McNamee's smoking gun?

[Tripp McNeely]

I haven't seen this posted anywhere yet, but according to ESPNews, Brian McNamee has reportedly turned over evidence from 2000 and 2001 that may be tangible proof that Roger Clemens used performance enhancing drugs.
McNamee reportedly saved the evidence just in case something like this had arisen and Clemens denied using the drugs. Apparently the items will be tested for DNA as well as what substances were used.

Man, if true, this took some serious forethought on McNamee's part. I wonder if he saved Pettitte's "material." I don't trust Clemens at all, but this seems kind of weird to me.


EDIT: My bad, apparently ESPNews is getting it from the N.Y. Daily News.

 

[21]

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/news/story?id=3233878

Very weird story.

 

[Football_Bat]

If it's that far back, Clemens can invoke statute of limitations.

"Murdering the game" won't hold up in court, methinks.

 

[markvid]

If it's that far back, Clemens can invoke statute of limitations.

"Murdering the game" won't hold up in court, methinks.

But it's the fact that he's proven to be a liar to the public that will hurt him much more than any conviction in court.

 

[Tripp McNeely]

He reportedly kept "blood-stained syringes and gauze pads."
Something about that creeps me out.

 

[Football_Bat]

If it's that far back, Clemens can invoke statute of limitations.

"Murdering the game" won't hold up in court, methinks.

But it's the fact that he's proven to be a liar to the public that will hurt him much more than any conviction in court.

If Clemens' lawyers are worth what he's paying them, it will never get to that stage.

 

[markvid]

He reportedly kept "blood-stained syringes and gauze pads."
Something about that creeps me out.

Sounds like he knew he'd get thrown under the bus someday, and covered his ass.

 

[21]

If it's that far back, Clemens can invoke statute of limitations.

Doesn't apply, I don't think--there are no criminal charges.

 

[markvid]

If it's that far back, Clemens can invoke statute of limitations.

"Murdering the game" won't hold up in court, methinks.

But it's the fact that he's proven to be a liar to the public that will hurt him much more than any conviction in court.

If Clemens' lawyers are worth what he's paying them, it will never get to that stage.

No, you're right, I'm just saying than in Roger's mind, all that matters is his legacy. All else is secondary.

 

[Football_Bat]

If it's that far back, Clemens can invoke statute of limitations.

Doesn't apply, I don't think--there are no criminal charges.

Perjury isn't a criminal charge?

 

[Football_Bat]

Look, I'm not going to defend Raja. I'm just saying it's gonna be damned hard to make anything stick to him short of fresher evidence than we're supposedly about to see.

 

[markvid]

Look, I'm not going to defend Raja. I'm just saying it's gonna be damned hard to make anything stick to him short of fresher evidence than we're supposedly about to see.

No, it's what was stuck IN him at the crux of the issue.

 

[Football_Bat]

Look, I'm not going to defend Raja. I'm just saying it's gonna be damned hard to make anything stick to him short of fresher evidence than we're supposedly about to see.

No, it's what was stuck IN him at the crux of the issue.

Not that there's anything wrong with that ... of course ...

 

[broadway joe]

If it's that far back, Clemens can invoke statute of limitations.

Doesn't apply, I don't think--there are no criminal charges.

Perjury isn't a criminal charge?

There'd be no statute of limitations involved in a perjury charge. If he perjured himself, he did it yesterday when he talked to Congress. It doesn't matter when the steroid use occurred.

 

[Joe Williams]

He reportedly kept "blood-stained syringes and gauze pads."
Something about that creeps me out.

Coming after the infamous stained blue dress in Monica's closet, this ain't nothin'.

And if Clemens used stuff then, does the average fan think he's more likely, or less likely, to have used stuff since then, as he got older?

 

[21]

If it's that far back, Clemens can invoke statute of limitations.

Doesn't apply, I don't think--there are no criminal charges.

Perjury isn't a criminal charge?

Statute of limitations refers to the length of time during which you can file charges; if he just perjured himself, they can bring the case. I don't think there's a limitation on evidence.

 

[bigpern23]

It'd be tough to prosecute the perjury charge without a very clear chain of custody of the evidence. I somehow doubt McNamee was that good.



EDIT: Whoops ... chain of custody ... thanks, qtlaw.

 

[spnited]

Is it perjury if Clemens lied to Congressional investigators yesterday? Was he under oath or was he there voluntarily to discuss his future appearance before the sub-committee?
Now, they nailed Maron Jones first for lying to Congressinal investigators, so they probably could get Clemens on that.
But is that perjury?

 

[21]

Is it perjury if Clemens lied to Congressional investigators yesterday? Was he under oath or was he there voluntarily to discuss his future appearance before the sub-committee?
Now, they nailed Maron Jones first for lying to Congressinal investigators, so they probably could get Clemens on that.
But is that perjury?

He was under oath yesterday, it was a sworn deposition.

 

[Rough Mix]

He denied using steroids or HGH yesterday.

The DNA stuff is not a lock. If I'm Clemens I claim a sample of my blood was used to cross contaminate.

Roger's on his way to the signing table with Pete Rose in Vegas.