Baseball Musings: Party Photo

February 22, 2008

Party Photo

The New York Daily News reports that a photo exists of Roger Clemens at Jose Canseco's party:

Their leads could include new photographic evidence that has emerged to potentially undermine Clemens' sworn testimony that he did not attend a 1998 party at the home of his then-teammate Jose Canseco - a party that figured both in the Mitchell Report and the Feb.13 public hearing in Washington.
The photo is owned by a young man who attended the party when he was 11 years old and took photos of his baseball heroes, including Clemens. Richard Emery, one of the lawyers for Clemens accuser Brian McNamee, was aware that such evidence had been circulating this week.

The party seems irrelevant to me. It's the kind of thing that fades with time, so it's quite possible McNamee or Clemens or both don't remember the details well, or are conflating multiple events into one. Clemens attending or not attending the party proves nothing.

Posted by David Pinto at 08:27 AM | Cheating | TrackBack (0)

Comments

Dude, it doesn't matter if it proves anything, if it proves he was at the party, it proves Clemens was lying and he can be prosecuted for perjury.

Posted by: the dude at February 22, 2008 10:21 AM

DING. The Dude's got it.

The Party doesn't matter in the grand scheme of things.

But Clemens said he wasn't there. If he was, he's in trouble.

Ask Martha Stewart about it. The Feds nailed her on something they weren't originally going after her for, too.

Posted by: Richie Rich at February 22, 2008 10:33 AM

If Clemens was there, at the least it adds to McNamee's credibility.
After Clemens' and his attorneys' handling of the nanny request by the committee, it would also indicate willfull forethought that he knew he'd perjured himself and sought to change the potential testimony of another witness.
In and of itself, the party has little significance other than it indicates there is a whole lot of misremembering going on.....

Posted by: Bill McKinley at February 22, 2008 10:45 AM

Yep, if the feds were going to judged the evidence balanced they might have passed on prosecution. This tips the scales against. Highly likely he will need that pardon McNamee's lawyer half joking predicted. Re McNamee's credible, it is solid on his sworn testimony, Roger's is not.

Posted by: abe at February 22, 2008 12:01 PM

The party itself doesn't matter, but it was the Clemens camp that made it a big deal. They used the party to attack McNamee's credibility, by producing "evidence" that Roger couldn't possibly have been at the party.

It also speaks to Roger's credibility. He could have said "I don't recall being at the party," but he didn't. He absolutely said he wasn't there. Now, that doesn't prove a thing about steroid use, but it's at least one solid example of Clemens telling a lie under oath.

As for why he lied about something that seems so irrelevant... maybe he wants to downplay any links with Canseco. Or maybe he didn't want to have to testify about his wife and Jose's comparing boob jobs at the party.

Posted by: jvwalt at February 22, 2008 01:07 PM

I don't think it adds up to much in the cases against roger (I think you'd have a hard time accusing somebody of perjury just for lying about whether or not they attended a party) but it sure helps out McNamee a bunch in the defamation suit Clemens has filed against him.

Posted by: josh o. at February 22, 2008 01:55 PM

It also helps discredit Jose Canseco - I know, I know, not exactly "hard" or anything. But anything that reminds people about who and what Canseco is helps, because in the face of the Mitchell Report there are way too many people willing to label him a "whistleblower."

Posted by: Colin Wyers at February 22, 2008 05:41 PM

jvwalt is right... it was Clemens that turned the party into a big deal to discredit McNamee. The arrogance of Clemens is astounding... he appears to believe his own lies. He has soiled his entire legacy in a matter of weeks.

Posted by: Drew at February 23, 2008 01:04 AM