Feb. 13 Congressional Hearings
Under oath and often harsh questioning, former Yankee pitcher Roger Clemens did not waiver from his story claiming innocence on Wednesday in front of Congress. His former personal trainer and friend, Brian McNamee, also remained strong in his position regarding Clemens.
Only one seat separated Clemens and McNamee for the first time in years as the hearing entitled The Mitchell Report: The Illegal Use of Steroids in Major League Baseball, Day 2 was held on Capitol Hill this afternoon to determine whether or not Clemens was wrongfully accused of steroid use.
"I met McNamee while playing for the Toronto Blue Jays in 1998. I trusted him, put my faith in him, and brought him around my family and my children. I treated him just like I have done others I have met in my life; like family," Clemens said in a prepared statement.
The six Cy Young Awards and 354 career wins compiled during Clemens' story book career seemed like ancient history when the pitcher took the stand for questioning from the congressman. Clemens is now thought of more often as the centerpiece of Sen. George Mitchell's steroid investigation than for his contributions to the game.
Clemens vs. McNamee
In a prepared statement that was distributed to committee members before the hearings began, Clemens bluntly labeled all of McNamee's accusations as false.
"I have never used steroids, human growth hormone or any other type of illegal performance enhancing drugs. Roger Clemens"I have never used steroids, human growth hormone or any other type of illegal performance-enhancing drugs. I fully support Sen. Mitchell's conclusions that steroids have no place in baseball. However, I take great issue with the report's allegation that I used these substances. Let me be clear again -- I did not," he said.
To say that McNamee's explanation of the alleged steroid use differed from that of Clemens would be a vast understatement.
"Make no mistake: When I told Senator Mitchell that I injected Roger Clemens with performance enhancing drugs, I told the truth," McNamee said. "I told the truth about steroids and Human Growth Hormone. I injected those drugs into the body of Roger Clemens at his direction."
"Unfortunately Roger has denied this and has led a full court attack on my credibility. And let me be clear, despite Roger Clemens's statements to the contrary, I never injected Roger Clemens, or anyone else, with Lidocaine or B-12."
Clemens previously claimed that he was injected with Lidocaine and Vitamin B-12 boosters by McNamee.
The most incriminating evidence against Clemens, however, did not come from the trainer.
Clemens' long time teammate and friend, Andy Pettitte, backed information in the Mitchell Report stating that Clemens was injected with steroids and human growth hormones between 1998 and 2001 while a member of the Toronto Blue Jays and New York Yankees.
Late last night, Andy Pettitte signed a sworn affidavit claiming that Clemens admitted to HGH use 10 years ago, though he went on to say that Clemens later denied the statement in 2005 when his name was first mentioned in reference to possible steroid users.
According to the affadavit signed by Pettitte, it was Clemens' wife, Debbie, who was using the HGH shipped by McNamee.
This statement is particularly damaging to Clemens because it supports McNamee's recent revelation that he also provided HGH to Mrs. Clemens.
Clemens claimed Yankee pitcher, Andy Pettitte, was wrong in his claims but stopped short of calling him a liar, rather stating that he "misheard."
"Andy Pettitte is my friend. He was my friend before this. He will be my friend after this and again. I think Andy has misheard," Clemens said.
You said you were misunderstood. But all I'm saying is it's hard to believe. It's hard to believe your story. Rep. Elijah CumingsPerhaps the best-spoken criticism of Clemens came from Maryland Rep. Elijah Cummings, who said that Clemens himself spoke highly of Andy Pettitte, who commented under oath that Clemens admitted HGH use.
"I've listened to you very carefully. And I take you at your word. And you're telling me that Andy Pettitte is an honest man, and his credibility is pretty much impeccable,” said Cummings. “You said you were misunderstood. But all I'm saying is it's hard to believe. It's hard to believe your story."
“I hate to say that,” Cummings added. “You're one of my heroes. But it's hard to believe you.”
Looking Ahead
As Rep. Tom Davis, the ranking Republican member of the committee, said, "Someone is lying in spectacular fashion about the ultimate question."
Regardless of the committee's findings today, Andy Pettitte appears to be the only unbiased, credible witness and should be regarded as so by the congressmen conducting the committee.
Pettitte has nothing to gain from lying about his close friend, or from strengthening McNamee's claims.
No matter what comes of the information acquired at Wednesday's hearing, Feb. 13, 2008 will go down in history as a sad day for the game of baseball.If McNamee's eveidence proves legitimate, the ramifications would be devastating, not only to Clemens but also to the sanctity of the game.
If Clemens is proven innocent, the names mentioned on the Mitchell Report will all be brought into question and drag the steroid era out for months and years to come.
In short, baseball will suffer no matter who is telling the truth. Either Clemens or McNamee committed multiple counts of perjury and will eventually face prosecution for their lies, a lose-lose situation for everyone involved.
Comments
Not right commented, on February 14, 2008 at 12:10 a.m.:
The summary for this story says "In front of the same committee responsible for the infamous Mitchell Report".
The Mitchell Report was the work of George Mitchell all by himself, not a committee.
You're wrong commented, on February 14, 2008 at 12:19 a.m.:
The summary for the story is right. George Mitchell corroborated with numerous members of the committee to form the report, he also worked with a staff of individuals that was funded completely by the committee.
So how is that not at least in part work of the committee? Jackass.
Actually commented, on February 14, 2008 at 1:29 a.m.:
The committee that heard the case today had absolutely zero to do with the findings of the Mitchell Report. If it was the same committee, as the summary and you claim, then why wasn't Mitchell there?
I will admit I made an error in my initial post, there was a committee and it was not just Mitchell alone. Mitchell and people from his law firm worked to come up with the report.
If it had been the federal government investigating why would they be holding a hearing about it? Wouldn't they already have the same information?
I challenge you to show me a link to anything that says the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform funded Mitchell's investigation.
And I won't be stooping to your level of cursing at others through a message board. If that makes you feel like a bigger person, more power to you.
Innocent Bystander commented, on February 14, 2008 at 2:45 a.m.:
This is hilarious.
Politics Editor commented, on February 14, 2008 at 9:23 a.m.:
The House Committee did not fund the Mitchell Report, it was payed for purely by Major League Baseball.
The original summary was simply pointing out that the March 17, 2005 hearings in front of the House Committee that included McGwire, Sosa and Palmeiro undoubtedly played a role in Sen. Mitchell commencing the investigation.
As Howard Bryant of ESPN.com says, "There is little doubt that fear of Congress, especially after the infamous March 17, 2005, House Government Reform Committee hearings, was a factor in the genesis of the steroid inquiry."
Because the summary was vague and obviously caused confusion, it was changed.
Apologies for any misunderstandings.
Post a comment