I saw it the other way. :confused: Seemed to me that more Democrats were going after Clemens and the Republicans hammered McNamee.

 

You're correct. I had my words mixed up. I could see an "unbiased" committee saying, "OK, this half will focus on Clemens and this half will focus on McNamee" but would they do that along party lines?

You're correct. I had my words mixed up. I could see an "unbiased" committee saying, "OK, this half will focus on Clemens and this half will focus on McNamee" but would they do that along party lines?

 

It certainly appeared to me that that's how it went. The chairman, a Democrat, even went as far as to apologize to McNamee in his closing statement for some of the comments made by the other committee members, all Republicans.

Not sure he did that. But Roger did talk to her. If you are being implicated in something it is in the defendants rights to find out what this witness knows. Or something to that effect. Just as long as he isn't "bullying" the witness into saying what he/she wants to hear. And Roger did say that he told this nanny to be truthful.

 

 

 

That was out of line. And Roger did the right thing by not answering or refusing to answer.

 

I understand discovery and Clemens attorney's should have contacted her. Clemens should have not spoken with her. It looks very suspicious.

So we've had the dog and pony show.

 

What now?

 

Do they take it to espn.com for a viewer's vote?

Not sure he did that. But Roger did talk to her. If you are being implicated in something it is in the defendants rights to find out what this witness knows. Or something to that effect. Just as long as he isn't "bullying" the witness into saying what he/she wants to hear. And Roger did say that he told this nanny to be truthful.

 

He did exactly that! After being specifically asked by the committee to NOT contact her - only provide them with her name so they could contact her themselves - he had this woman come to his house so he could discuss the matter with her. He is permitted to do this? Yes. It's not tampering with a witness unless you try to get them to lie. Does this have the appearance of being highly improper and something he shouldn't have done? Absolutely. When the nanny said she couldn't really recall him being there, he was quick to try to impress upon her that that was because he wasn't there. Yeah, Roger just wants everyone to be truthful. Uh-huh. He was very concerned with what this lady would recall, otherwise why the need for the private meeting?

He did exactly that! After being specifically asked by the committee to NOT contact her - only provide them with her name so they could contact her themselves - he had this woman come to his house so he could discuss the matter with her. He is permitted to do this? Yes. It's not tampering with a witness unless you try to get them to lie. Does this have the appearance of being highly improper and something he shouldn't have done? Absolutely. When the nanny said she couldn't really recall him being there, he was quick to try to impress upon her that that was because he wasn't there. Yeah, Roger just wants everyone to be truthful. Uh-huh. He was very concerned with what this lady would recall, otherwise why the need for the private meeting?

 

If I remember right, the Nanny said that Debbie Clemens, their children did stay the night. And that Roger was there, she wasn't sure of the time. Or if he stayed there. That was what I heard.

I understand discovery and Clemens attorney's should have contacted her. Clemens should have not spoken with her. It looks very suspicious.

 

That I will agree with. He should not have spoken with her. He should have let his lawyer's to do that. He did say that she was a sweet lady, though.

So we've had the dog and pony show.

 

What now?

 

Do they take it to espn.com for a viewer's vote?

 

Yeah, it was a dog and pony show, but my feeling is that baseball and these individuals brought it on themselves. Baseball was way too slow in reacting to this problem - a problem, if you are to believe Rocker, they intentionally overlooked and practically endorsed. So they finally took some steps to correct the problem with tougher drug standards and then hired a brilliant man to conduct a top-to-bottom, thorough investigation of the state of illegal drug usage in baseball - something I think baseball would want to know so that it can be assured the game is clean and that kids today won't be emulating millionaire superstars who attained their riches and success in large part by cheating. Much of what is contained in Mitchell's report is based on testimony from McNamee and Radowski and now the biggest name in this report calls McNamee a liar. If you discredit McNamee on this issue, doesn't that discredit the Mitchell Report as a whole? Baseball doesn't have the authority to make these players submit to questioning - in the testimony today we heard that Clemens himself refused 2 or 3 requests to be interviewed - so Congress inserts themselves into a matter where they probably shouldn't be. Yeah, it's a shame and ultimately this charade today will not have any meaningful outcome, but I don't feel the least bit sorry for baseball or these individual players. They broke the law - both administering and USING steroids without a prescription is illegal. Let them sweat.

 

BTW, MSN poll shows 60% believe McNamee, 20% believe Clemens, and 20% both think their liars.

Yeah, it was a dog and pony show, but my feeling is that baseball and these individuals brought it on themselves. Baseball was way too slow in reacting to this problem - a problem, if you are to believe Rocker, they intentionally overlooked and practically endorsed. So they finally took some steps to correct the problem with tougher drug standards and then hired a brilliant man to conduct a top-to-bottom, thorough investigation of the state of illegal drug usage in baseball - something I think baseball would want to know so that it can be assured the game is clean and that kids today won't be emulating millionaire superstars who attained their riches and success in large part by cheating. Much of what is contained in Mitchell's report is based on testimony from McNamee and Radowski and now the biggest name in this report calls McNamee a liar. If you discredit McNamee on this issue, doesn't that discredit the Mitchell Report as a whole? Baseball doesn't have the authority to make these players submit to questioning - in the testimony today we heard that Clemens himself refused 2 or 3 requests to be interviewed - so Congress inserts themselves into a matter where they probably shouldn't be. Yeah, it's a shame and ultimately this charade today will not have any meaningful outcome, but I don't feel the least bit sorry for baseball or these individual players. They broke the law - both administering and USING steroids without a prescription is illegal. Let them sweat.

 

BTW, MSN poll shows 60% believe McNamee, 20% believe Clemens, and 20% both think their liars.

 

80% think Clemens is a liar....it sounds like the Committee felt the same way....how many times did they say, "Let me remind you that you are under oath." McNamee looked bad, Clemens looked A LOT worse! All he has a defense is that Andy "misremembered"....not very strong.

They are both scumbags...problem is, McNamee had more to gain by protecting Clemens, not ratting him out.

They are both scumbags...problem is, McNamee had more to gain by protecting Clemens, not ratting him out.

 

How's that? If that were the case, wouldn't he have discarded the syringes and guaze that he collected 5 years ago?

How's that? If that were the case, wouldn't he have discarded the syringes and guaze that he collected 5 years ago?

 

Not necessarily. You can still protect someone, yet hold back a trump card in the event things become extremely ugly. I would submit that McNamee did protect Clemens for many years by not disclosing his use until he was pressured to do so by federal investigators (working in collaboration with Mitchell's investigators). The Congressman who called McNamee a "dope dealer" was right. Not a pretty term, but accurate. And Clemens was a "dope user." The rules of friendship and honor get rather distorted, if not thrown out the window, in such situations. What's the saying? "No honor among thieves."

I don't truly believe that McNamee held onto syringes for five years to protect Clemens. He said as much. I feel that McNamee knew if he was going down, a big name was coming w/ him. Remember, the syringes were five years old, right around the time that the Balco scandal was heating up. He wasn't protecting anyone but himself. By protecting Clemens, he a. kept himself out of jail and b. kept a steady paycheck.