Round 2: Clemens vs. McNamee
posted: Wednesday, February 13, 2008 | Print Entry
filed under: MLB
Editor's Note: Jayson Stark is blogging live during today's congressional hearing. Check back frequently for updates throughout the day.
1:57 p.m. ET
Sorry. Don't want to leave the John Duncan portion of the festivities too soon. There was one more highlight.
Duncan asked about the Mitchell investigators' failure to contact Clemens directly (as opposed to going through his lawyer) about these charges. And that got the Rocket off and rolling again.
"I'm a public person," Clemens said, getting all worked up. "I'm easy to find."
Then he ran through a bunch of tales -- about how the folks from Team USA tracked him down when he was retired and asked him to pitch in the World Baseball Classic, how the people at MLB located him during an All-Star break to ask if he'd be an emergency substitute for an injured pitcher, how "the former president of the United States" (guess who?) found him while he was deer-hunting in Texas and told him to "stay high and keep my head up."
In other words, Clemens concluded, "Bud Selig could have found me [to confront him with this evidence]. ... I'm an easy person to find."
Duncan left no doubt whose side he was on, by (mark this down) taking Congress' first public shot at the Mitchell report.
"Seems to me," Duncan said, "that there may have been some people a little too anxious to get this report out and get all the publicity attendant thereto."
Well, there goes his campaign contribution from the Selig family.
1:40 p.m. ET
Hey, it's another Charles Scheeler sighting.
Rep. Danny Davis roused Scheeler to ask about the propriety of Clemens and his lawyers contacting the nanny.
Scheeler said it wasn't unusual for a lawyer to interview a witness. But for the subject of the investigation -- meaning Clemens -- to talk directly to the witness was highly unusual.
Uh-oh. Looks like we haven't heard the last of this Nanny-gate mess. We'd be stunned if the nanny doesn't find her photo in the New York Post by Thursday morning at the latest.
1:36 p.m. ET
Nannygate erupts again.
Rep. Tom Davis asked Clemens to clear up how he came to invite the nanny back to his house last week and we learned from Clemens "it was great to see her."
But as the Nannygate questioning rolled along to center around whether Clemens' family was at Canseco's increasingly famous party, Clemens did suggest he came to "believe the nanny was there with my kids."
As for him, though, "I was on my way to the ballpark," Clemens said, voice rising.
"I know one thing," he said. "I wasn't holed up with somebody trying to do a drug deal."
Another fine sound-bite moment for Clemens. He'll take all he can get.
1:28 p.m. ET
The final exchange before the break was another doozie.
Rep. Eleanor Holmes Norton ran through a laundry list of all the unseemly stuff McNamee had allegedly done to Clemens -- lies about Ph.D's, claiming the Rocket's workout program was McNamee's workout program, using Clemens' photo in an ad without permission, etc. -- and wondered, "Why did you continue to employ him?"
This seemed like a set-up question -- a chance for Clemens to talk about what a great guy he is. Instead, the Rocket rambled all over the District of Columbia. After about four attempts to get Clemens to sing his own praises, Clemens finally caught on.
"Why did you keep this man? It's very simple," Norton said. "He did some pretty horrendous things."
"I'm a forgiving person," Clemens said, finally.
Oh. That explains it.
That satisfied Rep. Norton, anyhow.
"Mr. Clemens," she concluded. "All I can say is, I'm sure you're going to heaven."
Whoops. Blow that whistle. Fifteen yards for excessive praise.
1:16 p.m. ET
Nanny-gate.
Oh no.
Did the Rocket really invite his old nanny to the house to suggest she testify that she didn't remember that party at Canseco's house? Or was he just trying, in his words, "to do the committee a favor" by tracking her down?
I have no idea. But Rep. Henry Waxman sure seemed to think something funny went on, claiming Clemens' lawyers delayed giving the committee the nanny's name and number until after they'd had a chance to meet with her first.
"There will always be a question now about whether you tried to influence her testimony," Waxman said.
"I'm hurt by those statements, that I'd get in the way of anything you guys were looking for," Clemens replied.
"It was my idea," yelped his laywer, Rusty Hardin (who was out of order, by the way). "It was my idea to investigate what a witness knew, just like any other lawyer in the free world would have."
It was at this point that many of us in the listening audience couldn't help but ask: What has this hearing come to?
1:05 p.m. ET
Finally, the Rocket found a congressman who was on his side. Rep. William Lacy Clay fed him a BP softball about what he should tell his kids when they asked about these allegations about how Clemens achieved all he achieved.
That gave Clemens a chance to go through his most impassioned monologue of the day -- one that included this pithy sound bite:
"Somebody is trying to break my spirit in this room. And they're not going to break my spirit. ... You can tell your boys I did it the right way, and I busted my butt to do it."
Clay's mushy follow-up to those words: "A colleague of mine, Mr. Capuano of Massachusetts, wants to know what uniform you're going to wear to the Hall of Fame."
There are times and places for hero worship. This hearing wasn't one of them. We charge Clay with inappropriate pandering. What's the federal punishment for that?
12:58 p.m. ET
Oh, great. Rep. Mark Souder wants another shot at Bud Selig.
Souder made reference to a conversation McNamee recalls having with former Yankees player rep David Cone. In that conversation, Cone allegedly told McNamee that owners had told him during labor negotiations that they "don't want to test [for steroids], but they needed an excuse to give the media for why they weren't testing."
McNamee, of course, could only recount his discussion with Cone, not Cone's discussions with the owners. So Souder turned to Waxman and suggested that since the Mitchell report had targeted the union and not the owners for resisting testing, they should pursue whether this was true and the owners were just as culpable.
Fortunately, Waxman didn't rub his hands together and say, "You're darned right. We'll have Mr. Selig back in this room by 4:30." He just took this suggestion "under advisement."
And our advice to them both would be, "Enough already!"
12:43 p.m. ET
Did Rep. John Mica once work for Crayola?
He spent his entire line of questioning trying to determine the color of the various injections these two guys claim were given.
If you were curious, McNamee said Winstrol is a "powdery white," while testosterone was "oily" and "honey-colored" and HGH, when added to water, was "clear." And Clemens testified that B-12 was "red or pink."
OK, kids. Feel free to color along at home now that you have that straight.
12:35 p.m. ET
I'd like to thank Rep. Paul Kanjorski for allowing George Mitchell's aide, Charles Scheeler, to actually utter a few sentences. Somebody had to do it.
For the record, Scheeler said he "can't think of a single fact [in the Mitchell report] we'd recant."
12:29 p.m. ET
Rep. Stephen Lynch turned his attention to an issue I thought I'd never see discussed on national television, from the floor of Congress -- a "palpable mass" on Clemens' buttock.
Lynch recounted how the Blue Jays' team doctor admitted he had given Clemens a vitamin B-12 shot. But Lynch said the doctor and the training staff said they'd never seen a reaction to a B-12 shot as severe as Clemens' reaction.
So the committee submitted Clemens' MRI to an expert on MRIs, Dr. Mark Murphy. And Dr. Murphy, according to Lynch, said the mass was "more compatible with Winstrol injections" than with B-12 injections.
Asked to explain this, Clemens threw the doctor under the team bus, saying, "I hate to get on Dr. Taylor ... but if he gave me a bad shot, he gave me a bad shot."
This grilling went on awhile, whereupon Rep. Davis jumped in to complain about this line of questioning, even saying "this gave new meaning to the term, 'lynching.' "
Was this the biggest national free-for-all in history over a palpable mass on a buttock? I'd vote yes.
12:14 p.m. ET
Rough time for McNamee.
Rep. Dan Burton was all over McNamee, wondering about a question many of us have asked: Why would he ever have held on to vials and syringes for five years that could implicate a friend?
"He was my employer," McNamee answered.
Burton: "You do this to all your employers?"
McNamee stammered an answer about how he'd "done things before for other people and gotten hurt by it, so I might as well hold on to it."
Burton asked why he didn't give this evidence to the Mitchell investigators immediately.
"Because I felt horrible being in the position I was in," McNamee said.
Burton: "You kept needles for five years ... and kept working for him ... and now you say you felt bad?"
McNamee: "No, sir."
Burton: "My goodness."
Not the pinnacle of McNamee's day.
12:06 p.m. ET
Rep. John Tierney had an experience many of us in the media have had while trying to interview Clemens: We ask one thing. He gives an answer that seems to be in response to some whole other question. And no matter how hard we try, he keeps answering the question he hears, not the question we asked.
Tierney noted three specific times Clemens told investigators he'd never talked to McNamee about HGH -- but then cited two occasions when he confronted McNamee about his injection of his wife with HGH.
Repeatedly, Tierney asked Clemens how he "reconciled" that inconsistency. Repeatedly, Clemens gave answers that indicated that "prior" to those conversations, he'd never had a "specific" discussion with McNamee about HGH.
You wanted to scream out, "Roger, that's not what he's asking." But eventually, Tierney just gave up and moved on.
Been there. Done that.
11:49 a.m. ET
OK, it's party time.
Rep. Davis told McNamee about a long list of people who didn't recall Clemens attending the fabled Jose Canseco party in Miami where McNamee claims Clemens and Canseco first talked about steroids.
McNamee didn't back down.
He gave vivid detail of a woman running after a child in a green bikini. And when he asked who that was, he said he was told, "Roger Clemens' nanny."
"I know Roger showed up a little bit later," McNamee claimed.
Asked how he knew, McNamee gave an answer that indicated he and Clemens talked many times about what a fabulous time they'd had at that party.
"We had numerous conversations," McNamee said, "about how great that party would have been if we didn't have a game that night."
Is it possible Clemens showed up so late, after playing golf, that no one else remembers him being there? That's the question. Right?
11:41 a.m. ET
Curt Schilling had the bloody sock. Roger now has the bloody pants.
Rep. Davis reported that McNamee had testified that Mike Stanton once noticed that Clemens was bleeding through his dress pants -- which caused him to start carrying band aids around, presumably for his bleeding butt. Yikes.
Prompting the following surreal exchange:
Davis: "Mr. Clemens, do you recall bleeding through your pants in 2001?"
Clemens: "I do not."
You can't make this stuff up.
11:37 a.m. ET
First big exchange involving McNamee:
Rep. Tom Davis grilled McNamee about the infamous taped phone conversation, in which Clemens asked him to "tell the truth."
"Why didn't you just tell Mr. Clemens ... `Roger, I did tell the truth?' " Davis asked.
McNamee: "Because ... I realized I was being taped. ... But if you listen to it and know my jargon, I did say that. I said, `It is what it is' ... meaning, `I did tell the truth.' "
Anyone who re-listens to the tape of that conversation will have that same impression -- that they both knew this was being taped and that each, in his own way, was trying to trap the other. That, I've long thought, is why so many things went unsaid that day.
11:29 a.m. ET
And obviously, Rep. Cummings doesn't believe any of Roger's story. Any of it.
Three direct questions from Cummings:
• "Mr. Pettitte said he had 'no doubt' about his recollection. ... Why would he tell Congress that one of his closest friends was taking an illegal performance-enhancing drug if there was any doubt in his mind?"
• On Pettitte's wife, Laura, also saying Pettitte had told her that Clemens had admitted using HGH: "If that conversation never happened, why would Laura Pettitte remember that conversation?"
• "What possible reason would Mr. Pettitte have to fabricate a statement about you, his friend?"
Clemens' answer: "Andy would have no reason to."
Wow. Elijah Cummings' 15 minutes won't go down on Clemens' career highlight reel. Wouldn't you say?
11:20 a.m. ET
But here's a more dubious portion of Clemens' account of their discussion of HGH.
So what was that conversation about that Pettitte referred to? Clemens gave an answer way out of left field.
He said he recalled talking to Pettitte about a TV show in which three older people said they'd used HGH and improved their quality of life.
They may indeed have had that conversation. But could Andy Pettitte possibly have come away from that discussion thinking he'd just heard his friend, the living legend, Roger Clemens, tell him he'd actually used HGH.
Tough to believe.
11:18 a.m. ET
Rep. Cummings kept right on bearing down.
"Mr. Clemens, do you think Mr. Pettitte was lying when he told this committee you admitted using Human Growth Hormone?
Clemens: "Andy Pettitte is my friend. He was my friend before this. He'll be my friend after this. And again, I think he has misheard."
The example Clemens gave of why he was sure Pettitte had "misheard"?
Clemens said he was "shocked" when he heard that Pettitte had used HGH. And they were so close, he's sure that "if Andy Pettitte thought I used HGH, he would have come to me and asked me about it."
Plausible. Right? These men were, in fact, as close as two players could be. So that is indeed one of the big questions. If Clemens was using it, wouldn't he and Pettitte have talked about it extensively -- not just in two conversations, years apart?
11:07 a.m. ET
More drama:
Rep. Elijah Cummings started his questioning by making sure Clemens knew he was under oath -- "and you know what that means? Is that correct?"
"Yes, sir," the Rocket replied.
Cummings then praised Pettitte as being "one of the most respected players in the major leagues and one of the most honest people in baseball."
"I would agree with that. Yes, sir," Clemens responded.
But when Cummings then confronted Clemens with Pettitte's testimony that the Rocket had told him he'd used HGH, and asked Clemens if this was true, Clemens gave him a stern, "It is not."
"So you did not tell Mr. Pettitte you used Human Growth Hormone?"
"I did not," Clemens said.
Again, whew. Anybody think Cummings believes a word coming out of Clemens' mouth?
11:01 a.m. ET
Just a thought as the questioning of the Rocket gets rolling:
Since he's under oath, any chance one of these congressmen could ask Roger what the heck actually happened when he threw that bat at Mike Piazza?
He didn't really think that was the ball, did he?
Sorry to digress. Just thinking.
10:59 a.m. ET
The big moment from McNamee's statement:
"I never injected Mr. Clemens or anyone else with lidocaine or B-12. I have no reason to lie -- and every reason not to."
A moment later:
"I told the investigators I injected three people -- two of whom I know confirmed my account. The third is sitting at this table."
Whew. Is this really happening?
10:58 a.m. ET
You body-language watchers should have a field day with this one.
As Rep. Waxman was speaking, Clemens looked him right in the eye, while McNamee looked everywhere but at that podium.
But as McNamee spoke, Clemens looked straight down at the floor, as if he were trying to make himself believe this man wasn't even speaking.
Quite a show.
10:54 a.m. ET
One more highlight from Clemens' statement:
He took pains to make sure the committee knew he wasn't slamming their buddy, George Mitchell. Good strategy!
"I'm not saying Senator Mithcell's report is entirely wrong," Clemens said. "I'm merely saying Brian McNamee's statements about me were wrong."
Apparently, the Rocket has noticed that this committee is essentially the George Mitchell Fan Club.
10:52 a.m. ET
The anger in Clemens' voice during that opening statement was unmistakeable. There was an edge in his voice and a look in his eye that didn't look the slightest bit contrived.
Heck, he even admitted it. He was steaming as he read those words.
"I've chosen to live my life with a positive attitude," he said. "Yet I'm accused of being a criminal. I'm not supposed to be angry about that?"
Revealing words.
10:47 a.m. ET
Rep. Waxman's opening statement covered so much ground, it's tough to summarize it all. But let's just say he didn't mess around.
• He praised Andy Pettitte effusively for his honesty, saying "Mr. Pettitte's honesty makes him a role model, on and off the field." Again, this was an ominous sign for the committee's willingness to believe Clemens' side of the story.
• Rep. Waxman made it obvious somebody is going to be charged with perjury once this hearing concludes -- because "it's impossible to believe this was a simple misunderstanding. Someone isn't telling the truth."
• He said that if Brian McNamee isn't telling the truth about Clemens, that's "inexcusable." But if Clemens isn't telling the truth about McNamee, "he's acting shamefully." And Rep. Waxman reiterated he doesn't see how there's any gray area. One is lying. One is telling the truth. "And I don't think there's anything in between."
• Waxman said, unequivocably, that McNamee's accounts were "bolstered" by the testimony of Pettitte and Chuck Knoblauch. Again, not good news for the Rocket.
• Waxman did scold McNamee for failing to tell investigators the whole truth on two occasions -- once when he was questioned about the infamous Florida date-rape incident several years ago, the other when he failed to tell prosecutors the full extent of how often he injected Clemens and McNamee because, in McNamee's words, he was trying not to hurt the guy." Waxman then said, firmly, "That's no excuse."
• Finally, Waxman went through a long list of areas in which Clemens' account was "in direct conflict" with the testimony of McNamee and Pettitte. Waxman particularly singled out Clemens' alleged conversations about HGH with Pettitte -- one in 1999 or 2000, the other in 2005. In the first, Pettitte testified that Clemens told him he'd used HGH. In the second, Clemens claimed Pettitte had misunderstood and that he'd actually said his wife had used HGH. Waxman said Clemens and McNamee agreed that McNamee had injected Debbie Clemens in 2003. And that, Waxman said, "makes it impossible" that Clemens could have told Pettitte three or four years earlier that his wife was the HGH user, not him.
So unless the Rocket can explain his way out of all those "inconsistencies" clearly and convincingly, that perjury charge is going to be almost inescapable. Isn't it?
10:28 a.m. ET
Here's a shocker. Rep. Waxman said he wanted to cancel the hearing and just issue written reports. But Clemens' lawyers helped talk him out of that, saying it would be "unfair" to cancel the hearing without giving Roger a chance to testify publicly.
Whew. Careful what you wish for.
10:15 a.m. ET
An attorney I know told me before the hearing to watch for signs that the committee favors one side or the other going in.
How about this for a sign:
Within the first two minutes of his opening remarks, Rep. Henry Waxman called the Mitchell report "impressive and credible."
That tells you exactly what Waxman believes, and, more importantly, whom he believes. Wish Roger luck trying to change his mind.
9:25 a.m. ET
You think George Mitchell ever thought it would come to this?
The Greatest Pitcher of His Time sitting in a Congressional hearing room, wondering how his life turned into a very special episode of "Access Hollywood"?
Think about where this story has gone since the Mitchell report plopped into the middle of our lives.
From Mike Wallace to taped phone conversations. From syringes in beer cans to the Sports Illustrated swimsuit issue.
And now this.
Where does this day rank in the annals of most riveting Congressional hearings of modern times? With Watergate? With Oliver North? With Joe McCarthy?
In a way, this one supercedes them all, because it brings in an audience that has never watched three seconds of C-SPAN. It brings in those of us who arrive here not because we care about the inner workings of Congress or jurisprudence, but because we care about a sport that is supposed to be our escape from that world.
Well, not anymore.
In sports, we're used to walking away from the big event knowing the score, knowing who won and who lost. It won't work that way today.
Roger Clemens and Brian McNamee will tell their stories. Andy Pettitte will tell his tale via the miracle of affidavit. Questions will fly. Answers will follow.
But not the ultimate answer.
It will be a long time before we know this score. Remember that.
What I'll be looking for -- what you should be looking for -- is who squirms, who stammers, who hedges. Look for body language. Look for who can't recall what.
Listen for tone of voice. Listen for new information. Listen for corroboration of somebody's story, anybody's story. Listen for signs that one of these men has had his credibility seriously damaged.
It should be amazing theater. Two men. Two stories. A perjury rap hanging on every answer. This, friends, ought to be live-blogging at its finest.
