Comments on: Wait, did Jon Heyman just accuse Andy Pettitte of perjury?

By: Matt S

Matt S — Tue, 08 May 2012 19:03:37 +0000

Heyman is far worse than most sportswriters. His style is rumor-mongering and holier-than-thou denunciations of players and managers he dislikes for one reason or another.I challenge anyone to find a well-written, thoughtful, and balanced piece written by Heyman anywhere on the Internet.

By: Travis Reitsma

Travis Reitsma — Tue, 08 May 2012 03:06:50 +0000

#Lawyered

By: mungman69

mungman69 — Tue, 08 May 2012 00:08:19 +0000

WHAT: A sportswriter not reporting the facts. He must be married to Matt Moore

By: stlouis1baseball

stlouis1baseball — Mon, 07 May 2012 20:59:38 +0000

Well done Craig. And I wonder why Heyman blocks you. LOL!
Heyman is such a tool. Wow.

By: freddysez

freddysez — Mon, 07 May 2012 20:24:24 +0000

Imputation of criminality is one standard for libel. By accusing Pettitte of the crime of perjury, Heyman exposed himself to libel action unless he can show his statements were true.

By: umrguy42

umrguy42 — Mon, 07 May 2012 18:44:27 +0000

Chris, at least when Hamels is gunning for a target, he’s getting them :p

By: Robert H.

Robert H. — Mon, 07 May 2012 18:16:50 +0000

Ah, thanks. I presume, then, that the 50/50 quote and others were simply transcribed by reporters who were in attendance?

By: Craig Calcaterra

Craig Calcaterra — Mon, 07 May 2012 18:11:51 +0000

I don’t think this forms the basis of a lawsuit because of the malice/public figure angles. But there is a difference between (1) offering one’s opinion that a person is, generally speaking, a liar and (2) pointing to specific sworn testimony and saying “he lied when he said that.”

One is disprovable, the other is an opinion of one’s character.

By: Jack Marshall

Jack Marshall — Mon, 07 May 2012 18:09:57 +0000

An obvious opinion isn’t libel. Even a stupid, careless, uninformed opinion. Heyman has a right to call someone a liar.

By: sabathiawouldbegoodattheeighthtoo

sabathiawouldbegoodattheeighthtoo — Mon, 07 May 2012 17:52:48 +0000

What would happen if Pettitte signed with Scott Boras? Heyman might explode

By: ezthinking

ezthinking — Mon, 07 May 2012 17:33:17 +0000

FYI The trial transcript won’t likely be prepared until after the trial.

By: danrizzle

danrizzle — Mon, 07 May 2012 17:24:42 +0000

Craig, I think there’s a point at which lazy and careless can be “reckless disregard for the truth” sufficient for even a public figure to recover against the media. Not sure Heyman’s conduct here would reach that standard, but I don’t think actual knowledge of the truth is an element of proof.

By: mpic92

mpic92 — Mon, 07 May 2012 17:24:26 +0000

Whoa nothing like seeing some recent ConLaw material on HBT (NY Times Co v. Sullivan, Hustler Magazine, etc).

By: uyf1950

uyf1950 — Mon, 07 May 2012 17:23:49 +0000

Thank you.

By: woocane

woocane — Mon, 07 May 2012 17:23:06 +0000

Thanks jwbiii. Also, when you saw Heyman on TV during this time period, his bias was even more evident.

By: woocane

woocane — Mon, 07 May 2012 17:21:46 +0000

Detroit Michael — I did not save Heyman’s articles in which he detailed his man crush on McNamee, nor his TV appearances. But his support for McNamee was not hidden.

By: jwbiii

jwbiii — Mon, 07 May 2012 17:19:39 +0000

woocane seems to be correct
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2008/writers/jon_heyman/01/07/mcnamee.clemens/

By: Robert H.

Robert H. — Mon, 07 May 2012 17:17:21 +0000

Does anyone have a link to a transcript of Pettitte’s recent testimony? Craig’s previous post linked to the 2008 transcript, but not the recent ones.

By: largebill

largebill — Mon, 07 May 2012 17:12:34 +0000

All of this demonstrate why it is so difficult to get a conviction in perjury cases. Memories are not perfect and testimony is often imprecise. By imprecise, I mean someone lying under oath (unless incredibly arrogant and stupid) will be vague or will qualify their statements with protective caveats such as: “I think” or “I’m not really sure, but thought he said . . . ” It is rare to have a straight declarative case or perjury where it can be shown there is no doubt the individual under oath was unaware they were lying.

“I did not have sex with that woman.” Whoa, you’re telling me that _____ counts as sex? I woulda never thought that was sex. Thanks for clearing that up for me.

By: stevem7

stevem7 — Mon, 07 May 2012 17:07:36 +0000

John Heyman is that last person who should be accussing anyone of bending the truth. For it was John Heyman himself, who 100% knew about steroid use in baseball and failed to report it. John Heyman who took the free tickets, the free drinks, the free hot dogs, and covered up Steroid Usage in baseball because he would have lost his perks.

By: Chris Fiorentino

Chris Fiorentino — Mon, 07 May 2012 17:07:14 +0000

Thanks for the clarification Craig. Between this case and the Bonds case, it sounds to me like the prosecutor’s office needs to clean house. Poor judgment and worse, poor lawyer skills, all the way around. These guys are dumber than Cole Hamels.

By: Craig Calcaterra

Craig Calcaterra — Mon, 07 May 2012 17:04:33 +0000

Kinda doubt it. Because Pettitte is a public figure It would have to be shown that he knew the truth, said this anyway and did so with a malicious intent. I’m not a Heyman fan, but I don’t see that here. He’s just being lazy and careless at best, pushing an agenda he likes at worst.

By: bigleagues

bigleagues — Mon, 07 May 2012 17:03:21 +0000

Hey man, nice shot!

By: uyf1950

uyf1950 — Mon, 07 May 2012 17:02:15 +0000

Craig, a question for the lawyer in you. Is what Heyman said libelous? and can he be sued? Just curious.

By: bos30

bos30 — Mon, 07 May 2012 17:01:52 +0000

Heyman is also wrong when he says that “…it’s easy to think now Pettitte only admitted to what he had to admit to.” If he bothered to read Pettitte’s 2008 deposition he would know that Pettitte volunteered the information about the 2 shots of HGH he took in 2004. The Mitchell Report only covered the 4 shots of HGH that MacNamee gave him in 2002. Given that only he and his father knew about the HGH shots in 2004 I’m pretty confident that no one would have found out about them so Pettitte admitted to something that he didn’t have to admit to.

As to the 50/50 comment, I think it is reasonable to expect that trial lawyers are going to be better at questioning witnesses then congressional investigators not only because of more experience but simply because they have all the facts laid out in front of them whereas the congressional investigators were trying to find out stuff and had very little time to reflect on things. Clemens attorneys have had 4 years to reflect on all evidence in this case.

I just want to thank you Craig for trying to get the truth out there. It is so disappointing that other journalists either are too lazy to check their facts or don’t care what the truth is.

By: Detroit Michael

Detroit Michael — Mon, 07 May 2012 17:01:39 +0000

Any link to support that, woocane?

By: woocane

woocane — Mon, 07 May 2012 16:54:22 +0000

Craig — there’s something else people are missing. In his deposition, Pettitte definitively testified that his conversation with Clemens re HGH occurred in 1999. But McNamee said he never discussed HGH with Clemens until summer of 2000. The Committee counsel questioning Pettitte even said to Pettitte that his testimony was inconsistent with the Mitchell Report, but Pettitte did not waver from the 1999 date. He only changed it to “1999 or 2000″ when he gave an affidavit to avoid having to testify in public. So the testimony was always questionable.

By: woocane

woocane — Mon, 07 May 2012 16:51:26 +0000

Yep — not from before this controversy, but after it started, he became pals with him. Hung out with him at his house, wrote articles and gave commentary about how great he is.

By: Craig Calcaterra

Craig Calcaterra — Mon, 07 May 2012 16:51:24 +0000

Chris — he clearly was a conflicted witness in 2008. Heyman clearly says, however, that Pettitte “pulled a changeup” here, which he certainly didn’t.

Pettitte’s 2008 shows clear uncertainty (one answer yes, one answer no). Saying in 2012 that he’s now “50/50″ is clearly consistent with that idea.

He’s a bad witness. He’s an inconsistent witness at times. But he didn’t change his story for the trial or pull a fast one on anybody.

By: drewsylvania

drewsylvania — Mon, 07 May 2012 16:49:42 +0000

Heyman is friends with McNamee??