O/T - Clemens On 60 Minutes

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Andrew</b><p>I just finished watching the Roger Clemens interview on 60 minutes. Just curious what others thought of it? To me he looks more guilty then ever. The main question that stood out to me was when asked about a lie detector test, he was very quick to say they aren't always that great. Also hes "officially" retired for a 4th? time now. For someone whos been infront of the media of New York, for someone whos been infront of millions for a World Series, for someone who has done interview after interview for papers, magazines and tv, he just looked to fidgity and to nervous to be innocent.<br /><br />Your thoughts?<br /><br />Andrew<br /><br />Edited to spell ClemEns, Lol

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>Pitiful. He and his representatives have tin ears. What an awful bit of spin control.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>My wife thought he was telling the truth. I thought he was lying. I think he wants to get to the Hall of Fame, and steroid users probably won't. Let's see if McNamee now sues him.<br /><br />And his name is spelled "Clemens"

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>CN</b><p> As a member of law enforcement for 23 years and who has attended the FBI interogation school as well as others and conducted thousands of interviews and obtained countless confessions it was clear that Clemens was lying. Besides the lie detector segment which was probably the most obvious there were at least 4 other segements in which he was lying.(I was informally taking notes while watching). As an experienced interrogater body language as well as verbal language can tell the interrogater about a persons truthfulness. I watched this interview as a training excercise for my job and took my own prior opinions out and I can tell you that Clemens was lying. CN

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Dan Bretta</b><p>Too many excuses.<br /><br />IMO if these guys would just come forward and tell the truth they'd be better off in the end. McGwire's taking the 5th in front of Congress ruined him...taking the 5th pretty much means "I'm guilty" so why not just say it and get it out of the way?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Scot Reader</b><p><br />Why would McNamee have told the truth about Pettitte and lied about Clemens? Doesn't make sense.<br /><br />I didn't bother to watch the 60 Minutes charade.<br /><br />Pathetic. I used to like Roger.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Brad</b><p>His record should be striped, plan and simple!

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>1st, I will say I was never a fan of Clemens. As a Yankee fan I obviously disliked him when he was with the Red Sox. And,<br /> when the Yankees picked him up at the expense of David Wells (a guy who I was a great fan of), it really ticked-me-off.<br /> So, to repeat.....I am no great fan of Clemens.<br /><br />HOWEVER.......<br /><br />No. 1.....The Mitchell Report is a SHAM ! Mitchell is a so-called independent investigator who has been ass-<br />ociated with the Red Sox organization going back to when he was a useless Senator. How many Red Sox<br /> player's were on his Report ? ?<br /><br />No. 2.....60 Minutes is not an objective News outfit. I don't trust them to report what is true. And, yes, Lie<br />Detector's are not 100% accurate and that was an agenda-driven question by that old "prune face" Wallace.<br /><br />No 3.....Clemens' (and also Pettitte's) trainer is trying to save his ass from prison, so he is telling them any-<br />thing to plea bargain. It turned out that Pettitte's use was not steroids. I choose to believe Clemens' side<br /> of this story.<br /><br />T-Rex TED<br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Dan Bretta</b><p>Clemens was lying when he said he has been a workout machine his entire career also....I still remember him coming to Spring Training in his final season with the Red Sox and watching him try to climb over a chain link fence...he looked like a fat tub of goo ($1 to David Letterman).

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Joe D.</b><p>I have three children....<br />I sure would like you to teach me some of those interrogation skills!<br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Dan Bretta</b><p>Ted you could have shortened your response to "Democrats and CBS News are all liars" and saved a lot of typing.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>CN -- I agree. I've cross examined enough people to know quickly who is lying. This one was not even close.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>Why must you view everything thru "politically tinted" glasses ?<br /><br />Is Clemens a Republican....so, I choose to believe him ? <br /><br />Is Wallace a Democrat.....so, I think he has an agenda ?<br /><br /><br />Hey guy, the first President I voted for was JFK. I also voted for LBJ and Carter....and Harry Truman is one of my favorites.<br />And, a few Repubs. in between.<br /><br /> I am neither a Repub. or a Democ.....but, a person who tends to be Conservative and believes in Traditional values.<br /><br />TED Z

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Scot Reader</b><p><br />Ted,<br /><br />On your points #1 and #2, I am no fan of George Mitchell and don't have blinders on when it comes to 60 Minutes reporting. However, they are not at issue here. At issue are Clemens behavior and apparent lack of veracity. On your point #3, McNamee did not link Pettitte to steroids--only to HGH. And he turned out to be correct in this respect.<br /><br />Scot<br /><br /><br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Dan Bretta</b><p>Sorry Ted, but your attacking the messenger is right out of the political handbook. You voted for Jimmy Carter?? Not many will admit to that one. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Alan U</b><p>It will be interesting to see if he is willing to testify in front of Congress.<br /><br />-Alan

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Al Simeone</b><p>CN,<br />I also tend to agree with you ,his body language was just horrible. You could just see the nervousness comming from him. Something I found very troubling was was he said himself , for a man with his work ethic (which I believe was second to none in his training) why would you say that in the asking of the question about the use of vioxx that you were taking them like "candy"! And knowing that it was linked to heart damage, then saying that the use of steroids is just a "quick fix" you dont see any horns growing out of me do you? If he had that much respect for hard work then pills should never should have entered the equation. I think Mike Wallace asked some very good questions and Clemens danced around alot of them.<br />Ted Z. I will also echo Dan Your comments sometimes are mind boggling !!!!!!!!!!!!!

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Ted Zanidakis</b><p>Yes, it's tough admitting I voted for Carter (big mistake); but, I try to be truthful. Speaking about<br /> the "truth", none of us really know whether Clemens is telling the truth or his trainer. But, I see that<br /> McNamee is in big trouble and he will do whatever it takes to avoid prison.<br /><br />The fact that he even brought Pettitte into this fray shows how desperate he is.<br /><br />Where does Pettitte go to recover his reputation now, since Mitchell read his name in his litany of<br /> steroid offenders ?<br /><br />I do recall the "demise" of a once robust Lyle Alzado and how steroids can cripple you as you age.<br />I do not think Clemens would subject himself to such debilitating risks. And, please don't confuse<br />my words in defense of Clemens....as, I said I am not a fan of his. I have not forgotten that night<br /> he threw that ball at Piazza's head. That was one of the most sickening moments in Base Ball.<br /><br />Finally, I will fault Clemens for going on 60 Minutes with his story. It didn't make him look good and<br /> we don't know how much of that was due to 60 Minute's editing department.<br /><br />T-Rex TED

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>Two definites: Clemens will testify in front of Congress; and Clemens will lie in front of Congress.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>DD</b><p>Most people with an addiction, be it drugs, alcohol, or smoking, or people that take an illegal substance for whatever reason, will downplay or rationalize the effects as it pertains to them. If that wasn't the case, no one would smoke, take drugs, or do steroids (except in the case of real medicinal value).<br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>CN</b><p> Any advanced interrogater or cross examiner knows the key signs to look for to determine if a person is lying,Clemens was not even close. I wonder if the interview was controlled how Clemens would have responded. His counsel would probably not let him interview unless they controlled the interview. I respect Mike Wallace for what he does but at 89 years old there is only so much time he could push Clemens on the issue. I am sure that Jeff or myself would like to question Clemens in our professional capacity as we could go on for hours and would probably get a totally different response from this fraud. My guess is that if not granted immunity Clemens will take the 5th before Congress. CN

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>CN -- for what it's worth, 60 Mins does not give its subjects any control over interviews (as I so painfully learned as a younger lawyer; if not for the sympathy of a kind hearted producer they would have made a complete ass out of me via a Steve Kroft interview). <br /><br />Now try to imagine Clemens taking the 5th before Congress after claiming he has nothing to hide! Good lord, professional athletes away from their games can be such complete idiots.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Dan Bretta</b><p>This is what Roger Clemens looked like to me tonight.<br /><br />Nathan Thurm lawyer for the Minkman Schnauze Company<br /><img src="http://snltranscripts.jt.org/84/pics/84f60minutes3.jpg">

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>Hahha! Dan, there's got to be a youtube of him....

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Steve</b><p>In addition to the tell-tale eye movement, this question was the real clincher...<br /><br />When Wallace asked if he would take a polygraph, Rockbottom replied something like, "I don't know if those are even accurate." <br /><br />What?.. I would think a "Hell yes" would be the first thing outtas my mouth.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>George</b><p>Forget it.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Ken W.</b><p>Take the political discussions elsewhere, please.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>davidcycleback</b><p>Referring to the pre-drug testing era in MLB, a player can (and does often does) say "I never failed a drug test." To which a fan can accurately reply, "You never passed a drug test." It's hard to find meaning, much less 'proof,' in the fact that someone never fail a test that didn't exist much less was taken. I never lost an Olympics pole vaulting competition, which, trust me, doesn't make me an expert pole vaulter. I've also never lost an Indy 500 or a Miss Argentina pageant, failed the Harvard medical exams or lost a single round against James Jeffries. <br /><br />"I couldn't have done it officer. At the time of the murder I was not losing the Russian National piano competition, and, as we all know, the Russian National violin competition takes place in Moscow."<br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>CN</b><p> Jeff I should have clarified what I meant by control. I didn,t mean to insinuate that Wallace cleared the questions ahead of time with Clemens but the way I meant control was that the interview was done at Clemens house with Wallace sitting on a chair with ROCKET on the back thus giving Clemens at least some comfort level. CN

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Bob</b><p>CN- You are spot on with the body language observations. Like Jeff, I have spent a lifetime cross-examining witnesses in criminal cases and the body language signs of falsified testimony were there. <br />Also, polygraph test results are inadmissible in many states (mine included), but may be admitted if both sides stipulate to its admission. My experiences have been that if the examiner is independent and truly impartial and well-trained, the results are very accurate, so much depends on the examiner. When Clemens replied to the question of whether he would be willing to submit to a polygraph test, I agree with a previous poster, he should have said (he was under no obligation) "hell yes, as long as we can use an examiner who is well-trained, experienced and impartial, and if so, it will prove I am telling the truth."<br />If Pettite had not admitted the trainer was corect, that he was injected twice with HGH as claimed, Clemens believability would be higher, IMHO.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Dan P.</b><p>I watched clemens on 60 Minutes also. 2 comments:<br /><br />1) the last time I saw dancing like that was in a Fred Astaire/Ginger Rogers movie<br /><br />2) in court "I plead the 5th" is the same as saying "I'm guilty but don't want to lie"

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Dan Bretta</b><p>Nathan Thurm<br /><object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/FOLBQxk72NY&rel=1"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/FOLBQxk72NY&rel=1" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>JT Burtchaell</b><p>I think he was lying too, but I hate overconfidence. <br /><br />From The Forensic Examiner, Spring 2006<br /><br />By Michael G. Aamodt, PhD, FACFEI, DSPCP<br />and Heather Custer, MS<br /><br />Abstract<br />A meta-analysis was conducted to determine if there were individual<br />differences in the ability to detect deception. On the basis<br />of 108 studies covering 16,537 subjects, the results indicated that<br />confidence, age, experience, education, and sex were not<br />significantly related to accuracy in detecting deception. The study also<br />found that “professional lie catchers” such as police officers, detectives,<br />judges, and psychologists (M = 55.51%, N = 2,685) were no more accurate at detecting deception than were students and other citizens (M = 54.22%, N = 11,647).<br /><br />JT

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Ken McMillan</b><p>he did the drugs......No doubt about it. <br /><br />Ken

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>davidcycleback</b><p>Tennis star Martina Hingis was recently suspended for testing positive for cocaine. A sportswriter said he was waiting for her to say, "I thought I was snorting Vitamin B12"<br /><br />Evidently, the surest way to erradicate steroids in baseball is to have players quit taking B12.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Tom</b><p>I have not been a criminal defense attorney for a lifetime, yet, only 27 years so far. I disagree with Bob. Having shredded the testimony of more than one polygraph examiner to the point of making juries giggle at them, I do not believe there is enough "science" in polygraph examination to even raise it to the level of "junk science". If polygraphs were scientifically reliable, they would be admissible in the federal courts (they are not) and in most state courts (they are not). That being said, I agree that it was obvious from his demeanor that Clemens was not being truthful. He will either lie to Congress or take the 5th, a lose-lose situation. Roger should have come clean as Pettitte did. He might have been forgiven eventually. Now he has put his friend in a very tough spot. What will Pettitte do if asked about Clemens?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>keyway</b><p>Amazing how some of you guys are now interigation experts. His eyes, the look on his face, his movements. Give me a break!!!!! He said he took loads of viox before he knew it was bad, so did I. Whats to lie about there. I don't like Clemens and never did but I hardly think he convicted himself in this interview. Todays News, Clemens is suing. Good for him. As he said, everyone today is guilty before the facts.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Corey R. Shanus</b><p>Why do you say that in order to avoid prison Clemen's trainer needed to lie about Clemens? From what's been reported, all he had to do was tell the truth, the substance about what he said being irrelevant as long as it was the truth. I was a bit surprised Wallace did not follow up on this point. Clemen's response was that, as Ted says, the trainer was motivated to lie. Wallace let it go at that, which I think will fuel accusations that he was too soft on Clemens. <br /><br />Being an avid Yankees fan, I remember watching him in the late 90's and taking particular notice how puffy his face looked. This was before the whole performance-enhancing drug scandal was in the headlines so I wasn't focusing on his possible use of such drugs. I was just noticing something that, to a nondoctor, seemed strange for such a well-conditioned muscular athlete. Clemens in his interview made particular reference that his body did not change. I'm curious if anyone else noticed anything about his physical appearance when he was with the Yankees that roused suspicions. <br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>I'll be anything Clemens has already taken and failed a polygraph test -- don't you think he and his lawyers would have loved to waive results of such a test all over the media? And if he hasn't taken one yet it's because he knows he'll fail.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>After McGwire tanked in his first year of eligibility for the Hall, every athlete with Hall of Fame aspirations and oversized bodies has been put on the defensive. They know that if it is even assumed they took steroids it probably means a one-way ticket to Palookaville.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jerry Rucker</b><p> According to this mornings Houston chronicle, who's reporters interviewed Clemens in Rusty Hardin's Office Yesterday afternoon. Clemens states that he had an hour long conversation with McNamee last friday. First I am shocked that Mcnamee's lawyer would permit such a conversation. This conversation was most likely taped by Clemens Legal team and I'm sure that McNamee told Roger that he was pressured to turn on him. Which Roger and his lawyers can use to spin in his defense. But unless McNamme was pressured to lie about Clemens it makes no difference whether he was pressured or not.<br /> I think the defamation Lawsuit filed by Clemens is a ploy so he won't have to appear in front of Congress. Now he can just say, my lawyers have advised me not to talk about this.<br /> Another thing, On the question from Wallace about the Lie Detector test. I think he probally has already taken one and the results were not to favorable or they would be waving it for everyone to see.<br />JMHO<br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Tom</b><p>I have no trust in polygraph tests as proof of anything. However, Clemens and his people are interested in public and media perception now, not about truth or proof. So, I agree with Jeff. If Clemens could pass a polygraph, he would have done so. It is likely that his lawyers ran him on a private polygraph test and he did not pass.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Steve Murray</b><p>"It is likely that his lawyers ran him on a private polygraph test and he did not pass."<br /><br />But if this true why would his lawyers file a frivolous lawsuit?<br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Todd Schultz</b><p>I'd bet heavily that he hasn't taken a polygraph. Any such test would be discoverable in the defamation action. His attorney is far too calculating to have made that mistake.<br /><br />I agree with Tom, there are good reasons why polygraphs are inadmissible and I would love to cross-examine any polygraph examiner. So Roger's failure to jump right into that fire means little to me. Personally, I can easily imagine a scenario where Roger, as a lay person, initially thought it a great idea to go the lie detector route, but had his lawyer tell him how it was largely a no-win situation--fail it and you're cooked, pass it and people will claim the test was unreliable or the examiner hand-picked. <br /><br />I do not believe his interview to be all that telling. Yes he certainly looked uncomfortable and fidgety, but he also seemed genuinely frustrated and angry. He maintained eye contact for the most part, and he looked to me anxious to interrupt Wallace and almost as if he was gritting his teeth to maintain composure on occasion. I've had clients look pitiful in uncontested default proceedings where I am spoon-feeding the questions. Some people get nervous and stumble all over themselves in certain situations, and would look dubious even telling you that the sun rises in the East. I've also had other folks who I damn well knew were lying and looked as calm and believable as your grandma. Of course, you just feed those types with more rope to hang themselves, either their own inconsistent statements or other evidence. In that regard, Wallace could have done a better job asking questions that could be tested through other testimony or evidence, pinning him down on how frequently McNamee gave him his B12 and pain shots and who was present, where, etc., asking why such innocent shots were administered in his apartment and not at the team's facilities, i.e. stuff that is somewhat ancillary but which can lead to other avenues of truth finding. Of course, that is not necessarily his job and he had time and editorial constraints, but it would have been nice.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jerry Rucker</b><p>Another thing, It is my understanding and correct me if I'm wrong but Lidocaine is a joint pain medicine that is suppose to be injected in the joints and not in the derraire.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Richard Simon</b><p>I doubt if Clemens will sue and open himself up to depositions. Lying under oath is a crime.<br />And also in regards to the lydocaine, a letter to the editor in the NY Times, from a doctor, stated that lydocaine is a local anesthetic. If Clemens got it injected in his butt, then he did so because his butt was hurting, it would not help his knee, elbow, arm or any other part of his crooked,lying body.<br />--<br><br>I refuse to engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed opponent.<br />Unknown author <br />--<br />We made a promise. We swore we'd always remember.<br />No retreat baby, no surrender.<br />The Boss

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Darren</b><p>Lidocaine is a local anesthetic with a short duration of action used mainly as a numbing medicine prior to sutures, but also used in joint injections.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>JK</b><p>"I doubt if Clemens will sue and open himself up to depositions."<br /><br />Guess again: <a href="http://assets.espn.go.com/media/pdf/080107/mlb_clemens.pdf" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://assets.espn.go.com/media/pdf/080107/mlb_clemens.pdf</a><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>davidcycleback</b><p>A question is if Clemens actually did take only B12 and Lidocane and feels the trainer is mistaken, why didn't he simply tell this to Mitchell when Mitchell invited him and his lawyer to give their input? Is it just me, or would this have been the most obvious and sanest avenue to impart the knowledge if accurate, in particular considering Mitchell has said he removed a player's name from the document after the player provided counter evidence. Refusing to offer this information months earlier to a respected former judge in private quarters, but coming out with a YouTube video and staging a 60 Minutes interview in your kitchen is, to say the least, an odd and circuitous way to impart information if the information is true, simple and shows your innocence. And, considering the principle of Occam's Razor, there are always reasons someone, and lawyer, forgoes the simplest, most obvious and seemingly most self-beneficial way of doing things.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Steve Murray</b><p>What I find interesting about the Complaint is that it is neither signed by nor attested to by the Plaintiff.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>JK</b><p>There is generally no requirement that a complaint be signed or verified by the plaintiff.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Wil Jordan</b><p>Roger Clemens is all about himself just like Barry Bonds. They were great players prior to using steriods. Instead of relying on their natural abilities to take them to the HOF and to make millions of dollars they chose to cheat. He is trying to repair the damage done by the Mitchell Report by telling a mutitude of stories that don't make sense. Anyone that saw the interview could tell he was not telling the truth. Clemens just dosen't get it the public owes him nothing and with good reason. Fans are very forgiving when you admit what you did but if he continues on his present course he will end up like Pete Rose and others who have chosen not to accept the consequences of their actions.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Todd Schultz</b><p>As I recall, the question posed of Clemens was whether McNamee ever injected him with anything, not where did he inject him nor whether he injected it in his butt. The answer therefore appears true, or at least consistent--he received B-12 and lidocaine injections. Clemens went on to state how he still uses those same injections for his joints, and was not evasive in that regard. No way he was unprepared for that question, and he had to know it would immediateley be shown that the injection is administered in the joints--hell, even I knew that. So I think some are making too much of that answer as being an obvious lie, when it appears consistent.<br /><br />David, I understood Clemens to say he would have gone to Mitchell immediately if he knew what McNameee had said, and that he wasn't told of the allegations. My gut feeling is that all of these guys opted out of talking to Mitchell more out of a fear that they would be asked to rat out their teammates (not that I believe that to be justifiable) than out of a concern for confronting damaging evidence.<br /><br />I have not read the Complaint, but understand that there is at least one very curious allegation--that McNamee was forced not only to just tell the truth, but to give up Clemens as a means of avoiding or reducing his punishment. How that plays out will be fascinating, IMO.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>That's a lot of absolutely false statements Clemens is saying McNamee made....I guess McNamee will have to prove he made them, somehow?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>davidcycleback</b><p>Obviously, whoever advised all the players not to cooperate did them a disservice. Interestingly, the only player to cooperate had his name removed from the list as he provided evidence he was not guilty. Fair to presume this player chose to defy the Players Union wishes as he felt he was not guilty. <br /><br />The problem for the Players Union is that the drug rules and laws are, directly or indirectly, coming via Congress (Congress effecting drug laws, who would've thunk?). Whatever the Union's reasons, having advised the players to not cooperate with Mitchell not only won't sit well with Congress as a whole, but may help lead to more testing and harsher penalties.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Corey R. Shanus</b><p>IF what Todd just reported is true -- that in addition to telling the truth, to save his skin McNamee also had to include as part of the "truth" an allegation of steroid/HGH use by Clemens -- the impact of that revelation on public opinion could be monumental. Suddenly McNamee is given a huge motivation to lie about Clemens, seriously impacting his credibility. I would think in relatively short order someone with first-hand knowledge of the truth of this allegation (e.g., Mitchell/the Feds) will add his/her voice to the mix.<br /><br />If that allegation is forcefully denied and in fact untrue, it would seem to demonstrate how desperate Clemens is, going to any lengths to try to respond head-on to the most troubling aspect of his predicament -- Why would McNamee lie?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>steve</b><p>At a critical point in the interview, my TV went kinda fuzzy both visually and audibly - for maybe a 15 second response from Clemens.<br /><br />Was my TV an isolated local reception case, or did you folks pick up on the "scramble."<br /><br />If so, obviously edited on prurpose, hmmm. <br /><br />steve

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Dan Bretta</b><p>Clemens would be a whole lot more believable if his good buddy Pettitte hadn't admitted that McNamee gave him HGH.<br /><br />Clemens has completely screwed his Hall of Fame chances by taking this route...Andy Pettitte will come back and pitch next year and no one will say anything. If Clemens had said basically the same thing that Pettitte did that he tried it, it didn't work and he never did it again then he would be headed to the Hall.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jason L</b><p>The ability of this forum to entertain should not be underestimated!!<br /><br />This recurring MLB/Vitamin B12 episode has made me reflect back upon what my parents and doctors always told me while growing up back in semi-rural Chicagoland during the troubled '70s...They all said to me, "Jason, remember to always take your vitamins...-through a needle in the butt."<br /><br />I just don't really recall that last phrase though. Hmph, I guess I just misheard them cuz it must have been there. I mean, that's what our major league heroes do, so it must be right!

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>shane leonard</b><p>I like Clemens and I think he is an awesome pitcher, but I heard rumors of this back four years ago when a friend of mine was down watching his son play during spring training with Clemens. My friend was on the front row watching Clemens pitch and he was having a hard time hitting 86 mph. The statement made by someone with the organization was, "he hasn't had his shots yet." <br /><br />Pretty positive they were not talking about the flu shots.<br /><br />Shane<br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>JK</b><p>Jeff may disagree <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14> but after reading these posts its a good thing we require actual evidence to convict someone and we dont merely convict people based on nothing other than hearsay and what your friends did.<br /><br />As for "the scramble" - I love it. Now Clemens has the power to scramble the television signals. Just awesome. As long as we are going to make this into a conspiracy theory, I've heard through a friend of a friend's uncle's girlfriend that Clemens is actually a CIA assasin and that when the guy with the "organization" stated "clemens hasn't taken his shots yet" he was actually referring to a CIA hit. <br /><br /><br />Edited to add - this post should not in any way be interpreted as my supporting clemens. If he did it, he should suffer the consequences. However, sorry, I dont believe you can tell someone is lying simply based on their appearance/body language (hey all you law enforcement guys - when someone is believed to have committed the crime but shows no signs of lying while denying it, do you let them go? Have people proclaiming their innocence ever been wrongly convicted?). I like to see something a little more along the lines of evidence before someone is convicted.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jim VB</b><p>JK,<br /><br />You're confusing Roger Clemens with Chuck Barris. Don't worry. Happens all the time.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>D.C. Markel</b><p>Here is one excerpt from the 60 Minutes interview that was so incredibly lame regarding why Clemens claims he couldn't have taken steroids:<br /><br />Quote from Clemens during interview: "If he's [McNamee] putting that stuff up in my body, if what he's saying which is totally false, if he's doing that to me, I should have a third ear coming out of my forehead." Later Clemens goes on to say, "Why didn't I break down? Why didn't my tendons turn to dust? That's all it's good for. It's a quick fix.<br /><br />If anyone believes this is even remotely true, then this proves no one in baseball has ever taken steroids because players like Canseco, Giambi, and other who have confessed to steroid have no third ear on their forehead or tendons of dust.<br /><br /><br /><br />Here's another segment where Clemens is totally clueless regarding coming up with a credible explanation why McNamee had to testify against him:<br /><br />Mike Wallace states, "George Mitchell says he believes McNamee and this is why: McNamee got caught up in a federal steroids investigation, and the federal prosecutors agreed not to charge him if he told the truth about his involvement with steroids. But they would charge him if he gave any false information. So Mitchell says McNamee had strong incentives to tell the truth," Wallace says. "What did McNamee gain by lying?"<br /><br />"Evidently not going to jail," Clemens says.<br /><br />"Jail time for what?" Wallace asks<br /><br />"Well, I think he's been buying and movin' steroids," Clemens says. <br /><br /><img src="http://www.24hourforums.com/images/emoticons/bang.gif"> <img src="http://www.24hourforums.com/images/emoticons/bang.gif"><br /><img src="http://www.24hourforums.com/images/emoticons/bang.gif"><br /><img src="http://www.24hourforums.com/images/emoticons/bang.gif"><br /><br /><br /><br /><br />Here's the transcript of the interview:<br /><br /><a href="http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/01/03/60minutes/main3671585.shtml" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.cbsnews.com/stories/2008/01/03/60minutes/main3671585.shtml</a><br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>All McNamee had to do was keep his mouth shut about Clemens if he wanted to avoid the media firestorm that has been created -- simply put, McNamee had no incentive to name Clemens. Pettitte's corroboration is killer to Clemens' denials. As for McNamee speaking with Clemens, I'm stunned -- is it possible that both Clemens AND McNamee are getting awful legal advice?<br /><br />I still think Clemens took a polygraph test and failed. Todd, don't put anything past Clemens and his lawyer in this instance: it would have been a nice bit of PR if he could have waived those results around. When I have a client that is telling the truth about an issue, I often have them take the test and when they pass, show it to the feds and insist they polygraph their cooperator on the same issue. That request often results in a charge being dropped. All Mike Wallace had to do last night was follow up with: "have you taken such a test already?" He was too busy asking Roger to swear he was telling the truth. <br /><br />As for filing the lawsuit, Clemens is out of his mind as he will simply propogate this steroid story forever and ever and ever. I'm amazed that any lawyer could give such poor advice; the only way to rationalize it is to assume that the lawyer was blinded by Clemens' celebrity and stopped thinking.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>PC</b><p>A few things to point out about the Mitchell Report:<br /><br />(1) Nobody was granted immunity to testify as part of Mitchell's investigation -- Mitchell was not in a position to grant immunity to anyone, only to promise to try and keep information and identities confidential (if requested to do so), to the extent he could do so. I am not aware of McNamee having immunity from federal prosecution, but if he has it, he didn't get it from Mitchell, because he couldn't get it from Mitchell.<br /><br />(2) This may state the obvious, but the Mitchell Report reports only what was told to Mitchell (and his team). And the reason almost no current players cooperated with the investigation was because they were advised by the Players Association not to cooperate, primarily because Mitchell could not guarantee confidentiality or immunity (which, I suppose, is a fair concern). Read the annexes to the Michell Report -- there are two memos, one from Mitchell and the other from Donald Fehr, addressed to the players on this point.<br /><br />(3) Anyone who dismisses the Mitchell Report simply because of Mitchell's former ties to the Red Sox shows only that the Mitchell Report was not read, or not read closely. There are literally dozens of references to the Red Sox, Red Sox players and Red Sox management, including some embarrassing correspondence from Theo Epstein around the time the Sox acquired Gagne. In one section, the report indicates that 23 members of the Red Sox organization were interviewed about a particular incident involving Paxton Crawford ... not surprisingly, all 23 played dumb. The Red Sox appear as bad as any other team, and worse than most.<br /><br />Read the report.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Bob</b><p>Tom- perhaps I did not clearly state my positon on polygraphs. I agree that in the hands of an unskilled and/or unimpartial examiner they can be a disaster. We routinely counseled our clients NOT to agree to take polygraph examinations except in the most extreme sitautions when there were extenuating circumstances that justified their use. Of the several examiners in this area, there is only one examiner whom I trusted enough to use. <br />That said, I would reiterate that in the hands of a well trained, competent and impartial and neutral examiner they can be accurate, not infallible, but approaching trustworthiness. <br />As far as their infallibility goes, (the flip side of the coin), I once represented a serial killer who was adept at "fooling" the examiners (more than one was given), and was able to provide incorrect answers which appeared as truthful responses. <br />They are not 100% effective and there are too many variables from the examiner himself, the questions asked, etc. and that is why the results will probably never be admitted in federal court and most states. <br />I also agree that Clemens' attorneys probably explored the possibility of having a "friendly" examiner give the Rocket a test and if the results had been positive that he was being truthful, would have trumpeted the results from the rooftop.<br />tbob

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Todd Schultz</b><p>I can see how you might submit your criminal defense clients to a polygraph as a means of obtaining a dismissal, although at least here in AZ the State won't bite unless a second exam is taken before their polygrapher, and even then I believe it happens infrequently. However, as I understand it, you have no downside in doing so in the criminal arena--he passes and you waive it all around, he fails, you have no duty to disclose it ever happened. If I'm wrong about that, please advise.<br /><br />In Clemens' case, you have an obligation to disclose the failed poly in the civil action. Even if inadmissible at trial, it's discoverable and a matter of public record (absent some stipulated protective order that likely will not be forthcoming), and since Roger is far more interested in swaying the public and clearing his name than winning a lawsuit against a marginally collectible defendant, he proceeds at great risk in going forward with a polygraph.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Anonymous</b><p>Well, I didn't see the whole interview, nor am I an expert at polygraphs or determining who is lying, nor did I stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night. That said:<br /><br />I do think it is relavent that the trainer making the accusation is basically getting off with no punishment for his crimes.<br /><br />It would be interesting to know the circumstances of how he ended up not being Clemen's trainer? Was there a bad split personally? I would think the Yankees could confirm or deny that they had Clemens take the joint shots that he mentioned.<br /><br />Lets remember that Clemens was named last year by one of the California papers as being a "user" and they have since retracted their story. Is it possible that his trainer had read that story and to save his own skin throws Clemen's name out there thinking that he was doing it anyways and he's a big name and it will help me with the feds? I'd say yes its possible.<br /><br />I also think that Clemen's is a very very competitive person. Can I imagine him hearing that others are doing something that helps them and he decides to do it also - yes I can.<br /><br />However, If I had spent my entire life doing something very well and one day someone claimed that I had done so illegally, or by false pretenses, or by cheating - ONE person whom I had a falling out with - I don't think I'd be too happy. Nor would I be in the best mindset for interviews, or answering my thoughts on polygraphs, etc (no matter how well prepped). I'd be pretty damn mad and feeling that there wasn't much I could do. <br /><br />We live in a country where you are supposed to be innocent until proven guilty. All MLB players were told not to speak with Mitchell, and union members generally follow the advice of their union. One uncollaborated story from someone looking to avoid jail isn't what I'd consider "beyond a reasonable doubt".<br /><br />For MLB players unfortunately it only takes one bad apple...and baseball has had many bad apples...and there will always be doubts and whispers - just like there are in track & field and cycling. If Clemens didn't do it then I feel really bad for him because forever his reputation is basically tainted, perhaps gone. I strongly feel that something more than one man's story should be required for that.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Fred C</b><p>All we can do is hope that Roger is telling the truth and that he can some how prove it. Do I think it's possible that Clemens took PHDs? - Yes, I think it's possible. Do I think so? I'm hoping he didn't. <br /><br />Why not polygraph both Clemens and the trainer? I know that stuff isn't admissable as evidence but it would be interesting to see if they both come out positive, negative or opposite. It wouldn't prove anything but it sure would be interesting. If Clemens is not telling the truth I bet he is praying that the trainer didn't save a syringe he used.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>Sadly, the court of public opinion does not employ the beyond a reasonable doubt standard. See the Chicago Black Sox, acquitted in court...convicted in history.<br /><br />Here's my rhetorical question to everyone out there who was just accused of a horrific crime of which you were 100% innocent: if you were offered a polygraph test to be administered by an agreed-upon tester -- and it would clear your name and you were told it was 99% accurate -- would you hesitate? Of course, not. Being able to twist a polygraph examiner on cross examination does not necessarily mean the test is a joke -- it just means that reasonable doubt can be raised about the test. This is the sort of fact that has really hurt Clemens -- why wouldn't he run to it? And wouldn't it be funny if McNamee took a test and waived it around? If I was his attorney I'd do it in a second. Also, Pettite's corroboration of McNamee is devastating to Clemens, plain and simple.<br /><br />All that being said, if McNamee was pressured into specifically fingering Clemens I'd feel different to some degree.<br /><br />I just read that McNamee's lawyers were unaware that their client spoke to Clemens. Seems like they've really got a grip on their client.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Anonymous</b><p><br />"I did not have sexual relations with that woman."

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>A polygraph is 99% accurate? I didn't know that...

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>Leon, I was just throwing that number out there. The success rates of polygraphs exams are hotly disputed. I would venture to guess they are about 90% or more accurate, probably 95% but there is no real way to measure this due to the variety of ways they are administered and other variables.<br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>I could see me being one of the 10% when it was wrong....As for Clemens....I didn't see the interview yesterday so don't know with respect to that. I hope he didn't do it. He looked convincingly innocent in a news clip, albeit only about a 1 minute one, today on TV......

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Patrick McHugh</b><p>to know he is lying. Lidocaine is a numbing agent and nothing more. So unless his ass was sore from pitching (ha ha!) why would he need this stuck in his ass. B12 Shots are always given in the arm. Why would he be given this shot in the behind? Steroids are almost always shot in the backside. Also notice the last few years he would finish a 1 year real time contract after closing day never sign until the following year. This is because when a player is under contract he can be drug tested at anytime offseason included. So come november 1st not under any contract meaning no test no risk just start amping up like crazy stop on april 1st wait 2 weeks for drugs to clear and then sign nice 1 season contract. After 5 months of steroids training and eating you can pitch next 4-5 months with out the juice and be very very good. That my friends is how it is done!

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>....and somewhere....Barry Bonds is smiling!!!!

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Joe D.</b><p>"Here's my rhetorical question to everyone out there who was just accused of a horrific crime of which you were 100% innocent: if you were offered a polygraph test to be administered by an agreed-upon tester -- and it would clear your name and you were told it was 99% accurate -- would you hesitate? Of course, not."<br /><br /><br /><br />even though it was a rhetorical, I will answer.<br /><br />I most probably would hesitate to take a lie detector test.<br /><br />I am not sure I would pass any polygraph - ever. I get a bit nervous when I am accused. I tend to think of the implication of a question - and then say to myself - 'oh man they think I did such and such.' I never took my pulse during accusatory questions - but I am sure it jumps on the implications of a question - and I would make that little needle dance around.<br /><br />I am not making a commentary on Roger Clemens. Just saying that I am doomed if I ever had to take a polygraph.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>Joe, there are baselines established with polygraphs to take that nervousness into account.<br /><br />That being said, you ARE from Staten Island and, therefore, never above suspicion. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Joe D.</b><p>I know you enjoy what you do....<br /><br />but something tells me you would also have a blast as a prosecutor.<br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>Joe, that's a dirty little secret of mine. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14> I think I'd enjoy it but eventually I'd miss the challenge of winning cases when the odds of victory are so slim.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>JK</b><p>Patrick - read some of the posts above. As noted earlier in this thread, clemens never stated that the lidicaine and b12 shots were in his rear - all he has stated was that he was given those shots by his trainer. He didnt state where they were administered.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Bob</b><p>It was announced earlier on the radio tonight that Clemens had his investigators talk to McNammee 3 days before the release of the Mitchell report. If this is accurate, how can Clemens say with a straight face (as he did to Mike Wallace) that he had no idea he was going to be named in the report????

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Todd Schultz</b><p>Leon, the tests aren't 99% accurate, and I invite any citation to authorities showing it to be 90% accurate. I'd be surprised if it were 80% accurate, and here in AZ it is often considered little more than voodoo science. There is a reason that these tests are WIDELY, WIDELY held inadmissible throughout the country, and not just in beyond reasonable doubt criminal cases.<br /><br />Jeff, let me ask a rhetorical question, rhetorical in the sense I'm not sure we will ever know. You've already declared Clemens to be a liar from your review of a 12 minute televison interview. If he were to pass a polygraph, would you concede that the test is a more accurate truth-finding tool than your abilities as a cross-examiner? Would you ever advise a client to rest the hopes of his case on a polygraph over your abilities as a lawyer? Because that is exactly what you are risking when you tell Clemens to take the test. Pass the test and it helps, but you're a long way from winning. Fail and you're a short way from losing, in fact you've likely lost. You do it your way, but the day I advise my client to pin his case on the results of that type of test is the same day I call my malpractice carrier for the first time.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>JK</b><p>Perhaps McNammee lied to clemens' investigators?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Todd Schultz</b><p>this from the American Psychological Assn--who I do not necessarily endorse, but to whom I point after four minutes of google research:<br /><br />The accuracy (i.e., validity) of polygraph testing has long been controversial. An underlying problem is theoretical: There is no evidence that any pattern of physiological reactions is unique to deception. An honest person may be nervous when answering truthfully and a dishonest person may be non-anxious. Also, there are few good studies that validate the ability of polygraph procedures to detect deception. As Dr. Saxe and Israeli psychologist Gershon Ben-Shahar (1999) note, "it may, in fact, be impossible to conduct a proper validity study." In real-world situations, it's very difficult to know what the truth is.<br /><br />One reason that polygraph tests may appear to be accurate is that subjects who believe that the test works and that they can be detected may confess or will be very anxious when questioned. If this view is correct, the lie detector might be better called a fear detector.<br /><br />Research on the processes involved in CQT polygraph examinations suggests that several examiner, examinee, and situational factors influence test validity, as may the technique used to score polygraph charts. There is little research on the effects of subjects' differences in such factors as education, intelligence, or level of autonomic arousal.<br /><br />Evidence indicates that strategies used to "beat" polygraph examinations, so-called countermeasures, may be effective. Countermeasures include simple physical movements, psychological interventions (e.g., manipulating subjects' beliefs about the test), and the use of pharmacological agents that alter arousal patterns.<br /><br />Most psychologists and other scientists agree that there is little basis for the validity of polygraph tests. Courts, including the United States Supreme Court (cf. U.S. v. Scheffer, 1998 in which Dr.'s Saxe's research on polygraph fallibility was cited), have repeatedly rejected the use of polygraph evidence because of its inherent unreliability.<br /><br />Here's the link, for purposes of completeness. <a href="http://www.psychologymatters.org/polygraphs.html" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.psychologymatters.org/polygraphs.html</a>

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>Todd, I haven't based my opinion on Clemens due solely to the 60 Minutes interview. I've repeatedly stated that many other factors contributed to my belief including -- and I'll state this again -- the corroboration of McNamee supplied by Pettite, the slowness in the response by Clemens, the ridiculousness of his claim to having been injected by McNamee, his discussion of steroids with Canseco, along with everything that I saw last night. Clearly my opinion is not limited to a few minutes of an interview. <br /><br />As for the accuracy of a polygraph test, as I've said there is a wide disparity in opinions and tests. That being said, there is a good reason that the FBI uses polygraph tests routinely as part of their investigation techniques. So do many police departments. The US Department of Justice uses polygraph tests often for security clearance tests. Etc. etc. <br /><br />I'm not sure how many criminal cases you've tried but I think most criminal lawyers will tell you that when you get lied to enough by a witness under oath you can pretty much spot the signs of dishonesty fairly quickly -- and I'm not talking about twitching and pursed lips and darting eyes. I'm talking about answers that make no sense, excuses that are laughable and difficulty answering questions that were so easily handled on direct examination of the prosecutor. <br /><br />In sum, Clemens is lying. And as I predicted yesterday -- and confirmed by Clemens tonight -- he will testify before Congress without asserting the 5th Amendment. When you are exposed to enough sociopaths their patterns become familiar. <br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Al C.risafulli</b><p>Todd and Jeff: fascinating discussion.<br /><br />-Al

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Todd Schultz</b><p>please then, answer the question, would you admit that a successful polygraph by Clemens would trump your not only 12 minute review, but the other stuff you claim to have been telling us all along? Willing to bet the case on the polygraph?<br /><br />You've called his representatives tin eared and him a flat out liar. Is it still your position that he should "go running" to get a polygraph test, and that he is getting bad advice from people who have likely done this sort of thing for a great many years?<br /><br />I haven't ever tried a criminal case, but I question what that has to do with this, a civil case. I have tried my share of civil cases, and consider myself sufficiently familiar with how they work. Also, I tend to defer to or at least strongly consider the efforts of those who are more familiar than me with the facts, the law and the client. <br /><br />Hi Al.<br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>I'm wondering if you're purposely misreading what I've written. I never said the results of a polygraph were the end-all, be-all here. I simply wrote that they are highly persuasive in the court of public opinion -- in fact, I called it a "nice bit of PR." And then I provided the rhetorical question about the polygraph test to show how significant it is to public opinion. Most common sense people who are not well-versed in Daubert will tell you that a polygraph test means a lot. That being said, because federal criminal authorities often respect a polygraph result, they will be open to discussing such a thing in a case. <br /><br />And sorry, just because his lawyers have "done this thing for a great number of years" does not mean that they haven't screwed this up. Do you actually think that bringing a civil suit against McNamee -- a case that will be in the public eye for years -- will do Clemens good? What happens when 250 ex-Clemens teammates are deposed and asked about steroids? <br /><br />I suspected you might not be a criminal lawyer because your answers were commensurate with someone who had never cross examained a criminal looking to save himself -- not his money or property -- but himself. The stakes are higher than in a civil context. To suggest that this scenario is civil in nature only is just not correct. I think if you review the opinions of the criminal defense lawyers and law enforcement people on this thread you'll find that they're legion in believing that Clemens lied. And I think there is a pretty good reason that we all feel that way.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Todd Schultz</b><p>I have pointed out repeatedly that you are flat out reckless to suggest the polygraph exam is the way to go here, you are irresponsible to come on here and suggest they are 99% or even 95% effective when you damn well know that's not true, that your backpedaled percentage appears to be made up, and whatever you think of yourself as a criminal lawyer, you just might not have all the flippin answers. Now if I have misread your remarks, I would ask others to point out where and how, for it seems to me that you're the one who spins and changes course. It would be nice in the court of public opinion? If Clemens takes and fails a poly, he's toast. Now let me ask again counselor, would you advise the client Clemens to take the poly, yes or no? Simple question. I'll let others take for themselves whether your answer is good advice.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>Todd...deep breaths...LOL! <br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Todd Schultz</b><p>maybe it's really Mark McCleary!!! LOL

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>Well..you guys are kind of similar...so I wouldn't be surprised!<br /><br />In the meantime: serenity now....

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Todd Schultz</b><p>I become very serene when my B.S. alarm goes off and I respond by calling B.S., so thank you Jeff, I'll sleep well tonight.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>Todd...you're very angry. And you seem to ignore the fact that other criminal defense lawyers and law enforcement people agree with me on here. Maybe anger isn't the right emotion you're feeling...it's ok, though, I'm used to it from other lawyers who are feeling green.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Todd Schultz</b><p>oh you can make me feel green all right, just like bad Thai food. I wouldn't limit it to other lawyers though, I'm sure we all here feel and wish with every fiber of our beings that we could be even a fraction of what you are-- in fact, I wouldn't mind seeing a poll on that very subject. Of course I and probably others would need you and a battery of defense specialists to interpret the poll for us great unwashed, lichtman wannabes.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>Todd, you turned this into an attack thread. Go to sleep. Maybe tomorrow your life will get better.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Todd Schultz</b><p>I sure hope so, I mean I'm right on the precipice. Thanks for talking me down, wow, how do you do it?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Rob L</b><p>yawn!!

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>David Smith</b><p>Correct me if I am wrong but haven't Sociopaths proven they can beat polygraph tests? If so, then this could cause a problem if Clemens is a Sociopath (like Barry Bonds and George W Bush).<br /><br />Now, if "regular" and "normal" people are tested and the results of a polygraph are close to 100% accurate then by adding in Sociopaths, the accuracy rate would drop. This would especially be true in criminal cases since there would probably be more Sociopaths arrested and tested than if a random sample of people were tested. This increase in "bad" results would cause a decrease in accuracy of polygraph tests.<br /><br />A more reliable test would probably be the brain scan tests to see if and when people are lying but those, I have heard, are more expensive to run and not as many people or facilities around the country can do them.<br /><br />Just my two cents,<br /><br />David<br /><br />P.S. - I just wanted to add, I like Clemens but the more I hear and read, the more I think he is guilty. If so, then he, like Bonds should NOT be allowed into the Hall of Fame. <br /><br />It will be interesting to see if Clemens testifies under oath to Congress. It will also be interesting to see if anybody involved in this has any more secret tape recordings or E mails.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Bill</b><p>Yes, people that are sociopaths can pass those exams. I read somewhere in a book about sociopaths that statistically, 1 in 25 people are sociopaths. It's not solely a label for murderers and criminals.<br /><br />However, also take into account a person that grew up in a culture where lying occurs very frequently. It is nothing new to them, thus they would not show any reaction on a test.<br><br>Change your socks, drink water, and drive on.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Kenny Cole</b><p>Maybe I'm missing something, but if I hire a polygraph examiner as a consulting expert to perform a polygraph on my client, why do I have to pony that up? I would think that isn't generally discoverable. At least in the 10th Circuit, where I practice, under Fed.R.Civ.P. 26 (and the Oklahoma state equivalent), I think I have a pretty solid objection to even responding to a discovery request asking whether or not one has been performed on the basis that it constitutes trial preparation materials or falls under the conulting expert exception. Its almost impossible even to determine the identity of a consulting expert here. I don't know how it is in the 9th or 2nd Circuits though.<br /><br />That being said, I've kept a few polygraphs out of evidence when they were the basis of an insurance claim denial, but I've never chosen to have a client undergo one. Perhaps I'm uninformed about the discovery ramifications. Why is the fact that you've decided, as an attorney, to have a client undergo one, for your own use and evaluation, discoverable? I don't see it.<br /><br />Kenny Cole<br /><br />edited to make a tense change and hopefully thereby avoid a beating from Barry, lol

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>Kenny- it's so entertaining to watch lawyers argue on the board that a small grammatical error would fly under my radar screen. <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>leon</b><p>I just wish there was some way for me to catch lawyer billable hours on the board <img src="/images/happy.gif" height=14 width=14>. Love the discussion guys. For the record...I wrote some gobbly gook that was about a paragraph long and was meaning to say what Todd said in his first post on the subject but I didn't hit the respond button. For Clemens to take the polygraph it would be a lose-lose, no matter what way it turned out. Just like the other issue about DWI, where I said a good lawyer wouldn't tell his drunk client to take a breathalyzer (I am not condoning drunk driving), I think this is a similar situation. Something about incriminating yourself with no possible favorable outcome......<br /><br />edited grammar but it's still not so good...

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Corey R. Shanus</b><p>IF (i) McNamee doesn't wilt under Congressional questioning, (ii) the allegation that to save his skin he had to implicate Clemens is proven to be false (i.e., the truth independent of its substance was enough) and (iii) Pettitte at the Congressional hearings does not somehow come to Clemens rescue, then I believe in the court of public opinion Clemens is toast. There are just too many things that do not add up for him -- e.g., why would McNamee lie; Pettitte's corroboration of McNamee's allegations as regards to him; the unprecedented (except for Bonds) on-the-field accomplishments at such an advanced age; having a strength coach administer injections at the player's residence (as opposed to a team physician at the team facility); bloatedness in his face, and on and on. At that point, assuming a failed polygraph test cannot be used to implicate him on a perjury charge, I see very little downside in him taking it if in fact he is being truthful. Suppose he fails? He just sunk a bit lower than where he already is. That point, though, is already incredibly low. But putting aside the precise reliability of such a test, I think it's fair to say that the chances are that if it is properly and impartially administered, it will show Clemens to be truthful if in fact he is. Whether that likelihood is 51%, 73%, 90% or even higher, the odds any way you look at it would be in Clemens favor. If he should pass and the public really believes the test was honestly and competently administered, Clemens IMO has materially enhanced his public standing. And in the end, isn't that what it's all about to him? Or to put it another way, if Clemens in fact is telling the truth, at some point the upside of taking a polygraph test could seem to outweigh the downside.<br /><br />On another point, I don't know how anybody else feels about the recorded telephone conversation between Clemens and McNamee, but to me it sure did not seem that McNamee took any delight in implicating Clemens; and did so only because he felt he HAD to to save his own skin. This of course leads back to the question whether McNamee was under the perception that he had to "deliver" Clemens. If in fact he had no such perception, he sure didn't come across as a guy who had any motivation whatsoever to finger Clemens. In fact, to the contrary, he seemed to have strong motivation to exonerate him.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>bill latzko</b><p>If I were forced to place a bet on whether Roger is "guilty" or not, I'd probably bet guilty. However, I hope that it is proven that he is telling the truth so all the experts on the forum who have already declared him guilty are proven wrong. Too bad we've reached a point where people are guilty until proven innocent.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>In the court of public opinion Clemens is already toast. Between the 60 Minutes interview and the taped phone conversation (not to mention his overall demeanor over the last few days), it is pretty obvious that Clemens right now is about as innocent as Mark McGwire and other fellow juicers. I think he is now desperate to save everything he has worked for his whole life, and when he becomes eligible for the Hall doesn't want to share the same fate as McGwire, and those who will follow him.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Anonymous</b><p>The recorded call came off as desperate and slimy and did not convince anyone that Clemens is not a juicer. CLemens took advantage of a guy who was sad about his sick kid. Why didn't he simply straightforwardly ask McNamee "Why did you lie to Senator Mitchell about shooting me up with HGH, etc.?" Clemens was vague on purpose. And McNamee never claimed on tape that he lied to Mitchell. So, again, Clemens and his legal team made a mistake in the court of public opinion and he continues to sink. <br /><br />Oh, and Marion Jones (who is about as tenth as significant of a story as Clemens) took and passed a polygraph test and also sued Victor Conte for defamation. In a high profile case such as this, Clemens has very little time in which to make a splash to counter public perception. So far he's failed miserably. I suppose McNamee could still self-destruct -- which is possible because he appears to be a nut -- but short of that Clemens appears to be toast. He comes off as arrogant, obnoxious and desperate while McNamee comes off as sad, pathetic and honest. And then there is the problem of all that corroborative and circumstantial evidence.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>Bill, how about that you hope that Clemens is proven innocent so that it would be good for baseball -- not that 5 people on this forum would be proven wrong. I wouldn't want you to sound petty.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Bill</b><p>Edited because I didn't realize Jeff was responding to a different Bill until after I already posted. My bad.<br />Change your socks, drink water, and drive on.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>barrysloate</b><p>I think Jeff was addressing Bill Latzko.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>PC</b><p>McNamee has everything to lose by lying to implicate Clemens. We don't know the details about his immunity deal, but the few details in the Mitchell Report make one thing clear: McNamee's immunity deal applies only if he tells the truth. As such, McNamee will lose his immunity by lying to implicate Clemens, just as easliy as if he lied to protect Clemens.<br /><br />Add to this that McNamee's allegations about Pettite were confirmed by Pettite, that Clemens was previously implicated by both Canseco and Jason Grimsley (neither of which, alone, is very persuasive), that he went from a .500 pitcher to Cy Young form with Toronto at exactly the same time that McNamee and Canseco were with Toronto, and that his recent contract "gymnastics" conveniently circumvented off-season drug testing, and it looks grim for the Roidket.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>MVSNYC</b><p>"The recorded call came off as desperate and slimy and did not convince anyone that Clemens is not a juicer. CLemens took advantage of a guy who was sad about his sick kid. Why didn't he simply straightforwardly ask McNamee "Why did you lie to Senator Mitchell about shooting me up with HGH, etc.?" Clemens was vague on purpose. And McNamee never claimed on tape that he lied to Mitchell. So, again, Clemens and his legal team made a mistake in the court of public opinion and he continues to sink."<br /><br />Jeff- i agree completely with your accessment.<br /><br />Clemens continues to sink, the call was slimy and didn't shed any great light on his situation.<br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Pennsylvania Ted</b><p>Well, I dodged a lot of flak here for my initial post......<br /><br />....."60 Minutes is not an objective News outfit. I don't trust them to report what is true. And, yes, Lie Detector's are not 100%<br /> accurate and that was an agenda-driven question by that Wallace."<br /><br />But it appears here that the majority opinion, after 100+ posts, is that Lie Detectors are unreliable and subjecting yourself to one is<br /> a "LOSE-LOSE"" situation. And, don't tell me that 60 Minutes did not know this when they threw it at him ?<br /><br />Look, I do not know if Clemens is guilty or not......but, this I know.....<br /><br />In 1984 this 6:4 guy weighed 220.....he now weighs-in around 240. Gee, most would wish they only gained 9% of their 20's weight,<br />when they reached their mid-40's.<br /><br />I was recently at my HS Reunion, all the muscle dudes lifting weights in HS were now big "blobs".<br /><br />At this point the only obvious crime Clemens is guilty of....is in his choice in Lawyers. A better set of lawyers would have advised him<br /> not to go on 60 Minutes, or engage in any press conferences.<br /><br />JEFF L.....<br />You're a defense lawyer, you should offer your services to Clemens. I am sure you would be a 100% improvement over his current<br /> counselors. <br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>pas</b><p>Clients do not always listen to their lawyers' advice, particuarly a client with as massive an ego as Roger Clemens. The blame may not lie with the lawyers.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>LetsGoBucs</b><p>"McNamee has everything to lose by lying to implicate Clemens. We don't know the details about his immunity deal, but the few details in the Mitchell Report make one thing clear: McNamee's immunity deal applies only if he tells the truth. As such, McNamee will lose his immunity by lying to implicate Clemens, just as easliy as if he lied to protect Clemens."<br /><br />--------------<br /><br />I would just point out that your assuming that he was offered immunity upfront in exchange for "telling the truth". I would offer that it is not a stretch that there were negotiations regarding what he could or would "deliver" in exchange for his testimony. <br /><br />Trainer: "I gave Andy Pettite HGH twice"<br /><br />FBI: " You think THATS going to keep you out of jail??? I want a name!!!"<br /><br />I don't have any leaning in terms of liking or disliking Roger Clemens. I don't know if he used these drugs or not. But I do greatly value the idea that you are innocent until proven guilty. <br /><br />I agree with the poster that pointed out that Clemens looks like a middle aged man (at least to me he does). I also have a friend thats built like Clemens, facially has changed like Clemens, and is a similar age and I doubt seriously that my friend is using steroids and HGH. <br /><br />The only other thing I'd point out is that at work I've watched dozens if not hundreds of people lie....mainly out of fear for their livelihoods. I can easily imagine a man making up lies to avoid going to jail.<br /><br />If he used them I wish he would simply admit it. If he didn't use them I hope that somehow the truth comes out. I would again just point out that he was wrongly accused just last year.<br /><br />And people wonder why fewer and fewer kids play the GAME of baseball......When it was a game indeed.<br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Dan Bretta</b><p>Well, you guys can stop arguing over it as Clemens has finally admitted what has been obvious for years now.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L40r1XKtgrk" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L40r1XKtgrk</a>

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Steve Murray</b><p>Now Dan, that is fn priceless!!!!

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>peter ullman</b><p>that is freakin' hilarious...I knew he was lying!<br /><br />pete ullman

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Robert</b><p>I have always thought of Clemens as a head hunter. A truly great pitcher like Koufax didn't have to throw at people's heads. I don't care if he is lying or not, and he likely is. He's a bad actor. Pete ought to be in the hall.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Noel</b><p>Robert,<br /><br />Just out of curiosity why should Pete be in the Hall of Fame? Because he is a better actor than Clemens? Now I will be the first to admit that Clemens is a horrible actor and is sowing the seeds of his own demise. He wants desperately to salvage what is left of his career and some degree of dignity. Pete knew what he did was illegal, knew the consequences, and still chose to make the decisions he did (and what is even more nauseating is the refusal to acknowledge or take any accountability for his actions). Seems to me he cheated baseball and is getting his just desserts, as is Clemens if he is found guilty.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Robert</b><p>I didn't say Clemens shouldn't be in the Hall. He and Pete both should. If we keep people out for bad character the place would be 1/2 empty. I don't care if he does steroids. Is that different than taking an IV if you're crampimg? A house divided cannot stand applies here too.<br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Dan Bretta</b><p>Is taking steroids different from taking an IV for dehydration? That's a joke right?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Robert</b><p>Yep. Let him both in. No joke. IV fluids are no different in principle.<br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Bill</b><p>Now that is just comical.<br /><br />IV for dehydration=steroid use. <br /><br />One is needed, the other is not. One is legal, the other is not. I see no similarities.<br><br>Change your socks, drink water, and drive on.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Corey R. Shanus</b><p>One can cause premature death or induce suicidal depression, the other does not.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>Procuring one without a valid perscription can land you in jail. The other cannot.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>davidcycleback</b><p>Drugs are only legal when they are obtained and used legally. It is not just the drug itself that defines legality, and many drugs are both legal and illegal. Many medical drugs and techniques are dangerous and can only be applied legally in a very narrow set of circumstances. An example is chemotherapy. Even the medical doctor can be prosecuted for applying the drugs and techniques in other areas. <br /><br />There are legitimate and legal medical uses for steroids, but steroids are illegal for purely athletic reasons-- ala to run faster or hit a home run further. Additionally, even legal use of steroids requires that it be prescribed by a medical doctor. Even if a ball player says he had a good reason to use steroids (injury), the drugs would still be illegal without the prescription. Which begs the question of why, if use was legitimate as claimed (injury), this ball player didn't consult a medical doctor and get a prescription-- in particular as it makes common sense that a millionaire athlete would want a serious athletic injury treated through a medical doctor. The answer usually is a because a medical doctor wouldn't have prescribed the drugs as their use would not be legitimate. <br /><br />Why did the Cleveland pitcher get his "pituitary gland problems" treated by a dentist? Presumably because no M.D. would have written the prescription. And, oh yeah, the dentist soon after had his license suspended for prescription fraud.<br /><br />Interestingly, Clemens said he used Lidocaine, a painkiller that can only be used legally when prescribed. Count on it that a future question will be whether or not he had prescription. I suspect it's not difficult to get a Lidocaine prescription and it wouldn't surprise me if Clemens had it legitimately prescribed (painkiller for an athlete sounds like reasonable use). However, if he didn't have the prescription that likely would cook his goose at slander trial, as it would demonstrate that, even by his own story, he knowingly provided and was injected with illegal drugs (drugs used illegally) by the accused trainer.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Robert</b><p>IV fluids can make for an unfair advantage. No joke. <br />No difference.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>MVSNYC</b><p>davidcycle-<br /><br />you broke your old record of editing (11 times)...<br /><br />new record: 18<br /><br /><br />congrats! <img src="/images/wink.gif" height=14 width=14>

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Frank Wakefield</b><p>I'm all for letting Roger and Pete getting into the Hall, anytime they buy a ticket for admission. That is the only way either should be in.<br /><br />It is open almost every day... closed Thanksgiving, Christmas, and New Year's Day. The rest of the time, let 'em buy a ticket.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>Interesting article in today's NY Times suggesting that Clemens and his team have botched the public relations war. Big surprise to anyone with a pulse.<br /><br /><a href="http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/sports/baseball/13clemens.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=clemens&oref=slogin" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://www.nytimes.com/2008/01/13/sports/baseball/13clemens.html?_r=1&scp=2&sq=clemens&oref=slogin</a>

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Steve</b><p>With that giant ego, Rog would have to enter through the loading dock. At any rate, he doesn't give a rat's ass about the HOF. (He just can't stop lying)

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jodi Birkholm</b><p>I don't have enough time to read through these posts, so forgive me if it was said already:<br /><br />I would be willing to see Pete Rose inducted if it would get Shoeless Joe in. Regardless of guilt, Rose was not betting AGAINST his own team. I'm not much for him on a personal level, but he always gave it his all as a player. Too much time has passed to know the real story on Jackson, and I for one am not concerned with theory or conjecture. Nor would I care if Cicotte would get in as a result of Jackson's induction. <br /><br />Steroids are another matter entirely. I won't get into the fine details, but let it be said that I have no sympathy for anyone who enhances their already-stellar talent to get ahead. <br /><br />That's all I have to say about that.<br /><br />JB

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Alan</b><p>I have a related question: What things, advantages, money, notority, etc,... does a former athlete get if he gets elected into the HOF than a guy not in ? How important is it to the older guys to get in befor they're deceased ?

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Steve</b><p> I'm a big JJax fan, but realize he took the $5K. I'm a Weaver fan as well. Although Buck was less devious, he's still responsible for not outing the Fix. Both (and the others) should remain Hall outcasts imo. <br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Frank Wakefield</b><p>Betting on your team only to win doesn't cut it...<br /><br /><br />The bookies are tipped off as to when you're NOT betting on your team. And if you get indebted to them (almost a certainty given time), then you're a target for them to suggest some dealing.<br /><br />Gambling was the #1 taboo long ago, when efforts were made to legitimize our national game. <br /><br />Pete can get into the Hall 362 days a year, with a ticket. Since this year is a leap year, he can buy his way in 363 days, one day at a time.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jodi Birkholm</b><p>This question has been brought up in many conversations I've had. There are a few factors to consider:<br /><br />-It wouldn't matter too much to someone like Goose Gossage, who has been a regular on the show circuit for years. Nothing is going to change for him. He might try raising his prices, but this tactic would not help his case.<br /><br />-If a guy like Ron Santo was inducted (and in a condition to make the rounds), he could make at least $75,000 a year, I imagine. Perhaps a little more, but certainly not less. At least for the first year or two of heavy traveling. After that, demand would dry up. Forgive my stating the obvious, but somebody like Santo could not get away with charging the exacerbated fees of a Mays-caliber old-timer. <br /><br />-The third scenario comes into play when your question is directed to a more modern player who might not be inclined to sign unless a pile of money was placed in front of him (feel free to insert player name here; the list will only grow longer over time). In this case, fans will be charged $150+ for an autograph easily purchased on eBay for 20% of that amount. This scenario has transpired with players such as Yaz over the last few years. Sure, the "thrill" of being all but ignored by Yaz while he signs your 1967 BoSox commemorative shoelace might be worth the $150 to a diehard fan, but I'd take the off-condition single-signed ball on eBay for $25. If McGwire were to be inducted, demand for his signature would increase (although likely not to late 1990's standards). He would definitely be charging around $250 for flats and balls, and my guess is that his annual income would increase by at least $750,000 (and that's for a pithy 3,000 sigs/year!). It goes without saying that all of the above is pure speculation.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>MVSNYC</b><p>"What things, advantages, money, notority, etc,... does a former athlete get if he gets elected into the HOF than a guy not in ? How important is it to the older guys to get in befor they're deceased?"<br /><br /><br />Alan- i'd imagine one could make some more money once elected (show circuit, autographs, apperances, etc...), BUT i think the most important aspect of being inducted into the HOF is the simple fact that you are now immortalized forever, you become a member of a very elite club, the best of the best...there's no monetary value to that...it's priceless.<br /><br />clemens claims he doesn't care about the HOF...that is pure Bulls**t!<br /><br />getting the call for entry has got to be one of the most incredible moments of a former player's life...

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>....especially to a guy like Clemens who watches every record, knows every pitcher ahead of him in wins, etc.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>davidcycleback</b><p>Getting into the Hall of Fame is important to EVERY retired player (yes, I said EVERY, as in not one exception). This is why rich and successful guys like Rose, Gossage, Rice, Sutter bitch and moan and beg and plead when they aren't elected. This is why he-man millionaires who have won countless awards, including MVPs and World Series rings, cry when they learn they've been elected and who often say their only regret is that their parents in Heaven weren't alive to witness their enshrinement.<br /><br />I can only put it one honest way: Clemens saying he doesn't care if he's elected into the Hall of Fame only shows one thing-- he can look into the camera and lie. The problem for him and his public case is most people know it's a lie. Many of these very baseball fans remember well just a couple of years ago when Clemens would talk about what team hat he should be wearing on his Cooperstown plaque. To most people, planning your wardrobe eight years before an event sounds like obsession not ambivalence.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Fred C</b><p>Luckily for Clemens there are only 7 names to memorize (whose ahead of him in LT wins). Maybe Maddux is going to make it 8 next season.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>howard</b><p>Ditto what David just wrote. As a kid Goose was one of my favorites but I was really turned off by his whiny/angry Hall of Fame campaign.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>So much for Clemens having nothing to hide, ever never:<br /><br /><a href="http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news;_ylt=Ai3GHqw7S7AN5FlITEwH7F85nYcB?slug=ap-steroids-clemens&prov=ap&type=lgns" target="_new" rel="nofollow">http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news;_ylt=Ai3GHqw7S7AN5FlITEwH7F85nYcB?slug=ap-steroids-clemens&prov=ap&type=lgns</a><br /><br />The PR debacle continues!

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Ken W.</b><p>We were all to blame for the Roid-Boy era. I remember just accepting that every team had one of THOSE GUYS. They weren't very quick, swung for the fences, and struck out a bunch - and it was just part of the game. I'm sick of the hypocrisy! There have always been reasons why statistics have been skewed one way or another in baseball. But historians keep track of such things, are aware of them, and judge players accordingly, which is what will happen with the folks who put up huge power numbers in the 90's and the 00's. They'll see a big stat, and rationalize the peculiarities involved. I truly believe that the best players of any era should be honored with HOF induction. We can't ignore that this happened under all of our noses. Everyone must simply remember that big power numbers in this era just don't mean as much as during other times. I am truly glad public attention will finally attenuate the practice of using PED's. But we should stop vilifying the workers, even if they are millionaires.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>davidcycleback</b><p>I believe that there are others in addition to the abusing players who share blame. However, considering there were many players who did not use the drugs who just as easily could have have, the users should receive the lion's share of the blame. The users happily accepted the benefits of the drugs, didn't they? They happily accepted the bloated numbers and paychecks and awards that would have gone to non-users, didn't they? Users intended to bump non-users from rosters, didn't they? <br /><br />Taking steroids is like a pact with the Devil. In a pact with the Devil you gain what you desire, but the Devil returns for his half of the bargain. Folks like Bonds and Marion Jones got what they desired, and are now realizing the downside.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>As I was reading the paper today in which various lawyers weighed in on the mess Clemens made of his life as well as the awful advice of Rusty Hardin, one lawyer opined to the press that Hardin "is the type of lawyer who gets you out of trouble when your prison sentence is up." Of course, the writer pointed out that when the Mitchell Report came out Clemens was not under any criminal investigation and would have remained in the clear if he had just kept his mouth shut instead of going on 60 Mins, lying under oath, bringing the lawsuit against McNamee, etc.<br /><br />This was so obviously clear to anyone with a clue what would happen once Clemens started his insane PR offensive with that dopey lawyer at his side (you remember, the guy who said that Clemens would "eat" "the lunch" of the IRS agent who would be investigating him).<br /><br />Here's what I wrote two months ago:<br /><br />"Two definites: Clemens will testify in front of Congress; and Clemens will lie in front of Congress."<br /><br />Why is it that everyone with half a brain could see this coming? Clemens will surely be indicted now. If he could ever hire a lawyer with a clue, he'd run into the Department of Justice, beg forgivenness, avoid indictment and agree to come clean and apologize to everyone for the lies. He could blubber away and downplay the true extent of his steroid use and I think the public would mostly forgive him. Even now if he's somehow acquitted of the perjury charges which he will be hit with, his life is still destroyed. Wouldn't it have been the better course to just shut up when the Mitchell Report came out? Or at least to have his lawyer call up Pettite's lawyer to find out what Andy was going to do and say?<br /><br />

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>CN</b><p> Jeff I couldn,t agree with you more. Rusty Hardin is one of the most incompetent attorneys I have seen. He should have had his client shut up from day one. I am actually starting to feel sorry for Clemens but then I remember what a liar and cheat he is. CN

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>davidcycleback</b><p>No doubt most of this was Clemens' idea, and a lawyer can't stop a client from doing what the client wants to do, even if what the client wants to do is a bad idea. Of course, a lawyer can tell the client he should find a another lawyer, or not have been retained in the first place if he had major problems the client's plan of action.<br /><br />If Clemens is ever convicted of perjury, this will go down as one of the worst public relations campaigns in history (and make no mistake that it was a PR campaign). Not only did it make the client look 3x worse to the public, but led to criminal conviction! That's on the order of someone telling you her cooking's so bad that she was once convicted of it.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>boxingcardman</b><p>As Jeff can no doubt attest to too, sometimes a client will not take your advice no matter how much sense you make. I had a client once who retained me to write a subcontract that would conform to his insurance requirements. I did, he didn't use it (because he was afraid the subs would not sign it), and sure as hell he got sued on that project for bad subcontractor work. He came back and I had a heck of a time wrestling his insurer into a coverage position to defend him because he hadn't used the subcontract I wrote. Clients often think they know better. I'd say about 50% of my real estate and construction litigation stems from clients who thought that they knew better...I'm sure a man like Clemens, who has been at the pinnacle of a profession, made millions, and achieved worldwide fame, has a bit of an ego and figured he was too smart to get caught. Stupid. <br><br>Sic Gorgiamus Allos Subjectatos Nunc

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>Jeff Lichtman</b><p>Adam, I hear you, but in the particular mess that Clemens was in, the whole point of finding a lawyer is to get his particular advice on how to navigate past the alligators. Maybe Clemens had a path he wanted to follow but ol' Rusty facilitated that. Had Clemens come to me with that gameplan I would have told him to either follow my completely opposite advice or to take a hike. After all, in a high profile situation such as Clemens was in a lawyer does not want to lose. Getting famous for being a loser is not the kind of fame any attorney wants. Rusty blew this one, big time. I've never seen such massive mistakes from the get-go in such an obviously clear situation. This one wasn't even hard to figure out how it would end up.

[Archive]

Posted By: <b>boxingcardman</b><p>And if if was me I would not want to book a deck chair on the Titanic next to ol' Rog...but I guess he figured Clemens was hellbent on going forward, the money was good, and the advice was in writing so WTF, no malpractice risk, get some airtime and blame the client. <br><br>Sic Gorgiamus Allos Subjectatos Nunc