Vikings Message Board.Com

NEW YORK -- Brian McNamee gave federal prosecutors syringes and other physical evidence his lawyers say back the personal trainer's allegations of drug use by Roger Clemens, who returns to Capitol Hill on Thursday in hopes of rebutting the accusations. Clemens, who gave a deposition Tuesday, is scheduled to hold one-on-one meetings with members of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.
http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3233878

If Clemens gave perjured testimony under oath to a Congressional investigation ... that would be just about the dumbest thing he could do.

On the other hand it is a bit odd that McNamee would have saved the syringes and gauzes that he used on Clemens back in 2000 and 2001. Was he really that prescient to foresee the day that he might need them? Usually people involved in illegal activities destroy evidence rather than preserve it.

Mr. X wrote:[On the other hand it is a bit odd that McNamee would have saved the syringes and gauzes that he used on Clemens back in 2000 and 2001. Was he really that prescient to foresee the day that he might need them? Usually people involved in illegal activities destroy evidence rather than preserve it.

Maybe he has a thing for Clemens??

I love how they say that HGH really is not about muscle growth, but about healing injurys and improving longevity. That fits the bill with Clemens. I can understand though how this would be devestating to baseball. If I found out Favre was associated with cheating then I would be crushed.

Clemens, who gave a deposition Tuesday, is scheduled to hold one-on-one meetings with members of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

Why one-on-one meetings?

This should be an open and public testimony.

Minniman wrote: Why one-on-one meetings?

This should be an open and public testimony.

5th Amendment I'd guess.

glg wrote: 5th Amendment I'd guess.

How exactly would the 5th Amendment apply? The only relevant clause I am aware of is the right to not speak so as not to self-incriminate, something he can just as easily do during public testimony as private.

Unless I am forgetting something...

Enrage wrote: How exactly would the 5th Amendment apply? The only relevant clause I am aware of is the right to not speak so as not to self-incriminate, something he can just as easily do during public testimony as private.

Unless I am forgetting something...

Congress wants him to talk, so they subpeona him. His lawyers let the Congressmen know that if it's an open hearing, he'll say nothing, but if it's off the record one-on-one, he will, so they agree.

glg wrote: Congress wants him to talk, so they subpeona him. His lawyers let the Congressmen know that if it's an open hearing, he'll say nothing, but if it's off the record one-on-one, he will, so they agree.

The private meetings this week were with the congressional staff (i.e. the lawyers) in preparation for the full committee hearing that is scheduled for next Wednesday. Of course that hearing next Wednesday will be in open session and I'm sure it will be a media circus. Clemens, McNamee, Pettitte, Knoblauch and others are all scheduled to attend. Of course anyone of them can assert their 5th Amendment privilege at that time if they so choose (just as they could do it now if the want to). At the meetings held this week they were reportedly taking depositions under oath.

Reports are that on Tuesday Clemens repeated his claim (under oath) that he had not used steroids and that McNamee was lying. Then yesterday the "I got the syringe in the freezer" story broke. I don't think Clemens and his high-priced attorneys had anticipated that or were aware of that potential evidence. I assume they viewed this as just one person's word against another person's word. If this syringe and gauze can be proven to be what McNamee alleges it to be ... Clemens may have just walked himself into a perjury trap.

If this turns out to be true and the evidence is against him then he has perjured himself and I hope they nail his butt to the wall. I am getting sick and tired of the high priced players thinking they are above the law and better then anyone else.

Looks like the overwhelming consensus regarding Roger Clemens' performance in yesterday's Congressional hearing was that he was unconvincing and not credible in his answers.

I watched part of it on a replay on Cspan. Thought it was noteworthy that the committee didn't want to have the hearing but that Clemens and his attorneys insisted they have it so that he could respond to the Mitchell Report so they acquiesced and went along. Knoblauch and Pettitte, who were scheduled to attend, were allowed to stay away but both guys gave extensive depositions under oath that were quoted in the questioning of Clemens.

Basically McNamee contends he injected steroids and HGH in three Yankee players; Clemens, Knoblauch and Pettitte. Both Knoblauch and Pettitte confirmed basically everything that McNamee alleged. Clemens held firm in saying that all of McNamee's accusations against him are lies. The obvious question was why would McNamee, under threat of perjury, tell the truth about Knoblauch and Pettitte yet lie about Clemens? It doesn't make any sense.

Pettitte also went further and said in his affidavit that Clemens told him about using HGH. Clemens said that Pettitte "misremembered." Evidently Pettitte is a highly religious guy and said in his deposition that he felt the need to come clean and even volunteered additional information where he self-administered HGH that previously was not known.

Misremembered? That's the best the Clemens can come up with? Pathetic. I doubt if the Feds have enough to prove a perjury charge against Clemens because it is still pretty much a he said, he said case ... but I thought McNamee was far more credible than Clemens in yesterday's hearing.

You know, it's too bad that people are using steroids in professional sports. I do, however, find it more disturbing that our government is taking so much time investigating sports. Look folks, sports are entertainment, our government should be worried about topics that actually affect our country. For example: the economy, interstate highway infrastructure, foreign policy, unemployment, etc...

I know the theory is that if it comes out that these guys are using steroids that the kids who look up to them will use steroids. When I was in high school (96-00) kids were using steroids, that wasn't really a secret. Let's focus on things that really matter.

IAVikeFan wrote:You know, it's too bad that people are using steroids in professional sports. I do, however, find it more disturbing that our government is taking so much time investigating sports. Look folks, sports are entertainment, our government should be worried about topics that actually affect our country. For example: the economy, interstate highway infrastructure, foreign policy, unemployment, etc...

In general I favor a limited role for government but in this instance I think it was right for Congress to get the attention of professional sports (and baseball in particular) about illegal performance enhancing drugs as a matter of public health policy.

Do you think MLB and the players union would have agreed to step up their drug testing program without the Mitchell Report which was commissioned by Congress? I don't.

As for one senator getting involved in how the NFL is handling TapeGate (because the Patriots beat his Eagles in the Super Bowl a few years back) ... now THAT is utterly ridiculous.

I loved Clemen's throwing his wife under the bus too. Guy is a grade A sleaze.

As far as the government...I don't think a few others in either case mattered in the slightest. A bridge isnt going to collapse because specter discussed tapegate, and something isn't going to miss funding because of the Clemens hearing. They have a large amount of things to discuss, this is just one of them.

Just seems like a waste of time for the government to be dealing with this. My question is, is HGH illegal in all states? I thought I remembered some tv report where doctors using it.

It's legal with a prescription. To people with a deficiency.