Sports Law Blog
All things legal relating
to the sports world...
Thursday, February 07, 2008
 
New SI piece on Roger Clemens, Brian McNamee, and Congress

I have a new piece for Sports Illustrated.com: Burden of Proof: Examining the Latest Twist in the Roger Clemens Saga. I hope you have a chance to check it out.

Update: I was interviewed on the Dan Patrick Show this morning and you can hear it at this link (I come on at the top of the hour, a few minutes in), and I was interviewed on the Papa Joe Chevalier Show this evening and you can hear it at this link (I am on from 1:13 to 1:28). Although I primarily discuss Clemens and McNamee on both shows, on Papa Joe I also discuss Michael Vick's recent victory in court to keep $16 million of $20 million bonus money. Hope you have a chance to listen.

Update: I'll be on ESPN Radio's The Herd with Colin Cowherd this (Friday) morning at 10:23 A.M. and then on 1560 AM (Houston)'s Richard Justice Show at 12:30 P.M. Eastern Standard Time. Hope you can listen.





5 Comments:

Enjoyed the Q/A on SI and great job on the Dan Patrick show this morning.

Anonymous Adam Preston -- 2/07/2008 4:45 PM  


Hi Adam, thanks. I appreciate those comments.

Blogger Michael McCann -- 2/07/2008 11:12 PM  


Congratulations! You are the first person I've seen mention the very relevent fact that McNamee is facing Federal time. Clemons name came up because McNamee needed some names to save his own behind.

Far too many in the sports media are treating McNamee's claims as established facts, when in truth they are merely unsubstantiated allegations.

I have serious doubts about whether any judge would allow blood "evidence" that's been sitting in someone's garage for years. I'd like to see some legal minds comment on how that works in real court cases.

Last, were these substances on the banned list when Clemons is alleged to have used them?

Blogger zak822 -- 2/08/2008 10:00 AM  


This is not nearly so hard as some Clemens fans wish to make it. Clemens admits he was shot up. There should be no surprise that there would be syringes and pads and blood. The only real question is what went into Roger’s rear. It’s just the Bonds “flaxseed oil” excuse with B-12 and lidocaine.

Why does Clemens need to call the existence of these items “manufactured evidence?” Even under his best argument, they would have existed. Why does he continue to visit the members of the Committee, almost like someone returning to the scene of the “crime?” Why did he need a secretly recorded telephone call, in which he failed to express the ordinary rage that should have accompanied someone wrongfully accused? Why does he not rush to give his DNA? Of course it will be on the needles, even if it were B-12.

If the tests disclose his DNA mixed with steroids or HGH, will fans conclude that it was all an elaborate hoax? This is no Duke case. The more Hardin insults George Mitchell, the worse it gets for his client.

Blogger Mark O -- 2/08/2008 1:37 PM  


I read your "Key Questions" SI article, and have to respectfully disagree as to your 'most likely reason' that Andy Pettitte, Chuck Knoblauch and Kirk Radomski would ask out of the hearing.

It seems to me that Rep. Davis gave the 'most likely reason' when he said "No ballplayer in their right mind wants to come up before a congressional committee. It wasn't like he could add anything." I'd have to presume that seeing his face plastered on ESPN ad finitim for the next decade or so (as have been McGwuires, Sosas, Palmeros, etc.) has to be a close second.

Anonymous Anonymous -- 2/12/2008 4:59 PM  


Post a Comment