View Full Version : Friends

February 10th, 2008, 09:58 AM
February 10, 2008


We're Friends, Right?
Happier Times Roger Clemens, left, and Andy Pettitte in camp in 2001

Cassidy and the Sundance Kid,” a mismatched pair of friends learn to transcend their differences and forge a lasting, loyal friendship.

In recent months, baseball has provided a darker, and some might say, more realistic story line.

Brian McNamee, a personal trainer who worked closely with Roger Clemens, told federal investigators that he injected the pitcher with performance-enhancing drugs from 1998 to 2001.

Mr. Clemens vehemently denied the charges, and what followed was dizzying: Mr. McNamee makes pleading phone call; Clemens tapes the conversation and releases it to the press. One of Mr. McNamee’s lawyers declares, “It’s war now.”

Last week, it was revealed that Mr. McNamee has what he says is physical evidence — used syringes and gauze — that he gave to federal investigators.

Caught between the two men is the Yankees pitcher Andy Pettitte, a close friend to Mr. Clemens. Mr. Pettitte has admitted that Mr. McNamee injected him with human growth hormone. All three men have dates to testify on Wednesday about the matter, and each other, before Congress. And everyone is wondering, what will Mr. Pettitte say?

Friendship hasn’t been this fraught since the days of Linda Tripp and Monica Lewinsky.

But to many psychologists and sociologists who study male relationships, this rift is an oft-told tale. In less-rarefied worlds — the office, college, a poker group — these experts say, men face similar choices: When do you rat out a pal? When do you stop a friend from harming someone? When do you take one for your buddy?

“These are moments when there’s a clash between two conflicting values connected to masculinity,” said Michael S. Kimmel, a sociologist at State University of New York at Stony Brook and author of “The Gendered Society.” “No. 1, you always do the right thing. And the second is, you never betray your friends.”

“When a Serpico comes along,” he said of Frank Serpico, the cop who blew the whistle on corruption in the New York City police department in the 1970s, “he’s both a hero and a villain.”

Scholars who study gender differences say that when deciding how far loyalty should go, men make calculations on a case-by-case basis rather than on any gender-specific prescription. Are jobs and livelihoods on the line, as in the insider-trading scandals in which co-workers testified against one another? Is the friendship more valuable than personal fulfillment, as in the case of a man who pursues his friend’s wife?

For athletes, the calculus is complicated by an unspoken code. Teams need to be cohesive to work together, sports sociologists noted. It is what has kept teammates, both male and female, they said, from speaking out publicly — not just about illegal or unethical acts like steroid use but private matters like the sexual orientation of a teammate or an affair between a teammate and a coach.

“There’s a tendency to protect a teammate or the organization, even at the expense of higher moral principles,” said Faye L. Wachs, a professor at California State Polytechnic University, Pomona who specializes in sports sociology.

Jim Bouton, a pitcher and the author of the 1970 baseball memoir, “Ball Four,” said men become “like family and you stick up for each other.”

When his book exposed amphetamine use, heavy drinking and fighting among players, Mr. Bouton was labeled a Benedict Arnold by the baseball establishment, some ex-teammates and the press, but he never considered his book an act of betrayal.

“There are things I didn’t put in the book because I thought they’d violate the players’ confidences too much,” said Mr. Bouton, explaining that his goal had been to share what it was like to be a ballplayer, which he was with the Yankees and the Seattle Pilots. He described the experience as mostly “fun.”

“I did hold back,” he said. “It’s a tell-some book.”

In the military, the code of loyalty is strong as well, because combat units must also rely on each other to survive life-and-death situations. In cases where misconduct is ambiguous, meaning it could be viewed as necessary, “People are not going to volunteer information” against a fellow soldier, said Mackubin T. Owens, a professor at the Naval War College in Newport, R.I., and a former marine in Vietnam.

Mr. Owens pointed to a Pentagon mental health survey of American soldiers and marines in Iraq, released last year, that showed that more than half of respondents would not turn in a fellow service member for mistreating an Iraqi civilian. More than 40 percent of those surveyed, the Pentagon reported, said torture should be allowed to save the life of a soldier or marine.

Men often test friendships in social circles, too. Mr. Kimmel cited the “wing man,” who sacrifices his time by walking over with his buddy to an attractive woman at a bar to help seduce her. “It’s sort of the essence of friendship, to sacrifice something to prove your loyalty, he said.

Bradford H. Turnow, a 35-year-old elementary school teacher in Long Island who runs the Yankees fan site historyoftheyankees.com and would approve if Mr. Pettitte kept talking, said most men would be reluctant to expose a friend. But that was not the case six months ago when he called a friend in his poker group on an unfair play that affected another player. “Guys are less afraid to speak up in front of a group and say, ‘That’s wrong,’ ” Mr. Turnow said.

Half of the eight men sided with Mr. Turnow, he said, and the argument became so heated he walked away from the table for 10 minutes to calm down.

In the end, he said, friends patched things up over many conversations, and the group survived.

When the lines get blurry, so do the decisions. Tom Chen, a graduate student at Brown, said that an antisexism men’s group he founded in 2006 at Amherst discussed ethical scenarios, like what someone should do if a friend tries to get a woman drunk to have sex with her. Do you stop the friend?

Mr. Chen, 23, said most of the 20 men in his group said they would, but many were also concerned about angering the friend, appearing prudish and bucking the norm.

The pressure to be “one of the guys” is powerful, said Jackson Katz, an author on issues of masculinity. He said before acting, men often weigh the risk of ostracism and loss of status. “Guys make calculations all the time that it’s not worth it,” he said. Men “have this notion that you try to prove yourself as a man.”

Women do seem to have a different notion of friendship. In the research literature, their bonds are described as “face to face,” meaning they share feelings more intensely. Male relationships are “side by side,” less touchy-feely and built around activities like sports or work.

But some experts noted that when it comes to loyalty, men and women are not as sharply divided as they once were. In institutions like the police and military, the same code of behavior rules over both sexes, as the torture scandal in Abu Ghraib prison showed.

And, of course, women are capable of betraying confidences, and men are capable of extremely generous and selfless acts. The former Dallas Cowboys star Everson Walls, for instance, donated a kidney last year to a former teammate, Ron Springs.

Peter M. Nardi, a professor of sociology at Pitzer College in Claremont, Calif., who has written about heterosexual and gay male friendships, said the nature of bonds could also vary depending on ethnicity, sexual orientation and social class. Gay men, for example, share issues of identity and disclose more to each other than heterosexual men do.

In any case, friendships are rarely worth criminal charges, as the former Atlanta Falcons quarterback Michael Vick discovered. His friends turned on him, implicating him as the owner and operator of a dogfighting ring. (Mr. Vick was sentenced recently to 23 months in prison.)

In the steroid scandal, baseball players could face perjury charges, and that is putting pressure on friendships. Indeed, Mr. Pettitte and Mr. Clemens, teammates on the Astros and the Yankees, are reportedly no longer so close.

Mr. Bouton said he doubted that Mr. Pettitte would go out of his way to hurt his friend. But if he has information and he is at risk of perjury, Mr. Bouton predicted, “he’s not going to jail for Roger Clemens.”

Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company

February 11th, 2008, 09:16 PM
February 12, 2008

Pettitte Asks to Be Excused From Hearing


WASHINGTON — The chairman of the House Oversight Committee is supporting Andy Pettitte’s request not to have to testify publicly against his former teammate Roger Clemens at a public hearing on Wednesday, a congressional staff person said Monday.

The chairman, Democrat Henry A. Waxman of California, wants to take Pettitte off the witness list but he is consulting with Republican members of the panel first, said the person, who asked to remain anonymous because he was not authorized to speak publicly.

Two other people familiar with the case said it is also possible that Clemens and his accuser, the former trainer Brian McNamee, may be the only witnesses who will ultimately testify on Wednesday.

Pettitte asked out of public testimony because he did not want to say something to hurt his friend and former teammate while in the glare of national television coverage, according to a government official who spoke on condition of anonymity.

There has been no final decision on Pettitte’s request, the official said. A final witness list may be released shortly.

Pettitte, former major league infielder Chuck Knoblauch and Kirk Radomski, a former clubhouse attendant who sold drugs to McNamee and dozens of major league ballplayers, were on the original witness list and in a lineup published in a committee briefing memo on Friday

Pettitte, who gave a key deposition behind closed doors last week, is a longtime friend, former teammate and workout partner of Clemens. Like Clemens, he was also a client of McNamee, the trainer who stated in the Mitchell report that he injected Clemens at least 16 times with steroids and human-growth hormone in 1998, 2000 and 2001.

Pettitte has admitted McNamee was truthful in the Mitchell report about injecting him with H.G.H. in 2002.

McNamee’s lawyers say that Pettitte, in the past, talked with both McNamee and Clemens, separately, about Clemens’s use of human-growth hormone.

Clemens has denied taking any performance-enhancing drugs. His lawyers say Clemens will testify that he did not talk with Pettitte about drug use.

After Pettitte gave a two-and-a-half-hour deposition to committee lawyers on Feb. 4, he emerged looking shaken, and since then lawyers involved in the case say they think he gave testimony that could hurt Clemens.

Because Pettitte’s deposition is available to all of the 41 committee members, information he provided can still be used by them to question Clemens during Wednesday’s hearing and to evaluate his answers. Pettitte, presumably, does not want to be present when, and if, his words are used against Clemens.

A lawyer familiar with the matter also said that one of Pettitte’s lawyers has been contacted by Jeff Novitzky, the Internal Revenue Service agent who has led federal criminal investigations into steroid use by elite athletes and into allegations that such athletes lied in official statements.

Novitzky is expected to attend the hearing on Wednesday.

Copyright 2008 The New York Times Company

February 13th, 2008, 06:51 AM
I must confess to having passed over this thread earlier, thinking it was specifically about the TV show, rather than an allusion to it. Luckily, I did a search on 'Clemens' before starting a new thread.

The way this is unfolding, a more descriptive thread title or consolidation into another thread, may still be in the offing, since it is more than likely that this entire matter will immediately expand to include other people, and other aspects concerning Roger Clemens' developing 'soap opera'.


Clemens dug a hole and Pettitte can't help him

Johnette Howard
February 13, 2008

If the leaks about Andy Pettitte's deposition are correct, Roger Clemens will sit in a congressional hearing room today on Capitol Hill and continue a crash to Earth of his own making. The narrative about whether Clemens cheated to become the greatest pitcher of his generation will sharpen into more detail. And Clemens' crossover from icon to con man could be near complete.

Once Clemens decided to fight the accusations about him in the Mitchell Report, he set up his pal Pettitte, his longtime teammate and former training partner, as the tiebreaker in this tale about whether Brian McNamee helped both of them use performance-enhancing drugs. But Clemens should have known Pettitte would peel away from him if forced to, rather than risk criminal prosecution.

Pettitte may not be the innocent we thought before he confirmed McNamee did inject him twice with HGH, as McNamee claims. But all those stories about Pettitte being a family man first aren't made up. He's got a 13-year-old son back home who was involved in an all-terrain vehicle crash last month that required the boy to be airlifted by helicopter to a San Antonio hospital with two broken limbs and a severe head injury from which the boy still is recovering. For Pettitte, being present for something as important as that trumps any clubhouse code of silence or Mitchell Report embarrassment.

"It really makes you take inventory," Pettitte recently told a friend.

The other point to remember is Clemens was in no legal jeopardy when the Mitchell Report came out. Today's hearing - and Pettitte's subsequent desposition - never would've happened if Clemens hadn't pushed this fight.

But once Clemens did, he did Pettitte no favors. Pettitte also was invited by the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee that will call in Clemens and McNamee for a dramatic faceoff, and Pettitte was left with two gut-wrenching choices: Side with Clemens in some bullheaded fight to the finish against McNamee. Or tell the truth about himself and pray the questions stopped there. Which they didn't.
Pushing this fight could be the worst of the many miscalculations Clemens and his team have made during a damage-control effort that keeps backfiring on them.

The "60 Minutes" interview didn't cement public opinion for Clemens. The secretly recorded phone conversation with a frazzled McNamee that Clemens played at a Jan. 7 news conference on national TV surprised and enraged McNamee so much, he angrily called his law enforcement handlers the next day and turned over what McNamee says are 7-year-old syringes and bloody gauze pads that he used on Clemens.

That exquisitely timed syringe bombshell (with photos to boot) wasn't released by McNamee's lawyers until last Wednesday - or one day after Clemens made his sworn deposition to the committee.

A new ripple of uncertainty had to slither down Clemens' spine when another PR tactic - schmoozing with about two dozen members of the committee - didn't prevent the committee from granting Pettitte's request to be excused from facing Clemens today. Portions of Pettitte's sworn statement are expected to be read instead. Meaning if a bomb does drop, Pettitte will be miles away.

But don't fault Pettitte. He isn't some snitch as much as a clear-eyed realist who was forced into this. Like Jason Giambi, Pettitte preferred to take his chances on telling the truth and asking the public for forgiveness rather than gambling on some leniency from the feds if he lied about anything. He tried to choose containment. But Clemens' defense strategy made containment impossible.

More than Clemens' place in history is in the balance. The feds don't give a damn about that. It's about who is telling the truth, and it's about how whoever is lying may have to pay.

A Yankees source said last night that Pettitte is not expected at spring training tomorrow when other pitchers and catchers report. But whenever Pettitte gets to Tampa and clears the air by talking to the media for the first time since the Mitchell Report's release, the sun may never feel warmer. Trouble may be only beginning for Clemens or McNamee, but it seems on the wane for him.

Said Pettitte's friend: "He's looking forward to [explaining himself], I can tell you that."

Copyright © 2008, Newsday Inc.

CLICK HERE for Source Link (http://www.newsday.com/sports/columnists/ny-sphow135574544feb13,0,1654605.column)

February 13th, 2008, 07:45 PM
The funniest thing about the hearing was the distinct split along party lines.

Clemens being from Texas, a Republican, a supporter of Bush - some REP members were especially histrionic in painting Clemens as a poor innocent.

One guy from Indiana (forget his name) went into a litany of lies by McNamee, derided the "Roman Circus" atmosphere of the hearing, evoked the famous quote by Labor Sec Ray Donovan, who after being acquitted of fraud charges remarked, "What office do I go to to get my reputation back?".
He then seemed to lose it, his voice rising while saying, "Roger Clemens is a baseball..." he stuttered while searching for a word, and settled on "...TITAN."

On WFAN, Mike Francesa couldn't remember the name of NC representative Virginia Foxx, and called her Aunt Bea.


February 13th, 2008, 11:15 PM
The entire hearing was fairly pathetic.

Would like to see Bud Selig up there squirming a bit.

But as Clemens kept assuring us, "Baseball is now moving in the right direction."


IMO Henry Waxman came off as the biggest jerk of the bunch (aside from McNamee).

February 14th, 2008, 02:37 PM
At least I've learned a new word:


Maybe I'll try it out the next time I forget a birthday or anniversary.

February 14th, 2008, 08:05 PM
At least I've learned a new word:


Maybe I'll try it out the next time I forget a birthday or anniversary.
Gotta love it..........

Averb1 misremember
remember incorrectly; "I misremembered the date" Category Tree: err (http://www.wordreference.com/definition/err); mistake (http://www.wordreference.com/definition/mistake); slip (http://www.wordreference.com/definition/slip) ╚misremember

February 14th, 2008, 11:53 PM
Uh, the line should be:

"Andy misremembered the date."

ps: On his show tonight Jon Stewart made Clemens look like the stupidest clod on the block by doing some clever editing of his taped testimony. After seeing that no one will ever be able to watch Clemens lick his lips without immediately thinking "Liar!"

February 15th, 2008, 09:45 AM
Question, and this has been on the Nat Geo channel in a few shows, so here goes.

Do we WANT 'roid players? What message are we, as a people, sending to the sports leagues when we keep demanding faster stonger bigger atheletes? Genetic engineering? "I will break you" boxers?

The problem we have is that we say that we despise the athletes doing all this, but we STILL GO TO SEE THEIR GAMES! Who has stopped watching Baseball even when it became obvious that a good number of them were "enhansing"? I mean, just LOOK at them! Compare them to the greatest baseball players around 20 years ago. The best of all time even! They were mostly "normal" looking guys. Average heights and weights with talent and skill.

Now they all look like they can get into a bar-fight and win. They have all gotten chunkier. But we LOVE that as a people! We love the home runs, the super-fastballs, the amazing slides and plays.

So, should this go as people have suggested before? Allow the drugs in one league? Maybe even making a "clean" league and an "enhansed" one?

How do we prevent this double standard from perpetuating?

February 15th, 2008, 10:15 AM
What message are we, as a people, sending to the sports leagues when we keep demanding faster stonger bigger atheletes?Are we? Most sports fans just want their team to be competitive, and don't care if records are eclipsed every other year.

The problem we have is that we say that we despise the athletes doing all this, but we STILL GO TO SEE THEIR GAMES!Do we go to the games because they are enhanced, or in spite of it? As a lifelong baseball fan, the answer to me is obvious.

Baseball owners and the players union are putting a successful industry at risk.

February 15th, 2008, 11:46 AM
Are we? Most sports fans just want their team to be competitive, and don't care if records are eclipsed every other year.

Really? Then why, even in the face of these "accusations" (most I have talked to would not be surprised if they found these guys "guilty", they just shrug and say "whatever"), why do people still support these franchises to the point where 2 new stadiums can be built, partially on taxpayer money, with the smallest of peeps from the peanut gallery? How can prices keep going up? how can so much money be made, ahead of inflation or any otehr index, for this industry when things like this are going on?

People want their team to win. And remember the whole home-run-race a few years back? How much money do you think sponsors made on that one?

What I am saying is that, maybe not for some of the more "devout" baseball fans, but to the general population, more performance is more entertaining.

Do we go to the games because they are enhanced, or in spite of it? As a lifelong baseball fan, the answer to me is obvious.

If you go in spite, are you really supporting baseball, or its eventual downfall?

Baseball owners and the players union are putting a successful industry at risk.

I know, for the devout fans, but what about the general population. You know, the same people that consider Calente Cab as "authentic" mexican, or Dominos as real pizza?

What happens to that majority, the fair weatehr fans that dump the most disposable cash on all the crap that has stuck to the sides of baseball and other sports to the extent that it is so much bigger than what it started as that we can no longer see what is supporting it.

Pardon me, I am going to put on my Nike sneaks to go out and get me a Gatorade. I will check my Movado watch on the way! ;)

(PS, I am not ragging you or the sport in general Zip, I am just dissapointed in the way the pure persuit of money can ruin so many things)

February 15th, 2008, 12:54 PM
Really? Then why, even in the face of these "accusations" (most I have talked to would not be surprised if they found these guys "guilty", they just shrug and say "whatever")I think I've already answered this. The majority of baseball (sports) fans care more about the positive of the sport than the negative of drug use by some of the athletes. So it's tolerated, ignored, or rationalized.

People want their team to win.I think I also already answered this one.

The Giants did not have the best quarterback, best running back, or even the best team in the NFL.

If you go in spite, are you really supporting baseball, or its eventual downfall? Why must you always expand and dilute an argument? I have made no statement as to the logic or morality of the situation. I just answered you question:

Do we WANT 'roid players?"

February 15th, 2008, 02:08 PM
C'mon Zip!

I am not trying to dilute anything here.

Clemens took roids, plain and simple. So did Bonds, and a bunch of others.

Is ignoring this, or tolerating this helping anything? I do not think you like this anymore than other true fans, but the question lies with the many.

Are there enough "true fans" like yourself to convince baseball to make an official policy banning illegal substances and enhancements from the game? Or does $$ speak too loudly?



Aww hell.

Go to town


February 15th, 2008, 02:34 PM
C'mon Zip!

I am not trying to dilute anything here.Really? Read on.

Is ignoring this, or tolerating this helping anything? I do not think you like this anymore than other true fans, but the question lies with the many.Just because I chose to only answer your question does not imply that I have no other opinions on the subject, or the assumption of what those opinions are.

To expand my answer to your question, you don't hear many sports fans applauding steroid use, or wishing more players took them.

Although it is somewhat a fantasy, most fans follow sports to escape the rule-breaking and unfairness of life. They inherently want sports to be played according to the rules.

February 15th, 2008, 04:21 PM
Zip, I am not trying to get you pissed at this, which I obviously am. I am good at that... :p

But the question lies with this. Do fans want more from the game. Belle-weather fans that is.

OF COURSE they will all say they do not want steroids in there, but that is why Clemens is saying he never took them. Why? Because the actual act of taking them is something that people do not consciously approve of.

Now, did people like the fact that he was a record setter? Yes. Would they be disappointed if he didn't set the records? Yes. If they did not know about any steroid use on his part, would they have been happy with him setting that record whether he used them or not? Yes.

Did he stand a better chance of setting it while on steroids. Yes.

End result? Give him (or provide to him upon request) steroids, (which from what I have been gathering is still not against the rules, per se) and keep it a secret. Turn the other way.

Now the question is this. Have the fans demanded, in a way that would make the owners and sponsors listen, that Baseball crack down on this? Why is it the responsibility of the feds to investigate this?

Is there no pressure from the people to get these guys doing what everyone feels they should?

I don't know. I have not been following it closely enough, but I get the feeling that they have not been. I have not heard of any boycotts, protests or even group/chain letters to owners crying for the change. Until then, is criminal prosecution the only deterrent to an Enhanced game?

February 15th, 2008, 04:26 PM
PS, this is the program I was talking about:


February 15th, 2008, 05:22 PM
Could some other sports fan, to whom what I'm saying is so obvious, take it from here.

I'm getting tired or wading through two-foot posts to explain a simple answer to a simple question.

February 15th, 2008, 09:56 PM
People like to watch competitions. They want their side to win.

Cheating? Folks have been doing it forever. It's not advised, but it does keep things interesting over the long run, which is ...

Rise and Fall. Rise and Fall.

Heroes made and shattered.

Only a select few remain unscathed.

To what ends would you go in the hope that you'd be considered one of the Gods?

February 26th, 2008, 02:46 PM
Big Boobs

So let me see if I understand all this.

Roger Clemens was not content to just let the Mitchell report stand on its own, like the 80 or so others implicated. He wanted to take his case before the public and testify in an open hearing.

And instead of protecting him from legal jeopardy, his lawyers stroke his ego by taking him on a tour of Congressional offices and signing autographs. Hardin, upset that Jeff Novitsky, the IRS lead investigator in the BALCO case, planned to attend the hearing, raised the stakes by issuing a macho challenge: "If [Novitzky] ever messes with Roger, Roger will eat his lunch." Novitsky, attired in a black suit, sat through the entire hearing, speaking to no one.

That's him on the left. Looks like the guy in Westerns
that drives the hearse to Boot Hill.

In order to discredit the entire Mitchell report, they focus on the lack of proof that Clemens was at a party at Jose Canseco's house - an event that had little consequence in the report. The lawyers get a call from a man who said his son (11 years old at the time) was at that party, and he has photos of his son with both Clemens and Conseco. So the story is changed to maybe Clemens stopped by to drop someone off on his way to play golf.

Now the ex-nanny becomes important. There's a question as to why she was brought to Clemens' house - the implication being that she was coached. Clemens' classic response: "I was just tryin' to do y'all a favor." Helping Clemens dig himself a bigger hole, a Big Boob Congressman from Virginia asked him a leading question: "And her English, as I understand it, is not that good." Clemens, on cue, says it isn't.

But it turns out that the nanny speaks English fluently. She just speaks it with a Hispanic accent. When advised that she had the right to representation, she answered that she didn't have a lawyer, but didn't need one.

Roger throws his wife under the bus, augmented boobs and all.

There's reported to be a a statement by a MLB player that Clemens often joked in the clubhouse about an incident that occurred at the 1998 Canseco pool party, in which Debbie Clemens and Canseco's ex-wife Jessica compared the results of their breast implants.

As Al Bundy would say: "All Big-uns"

March 26th, 2008, 08:26 AM
"It continues to make me suspect that this kind of Republican investment in attempting to support Roger and undermine Brian is coming from somewhere else, namely the Bushes,"

Richard Emery
One of Trainer Brian McNamee's attorneys


Republicans issue new Clemens report

26, March 2008

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20080325/capt.fb3f522bcaf1446e8718cc614b78be5f.clemens_ster oids_baseball_ny157.jpg?x=298&y=345&sig=1nXmV1T74ptcNczmWuUIjg--

Roger Clemens got some new Republican support in his dispute with Brian McNamee.

Reprising the partisan nature of last month's congressional hearing that examined whether the seven-time Cy Young Award winner took performance-enhancing drugs, the leading Republican on the committee that heard testimony from Clemens and McNamee released a report Tuesday questioning some of the Democratic majority's findings.

The 109-page report "seeks to dispel conclusions that may have resulted from an incomplete consideration of the full record" and contains details Rep. Tom Davis believes could challenge the credibility of McNamee, the personal trainer who testified under oath he injected Clemens with steroids and human growth hormone from 1998-01.

Minority staff from the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform will pass along additional information to the Justice Department. The FBI is investigating whether Clemens testified truthfully to Congress.

"Did Roger Clemens lie to us?" Davis said in a release accompanying the report.

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20080325/capt.dc3ea8f0204c4207bc3be88a5d2d1111.clemens_ster oids_baseball_ny156.jpg?x=197&y=345&sig=vNGCTszbl8bik_GiCg99xA--

"Some of the evidence seems to say he did; other information suggests he told the truth," the Virginia Republican said. "It's a far more complicated picture than some may want to believe. Memories fade and recollections differ. That's human nature, not criminal conduct."

The report does not take issue with the basis for the criminal referral — the core matter of whether Clemens lied to Congress about taking performance-enhancers. But it does question McNamee's versions of events on several points.

It includes portions of previously undisclosed interviews with new witnesses and addresses issues such as whether Clemens attended a party at then-teammate Jose Canseco's house in 1998; information about injections of vitamin B-12; and how Clemens might have developed an abscess on his buttocks.

The report — "Weighing the Committee Record: A Balanced Review of the Evidence Regarding Performance Enhancing Drugs in Baseball" — stands as a counterpoint to the 18-page memo compiled by majority staff and released by chairman Rep. Henry Waxman, a California Democrat, on Feb. 27.

That was the day Waxman and Davis jointly asked Attorney General Michael Mukasey to open an investigation into whether Clemens committed perjury in his statements at a Feb. 5 deposition or the Feb. 13 hearing. There was no criminal referral of McNamee.

"We believe the Democratic memorandum does not fully represent the investigative work of the committee or the evidentiary record," Tuesday's report said.

Clemens' lead lawyer, Rusty Hardin, called the Republicans' findings "a welcome attempt to balance the scales a little bit."

http://d.yimg.com/us.yimg.com/p/ap/20080325/capt.nyol59103252009.steroids_clemens_baseball_nyo l591.jpg?x=400&y=278&sig=YZ93lXzjTr4Sk0wI.08v.g--

"I'm glad that somebody has independently looked at it and said, 'There's another side to this story that did not come through in the majority report,'" Hardin said. "Waxman's attempt to channel this to one conclusion and one conclusion only has been shameful, quite frankly."

The report criticizes Democrats for taking witnesses' quotations out of context, for going "far afield into Clemens's recollections about inconsequential matters," and for waiting until "63 minutes before the committee hearing" to let Republicans know about a medical expert the majority had contacted.

During that hearing, McNamee repeated his accusations, while Clemens repeated his denials — under oath and under questioning from lawmakers that often broke down along party lines. Democrats were tougher on Clemens; Republicans gave McNamee a harder time.

"Clemens and McNamee told two spectacularly conflicting stories. The differing testimony leads to an obvious conclusion — one committed perjury and made materially false statements to Congress. Both are serious crimes. The ultimate question for the Justice Department is whether Clemens knowingly provided materially false testimony about using anabolic steroids and human growth hormone," the Republican report read. "If Clemens is not lying on that subject, McNamee is."

Waxman's Feb. 27 memo outlined the reasons for the criminal referral, summarizing "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 Canseco's home from June 8-10, 1998, when their Toronto Blue Jays played a series at the Florida Marlins; and that he was "never told" about baseball investigator George Mitchell's request to speak to Clemens before issuing the report containing McNamee's allegations.

"The Democratic staff memorandum's characterizations and conclusions regarding these other matters is simply not relevant to the core question of whether Clemens knowingly lied about using anabolic steroids and human growth hormone," Tuesday's report said.

It continued: "More concerning, however, the Democratic memorandum reads like an advocate's brief or prosecutorial indictment of Roger Clemens."

The report includes new witnesses, including three who say Clemens was not at Canseco's 1998 party. In the Mitchell Report, McNamee said he saw Clemens and Canseco speaking at that party — and that shortly thereafter Clemens first approached the trainer about using performance-enhancing drugs.

One of McNamee's lawyers, Richard Emery, called the Republican report "an obvious attempt to spin" and "a surprising, partisan, flailing action that says little or nothing about the core issue of Roger's use of steroids and HGH and nitpicks a lot of collateral issues in the vein of what occurred at the hearing."

"It continues to make me suspect that this kind of Republican investment in attempting to support Roger and undermine Brian is coming from somewhere else, namely the Bushes," Emery said.

Copyright © 2008 The Associated Press. All rights reserved. (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20080326/ap_on_sp_ba_ne/bbo_clemens_steroids)

March 26th, 2008, 09:14 AM
We care too much about this.

The mere fact that we have politicians spending this much time and money over a frigging baseball player and whether he was a juicer is so irrevelant to what they should be paying attension to, maybe we should not pay them for the time and the resources they used investigating this and bringing it to trial.

Maybe this should be a civil case, or a criminal case, but it should NOT be a political bandwagon or lynch mob.

Enough already! :mad:

March 26th, 2008, 09:27 AM
The reason that it is political is because of the singular situation regarding the business of BASEBALL -- which since the early days has been regulated by Congress due to some nefarious back room dealings by owners & pols.

March 26th, 2008, 11:02 AM
That is what I am saying.

Congress should NOT manage ANY sport.

Our government is not For the People, By the People, it is For the Few, On the People, On Everything. :p