I just called to say I love you

From Newsday:

In a surprising twist to their public war of words, Roger Clemens and
his former trainer, Brian McNamee, spoke by telephone Friday night,
Newsday has learned. It was their first contact since the Mitchell
Report was released Dec. 13, and a person close to the situation
described the hourlong conversation between the longtime friends as
"emotional."

There’s a Cingular dropped phone call commercial joke here that I don’t have the energy or imagination to make. 

36 comments… add one

  • Here’s an interesting letter to the New York Times from a medical doctor:
    Second Opinion on Clemens
    To the Sports Editor:
    Re “Clemens Says Trainer Gave Him Injections,” Jan. 4: Roger Clemens’s claim that he received injections of vitamin B12 and lidocaine should probably be viewed as damaging to his credibility. Lidocaine is a local anesthetic and not a systemic pain reliever, like acetaminophen, with bodywide effects. If given as an injection in someone’s rear end, for example, the likelihood of it having any effect on knee pain, as he contends, is practically zero.
    Andrew M. Luks, M.D.
    Seattle

    Hudson January 6, 2008, 5:03 am
  • LIonel RIchie’s original lyric was “I just called to say let’s make sure we get our stories coordinated and airtight if we end up under oath in front of congress”, but that didn’t quite roll off the tongue.

    SF January 6, 2008, 6:26 am
  • The absolute best part is in the next paragraph of the article where the IRS Special Agent Nowitsky is now turning his focus ON Clemens. The Texas Con Man is getting exactly what he deserves now!!! Kepp talking all the way to jail you big cheat!!!

    1Bosox January 6, 2008, 10:12 am
  • IRS special agent?
    That would have to be consistent with trying to nail whomever sold PEDs (excuse me, customized B-12 vitamins) to Roger. Which in turn gives the Feds lots more leverage in getting sworn testimony on other buyers/users.
    And subsequently, more “invitations” to stupid Congressional show-pony hearings. This thing is not going to die for a long time.
    Roger has many problems here, but unlike Bonds he hasn’t been accused of failing to report card show income, which is a significant tax violation.

    CT ball fan -SF January 6, 2008, 2:54 pm
  • IRS special agent?
    That would have to be consistent with trying to nail whomever sold PEDs (excuse me, customized B-12 vitamins) to Roger. Which in turn gives the Feds lots more leverage in getting sworn testimony on other buyers/users.
    And subsequently, more “invitations” to stupid Congressional show-pony hearings. This thing is not going to die for a long time.
    Roger has many problems here, but unlike Bonds he hasn’t been accused of failing to report card show income, which is a significant tax violation.

    CT ball fan -SF January 6, 2008, 3:04 pm
  • IRS Special Agents are often used to investigate federal crimes. Here is the excerpt from the Newsday article:
    Clemens, as indicated by excerpts released last week, attempts to clear his name in tonight’s chat with Mike Wallace at his home in Katy, Texas. But the grilling should intensify if Clemens keeps his date with Congress on Jan. 16, and it now seems he has attracted the unwanted attention of Jeff Novitzky, an IRS special agent responsible for the indictment of Barry Bonds in November on felony charges of perjury and obstruction of justice.
    A person familiar with the situation said yesterday that Novitzky, like many others intrigued by the Mitchell Report, has turned his focus toward Clemens in the wake of the verbal sparring between Clemens and McNamee.

    1Bosox January 6, 2008, 3:16 pm
  • “…original lyric was “I just called to say let’s make sure we get our stories coordinated and airtight if we end up under oath in front of congress”, …”
    nice try sf i’ll give you some consolation points for clever, but the ‘getting their stories coordinated’ ship has sailed…they already had a very public difference of opinion about what the facts are, so just like schilling did when he changed his story, one of them will risk looking foolish or worse if they don’t stick to the stories they’ve already started, which are far from being ‘coordinated’…

    dc January 6, 2008, 3:36 pm
  • Just a little humor, dc, that’s all. I am not a conspiracy theorist.

    SF January 6, 2008, 7:27 pm
  • “The Texas Con Man is getting exactly what he deserves now!!! Kepp talking all the way to jail you big cheat!!!”
    These are the type of comments that get my blood boiling. I understand that there are Sox fans that dislike/hate Roger Clemens. I also understand that there are Sox fans that dislike/hate the Yankees. But first and foremost we are baseball fans or at least we should be. Your anger should be focused on the act of cheating, not the player and because of who he is and who he played for. Unfortunately Roger Clemens was called out, but do you honestly think that there aren’t players that you root for that weren’t/aren’t guilty of the same exact thing? Would you spit that kind of fire at everyone’s favorite DH? Would you be up on your soap box calling for a return to the golden days if it was a certain blogger and not Roger Clemens? When comments like that are made it makes it seem like the anger is focused on the uniform and not the actual problem. Be angry because hundreds, possibly thousands of players cheated the game. Be angry because the powers that be in MLB let this slide for too long. Be angry that records were taken away from the guys who did it the natural way by guys that may have cheated. But when comments like the one above is made (and that’s not the only one, so I am not singling you out) it makes it seem less genuine and more out of anger for the team you (may) love to hate.
    PS-I know that all Sox fans don’t feel this way. The above rant is focused on those who can’t see the big picture. I am in no way trying to generalize.

    John - YF January 6, 2008, 9:33 pm
  • // Would you spit that kind of fire at everyone’s favorite DH? //
    No, because Jason Giambi already confessed and has been forgiven.
    .
    .
    .
    Boom.
    .
    .
    .
    Ching.
    .
    .
    .
    Aaaaanyyway, problem with your argument is that “everyone’s [real] favorite DH” *isn’t* named in the report and isn’t considered a user except in the crypto-erotic fantasies of a few YFs.

    Hudson January 6, 2008, 9:52 pm
  • Hudson, what the hell does that comment even mean? It makes no sense at all. Crypto-erotic fantasies about baseball? I dunno what you do when you when you watch baseball but that term has never crossed my mind.
    I find it humorous that you seem to think that none of your favorite Red Sox could have been PED users. Crypto-naive would be the best way to describe that.
    Boom?
    Ching?

    sam-YF January 6, 2008, 10:48 pm
  • By the way that post by Hudson was as confrontational as any post Mike as made here over the last few weeks.

    sam-YF January 6, 2008, 11:05 pm
  • Hudson, I know you are smarter then that. Just because ONLY 80 or so players were named, doesn’t mean those are the only players that took PED’s. Your comment “Aaaaanyyway, problem with your argument is that “everyone’s [real] favorite DH” *isn’t* named in the report and isn’t considered a user except in the crypto-erotic fantasies of a few YFs” only proves my point even further. You care more about the fact that the big named players were Yankees, rather then the fact that the game was disgraced. This isn’t a competition. You didn’t win just because your team didn’t have anyone named (of note). Celebrate the 2 titles in 4 years, don’t celebrate the win you think you got by not having a (big name) player named in TMR.

    John - YF January 6, 2008, 11:33 pm
  • “Crypto-erotic fantasies?”
    DOUCHÉ. Congratulations, that’s just disgusting and really, really weird. Just quit now while you’re not hopelessly far behind.
    Also, never, ever repeat the “BOOM… CHING” again. You just don’t congratulate your own burns that way. Please. You’re just making this site more embarrassing for the rest of us.

    doug YF January 7, 2008, 12:59 am
  • I feel the need, as a Sox fan, to step in here.
    I despise Roger Clemens for what he did. I despise all of them. They are cheats and, while no the scumiest of scum in Baseball (that title is reserved for the Brett Myerses) they are damn low. I also am well aware that many many other players probably cheated as well. I even have several players, even on the CURRENT Sox, who I think could have done so. However, until some sort of EVIDENCE (and McNamee’s testimoney IS evidence, though not proof) emerges connenecting anyone, they will get the benifit of the doubt with me.
    Clemens has been connected now. There’s evidence both in eyewitness (McNamee) and in circumstancial (his career). He has a histroy of being coniving – and no, Im not including his defection to the Yankees but rather his on-again-off-again retirements. He gets no such doubt from me.
    And, Sam/John, I cant speak for Hudson.. but while I love and cherish Big Papi if it came out that he’s a juicer, I’d turn on him so fast that the earth would spin the other way and I’d reverse the flow of time. Same with Schilling, Pedroia, Cora, Beckett, ANYONE.
    Period. End of Discussion. You juice, your done.

    Dionysus January 7, 2008, 2:42 am
  • Hudson, John makes a reasonably passionate argument against the personalizing of the case against Clemens, and considering what we know about the depths of steroid use in baseball I think it’s unwise to make the comments you do. He wasn’t attacking Ortiz, but only speaking in hypotheticals, and I don’t have any clue why you use a term like “crypto-erotic” other than for dramatic effect; it comes off as completely incendiary. Considering John’s history at this site of being even-keeled and fair, it’s terribly off-base.

    SF January 7, 2008, 6:03 am
  • I agree, Dionysus. Rafael Palmiero was my hero when he played for the Rangers (I lived in Dallas at the time), and when it came out that he was a steroid user I was crushed, and angry. If evidence were to surface that Papi user steroids, I would be equally angry/hurt.

    Atheose January 7, 2008, 8:09 am
  • Hey dc, even though I was just playing loose with the tampering stuff, apparently lawyers involved aren’t (from the Times):
    Richard D. Emery, a libel lawyer for McNamee, said a phone conversation between Clemens and McNamee could raise questions of tampering with the testimony of a pending witness before Congress.
    “It’s not a criminal proceeding, but it still smacks of a kind of attempted influencing of what is supposed to be honest testimony,” Emery said in a phone interview.

    SF January 7, 2008, 8:31 am
  • Is he accusing his own client of tampering there? There were 2 people on the phone not just Clemens…

    sam-YF January 7, 2008, 8:34 am
  • And re-reading the comments above (and supplementing my comment about Hudson’s preposterous missives), I just want to re-state what Gerb posted much more eloquently over the weekend: hit “preview” before you post. Take a second to read your own work in critical fashion. Put yourself in the seat of the other readers at the site and think “is this productive, useful, does it add to the debate?” before you make it live.
    I know that the majority of posts at this site are not what like we have had to deal with this weekend (false accusations of racism or offensive accusations of tacit approval of that racism, bizarre accusations of crypto-eroticism, etc., along with a stubborn unwillingness to back off these ridiculous charges), but if we do have a New Year’s resolution I hope that it will be to return the site to a consistent level of critical discourse.

    SF January 7, 2008, 8:47 am
  • Sounds like Clemens contacted McNamee, based on the lawyer’s statement. Although that sounds to me like public posturing, as opposed to any kind of legitimate legal issue.

    Paul SF January 7, 2008, 9:44 am
  • Even if Clemens initiated contact between them, it takes 2 parties to tamper with testimony. McNamee could have simply refused the call.

    sam-YF January 7, 2008, 10:28 am
  • Hey John-YF
    I see why I got your blood boiling with that misspelling of the word keep.That must have been it!
    But seriously Will McDonough of the Boston Globe fame coined that Texas Con Man phrase WHILE he was with the Red Sox. Was your blood boiling all the way back in the mid 80′s when McDonough called him that? See even in Boston when he was there we knew what he was all about. I even think most Yankee fans feel the same way about him particularly after he supposedly retired only to resurface with that new vehicle in Houston and then to come back and con your team out of another 18 million for a 6-6 record and nothing in the playoffs when it counted. Keep defending him though just because he wore those pinstripes. I know that not all Yankee fans agree with your position, just some of them!!!

    1Bosox January 7, 2008, 11:08 am
  • The Chronicle report today says that Clemens was trying to avoid the lawsuit. And rather than get back to him as he said he would, McNamee’s side leaked news of the call to Newsday (or so Clemens’ lawyer says). Still, regardless of the truth, can’t say Clemens is doing anything wrong here. He had one major sitdown with Wallace, an open media session today, tried reaching out to his accuser, and now has filed a lawsuit.

    Mike YF January 7, 2008, 11:22 am
  • Bosox, John wasn’t defending Clemens. He was asking why you’re so anti-Clemens when the problem itself is what we all should be angry about.
    As someone who’s made no secret of his dislike for Clemens, I think the point is a good one. I’ve said before I think he did steroids, and I thought that before the Mitchell Report. I’m sure my dislike colors that view, as it appears to do yours. The important thing is to recognize that and make sure to edit accordingly. Just because I think the worst about Clemens doesn’t make the truth any different.
    What is the truth? There are plenty of reasons to suspect Clemens of steroid use, but no one but Clemens knows, and the true shame is that we’re having this discussion at all — about any player, regardless of our feelings for him.

    Paul SF January 7, 2008, 11:26 am
  • “and the true shame is that we’re having this discussion at all — about any player, regardless of our feelings for him.”
    amen

    Nick-YF January 7, 2008, 11:28 am
  • “There are plenty of reasons to suspect Clemens of steroid use”
    Laughable logic to say the least. Let’s look at his resurgence! (Uh, except his K rate was always intact). Or his rage at throwing a bat (Hahahaha!). Or his head size and body changes (Hahahahahahahahahahahahaha! Alec Balwin = Steroid user!)
    Seriously, what are the “plenty of reasons”.
    Right now, it’s one guy’s testimony. And Clemens is doing everything possible to prove him wrong (even as many have already assumed guilt).

    Anonymous January 7, 2008, 11:43 am
  • Not really interested in rehashing this discussion, but in 1987, at age 26, Clemens’ K-rate was 8.17. In 1993, at age 30, it was 7.51. In 1999, at age 35, it was 10.39, the only time it ever reached 10 in his career.
    Compare to Nolan Ryan, whose K rate reached 9 or better at multiple stages of his career — including his late 20s, early 30s and early 40s — or Tom Seaver, whose rate peaked at age 27 and declined from there.
    There are plenty of reasons to also believe Clemens did not take steroids. I’m not debating that. But pointing to his K rate isn’t one of the better ones.

    Paul SF January 7, 2008, 12:08 pm
  • Clemens now has his opportunity to tell the truth in front of Congress although a part of me thinks this lawsuit with McNamee will be the reason why he will not be able to testify after all. I stand by what I said though that he should have kept his mouth shut and may be getting more than even he bargained for with this latest invitation to Congress. Ticking off the feds may not be the wisest move on his part but we shall see soon enough.

    1Bosox January 7, 2008, 12:15 pm
  • Again with the “plenty of reasons”. You’ve now named one, except your selective sampling stretches the truth that much further:
    CLemens – K/9
    1984: 8.51
    1985: 6.77
    1986: 8.43
    1987: 8.18
    1988: 9.92
    1989: 8.17
    1990: 8.24
    1991: 7.99
    1992: 7.59
    1993: 7.51
    1994: 8.86
    1995: 8.49
    1996: 9.53
    1997: 9.95
    1998: 10.39
    1999: 7.82
    2000: 8.28
    2001: 8.70
    2002: 9.60
    2003: 8.08
    2004: 9.15
    2005: 7.88
    2006: 8.10
    2007: 6.18
    Seems like his K rate “reached 9 or better at multiple stages of his career” unless you would have him using in 1988.
    Meanwhile, that year he hit 10.53 (the year he was supposed to have started using) followed two straight years of 9.5+. Worse for that “evidence”, the year after he supposedly started using, his K rate dropped noticeably. You don’t think a workout freak, with a “artificial” change to his regimen, would have stopped after seeing his numbers drop significantly? But yet he kept on using?
    Still waiting on the “plenty of reasons”.
    P.s. Nolan Ryan is a steroid user. His stats say so. In 1987, at the age of 40, his K rate reached 11 for the first time. Then three of the next four seasons it was above 10, after not having had one season above ten since 1977. Really, brilliant logic.

    Mike YF January 7, 2008, 12:33 pm
  • Upon becoming a full-time starter in 1971 until his final full season in 1992, Nolan Ryan’s K/9 dropped below 8.11 once (7.70, 1980, age 33), and there are no discernable trends. Clemens’ did so for three straight years, ages 28-30.
    Maybe it was just injuries, and maybe the development of the splitter rejuvenated his career. But there was a trend developing that suddenly reversed itself. What caused it? There are several possible explanations, one of which is chemical help. His K/9 rate does not prove or disprove the question, which was my point, though Mike chose to ignore that and take a more confrontational approach.

    Paul SF January 7, 2008, 12:52 pm
  • “…(and McNamee’s testimoney IS evidence, though not proof)…”
    …in the strictest sense of the word [evidence] dio, but hardly credible…and, that’s the key ingredient: ‘credibility’…
    “…PS-I know that all Sox fans don’t feel this way….”
    …uh, yeah they do john…show me one that doesn’t…this is personal with sf’s…period…

    dc January 7, 2008, 8:48 pm
  • dc:
    me.
    I have no interest in Roger Clemens being proven as a steroid user. I hope it is proven, without a doubt, that he didn’t do steroids. He was my hero when he played with the Sox, and all of what happened after he left Boston doesn’t change my memories of how much I loved watching him pitch, loved watching him compete, loved rooting for him while was a Sox. If you think that the fact that he ended up pitching for the Yankees means that I am rooting for him to be exposed as a cheater, as a steroid user, you are completely, utterly mistaken, and I suggest that you not assume that Sox fans, in general, all wish that. Your comment is offensive to me.

    SF January 7, 2008, 9:01 pm
  • Its not about it being personal to me as an SF
    Its about it beign personal to me as a BBF. A Baseball Fan. If Clemens is dirty I want him exposed to the harsh light of day just like Bonds. Not because he went from us to the Yankees, but because he was the best. An idol. People looked up to him. Looke dup to a lie.
    Plus I. cant. stand. Cheating.

    Dionysus January 8, 2008, 12:32 am
  • I have read so much debate about Clemens, much of it good debate. For me, it’s not a question of whether or not he did it, but whether or not there is enough there to justify further investigation. I think only blind loyalty would lead to the conclusion it shouldn’t even be further explored. I personally believe each and everyone should be investigated and punishments handed down, not because of what uniform the player wears, not because they are an idol, but for the reason that I never hear anyone talking about……My 7 year old son and the other kids out there. The thought of him being faced with the choice of continuing to play any sport (not just a baseball problem) by using PED’s or possibly being passed up by those with lesser abilities that do use, scares me. That is what has been forgotten and is reason enough for Clemens, Bonds, Ankiel (I’m from St. Louis) and all players to be investigated and punished accordingly.

    reedus23 January 8, 2008, 12:55 am
  • sf, you’ve never given me a reason to doubt your sincerity, so i won’t doubt you on this point, but you have to admit that the over-whelming majority of fans [and perhaps that's skewed by the more negative/vocal ones], seem to have convicted clemens without having heard his side of the story…this site is littered with comments that support what i’m saying…for many [maybe not all, as you pointed out] sox fans, their feelings for clemens are very personal, and i stand by that comment…if they accomplished little else, the prior sox management regime was masterful in making him look like the villian when he left the sox for toronto…those negative feelings still persist from my experience with sox fans [yeah, i know, i don't know all sox fans]…i know a lot of what’s said on these sites is tongue in cheek, and a bit bolder at times, given the opportunity to hide behind a pc monitor, and remain relatively anonymous, but i find it very unsettling that a person can be presumed guilty by so many people without the benefit of due process…if what clemens has claimed is true, he’s not gonna be the one in deep doo-doo…and an awful lot of folks, including some here, are going to look very silly…if he is guilty [of something], he’s not getting very good advice…a very public defamation lawsuit that will put him on the hot-seat where he’ll be forced to tell the truth or risk committing pejury, doesn’t seem to be the best strategy for someone who isn’t already telling the truth…

    dc January 8, 2008, 9:25 am

Leave a Comment