If you missed the 60 minutes interview, you can link to it HERE
Roger also filed suit against McNamee on Sunday night - STORY
If you missed yesterday's presser, here's that link - HERE
I'll also play some of the press conference and the phone call on the show at 11 am central (it'll run about 11:20 or so).
Roger's got a long way to go to prove to the cynical fan he never did anything. Just saying "it never happened" won't be good enough. If you do believe him, I think you have to like the attacking nature of denying it and doing a few interviews. Let's all remember though, Pete Rose lied for 14 years, and then the story changed. I think one of the most interesting things Roger said is "how do you prove your innocence?" Exactly. How do you? They told the trainer he'd face charges if he didn't tell the truth, and he ain't facing charges. So how does Roger prove it to us? That's where the phone call comes in. You can't listen to that phone call yesterday and feel better about McNamee as a strong witness, can you? I think Roger is putting up a decent fight. Jan 16th is huge though. He can't get mad like that at Congress. It'll be him, McNamee, and Radomski in the same room. Oh, and Mitchell, too. It should be good theater. At least it does not appear Clemens will go McGwire and just talk about the future. Call or email the show with your comments, or just comment on this post.
2 comments:
I really, really WANT to believe Roger, but I cannot figure out what McNamee's motivation would be for lying.
One of the reports last night indicated that Clemens and McNamee spoke on the phone Friday for the first time since the Mitchell report. Oh to be able to listen to a wire tap of that conversation...
Mark
One more thing about this. I find myself with similar emotions to the Anita Hill v. Clarence Thomas testimony before congress on his appointment to the Supreme Court years ago.
We all knew that one of them was telling a bald-faced lie. It really throws us into relying on our background assumptions about those individuals and our larger belief systems. In the Hill v. Thomas conflict, out political views influenced which of them we felt was lying.
With Clemens and McNamee, it is even more difficult because we cannot associate one with being a "liberal" and one a "conservative," thereby preventing our vilification of one or the other. We will have to vilify one of them on other grounds in order to conclude he is lying.
Maybe more information will come out. Mike Wallace's suggestion of a lie detector test is intriguing. This would be especially revealing if both would agree to do it. If the tests showed that one was lying and the other was telling the truth, I think we could draw some conclusions from that.
Don't hold your breath on the lie detector test, though. Whichever one is lying is going to avoid it "on advice of counsel."
Mark
Post a Comment