Could somebody explain these steroid hearings to me?
by whoopspat on Feb 13, 2008 11:50 PM CST
18 comments
Would anyone with any legal knowhow care to comment on these questions?
How did these steroid hearing make it to Congress?
Why do people agree to come to them? Are they subpoenaed? If so, how is that even legal? What business does Congress have with this issue?
If it's drug dealing Congress is concerned about, shouldn't that be a state matter?
All comments, FanPosts, and FanShots are the views of the reader-authors who create them.
0 recs |
18 comments
Email
Print
Comments
Commerce Clause
Drugs are a federal issue
by 3rdgen on Feb 14, 2008 12:07 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
Casey's teeth are clinched in hate...
Mr. Clemens didn't know Mr. Macnamee had a curve ball.
There will be is no joy to come from this.
by whills on Feb 14, 2008 2:19 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
No kidding
The "historical teller of non-truths" is looking more reputable than the guy providing freshly signed memoribilia to committee members this week.
by Shake on Feb 14, 2008 7:26 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
my understanding of it
was that Roger Clemens asked to go before Congress. The Mitchell Report came out and he wanted to defend himself from McNamee. There weren't any subpoenas in this one.
by DogTown on Feb 14, 2008 7:58 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
You are correct, sir...
...Clemens wanted to refute the testimony of McNamee in a public forum. After seeing what happened to Mark McGwire, he is undoubtedly concerned that if he doesn't forcefully deny his involvement with performance enhancing drugs, he'll be denied entry into the Hall of Fame.
Unfortunately for Roger, Andy Pettite didn't go along with the plan to make it a he said-he said confrontation between Clemens and McNamee. So Roger has stepped on his pecker and has now made himself vulnerable to a possible perjury rap.
An interesting summation of the house of cards Clemens was trying to stand on before the committee appears here:
by Slick16 on Feb 14, 2008 10:06 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Antitrust exemption
My understanding is that Congress feels the right to meddle in MLB business because of its unique protected monopoly status.
by bfaut86 on Feb 14, 2008 8:22 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
indeed
though here, they have the added drug thing, which is very much a federal issue because it involves interstate commerce. also, as for WHY this subcommittee thought it important to have this hearing, you have to take into account that old white guys LOVE baseball. some think steroids sullied the national pastime, others just wanted to meet roger clemens. to each his own, i guess.
Congress does in fact subpoena people, though it's a bit different than in courts. You can be held in "contempt of Congress" for failing to answer a subpoena, but Congress (or the subcommittee calling you, I'm not sure) decides what to do with you if your held in contempt. I'm not sure what exactly they can do, but I know jail time is an option.
Obviously, with something like this, they're not going to throw someone in jail for not answering the subpoena. They've actually been pretty nice to these guys about the whole thing (at least prior to the cameras turning on - once that red light goes on, everyone has an agenda, and it usually involves trying to get the most camera time possible). They allowed Pettitte and Knoblauch to just submit sworn affidavits instead of appearing and they offered to let Clemens do the same, but he said no, he wanted to defend himself publicly.
And so he did. And my god, did he come off looking like a liar. I mean, Brian McNamee isn't a saint. Not by any stretch of the imagination. And i was willing to entertain the thought that he was lying about this. But then Pettitte and Knoblauch corroborate the story in affidavits. Pettitte decides not to show up to the hearing so he doesn't have to talk about his best friend admitting to doing steroids with him in the room.
And then Clemens making up possibly the most ridiculous story ever, claiming that when Pettitte, who is by all accounts one of the most genuine, honest and good-hearted people in baseball, said Roger told him about the steroids, Roger was actually talking about some TV show with old guys taking HGH. Pettitte "misremembers" the conversation. And then, on top of that, he threw his wife under the bus by saying, "no, i wasn't talking about me doing HGH, i was talking about my wife!" except that the conversation allegedly about his wife doing HGH happened several years before she actually did it. What a class act.
The money quote from the hearing, from McNamee (paraphrased): "I have admitted under oath to injecting 3 people with HGH. Two of them have corroborated my story in sworn testimony. The third is sitting with me at this table."
by billyzane on Feb 14, 2008 10:49 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Two kinds of contempt.
One is Contempt of Congress, which is in fact prosecuted (or even refused) by DoJ.
The other is Inherent Contempt, which is relatively rare. This is where the full House tries the perp and decides the punishment (which, if I remember right, only can only last as long as that session of Congress).
This is the tact they plan to take with Harriet Meirs and Josh Bolton with the Contempt Citation the House voted today.
by whills on Feb 14, 2008 4:48 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
i dunno billy
As long as the MLB and its teams rely on public funds, or federal legislation, to run its business then it absolutely MUST be subject to public oversight. Yes, it seems ridiculous that elected officials have to spend any of their time being involved in how the game is operated, but that's the price for relying on taxpayer money for stadiums and infrastructure at the municipal level, and for having anti-trust and other legislation that helps them on a corporate level.
There are plenty of things that politicians waste their time on. If the MLB doesn't want them wasting time on their business, then all they have to do is stop asking taxpayers to subsidize it. But the way it stands now, there is a public trust involved in how the baseball and other pro sports are operated and Clemens, Selig and Goodell (the whole 'spy-gate' thing) are subject to government scrutiny to make sure those standards are met.
by Blitzburgh on Feb 14, 2008 4:48 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
that may well be their justification
for why they're holding these hearings. in fact, i said as much in my comment. they have the antitrust exemption and the drug aspect as perfectly reasonable reasons to call this hearing or one over spygate.
But do you honestly think that if this was the NHL, these hearing would have been held? I sure don't. Why? Because most senators don't care about the NHL. They care about baseball. Do you think Arlen Specter would have thought twice about involving Congress in spygate if he hadn't been an Eagles fan mad about losing the Super Bowl to these guys?
There's a Supreme Court case about the baseball antitrust exemption from about 60+ years ago or so that I read in law school (sorry, I can't remember the name) in which the Justice writing the majority opinion spends multiple pages at the beginning merely talking about how great baseball is and how it inspires us, and he then proceeds to list his all-time great baseball players (which numbered probably about 50-100 people). Then he finally got down to the case. That's how I see these guys.
Now I might agree with you that there needs to be federal oversight here, and to that end, it shouldn't matter what congress' secret provocations for calling the hearings are, only that they call them. But why no hearings about the NFL steroids problem? Why wasn't Shawne Merriman called to testify? Why did some Senators spent their pre-hearing time getting Roger's autograph? Why did one senator ask him during the hearing what uniform he's wearing into the hall of fame? It's not some noble idea of federal oversight that made this hearing happen. It may be good that it did happen (somethign I'm still not convinced about), but "federal oversight" is just a legal justification.
by billyzane on Feb 14, 2008 6:41 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
My opinion
To me, this is carryover from the McGwire and Palmiero "trials" from a couple of years ago. And I mean carryover in the sense that it makes people like Elijah Cummings feel big and important by berating an athlete in Congress.
Yes, there are legal justifications to the drug portion, and Miggy Tejeda is supposedly being investigated by the FBI and, I believe, the INS (since he's from the Dominican). But, I think it begs the question, does Congress need to be involved?
The only justification for Congress becoming involved I can see is that Selig is a complete moron who has no business running baseball. When athletes come out and say he knew, it's because he did. Owners and Selig were willing to do anything to put fannies in seats, especially after the '94 strike. Because baseball still has its anti-trust standing - which was granted to it by Congress - I think that Congress feels they have some "big brother" role to play in the game. Thus, Congress watches the baseball watchers.
Still, I vote that it's mostly a Congressional power trip.
by bigfatdrunk on Feb 14, 2008 8:24 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
re: Power Trip
Well that, and all the free signed jerseys they get.
by Shake on Feb 14, 2008 11:59 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Congress's role
The role of Congress in this matter is supposed to be to set a national health policy. The nature of these proceedings is an effort to determine if the use of steroids and related drugs are causing a health crisis. Congress cares less about what MLB does than say thousands of high school kids around the country, but they have decided to start at the top and hope that any changes made will trickle down.
Having said all of that, these proceedings have become a freakin joke. If they want to go after these two guys, they should just file a federal law suit against them, let them hire defense attorneys, and go at it in court. These hearings make everyone involved look bad. Actually, some of the congressmen asking questions look worse than Clemens and Macnamee.
by Hot Hands on Feb 14, 2008 8:41 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
Clear bias......
"I have to tell you all the truth," Pettitte said in his deposition last week, which was released after Wednesday's congressional hearing. "I have to live with myself. And one day I have to give an account to God and not to nobody else of what I've done in my life. And that's why I've said and shared the stuff with y'all that I've shared with y'all today that I wouldn't like to share with y'all."
On Dec. 15, two days after the Mitchell Report was released, Pettitte said he used HGH for two days in 2002 while with the New York Yankees. Last week, he went further, in a deposition for congressional investigators and an affidavit submitted in exchange for being excused from Wednesday's hearing.
"In 2004, when I tore the flexor tendon in my pitching arm, I again used HGH two times in one day out of frustration and in a futile attempt to recover. Unfortunately, I needed surgery on the arm later in the year. I regret these lapses in judgment," Pettitte said in his affidavit.
"My dad had been using it," Pettitte said in his deposition, describing his father's heart condition. "He ended up bringing me two syringes over to my house. And you know, I injected myself once in the morning and once at night. ... I did it for that day. And to this day, I don't know why. ... I was desperate and you know I really knew that it wasn't going to help me. My flexor tendon was already torn. I knew I needed surgery. I would just say just out of desperation I tried to do it again. But that was the extent of it."
.
So Mr. Pettitte, were you lying back in December or are you lying in your current affidavit? How convenient that your additional testimony, that adequately sells Roger down the river, has bought you a get-out-of-testifying card. Funny how all those politicians stringently defending Senator Mitchell's so-called report are all holding your testimony on high. Why is that? Maybe because his report is worthless without a Clemens' scalp attached?
by HornChamps on Feb 14, 2008 8:43 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
1 clarification
He wasn't under oath when he said he took HGH in 2002. It was just a press release the day after the Mitchell Report was released.
When under oath with a potential prosecution for perjury looming in the background if he doesn't tell the truth, he disclosed both times he did HGH and recounted a conversation he had with Clemens about HGH.
You really think Pettitte would sell out his best friend and idol by lying under oath, facing jail time for perjury, just so he wouldn't have to sit before Congress and and admit to things he had already admitted to publicly? That sounds pretty delusional and "tin-foil hat" to me. Even Roger, when asked what possible motive Pettitte would have to fabricate his story, said, "He would have no such motive."
A better argument (as Clemens and his lawyers realized) was not to claim Pettitte is lying (because he has a reputation of being a stand-up guy, as Roger admitted) but instead to claim Pettitte misremembers or misheard that conversation about HGH.
Unfortunately for Roger, no one really bought that one either.
by billyzane on Feb 14, 2008 10:39 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Never said.....
Glad to read you agree Pettitte was a liar in December.
His previous lies make the current version of "the truth" highly suspect.
by HornChamps on Feb 15, 2008 9:12 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Pettitte Didn't Lie...
...in December, when he said he used HGH in 2002. He was confirming McNamee's testimony regarding the incident about which McNamee testified in the Mitchell Report. Once under oath, Pettitte told about the other incident in 2004, about which McNamee knew nothing. The reason he didn't volunteer the other info to the press is because he didn't want to involve his father, who had given him the drugs.
The extent to which some of you homers will dig up nonsense to "prove" Clemens is innocent is pretty silly.
by Slick16 on Feb 15, 2008 11:36 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
WTF was that partisan angle about?
I continue to be variously puzzled/angered/nauseated by Congress' refusal to seemingly even try to find any common ground these days, on almost any issue (and, yes, I think GWBush set the tone for the past 8 years by claiming to want to unite the country if elected and then spinning 180 degrees once that happened).
However, I must confess even cynical ol' me was flummoxed by the Dems/Reps ability to make THIS issue partisan. What is to be made of that? Clemens did a better job of sucking up to the GOP members he visited on Capitol Hill prior to the hearing? The GOP congressional reps view any accusation against Clemens as an accusation against the national pastime, Mom, and apple pie (aka the USofA)? The Dems always attack rich white guys? are lenient toward drug dealers?
Some of the grandstanding was embarrassing, even by Congressional terms.
by Defender90 on Feb 18, 2008 7:35 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
