Legally I am unsure that is accurate. If known falsehoods were stated and spread I expect that meets the standard. He is simply returning fire, perhaps opening the door for both parties to simultaneously drop suit?
Anyway, what was the big lie NY Times article?

Dave - I'm curious also. I seem to remember that McNamee allowed himself to be interviewed about the charges. Clemens' lawyers may claim is the actual volunatry defamation, not his government induced confession.

I'm still waiting for someone to pin down George Mitchell due to this CNN transcript of an October 29, 2004 interview by Soledad O'Brien with Senator Mitchell that describes his status with the Red Sox. (http://transcripts.cnn.com.TRANSCRIPTS/0410/29/ltm.06.html)

O'BRIEN: On a much lighter note, how about those Red Sox? I understand that you have a little stake in the team?

MITCHELL: Oh, it's great. I do. Yes, I do. I am involved with the Red Sox. I am a lifelong fan. I grew up in Maine and...

O'BRIEN: A part owner, too, beyond being a fan.

MITCHELL: Yes. Well, not that much of an owner.

O'BRIEN: Well, still more than most people do.

MITCHELL: Yes, no, it was a great success, a great season and a great success.

It's OK to lie as a member of Congress (or past member) - just don't lie to Congress!

The last thing I heard, one of the requirements for a defamation action is to prove damages--what exactly *was* the reputation of a confessed drug dealer and general scumbag worth before Clemens said anything? McNamee might have to collect his judgment in Zimbabwean dollars--and not many of them at that.

Didn't this whole thing move to "farce" a long, long time ago?