Burden of proof is on Clemens
Roger Clemens questioned how he could prove his innocence in a '60 Minutes' interview weeks ago, and even without any physical evidence, Congress will look for him to try"How do I prove a negative?" asked Clemens in his first press conference since being linked to steroid and HGH use in the Mitchell Report. "Do I just keep shoving out millions?"
Apparently, it's a step in the right direction. But it won't be enough. Not even Clemens' attorney, Rusty Hardin, can get him out of this one.
At the end of the day, it's Brian McNamee's word vs. Roger Clemens' word. No physical evidence. No used needles. No checks. No medical prescriptions. Just a former trainer ratting out one of the greatest pitchers in the history of baseball.
On Feb. 13, McNamee, Clemens, Andy Pettitte, Chuck Knoblauch, and Kirk Radomski will be sitting side by side, in front of Congress, under oath. Radomski and McNamee have spoken. The convincing will be up to the players, and more importantly, Roger Clemens.
"As a member of this committee, I’ve got a responsibility to try to remain impartial," said U.S. Congressman Steve Lynch (MA) on my live sports talk show Monday. "I know that Mr. Clemens did introduce a telephone conversation between he and McNamee, but after listening to that conversation, it was far from conclusive and it was not complete. So I think Mr. Clemens has the burden of proof at this point."
Congressman Lynch is a member of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee that handles Major League Baseball's steroid hearings. The next hearing will be held on Feb. 13, a day in which Congress hopes to get answers.
"People say, well what do I want out of these hearings, well, one, we want the truth," said Lynch. "And based on what I’ve heard so far, they’re mutually exclusive. One party says that they injected the other 16 times with steroids and HGH, and the other one says it never happened. So there’s not a lot of grey area here where you could have both of those statements be true."
Beginning Feb. 1, all five invitees will face a pre-hearing deposition or transcribed interview with staff members from the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. Each has a preference as to whether they want the straight deposition, or the transcribed interview. Congressman Lynch was unaware on Monday as to what anyone's choice has been, but he did describe a major difference between the two.
"In a transcribed interview, we run through a prepared list of questions that the attorneys for the witness have in advance, so there are no surprises," said Lynch. "In a deposition, it’s much more free-wheeling, where we have subject matters that we disclose, but the individual questions are more spontaneous, in many cases, based on the response that we get from the witness. It’s a little bit more free-wheeling, and I believe, a little bit more productive.
"If [the transcribed interview] is the only thing we can get, that’s fine," he added. "I think our committee staff does a very good job, however, I think that you get more honest answers, and you have more flexibility in a straight deposition format. If a question pops up, you can ask it, and get an answer. Whereas, you don’t get that opportunity in a prepared, transcribed interview. You can have a transcribed interview if at the end, they swear under the penalties of perjury, but they get to review all their answers.
"You can have a sworn testimony by transcript, but they then are allowed to review their answers, make sure they’re true and accurate, sometimes you can agree to sign, sometimes they don’t."
Clemens is scheduled to meet with Congress on Tuesday, Feb. 5. His agent, Randy Hendricks, has yet to respond to an e-mail regarding which format Clemens will choose. If he wants to prove his innocence, a transcribed interview should be out of the question. That choice - knowing he'll have the questions ahead of time, and can go back and change his answers at the end - would only lead to more questions regarding Clemens' innocence. He won't be proving anything to anyone. It would just be another reason not to believe him.
There are already several reasons Clemens is having such a tough time proving that negative, shoving out millions or not. For starters, waiting to hold his first press conference, addressing the allegations, three and a half weeks after the release of the Mitchell Report didn't help his cause at all.
Pettitte's admission gave McNamee some credibility in a time when the public was looking for a reason to believe anyone. And speaking of credibility, how about that of former Senator George Mitchell? He put his credibility and the validity of the entire report on the line by deciding to include McNamee's story on Clemens. He did so after checking with McNamee several times to make sure the information was accurate.
Lastly, McNamee had every reason not to lie to Mitchell, something that Congressman Lynch acknowledged as well.
"I have a lot of respect for Senator Mitchell," said Lynch. "I looked at all the evidence, of all the players [in the Mitchell Report]. And also, there were a number of statements in which Mitchell did not report on a player because there was only one statement of steroid use that he couldn’t verify. So the names that came out, in each and every case, there was testimony by several witnesses, and in some cases there was documentary evidence. In other words, we had the prescriptions for the substances that were purchased. We had corroborating evidence from doctors and labs in some cases. So I think he was very careful.
"Now, remember, in the Clemens case, on the one hand, we have testimony by Brian McNamee, fairly compelling testimony, and he’s saying he injected [Clemens] 16 times," added Lynch. "This isn’t one or two cases, so it will be interesting, to say the least, to hear how Mr. Clemens is going to debunk that testimony, and also the corroborating evidence.
"The plea bargain with Mr. McNamee guaranteed him more favorable treatment, only under the condition that he told the absolute truth. So it would be against [McNamee’s] self interest to bring in evidence that was false. I’m going to give Mr. Clemens the benefit of the doubt until I hear the testimony because we’ve only heard one side of the story at this point. But like I said, I think the burden of proof is on Mr. Clemens."
It would seem so. But then again, how do you prove a negative? Even if it were possible, for Clemens, it may be too late.
(Note: The interview with Congressman Lynch can be heard in its entirety by clicking No. 6 on the automated media player on the top right of this page.)
posted by Danny Picard @ 5:49 PM
links to this post
