Baseball Musings: Arms Race

January 08, 2008

Arms Race

Via My Baseball Bias, Brian McNamee's attorney shot back at Roger Clemens yesterday:

"What does (Clemens) do, he calls him back with his lawyer in the room and a tape recorder going," McNamee attorney Richard Emery told the Daily News last night. "He wants to play that game, he's going to get buried. I have no compunction about putting him in jail.
"This is war."

Curt Schilling's company could turn this into a video game, World of Rogercraft. I wonder if a smoking syringe will show up?

Update: Sports Illustrated watched the 60-minutes interview with McNamee:

McNamee still holds Clemens in high regard, in part because he admires the pitcher's tireless work ethic, and also because he believes that Clemens was only one of many players using performance enhancers. "It's sad,'' McNamee says. "He was a mentor to me. Roger is an unbelievable family man. I learned how to treat my kids from Roger. And Roger was in no way an abuser of steroids. He never took them through our tough winter workouts. And he never took them in spring training, when the days are longest. He took them in late July, August, and never for more than four to six weeks max ... it wasn't that frequent.'
"Within the culture of what was going on, he was just a small part of it. A lot of guys did it. You can't take away the work Roger did. You can't take away the fact that he worked out as hard as anybody.'' When McNamee, also a former strength and conditioning coach with the Blue Jays from 1998 through 2000, is asked to estimate how many major leaguers were involved with steroids during that period, he answers without hesitation. "More than half,'' he says.

Posted by David Pinto at 08:10 AM | Cheating | TrackBack (0)

Comments

Roger needed his lawyer there, otherwise he could be open to charges of tampering with a witness.

Posted by: rbj at January 8, 2008 09:38 AM

RBJ is correct.

I still want to hear an answer about how McNamee - who admitted being out of cash - is paying for his legal team, as attorneys do not take defamation cases on contingency?

Posted by: rmt at January 8, 2008 11:15 AM

McNamee's statements to Clemens about being out of cash--like virtually every other aspect of the situation--may or may not be true. Who knows? But I'm sure that McNamee could find an attorney willing to take his case pro bono. There must be attorneys who would like to be associated with exposing a chemically-enhanced arrogant SOB.

Posted by: Mark at January 8, 2008 11:26 AM

When McNamee, also a former strength and conditioning coach with the Blue Jays from 1998 through 2000, is asked to estimate how many major leaguers were involved with steroids during that period, he answers without hesitation. "More than half,'' he says.

And yet Clemens, Pettitte and Knoblauch are the only names you mentioned when interviewed by the guy who was hand-picked by the MLB commissioner to find out how many major leaguers were involved with steroids in that period? Strange...

Posted by: SleepyCA at January 8, 2008 02:36 PM

Mark: an attorney taking the case pro bono (in other words, for advertising purposes or simply hatred of Clemens) is forfeiting all thier other paid business.

Law firms do pro bono work for civil rights organizations, anti-death penalty, etc. - not private clients. And they write off the time they would normally bill on their taxes.

No way McNamee is pro bono - he could only be advertising for a Hollywood-style pain in the ### lawyer.

Posted by: rmt at January 8, 2008 03:00 PM

"This is war"?
Wow, can this go down as slander as well?

Posted by: Brandon Heikoop at January 8, 2008 03:22 PM

Another hilarious note in the Mitchell Report saga, who has enjoyed hearing the McNamee-Clemens conversation be referred to as the "alleged McNamee-Clemens conversation"?

Me too!

Posted by: Brandon Heikoop at January 8, 2008 03:26 PM

RMT: Your understanding of pro bono legal work is typical--but limited.

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pro_bono

In a nutshell, while much pro bono legal work is done in high-profile civil rights and death penalty cases, it also occurs in other kinds of cases involving individuals with limited resources--those who simply can't afford counsel. Since most state bar associations and the national ABA have standards encouraging regular pro bono work, one benefit an attorney would derive is satisfying those standards for self and firm. This clearly boosts the profile of the firm when recruiting, etc., even if the specific pro bono work is not detailed.

You may be correct that McNamee's attorneys are not pro bono. But you could just as easily be wrong. I know several attorneys who have told me they would enjoy attacking a prima donna like Clemens--and would do it for free!

Posted by: Mark at January 8, 2008 04:39 PM

Mark:

My wife is an attorney who worked for three large firms. Pro bono represenation is personal (client family or politcal cover) or for a politcal cause advocated by the traditonally liberal state and national bar associations, not because you have personal animus against a private citizen. (In the case of somehow trashing George Bush, they might do so in a swift boat style campaign support.

Attornneys would take the Clemens case for only one reason - the spotlight. However, since Clemens has the resources to fight and tie up McNamee and his counsel, the attorney who took such a case without pay would not be putting in the billable hours the firm managing partners demand.

Find me an attorney who will work for free!!

Posted by: rmt at January 8, 2008 08:20 PM