probing whether Clemens lied to Congress

WASHINGTON (AP) - The FBI has begun investigating whether Roger Clemens lied to Congress when he denied taking performance-enhancing drugs.
FBI agents in Washington opened the case a little more than two weeks after Clemens and Brian McNamee, his former personal trainer, testified at a House committee hearing Feb. 13, each accusing the other of lying.

"The request to open an investigation on the congressional testimony of Roger Clemens has been turned over to the FBI and will receive appropriate investigative action by the FBI's Washington field office," FBI spokeswoman Debra Weierman said Thursday.

The inquiry announcement came one day after two leaders of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee asked Attorney General Michael Mukasey to investigate Clemens. The probe could result in charges against Clemens of perjury, making false statements or obstruction of justice. Lawmakers did not ask for a similar investigation of McNamee.

Clemens, a seven-time Cy Young Award winner, testified under oath that he never used steroids or human growth hormone. McNamee said he injected Clemens with performance-enhancers at least 16 times from 1998-01.

"We've always expected they would open an investigation," said Clemens' lead lawyer, Rusty Hardin. "They attended the Congressional hearing. So what's new?"

IRS Special Agent Jeff Novitzky, a key member of the government's prosecution in the BALCO drug cases, attended the hearing and watched from the second row.

Earl Ward, McNamee's lead lawyer, wanted to confer with his client before commenting.

Barry Bonds, a seven-time MVP, was indicted in November on perjury and obstruction of justice charges stemming from his 2003 grand jury testimony in which he denied knowingly taking illegal performance-enhancing drugs.

Clemens was first identified as taking steroids in a December report by former Senate majority leader George Mitchell, a Boston Red Sox director hired by baseball commissioner Bud Selig to examine drug use in baseball. The Mitchell Report was the first public accounting of McNamee's allegations that he injected Clemens with HGH and steroids.

Two of Clemens' former New York Yankees teammates, Andy Pettitte and Chuck Knoblauch, have both acknowledged that McNamee was correct when he said they used performance enhancers.

In a letter seeking the inquiry, the House panel cited sworn statements by Pettitte, who said Clemens had discussed HGH with him nearly a decade ago.

"We believe that his testimony in a sworn deposition on Feb. 5, 2008, and at a hearing on Feb. 13, 2008, that he never used anabolic steroids or human growth hormone, warrants further investigation," committee chairman Henry Waxman of California and ranking Republican Tom Davis of Virginia wrote.

"That testimony is directly contradicted by the sworn testimony of Brian McNamee, who testified that he personally injected Mr. Clemens with anabolic steroids and human growth hormone," the lawmakers wrote.

"Mr. Clemens's testimony is also contradicted by the sworn deposition testimony and affidavit submitted to the committee by Andrew Pettitte, a former teammate of Mr. Clemens, whose testimony and affidavit reported that Mr. Clemens had admitted to him in 1999 or 2000 that he had taken human growth hormone."

Waxman's office declined comment Thursday.

Clemens is the latest professional athlete to come under federal scrutiny for statements made about alleged use of steroids or performance-enhancing drugs. Last month, the FBI opened an investigation into whether Houston Astros shortstop Miguel Tejada lied in 2005 when he told federal authorities he never took steroids or HGH.

Former Olympic track gold medalist Marion Jones was sentenced in January to six months in prison for lying to federal investigators about taking the designer steroid "the clear."

http://msn.foxsports.com/mlb/story/7851524?MSNHPHMA

While I think the hearings were pointless, you have got to use your friggin' brain in these situations. Here's a news flash, Roger, don't lie in testimoney in a Federal hearing!

And yet they won't investigate whether or not McNamee lied.

I guarantee you that both he and Clemens lied under oath about something.

This is all just a giant waste of tax dollars. What else is new?

I have to admit, it is a pleasant change to see the famous guy being the one raked over the coals (for once). I get sick and tired of athletes getting away with everything short of murder because they can throw or catch or shoot a ball really well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arctic Blast

I have to admit, it is a pleasant change to see the famous guy being the one raked over the coals (for once). I get sick and tired of athletes getting away with everything short of murder because they can throw or catch or shoot a ball really well.

---

short of murder? ever hear of OJ???

Except, in this case, they shouldn't be being gone after by the feds. In drug investigations, when have the Feds ever targetted the users, rather than the suppliers? Now, they're giving immunity to suppliers to catch users. It's completely backwards.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

Except, in this case, they shouldn't be being gone after by the feds. In drug investigations, when have the Feds ever targetted the users, rather than the suppliers? Now, they're giving immunity to suppliers to catch users. It's completely backwards.

---

does the Feds not have the right to chose which side they will give immunity to catch the other?? I think in this case because of the high profile nature of sports athletes the feds feel that it sends a stronger message to not use PED to kids if they put Bonds or Clemon in jail versus if they put a Brain McNamee in jail, someone that nobody knows...just my 2 cents as to why they are doing what they are doing

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yankee hater

Well if Clemens lied, shouldn't he be sanctioned? Whether or not McNamee lied doesn't affect whether or not Clemens should be indicted, especially since Petite contradicted Clemens, and that is what the committee based their findings off of.

I could see people crying about McNamee not being asked to be indicted, but if you're sure, as you admit, Clemens lied, then shouldn't he be sanctioned?

Two wrongs don't make a right, but 3 lefts do.

---

exactly

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wassit3

does the Feds not have the right to chose which side they will give immunity to catch the other??

---

Sure, but that doesn't mean it makes sense.

Quote:

---

I think in this case because of the high profile nature of sports athletes the feds feel that it sends a stronger message to not use PED to kids if they put Bonds or Clemon in jail versus if they put a Brain McNamee in jail, someone that nobody knows...just my 2 cents as to why they are doing what they are doing

---

I think they'd send a stronger message to not use PEDs to kids if they actually start doing things to keep PEDs out of high schools and the like.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yankee_hater

Well if Clemens lied, shouldn't he be sanctioned? Whether or not McNamee lied doesn't affect whether or not Clemens should be indicted, especially since Petite contradicted Clemens, and that is what the committee based their findings off of.

I could see people crying about McNamee not being asked to be indicted (by the committee), but if you're sure, as you admit, Clemens lied, then shouldn't he be sanctioned?

Two wrongs don't make a right, but 3 lefts do.

---

I'm not saying that Clemens shouldn't be indicted if he lied. If he committed perjury, he should be held accountable. However, they're "investigating" whether or not Clemens lied, but they're not doing the same for McNamee, even though he undoubtedly lied about something as well.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wassit3

short of murder? ever hear of OJ???

---

I think that had a lot more to do with fame and money buying one heck of a legal team, rather than him being acquitted (of criminal charges, anyway) because of who he is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wassit3

I think in this case because of the high profile nature of sports athletes the feds feel that it sends a stronger message to not use PED to kids if they put Bonds or Clemon in jail versus if they put a Brain McNamee in jail, someone that nobody knows...just my 2 cents as to why they are doing what they are doing

---

Yes but in reality Bonds and Clemens won't go to jail. It wastes tax payer money to pursue the user. Cut off the source and go after the sellers!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yankee hater

Its wastes tax money to go after almost any law breaker, should we ignore every law breaker?

---

That depends on how you wish to approach law enforcement. The way I see it there are basically two ways to look at law enforcement, all the others are just variations of these basic two. Way one is very black and white, the law is the law, no exceptions regardless of circumstances or why you broke it. The punishment is the same regardless also of those factors as well. The second way is law with varying shades of gray in how it can b interpreted that attempts to take into account why someone commited a crime, relative good to society that punishment may have, who the person(s) are (their social standing), etc. While both way can lead to abuses I think giving or having too much leeway for our justice system leads to more than a more black and white system does overall, just my two cents.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by yankee hater

Its wastes tax money to go after almost any law breaker, should we ignore every law breaker?

---

Using tax money to go after people that break the law isn't necessarily a waste. Using tax payer money to try to round up drug users because they're big names and it looks good on your resume while making yourself out to be a crusader for all that is just and right in that you're getting rid of drugs, while basically ignoring the real source of the problem - the drugs and the people that distribute them - is a waste.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

Using tax money to go after people that break the law isn't necessarily a waste. Using tax payer money to try to round up drug users because they're big names and it looks good on your resume while making yourself out to be a crusader for all that is just and right in that you're getting rid of drugs, while basically ignoring the real source of the problem - the drugs and the people that distribute them - is a waste.

---

if no one used drugs no one would distribute them either, supply and demand....

Yes, but going after the users does nothing to get rid of the drugs. When you want to come off as some sort of anti-drug crusader, it does no good for the cause of stopping drugs if you do not go after the drugs themselves.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

Yes, but going after the users does nothing to get rid of the drugs. When you want to come off as some sort of anti-drug crusader, it does no good for the cause of stopping drugs if you do not go after the drugs themselves.

---

if only it were that simple, as long as there is a demand or rather demand enough for a product someone will be willing to supply it. You have to go after both....

My opinion.....Harsh...very harsh sentences for the suppliers.....10-20 years without parole.
Reduced Sentences for the buyers/users if they turn on their sources 1-2 years no parole. If they don't turn 5 years no parole!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RickD

My opinion.....Harsh...very harsh sentences for the suppliers.....10-20 years without parole.
Reduced Sentences for the buyers/users if they turn on their sources 1-2 years no parole. If they don't turn 5 years no parole!

---

exactly, you have to make it not worth while for the users or there will always be a supply....

But I wouldn't pour all my resources into catching the users, while ignoring the suppliers. I wouldn't give the suppliers deals to give me the users.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by RickD

My opinion.....Harsh...very harsh sentences for the suppliers.....10-20 years without parole.
Reduced Sentences for the buyers/users if they turn on their sources 1-2 years no parole. If they don't turn 5 years no parole!

---

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wassit3

exactly, you have to make it not worth while for the users or there will always be a supply....

---

Almost 30 years of experience with this sort of thing shows just how ineffective it is.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ohms_law

Almost 30 years of experience with this sort of thing shows just how ineffective it is.

---

maybe it is because in the USA we are very very un-evenhanded with penalties for users and dealers. It very very much depends on how much money you have to defend yourself, the mood of the judge/jury, if sentences were stricter and mandatory then you might see some reductions as people realize that losing 30 years of your life for some pot is not worth it...

More likely the prisons will just become even more overcrowded with non-violent offenders... who then learn all sorts of other **** that they could get away with and will try when they get out.

I never understood the fascination people have with locking people up. We have more prisoners here in the US then anyone else in the world.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ohms_law

I never understood the fascination people have with locking people up. We have more prisoners here in the US then anyone else in the world.

---

And if I remember correctly, most of them were convicted of non-violent crimes (particularly, drugs).

They should seriously go after the Big Fishes, and not the users or the distributors. If the makers of the drugs make it out of the country, you have to go after the fish who bring it in.

In any circumstance, it is flat out ridiculous to cut deals with drug DEALERS like Radomski and McNamee in order to get information on baseball players.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ohms_law

More likely the prisons will just become even more overcrowded with non-violent offenders... who then learn all sorts of other **** that they could get away with and will try when they get out.

I never understood the fascination people have with locking people up. We have more prisoners here in the US then anyone else in the world.

---

turue, why lock them up when we can just give em the old death penalty for drug use, aftrerall if they use enough they are going to kill themselves and possibly many others too along the way so why not just make drug use a death penalty without appeal offense, prison over crowding problem solved ( tongue planted firmly in cheek)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

In any circumstance, it is flat out ridiculous to cut deals with drug DEALERS like Radomski and McNamee in order to get information on baseball players.

---

I think they both, if we are going to have it be illegal, go to jail however I still think that unless you make it very not worthwhile for users and dealers you will always have some drug use. You might still regardless of what you do, there are too many millions to be made for some to not be tempted.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wassit3

I think they both, if we are going to have it be illegal, go to jail however I still think that unless you make it very not worthwhile for users and dealers you will always have some drug use. You might still regardless of what you do, there are too many millions to be made for some to not be tempted.

---

You will always have drug use. There is no way to get rid of drugs. Personally, I believe drugs should be legalized. As it stands, if Congress wants to "help the children", though, imprisoning Roger Clemens by giving his dealer a deal to give him up does horseshit. If Congress really wanted to "save the kids" from the perils of steroids, which is the nonsense they spew to justify these hearings, than they should actually do something to help prevent steroids from getting into schools, and to actually educate kids on steroids as well. Throwing some rich guy that did it into jail does nothing at all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

You will always have drug use. There is no way to get rid of drugs. Personally, I believe drugs should be legalized. As it stands, if Congress wants to "help the children", though, imprisoning Roger Clemens by giving his dealer a deal to give him up does horseshit. If Congress really wanted to "save the kids" from the perils of steroids, which is the nonsense they spew to justify these hearings, than they should actually do something to help prevent steroids from getting into schools, and to actually educate kids on steroids as well. Throwing some rich guy that did it into jail does nothing at all.

---

by drugs I am talking about PEDs to be clear, otherskinds of drugs are a different matter as far as I am concerned...

Well, if we're limiting the discussion to PED's, then they shouldn't be in the criminal code at all. PED use isn't even in the same class as drugs such as cocaine and heroine.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ohms_law

Well, if we're limiting the discussion to PED's, then they shouldn't be in the criminal code at all. PED use isn't even in the same class as drugs such as cocaine and heroine.

---

I was wondering why you bothered with this debate lol (you tend to avoid out of boredom roid debates lately it seems is what I mean by that)

I don't think PED's should be illegal either. I think that sports should ban them, but I don't think they should be illegal under the law.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

I don't think PED's should be illegal either. I think that sports should ban them, but I don't think they should be illegal under the law.

---

so they would only against the rules for players but if joe blow wants to look buff and wants to use roids for that purpose then its his perrogative? I could go along with that so long as joe blows family can not turn around and sue the roid makers years later because joe died early from roid use...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wassit3

so they would only against the rules for players but if joe blow wants to look buff and wants to use roids for that purpose then its his perrogative?

---

Right. PEDs consitute cheating, and cheating shouldn't be allowed in sports. However, I think people should be allowed to do whatever they want with their own bodies.

Quote:

---

I could go along with that so long as joe blows family can not turn around and sue the roid makers years later because joe died early from roid use...

---

Obviously not. People can't sue tobacco companies if their family member dies of lung cancer. (Well, I guess they can but it'd be ridiculous if soemone won such a case.)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Wassit3

I was wondering why you bothered with this debate lol (you tend to avoid out of boredom roid debates lately it seems is what I mean by that)

---

Basically, yea.
:)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoustonGM

Right. PEDs consitute cheating, and cheating shouldn't be allowed in sports. However, I think people should be allowed to do whatever they want with their own bodies.


Obviously not. People can't sue tobacco companies if their family member dies of lung cancer. (Well, I guess they can but it'd be ridiculous if soemone won such a case.)

---

that's pretty much been the basis of every (successful, I might add) lawsuit against Big Tobacco for the past 15 years...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arctic Blast

that's pretty much been the basis of every (successful, I might add) lawsuit against Big Tobacco for the past 15 years...

---

Well, than that just demonstrates how sad our sue-happy country can be.