Ahah! Maybe a serious breakthrough in the Roger Clemens/Brian McNamee he-said/she-said ordeal. Friday it came out in the NY Daily News that some kid had photo evidence that Roger Clemens was indeed at a Jose Canseco party in 1998. That would be significant because McNamee testified that Clemens first became interested in steroids in 1998 when he talked with Canseco about ‘em at a party. Additionally, Clemens swore under oath that he was not at the Jose Canseco party. Now the latest report from the NY Daily News is that Clemens’ attorney Rusty Hardin is hedging on his original stance because of the photo. Hardin’s backtracking represents a major turning point in the case.
If you remember a few weeks ago, I pointed out that Rusty Hardin said in a news conference that this was the “second coming of the Duke Lacrosse case,” and that many of us who said Roger was a user would have to eat our words. That was the first time I was worried about jumping to the conclusion that Clemens was lying. Hardin was so forceful and persuasive in his speech that I really had no choice but to reconsider my stance. Well now after reading Hardin say “Roger was playing golf at the time of the party, and has stated that he may have stopped by the Canseco house after playing golf before heading to the ballpark for the game,” I have no choice but to think these guys are full of it. How could Clemens say he wasn’t at that party, but Hardin is now reading statements saying “hey, there’s always the possibility the guy was there.” What the heck is that? Either Roger is lying to his legal staff, or the legal staff knew Roger was lying the whole time. Point McNamee.Google+