Curious, does he have any legal action agaihst Mitchell or Selig? Would the Players' Union have any suit?
how does that help you avoid answering questions from Congress? its not the same as taking the 5th to protect yourself from a criminal prosecution and when you are the plaintiff in a civil lawsuit, you better not be afraid of discussing your causes of action or answering questions about it. its the defendant in a civil case that usually avoids answering questions in other forums about the causes of action against it. if clemens was sure enough about filing a lawsuit then he should be confident enough to answer questions in front of congress about the same exact issues. if i have a client who wants to file a suit, then they better be willing and able to answer any questions any time from any one regarding our causes of action.
Everyone says he used steroids and the fact he didn't sue was proof. Now he files and it is a reason to skip Congress. As he said, there is no way he can prove his innocence to some people. They prefer to trust a guy who has a book deal lined up and was trying to get out of jail.
One teammate backing up his claim: Boddicker: "I tell you right now, I've seen Roger Clemens get injected with a B-12 vitamin shot. I was in the trainer's room back in Boston when the trainer injected him. Unless B-12 is illegal, I'm believing Roger. If it's this guy's word against Roger, I'll go with Roger every time. I had a locker right next to him in Boston and I can tell you this was the most dedicated athlete I've ever been around. The reason he had to take the B-12 was because he overworked himself. People say he's still performing past 40 and he must be doing something. Well, Nolan Ryan did it."
From the lawsuit: "According to McNamee, he originally made his allegations to federal authorities after being threatened with criminal prosecution if he didn't implicate Clemens," according to the 14-page petition, obtained early Monday by The Associated Press. Clemens On The Offensive On Sunday night, Roger Clemens filed a defamation lawsuit against his former trainer, Brian McNamee. Read the lawsuit (.pdf) The suit, first reported by the Houston Chronicle, states that when McNamee told others that when he first was interviewed by federal law enforcement last June, he denied Clemens had used steroids or human growth hormone. The suit quotes McNamee as saying he was pressured by Assistant U.S. Attorney Matthew Parrella and IRS Special Agent Jeff Novitzky -- key members of the BALCO prosecution -- to implicate Clemens. The suit did not attribute where the quote from McNamee was obtained. "After this exchange, and for the first time in his life, McNamee stated that he had injected Clemens with steroids in 1998, 2000 and 2001," the suit said. "Following his recantation, McNamee has relayed that he magically went from a 'target' in a federal criminal drug investigation to a mere 'witness,' so long as he continued to 'toe the line.' "
that doesnt make any sense. why did he have to give them clemens to stay out of jail? if only he and roger knew about any alleged steroid use then how would the government know he was lying about roger not using. how would they know roger was involved at all? he wouldnt have to lie, if the allegations are true, but instead omit part of what he knew... unless they specifically asked about Clemens....and what would lead them to specifically ask about clemens unless he was a target. if you dont think the federal government wants to make a big splash and get big results when it spends millions of dollars investigating cases then you have never worked a case against the federal government. i have no doubt they targeted clemens. i dont know if roger is telling the truth or not. but this version seems off to me. i think the government was targeting clemens and wanted this guy to give up clemens. whether it is true or not.... ?
According to Clemens, the Federal Government offered a deal to McNamee that says "tell the truth and you shall be free, lie and your going to jail" then proceeded to pressure him to lie. McNamee's attorney then responds with everything his client stated is "factual". What am I missing? I see this as a way for Clemens to avoid a defamation/libel suit by McNamee while knowing his own defamation suit is going nowhere. Smokescreen?
i dont get what you are saying seattle. please explain. how is it a way for clemens to avoid a defamation suit from the trainer? he is suing the trainer and therein claiming the trainer is lying.
Clemens' suit doesn't follow a logical path. Why would the government coerce McNamee to falsely give up Roger immediately after cutting him a deal which specifically says that if he lies he goes to jail? Roger avoids the defamation suit from the trainer because he claims McNamee was coerced into lying. Though he's suing McNamee the case he built points the guilty finger at the government. So, Clemen's is absolving McNamee of guilt while trying to charge him with defamation. See how that works? This defamation suit is a smokescreen not intended to actually result in any financial judgment but is purely an attempt to claim he's fighting the charges. Just my $.02...
Nothing McNamee's attorney's say can be taken seriously. Their own client calls up the guy they are "ready" to sue and offers to go to jail for him when he never had to be in this situation in the first place. The feds had nothing on Roger and McNamee had no reason to say his name other than a vendetta or a monetary gain.
Its all a matter of who you believe. A) A criminal with a reputation for being shady. (He was never certified to give all these athletes shots in the first place) or B) An athlete renowned for his work ethic. (Not for his cheating ability) Who would you believe.... For example if A) was a cop and B) was YOU Or if a) was a person accusing someone of rape and b) was a buddy of yours. For my money, its still too early to hang anyone.
Its common sense that the bigger the name, the sweeter the deal. Maybe not an evil DA but an overzealous one would certainly offer a better deal if there was a 'new' name that was a big one.
look, i am a trial lawyer. you cant file suit against someone and then use that offensively to avoid answering questions. you filed the suit. you can comment on it all you want without jeopardizing any legal proceedings. the defendant is the one who will refuse to answer any questions as he does not want to give away his legal strategy. the plaintiff has to put his strategy out there in order to bring the suit to begin with. roger will talk and will not use the suit to avoid answering questions.
