I can't blame you if you were frustrated or feel like you still don't know anything more than you did before Wednesday's congressional hearings with Roger Clemens and former trainer Brian McNamee.

I know after nearly five hours of testimony by both men (and yes I watched almost all five hours on Wednesday), I am certainly in the same boat as everybody else who is wondering who to believe.

If you were stuck in the office all day or didn't have the chance to catch the proceedings, here is a quick review of what transpired on Capitol Hill.

Basically Clemens and McNamee said they weren't lying about the steroid or human growth hormone use and that the other was lying about their involvement.

Then when it came to the questions posed by the committee members – generally speaking – Clemens was attacked by the Democrats and McNamee was attacked by the republicans. Republicans flat out called McNamee a liar, who admitted to lying to police and other various investigators throughout the steroid investigation, and Democrats kept reminding Clemens that "he was under oath."

Congress was trying to figure out who was lying, but it turned out that both were lying to some degree and we are left with who was lying the least.

Throughout the entire hearing, Clemens and McNamee stuck to their stories despite taking some damning shots from certain committee members but the question of who was the lesser of two evils, at least for me, came down to the Jose Canseco luncheon/barbecue he hosted in June 1998 when all three were members of the Toronto Blue Jays.

Allegedly, this is where Clemens first brought up the possibility of using steroids.

According to McNamee, Clemens was at the event but arrived late. The former trainer to Clemens and Andy Pettitte also said that he saw Clemens' children and their nanny and that he later had a conversation with the seven-time Cy Young winner about "how much more fun the party would've been if the team didn't have a game later that night."

Clemens, on the other hand, said he was never at the party which Canseco hosted at his house and spent the day golfing and even produced a receipt for his day on the links. Canseco and his wife at the time both testified under oath that Clemens was not at the event and were both saddened that he and his family couldn't be there. The committee also had evidence Clemens was not there by producing the broadcast of that night's game and the broadcasters commenting on air about Clemens' absence from the party.

Now, if you're in the McNamee-is-telling-the-truth camp (as 69 percent of the nation does, according to an ESPN poll), the bombshell that committee chairman Rep. Henry Waxman brought up about Clemens talking to his nanny about the party before she was to give her deposition (which she stated that Debbie Clemens and their kids stayed the night at Canseco's house the night of the party) then you're probably thinking that McNamee isn't such a weasel.

If you're behind "The Rocket," then you believe that the Clemens' family may have very well been at the party considering the fact that the team was on the road and didn't want to be cooped up in the hotel. It also helps that the host himself was upset that Clemens didn't attend.

As far as Clemens conveniently (as the McNamee supporters would say) talking to the nanny before her deposition goes, then you believe that he was just trying to "do the committee a favor," by finding her and that a relatively non-English speaking nanny is not going to remember a luncheon that happened nearly 10 years ago.

So which camp am I backing then?

At this point I'd have to go with Clemens for two reasons. The first is that Clemens' account of the Canseco event is just more believable. Several witnesses, including the host, said that Clemens was not there and he had physical evidence that he was not. McNamee, who withheld evidence and admitted on several occasions that he was lying, "remembered" it differently but has no proof.

The second reason is the way the two men handled themselves in front of the Congressional heat. Clemens (and his lawyers) took the jabs, but came back fighting on all the tough questions, while McNamee was sheepish with his one- or two-word answers and looking like a kid that was answering questions while sitting in "time out."

Although after sitting and watching the proceedings for nearly five hours I came away believing Clemens' story more, the fact remains that there are still numerous questions that were left unanswered and others brought to the table.

I just wish I wasn't still sitting here not knowing any more of the truth and that Congress really just wasted five hours of its precious time.

Contact Matthew Girard at mgirard@kdhnews.com or (254) 501-7569.

---

 

Comments

Advertisement