FanDuel - WFBC

April 28, 2008

Clemens reportedly had affair with country star: Roger Clemens has another potential scandal he's already denying. He reportedly had a affair with country singer Mindy McCready in a decade-long relationship that began when she was 15 and Clemens was a 28-year old with the Red Sox. This could be especially damaging as Clemens' defamation suit against Brian McNamee proceeds.

posted by dyams to baseball at 09:54 AM - 167 comments

From what I've heard, this is all specualation. Clemens has confirmed that he knows Mindy McCready and that she is a family friend and has been for quite some time. All of this information has been given out by Brian McNamee's lawyer, Richard Emery in order to make Clemens out to be a scumbag and also to make their case against Clemens that no one should believe what he has to say. This is a classic case of mudslinging that we've see in politics but of course this is just a ploy to misdirect people's attention into believing McNamee and not Clemens. Good job though.

posted by BornIcon at 10:13 AM on April 28

Even if it's true, it's the juiciest baseball story since Wade Boggs and Margo Adams, but I doubt it'd have any bearing on the defamation and perjury suits in the long run. BornIcon is right; this is mudslinging and little else.

posted by NerfballPro at 10:38 AM on April 28

At this point, I feel the worst for Roger's kids. Mudslinging? Yep, I'll buy that. Now, if RC did use steroids, HGH, or anything else being questioned, is he still willing to deny it as these accusations continue. They price of lying is increasing. If he didn't use, then he has a huge uphill battle to repair his name, if that's even possible. Either way, it seems totally inappropriate (for Mcnamee's lawyer) to defend his client by claiming his opponent is a child molester. (prediction: 153 posts)

posted by BoKnows at 10:52 AM on April 28

Hey, 15 in country music years is around 32. Plus, messin' around while married is part of the C&W experience. Why the fuss?

posted by afl-aba at 11:02 AM on April 28

Either way, it seems totally inappropriate (for Mcnamee's lawyer) to defend his client by claiming his opponent is a child molester. Absolutely. For Richard Emery to come out and make these accusations is low, even for a lawyer. The on-going case is about whether Clemens did in fact take steroids or if McNamee is just a liar. This has nothing to do with Clemens' sex life but I guess that is the price you pay for trying to clear your name.

posted by BornIcon at 11:05 AM on April 28

This is huge, potentially, because Clemens tries to come across as such a squeaky-clean American hero throughout these proceedings, and claims every single negative thing said regarding him is a lie. If McCready (or anyone she knows) is ever made to testify in a potential trial, this could prove to be big blow to Clemens. This isn't a claim against some relative unknown, it involves someone who is/was a fairly big name in the entertainment business. Testifying in front of Congress is one thing, but if Clemens ever has to go into a trial setting and defend himself against a parade of people McNamee's attorneys may bring forth to testify, he might be in for big, big problems.

posted by dyams at 11:08 AM on April 28

BoKnows, where did it say Emery outed this information or called Clemens a child molester?

posted by jerseygirl at 11:11 AM on April 28

This shows you the morals that most lawyers have, none.

posted by RA at 11:11 AM on April 28

This shows you the morals that most lawyers have, none. Oh, how I love categorical indictments. Makes me think of a saying the police had back in the 60's (a period when they were categorically disparaged by many): "Next time you're in trouble, call a hippie."

posted by DudeDykstra at 11:22 AM on April 28

This shows you the morals that most lawyers have, none. I know a couple lawyers in real life and they're all awesome people. YMMV, blah blah blah.

posted by jmd82 at 11:30 AM on April 28

(prediction: 153 posts) I'd wager heavy on the over.

posted by tommytrump at 11:33 AM on April 28

I felt bad about Kody, Karly, Krusty, Kowlick and Kokomo Clemens long before this. Of course this story doesn't matter. The legal and baseball troubles into which Rocket has pushed his little self-contained bubble have nothing to do with this barely-newsworthy non-event. But if he's never been held to the rules of baseball or economics or drug use before this, and if he's never in his entire life been told that he couldn't do something, then to think that he'd suddenly hew to some arbitrary line when it comes to his marital vows might be a tad shortsighted.

posted by chicobangs at 11:33 AM on April 28

BoKnows, where did it say Emery outed this information or called Clemens a child molester? I was wondering that myself. If there's a link where he calls Clemens a child molester, I'd be interested to see it. McCready is also someone who was jailed a few years back for drug-related reasons. If there is any truth to this accusation I tend to believe she'll come out with it fairly quickly and not risk getting herself in more trouble. It could also be somewhat of a "break" for her, as stupid as that sounds, in that she's trying for a career comeback with several potential projects on the horizon. The legal and baseball troubles into which Rocket has pushed his little self-contained bubble have nothing to do with this barely-newsworthy non-event. You really believe that? Clemens' entire defense to everything he's ever been accused of was based on his honesty. He really hasn't even dealt with legal troubles yet, but he's well on his way to having to. And if something does come out about anything inappropriate when this person (McCready) was underage, then I tend to believe it may become somewhat of a newsworthy event.

posted by dyams at 11:39 AM on April 28

Here's the Daily News story that article in the FPP references: http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/yankees/2008/04/27/2008-04-27_sources_roger_clemens_had_10year_fling_w.html At no point does the Daily News or the article in the FPP claim that McNamee's lawyer was the source of the story. He was contacted for his opinion and gave it. Pure speculation on my part, but I would guess that the story stems from her attempted comeback. A quote from the Daily News story: Vivid details of the affair could surface in several media projects that McCready is involved with - including a documentary that begins filming today in Nashville, a new album and a reality show.

posted by cjets at 11:48 AM on April 28

dyams, Rocket hasn't defended himself based on his "honesty." Well, okay, maybe that's what he thinks he's done, but out here on the other side of that membrane that separates him from the rest of the world, it's been more a matter of his right arm and his bluster allowing him to bully his way through everything he's ever come up against in life, and this is the first time he's experienced (or at least noticed) serious push-back. His arm is fading fast, and may be gone for good. His coterie of fartcatchers and sycophants is dwindling, and what we're seeing here, regardless of whether this story has any merit, is the flaking away of what used to be his trusted and loyal inner circle. The charges don't interest me. The dismantling of his cone of insulation, however, I find fascinating.

posted by chicobangs at 11:50 AM on April 28

BoKnows, where did it say Emery outed this information or called Clemens a child molester? Sorry, I did read the article, but still I assumed that McNamee's lawyer was the source of the breaking story. I will read more carefully. If it is true, I'd bet Mcnamee's lawyer would jump on it then.

posted by BoKnows at 11:56 AM on April 28

I think we're really missing out on some new merchandise with the tagline, SportsFilter: A sports coterie of fartcatchers and sychopants.

posted by jerseygirl at 11:56 AM on April 28

McCready is also someone who was jailed a few years back for drug-related reasons. She's a loon. I remember that story, being a Country fan, and she went completely bonkers. I think she's the singer that was married to Superman from Lois and Clark at some point.

posted by hawkguy at 11:58 AM on April 28

The charges don't interest me. The dismantling of his cone of insulation, however, I find fascinating. Yeah, I can agree with that. On the surface, the charges, as well as this possible affair may be nothing out-of-the-ordinary. I like the "dismantling of his cone of insulation" comment, because that's a great way of phrasing it. She's a loon. I remember that story, being a Country fan, and she went completely bonkers. She has definitely had a lot of problems, and yes, she was married to (TV Superman Dean Cain). But even after she continued to unravel, Clemens reportedly was sending her big chunks of cash so she could defend herself. If true, it goes to show even more how Clemens and his ego think he can go about doing practically anything and it will never be called into question by anyone. It may all be rising to the surface. SportsFilter: A sports coterie of fartcatchers and sychopants. Do you mean sychophants?

posted by dyams at 12:03 PM on April 28

If Clemens thinks that real evidence of this affair is about to surface, all he needs to do is go on TV, bite his lip, shed a few tears, ask God and the American public for mercy, and all will be forgiven.

posted by whitedog65 at 12:06 PM on April 28

Engaged to him and he broke it off a year later according to his imdb.com bio.

posted by jerseygirl at 12:06 PM on April 28

dyams, if you're gonna correct someone on their spelling, at least don't correct them with another misspelling. It's sycophant. Look it up.

posted by worldcup2002 at 12:11 PM on April 28

No, its sicko pants.

posted by jerseygirl at 12:19 PM on April 28

On the surface, the charges, as well as this possible affair may be nothing out-of-the-ordinary. I hope grown men having sex with 15-year old girls is out of the ordinary. Out of the ordinary or not, it is illegal in Texas, where the age of consent is 17 years old.

posted by bperk at 12:20 PM on April 28

It's sycophant. Look it up. I was mainly wondering about her word as possibly something I didn't know the definition of, not so much about the spelling. But thanks, worldcup, and I'll take your well-intended advice and look it up.

posted by dyams at 12:22 PM on April 28

If Clemens thinks that real evidence of this affair is about to surface, all he needs to do is go on TV, bite his lip, shed a few tears, ask God and the American public for mercy, and all will be forgiven.
whitedog, Rocket does not have that pitch in his repertoire. He's never apologized for anything in his life,and even if that was his only ticket to salvation, he wouldn't know how to do it. Besides, remorse is something only the little people feel.

posted by chicobangs at 12:25 PM on April 28

True, but saying it in public and really meaning it are two different things, it's all about spin and the means to an end.

posted by whitedog65 at 12:34 PM on April 28

clemens has a huge future with the WWE. don't fight it, roger.

posted by diastematic at 12:45 PM on April 28

I felt bad about Kody, Karly, Krusty, Kowlick and Kokomo Clemens long before this. I'm not tuned into Clemens' personal life, but are those names for real? If so, I would find this to be the most disturbing news of all. Doing my part to get this past 153 posts.

posted by THX-1138 at 01:07 PM on April 28

coterie Is that the same as a cadre?

posted by steelergirl at 01:19 PM on April 28

"I finally bagged me a Homer" by Lurleen Lumpkin comes to mind. Gosh, you guys really make my study breaks from law school special.

posted by tahoemoj at 01:19 PM on April 28

See, this is how our society works. Big gossip news comes out and it takes the focus off everything else for a while. I'm a big baseball fan but, due to life commitments, I wasn't able to watch a single game this weekend. I can't tell you who pitched this weekend, but I can now quote details of this story more or less verbatim. I am more likely to have conversations about this with fellow fans than, say, the fact that the Cubs are off to one of their best starts in years. I'm a little disgusted with myself right now. I'm going to do what I can to avoid discussing this or reading about this, but I bet you anything I'm going to be drawn back into this thread like a moth to a flame. Frick, man.

posted by Joey Michaels at 01:39 PM on April 28

Hey, 15 in country music years is around 32. Plus, messin' around while married is part of the C&W experience So thats why Texas is the polygamy capital of the western world.

posted by irunfromclones at 02:09 PM on April 28

Who does Clemens think he is, Rick Springfield? (fighting for truth, justice, and 153 posts)

posted by irunfromclones at 02:14 PM on April 28

Who does Clemens think he is, Rick Springfield? Gross. I hadn't thought Jesse's Girl was talking about an actual child. I thought it was about Jesse's significant other. (one post closer to 153 posts)

posted by bperk at 02:33 PM on April 28

in Texas, where the age of consent is 17 years old Here in Nevada, it's 16. Those crazy Texans. Try'n to do my part.

posted by tahoemoj at 02:37 PM on April 28

I wonder if he's not more like the David Koresh of baseball. (I don't think we're gonna make it to 153, unless the evening reactionary brigade comes through in a big way. I just sense we're not really feeling this one.)

posted by chicobangs at 02:39 PM on April 28

You never know. If brandy finds the thread, she could pull 153 comments just talking to herself.

posted by jerseygirl at 02:40 PM on April 28

I just sense we're not really feeling this one. Cause it comes as no surprise that Clemens would do a a druggy 15 year old?

posted by irunfromclones at 02:45 PM on April 28

Do you mean sychophants? Actually, the term is "psychophants", which is the scientific name for a rogue elephant (or a large SpoFite during any of our more emotional threads). I just might change my screen name to "fartcatcher"; it has a nice ring to it. (On the road to 153)

posted by Howard_T at 02:51 PM on April 28

/feels chicobangs

posted by jmd82 at 02:51 PM on April 28

It doesn't surprise me that Clemens would do anyone he wanted when he felt like it, especially if they were a part of his inner circle and thought the world of him. This is someone for whom the rules of the road never applied, ever. So why would that suddenly change in this case? That's even before we factor in McCready's possible mental state, or credulity because of her age, or anything else. I'm saying that whether this is true or not, if you thought Rocket wouldn't do something like this because of "morals" or "laws" or some similar sillinesses, well, I reckon he would, and did, not just sexually, but in every way, early and often, with whatever and whoever he could get away with. I'm not saying this story is true. But I am saying it's extremely truthy. (jmd, before you continue, I'm gonna need to see your birth certificate.)

posted by chicobangs at 02:53 PM on April 28

Roger Clemens does not have a child named Krusty, more's the pity. The four (legitimate acknowledged) Clemens offspring are Koby Aaron, Kory Allen, Kacy Austin, and Kody Alec. I have two questions here: 1. There are names that legitimately begin with K, so why not use some of them? Kurt, Kevin, like that? 2. We all know what the K is for, but what's up with the A? (doin' my part)

posted by lil_brown_bat at 02:59 PM on April 28

Age of consent in Kansas is 16, I think. (One closer!) By the way, how does one do the little font size?

posted by hawkguy at 03:05 PM on April 28

hawkguy: in brackets, font size=-2 to start it off, /font to stop. So where did this allegedly happen -- in Texas or Kansas or where?

posted by lil_brown_bat at 03:07 PM on April 28

thought it was Florida, because he was in spring training with the Red Sox in Fort Myers... and she's from Fort Myers.

posted by jerseygirl at 03:13 PM on April 28

2. We all know what the K is for, but what's up with the A? It stands for "Adulterer". Clemens' guilt follows him into the subconscious middle naming of his progeny. Goodness, I'm a wit. And that's one more for the tally. We have a cause here, people. Let's do some good.

posted by THX-1138 at 03:16 PM on April 28

We could easily spin it out to 200 if we're going to rattle off possibilities for 'A' Arse? As in where he got his steroids stuck.

posted by kokaku at 03:27 PM on April 28

Actually the easier way is <small>text goes here</small> which creates text goes here don't count this one in the comment count ;)

posted by scully at 03:32 PM on April 28

thought it was Florida, because he was in spring training with the Red Sox in Fort Myers... and she's from Fort Myers. ESPN article says he met her in Florida with his then Boston teammates.

"The allegations, according to the Daily News, claim Clemens was 28 when he first had contact with McCready. She was 15 when he noticed her at a Fort Myers, Fla., bar while out with his Red Sox teammates, according to the Daily News."

posted by scully at 03:41 PM on April 28

How did you write the text goes here with the small tag without making it actually turn small? If that made any sense at all.

posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 03:41 PM on April 28

I can't give away ALL my secrets! Fine.... the left bracket is done by putting the following characters together with no spaces: & lt ; and the right bracket is & gt ; The lt and gt stand for "less than" and "greater than" What I don't do for you people. this comment doesn't count toward the 153 either

posted by scully at 03:53 PM on April 28

I thought this post might have a logical discussion of how this issue, if it turns out to be true, might negatively impact Clemens as he faces further legal issues. It was obvious his credibility was what was really in question when he faced Congress on the steroids issue, and as he moves on with an intent on a defamation lawsuit. I apologize for my mistake in posting this. Much of the junk about posting to 153 and such only reinforces what I've been feeling for some time now. This site used to be enjoyable, but it just isn't anymore. There are far too many people who either seem to be bitter about practically everything, or want to jump on someone when they ask a question. I made a honest question a bit ago about a certain word and, in turn, someone jumped down my throat. And I've hardly ever gotten involved in all the spelling and grammar stuff, and today had a question about definition. Anyways, it's been fun while it lasted, and consider this my final post.

posted by dyams at 04:05 PM on April 28

I hope this isn't true, but the Daily News is pretty reputable. They must think the sources are rock solid. If Clemens had sex with a 15-year-old when he was 28, as the newspaper alleges, that's statutory rape in most states -- including Florida, where they reportedly met. Why isn't that discussed at all in the article? There were personal love missives to Clemens hidden in McCready's album liner notes. If this is true, the paper should be able to quote them.

posted by rcade at 04:24 PM on April 28

Wow, dyams. I was thinking that the conversation was going much BETTER than expected. I don't think anyone meant harm about the comment count, and I apologise for my role in the derail on HTML, etc. I hope you'll have a cold one, watch Sports Center and reconsider.

posted by scully at 04:28 PM on April 28

OK, clowns. Here's a click for the greater good of all threadkind. BTW, how do I turn text red?

posted by smithnyiu at 04:48 PM on April 28

dyams: I meant no harm by the comment prediction, I'm sorry if I've caused a stir. But I agree with terrapin, this thread has been pleasantly mild. If Clemens had sex with a 15-year-old when he was 28, as the newspaper alleges, that's statutory rape in most states -- including Florida, where they reportedly met. Why isn't that discussed at all in the article? That's sort of, in a round about way, where I was heading rcade, with my molester comment. Plus, I still think it was a shallow move by McNamee's lawyer to even comment on this story. Me thinks he should've dismissed the alegations and just concentrate on his case.

posted by BoKnows at 04:54 PM on April 28

Plus, I still think it was a shallow move by McNamee's lawyer to even comment on this story. Clemens is suing Brian McNamee over defamation of character. Brian McNamee's lawyers are defending their client. If Clemens is less than the upstanding patriotic poster boy he is claiming to be then Brian McNamee's attorney's owe it to their client to use whatever information that comes to light to defend their client. The press is the one reporting this information. As far as we know it isn't Brian McNamee's lawyers feeding this information to the press. It ain't pretty, but that's how it goes.

posted by scully at 05:20 PM on April 28

My smart ass response to this is because this is all conjecture brought on in part by a lawyer trying to defame a man who brought a defamation suit against his client. There has been no proof offered, and until there is, I will show no respect to this "story." Sorry if I offended anyone.

posted by hawkguy at 05:33 PM on April 28

If Clemens is less than the upstanding patriotic poster boy he is claiming to be then Brian McNamee's attorney's owe it to their client to use whatever information that comes to light to defend their client. I understand that concept 100%, terrapin. I'm just not sure I agree with the lawyer's coupling a defamation suit with statutory rape. Especially, if their goal is to prove a drug dealer as reputable.

posted by BoKnows at 05:34 PM on April 28

If dyams is really gone over this, then he was close to going already. I thought there was a discussion going on in this thread about his steriod issues and FBI entanglements and how this affects them, as well as his public face. And that will continue. It's just that we've been through this in Clemens threads ad absurdum already. This is just another dimension that reinforces what everyone already may or may not believe about him. This may not have been the most sports-related post in the world, but now that it's here, we can discuss the related issues while riffing on it. I didn't see anything insulting in here to anyone who didn't deserve it, and even the Clemens hate has been couched in the appropriate amount of if-he-did-it-then-this-is-my-reaction.

posted by chicobangs at 06:00 PM on April 28

Hey hawkguy! If you read the article, you'll note that the lawyer was not the one who brought this up. The lawyer was approached by the newspaper and asked to bring this up. The sources for this story are listed as "unnamed sources," though I agree with you that no proof has been offered. Oh God. I posted here again.

posted by Joey Michaels at 06:05 PM on April 28

Joey, if you think those "unnamed sources" have nothing to do with the plaintiff's lawyers, I would beg to differ. And yes, I read the link.

posted by hawkguy at 06:09 PM on April 28

There has been no proof offered, and until there is, I will show no respect to this "story." So let me get this straight. You don't believe the story because there's no proof. OK, that's a valid position (though there was ample proof of there being a relationship between them, it's just a question of whether it was platonic or sexual) But you're more than willing to accuse McNamee's lawyers of spreading the story without a shred of evidence, even less evidence than there is against Clemens. I don't think that the Daily News would run this story on the say so of McNamee's lawyers alone. I'm not gonna defend their journalistic ethics but it doesn't make any sense. Her using the story to further a comeback, which the article hints at? That makes sense (whether the actual story is true or false).

posted by cjets at 06:22 PM on April 28

It's the sense of irreverence and wise-acreishness that attracted me to this site in the first place. If you lose that and only have the option of serious sports discussion, this place, for me at least, would become dullsville. Or maybe just a lot less fun. I thought sports could be a fun subject to talk about. On topic: I'm not too sure that it was McNamee's lawyer who tipped the press or whoever about Clemens' possible infidelities. My gut reaction leans more towards McCready or a publicist for her trying to get some attention for a return to fame/public awareness/self promotion. Off topic again: Where HTML issues are concerned, I am a caveman. I only have smart ass comments to contribute here. I gaze in wonderment at the magic of red font and multiple linking. I am not of the body.

posted by THX-1138 at 06:36 PM on April 28

I'm not saying it was his lawyer alone, but you think it didn't start somewhere? I don't know how reliable the Daily News is, but I was a former sports writer, so I understand how much pressure a paper can put on a writer to create something and write it as such that no legal issues can come of it.

posted by hawkguy at 06:39 PM on April 28

This post is entirely worthwhile simply for the additions of 'coterie' and 'fartcatcher'. Goddamn, that's just wicked stuff. Chico in top form, as per the usual. I'm presently giving you a helluva sitting, slient ovation. And thankfully - I have nothing further to add except that Clemens is clearly working on the Bigger Dick theory of earth inhabitation and why Barry Bonds is more vilifed than this asshole is something that will never hold actual water.

posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 06:42 PM on April 28

I'm not saying it was his lawyer alone, but you think it didn't start somewhere? I guess it depends on your perspective. If you think the story is B.S., then I would understand you thinking it was McNamee's lawyers (or McNamee himself). If the story is true, however, then any number of people could have leaked it, starting with her, her entourage or anyone on the crew of her new projects. I think he's guilty. But if someone told me that Clemens was responsible for global warming, I'd believe that too. So maybe I'm the wrong person to ask. By the way, not that I ever want to defend Clemens, but it is possible that he waited to have sex with her until after she became of age, which would make this adultery, if true, but not statutory rape.

posted by cjets at 07:01 PM on April 28

and even the Clemens hate has been couched in the appropriate amount of if-he-did-it-then-this-is-my-reaction. I've used those words in this thread, but from me it isn't a form of hate. I'm pretty much indifferent about Roger Clemens as a person, or whether he lied or not. I guess I've resigned myself to the fact that steroids have been very prevalent in baseball over the recent years. So if I were to hate RC because he's a steroid user and then lied about it, I guess I'd have to hate a large population of MLB. Now, if it's factual that he was involved with a 15 year old, I think the hate would be more evident, at least from me. Frankly, I don't believe it to have been a sexual relationship, and it seems that many others share that opinion as well. Which again, is why I think it's a low class move on the part of McNamee's lawyer. If Emery's got the goods on Clemens already, then why associate yourself and your client with this story?

posted by BoKnows at 07:19 PM on April 28

I don't think it is true. In fact, I'll go one step further. I don't think that it is true and I think that it will be proved demonstrably false during this news cycle and I think Clemens will point to this and say "see, all you people who believed what you've read about me and steroids in the news have been misled about that, too." If I'm right, this is actually a brilliant bit of media manipulation by Clemens' camp to ultimately make him look like a victim of a media smear campaign. If I'm wrong, I owe dyams a beer. If the only good that comes out of this is dyams returning to Sportsfilter to claim his beer, my posting in this thread a third time is worth it.

posted by Joey Michaels at 07:28 PM on April 28

thought it was Florida, because he was in spring training with the Red Sox in Fort Myers... and she's from Fort Myers. For the record, the time period in question (1991 spring training), the Red Sox did not have spring training in Fort Myers. They had spring training in Winter Haven, which is 2-2.5 hours drive away. It's possible that Clemens and his teammates drove all that way for karaoke, but it does seem odd.

posted by grum@work at 07:32 PM on April 28

dyams- I agree with terrapin that this post was going a lot better than expected. It's a lot less rude than for example, the brandy thread. I also like the fact that we do get derailed sometimes- the humor here is far better than anything I've seen lately on SNL. I hope you reconsider. Clemens has dug himself a much bigger hole and more threads will come.

posted by irunfromclones at 07:38 PM on April 28

If this isn't true, and there aren't any other similar stories out there lying in wait, then Clemens has the mother of all libel suits if he wants it. We'll see what comes out (hey, Elvis first met Priscilla when she was 14, but he reputedly kept his hands off her until things were kosher), but there's an awful lot of realistic-looking smoke here for there to not be any fire at all.

posted by chicobangs at 08:43 PM on April 28

For the record, the time period in question (1991 spring training), the Red Sox did not have spring training in Fort Myers. True enough. But the Twins opened Hammond Stadium in Fort Myers in 1991 and I would bet they played each other.

posted by jerseygirl at 08:46 PM on April 28

What are the time limits on statuatory rape charges in Florida? If I'm right, this is actually a brilliant bit of media manipulation by Clemens' camp to ultimately make him look like a victim of a media smear campaign I think that's a bit of a stretch. I can't see lawyers sitting around the table going... "okay, so the steroid case isn't going well, I know, let's throw out a story about how you had an affair with a drugged up 15 year old back in 1991" not even half way to 153...looks good for the under. This thread is just fine, though being from Texas I do take offense to the remark about Texas being the polygamy capital of the western world. From the story I read, Clemens only had his wife and Mindy...two women is pretty amateurish for polygamists by our standards

posted by dviking at 09:56 PM on April 28

But the Twins opened Hammond Stadium in Fort Myers in 1991 and I would bet they played each other. Don't veteran pitchers usually stay home instead of going on 2.5 hour spring training road trips?

posted by goddam at 10:19 PM on April 28

Dudes, this story even made the papers down here. American baseball scandals normally don't get a run, so imagine some sub-editor noticed the underage sex angle instead. They had to explain who Clemens was, and then who Mindy was, too. Texas being the polygamy capital of the western world I'm sure that title has been awarded in perpetuity to Utah. This has been part of the southern hemisphere's contribution to Project 153.

posted by owlhouse at 10:30 PM on April 28

Half way!

posted by bobfoot at 02:55 AM on April 29

I just keep trying to figure out how a PR/promotion group could think this is a good way to present their client for future work. Let's think. mmmm She has had drug and legal problems in the past so let's put out the story of her hanging out in bars at 15 and having a "relationship" with a married baseball player (and RC makes it all the better because he is universally loved). So now she sounds even more like a skank. Mothers now will really want their daughters to buy her records and watch her shows. Yeah, that's the ticket!!! Let's go with that!!! I don't get it.....

posted by gfinsf at 04:16 AM on April 29

Don't veteran pitchers usually stay home instead of going on 2.5 hour spring training road trips? You can say that was the case with certainty? I can't.

posted by jerseygirl at 04:57 AM on April 29

Mothers now will really want their daughters to buy her records and watch her shows. You clearly don't know much about her. She is more famous for her personal life than for her songs. She does not deny the story.

posted by bperk at 06:11 AM on April 29

She was 15 when he noticed her at a Fort Myers, Fla., bar... Does anyone else see a problem with this qoute taken from the Daily News? 15 and in a bar? Hmmmmmm......

posted by BornIcon at 06:53 AM on April 29

I just keep trying to figure out how a PR/promotion group could think this is a good way to present their client for future work. You need to think like a reality TV producer. Those shows work better when the stars are a trainwreck, like the Osbournes or Puck on Real World. Her new show Mending Mindy is about how screwed up she's been. My guess is that the leaks here, if there's really an affair, came from that TV show rather than McNamee's lawyers. They have a lot more to gain, and nothing to lose by getting this story out there. The PR angle I'm having trouble with is the notion Clemens' team would release a fake underage sex story to make him look good. The risks are too high. When an allegation is this sensational, most people won't care whether it's true or not. They'll just enjoy it.

posted by rcade at 07:03 AM on April 29

McCready has confirmed the story, saying "I cannot refute anything in the story." Wow. I knew Clemens was an egotistical SOB on the mound, but I bought into the notion that he was a strong family man off the field. So much for that, then.

posted by rcade at 07:05 AM on April 29

From the story:

After the teenage McCready met Clemens at a Fort Myers bar called The Hired Hand, she returned with the Rocket to his hotel room, but there was no sex that night, sources told The News. It wasn't until later, after McCready had moved to Nashville and become a country singing star, that the relationship turned intimate.
McCready was 18 when she moved to Nashville, according to Wikipedia, so it appears that some source wants to clear him of statutory issues. Clemens bringing a 15-year-old up to his hotel room for the night, though, is completely skeevy. He was a 28-year-old MVP and Cy Young winner. Was he hoping he might be able to take her to prom? When Clemens filed the defamation suit against McNamee, it opened the door to all kinds of things that could be revealed in depositions under penalty of perjury. The fact that he filed the suit anyway, knowing that he had stuff like this affair in his past, suggests to me that Clemens is (a) an enormous risk taker, and (b) egotistical enough to believe he can win any fight he undertakes. These traits lend credence to the idea that he took the equally stupid risk of lying to Congress.

posted by rcade at 07:12 AM on April 29

rcade, I hope I never think like a reality show producer. I have seen the Osbournes but that was well beyond a train wreck. Who in their right mind (......ooops, now I get it) would do that? Also, while beauty is in the mind of the beholder, I wonder from the pictures I have seen, how RC could find the plate with a fastball, I think he is blind!!

posted by gfinsf at 07:56 AM on April 29

Also, off topic, maybe we should go to the locker room and talk about why dyams is leaving. It seemed to work in the past and I feel he is one of the best contributers here and I would hate to see him leave.

posted by gfinsf at 08:10 AM on April 29

Does the term "I cannot refute anything in the story" constitute an admission that the story is true, or does it mean that MS McCready cannot disprove anything in the story? There's a huge difference between those 2 interpretations. After thinking about this for a while, I can't believe that even Roger Clemens is dumb enough to have knowingly had sex with a 15-year-old. It would not greatly surprise me to find out that the story is true, but that Clemens did not know how young this lady was until well after the deed was done. Could the cash he supposedly sent to her have been in order to purchase silence? This is all conjecture on my part, but it is plausible. I'm joining the coterie of small typists.

posted by Howard_T at 08:20 AM on April 29

When Clemens filed the defamation suit against McNamee, it opened the door to all kinds of things that could be revealed in depositions under penalty of perjury. I don't think this will be relevant to his defamation suit. I don't see anywhere in the complaint that he filed that he talks about his sterling reputation as a family man. The suit is about damage to his professional reputation. It is just wishful thinking on the part of McNamee's lawyers. It would not greatly surprise me to find out that the story is true, but that Clemens did not know how young this lady was until well after the deed was done. Could the cash he supposedly sent to her have been in order to purchase silence? Interesting that your conjecture puts him in the best possible light and her in the worst.

posted by bperk at 08:38 AM on April 29

Here's what I suspect happened: Clemens met McCready when she was 15. She fell for him immediately, him being a famous loud athlete type, and her being, oh, let's say extremely insecure. Chemistry happens, but they don't get past first (or second, or whatever) base until she's a year or two older. In her mind, the romance started immediately. In his mind, well, he's retrofitted his thoughts to believe whatever's convenient now. It may not violate the letter of the statutory rape law that way. But he'll be judged as if it did. Now, at the risk of being crude, the real problem here as I see it is that Rocket violated the first rule of groupies: Do what you like, you're the man, rich, famous, top of your profession, everyone loves you, you can do whatever you want, that's fine, it's a tradition that dates back to ancient Egypt. But don't ever, ever stick your dingle in the hoo-ha of someone crazier than you. It will only bring you insanely disproportionate amounts of grief.

posted by chicobangs at 08:51 AM on April 29

Does the term "I cannot refute anything in the story" constitute an admission that the story is true, or does it mean that MS McCready cannot disprove anything in the story? There's a huge difference between those 2 interpretations. If she didn't have sex with him, she could certainly come out and say "I did not have sex with him". The fact that she says (through tears according to the article) "I cannot refute anything in the story" pretty much gives you your answer. Apparently she wasn't 15 when the "affair" happened though as it didn't happen until later (not when they first met). So at least we get statuatory rapist out of his profile if that's true (but bad husband and liar remains). The fact that he filed the suit anyway, knowing that he had stuff like this affair in his past, suggests to me that Clemens is (a) an enormous risk taker, and (b) egotistical enough to believe he can win any fight he undertakes. These traits lend credence to the idea that he took the equally stupid risk of lying to Congress. amen to that. And if he knows this Mindy thing is true, he KNOWS they will subpoena her to testify. Does he think she is dumb enough to lie to a federal jury too? For him? His egotism knows no bounds, apparently.

posted by bdaddy at 09:11 AM on April 29

Just to keep tabs on this - McNamee claims Petite did steroids. Petite confirms. Turns out to be true - McNamee claims Clemen's wife did HGH (for a photoshoot). Clemens denies. Turns out to be true - Newspaper claims Clemens had affair with McCreedy. Clemens denies. McCreedy confirms it to be true. - McNamee claims Clemen's did HGH. Clemens denies. Who has the credibility here? Any reason we should be believing Roger here?

posted by bdaddy at 09:18 AM on April 29

don't ever, ever stick your dingle in the hoo-ha of someone crazier than you chico, you inadvertently just made a great title for the memoirs of both Roger Clemens and Kevin Federline.

posted by NerfballPro at 10:34 AM on April 29

don't ever, ever stick your dingle in the hoo-ha of someone crazier than you chicobangs, I will also include that in my *talk* with my son, when the time comes. Priceless. And I'll say it just like that.

posted by smithnyiu at 10:43 AM on April 29

What smithnyiu said. That's sound advice even if you don't have groupies. Or a dingle.

posted by lil_brown_bat at 11:11 AM on April 29

I didn't mean for that to be gender-specific. Substitute dingle for hoo-ha, or vice versa, wherever appropriate.

posted by chicobangs at 11:26 AM on April 29

But don't ever, ever stick your dingle in the hoo-ha of someone crazier than you Don't change a thing chico, that right there is classic!!

posted by BornIcon at 11:41 AM on April 29

But don't ever, ever stick your dingle in the hoo-ha of someone crazier than you In other words, do your thinking with the larger of your 2 heads.

posted by Howard_T at 11:48 AM on April 29

Is dyams really leaving?

posted by yzelda4045 at 12:04 PM on April 29

He signed in to SpoFi today, so who knows. Maybe he just needed to blow off some steam.

posted by jerseygirl at 12:08 PM on April 29

But don't ever, ever stick your dingle in the hoo-ha of someone crazier than you. It will only bring you insanely disproportionate amounts of grief. I felt it would be best to include the full meaning of this very accurate statement. This is a truth which I have sadly learned without the benefit of being told. Divorce lawyers can be expensive. And I will be using this as my closing statement with my two boys during our "talk". I'll let mama (#2 wife=sane ) put it in her own words when she "talks" with our daughter. I submit this as evidence that good is being served with this thread.

posted by THX-1138 at 12:17 PM on April 29

I don't think this will be relevant to his defamation suit. I don't see anywhere in the complaint that he filed that he talks about his sterling reputation as a family man. I'll have to ask my buddy the lawyer, but my impression is that you don't have much control over what's asked of you in a deposition. One of the reasons you don't see many libel/defamation suits is that the plaintiff is opening himself up to scrutiny just as much as the defendant.

posted by rcade at 12:34 PM on April 29

I don't think this will be relevant to his defamation suit. Well defamation is the communication of a statement that makes a false claim that may harm the reputation of an individual. This whole McCreedy thing is relevant because 1) it helps show a lack of credibility. He says the steroids claim is a lie. He also says this thing with McCreedy is a lie. If they were to put her on stand and she says it's true, that destroys his credibility (he lied about one to save face, why wouldn't he lie about the other to save face) 2) It would be harder to argue that the steroid claim harms his reputation if you can show his reputation isn't as shiny as he claims.

posted by bdaddy at 01:42 PM on April 29

You can lay out some ground rules before the deposition is taken, but that's only if all parties agree to them. A really good attorney can also ask questions that can produce more information than you intended to give, like "are you still beating your wife". This latest revelation can only hurt Clemens in his defamation lawsuit, and in further legal proceedings. His credibility has taken a major hit, and there will be few people in a jury pool who will think the guy took a 15 year old girl to his hotel room for a nice chat. And, unless Mrs. Clemens already knew and forgave this little infidelity, Clemens better be shopping for a good divorce attorney. don't ever, ever stick your dingle in the hoo-ha of someone crazier than you I am simply green with envy about that statement.

posted by irunfromclones at 01:54 PM on April 29

If I'm wrong, I owe dyams a beer. I officially owe dyams a beer. MY PLAN ALL ALONG.

posted by Joey Michaels at 01:59 PM on April 29

(I sang in bands and toured across North America for years. That advice is hard-learned.)

posted by chicobangs at 02:29 PM on April 29

2) It would be harder to argue that the steroid claim harms his reputation if you can show his reputation isn't as shiny as he claims. The grounds for the suit is defamation per se, which means that Clemens doesn't have to prove damages because it is a statement about his professional character. It is true that depositions are more free form, but you can't ask questions just to embarrass the person being deposed. Clemens' lawyers would just instruct him not to answer.

posted by bperk at 03:07 PM on April 29

It is true that depositions are more free form, but you can't ask questions just to embarrass the person being deposed No, but the simplest defense in a defamation suit is to prove that you were telling the truth. To do this, I would assume you would be allowed to show how the plaintiff is UN-truthful, so this line of questioning could be allowed if the right argument is made. Clemens' lawyers would just instruct him not to answer. But they can't stop McCreedy from answering when she is called (which they have already indicated that they will likely subpeona her).

posted by bdaddy at 04:03 PM on April 29

I officially owe dyams a beer You buyin that beer at The Hired Hand?

posted by irunfromclones at 04:04 PM on April 29

From what I've heard, this is all specualation. Clemens has confirmed that he knows Mindy McCready and that she is a family friend and has been for quite some time. All of this information has been given out by Brian McNamee's lawyer, Richard Emery in order to make Clemens out to be a scumbag and also to make their case against Clemens that no one should believe what he has to say. This is a classic case of mudslinging that we've see in politics but of course this is just a ploy to misdirect people's attention into believing McNamee and not Clemens. Why do people still insist on treating clemens as a victim? How do people still give clemens the benefit of the doubt at this point? I'm not talking court of law here. I'm talking common sense. I don't give a damn about clemens cheating, but this isn't a shocker. There is almost nothing that could come out regarding clemens that I wouldn't at least give a large chance of being true. It's like clemens is this awful child that constantly lies but the fans are the clueless parents that believe him every single time. And even if proven wrong, gosh darn it he meant well. Is the idea that maybe clemens isn't a great family man that hard to believe? Hell, he's married to a woman that had a website preaching about staying fit and beautiful the natural way and doing it by was shooting up and getting breast implants (not that there's anything wrong with that). So maybe his family life, like most people's, isn't quite what it appears on the surface. Richard Emery isn't making clemens look like a scumbag; clemens is doing that all by himself. The only difference between Brian McNamee and Roger Clemens is that one has a great arm. Sure it's mudslinging, but Clemens would have done the same thing. After throwing everyone and his mother under the bus at the hearing and painting himself as someone with one fault, trusting too much, I'm positive that he'll eventually claim he was simply trying to help a young girl in tough times and he has not idea why she's turning on him. He's quite the humanitarian.

posted by justgary at 04:31 PM on April 29

No, but the simplest defense in a defamation suit is to prove that you were telling the truth. To do this, I would assume you would be allowed to show how the plaintiff is UN-truthful, so this line of questioning could be allowed if the right argument is made. Showing that Clemens has lied about something completely unrelated would not help McNamee show that McNamee's statements are true. That's what the syringes are for. But they can't stop McCreedy from answering when she is called (which they have already indicated that they will likely subpeona her). The witness has to have something relevant to offer. How do people still give clemens the benefit of the doubt at this point? I thought it was run-of-the-mill misogyny - not a particular love of Clemens.

posted by bperk at 04:42 PM on April 29

Of course this story is more evidence for where country singers get the material for all those maudlin he-done-me-wrong tunes. And The Hired Hand sounds like the name of a cheap massage joint. Or something. Maybe if I can derail it into a music thread, we'll hit the 153?

posted by owlhouse at 04:50 PM on April 29

I thought it was run-of-the-mill misogyny Not the judgement of the action, but that he did it at all. Clemens just has this texas-matter-of-fact-in-your-face personality that people just seem to eat up. He's proof that if you deny-deny-deny in the face of all common sense some people will be swayed. He's turned it into an art form.

posted by justgary at 04:51 PM on April 29

Miley Cyrus denies claims Vanity Fair photos were originally proposed by Clemens.

posted by irunfromclones at 05:22 PM on April 29

Miley Cyrus denies claims Vanity Fair photos were originally proposed by Clemens. See? That sounds completely plausible to me.

posted by justgary at 05:25 PM on April 29

You never know. If brandy finds the thread, she could pull 153 comments just talking to herself. Some girls "like" sports because it's the only way they can talk to men. I don't (and never have had) that problem, trust me. But can we say the same for you Jerseygirl? Anywho the thing is these athletes need to be held to a higher standard because they are role models to our children, not to mention the enormous amounts of money they are paid.

posted by brandy at 10:28 PM on April 29

36 to go

posted by brandy at 10:30 PM on April 29

Me-Yow. I don't know that I agree with the "athletes are role models for our children" dealie. It's noble but impractical. Either every profession is a role model or none are. I don't mean to turn it into a black and white argument, but at what point does one draw the line? Athletes are role models but auto mechanics aren't. Firemen are role models but bricklayers aren't. I think that responsible adults who can handle the job should be role models and those who do not wish to be, should avoid kids. Or at least behave when they have to be around them. And that parents should point kids in the right direction of who they should emulate. And then when they are old enough, tell them about the hoo-ha/dingle advice.

posted by THX-1138 at 11:17 PM on April 29

Hey goddam did you see Ron Duguay at the Ranger game tonight. Seeing his wicked hair totally made me think of you. Is there any relation between Mind McCready and Mike McCready? Glad to help boys and girls.

posted by HATER 187 at 11:33 PM on April 29

Athletes are role models but auto mechanics aren't. Firemen are role models but bricklayers aren't. Absolutely professional athletes and firemen are bigger role models than are auto mechanic and bricklayers. If, for no other reason than the public expsoure they receive. Kids do not play "bricklayer" in their spare time. Athletes and firemen are cool, and the kids want to be like them. While it may not be fair that all athletes get the role model pressure shoved down their throats, it is a part of why they earn such high salaries. The real problem comes in when one of these priviledged athletes takes advantage of his/her status and violates either laws or public morality. Clemens taking a 15 year old girl to his hotel room violates public morality. The bricklayer doing so does as well, but, again, 15 year old girls rarely are overwhelmed by the presence of a bricklayer to the point that they make poor decisions. My son gave me a strange look when I told him the "hoo-ha/dingle" advice, and then he quickly countered with "so, what you're saying is, that it's alright if I put my dingle in a hoo-ha as long as I'm crazier that she is?" Yikes, they grow up fast. (he's 16, and I think he was only kidding)

posted by dviking at 11:35 PM on April 29

The bricklayer doing so does as well, but, again, 15 year old girls rarely are overwhelmed by the presence of a bricklayer to the point that they make poor decisions. To which I respectfully counter with Joey Buttofuoco. I just think that auto mechanics, bricklayers, carpenters can be role models. I heard Jesus was a carpenter and a lot of people look up to him. Literally and figuratively. Admirable traits can be found in all walks of life, as can poor examples of choice-making behavior. Anything to get the post count up.

posted by THX-1138 at 11:46 PM on April 29

Kids do not play "bricklayer" in their spare time Lego?

posted by owlhouse at 12:22 AM on April 30

Hey goddam did you see Ron Duguay at the Ranger game tonight. Seeing his wicked hair totally made me think of you. Didn't see him tonight. I was at the Yankee game. I did see him one other night he was on though.

posted by goddam at 12:55 AM on April 30

yerfatma at least got a "I am already accepted and trusted by my diverse neighbors, are you?" and all I got was "OMG! Maybe you want to talk to interweb boys!"

posted by jerseygirl at 05:54 AM on April 30

Don't think there's any relation between Mike and Mindy, Hater. Mork and Mindy, however, didn't they get married at one point?

posted by jerseygirl at 06:03 AM on April 30

Absolutely professional athletes and firemen are bigger role models than are auto mechanic and bricklayers. My granddad was a bricklayer. Thinking back to when I was a kid, the "role model" power of pro athletes was infinitesimal compared to the actual adults in my life. Ten-year-old me was a huge fan of Lenny Randle when he beat up Rangers Manager Frank Lucchesi in 1977. The Rangers and baseball occupied every waking moment of my life at the time. But I did not begin sucker-punching my classmates as a means of conflict resolution. Not even when Pat Pennington said my new bike was gay.

posted by rcade at 06:50 AM on April 30

We might make the 153, but this thread will have the taint of performance-enhancing subtopics about it. Even if such an accusation would never hold up in a court of interweb law.

posted by chicobangs at 07:02 AM on April 30

Not even when Pat Pennington said my new bike was gay. Good Lord, I read that as Pat Harrington at first.

posted by wfrazerjr at 07:17 AM on April 30

Schneider hated my bike too? That stings.

posted by rcade at 07:23 AM on April 30

lolschneider

posted by jerseygirl at 08:29 AM on April 30

If it's any consolation, rcade, I have no relatives named Pat.

posted by owlhouse at 08:55 AM on April 30

Why do people still insist on treating clemens as a victim? How do people still give clemens the benefit of the doubt at this point? .... Sure it's mudslinging, but Clemens would have done the same thing. Who said anything about treating Roger Clemens as if he was the victim? From my statement, I wasn't defending Clemens by what I said but I do see that you agree that this is 'mudslinging', which doesn't mean that you think that Clemens is a victim either. IMO, Clemens brought this upon himself with this defamation lawsuit even though everyone pretty much acknowledged that an innocent person would be doing exactly what he's doing: Trying to clear his name even though everyone around him that's being questioned seems to be giving McNamee more & more credibility with each passing day.

posted by BornIcon at 08:59 AM on April 30

Who said anything about treating Roger Clemens as if he was the victim? The immediate jump to the conclusion by several posters that McNamee's lawyer was responsible for the story without evidence to support it is most definitely giving the benefit of the doubt to Clemens. The idea that McCready was blackmailing Clemens was mentioned. Posters stated that they flat out didn't believe the story or that Clemens wasn't that dumb. This is exactly what justgary was talking about. What has Clemens ever done to deserve this deference? Oh, I know, he can throw a baseball very fast.

posted by bperk at 09:34 AM on April 30

The immediate jump to the conclusion by several posters that McNamee's lawyer was responsible for the story without evidence to support it is most definitely giving the benefit of the doubt to Clemens. I was one of those posters. But in no way was I giving the benefit of the doubt to Clemens. My thoughts were closer to: I can't believe how far people will go to win a lawsuit. And for Emery to comment, on what was then an uncomfirmed story, is low. Maybe I've giving to much credit to lawyers ethics.

posted by BoKnows at 09:49 AM on April 30

I was one of those posters. But in no way was I giving the benefit of the doubt to Clemens. My thoughts were closer to: I can't believe how far people will go to win a lawsuit. And for Emery to comment, on what was then an uncomfirmed story, is low. Maybe I've giving to much credit to lawyers ethics. A lawyer's ethical duties are to a vigorous defense of his client. Emery's comments are towards that end. Clemens' own conduct got him in this mess, Emery didn't. Further, Clemens's entire suit is arguing that McNamee is a big, fat liar. Winning the lawsuit means proving that you aren't a liar. I think you and some other posters are giving Clemens the benefit of the doubt because you are looking at it from his point of view. It looks very different from McNamee's point of view. Clemens files a defamation suit against you for telling the truth just to cover his own ass. He mentions some rape charge against you that never went anywhere in order to damage your reputation. Then lo and behold, Clemens gets caught having a relationship with a 15-year old girl. From that, you still think McNamee and his lawyer should say "no comment." I wouldn't I'd say that I hope people start seeing Clemens for who he really is.

posted by bperk at 10:13 AM on April 30

And I understand that by making a comment that I believe this to be 'mudslinging', how that could be interpreted as defending Clemens. I, in no way am defending Roger Clemens but truly want to look at both sides of the spectrum without being baised. This whole thing started with basically Clemens' denial about using performance enhancing drugs and is now in the process of suing Brian McNamee for defamation of character. Since Clemens decided to go this route, his whole life can be looked at under a microscope by McNamee's lawyers, in order to prove that Clemens is a shady and untrustworthy individual.

posted by BornIcon at 10:16 AM on April 30

And I understand that by making a comment that I believe this to be 'mudslinging', how that could be interpreted as defending Clemens. Mudslinging is dirt thrown at your opponenet, most often not true. Who is the opponent in this story? There is none. You've created a false conflict to dismiss the allegations.

posted by bperk at 10:28 AM on April 30

I posited the idea that Clemens might not have known Ms McCready's age, and that after discovering the truth, Clemens resorted to a payoff in order to assure silence. I did not suggest that McCready was conducting an extortion scheme. One response to my comment was that it portrayed Clemens in the "best possible light". If this is the best possible light, then Mr Clemens is indeed buried in the slime.

posted by Howard_T at 10:44 AM on April 30

Mudslinging is dirt thrown at your opponenet... That is the way I used the term mudslinging. Nothing more, nothing less. No need to look further into it.

posted by BornIcon at 11:04 AM on April 30

I think you and some other posters are giving Clemens the benefit of the doubt because you are looking at it from his point of view. Still not me. In fact, twice now I've said that I could care less about Clemens. He gets no "man-love" from me. Winning the lawsuit means proving that you aren't a liar. Right. But instead of Emery proving that McNamee isn't a liar, he's trying to prove that Clemens is just more of a liar than McNamee. Which brings me back to my earlier post: If Emery's got the goods on Clemens already, then why associate yourself and your client with this story? I'm not gonna argue how I feel about this case with you, if you want to continue telling me my motivation behind my posts, that's fine, but you're wrong in my case.

posted by BoKnows at 11:15 AM on April 30

Can I help? Oop's guess I just did (139)

posted by azdano at 11:31 AM on April 30

I'm not gonna argue how I feel about this case with you, if you want to continue telling me my motivation behind my posts, that's fine, but you're wrong in my case. I didn't say anything about your motivations. Your first comment jumped to the conclusion that the McNamee's lawyer is at fault. Then when you realized that wasn't the case, you flat out said that you didn't believe the story. Obviously, you weren't giving Clemens the benefit of the doubt. Right. But instead of Emery proving that McNamee isn't a liar, he's trying to prove that Clemens is just more of a liar than McNamee. He is also trying to get Clemens to drop the case, and warning that they will explore other lies if he doesn't do so. I think it is just effective advocacy. I don't see any problem with piggybacking on someone else's allegations against Clemens. The ethical line for good lawyering would, of course, prohibit making up a story like this, but not using it as a reminder that this is the kind of thing they will be looking into to defend against the defamation suit.

posted by bperk at 11:42 AM on April 30

Your first comment jumped to the conclusion that the McNamee's lawyer is at fault. Then when you realized that wasn't the case, you flat out said that you didn't believe the story. Fair enough. That's true. I also apologized and admitted that I misread the article. But me jumping on Emery wasn't because I was giving the benefit of the doubt to Clemens, I did it because it wouldn't surprise me that a lawyer would go to the length of making the info public. The ethical line for good lawyering would, of course, prohibit making up a story like this, but not using it as a reminder that this is the kind of thing they will be looking into to defend against the defamation suit. I agree, terrapin said much of the same. And I understand that it's done that way. We're gonna defend our name by trashing our opponents name. That's bad sportsmanship, if you ask me. Personally, it just seems shitty. Am I really that good of a person? Am I the only one who thinks the ethics line needs to be raised a bit. Again, no one person is getting any leeway here from me, they're all lairs.

posted by BoKnows at 12:11 PM on April 30

Dyams: I thought this post might have a logical discussion of how this issue, if it turns out to be true, might negatively impact Clemens as he faces further legal issues...I apologize for my mistake in posting this. Really, your only mistake was not tracking down the original article and making THAT the FPP. If everyone had read the original article, not this rehashed MSNBC link, a lot of confusion might have been cleared up. It's important to link the original article because a re-hash is not going to make nearly the same effort to get the story right. To wit: (1) The NYDN states in the first sentence of their scoop that "several sources" confirmed the romance. Not McNamee's lawyers, not idle speculation on the Interwebs, several anonymous but mutually supporting sources. It's inaccurate to describe this as mudslinging or an "unconfirmed story." While I'm sure we'd prefer the sources to reveal themselves, McCready's "I cannot refute" statement pretty much seals the deal as far as this media skeptic is concerned. (2) Richard Emery's comments are only a small part of the NYDN article and not really the story at all. He even couches his thoughts on the matter as a hypothetical: "If it's proved that he's a philanderer, his reputation is already damaged. When you sue for defamation, you put your whole reputation in the community at issue. Anything is fair game, including his claim of sanctimonious purity." (emphasis mine) The quotes from Emery in the NYDN article are a lot more nuanced and make it clear that he is simply reacting to the story as presented to him by the Daily News. In a related vein, attacks on attorney Emery's ethics are absurd. He is representing his client! If I was paying a lawyer to defend me in a defamation case, I sure as hell wouldn't expect him to take a hands-off approach to the plaintiff in the name of "good sportsmanship," ESPECIALLY if I was innocent! Would you? Much of the junk about posting to 153 and such only reinforces what I've been feeling for some time now. This site used to be enjoyable, but it just isn't anymore...Anyways, it's been fun while it lasted, and consider this my final post. Come on. You (lazily) posted a link to a tawdry sex scandal story that is only tangentially related to sports, and you expected a sober discussion of the legal ramifications? Then when this doesn't happen, you denounce the whole website and loudly announce your retirement? If the website isn't entertaining you any more, you can just leave, you know. You don't have to give two weeks' notice or anything.

posted by Venicemenace at 12:26 PM on April 30

That is the way I used the term mudslinging. Nothing more, nothing less. No need to look further into it. Then you'll have to pardon me for pointing out bperk's point, which is (AS FAR AS WE KNOW) that McNamee's side didn't sling anything, the lawyer was called for comment and gave one.

posted by yerfatma at 12:40 PM on April 30

In a related vein, attacks on attorney Emery's ethics are absurd. He is representing his client! If I was paying a lawyer to defend me in a defamation case, I sure as hell wouldn't expect him to take a hands-off approach to the plaintiff in the name of "good sportsmanship," ESPECIALLY if I was innocent! Would you? If I was McNamee, and was able to prove, without a doubt, that I am "innocent", then I'd want my lawyer to concentrate on that, and that alone. And I would not want my name anywhere near an allegation that involves the plaintiff and a 15 year old. The proof is in the pudding, and it seems like they don't have the puddin', so everyone's gonna go play in the mud. And no, I would not join my lawyer in the mud.

posted by BoKnows at 12:40 PM on April 30

If I was McNamee, and was able to prove, without a doubt, that I am "innocent", then I'd want my lawyer to concentrate on that, and that alone. There is a couple of different things. First, there is never any certainty in litigation. You have to do what you can to make your case as strong as possible. A lot of litigation is about trying lots of different arguments and seeing what works. Second, in a case like this where you are unlikely to see a quick dismissal, the litigation costs could be extraordinary. No problem there for Clemens, but a huge problem for McNamee. Even innocence is no defense against a litigation machine with seemingly endless resources. McNamee's best case scenario, whether he is telling the truth or not, is for Clemens to drop the case.

posted by bperk at 01:19 PM on April 30

attacks on attorney Emery's ethics are absurd Attorny ethics is an oxymoron, and as such, is absurd in itself. And since when did we have to be sober to discuss athlete's sex scandals? It may seem trivial to you, but this scandal will impact the defammation lawsuit and any other legal issues in store for the Rocket. Oh, and Miley Cyrus denies any claim that Richard Emery influenced her decision to pose for Vanity Fair.

posted by irunfromclones at 01:57 PM on April 30

If I was McNamee, and was able to prove, without a doubt, that I am "innocent", then I'd want my lawyer to concentrate on that That's a tautology. If you were able to prove without a doubt you were innocent, you wouldn't be in court. Except the law isn't math and there's no "without a doubt" except relative to the frame of reference of a set of jurors or a judge.

posted by yerfatma at 02:16 PM on April 30

Can we close the thread when it gets to 153?

posted by hawkguy at 03:58 PM on April 30

Can we close the thread when it gets to 153? Don't be a dingle tease.

posted by THX-1138 at 04:28 PM on April 30

153! We are the champions, my friends ...

posted by worldcup2002 at 04:33 PM on April 30

Congress wonders what happened with the whole Roger Clemens thing. On preview: Damn

posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 04:35 PM on April 30

Who said anything about treating Roger Clemens as if he was the victim? Bperk said it better than I did in far fewer words: The immediate jump to the conclusion by several posters that McNamee's lawyer was responsible for the story without evidence to support it is most definitely giving the benefit of the doubt to Clemens. The idea that McCready was blackmailing Clemens was mentioned. Posters stated that they flat out didn't believe the story or that Clemens wasn't that dumb. As someone that's followed clemens' career pretty closely there's not much that he could be accused of that I wouldn't at least think possibly could be true. From your first post you said "clemens said...". I wouldn't trust anything that came out of clemens' mouth, and I don't see how you can quote him as if it holds water at all. It doesn't. The man lies so much he wouldn't recognize the truth if it was injected into his ass. If I was McNamee, and was able to prove, without a doubt, that I am "innocent", then I'd want my lawyer to concentrate on that, and that alone. And I would not want my name anywhere near an allegation that involves the plaintiff and a 15 year... That may be noble, but as already pointed out that's not really based in reality. It's not often in court someone can prove without doubt they're innocent. If they could, it probably wouldn't be going to court. McNamee is facing someone with more resources and money than he can imagine. Clemens will use anything and everything; McNamee would be a fool not to do the same.

posted by justgary at 04:58 PM on April 30

YingYang, your consolation: Your overall comment no. was 1666000.

posted by worldcup2002 at 05:36 PM on April 30

FWIW, the moneyquote of the Lester Munson ESPN piece I linked above is:

Q: What is the total effect of these tantalizing allegations on Clemens' defamation case? A: It might lead to the end of the lawsuit. Even though the evidence is almost certainly inadmissible, the reports of the romance add to a series of problems that have plagued the suit. McNamee's attorneys have raised a powerful argument that Rusty Hardin, Clemens' lead attorney should be disqualified from participation in the case (see April 14 story). And even with his assertions that McCready is a family friend, Clemens cannot be looking forward to an investigation and eventual deposition of McCready. He could avoid all of this and any future embarrassment by dismissing the case now and cutting his losses.
Basically, if suggesting that she might be called as a witness is embarrassing enough to Clemens, he might drop the suit, which is in McNamee's favor.

posted by Joey Michaels at 07:11 PM on April 30

YingYang, your consolation: Your overall comment no. was 1666000. That is a mighty fine consolation. I will admit I'm biding my time until link 10,000.

posted by Ying Yang Mafia at 08:56 PM on April 30

I wouldn't trust anything that came out of clemens' mouth, and I don't see how you can quote him as if it holds water at all Where exactly did I "quote him"? All I said from my first post was that Clemens acknowledged knowing her...and? How does that make it seem as if I believe everything & anything that the guy has to say? My point is that this type of tactic of "piggybacking" on someone else's "mudslinging" towards Clemens just seems low, even for a lawyer but hey, if it works for the betterment of his client, good for them.

posted by BornIcon at 07:59 AM on May 01

Seems like Rocket has a type. Now it seems John Daly's ex-wife was in on the action too. Pointedly, while she was still married to John Daly. And, pointedly, not denying it either.

posted by chicobangs at 04:54 PM on May 01

When it rains, it pours, or in Roger's case, the floodgates have opened. Maybe its an obvious question, but why didn't any of these mounting claims come out before now? Was Clemens off the mound lifestyle as untouchable as his on the mound pitches? and no, "mounting" was not intended as a pun

posted by irunfromclones at 05:28 PM on May 01

The Daly wife story tries to answer that, Clones: "Now Clemens' flawed past is coming to light, which legal experts say is inevitable for anyone pursuing a defamation case because a successful injury claim depends on an undamaged reputation." I always wanted to run for president so I could find out which of my friends from school secretly hated me. I guess suing somebody for defamation would achieve the same result. Some people close to Clemens are serving him up like a batting practice pitch.

posted by rcade at 06:32 PM on May 01

Now that the Mrs. Daly situation has been thrown out there, be it true or not, I'd have to agree that it's time for the Rocket to let his lawsuit go. Or could it be that he wants so badly to save his professional reputation that he's willing to have his personal reputation completely trashed? How long before Mrs. Clemens cuts her losses?

posted by captaincavegirl at 10:15 PM on May 01

This will be a long time blowing over. Clemens may have to wait years to mount another comeback.

posted by irunfromclones at 03:51 PM on May 02

Great link irunfromclones! Love the irony of Clemens watching the Golden Girls because "those bitches are hot!" So, if we're keeping score, (and who isn't?), this is at least two affairs for the Rocket. How much more is out there? And, how much more will his wife endure? Sad situation to say the least.

posted by dviking at 06:17 PM on May 02

Clemens cops to affairs but still denies doping.

posted by Joey Michaels at 12:42 PM on May 05

Where exactly did I "quote him"? You didn't quote him verbatim, but you gave his comment, which came right after "From what I've heard, this is all specualation". And then went on to blame it on Emery for mudslinging. Maybe my reading comprehension is failing me, but it reads as if you're saying there's nothing to it and one reason is what clemens stated. If you didn't mean that, my apologies. Though in that case I have no idea why you mentioned what clemens said. It seems that you've been running from this: Richard Emery in order to make Clemens out to be a scumbag and also to make their case against Clemens that no one should believe what he has to say. This is a classic case of mudslinging that we've see in politics but of course this is just a ploy to misdirect people's attention into believing McNamee and not Clemens. Good job though. From the moment you said it (or perhaps from the moment we knew the claims were true?). Clemens cops to affairs but still denies doping. He will never admit it. Remember, he's only guilty of being too trusting.

posted by justgary at 04:47 PM on May 06

You're not logged in. Please log in or register.