The Daily Gamecock

Issue date: 2/14/08 Section: Sports

Second-year finance student

Media Credit: Pablo Martinez Monsivais/The Associated Press Clemens denies steroids charges.

Feb. 13 marked a day that many baseball fans like me have been looking forward to for the past few months. This was the day that Roger Clemens and his former trainer Brian McNamee would get to face a Congressional committee and state why they were telling the truth to both the committee members and the millions of Americans watching on TV.
This hearing was called in response to the strong and loud objection that Clemens has had about the allegations of his use of performance enhancing drugs made by his former trainer Brian McNamee.
When the allegations were first made, I was shocked being a baseball fan all my life and respecting the long distinguished career that Clemens had.
However, I decided later that I would wait until after the Congressional hearing to make my mind up about whose story I believed. After watching almost 5 hours of questioning yesterday I came to the conclusion that Clemens is telling the truth.
I am well aware that my opinion is in the minority; however, I hope the following three reasons can help convince you as well that the allegations made by McNamee are false and that Roger Clemens is innocent.
1. The past and character of the accuser is questionable- Brian McNamee has over the past several years repeatedly been untruthful and inconsistent when it comes to his involvement with steroids and other performance enhancing supplements, which he admitted when questioned on the issue Wednesday.
This is the not the first time McNamee has been untruthful, in 2001 he lied to federal prosecutors who questioned him about a rape investigation.
Also since Mr. McNamee's admission that he injected several players with steroids and HGH the alleged amount of doses that he injected has increased every time he has been asked the questions.
Another point which calls McNamee's character into question is the box of evidence that McNamee has presented, which includes used needles and gauze containing blood stains that McNamee claims has Clemens' DNA. The character and sanity of a man who keeps this stuff in a box in his basement for 6 to 7 years has to be called into question.
On several cases McNamee was asked if he had any physical evidence to which he always responded no. Clemens on the other hand has preached the same story since the very beginning and has not quavered. If McNamee has lied to federal prosecutors before, why would he have any problem doing it again?
2. The Conflicting Stories of McNamee- There are two stories in particular in which McNamee's account does not agree with the account of others nor his own stories. The two stories in question are a barbeque at Jose Canseco's house and the use of HGH by Clemens' wife Debbie.
In 1998 Jose Canseco, then one of Clemens' teammates, threw a barbeque for teammates at his house in Florida. McNamee alleges that Clemens was at the party, and had discussions with Jose about steroid use. Clemens on the other hand claims that he was golfing and did not attend the party. Clemens was able to provide a copy of his golf receipt, a sworn testimony by Canseco that says Clemens did not attend and copies of radio and television broadcast that make notice that Clemens did not attend the barbeque. So, how is it that McNamee saw Clemens at a party where the host did not see him?
The second story about Debbie Clemens' HGH use contradicts McNamee's account of Roger's alleged HGH use. Debbie Clemens used HGH in 2003 by recommendation of Roger according to McNamee. However, McNamee alleges that Clemens used HGH in 1999 and 2000 and stopped using it because he did not like it anymore. If Roger did not like the effect it had on his own body, then why would he recommend it to his wife?
3. The Demeanor During the Hearing- Clemens showed great passion and asserted the fact he was innocent throughout the hearing. He did so by looking the members of the committee in the eyes and answering their inquiries even when their questions were very pointed.
McNamee on the other hand tended to slouch in his chair and stare at the table instead of looking the committee members in the eyes. McNamee became very soft-spoken when asked questions about his character, especially when those concerning his supposed Ph. D were raised, and insisted that he dealt with drugs but was not a drug dealer.
McNamee was also unable to give a satisfying answer to the question of why he did not say that he was telling the truth in the taped phone conversation with Clemens, which leads people like me to believe that McNamee is lying and that all the scrutiny Clemens has received is both unacceptable and unwarranted.

Page 1 of 1

Article Tools