Sports Law Blog
All things legal relating
to the sports world...
Monday, January 07, 2008
Roger Clemens' Press Conference

Earlier this evening, I wrote an piece on Roger Clemens' press conference. Hope you can check it out.

I also hope you check out our Special Report on Roger Clemens, which includes a number of great pieces, including an exclusive interview by Jon Heyman with Brian McNamee, who tells Jon that he is standing by his story.


A couple of comments:

"I found that response curious, since it is well-established that steroids benefit players."

I'm not sure that steroids or other PEDs actually benefit players. Barry Bonds still has to hit the ball, Roger Clemens still has to throw strikes? Many of the names in the Mitchell Report belong to players that many of us have never heard of before. I'm just not sure that your statements is as concrete as you assume.

Your "three options" for Clemens when testifying in front of Congress is built on the premise that Clemens is lying about steroid use. Perhaps this is just an argument you are using without taking a position on whether or not Clemens is lying? I assume that your analysis would be the same for McNamee when he chooses to testify in front of Congress? He can either tell the truth, that Clemens is right; Plead the 5th, in which case that would be used against him in the defamation suit; or continue to lie by stating he injected Clemens.

Anonymous Anonymous -- 1/08/2008 9:23 AM  

Clemens' attorney said that in NY and Texas, only one party to a conversation needs consent to record a phone call.

What if one of the parties was in a state where both parties need to consent?

You would think that there would be some uniform federal law on the subject because it crosses state lines.

Anonymous Anonymous -- 1/08/2008 3:15 PM  

sorry, i see you said there is a federal law in your SI piece...

so wouldn't the supremacy clause preempt any state law requiring all parties to consent or would that be an example of the federal law being a "floor" and states may give their citizens more rights?

Anonymous Anonymous -- 1/08/2008 3:23 PM  

A few comments on your piece.
First, Clemens' attorney was absolutely correct about not having his client take a lie detector test. I have been in that situation as an attorney a number of times and give the same advice. There is a reason no court admits the results and that is because they are unreliable. I would not take one on whether I take steroids to help me practice law.
Second, I agree with the above comment that the jury is still way out on whether steroids could help a pitcher pitch.
Third, this is not that usual public figure case where there is a question between negligence and actual malice. If McNamee is lying, it was intentional and it severely damaged Clemens' reputation. It is true the burden is higher:clear and convincing not just preponderance. But this case is he said/he said and whoever the jury believes will win.
Last, I agree the taped conversation did not help the cause. Considering his attorney says he was present, I could not understand why the million dollar question was not asked: "Why did you lie about me?"Alan Milstein

Anonymous Alan milstein -- 1/08/2008 6:25 PM  

Random thoughts, Mr. McCann:

I remember your comments about Michael Vick when he had his news conference. You sounded like you were part of his PR or family. You believed everything he said and his authenticity. Of course then we found out all of it was a bunch of lies. And the judge let him have it.

On Clemens, you don't give him even the tiniest bit of credit. Personally, that's exactly how I would have acted if accused falsely. (Not the timid "I have found Jesus of Vick".) Unlike many others, there is no direct link from a supplier to Clemens. McNamee claims that Clemens suppied the stuff he injected. He has never tested positive.

Why no outrage on NFL and steroids? Shawn Merriman tested positive and was out only 4 games. Did you and others want to take away his Rookie of the Year honors? Should he be playing and competing for a Super Bowl slot? After his game last week, he was introduced and given all kinds of kudos. AND HE TESTED POSITIVE!

Blogger elena -- 1/10/2008 3:00 PM  

Elena's middle comment reflects one of the things that I find so interesting about how people apply evidence to these situations and what is viewed as strong evidence. Elena decries the absence of a direct link to a supplier of steroids. But such a link would not establish that Clemens used steroids. It only establishes that he obtained them; it then takes a logical leap, albeit a reasonable one, to reach the conclusion that he used steroids. On the other hand, McNamee asserts that e took a syringe he knew to be filled with some steroid and he injected it into Clemens's body. Short of a positive drug test or a confession from Clements (neither of which is coming, or necessary), that is the most direct evidence of use that was contained in the report.

Blogger Howard Wasserman -- 1/11/2008 9:00 AM  

Most ballplayers today are taking homeopathic human growth hormone oral spray because it's safe, undetectable, and legal for over the counter sales. As time goes on it seems it might be considered as benign a performance enhancer as coffee, aspirin, red bull, chewing tobacco, and bubble gum.

Blogger Billy -- 2/20/2009 9:37 AM  

Post a Comment