Lawyers: McNamee has physical evidence linking Clemens to steroids

[Yachtzee]

Originally Posted by Team Clark

Absolutely. Not to mention there is no "chan of evidence" for the syringes or gauze pads. Not admissable in a court of law so it should not be considered by congress.

"Chan of Evidence?" Sounds like the latest Jackie Chan movie.

Actually, Congress is acting in an investigatory role here, so the Federal Rules of Evidence don't really apply, just as they wouldn't apply in a grand jury proceeding. Congress isn't putting Clemens on trial, it is investigating MLB and the veracity of the claims in the Mitchell Report. What would the result be? If Congress doesn't think MLB is doing enough to combat PEDs, they may revoke MLB's anti-trust exemption or they may enact legislation requiring random drug testing in professional sports. The only thing they can charge Clemens with is contempt, if he lies to them.

So while this evidence might not make it in if this were a civil or criminal trial, it can be considered by Congress and could also be considered by a grand jury in determining whether to indict Clemens of a crime.

[Sea Ray]

Originally Posted by fearofpopvol1

I do understand that and all, but again, I'm not sure how you prove that. I would think Clemens could argue that yes, his DNA was on the syringes. However, McNamee could've taken one of the old syringes that he (supposedly) injected Clemens with B12 or Lidocane, filled it up with PED's and then pushed it into thin air. It may sound like a crazy theory, but I don't think it's that crazy.

I guess I'm just not sure how it's clear cut and how it proves anything.

If the syringe says HGH on the label and has traces of HGH and his blood in it then that's pretty conclusive. If you're still bothered then fine, go ahead and test it for trace amounts of lidocaine and B-12.

The Roger defenders here are beginning to remind me of the OJ trial..."well yeah, Fuhrman could have done this and Vanatter did that and then they worked a deal with the lab", on and on.

[jojo]

Originally Posted by Sea Ray

If the syringe says HGH on the label and has traces of HGH and his blood in it then that's pretty conclusive. If you're still bothered then fine, go ahead and test it for trace amounts of lidocaine and B-12.

The Roger defenders here are beginning to remind me of the OJ trial..."well yeah, Fuhrman could have done this and Vanatter did that and then they worked a deal with the lab", on and on.

If McNamee produced a syringe that is actually labeled "HGH" then this whole affair has truly jumped one of those 40 foot prehistoric sharks....

[Sea Ray]

Originally Posted by Topcat

Honestly as a Canadian and no I am not flag waving. This whole thing is quite pathetic. What is the point of it ? Reversed gambling bets, reversing who wins world series, we all know that will not happen. So in the big picture this is a whole posturing over events that will not change. Huge I mean Huge waste of time. Of course it may add fuel to the fire for Redsox fans versus the Yankee's and that in itself seems to be what MLB baseball revolves around, good god how pathetic is that ?

The whole thing is about lying under oath to the FEDs. No gov't can accept that.

I don't know what the issue is about dating the stuff. Nobody is arguing that this might have happened at another time. Clemens is arguing that it didn't happen at all. He needs to disprove that it happened at all.

[jojo]

Originally Posted by Sea Ray

The whole thing is about lying under oath to the FEDs. No gov't can accept that.

That doesn't seem fair. They lie to us all of the time.

[Sea Ray]

Originally Posted by Yachtzee

The only thing they can charge Clemens with is contempt, if he lies to them.

Where do you get this stuff? Remember Marion Jones, Martha Stewart and Bill Clinton (just to name a few)? He can be charged with perjury.

[Sea Ray]

Originally Posted by jojo

That doesn't seem fair. They lie to us all of the time.

Not under oath. Politicians are really under oath but when they are they'd sure as heck better tell the truth.

[savafan]

Just curious, what would the results of Congress taking away MLB's anti-trust exemption be?

[Sea Ray]

Originally Posted by savafan

Just curious, what would the results of Congress taking away MLB's anti-trust exemption be?

One thing is teams could move much more easily. If there was no anti-trust exemption I doubt you'd see a team in Minn or Miami this year.

[BCubb2003]

Originally Posted by savafan

Just curious, what would the results of Congress taking away MLB's anti-trust exemption be?

N.Y. Jeters vs. Boston Papis and L.A.-Rods vs. Chicago Pujols in the USLB, according to Commissioner Donald Trump.

[fearofpopvol1]

Originally Posted by Sea Ray

The whole thing is about lying under oath to the FEDs. No gov't can accept that.

I don't know what the issue is about dating the stuff. Nobody is arguing that this might have happened at another time. Clemens is arguing that it didn't happen at all. He needs to disprove that it happened at all.

Where did I (or anyone else) say they were a Roger defender? Way to draw your on false conclusions.

I'm merely questioning the amount of evidence that the McNamee camp has and the validity of the evidence. I just question whether this evidence could've been or was tampered with. If you read the article that's on page 2 of this thread I believe, medical and legal experts feel similarly.

[Yachtzee]

Originally Posted by Sea Ray

Where do you get this stuff? Remember Marion Jones, Martha Stewart and Bill Clinton (just to name a few)? He can be charged with perjury.

Our system of government? Jones and Stewart lied to federal investigators. Clinton was charged with perjury for testimony given in a deposition as part of a trial. So far, the only statements we have a record of are those he's given to the media. Did he talk to federal investigators? Has he lied in a deposition? Do we even know what he has said to Congress yet? No.

Well, if you want to get technical about it, if he lies to Congress, I think he's charged with contempt of Congress, in which case it's referred to a US Attorney who takes it to a grand jury and the grand jury then charges him with perjury. But in the end, yes he can be charged with perjury, but I don't think the charges come directly from Congress itself. I could be wrong though, if it makes you feel any better.

In any case, that wasn't the point of my post. The point of my post was that Federal Rules of Evidence to not apply to a Congressional Hearing because it's not a trial, it's an investigatory proceeding.

[jojo]

Originally Posted by Sea Ray

Not under oath. Politicians are really under oath but when they are they'd sure as heck better tell the truth.

How do you put the government under oath?

[Chip R]

Careful, people. This thread is starting to resemble a political thread.

[Sea Ray]

Originally Posted by jojo

How do you put the government under oath?

Easy. Ask Bill Clinton. He was put under oath