Sound Politics Public Blog: Clemens vs. McNamee Hearings

February 12, 2008

Clemens vs. McNamee Hearings

I know there's a few folks here who follow sports as well as politics, and tomorrow is a big day where they both collide. After a week of private depositions under oath by Clemens, McNamee, Pettite, Knoblauch and Radomski, we get to hear Clemens and McNamee testify before Congress.

For a good preview of the upcoming proceedings, read SI's Jon Heyman's piece. He provides an excellent account of the uphill battle that faces Clemens, who vehemently denies taking performance enhancing drugs.

According to some leaked (but unconfirmed) information regarding Pettite's testimony, he has backed McNamee's account of events. It is difficult for me to believe that McNamee told the truth about Pettite (and many others), but lied about Clemens, which meant he would have faced prosecution. Regardless, this is a fascinating drama being played out, and one of them is definitely lying to Congress and could face federal perjury charges.

Posted by Palouse123 at February 12, 2008 04:02 PM | Email This

Comments

1. I don't know how long ago McNamee supposedly injected Clemens, but if it was more than a few days ago, doesn't it sound a little creepy that he would have needles with Clemens' DNA to prove what he had done - especially if the injections were years ago?

Posted by: SouthernRoots on February 14, 2008 11:07 AM

2. Or it could be just someone who didn't trust the person he was injecting, so he was covering himself by keeping evidence.

Both Pettite and Knoblauch backed up McNamee's story in their testimony. The committee also uncovered several discrepancies in Clemens' testimony. It will be interesting to see if there's enough there to prosecute him for perjury.

Posted by: Palouse on February 15, 2008 10:23 AM

3. Yeah, this is just what I want my Congress spending time on when we've got an Islamic threat, potential Chinese threat, massive debt, failing education system, etc.

Let 'em do the steroids. If enough of 'em kill themselves w/ steroids, maybe we won't have to build any more tax-funded stadiums.

Posted by: russell garrard on February 18, 2008 08:46 AM

4. Fair point russell. But it has helped clean up the sports, all of them. And if that in turn helps keep youth off of steroids, that's good, right? I think so.

Besides, if the MOC's who spent time at these hearings weren't there, they'd probably be off finding ways to spend our money, not the other things you mention.

In an unrelated note, the Clemens/McNamee hearing was an embarrassment to Republicans in my opinion. Dan Burton especially. Democrats asked the tough questions, and generally came off better in that hearing. For whatever reason, the two sides were divided along party lines, with most Republicans believing Clemens and the Democrats believing McNamee (and by default, Pettite and Knoblauch). I didn't find Clemens believable at all.

Posted by: Palouse on February 19, 2008 03:31 PM

5. This is the same as the cig issue--I don't want the gov't involved--too many harmful unintended consequences. When gov't expands, freedom retracts.

Let pro sports owners 'clean up sports.' I already have to pay for their stadiums, and now I have to pay for 'clean up' too?

As for your point that Congress would just be doing other stupid things if they stopped investigating steroids, well you've got me there.

Posted by: russell garrard on February 19, 2008 10:53 PM