When Mike Wallace "grills" The Rocket, two SF Chron columnists expect softballs.
Gwen Knapp:
<<...We don't know yet how hard Wallace threw questions at Clemens, but early excerpts from tonight's "60 Minutes" interview (see Mr. Ostler's column on Page 2) suggest that the steroid era could topple another icon. I mean Wallace, not Clemens....>>
<<...Wallace and Clemens reportedly are pals, but that doesn't prevent hard-as-nails newsman Wallace from asking the tough questions in the taped interview. Like this exchange, after Clemens says he didn't do steroids.
Wallace: "Swear?"
Clemens: "Swear."
I haven't seen the interview, but Wallace is ruthless and I assume he jumps in with follow-up questions, and we get:
"Double-swear?"
"Double-swear."
"Swear, swear, underwear?"...>>
Wallace did an adequate job (though I'd rather have had Lara do it!).
Rocket came off poorly --as expected-- but he was allowed to work in a segment on his Vioxx use. He said he did it to carry the team, and he now believes it was a considerable risk to his health. He took them "like Skittles." Not good for the heart.
So most won't believe him, but he did engender some sympathy for an ace who took pain med's for the team. That's all he's got.
I loved how he said if he'd been taking steroids or HGH he'd "have a 3rd ear growing out of his forehead and he'd be pulling trucks with his teeth". As if the fact he doesn't is proof he's telling the truth LOL.
Clemens filed the suit Sunday night in Harris County District Court in Texas, listing 15 alleged statements McNamee made to the baseball drug investigator George Mitchell. Clemens claimed the statement were "untrue and defamatory."
Daisy wrote:Will he be foolish enough to lie under oath (Jan 16th)? I wonder if the feds are setting him up.
I predict he will take the 5th which will certainly help his civil suit.
Is that what McQwire did? I forget now. If so, he still got tarnished.
Is Clemens going ahead with the civil suit? In the Wisconsin State Journal it said he might forgo it due to the high laywer fees (or I might be mixing that up with a lawsuit against his old trainer, is that different to the civil suit you are talking about?)
Last edited by Daisy on Mon Jan 07, 2008 10:30 am, edited 1 time in total.
Daisy wrote:Is Clemens going ahead with the civil suit? In the Wisconsin State Journal it said he might forgo it due to the high laywer fees (or I might be mixing that up with a lawsuit against his old trainer, is that different to the civil suit you are talking about?)
I am talking about the lawsuit mentioned above. McGwire "didn't want to talk about the past".
MJD wrote:I am talking about the lawsuit mentioned above. McGwire "didn't want to talk about the past".
Oops, skipped over that. Interesting, sounds like the one the WSJ said he was not going to file. Who knows what is going on, one has to wonder if Clemens has a real strategy or whether he is changing it as he goes along.
MJD wrote:His only other options are to tell the truth or lie-both of which have serious consequences. Did he play the "family" card in the interview?
But history shows that the lies tend to have long term consequences whereas the truth can often be forgotton. His choices are bad vs very bad. He seems to be going for very bad. Odd.
MJD wrote:I am talking about the lawsuit mentioned above. McGwire "didn't want to talk about the past".
Oops, skipped over that. Interesting, sounds like the one the WSJ said he was not going to file. Who knows what is going on, one has to wonder if Clemens has a real strategy or whether he is changing it as he goes along.
After last night he has no where to go but forward. And if he truly did no cheating he would have no reason to take the 5th. He also can't skip the hearing because, as he said last night, if he knew what Mitchell had on him he would have "gone down there and set the record straight".
The hard part of playing chicken is knowing when to flinch.
Watching the interview last night, I was struck by how futile the whole exercise was. No one who didn't believe him before, believes him now, and no one who did believe him, changed their minds either. His 'righteous indignation' seemed a bit over the top. He also asked Mike Wallace, "So how did I get the PEDs? Where's that guy? I ask him to step up now." But . . . his trainer, the guy who DID accuse him of PEDs, WAS the supplier, so that guy already HAS stood up and said Clemens is guilty. After Marion's bald-face lies, it'll be real hard for anyone to take him seriously.
WASHINGTON (AFP) — Roger Clemens' attorney is reluctant to have the star baseball pitcher give a deposition to Congress next week ahead of a hearing before US lawmakers on steroid accusations, ESPN reported Sunday.
Citing unnamed sources, the sports telecast network reported that lawyer Rusty Hardin does not want his client to submit to questions under oath and will speak with House of Representatives Oversight Committee members Monday. (more)
In the interest of fairness, it's worth noting Hardin's concern with Clemens testifying is more from the aspect of their lawsuit with McNamee than with Clemens having anything to hide.
I'm not saying that isn't a smokescreen, but that's the "reason".
The article, which is unable to link here for some reason, stated:
Clemens, a legend with Hall of Fame statistics, could see his legacy ruined by doping links but could wind up in prison if proven to have lied under oath.
That is something Ward said was very possible if Clemens gives a desposition for the February 13 committee hearing and denies McNamee's accusations.
