MLBPA says Clemens is on his own vs. Congress
-
- February
- 29
MLBPA chief Don Fehr said if Congress opts to go after Roger Clemens on perjury charges, the former Yankees pitcher should not expect help from players union.
“That’s beyond our jurisdiction,” said Fehr.
As far as determining whether Clemens would be able to salvage his reputation, Fehr said Washington isn’t the best place.
“I think Congressional hearings are not well suited for trying to decide questions of credibility, especially in circumstances like this,” Fehr said. “That’s best left for private litigation.”
PHOTO: AP
This entry was posted
on Friday, February 29th, 2008 at 12:07 pm by John Delcos.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Share and Enjoy: 
| 
| 
Advertisement
Clemens should forget about salvaging his reputation at this point. It's totally shot. What he should be more concerned with right now is to stop dragging his "friends" and family down in the gutter with him. A trial will only put all those around him and countless others through painful scrutiny.
When the indictment comes down, he should just plead guilty. If he doesn't, his prison term will only be longer.
Agreed. Clemens is toast here. He should cop a plea to try and cut down on his jail time.
JK: Do you get your jollies every time a famous person has problems?? Do you watch all the Britney Spears and Paris Hilton stuff? Was the highlight of your life the OJ trial amnd the lowpoint the verdict? Stick to baseball. Maybe you won't be such a… never mind….
Now you got another athlete to root for jail time for. How about that Spezio? No PEDS so I guess he's ok eh?
For those who want to know how the FBI operates, here is what Clemens can expect and it has already started:
ROCKET PROBE BLASTING OFF
FBI DIVES INTO CLEMENS PERJURY INVESTIGATION
By BRIAN COSTELLO
February 29, 2008—Roger Clemens life has officially gone from ERA and RBI to DNA and the FBI.
The FBI announced yesterday it has begun to investigate the 45-year-old former New York Yankees star for perjury. The announcement came one day after the leaders of a congressional committee wrote a referral to the Department of Justice asking for an investigation.
"The request to open an investigation on Roger Clemens has been turned over to the FBI, and will receive the appropriate investigative actions by the FBI's Washington Field Office," said Debbie Weierman, a spokesperson for the bureau.
Clemens faced off with his accuser and former trainer, Brian McNamee, on Feb. 13 in front of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform. The two told drastically different stories, leading the committee's chairman Rep. Henry Waxman, D-Calif., and ranking minority member Rep. Tom Davis, R.-Va., to refer the matter to the Justice Department.
IRS agent Jeff Novitzky had begun a preliminary investigation into Clemens, gathering evidence from McNamee and planning a trip to Clemens' hometown of Houston to begin digging. Now, a formal FBI field operation will begin. Novitzky is likely to lead the operation as part of a joint agreement between the IRS and FBI.
"I think even for a celebrity who is used to great scrutiny, nothing prepares you for being the target of an FBI field investigation," said Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University. "It is highly disruptive to your life. They are going to look at every aspect of his professional, financial and personal life.
"I tell my clients who have been in this situation: They're not hunting perjury, they're hunting you."
Clemens declined to speak with reporters again yesterday at Astros camp in Kissimmee, Fla. His lawyer, Rusty Hardin, reacted with ambivalence at the announcement.
"We've always expected they would open an investigation," Hardin said in a statement. "They attended the Congressional hearing. So, what's new?"
What's new is Clemens' life is about to be turned upside down and every inch is about to go under the microscope. Federal agents will begin interviewing anyone they believe has information on Clemens' possible steroid use. A grand jury likely will be impaneled and subpoenas will be issued not only to people in Clemens' life but to Clemens for medical, phone, financial and computer records.
The agents will scrutinize everything in Clemens' life looking not only for proof of perjury but for any other crimes he may have committed to increase the likelihood of a guilty plea or conviction.
"These investigators will look at anything short of ripping a label off a mattress to charge him with," Turley said.
The case likely will be assigned to the U.S. Attorney's Office in Washington to oversee the case and bring a possible indictment. There will be no rush, though. As the government showed in the Barry Bonds case, they are happy to take their time and compile as much evidence as possible.
"They will probably cast as wide a net as possible and subpoena many people," said Brad Simon, a criminal defense lawyer at Simon & Partners. "Many, many grand jury subpoenas get issued."
That subpoena list could include many current and former Yankees: players Andy PettitteAndy Pettitte and Mike Stanton and trainer Gene Monahan look like certainties, with former manager Joe Torre, general manager Brian Cashman, clubhouse staff, medical staff and players Gary Sheffield and Jason Giambi all possible.
A key witness may be Jose Canseco, who gave a sworn affidavit that Clemens never came to a party at his house in June 1998. Evidence has surfaced suggesting Clemens was there. Canseco already has been contacted by Novitzky but the two have not agreed to meet, according to Canseco's attorney Robert Saunooke. He said Canseco is willing to talk to federal agents but they have to come to Canseco. He is unwilling to pay to travel in order to meet with them.
If the feds feel they have proof Clemens was at Canseco's house, they may tell Canseco they will charge him with lying to federal agents as leverage to get him to become a cooperating witness.
"I can't comment on anything at all," Canseco said. "My publisher has advised me not to."
CHECK THIS OUT
The FBI announced yesterday it has opened an investigation into whether Roger Clemens committed perjury on Feb. 13 at a congressional hearing.
The Democratic staff of the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform put together an 18-page memo that provides damning evidence against Clemens. Here's a look at the seven things the committee questioned in the memo:
1. Clemens' testimony that he has never used steroids or human growth hormone.
Brian McNamee testified he injected Clemens at least 38 times with either a steroid or HGH. McNamee's testimony is backed up by that of Andy Pettitte and Chuck Knoblauch, who said McNamee was telling the truth about them.
2. Clemens' testimony McNamee injected him with lidocaine
Testimony from doctors suggests it would be unusual for a team trainer to administer such a shot in the back, as Clemens claims, never mind a personal trainer like McNamee.
3. Clemens' testimony team trainers gave him pain injections
Clemens told the committee "all trainers have given me shots." This is contradicted by testimony from team trainers and doctors.
4. Clemens' testimony he received many vitamin B12 injections
The committee went through medical records dating back to 1995 and found only one B12 injection, coming in 1998.
5. Clemens' testimony he never discussed HGH with McNamee
Later when asked about his wife's use of HGH, Clemens said he had an angry conversation with McNamee about giving her the shot.
6. Clemens' testimony he was not at a party at Jose Canseco's house in 1998
The testimony of Clemens' nanny, along with a photo that has surfaced of a neighbor posing with Clemens that day, have erased doubt he was there.
7. Clemens' testimony he was "never told" former Sen. George Mitchell had made a request to interview him as part of his steroids probe
The committee staff says it was "unlikely" Clemens' agents would make a decision for him not to talk to Mitchell without running it by Clemens first. Pettitte, who has the same agents, said he was informed by them Mitchell wanted to talk to him.
brian.costello@nypost.com
sloppy, sorry to disappoint you but I don't get any jollies when famous people screw up. And maybe you can fill me in on Britney Spears and Paris because I don't follow them but I bet that's right up your alley. As for Spiezio, he's getting his just desserts. I never said DUI was OK, and your tying to infer that is my position shows how weak your argument is.
glad to know jk that you only have a roger clemens fetish. if he doesn't go to jail how in the world will you explain to your kids how bad cheating is?
Sorry, sloppy, to disappoint you again as I don't have a Roger Clemens fetish. Since you seem to be an expert on fetishes, maybe you can explain what it is like to have one about a famous player? If Clemens doesn't go to jail, the pain he put himself, his family, and his friends through will be a big enough lesson to have an impact on kids (and other players and adults too—don't forget about them!).
Fehr needs to hurry up and work out a testing system for HGH. The House Committee on Commerce and Energy – a legistlative committee – has already got a bi- partisan bill re: standardized testing for the major professional sports ready to go to the floor.
When Fehr told one of the Reps. that they didn't need it, she replied – that's what you told us three years ago, and here you are again – "a businessman who needs an Act of Congress to clean up his business. And, we are prepared to do just that."
JK, ever do anything wrong? Ever?
Annie, I think I have to side somewhat with Fehr here. AFAIK, the current HGH test is prone to false positives and only detects HGH that has been taken that day. So if a player took HGH the week before the test, it wouldn't detect that.
What I'm more concerned with is the infrequency with which they test now, the lack of extensive out-of-season testing, and the lack of an independent third party to manage the testing program. Penalties should also be more severe.
Keith—Of course.
JK, just a little friendly ribbing.
"What I’m more concerned with is the infrequency with which they test now, the lack of extensive out-of-season testing, and the lack of an independent third party to manage the testing program. Penalties should also be more severe."
You're on the money here.
So, Keith, I hope you do know the union is now resisting those reforms I listed, most of which were contained in the Mitchell Report.
So how are we going to get them if Congress doesn't kick their butt?
JK, and I want a million dollars… doesn't mean I should pester Congress to make someone give it to me.
This is why there is a union, to protect the players' rights. There will be some kind of back and forth and a compromise. This is the way the world works. Congress should not get involved.
Now don't go flying off the handle that I'm some ex-juicehead, PED sympathizing, apologist. I'm just saying that in real life, you can't always get the perfect solution. So MLB will have to negotiate the best one they can get.
Here’s the thing, Keith – as I mentioned in the other thread, MLB operates in the way it does due to the largesse of Congress and the anti-trust exemption it awarded them. If Congress tells Fehr and Selig to jump, they jump. If they tell them to sit, they sit. It is not up to MLB at this point to decide if their steroids program goes far enough. Congress will decide that. And I’m glad they stuck their nose in MLB’s business because if they hadn’t, every year we’d still have a few Popeyes hitting 60-70 steroids-aided HRs.
"It is not up to MLB at this point to decide if their steroids program goes far enough. Congress will decide that."
I disagree with the sentiments of your post here. I do not want MLB run by Congress. Where does their control end? Can they realign the divisions? Can they contract teams? I know Congress granted MLB an anti-trust exemption, but should that give them free reign over MLB?
I think Congress should stick to passing legislation and keep its nose out of MLB. If they're so gung-ho about PED testing, then they should establish some sort of neutral 3rd party Agency that tests professional sports. Otherwise, they don't need to get involved as long as MLB's policy is reasonable.
Further, I don't believe it should be Congress' duty to prevent "Popeyes hitting 60-70 steroids-aided HRs."
Keith—that is not just my sentiments. That is fact. Right now and for the last few years, MLB has been under the thumb of congress when it comes to drug testing and steroids.
You keep saying things like "as long as MLB's policy is reasonable" but you keep failing to see it wouldn't even be reasonable today if Congress had not hammered Selig and Fehr on their heads multiple times.
Congress has shown no inclination to get into any other aspect of MLB's business. But they rightfully jumped in when it was clear MLB was not doing enough to clean up the game. And they kept jumping in when it was clear Selig and Fehr weren't moving fast enough.
I'm really glad Congress stopped the roided up Popeyes, because it was clear if they didn't, no one else was going to.
JK You like Congress so much one of your buddies Senator Larry craig is looking for summer interns. Apply. He's obviously a Congreeperson, a hero in your mind, and example of how those in power get their just rewards. Oh wait, his just rewards was nothing…. Being convicted and a member of Congress gives you no punishment. Not being convicted Bonds and Clemens, gives you a JK punishment. Sir, you are unAmerican. In America you are innocent until proven guilty. And you JK convict people as a single judge and jury. Your mind set is dangerous to the freedoms that you yourself are freely abusing in your witch hunt.
sloppy, chill out and stop with the dramatics. This is the court of public opinion. I hope you're bright enough to know the difference.
As for Bonds and Clemens, both of them will be going through a real court soon … and likely convicted. They brought it upon themselves.
"As for Bonds and Clemens, both of them will be going through a real court soon … and likely convicted."
Well, there is a difference. They're not being tried for steroids, they're being tried for perjury.
"sloppy, chill out and stop with the dramatics."
Says the dude who wrote,"whenever I look at Bonds, I don't see him holding a bat, but a syringe."
Thank you very much Keith!!!!!
I hope your, Imean our boy Church is not hurt too bad. He really got whacked by Marlon. Too many guys playing positions they are not familiar with, but Marlon as an infielder should have heard Church calling and backed off.
Lets see Mar 1 and our first baseman, 2nd baseman, center fielder, rightfielder and fifth starter are allhurt. Maybe Sanatana and Pedro will have to do a king and his court type of thing.
From a legal perspective, there's a big difference. But from a practical perspective, there is little difference … because at the heart of the perjury charges is whether or not they knowingly cheated and did PEDs. That’s precisely what the juries will have to decide in both situations.
Based on what I know of the evidence so far, it’s clear to me both did and I believe both will be convicted.
Normally, the question of whether or not a player did PEDs always remains in the court of public opinion. But Bonds and Clemens have forced the issue into a real court, and they have mainly themselves to blame for this.
If I were their lawyers I'd ask for a bench trial. There is no way they would ever be able to get an impartial jury because of the intense media coverage.
Legal or practical, there is a huge difference between taking PEDs as a professional athlete and lying under oath. To use your own term, it's like comparing apples to oranges.
Look, no one is saying these guys should be let off the hook, especially for perjury. However, I do feel one's punishment should be proportional to his crime.
The issue that will be examined in their respective trials/investigations is whether or not they lied under oath. Obviously one of the contradictions to be examined will be PEDs, however the main, and more serious transgression is perjury.
I did say from a legal perspective there is a big difference. But for all practical purposes, there is little difference because the jury will be deciding whether these two players cheated and took PEDs.
IOW, in order for the juries to decide whether they perjured themselves, they will also have to make a decision on whether or not they took PEDs and cheated.
So in an actual trial, what the juries will be doing is not so different from what the public has been doing. Of course the juries' job will be much more complex, but they will be making that same core decision that we as fans have been making.
As for legal punishment, the parameters are already set by law, and if they go through a trial and are convicted, both will spend a longer time in jail than if they had plead guilty.
As for informal punishment, that is up to each individual fan-team-writer to decide for themselves what is appropriate.
Actually what the juries will be doing during these trials (if they even go to trial) will be a lot different. In the "court of public opinion" someone like yourself sees the MR and decides, "yeah, I think Clemens is a liar, this guy did steroids." At trial, the prosecution will have to prove "beyond a reasonable doubt" that Clemens/Bonds lied under oath. Clemens/Bonds do not need to prove they told the truth.
It is extremely difficult to get a conviction as this is quite a high burden for the prosecution to prove (see O.J. Simpson.)
So no, the respective juries will not be making the same core decision that fans have been making. Getting a conviction in a criminal courtroom is a whole different ball game than convicting someone in the court of public opinion.
Well I disagree. The juries will essentially be deciding whether or not Clemens or Bonds juiced and cheated and this is essentially the same decision that you or I have made.
The standard of proof may be different, but that doesn't change the nature of what they will be deciding.
In the court of public opinion, Clemens or Bonds didn't need to prove they were innocent. The reason so many people think they are guilty is because of the nature and the amount of evidence that exists in both cases. In Clemens case, that evidence isn't all from the MR either.
If I'm not mistaken, the record for convictions by the federal government for perjury charges is extremely high. OJ Simpson is a different situation because it was a murder trial by a state court. They were also lucky to get a sympathetic jury.
Bottom line and I don't think you can deny this is that the juries will have to decide whether or not Clemens and Bonda knowingly juiced (in order to decide whether they committed perjury). To me that is the same "core decision" that the public has made in these situations. You can call it whatever you want. But it is essentially the same.
As I said, the job of the juries will be more complex. And the process and standard of proof will be different. But the nature of the decision will be the same.
JK: You should heed the words of Abraham Lincoln. By the way do you think United States Senator Larry Craig, got his just rewards for his crime. A United States Senator, an example to children all over America…. Did he get his just reward oh righteous one? And was his crime lesser than the sins of Bonds/Clemens?
"Well I disagree. The juries will essentially be deciding whether or not Clemens or Bonds juiced and cheated and this is essentially the same decision that you or I have made."
You can disagree all you want, but you're wrong. They have to decide, beyond a reasonable doubt, whether they lied under oath. That's the issue, not whether or not they juiced or cheated. BTW, there are other contradictions other than the PEDs issues, like whether or not Clemens was at Canseco's party. Refer to Annie's post above, a lot of the contradictions do not deal with "did he or didn't he take PEDs."
I'm not 100% sure about this, but I'm pretty sure the jury verdict will not be "Clemens is guilty of perjury, because…" It will just be "guilty or not guilty." Most likely we won't find out why they found him guilty of perjury if he is, in fact, found guilty.
As for the federal government's record in criminal cases, it's pretty darned imposing, perjury or otherwise. Look at what happened to Vick. Dude didn't even have a trial, he was thrown in the slammer because the feds do not mess around. For the most part, when the federal government comes a knocking, you're in deep trouble.
So yes, the OJ comparison is different because it was a state trial, however that was just an example to show how difficult it is to convict someone beyond a reasonable doubt. Regardless of whether or not the jurors were sympathetic, it is still the highest and most difficult burden of proof in the legal system. By contrast, OJ was found guilty in his civil trial, which only requires a preponderance of the evidence.
Keith: The conviction rate for the Feds is hgh because a) they have better investigative sources (FBI) at their disposal than most state and local systems have, and b) because the Feds as a rule won't take a case to trial unless they beleive the chances of winning are excellent. Hence, that is why you see investigations such as Bonds' going on for so long. You guys are acting like Clemens is in the slammer in a week or two. Its a slow slow process. Perjury cases are very hard to prove to a jury. Just like the hearings is it beyond a reasonable doubt when Clemens says that Pettit "mis-remembered" a conversation that took place 8 years ago. Or is it possible??? You gotta convince all the jurors…..
Sloppy, while I didn't get into the details like you did, that was my general point about the feds. Their conviction rate overall is higher because of their resources and picking and choosing the cases they take.
And yes, perjury cases are very difficult to prove, however I was just pointing out that all criminal trials are difficult because of the beyond a reasonable doubt burden of proof.
I wasn't knocking you Keith, just adding to your post.
The Met O is in a big hole. Was it you or someone else who said to get a guy like Mensch? This bench doesn't balance the starting lineup at all, which I think many here said over the Winter.
Yes, but the only way to do that is to make a determination on whether or not they juiced. You are simply wrong, here, Keith.
Yes, but perjury has to be about a material issue. It remains to be seen how much of the other inconsistencies rises to the level of a perjury. And, at any rate, whether or not the players juiced knowingly will remain the core issue.
I'm positive you're wrong about that. Among the charges for Bonds is a specific one that he lied when he said he didn't knowingly do PEDs. So in order for the jury to find he perjured himself, they will have to find that the government proved its case that he knowingly did PEDs. The central charge for Clemens will also be one concerning his lies about doing PEDs. Likewise, in order for the jury to find him guilty on that charge, they will have to agree with the government that he did PEDs.
This is just logic. But likely this same reasoning will be repeated by either side in their statements to the jury as well as the judge.
At any rate, jurors frequently speak out after a trial is over. You will see, in one way or the other, after these trials are over, that you are simply wrong on this point.
Yup, just as I said. So why did you originally say otherwise?
Uh, so are you backtracking now? You agreed that the feds have an excellent conviction rate, so now you're saying they will have a hard time getting a conviction????
Also, even in state courts, the rate of convictions is high. That's because they usually don't prosecute unless they feel they have a good case. We all know "beyond a reasonable doubt" is a tough standard. But that hasn't precluded the prosecutions in both state and federal court from winning a majority of their trials.