is the next best thing to a confession in the eyes of most potential jurors.

Mr. Clemens, like Mr. Bonds before him, is playing a very dangerous game; and, if he appears before the Congress next week and answers questions there under oath, he had better think long and hard before repeating the dubious claims that he and his lawyer have been spouting to the public during these past few weeks....

Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Dan Hand

Daniel Kevin Hand, J.D.

1/8/8 @ 12:45 p.m. E.S.T.
---------------------------------------------
Mr. Hand,
Thanks for the contribution. Unlike yourself, I am not an attorney. As a reporter, I have covered criminal and civil cases in both municipal and federal courts so I have what I'll admit is a semi-educated layman's view here. I think the most compelling thing we have supporting McNamee is that lying in any fashion supposedly puts him in hot water with the feds. And it doesn't take a law degree. to know that you don't want those guys unhappy with you.
So you have to wonder, where's McNamee's motivation? Wallace did make the point that McNamee's version of reality regarding Andy Pettitte was corroborated by Pettitte so that bolsters his credibility. As far as the locale of the lidocaine injections, I think Clemens may have been generalizing about the shots and it is quite possible that he was talking about the B-12s there. So I'm not sure that we can impugn Clemens' version of events based on that recollection or Clemens' anecdotal retelling.
In the end, though, you make an important point about the testimony in front of Congress. That will be under oath. And we all know why Bonds is facing indictment ... perjury and obstruction. It's the old story, the cover-up can get you in more touble than the crime. If we want to seriously parse Clemens' story, that will be the time do it.
-- Bill O.

It doesn't matter who is lying. It matter's what both of these men are doing with this war. Destroying baseball. MLB and Congress need to get the point that its not what happened in the past that is important it's what happens in the future.
--------------------------------------
Billy,
Well, that seemed to be George Mitchell's point but it doesn't look like it's going away.
-- Bill O.

Regarding your belief that Clemens's lawyer would not allow him to perjure himself, a lawyer friend once told me that the first lesson she learned was that clients routinely lie to their attorneys.
-----------------------------------
Davis,
Thatnks for writing. Your lawyer friend is absolutely right. I've seen plenty of attorneys submarined because their clients held back. My point was that he is likely being counseled that his words have more weight under oath so I'm eager to hear what he says under those circumstances.
-- Bill O.