June 11, 2008
Washington DC
The Federal Investigators involved in the Mitchell Report gave "deals" through plea bargain to criminals in exchange for their cooperation, which contrasts the Department of Justice's objective of "prosecuting manufacturers, suppliers, and distributors; and not the players" (p. 340, Mitchell Report) and instead of prosecuting the criminals the investigators found themselves working with them.
On Page 215 George Mitchell claimed McNamee was "possibly a sub distributor." If he was only "possibly a sub distributor" then what crime was he so guilty of that he was offered immunity? Considering that a court in California issued the immunity it must have been for a crime associated with California, like Balco.
Grimsley was related to Balco, and he named McNamee as a source for amphetamines and PEDs in his affidavit (here). Brian must have gotten immunity for the lies he told investigators regarding Grimsley. McNamee either lied to them then, or he is lying now.
In the SI.com article titled The 6th Man, Brian McNamee said, "(The Feds) just wanted to get (Roger, and Andy). I got hit by the bus, and it just kept on going." Why would the Feds be after players instead of a criminal, especially considering the Department Of Justice's objective, "to prosecute distributors, and not players?"
Keep in mind that steroids and HGH are "legal drugs," but banned from sports. What is illegal is selling illicit drugs without a license to distribute, nor a prescription, and so is administering them under false pretenses while pretending you are a doctor. In other words, everything that McNamee did regarding drugs was illegal, yet he is a free man, and IF Clemens used them, then it was NOT illegal at all. After all, he thought McNamee was a Doctor.
These "legal drugs" are merely banned from use by professional sports, so why would the government care that a player may have used a legal drug? It is not their business; it is the MLB's business. Yet Clemens is the one under investigation, while the one who actually broke the law is free.
Make no mistake about it either, McNamee lied to Congress, and Federal Investigators. He told Congress he "didn’t hear about Roger using B-12 until 60 minutes" is one lie. Another is, "I told the truth in the Mitchell Report." There are several lies in the Mitchell Report, one is "I never talked to Roger again about PEDs after 2001."
Clemens is under investigation for saying he had not had a conversation with McNamee about PEDs, which is not entirely true. He did talk to McNamee about PEDs, but not regarding his own use, it was about his wife's use. These are the grounds that Waxman thought appropriate to pursue a perjury charge against Clemens, but not on McNamee who is a criminal?
Waxman could at least be consistent with his "distribution of justice." If one lied about this, then they both lied about it; but only one is under investigation, as the other actual criminal (distributor) received immunity from a Federal District Court in California.
Does California have jurisdiction over Canada too, because despite any court in California, Toronto is the place where laws were allegedly broken? Congressional Staffers actually warned Canadians about prosecution for making false official statements. What a mess that would have been, and still may be. The Hearst Corporation has called out the Federal Government regarding their actions relative the Mitchell Report as well.
For either McNamee or Clemens though, the devil is in the details. On the Oversight’s website is the McNamee taped-interview with the Hardin PIs, McNamee said that, “Winstrol is white, not clear; and there is no way around it.” He was alluding to Bonds unknowingly using the “clear.”
Take a look at McNamee’s vials that he turned over and show me the vile with the white liquid. This is what Winstrol looks like, and as you can see it is a white liquid, like milk. Some of McNamee’s vials have dust on them, but inside the container is a clear liquid. Guess what else is a "clear liquid" that has been mentioned in conjunction with Clemens? If you guessed Lidocaine, then you would be right. The other vials are brownish red, which resembles
Not since Victor Conte and Anderson has a criminal been prosecuted, and sent to jail. On the other hand athlete, after athlete finds themselves on the short end of the stick. Who are they supposed to "get deals" from? Should they be able to tell big stories as well in order to get leniency, or should criminals just be prosecuted regardless of what they say?
Criminals like Radomski got probation, McNamee got immunity, and now Tim Dinghy is looking for a lighter sentence too. It is not the government’s job to clean up sports; it is the league's job. At best the government can only refer the "issue" to the leagues, and that is supposed to be worth leniency for criminals. The message sent to children is not one of harmony.
To what end will the government continue its witch hunt on players, and isn't it a bad precedent to set letting criminals go free so that the government (and their witnesses) can tattle on sports? Is there a "Cheaters of Sports" jail now, or just media attention? Whose interest is served in the government’s investigation of sports? It can't be the owners, because they knew about steroid use as early as the 1980's.
The government granted an Anti-Trust Exemption which basically allows for a monopoly with the exception of maintaining "a level playing field" between markets. The league ensures the playing field is equal, but lately the leagues have been left with bombshells in their proverbial laps.
It is not only the federal government perpetuating deals for criminals in exchange for "something bigger", but the media has also chimed in on the criminals importance with a "need to know."
Who cares about what these two-bit criminals have to say? The media does, and they subjectively judge who is being honest, and who is not. Criminals are also now using the media to spread stories that help support their allegations, and the media responds by using un-named sources, and protecting the un-named all the way to jail.
The Boston Heralds un-named source was wrong about the "Pre-Super Bowl Walk through Tape," and the Herald subsequently apologized, and swore off the use of un-named sources altogether.
Before the Herald, and Matt Walsh's story about Spy gate was the LA Times. Their use of unsubstantiated information led them to name Clemens in conjunction with the Grimsley Affidavit, for which they just issued a public apology to Roger Clemens last December.
The Daily News has gone in the exact opposite direction though proving one thing, their bias. This video is of Mike Lupica getting “caught” at the Clemens Hearing showing his bias, which is on constant display at the Daily News, and ESPN where Lupica is employed.
How far has the media spun recent allegations of cheating in sports, and to what end does the Federal Government even care? A “cooperative steroid dealer” to the NFL, David Jacobs, just shot, and killed himself over his being "a reliable witness" for the government. Certainly it is plain to see a criminal element exist in Professional Sports. We also have Tim Donaghy, ex referee with the NBA, who was caught betting on games.
Donaghy’s lawyer just released last night that the outcomes of NBA games were affected by interpersonal relationships between various teams and the referees. The NBA echoed Clemens saying, “(Donaghy) is just making up one big story in a desperate attempt to stay out of jail.” Clemens said the same thing of McNamee on 60 Minutes. Now, Donaghy's lawyer blasted the NBA, saying “the scandal runs much deeper.” Are we supposed to buy McNamee's story, but not Donaghy's? The media’s handling of two different criminals in similar situations is mind boggling.
The media constantly defends McNamee, but not Donaghy. Both McNamee and Donaghy are criminals who are looking to better their legal postures. McNamee wanted full immunity, and Donaghy wants a leaner sentence.
Ex-IRS Investigator Jeff Novitzky (who worked with McNamee) just experienced a set back in his Balco case. The jury refused to take the word of “DRUG DEALER,” Angel Heredia, thus dismissing two charges posed by the Prosecutors Office. It will definitely make for some big drama again if Clemens proves his case, and the monolithic news giants can make another mint off of correcting themselves, and demonizing McNamee.
McNamee’s good friend and co-dealer (Radomski) was under investigation as well, and got off with parole. Radomski gave the Feds evidence that proved that McNamee was involved in illicit drug dealing. He was found guilty on distribution charges, and money laundering along with other RICOH violations, and was encouraged to “cooperate” for a deal by prosecutors.
The Feds have checks from McNamee to Radomski in 2004, and 2005; years that Clemens is not accused of using. Radomski’s book is forthcoming, but he believes his “business partner”, McNamee. Then again, McNamee said in his Deposition that “he and Radomski always took care of one another,” and also let fly that he “paid Radomski for thousands of dollars of PEDs” in return for …..Vitamins.
Oddly enough, it is likely that McNamee allowed Radomski to launder money through his internet business. McNamee got busted, and he might have just said what investigators wanted to hear in order “to stay out of jail,” like Clemens said in the 60 Minute Interview; and like NBA Commissioner Stearn says of Donaghy. McNamee repeated this motive on the taped Clemens call, “I would also like not to go to jail.”
In keeping with the theme of deflecting personal responsibility to others in order to stay out of jail let's consider Donaghy. If what Donaghy says is true, then what will the government do to the NBA? It is a vicious cycle, and like McNamee, Donaghy will add-on to his story as well in order to appear more credible. Clemens has been under investigation since Jason Grimsley, in 2005; and barring any bias there is still no definitive proof one way or another.
B-12. Does it look familiar taking into account that it may have spent seven years in the basement of McNamee’s old house, when he was together with his wife?
How has this discrepancy over evidence not been reported yet? Where is the “Daily Screws” or ESPN on this one?
Now the media is saying that Jose Canseco, and Brian McNamee were both thought of initially as lying, and both ended up being right. How can they both be right, when Canseco says that Brian McNamee is lying about Roger Clemens?
With the treatment shown Brian McNamee, now all criminals who get caught while involved with sports are going to try to "cooperate", and throw others under the bus. The handling of McNamee has set a bad precedence. It is called the "McNamee Affect", and accusations made by criminals trying to save themselves will now all have to be as equally heard as McNamee, unless it is proven he lied.
comments (7) write a comment »
write a new comment
4 months ago
I just wasted 25 minutes of my life trying to edit this, so I'm almost glad my computer wasted it. You can't fairly criticize respected journalists in such a repetitive, illogical, and badly self-edited article, man. Please do better next time.
from 4 months ago
Did you have a specific point of interest, or you just didn't agree with the report? Who are the so-called respected journalist? Are they the same ones who never provide any research, or hard fact when writing stories? They use un-named sources for Petes sake. That type reporting has set a bad precedence for the criminal elements of all sports. Criminals turned accusers are walking scott free while their inflammatory allegations ruin the sport. DO I have to name them all for you too? As you can see I offer all my research, and hardly require your edits. Thanks for your honest attempt though, do better next time.
4 months ago
The use of un-named sources is common practice in investigative journalism. Good journalism involves additional measure to independently verify sources (unnamed or otherwise).
4 months ago
Some, like those at the Boston Herald, have sworn off using un-named sources altogether. This article was to illustrate how often the "un-named source" has gotten it wrong for the NY Daily News regarding Clemens, and the fact that they still use one despite their being wrong. It used to be common place for Editors to fact check a report to verify accuracy. Given the Daily News lately (Blair, Kelley, McCready, Bagwell) I guess fact checking has now become "optional," which of course is bad journalism. It shoudl be pointed out that Lupica is a columnist, and can write whatever he wants to write. At the same time, even columnist are held to standards of credibility. THis was to point out his bias.
4 months ago
Okay Pat, I can see where you're coming from; the fact that Lupica and the Daily News used a plethora of anonymous sources does shake the foundation of their story. You are right that ballplayers aren't paid to be saints, just to play the game. Like most of us who are familiar with the case, you are correct in saying that Brian McNamee is not a person of good character.
What I'm upset about is that you kept repeating the same point over and over. You criticized the Daily News and Mike Lupica (who, no matter what is current actions are, is a longstanding and respected sports journalist) in an article that no editor would have considered running after even a second draft. Your point came across, but it was in a berating and "hammer-over-the-head" manner. It's just not the way to write; you can't spotlight someone's inaccuracies and faults and then not take care of your own.
It took me about 30 minutes to read through the whole article and correct the content and grammar errors along the way. I was upset when my computer erased it, but I was not going to take the time to do everything over. It just wasn't worth. You have a valid point, man: if the Daily News is being biased and unfair toward Roger Clemens, write about it. If they are not abiding by journalistic standards, then definitely write about it. Just clean it up before you send it to the press.
from 4 months ago
Chris, saying respected and sports journalist is almost an oxymoron. I am not repeating anything, rather just pointing out the many different articles that have bias in them, mostly written by Lupica in the Daily News. When I say many different articles I mean there are a lot so it takes time to mention them all through the use of embedded links. All of them are pertinent as it shows a clear bias by the Daily News in general, not just by Lupica. Finally, it is an editorial; so like Lupica I reserve the right to print my opinion, but unlike Lupica...I back my story up with showing my research. Tuche my man. Glad to meet you by the way.
4 months ago
Seems like a pretty concise article to me, and it contains a lot off unique information. I liked it, good "joba" Patrick!
write a new comment