Sports Law Blog
All things legal relating
to the sports world...
Monday, March 03, 2008
Three Clemens-Related Stories for Monday

1) Darren Rovell has an excellent piece on CNBC's Sports Biz examining how Rusty Hardin's business may be hurt by his representation of Roger Clemens. Here is an excerpt:
Now I'm hardly suggesting that if the public decides that Clemens is guilty his lawyer Rusty Hardin, who has had a distinguished career, should call it quits. What I am suggesting is that if the Department of Justice does have enough evidence to bring Clemens up on perjury charges, Hardin is going to have to reconsider whether he should pack it in at 66. Because at the very least, his business is going to take a hit.

I understand why Hardin took this case. Look at his web site and you see he has a fascination with representing sports figures Calvin Murphy, Wade Boggs, Scottie Pippen and Warren Moon, among them. And he obviously had a client in Roger Clemens who was interested in doing everything (read: many billable hours). As a lawyer, Hardin has simply done everything his client has wanted, while presumably advising him of the legal risks. But I'm honestly shocked as to how much Hardin has been willing to put himself in the public eye. Roger's words have now become his words as well.

Be sure to read the rest of Darren's piece, it is an excellent read.

2) Our friends and colleagues Alan Milstein and Jeffrey Standen were interviewed by Cybercast News in regards to Clemens. Here are their comments:
Alan C. Milstein, a nationally recognized expert in sports law and bioethics who has followed the steroids hearings closely, told Cybercast News Service that it's not clear from the testimony who is lying, and it may not be for some time. Inconsistencies in statements do not necessarily amount to perjury. "I don't think from what we've heard so far that we know who is telling the truth and who's not," Milstein said.

Willamette University Law professor Jeffrey Standen agreed but said the committee's attorneys may have the inside scoop. "They probably know more than we do," Standen told Cybercast News Service. "If the committee is willing to make some kind of referral to the Justice Department, we don't have to trust that as being conclusive, but it does tell us who they believe."
3) Tommorow's Yale Law School Panel on "The Mitchell Report and Beyond: Steroids, HGH, and the Future of Baseball" -- which I'm thrilled to be a part of and which begins at 5 p.m. -- is open to the general public, so if you are near New Haven, hopefully you can come by. The panel is co-sponsored by the Yale Entertainment Sports Law Association and the Yale Law School Dean’s Office. If you would like additional information, please contact Aaron Zelinsky, a 1L at YLS who has played a major role in organizing the event, at aaron.zelinsky[at]

4) Bonus story: on I wrote about Barry Bond's attorneys securing a minor victory in court last Friday. The government's indictment against Bonds has been deemed duplicitous, a correctable problem, though one from which Bonds may take confidence.


Is Hardin in jeopardy of being indicted as well for suborning perjury or conspiracy of some sort.

Anonymous Anonymous -- 3/03/2008 10:23 PM  

The pleading might well have been, as you say, "duplicitous," but I think you really mean duplicative.

Failure so to distinguish can result in a punch in the face.

Anonymous Anonymous -- 3/10/2008 9:29 AM  

Post a Comment