Skip to content

The Clemens jury thought Brian McNamee was lying

Jun 28, 2012, 8:50 AM EDT

Brian McNamee

This seems pretty obvious given how the entire trial, for all of its length, was set up as a credibility contest between Roger Clemens and Brian McNamee. But it’s still pretty notable:

“Brian McNamee was not a strong enough witness to render a verdict of guilty against Roger Clemens,” juror Bradford Weaver told The Associated Press. He said that McNamee wasn’t credible for the jury because of a lack of “truthfulness.”

“The witnesses for the prosecution were, uh, how does one put it, kind of wanting, if you will. … It was quite lacking. If that’s what they were going to go with, then they should probably not have pursued the case in the first place if that’s all they had, you know.”

Jut remember this the next time someone says they won’t vote for Clemens for the Hall of Fame because he lied or holds up the Mitchell Report — sourced largely on Brian McNamee and the prosecution’s other drug-dealing, truth-impaired witness, Kirk Radomski — as some sort of damning indictment regarding player integrity.

  1. bsbiz - Jun 28, 2012 at 8:55 AM

    “Jut remember this the next time someone says they won’t vote for Clemens for the Hall of Fame because he lied or holds up the Mitchell Report”

    Something tells me the suspected plagiarists won’t give a toss about your basement-dwelling logic, Craig.

  2. darthicarus - Jun 28, 2012 at 9:01 AM

    Those MLB HOF voters aren’t ones to hold grudges or keep people out of their special club for reasons only known to them…I’m sure Clemens will get in, right after Bonds & Rose.

    • Detroit Michael - Jun 28, 2012 at 9:35 AM

      Actually, Rose is not eligible to be voted into the Hall of Fame (although I agree with the main direction of your comment).

  3. largebill - Jun 28, 2012 at 9:10 AM

    I suppose I’m in the minority in believing McNamee could be lying (or mistaken) about some specifics & details but also telling the truth about the central question of the case. Problem is his being a creep and clearly lying on some details gave the jury enough to hang their hat on in dismissing the entirety of his testimony. Regardless, Clemens Hall of Fame chances should not be impacted by an allegation of PED use. All players (including every player in the HoF) attempt to get an advantage in some way or another. You still need to judge their greatness by what happened on the field.

    We could overfill the internet with complaints about the Mitchell Report, but the worst aspect of it was its public release. I realize “everyone” thinks we have a right to know everything, but some things should remain secret for very valid reasons. The first PED test, for example, was supposedly to establish a baseline and no names were to ever be released.

    • Kevin S. - Jun 28, 2012 at 9:13 AM

      No, it’s entirely possible that that Brian McNamee lied about several things but told the truth about Clemens. Problem is that when you can’t trust that he’s telling the truth, all of the evidence against Clemens finally falls apart.

      • bigharold - Jun 28, 2012 at 10:54 AM

        Except the issue is that there was no evidence other than McNamee and his reputation makes him worthless.

        Even the syringe’ and PEDs, .. I’m amazed that bit of non-sense ever saw the inside of a court room. Where’s the chain of evidence? Clearly the Feds didn’t have a case other than McNamee’s accusations so basically they never had a case.

        As for the HoF, .. he’s NEVER failed a drug test, .. NEVER admitted doing PEDs and without McNamee, (who is clearly a sleazebag), nobody ever accused him of taking PEDs so there is no reason to hold PEDs against him. Whether you like Clemens or not if he did PEDs then he essentially got away with it because a Federal Jury just declared him innocent. So for those that don’t like him, .. here’s another reason.

  4. dirtyharry1971 - Jun 28, 2012 at 9:16 AM

    McNamee wasnt credable from day 1 but even though Clemens won the case i highly doubt the voters will vote him in which is why its time to change the process completely here. Instead of having these sports writers who most of them never even picked up a ball EVER in their life, lets let the current HOF’ers do the voting and only them. Nobody is going to know a HOF’er bettter then they do, they can certainly do better then these snot nose, worthless sports hacks or i mean writers.

    • Detroit Michael - Jun 28, 2012 at 9:42 AM

      I doubt that’ll be an improvement.
      (1) Many current Hall of Famers hold more of a grudge about steroid use prior to the time that MLB & MLBPA agreed to attempt to enforce a ban than sportwriters do. Also, generational turnover will lag more severely than it will with the BBWAA voters.
      (2) Current Hall of Famers are terrific baseball players as a group but that’s not the same skill as being able to evaluate whether others were terrific baseball players. History has shown us that some of the worst Hall of Fame selections happened when current Hall of Fame baseball players on various configerations of the veterans’ committees starting voting their former teammates into the Hall.

    • largebill - Jun 28, 2012 at 9:57 AM

      Concur with Detroit Mike’s comments about former players/HoF’rs. Because of their proximity to who they are evaluating they are the least objective judges of greatness.

      Beyond that, you may want to attempt to may your point without besmirching the reputations of the writers by claiming they never picked up a ball. I guarantee every baseball writer (even Craig) played some ball as a kid. We all played until the competition convinced us we weren’t good enough to compete. For some it is in the minors, for most it is long before that.

    • bigharold - Jun 28, 2012 at 11:39 AM

      ” … let the current HOF’ers do the voting and only them. Nobody is going to know a HOF’er bettter then they do,”

      HoFers come with their own baggage. You’d get a lot of the “back in my day” mentality. Not to mention that their own morals, or lack of same, could get in the way. I wonder if Ty Cobb would have EVER voted for say Jackie Robertson? Would say a devoutly religious or morally conservative HoFer have ever voted for somebody like Mickey Mantle because of his philandering and libation filled life style?

      Leave the current system alone. It’s clearly not perfect but nor is it broken. Besides it’s easier to lambast some crotchety old writer for their idiot votes and tortured logic than our crotchety old ball players who we still have fond memories of.

  5. Chris Fiorentino - Jun 28, 2012 at 2:26 PM


    Are you saying that because the Clemens jury thought McNamee was lying that Clemens never did steroids? Or that the HOF voters aren’t allowed to feel he used steroids because the McNamee jury thought he was lying? Are you saying we need hand-in-the-cookie-jar proof that Clemens and Bonds did steroids?

Leave Comment

You must be logged in to leave a comment. Not a member? Register now!

Top 10 MLB Player Searches
  1. G. Stanton (2488)
  2. H. Ramirez (2485)
  3. G. Springer (2458)
  4. S. Strasburg (2380)
  5. J. Baez (2349)
  1. C. Correa (2346)
  2. B. Crawford (2271)
  3. H. Pence (2260)
  4. M. Teixeira (2195)
  5. B. Harper (2057)