Clemens vs. McNamee

CNN:

Roger Clemens said Wednesday he received only vitamin shots from Brian McNamee, but the ex-trainer insisted before a House panel that every injection contained steroids or other performance enhancers.

Clemens sat mere feet from his chief accuser as the two men, both under oath, offered lawmakers starkly conflicting accounts about the injections McNamee administered years ago.

The committee's chairman, Rep. Henry Waxman, said, "Someone isn't telling the truth."

"If Mr. McNamee is lying, then he has acted inexcusably and he has made Mr. Clemens an innocent victim," Waxman said . "If Mr. Clemens isn't telling the truth, then he has acted shamefully and he has smeared Mr. McNamee. I don't think there is anything in between."

Clemens told reporters afterward that he was "very thankful and very grateful" for the chance to answer the allegations.

In a nearly direct exchange with McNamee, Clemens told the House panel that McNamee injected him with vitamin B-12 on three occasions, but never with steroids or other illegal substances.

McNamee -- who served as Clemens' trainer until 2007 -- countered that he injected Clemens with only testosterone, the steroid Winstrol or human growth hormone.

"I've never given Roger B-12," McNamee told the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform.

Clemens' testimony to the panel examining performance-enhancing drug use in America's pastime also failed to jibe with an affidavit provided by fellow New York Yankees ace Andy Pettitte, who has told the committee that in 1999 or 2000 Clemens "told me he had taken HGH."

Saying Pettitte was and will remain a close friend, Clemens said he believes Pettitte made a mistake.

"I believe Andy has misheard, Mr. Congressman, on his comment about myself using HGH, which never happened," Clemens said.

...

Both men came away from the hearing with their credibility challenged. Some of the evidence produced at the hearing would not be admissible in a court room. For example And Pettitte's wife gave an affidavit saying that Andy told her that Roger said something about HGH. This is what is known as double hearsay. While Pettitte's hearsay statement about Clemens may be admissible as an admission against interest his wife's statement would probably not be admissible. What makes that interesting is that apparently for some members of Congress they found her statement believable.

Then there is the matter of the physical evidence that McNamee claims was in his basement for seven years, which is also unlikely to be admissible.

Both men were challenged for inconsistent statements and McNamee was challenged on some specific allegations, including the one about seeing Roger and Jose Canseco together at a party.

It appears that Republicans were assigned to grill McNamee and Democrats were going after Clemens. While I don't know if that was agreed to before hand that is the way it broke out.

If a case is brought against Clemens I think the prosecution will fail because of the burden of proof problems and some clear challenges to McNamee's credibility. In the case Roger Clemens brought against McNamee Clemens will also have a burden of proof problem, but the burden is not as great in a civil case and he will have the advantage of the discovery process including extensive depositions of McNamee and others.