This is what ia m thinking. The evidence is going to be disputed as manufactured eveidence, how do you disprove that McNamee didnt add some sort of Clemens DNA/Blood to a syringe of HGH or steroids, or if it is in fact a true piece of evidence that Clemens used steroids?

Can you come up with another reason why McNamee would have a sample of Clemens's blood?

 

And I'll bet you it's quite difficult to fake the pattern of blood you get on a used needle without actually injecting someone.

Can you come up with another reason why McNamee would have a sample of Clemens's blood?

 

And I'll bet you it's quite difficult to fake the pattern of blood you get on a used needle without actually injecting someone.

 

I have no reasons, just questions.

 

I find it amazing that Clemens, if guilty, continues to plead his case as if he is not guilty when the next step is to possibly commit perjury in front of congress.

 

And at the same time, i dont know why McNamee would have all of this evidence without him planning to turn on Clemens at sometime in the future. this evidence would be what, 10+ years old? 10 years ago McNamee was telling himself he should keep steroid-used needles? Why wouldnt he destroy that stuff if he was in on it?

And at the same time, i dont know why McNamee would have all of this evidence without him planning to turn on Clemens at sometime in the future. this evidence would be what, 10+ years old? 10 years ago McNamee was telling himself he should keep steroid-used needles? Why wouldnt he destroy that stuff if he was in on it?

If I was helping a friend break the law, this is exactly what I'd do. I'd stash some of the evidence away somewhere just in case, because I wouldn't want to be the one caught without a chair when the music stopped.

At some point, I'm just not going to care who did use them. The next step will be pissed that Thomas didn't use them or maybe we win in 2000

If I was helping a friend break the law, this is exactly what I'd do. I'd stash some of the evidence away somewhere just in case, because I wouldn't want to be the one caught without a chair when the music stopped.

That's kind of what he says in this article. But my questoin would be, if you have Clemens', do you also have everyone else. Why would you only keep the syringes from one player?

 

Lawyer: McNamee saved used syringes

Clemens' ex-trainer feared being 'thrown under bus'

By Duff Wilson and Michael S. Schmidt

 

New York Times

 

1:08 AM CST, February 7, 2008

 

Brian McNamee has given federal investigators bloody gauze pads, syringes and vials he said he used to inject Roger Clemens with steroids and human growth hormone in 2000 and '01, a lawyer familiar with the matter said Wednesday.

 

McNamee, Clemens' former personal trainer, hopes that DNA and chemical tests on the materials will support his claim that he injected Clemens with those drugs and prove that Clemens lied in a sworn deposition to congressional investigators Tuesday, the lawyer said.

 

Clemens' lawyer, Lanny A. Breuer, responded that McNamee "apparently has manufactured evidence." He said in a statement that the notion that McNamee had saved gauze pads and syringes for seven years "defies all sensibility."

 

Federal authorities have sent the gauze pads and syringes for testing by a laboratory. If they show blood, the authorities may consider asking Clemens for a DNA sample.

 

If members of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform conclude that Clemens did not tell the truth in his deposition — and make the same conclusion about his statements at a committee hearing set for Wednesday — he could face charges of lying to federal officials, which is punishable by up to five years in prison.

 

The lawyer, who insisted on anonymity because he was not authorized to talk about the case, said McNamee had injected Clemens at Clemens' apartment in New York and then taken the syringes and pads to his home in Queens, where he had a medical waste-disposal box. But McNamee, a former police officer, saved the evidence rather than discard it, the lawyer said.

 

"He was always concerned that if he ever got caught, he would be the most vulnerable and people would throw him under the bus," the lawyer said.

McNamee is scheduled to give a deposition to the House committee Thursday. His lawyers said his evidence would be released publicly after his session with congressional staff members. Clemens is scheduled to hold one-on-one meetings with members of the committee, two people familiar with the plans said.

Edited February 7, 200818 yr by Controlled Chaos

Roger Clemens-S-Yankees Feb. 8 - 4:17 pm et

 

Brian McNamee told congressional investigators Thursday that he injected Roger Clemens' wife with human growth hormone.

According to McNamee, Debbie Clemens used HGH before appearing alongside Roger in Sports Illustrated's swimsuit issue in 2003.

Source: New York Daily News

 

... what??

... what??

So he stuck his wife?? That explains the animosity.

Roger Clemens late-career success is seen as an anomaly(termed, unusual), disputing his lawyer's earlier report.

If Clemens were to admit to using right now, would he get introuble for perjury?

If Clemens were to admit to using right now, would he get introuble for perjury?

It depends on what he told Congress. He testified in front of them under oath last week. If he said specifically that he never used steroids, and then were to do exactly that, yes, he could face perjury charges. That testimony is currently not public, so he may have taken the 5th at places and we wouldn't have found out unless someone were to leak it. He could also have left himself wiggle room by saying he never Knowingly took steroids or some dodge similar to that.

 

If he told Congress he never took steroids, and there was a test done proving that the needles McNamee had were used on Clemens to inject a steroid, then he could face perjury charges that way also.

Edited February 12, 200818 yr by Balta1701

It depends on what he told Congress. He testified in front of them under oath last week. If he said specifically that he never used steroids, and then were to do exactly that, yes, he could face perjury charges. That testimony is currently not public, so he may have taken the 5th at places and we wouldn't have found out unless someone were to leak it. He could also have left himself wiggle room by saying he never Knowingly took steroids or some dodge similar to that.

 

If he told Congress he never took steroids, and there was a test done proving that the needles McNamee had were used on Clemens to inject a steroid, then he could face perjury charges that way also.

 

in other words he's pretty screwed.

in other words he's pretty screwed.

There's a real good chance you're correct on that. But no way to know for sure without knowing what his testimony says.

Hearing Live

 

http://mlb.mlb.com/index.jsp

i cant stare at this pig nosed guy any longer

Knoblach stated McNamee was accurate

Pettite stated McNamee was accurate

 

 

Has Hardin made any more challenges to Waxman?

Clemens is done!! The wives testimony stuff is big.

 

 

Edited February 13, 200818 yr by Controlled Chaos

Has Hardin made any more challenges to Waxman?

Nothing yet...just statements from Waxman.

Clemens crying poor me....

Pettite's testimony is extremely damaging and Petite's wife as well.

what did Petitte's wife say?

what did Petitte's wife say?

Petitte testified he had discussed HGH with Clemens in 1999/2000. He also came home and told his wife about that conversation. Then in 2005 Petitte asked Clemens, what would he say about HGH if investigators asked him. To which Clemens told Petitte your confused, I was talking about my wife taking HGH back then. Petitte also came home and told his wife about that and how Roger acted like that prior conversation didn't happen. Pettite's wife submitted testimony that she recalls having the first conversation with Pettite about Roger and HGH and the second when Roger changed his story and said it was about his wife.

 

Also, it has already been established by Clemens and McNamee that his wife took the HGH in 2003. So how the heck could Clemen's and Pettite's conversation back in in 1999 have anything to do with Roger's wife. Cummings nailed Clemens on this and all Clemens could say is he thinks Petitte is confused.

 

Petitte also volunatarily offered up that he took HGH in 2004 and Petitte has come off as extremely open and honest. They even had Roger speak to how he's such a great guy and his credibility could not be questioned.

This thing has sucked me in like the OJ trial did. I can't believe more people aren't into it.

Work prevents me from watching, i am living vicariously through controlled chaos