Pettitte: Clemens admitted to HGH use

couldn't happen...

...to a nicer guy.

seriously though -- i don't care about PEDs in baseball that much to begin with, and i think Congress' involvement is petty and deplorable in any circumstance. furthermore, though i do think Clemens is an a-hole, i wouldn't wish jail time on him merely for that.

but the sheer arrogance to deny these obvious truths -- after seeing how serious Congress was in the Bonds case, and after knowing at least some of the information against you?

i hope he goes down big-time for that.

perjury is a b.s. and unethical charge in 99% of cases (yes, including Bonds'), but, given what Clemens knew going into this, i'd have to he deserves the sentence in every way...

by bleedjaxblue on Feb 13, 2008 12:46 AM EST reply actions

I'm curious

why you think perjury is an unethical and BS charge?

It may seem severe to punish a guy so heavily when what he was lying about, although illegal, is hardly an act that would lead to charges, but don't you find it necessary to keep some sort of punishment hanging over people who testify in court or otherwise under oath to keep them honest?

Jack Cust is this year's Marcus Thames

by Team Moneyball on Feb 13, 2008 10:53 AM EST up reply actions

like

expelling a sitting president for perjuring himself?

by Galt on Feb 13, 2008 3:15 PM EST up reply actions

not sure what you mean

Are you talking about Clinton? He wasn't expelled. I think the beef with that case is why he had to the question if he had an affair under oath. Even though the material was bunk, him lying about it wasn't. Anyways, I don't think most perjury charges fall into this specific fact patter.

Are you talking about Nixon? He resigned before he could be impeached. He wasn't brought up on perjury charges.

Jack Cust is this year's Marcus Thames

by Team Moneyball on Feb 13, 2008 3:29 PM EST up reply actions

to me....

.....it all comes down to social norms and expectations.

take Clinton, as above, for example: does anyone think that someone should be forced to testify to the nation that they've been cheating on their wife? i would hope not. the expectation is that you will deny any extramarital activity adamantly, as anyone would under these circumstances.

the same applies to the vast majority of perjury cases: when enforced strictly, perjury charges are a way of sneaking around the fifth amendment's guarantee that you won't have to testify against yourself. as we all saw with McGwire, taking the 5th might as well be an admission of guilt. this leaves people the option of either: 1) testifying against themselves (an unconstitutional option), or 2) perjuring themselves (something that you could argue is a sort of double jeopardy, since you've instantly become more liable for what is ostensibly the same crime and could theoretically be convicted a second time the second you lose the original trial -- which is another one of my problems with perjury charges).

criminal law excuses "expected" laws all the time. for instance, take false paternity. geneticists report that 5-12% of couples who show up to find out where their child inherited a genetic disease from would discover something else entirely: that the husband is not the father of the child. by the letter of the law, you could argue that the wife is committing criminal fraud in this case, duping her husband out of hundreds of thousands of dollars of child support, and that, in turn, if the geneticist doesn't disclose the false paternity to the husband, he's guilty of criminal facilitation and misprision of felony.

on the other hand, we expect wives to lie about paternity to their husbands, so it isn't considered fraud to do so. (admittedly, there's another big policy reason for this -- namely, choosing to financially support children, even if it requires a lie.)

however, in this case of unmarried couples, this we actually would consider this fraud (assuming the woman was aware of the true paternity). why? because there isn't the same expectation about what information they'll disclose, and what misleading statements they'll make.

so, to the question, "don't you find it necessary to keep some sort of punishment hanging over people who testify in court or otherwise under oath to keep them honest?", i think that my answer is "no." i don't want it at this expense (undermining the 5th Amendment and double jeopardy laws), and i don't want it to be something so intellectually dishonest (pretending like we don't already realize these people will be lying).

basically, i don't think it's that big a deal that a defendant lies about his involvement in a crime under oath. why? because everybody on the jury and in the audience is taking what he has to say with a grain of salt anyway. i think that truth speaks for itself. so why also pretend like the threat of perjury automatically makes people more honest?

perjury still has some valid uses, but it gets overapplied by overzealous prosecutors in high profile cases. i would limit it to more egregious lies, or to circumstances where lying is less socially acceptable. the reason i support the Clemens charge is because he was fully aware of the exact types of perjury charges he would face by taking this route, and he seemed to actively pursue them on the off-chance that it helped him save face. in this case, perjury can't really be seen as an "extra" charge, nor one forced upon him.

by bleedjaxblue on Feb 13, 2008 4:09 PM EST up reply actions

No

The threat of perjury is absolutely necessary. I wish perjury charges were brought more often...especially against police officers. Most jurors don't take a police officer's testimony with a grain of salt. Police officers lie all of the time but very rarely get busted for it.

The consitutional right to be free from double jeopardy and to refrain from incriminating oneself is not undermined by perjury laws. In a criminal trial, a defendant can plead the 5th. The exercise of one's 5th amendment right cannot be used against a criminal defendant. Public opinion is completely different than government action. Double jeopardy is being punished for the same crime twice. Telling a lie under oath and the original underlying offense are two separate acts.

Paternity tests do not involve any sort of oath. In fact, no testimony is needed whatsoever. They do a DNA test. Therefore, perjury isn't possible in those situations.

With that being said, Congress should concern itself with more important things. I guess it's much easier to attack former baseball players than it is to deal with problems like Iraq, the economy, alternative forms of energy, etc. What a waste of tax dollars.

by Snake the Jake on Feb 13, 2008 6:33 PM EST up reply actions

OK

"I wish perjury charges were brought more often...especially against police officers. Most jurors don't take a police officer's testimony with a grain of salt. Police officers lie all of the time but very rarely get busted for it. "

Fine. But you sort of undermine your own argument here: Perjury charges AREN'T brought against police officers (nor, for that matter, does this case involve someone like a police officer).

Furthermore, the problems surrounding bringing charges against police officers are not made easier by allowing perjury charges in cases like these; reform like you're describing would be totally separate.

Though I'm with you that more checks are needed on police officers, I'm not sure that charging them with perjury more often would be my primary concern. However, I suppose it would be a perfectly fine start, so whatever. Still, that doesn't make it any more relevant to this case. And, as I said, I support perjury charges being applied in a small number of cases, so I'm not really sure what this has to do with anything....

Does anybody believe Roger Clemens? Did anybody believe Barry Bonds? Or Bill Clinton? Or any murderer, for that matter, who gets on the stand and says, "I didn't do it"?

------------

"Double jeopardy is being punished for the same crime twice. Telling a lie under oath and the original underlying offense are two separate acts."

OK. I think you're kind of missing the point here. I didn't mean to suggest that perjury was literally double-jeopardy. I'm perfectly aware of merger doctrine, and that two actus reus' exist here. I'm not asking you to decide whether a court should rule this unconstitutional or not, because, at a technical level, it's not. It's an ethical policy question instead.

The question is, as applied, is it ostensibly used to create a situation where the defendant is either being tried for the same crime twice (i.e., being guilty of the original crime makes you guilty of this auxiliary crime) or to turn something noncriminal into something criminal in order to allow prosecution (e.g., cheating on your wife).

As stated above, there are some circumstances where perjury should be viewed as a separate crime -- lying as a witness to provide an alibi, or even certain types of testimony against yourself. But I don't think you're looking at it very critically if you believe that prosecutors are ostensibly punishing something morally reprehensible that is separate from their desire to punish the original crime when they charge, e.g., Barry Bonds for saying "I didn't take steroids." Yes -- even when you put him in front of a Grand Jury. Why? For the very reason that you shouldn't be able to put him in front of a Grand Jury just in order to make him answer questions about his steroid use (or else take the 5th).

---------------------------

"Paternity tests do not involve any sort of oath. In fact, no testimony is needed whatsoever. They do a DNA test. Therefore, perjury isn't possible in those situations."

Yeah. You missed this story entirely.

The point is, we allow LIES in certain situations. This had nothing to do with perjury charges.

In this case, we allow wives to lie to their husbands without charging them with fraud (which they are technically guilty of). And we allow the geneticist to withhold information from the husband (though this would otherwise make him guilty of misprision of felony and criminal facilitation of the fraud).

Why do we allow it? Because certain lies are expected. Like lies about personally and publicly embarrassing issues, or else self-incrimination. We don't expect honesty in either of these situations. The majority of perjury charges in the news have been exactly these types of situations -- perjury traps where the lie itself isn't damaging in any way.

------------------------

"With that being said, Congress should concern itself with more important things."

Well, we're in agreement there at least.

by bleedjaxblue on Feb 13, 2008 7:40 PM EST up reply actions

I'll try to be concise...

How did I undermine my argument? The threat of perjury is necessary to keep people honest. Perjury charges should be brought more often. I completely agree that selective enforcement is BS. They should bring perjury charges against everyone who lies under oath.

I understand what you're saying about double jeopardy and I agree to a certain extent. Compelling someone to testify should not be purposefully used as a springboard to bring criminal charges against the witness. However, the witness does have a choice. The threat of criminal charges should trump the threat of negative publicity. A person's individual needs shouldn't come before our system of "justice."

Lying in general should not be a crime. If a woman lies to her husband, the husband has recourse available through the civil courts. If the woman lies in court, then she is putting her individual needs before our system of "justice" and should be punished. What's the point of putting people under oath if they are just going to make stuff up? Our legal system would be worthless.

by Snake the Jake on Feb 13, 2008 9:17 PM EST up reply actions

response (trying to be concise)

"How did I undermine my argument?"

Just saying that we need perjury charges to bring police in check, but then saying that we don't really effectively use it to do that. Anyway, not that important a point. It just made the connection between enforcement in a case like this and the need for it in police witness testimony more tenuous.

Incidentally, since police are lying as witnesses, not as defendants, would still be prosecutable under my ideal system, since my objection was mostly against defendant's self-exonerating testimony.

-----------------------

"They should bring perjury charges against everyone who lies under oath."

I disagree strongly here. To the contrary, I feel like there are a lot of circumstances where lying under oath shouldn't be criminal at all. I discussed this below, but I don't see much justification for criminalizing it in all circumstances. I don't think the lying, standing on its own, is morally reprehensible enough to constitute a crime. And I don't think lying under oath in some circumstances (such as defendants testifying against themselves) creates a problem to the legal system. People don't tend to take this testimony seriously, whether it's under oath or not.

What's the point in making something a crime that is expected human behavior, and has few consequences?

I agree that selective enforcement is a problem, but I think the statute should be rewritten to reflect a smaller class of people whom we actually want to prosecute.

----------------------------

"If a woman lies to her husband, the husband has recourse available through the civil courts."

Well, you see, a husband actually DOESN'T have a civil or criminal suit of fraud against his wife, so he'd never be able to get her to court to get her on the stand.

Again, this wasn't about perjury directly, though. It was an example of how a criminal statute that revolves around lying (fraud) and concealing crime (misprision of felony by the geneticist) can be altered depending on the circumstances of the liars. if it's a husband and wife, we expect the lie, and, legally speaking, there is no fraud. if this were a boyfriend and girlfriend, the same set of facts could lead to a fraud charge. why? because of the difference in circumstances, and our expectations about whether people will lie (and if that makes the lie criminal). the same can apply to perjury -- not all lies are equal, and we only need to treat the unexpected ones as criminal.

-------------------------

"What's the point of putting people under oath if they are just going to make stuff up? Our legal system would be worthless."

Half-agreed. There's no purpose to putting defendants under oath, period. There testimony is almost worthless, besides the purpose of building sympathy with the jurors, or coming across as honest-sounding. But nobody takes a defendant's account of events as gospel anyway -- just look at how few people believe Clemens right now, despite his testimony.

As for other witnesses, keeping perjury charges available is fine. But witnesses lie on the stand right now all the time -- any juror is going to hear conflicting testimony and have to work through what they do and don't believe. I'm not sure lowering the standard would change too, too much. But, mostly, it's not important, since I still support perjury prosecution of witnesses.

by bleedjaxblue on Feb 14, 2008 12:27 AM EST up reply actions

One last response

Depending on the jurisdiction, recourse may be available in civil courts to recoupe erroneously paid child support payments. Such a remedy is only used after divorces because the alleged father is entitled to a DNA test before a child support order in the boyfriend-girlfriend situation.

Bonds was a witness in the case against the BALCO defendants. If he would have said, "I asked for steroids and they gave them to me," it would have made obtaining an indictment much easier. By not being truthful, Bonds impeded the investigation. Do you think perjury charges against Bonds are justified? If not, how do you reconcile your opinion in his situation with your proposed definition of perjury?

by Snake the Jake on Feb 14, 2008 8:43 AM EST up reply actions

perjury standard

well, like i said, i obviously haven't done enough research to write a model statute myself. if you forced me to enunciate a standard, it would probably include the following for witnesses:

1) COST TO DEFENDANT, which includes:
A) the degree of privacy people would/should expect about the issue (related to the degree to which we would expect lies)
B) the actor's situation (for instance, being famous would make lying more acceptable if the lie protects the actor's reputation; or lying about adultery is more acceptable if the actor is still married)

2) COST TO PROSECUTION, which includes
A) how exclusive the deposed witness is to proving a particular set of facts in the trial (i.e., if there are other ways of proving the same point, the prosecutor shouldn't pursue this testimony, nor should we be as fast to convict for perjury)
B) germaneness of line of questioning to case under/materiality of lie (already a standard)
C) in a case like Bonds testifying against BALCO, there would also be questions about the INTENT of securing Bonds' testimony -- the trial can't be a pretense in order to compel a witness to testify

I'm sure there's more that could be weighed (along with all of the traditional measures of perjury).

------------------------------

I'm curious what tort action a husband can bring against his wife. I'm not questioning the child support can be recouped. But, when two people are married, it's considered a rebuttable presumption that the child is theirs. Any "payments" the husband makes supporting this child are not recoverable, as best as I knew. A father can order a paternity test, of course, after which point he may no longer be legally responsible, but I didn't think he could recoup money he spent supporting what he believed to be "his family."

Child support payments, of course, are different. In these situations, the couple isn't together.

As I was asking, is the husband suing under a theory of fraud? This still wouldn't change the fact that, criminally speaking (as we've been this whole time), we excuse a lie depending on the situation. But I'm curious even what civil suit the husband is bringing to recover past "payments" he made in the course of being married.

by bleedjaxblue on Feb 14, 2008 12:05 PM EST up reply actions

The End

How do you prove the government's intent in Bonds's situation? It kind of reminds me of the following situation: (how do you hyperlink?)
http://www.flexyourrights.org/pretext_traffic_stops. As long as the government has a valid reason for using its subpoena powers, it doesn't matter what the "real" reason for having Bonds testify is.

The husband couldn't recover routine support paid while married. He could terminate the post marriage support obligation through a relief from judgment type motion. As for recouping prior payments, the actual manner of going about it is going to depend on the jurisdiction.

It took a minute but here it is: ORC § 3119.964(B) If a court grants relief from a child support order pursuant to section 3119.962 [3119.96.2] of the Revised Code and support arrearages are owed, the court may issue an order canceling that arrearage. Nothing in this section limits any actions that may be taken by the person or male minor granted relief under this section to recover support paid under the child support order from which relief was granted.

Ok...I'm done. I do agree with you on some points and have enjoyed the discussion.

by Snake the Jake on Feb 14, 2008 1:10 PM EST up reply actions

how does the court....

.....determine if the trial is a pretext?

their own judgment. the Supreme Court does it all the time.

by bleedjaxblue on Feb 14, 2008 1:16 PM EST up reply actions

response

I appreciate the well thought out response. I have a couple of comments.

"as we all saw with McGwire, taking the 5th might as well be an admission of guilt. this leaves people the option of either: 1) testifying against themselves (an unconstitutional option), or 2) perjuring themselves (something that you could argue is a sort of double jeopardy, since you've instantly become more liable for what is ostensibly the same crime and could theoretically be convicted a second time the second you lose the original trial -- which is another one of my problems with perjury charges)."

Sure it might be an admission of guilt in the court of public opinion, but thats not going to get you locked up. The Constitutional protection is that you don't have to testify if what you might say might incriminate you. Clemens had this option, but chose not to take it. He thought he could beat the rap by perjuring himself(assuming he is in fact lying). Without a threat of perjury, everyone would simply lie.

As for the double jeopardy, one could argue that the perjury deceived the trier of fact justifying a new trial.

You later mention that a guilty person who takes the stand likely is going to commit perjury anyways, so why enforce it. This is a valid point since if the defendant is guilty what does he have to lose? But defendants themselves often do not take the stand. Why they do this could be for a few reasons: 1) either they don't want to perjure themselves because they fear extra charges(unlikely since if he gets locked up anyways I doubt prosecutors would seek more time unless its a very high profile case); 2) his lawyer knows he's going to perjure himself and the lawyer ethically cannot put him on the stand; or 3) the defendant knows his story is a sham, might look bad on the stand and screw up his case. I think all three come into play, but if perjury was not a threat then what would prevent people from lying in every case?

I think you're right though that perjury isn't really a threat to guilty defendants who take the stand, but I think its important for witnesses or people who aren't charged criminally, such as Pettitte. Without the possibility of perjury does Pettitte give a truthful deposition? As for Clemens, he chose to lie(allegedly) but that threat of perjury leads to the truth such as when Pettitte copped to taking HGH. I think that is the purpose of the rule.

Jack Cust is this year's Marcus Thames

by Team Moneyball on Feb 13, 2008 7:21 PM EST up reply actions

responses

"I think you're right though that perjury isn't really a threat to guilty defendants who take the stand, but I think its important for witnesses or people who aren't charged criminally, such as Pettitte. Without the possibility of perjury does Pettitte give a truthful deposition?"

100% agreed. Witnesses are a more important target for perjury. Pettitte would be a totally valid perjury charge.

------------------------

"Sure it might be an admission of guilt in the court of public opinion, but thats not going to get you locked up. The Constitutional protection is that you don't have to testify if what you might say might incriminate you."

But what business does Congress have to begin with asking people about their steroid use? Or to ask Clinton about his affairs?

What's the stop Congress from inviting you on the witness stand and start asking you question a la that Fox show "Moment of Truth"? They can grill you for an hour about outrageous personal topics until they run into something you'll find too embarrassing to reveal publicly, at which point they've turned something noncriminal into something criminal through use of perjury charges. Sure -- you could "take the 5th" when they ask you an embarrassing question, but, as far as the court of public opinion is concerned, you just made an admission of guilt to the thing you wanted to keep private. Therefore, Congress got what they wanted out of you there -- they de facto compelled testimony out of you on a noncriminal issue.

Regarding ACTUAL crimes, the question is, do we believe the action should constitute an extra crime? We might because: 1) we find the act of lying to protect yourself morally reprehensible, or 2) we find it necessary to properly run trials.

I don't think it passes either test. As discussed, it's the norm, and therefore CAN'T be viewed as "criminal" in and of itself. You make an argument that, without perjury charges, it WOULD muck up trials. I'm really not convinced it would though. Of your three objections, the second two remain as effective as before even if perjury charges were repealed (attorneys would still face sanctions, and bad testimony is still bad testimony).

As for the first objection, I don't foresee the untruthful testimony of defendants as presenting a huge impediment to jury trials. First off, as discussed, juries don't generally take a defendant's testimony particularly seriously -- the defendant's testimony is already only the parts of the story that are corroborated by the witnesses the defense calls to the stand. If there's any value to putting a defendant on the stand, it's the value in him looking sympathetic, not in his having a story about not having committed the crime. Second of all, a defendant has already lied (and perhaps perjured himself in a sense) by pleading "not guilty" at the beginning of the trial. The jury is fully aware of what the defendant feels he was doing instead of the crime anyway.

As for prosecutors only using perjury charges in "very high profile cases," that's exactly the problem. Uneven standards are enforced on an otherwise socially acceptable action in order to gain publicity and secure an important conviction for the media. If the differential enforcement were used according to a valid standard (i.e., witnesses, etc), then I would support it. But they're not. Being "high profile" is a very bad reason for selective enforcement.

------------------------

"As for the double jeopardy, one could argue that the perjury deceived the trier of fact justifying a new trial."

Yeah. And that's what the courts have (validly) ruled: Technically speaking, these are two separate acts, and two different crimes. (In fact, there are much MORE similar acts that don't merge in criminal law than these.)

I'm not arguing that this is LITERALLY unconstitutional. Rather, as it's applied, it borders breaking important principals in criminal law, and at very little value.

----------------------------------

"As for Clemens, he chose to lie"

And, given that Clemens was so aware of the exact trap he walked into, I support continuing to apply the perjury charges in this case (assuming that Congress is going to continue with this inane search, which they shouldn't). This, of course, I don't believe is true for the first batch of players who stood before Congress, but this post is getting long already, so I'll hold off on that topic for now.

by bleedjaxblue on Feb 13, 2008 8:06 PM EST up reply actions

more responses

Regarding Congress I that the main problem is the tribunal. I agree with you completely that Congress is thrusting itself into areas where politics aren't really needed. In essence they are on a witch-hunt in order to try to bring some people down since there are no charges here, but the end game for everyone called is either embarrassment or perjury charges.

As for perjury during actual criminal trials, I think the key is selective prosecution, something which you disagree with but I think is important here.

In a standard criminal case where the defendant takes the stand and lies but is still found guilty, I doubt any prosecutor would waste time on trying to take on perjury charges after the fact. But in high-profile cases wouldn't you think its necessary for the integrity of the system in the public's eye? I agree with you that selective enforcement on this level is entirely media driven because without publicity nobody would care if a guy lied on the stand, but shouldn't we then prosecute in these high-profile cases?

As for the three scenarios, I agree the first one is the least likely and so perjury likely isn't that huge of a deterrence to defendants who take the stand. As for number two, ethical problems for attorney's who call a client who is likely to lie, my concern is that without perjury the ethical line would be much more blurry. The ABA talks about how lawyers should not put misinformation in front of the trier of fact, but doesn't a criminal defense attorney do just that when he discredits a witness he knows to be truthful? Our system allows this and no defense attorney is going to get sanctioned for that but he would if he put his client on the stand to commit perjury. I think without a clear rule against perjury the line would be blurred enough that defense attorneys would be more willing to push it. Eventually they might not be sanctioned for this act, which would harm the system.

That being said, and after rereading your post, it seems you aren't against perjury completely, just not against defendants or possible defendants.

Also, im glad I asked you to elaborate as I'm enjoying the conversation.

Jack Cust is this year's Marcus Thames

by Team Moneyball on Feb 13, 2008 10:13 PM EST up reply actions

yeah....very enjoyable discussion

so, like you said, i'm not against perjury in all cases -- just in the vast majority of self-incriminating cases.

you might have a point about attorneys being more willing to put witnesses on the stand who they know aren't going to provide truthful testimony. i guess i was resting my assumptions that they wouldn't on the fact that they're governed by a separate body, but that might be underselling the scope of the changes. of course, for me, this is still outweighed by the fact that i see very little potential damage done by allowing more untruthful testimony by defendants.

so, a bit more about select enforcement in high-profile cases. i'll abandon any claims that it's unconstitutional under equal protection or special classes of person or that sets a dangerous precedent for future, more dubious selective enforcement for the moment, and just focus on the value of the law.

you point out the strongest argument in favor of having a system that does this: the general deterrence value, sending a message to the public in the cases the public will actually hear about. furthermore, maybe celebrities deserve a higher level of scrutiny, because: 1) they should be aware they'll face it, or 2) they're so privileged otherwise that they deserve it.

on the flip-side, celebrities are also the people who have the most REASON to lie publicly about private issues, for the very reason you want to ring them up on perjury charges. nobody hears when your next-door neighbor testifies that he cheated on his wife; a celebrity would face intense public scrutiny for coming forward with the same admission. for this reason, you could almost argue that celebrities should be the LEAST culpable for their lies.

furthermore, constitutional issues aside, i'm not sure i can morally justify giving a longer sentence to somebody just because of their "celebrity status." to put it mildly, jail time is pretty serious. to tack years of it onto someone's life should not be done lightly. in my opinion, burdening an individual with this unequal punishment simply because of their status should be criminal in and of itself.

like i said, the deterrence point is a strong one, but, to me, it's overcome by the fact that i don't think the crime is one particularly worth deterring. as i said, the consequences of having false self-exonerating statements on actual court decisions seems to me to be quite minimal. ultimately, i'm not sure we'd be that much worse off if we made a blanket rule allowing people to lie to protect themselves (with the jury aware that defendants faced no potential perjury charges). actually, i don't think this would make their testimony viewed in any different of a light at all -- people already doubt this testimony as much as they can.

anyway, i totally understand your views on the issue. personally, i'd like to see things changed a bit, but i definitely see some value to the traditional system, and i'm not sure exactly how i'd rewrite the statutes to make them better anyway without some research. so, just my two cents. also, i'm totally with you on the congress thing.

by bleedjaxblue on Feb 13, 2008 11:46 PM EST up reply actions

evidence....

....of how little weight people give to defendant's testimony denying crimes/how little there is to worry about in terms of influencing juries with these types of lies:

http://www.minorleagueball.com/story/2008/2/13/201544/955

at the moment i'm posting this, 23 members of minorleagueball.com believe Clemens did steroids and 0 believe he didn't. that's pretty overwhelming evidence that we're not unduly influenced by this type of testimony.

by bleedjaxblue on Feb 13, 2008 8:48 PM EST up reply actions

Whatever.

Everyone who's anyone knows Clemens was a roider. No surprise here.

by elrey34 on Feb 13, 2008 12:51 AM EST reply actions

I should say,

after the Mitchell report. Anyone who said anything before was full of nothing but speculation. It was just minimal circumstantial "evidence." There's a lot of players out there like that that still get the finger pointed at them undeservingly.

by elrey34 on Feb 13, 2008 12:54 AM EST up reply actions

best part of the article

According to the account told to the AP, the affidavit said Clemens responded by saying Pettitte misunderstood the previous exchange in 1999 or 2000 and that, in fact, Clemens had been talking about HGH use by his wife in the original conversation.

classy move Belichek...Quitter

by jrose643 on Feb 13, 2008 7:37 AM EST reply actions

Blaming your wife??

thats a new low for him. He should have just confessed it all. People aren't all over Pettite or Giambi are they? No because they aknowledged it and showed remorse. Whether it was sincere or not at least they were honest.

Jman

by Honda3speed on Feb 13, 2008 7:53 AM EST up reply actions

+1

Well, the main problem with the blaming your wife routine is that the initial report of Mcname about him injecting his wife was in 2003/2004 for a SI swimsuit shoot. How does that have anything to do with 1999? Is he saying that hes been dealing with steriods in his household for 9 or 10 years?

Batting practice tomorrow you be there....I have Pop, everyday

by laxtonto on Feb 13, 2008 9:06 AM EST up reply actions

Well, I think you have to consider

that Clemens has a whole lot more to lose than Giambi and Pettitte. He's among the top five pitchers in history, and there's a very wide opinion of him being the very best ever. He could be denied entry to the Hall, just like McGwire and probably Palmeiro. They shouldn't be, but that's whole 'nother topic.

Not saying you're wrong, though. He really should just admit it, disregarding the consequences. The more people come out and admit it, the Hall will recognize that PEDs were used by half the players in the game, and while they were cheating, they were cheating against other cheaters. Cheating was practically the rule, rather than the exception. The whole decade was tainted. (Well, I guess it isn't a whole 'nother topic.)

by elrey34 on Feb 13, 2008 8:12 PM EST up reply actions

Petitte

Some more revelations from his deposition. Sounds like a stand-up guy.

http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news;_ylt=AgTz6JZIsLyhIEbcz_YKgtkRvLYF?slug=ap-steroids-pettitte&pro v=ap&type=lgns

by Yakker on Feb 13, 2008 8:50 PM EST up reply actions

Defense

Can Clemens now use spousal privilege and/or cliam any evidence of HGH was just for his wife?

Fake Teams

by ephinz on Feb 13, 2008 10:18 AM EST reply actions

Spousal privilege

only applies to questioning of the spouse. I guess he could intimate that it was for her, then claim spousal privilege when they ask him directly about it, and if they then call his wife to testify, she'd have to say she did it and claim spousal privilege when they ask about him. I don't see it helping much though. If he avoids the question, people will just assume he's guilty (see: Mark McGwire).

Vogt early, Vogt often.

by Brickhaus on Feb 13, 2008 12:03 PM EST up reply actions

Sorta

My law on this is a little rusty, but I think two separate privileges could apply here, depending on the facts:

-- Marital privilege: Protects communications husband and wife had during the marriage. Either spouse can assert.

-- Spousal privilege: Protects spouse from testifying against their husband or wife. Only testifying spouse can assert.

by Yakker on Feb 13, 2008 9:00 PM EST up reply actions

Clemens is done

Based on the depositions it just seems like there's Clemens and everyone else. And, man throwing your wife under the bus to try to save your skin that is kind of low.

by parrot11 on Feb 13, 2008 11:03 AM EST reply actions

Clemens and his wife

I am not world's biggest supporter, but let's remember that HE IS NOT throwing his wife under the bus, but other people are doing it.

by count sutton on Feb 13, 2008 11:09 AM EST reply actions

?? +0

What about the quote from Pettitte? "What about the conversation about you using HGH in 1999?" Ohh no you where mistaken, it was my wife....

Batting practice tomorrow you be there....I have Pop, everyday

by laxtonto on Feb 13, 2008 12:40 PM EST up reply actions

Pettitte

That was a quote from Pettitte, not Roger. Again, Clemens is not selling out his wife. If he said that to Pettitte 5 years ago in a private conversation, then that is not selling out your wife.

by count sutton on Feb 13, 2008 12:43 PM EST up reply actions

Man...

The Congress is really getting up on their high horse today.

Sidenote : The FAN just broke Jason Kidd to the Mavs as a done deal.

by GuyinNY on Feb 13, 2008 2:32 PM EST reply actions

Screw this crap about clemens

it's annoying.

Also, I understand that Kidd is a great PG and is Mr. Triple Double and I understand why the Mavs would do it but why trade Harris(who has done a very good job) for a guy who is shooting under 37%. I understand Kidd has never been a great shooter and is talented to ignore that problem but shooting 37% is just a joke.

Nevertheless, I personally like this trade better than the Suns trade for Shaq.

by NYYLover1000 on Feb 13, 2008 6:00 PM EST up reply actions

Kidd

I like the Kidd trade from both sides of the deal, and I liked the Suns trade too...Kerr knew that the Suns team as presently constructed wouldn't have a legit shot at a title, so why not take a gamble on Shaq having just enough left in the tank to get them over the hump? Now if only the NBA would re-seed the playoff format and just take the top 12 teams in the entire league, irregardless of conference/division standing/etc....

by southboundpachyderm on Feb 13, 2008 6:40 PM EST up reply actions

I will say this,

Devin Harris is a better PG than Kidd today, nevermind a couple years down the road and with the extra salary. The Nets just robbed the Mavs blind as did the Heat to the Suns.

by parrot11 on Feb 13, 2008 6:54 PM EST reply actions

The problem with Devin Harris

is that can he take the next step like for example distribute the ball and be a better floor general.

The problem with Harris, and I like him, but he tends to play like a two guard.

Again, I understand why the Mavs made the deal and it's better than the Shaq deal but taking a guy who's shooting less than 37% is just tough sometimes.

by NYYLover1000 on Feb 13, 2008 6:59 PM EST up reply actions

No..

he is not.

Dallas needs the veteran leadership and toughness Kidd brings. Ask anyone around last year's team USA. Kidd was not the best player on the team but he demanded everyone play hard. Players, coaches and those around the team said he singlehandedly restored restored respect to team USA.

Long-term good deal for NJ. Short term, great deal for Dallas. No way that team loses to GS in the first round with a leader like Kidd running the show.

by bl on Feb 13, 2008 8:40 PM EST up reply actions