Clemens and McNamee: Dissecting the Public Opinion

We're two days past The Showdown at Capitol Hill and the papers and IntraWeb have been swirling with opinions, body language "experts," and blowhards like me telling you what to think.  The testimony before Congress didn't clear up many facts or determine who was lying the least, but instead raised more fodder for the back pages.It isn't worth recapping the news in this space; there's plenty of prettier web sites with AP feeds that can do that for you.  Instead, we're going to dissect what the popular opinions are and see how they stand up to what actually happened. True.  Without Pettitte's testimony, these hearings would have been a rehash of what we've read in the papers for the last two months.  Its difficult to question the motivation behind Pettitte's statements because of his relationship with Clemens.  Pettitte is protecting himself, his family, and his career by providing the truth as he knows it.Some people have speculated why Pettitte wouldn't simply say that he didn't recall the conversations with Clemens and McNamee.  With Pettitte having already admitted that he took HGH, it would seem highly unlikely that conversations never happened.  Any lack of recollection on Andy's part would have raised the suspicion level on both him and Clemens.  Plus, if you know anything about Andy Pettitte as a person, his is a terribly honest person.  The Yankees were comfortable enough with Andy to give him a player option for 2007, despite a history of elbow problems.  They knew Andy wouldn’t take advantage of the situation. That doesn't make Pettitte a rat as some people have suggested. Clemens is responsible for his own actions as is Pettitte.  Roger can only blame himself for the predicament he is in right now.  Expecting Pettitte to take the fall with him is unfair. False.  Knoblauch’s deposition gives no relevant information regarding Clemens.  Knobby only speaks about his own circumstances and reveals that he self administered more HGH when with the Royals.  He also claims that there wasn't much opportunity for him to know Pettitte or Clemens since pitchers and position players don't socialize much, yet he bought some HGH through Jason Grimsley, a relief pitcher.  Hmmmm... False.  There's a couple of issues at play in this one.The idea that Debbie Clemens would have gotten HGH from Brian McNamee without Roger's knowledge is absurd.  This was supposedly in 2003, five years after Clemens had first taken steroids in Toronto.  What knowledge would Debbie have of HGH?  Under what circumstances would Brian McNamee find himself discussing HGH with Debbie without Roger present?  What would Clemens do to McNamee, his employee, when he found out McNamee injected Debbie in the butt, in their bedroom, without his knowledge or presence?  You think he might have fired him?It doesn't make sense that Clemens would have had no involvement in his wife's usage.  Claiming that isn't throwing her under the bus, either.For one, its stands to reason that Debbie was aware Roger would portray the scenario as he did.  And why would she say no?  Her livelihood is as much tied to Roger's success as anyone.  She is much less of a public figure and could easily take a hit for the cause of clearing Roger's name.  For all we know, she did her best Lady McBeth and encouraged Roger to take steroids in the first place.  She has certainly benefited from his earnings since 1998.  She hasn't been asked to testify under oath and they are admitting she did HGH, as if admitting that one nugget of truth absolves the surrounding dishonesty.What's missing in this conversation is the approach to HGH taken in the Clemens household.  If Debbie was in need of some help, wouldn't she consult a doctor before going to her husbands trainer for medication?  If McNamee hadn't introduced HGH to Roger previously, why would the assumption even be made that McNamee could provide such a substance?  And if McNamee thought that Clemens wanted nothing to do with such substances, would he even dare bringing up the idea of Debbie using them? False.  These hearings were about perjury.The reason these hearings happened is because Roger Clemens has been telling everyone who will listen that Brian McNamee lied, under oath, to George Mitchell and federal investigators.  Clemens has made such an uproar over the last few months that the integrity of the Mitchell report, and therefore former Senator George Mitchell, have come into question.In order to protect the report and their chum, Congress needed to get Clemens on the Hill under oath to testify.  Whether they heard and received enough evidence to bring perjury charges against Clemens or McNamee remains to be seen, but remember, prosecutors in San Francisco spent four years building a case against Bonds.The door isn't closed on this matter yet.