[House Hearing, 110 Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
THE MITCHELL REPORT: THE ILLEGAL USE OF STEROIDS IN MAJOR LEAGUE
BASEBALL, DAY 2
=======================================================================
HEARING
before the
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT
AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
ONE HUNDRED TENTH CONGRESS
SECOND SESSION
__________
FEBRUARY 13, 2008
__________
Serial No. 110-63
__________
Printed for the use of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
Available via the World Wide Web: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/congress/
index.html
http://www.house.gov/reform
----------
U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE
43-333 PDF WASHINGTON : 2008
For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing
Office Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512-1800;
DC area (202) 512-1800 Fax: (202) 512-2104 Mail: Stop IDCC,
Washington, DC 20402-0001
COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM
HENRY A. WAXMAN, California, Chairman
TOM LANTOS, California TOM DAVIS, Virginia
EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York DAN BURTON, Indiana
PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut
CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York JOHN M. McHUGH, New York
ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland JOHN L. MICA, Florida
DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana
DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania
JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts CHRIS CANNON, Utah
WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri JOHN J. DUNCAN, Jr., Tennessee
DIANE E. WATSON, California MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio
STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts DARRELL E. ISSA, California
BRIAN HIGGINS, New York KENNY MARCHANT, Texas
JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia
BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa PATRICK T. McHENRY, North Carolina
ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina
Columbia BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California
BETTY McCOLLUM, Minnesota BILL SALI, Idaho
JIM COOPER, Tennessee JIM JORDAN, Ohio
CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland
PAUL W. HODES, New Hampshire
CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut
JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland
PETER WELCH, Vermont
Phil Schiliro, Chief of Staff
Phil Barnett, Staff Director
Earley Green, Chief Clerk
David Marin, Minority Staff Director
C O N T E N T S
----------
Page
Hearing held on February 13, 2008................................ 1
Statement of:
Clemens, Roger, major league baseball player................. 20
McNamee, Brian, former major league baseball strength and
conditioning coach......................................... 78
Letters, statements, etc., submitted for the record by:
Braley, Hon. Bruce L., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Iowa, Report 9 of the Council on Scientific
Affairs.................................................... 141
Clemens, Roger, major league baseball player, prepared
statement of............................................... 22
Davis, Hon. Tom, a Representative in Congress from the State
of Virginia:
Letter dated February 11, 2008............................... 110
Prepared statement of........................................ 17
Lynch, Hon. Stephen F., a Representative in Congress from the
State of Massachusetts, followup questions and responses... 105
McNamee, Brian, former major league baseball strength and
conditioning coach, prepared statement of.................. 81
Waxman, Hon. Henry A., a Representative in Congress from the
State of California, prepared statement of................. 8
THE MITCHELL REPORT: THE ILLEGAL USE OF STEROIDS IN MAJOR LEAGUE
BASEBALL, DAY 2
----------
WEDNESDAY, FEBRUARY 13, 2008
House of Representatives,
Committee on Oversight and Government Reform,
Washington, DC.
The committee met, pursuant to notice, at 11:07 a.m., in
room 2154, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. Henry A. Waxman
(chairman of the committee) presiding.
Present: Representatives Waxman, Kanjorski, Maloney,
Cummings, Kucinich, Davis of Illinois, Tierney, Clay, Watson,
Lynch, Higgins, Yarmuth, Braley, Norton, Van Hollen, Hodes,
Murphy, Sarbanes, Welch, Davis of Virginia, Burton, Shays,
Mica, Souder, Duncan, Turner, Issa, Marchant, Westmoreland,
Foxx, Bilbray, Sali, and Jordan.
Also present: Representatives Jackson Lee and Serrano.
Staff present: Phil Schiliro, chief of staff; Phil Barnett,
staff director and chief counsel; Kristin Amerling, general
counsel; Karen Lightfoot, communications director and senior
policy advisor; John Williams and Theo Chuang, deputy chief
investigative counsels; Brian Cohen, senior investigator and
policy advisor; Michael Gordon, senior investigative counsel;
Steve Glickman, counsel; Steve Cha, professional staff member;
Earley Green, chief clerk; Teresa Coufal, deputy clerk; Caren
Auchman and Ella Hoffman, press assistants; Zhongrui ``JR''
Deng, chief information officer; Leneal Scott, information
systems manager; William Ragland and Miriam Edelman, staff
assistants; David Marin, minority staff director; Lawrence
Halloran, minority deputy staff director; Jennifer Safavian,
chief counsel for oversight and investigations; Keith Ausbrook,
general counsel; Steve Castor, minority counsel; Ali Ahmad,
minority deputy press secretary; Benjamin Chance and John Ohly,
minority professional staff members; Patrick Lyden, minority
parliamentarian and member services coordinator; and Brian
McNicoll, minority communications director.
Chairman Waxman. The committee will please come to order.
Before we begin our hearing, the Chair wants to make some
personal statements and statements on behalf of all of our
colleagues about the seat that is next to me that is vacant.
That seat was occupied by Representative Tom Lantos, who passed
away this week.
Those of us who have worked with Tom Lantos over the years
know about his deep commitment and compassion, his integrity,
and his leadership not only on behalf of his constituents, but
the people of this country and around the world. He was a
champion for human rights.
He was a member of this committee, but he was also chairman
of the Foreign Affairs Committee. And I think it is appropriate
that as a long-time member of this committee and a very
esteemed Member of Congress that we recognize him and have a
moment of silence. But before I call for that moment of
silence, I would like to recognize Mr. Davis.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Having survived unalterable inhumanity, Tom Lantos spent
the rest of his life giving voice to the ideals of human rights
and freedom. His keen intellect, indomitable spirit, and wry
insights left an indelible mark on all that he touched. We are
grateful to have known him. He will be missed, but not
forgotten. And we take solace in the Hebrew lesson, There are
stars whose light only reaches the Earth long after they have
fallen apart.
There are people whose remembrance gives light in this
world long after they have passed away. Their light shines in
our darkest nights on the road we must follow.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Waxman. Thank you, Mr. Davis. And if you would all
just please remember him in a moment of silence.
[Moment of silence.]
Chairman Waxman. This is our second hearing on Senator
Mitchell's report on the illegal use of steroids and other
performance-enhancing substances by players in Major League
Baseball. This hearing is focused on the accuracy of an
important section of that report, the section that is based on
the information that strength and fitness coach Brian McNamee
provided to Senator Mitchell.
This committee has a special connection to the Mitchell
Report. In 2005, when Representative Tom Davis was our
chairman, the two of us urged Commissioner Selig to investigate
baseball's history with performance-enhancing substances. The
Commissioner agreed with our suggestion and appointed Senator
George Mitchell to lead that effort.
Senator Mitchell's report is impressive and credible. He
concluded that the use of performance-enhancing substances was
pervasive for more than a decade, and that everyone in
baseball--the players, the union, the owners, and the
Commissioner--were responsible for the scandal.
Senator Mitchell released his report on December 13th. That
same day this committee announced a hearing with Senator
Mitchell, Commissioner Selig, baseball player's union leader
Don Fehr. We intended for that hearing to close the chapter on
looking at baseball's past.
On the same day the Mitchell Report was released, however,
Roger Clemens, through his attorney, Rusty Hardin, publicly
challenged the accuracy of the section of the report that
presented evidence of his use of steroids and human growth
hormone. Mr. Hardin later told the committee that the Mitchell
Report is a horrible, disgraceful report.
Given the committee's past work and our interest in an
accurate record of baseball's steroid era, we have investigated
the evidence in Senator Mitchell's report that relates to Mr.
McNamee and the players he identified. Tom Davis and I made
this decision reluctantly; we have no interest in making
baseball a central part of our committee's agenda. But if the
Mitchell Report is to be the last word on baseball's past, we
believe we have a responsibility to investigate a serious claim
of inaccuracy.
The committee's inquiry and this hearing are focused on the
accuracy of the Mitchell Report as it relates to information
provided by Brian McNamee. Mr. Davis and I both believe that
this narrow focus is important. We have carefully limited our
inquiry to the relevant facts regarding Mr. McNamee's
interactions with three players he claims to have supplied with
these substances.
In the course of this investigation, we have been able to
probe more deeply than Senator Mitchell could. Senator Mitchell
could only ask for information and had no power to subpoena
documents or to insist that individuals talk to him. As the
chief investigative committee in the House of Representatives,
we have greater authority and have been able to consider
evidence that was not available to Senator Mitchell.
I will now summarize some of the information our
investigation has uncovered.
Based on the information that Brian McNamee provided
Senator Mitchell, he reported that Chuck Knoblauch used human
growth hormone in 2001. According to the report, ``Beginning
during spring training and continuing through the early portion
of the season, McNamee injected Knoblauch at least seven to
nine times with human growth hormone.''
Mr. Knoblauch voluntarily met with the committee on
February 1st, and told us that Mr. McNamee was accurate when he
told Senator Mitchell that McNamee had injected him with human
growth hormone. Mr. Knoblauch also told us about additional
injections of human growth hormone that were not reported by
Senator Mitchell. Mr. Knoblauch told us that he administered
HGH injections to himself in 2002. There is no mention of these
injections in Senator Mitchell's report or in any published
account.
In a moving part of his deposition, Mr. Knoblauch said, My
son was here today, and I am trying not to get emotional about
this, but I am trying to teach him a lesson that you need to do
things in life that you are going to be willing to talk about
openly and to tell the truth. On behalf of the committee, I
want to thank Mr. Knoblauch for his cooperation and for his
candor in accepting responsibility for his actions.
Based on the information Mr. McNamee provided, Senator
Mitchell also reported that Andy Pettitte used human growth
hormone. Mr. McNamee has known Mr. Pettitte since 1999, and has
worked as his personal fitness coach. According to the Mitchell
Report, Mr. McNamee recalled that he injected Pettitte with
human growth hormone on two to four occasions in 2002.
Andy Pettitte voluntarily met with the committee for a
sworn deposition on February 4th, and told the committee that
the information that Mr. McNamee provided to Senator Mitchell
was accurate. In addition, Mr. Pettitte told the committee
about a second time he used human growth hormone. This occurred
in 2004, where Mr. Pettitte injected himself twice with HGH
when he was recovering from an injury.
Mr. Pettitte had never told anyone outside of his family
about this incident, but he volunteered it during the
deposition because he wanted to provide a complete record to
the committee. Mr. Pettitte also provided additional
information of particular relevance to this hearing, which I
will describe later in my statement.
On behalf of the committee, I want to commend Mr. Pettitte
for his cooperation. He found himself in an extremely
uncomfortable position, but he did the right thing and told the
truth. During his deposition, he was asked how he approached
this difficult situation, and he said, ``I have to tell you the
truth. And 1 day I have to give an account to God and not to
nobody else about what I have done in my life. And that is why
I have said and shared the stuff that I wouldn't like to share
with you all.'' Mr. Pettitte's consistent honesty makes him a
role model on and off the field.
And finally, based on the information that Brian McNamee
provided, Senator Mitchell reported that Roger Clemens used
human growth hormone and steroids. Brian McNamee told Senator
Mitchell that on over 20 occasions he injected Roger Clemens
with either human growth hormone or steroids.
All of us from time to time can have memory lapses. If any
of us were asked to recall a specific incident or event that
occurred 10 years ago, we might get the substance right, but we
would be off on some details. I think most of us can relate to
that. It is rare, however, to have the situation the committee
faces today.
Mr. Clemens and Mr. McNamee have both cooperated fully with
us, and both have given us sworn statements. They both insist
that they are telling the truth. But their accounts couldn't be
more different. They don't disagree on a phone call or one
meeting. They disagree on whether, over a period of 4 years,
Mr. McNamee repeatedly injected Mr. Clemens with steroids and
human growth hormone.
It is impossible to believe that this is a simple
misunderstanding. Someone isn't telling the truth. If Mr.
McNamee is lying, then he has acted inexcusably and he has made
Mr. Clemens an innocent victim. If Mr. Clemens isn't telling
the truth, then he has acted shamefully and has smeared Mr.
McNamee. I don't think there is anything in between.
After we had completed our depositions, my intent was to
cancel this hearing and issue a written report. We have learned
a lot about Mr. McNamee's allegations and Mr. Clemens's
account, and I thought a bipartisan report setting out the
facts with Mr. Davis might be the most effective way to present
the results of our investigation.
But others had different views, and I was particularly
influenced by the view of Mr. Clemens' attorneys, who thought
it would be unfair if the committee issued a report without
giving Mr. Clemens the opportunity to testify in public. So I
decided to proceed with this hearing, which I expect will be
the last hearing this committee will have on baseball's past or
the Mitchell Report.
In today's hearing, Mr. McNamee's credibility will be
bolstered by the testimony the committee received from Mr.
Knoblauch and Mr. Pettitte in their depositions. Mr. McNamee
named three players in the Mitchell Report: Mr. Knoblauch, Mr.
Pettitte and Mr. Clemens. None of these players talked with
Senator Mitchell, but now two of them have told us under oath
that Mr. McNamee told the truth as it related to them.
Senator Mitchell told us in our January 15th hearing that
two other factors supported Mr. McNamee's credibility. First,
he said that the only penalty Mr. McNamee faced in dealing with
Federal prosecutors was perjury, which meant that he faced
legal jeopardy only if he lied. And second, Mr. McNamee was
being paid by Mr. Clemens in 2007, as he had been paid for many
years, and he had an economic interest against implicating the
individual who supported his livelihood and was his most
prominent client.
On the other hand, the committee learned that Mr. McNamee
has twice failed to tell the government investigators the full
truth. There was an incident in Florida in 2001 that is not
related to the matter before us, but relates to Mr. McNamee's
credibility. We are not going to make that incident part of
today's hearing, but Mr. Davis and I have prepared a joint
statement that will be part of today's record. We are
stipulating for the record that Mr. McNamee lied to police
officers when they investigated the matter. Mr. McNamee does
not dispute that he lied, but told us he did it to protect
others. Mr. McNamee was never charged in that case.
Of more direct relevance to this matter, it is clear from
our deposition with Mr. McNamee that he didn't tell Federal
prosecutors everything he knew. In his deposition, Mr. McNamee
acknowledged that he misled prosecutors about the number of
injections he gave Mr. Knoblauch and Mr. Clemens. Until last
month, he also withheld from the prosecutors physical evidence
that he says implicates Mr. Clemens.
Mr. McNamee says he did not tell the full truth because,
``I was trying not to hurt the guy. I felt awful for being in
the situation I put myself into. There was a feeling of
betrayal. I shouldn't have done it. But I didn't want to hurt
him as bad as I could.''
That is no excuse. It is a serious matter that Mr. McNamee
did not tell the investigators the full truth. We need to keep
this in mind in evaluating his credibility today.
Mr. Clemens has visited with many committee members
personally in the last few days. One point he and his attorneys
have made is that it would make no sense for him to testify
under oath if he actually used steroids. In judging his
credibility, the risk that he takes by testifying today needs
to be taken into account.
It is also relevant that Mr. Clemens is a credible and
convincing person. I am also aware of the tremendous amount of
good that Mr. Clemens has done through the Roger Clemens
Foundation--and I thank you for helping so many children--but
it is also true that as we moved forward in our investigation,
we found conflicts and inconsistencies in Mr. Clemens's
account.
During his deposition, he made statements we know are
untrue, and he made them with the same earnestness that many of
the committee members observed in person when he visited our
offices. In other areas, his statements are contradicted by
other credible witnesses or simply implausible.
At the beginning of his sworn deposition, Mr. Clemens
repeatedly told the committee that he never talked with Brian
McNamee about human growth hormone. We know from his later
testimony that these statements were false. Mr. Clemens told
the committee that Mr. McNamee injected him with a dangerous
pain medication, Lidocaine, in a public area of a team training
room. Dr. Ron Taylor, the team doctor, Melvin Craig, the team
trainer, both told the committee that this account does not
make any sense.
During his interview on 60 Minutes, Mr. Clemens asserted
that ``Mr. McNamee didn't tell me a word about the Mitchell
Report,'' and he lambasted Mr. McNamee for sending him an e-
mail about fishing equipment a week before the release of the
report.
Well, these statements were not accurate. Eight days before
the release of the Mitchell Report, Mr. McNamee called Mr.
Clemens' representatives and told them about the report. Mr.
McNamee also allowed Mr. Clemens' investigators to interview
him at length about the evidence in the Mitchell Report before
the release of the report. We know this happened because those
investigators secretly taped the interview.
There is also a direct conflict between Mr. Clemens'
testimony and Mr. Pettitte's. During his deposition, Mr.
Pettitte told the committee that in 1999 or 2000, Mr. Clemens,
``told me he had taken HGH.'' During his deposition, Mr.
Pettitte was asked whether he had any doubt about that
recollection and he said, ``I mean no. He told me that.'' Mr.
Clemens said this conversation never took place.
Mr. Pettitte also said he had a second conversation with
Mr. Clemens about HGH in 2005. This conversation took place
after the committee's hearings on steroids in baseball, when
Mr. Pettitte asked Mr. Clemens what he would say about the HGH
use, if asked. According to Mr. Pettitte, Mr. Clemens said, ``I
never told you that. I told you that Debbie used HGH.'' Debbie
Clemens is Mr. Clemens' wife.
Well, we learned through our depositions of Mr. Clemens and
Mr. McNamee that Mr. Clemens did inject--Mr. McNamee did inject
Mr. Clemens' wife with HGH.
Mr. Clemens and Mr. McNamee gave completely different
accounts of this injection. Mr. Clemens says that Mr. McNamee
injected Mrs. Clemens without his knowledge. Mr. McNamee says
that Mr. Clemens asked him to inject Mrs. Clemens. What they do
agree upon, however, is that these injections occurred in 2003.
That makes it impossible that Mr. Clemens, when he spoke to Mr.
Pettitte in 1999 or 2000 could have been referring to these
injections of Mrs. Clemens.
Mr. Pettitte also told the committee that he talked about
both of these conversations with his wife. Because of the
relevance of this evidence to the committee's investigation,
the committee asked Mr. Pettitte and his wife to submit
affidavits to the committee. And this is an excerpt of what Mr.
Pettitte wrote:
In 1999 or 2000, I had a conversation with Roger Clemens in
which Roger told me he had taken human growth hormone. This
conversation occurred at his gym in Memorial, Texas. He did not
tell me when he got the HGH or from whom, but he did tell me
that it helped the body recover. I told my wife Laura about the
conversation with Roger soon after it happened.
In 2005, around the time of the congressional hearing into the
use of performance-enhancing drugs in baseball, I had a
conversation with Roger Clemens in Kissimmee, Florida. I asked
him what he would say if asked by reporters if he ever used
performance-enhancing drugs. When he asked what I meant, I
reminded him that he told me that he had used HGH. Roger
responded by telling me that I must have misunderstood him. He
claimed that it was his wife Debbie who used HGH.
I said, ``OK--oh, OK,'' or words to that effect, not because I
agreed, but because I wasn't going to argue with him. Shortly
after that I told my wife Laura about this second conversation
with Roger about HGH and his comment about his wife.
That is what Mr. Pettitte told us in his affidavit; and
this is what his wife, Mrs. Pettitte wrote:
In 1999 or 2000, Andy told me he had a conversation with Roger
Clemens in which Roger admitted to him using human growth
hormone. A few years later, I believe in 2005, Andy again told
me of a conversation with Roger Clemens about HGH. Andy told me
that he had been thinking that if a reporter asked him, he
would tell the reporter of his own use of HGH in 2002. He said
that he told Roger Clemens this and asked Roger what he would
say if asked.
Andy told me that in this 2005 conversation Roger denied using
HGH, and told Andy that Andy was mistaken about their earliest
conversation. According to Andy, Roger said that it was his
wife Debbie who used HGH.
Well, we will sort through all of this today. I suspect we
will find inconsistencies in both Mr. Clemens' and Mr.
McNamee's accounts, and each Member will have to reach his or
her own conclusions. These conclusions should not be based on
whether we like or dislike Mr. McNamee or like or dislike Mr.
Clemens; our conclusions must be on the facts.
During the course of our investigation, we have acquired a
considerable amount of relevant evidence. We have taken the
depositions of Mr. Clemens, Mr. Pettitte, Mr. McNamee. We have
conducted transcribed interviews of Mr. Knoblauch, several team
trainers and doctors, and Jim Murray, a representative of Mr.
Clemens.
We have received e-mails, communications and transcripts of
tape recordings. We have also received affidavits and
declarations from several witnesses. Ranking Member Davis and I
have agreed to make this evidence part of the hearing record,
with appropriate redactions to protect personal privacy.
I know, given the nature of this hearing, that our
witnesses have strong feelings, and I suspect that some
committee members may share these. I want to caution both the
witnesses and the Members, the Chair will not tolerate any
outbursts or defamatory comments at this hearing. This is an
unusual hearing, but we have tried to be as fair as we can
throughout this investigation; and I am determined that this
hearing will also be conducted in the fairest way possible for
everyone.
I would now like to recognize Tom Davis for his opening
statement.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Henry A. Waxman follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Davis of Virginia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I just
heard the bells ring. Let me ask, we may be interrupted
frequently today with votes. I think there is some chaos on the
floor, which isn't uncommon. I am willing to sit through the
hearing if you are----
Chairman Waxman. Yes.
Mr. Davis of Virginia [continuing]. And pair each other on
motions to adjourn and dilatory motions, if that would be OK
with the chairman.
The Members----
Chairman Waxman. The two of us will pass up those votes
that are procedural. Members will use their own judgment and
guidance as to whether they will join us in missing those
votes. But the hearing will continue.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you
for holding this hearing today. And thank you for reminding us
all why we are here today.
It gives me no joy to have joined you in calling this
hearing. We were faced with an unenviable choice: Allow a
strenuous challenge to the Mitchell Report to stand without
review, or open ourselves up to criticism that we are
grandstanding, that we are acting like self-appointed
prosecutors trying the claims of that report.
In the end, we decided we had a duty to probe the
challenge, that we needed to help determine whether the
Mitchell Report, with its 409-page sordid picture of back-room
drug deals and players injecting each other with illegal
substances right in their locker rooms, whether that report
could and should still stand as proof positive that baseball's
efforts to combat illegal drug use needs a fresh look.
Our hearing yesterday was a helpful reminder of the
importance of our work. We learned how those attempting to sell
HGH are scamming consumers and breaking the law. We learned of
the terrible risks associated with unapproved use. We learned
yet again of the dangerous and phony messages being sent to
young athletes that there are magic pills and wonder drugs that
can grease their path to the Hall of Fame.
So while today's hearing may be awkward and joyless, we
know why we are here. We are here to again try to disrupt and
discredit the crass messages aimed at our children.
We can't be arbitrators of credibility, at least not this
soon after gathering evidence. We can't be lured into attaching
a coefficient of credibility to different witnesses. We can
only collect facts and present them as completely and
dispassionately as possible.
Today, we will let the American people judge who is to be
believed in this unfortunate battle of wills, memories and
reputations.
Coming into today's hearing, we have before us two very
different stories. They are in many ways incompatible.
Someone's lying in spectacular fashion about the ultimate
question. But we have not prejudged, nor should anyone coming
in today prejudge. Let's listen to the witnesses. Let's probe
disparities and contradictions. Let's remain fair and
objective. And then let's decide whether anything we have
learned leaves the Mitchell Report in a less glowing light than
it has thus far enjoyed.
As we did in January, we want to commend Senator Mitchell
for his work. He was saddled with a daunting task and list of
obstacles: no subpoena power, little cooperation from players
and only tepid enthusiasm among owners more concerned with
filling seats than protecting public health. He produced a
sober, evenhanded document whose factual assertions, with
little exception, have remained unchallenged.
Today, we offer a stage to the primary, most vocal
challenger. What better way to examine the strength of the
Mitchell Report than to offer someone of Roger Clemens' stature
the chance to tell his story and have that story, in turn,
examined as well. Mr. Clemens, because of the scrutiny he has
received, because of his accomplishments and profile, because
of the good work his foundation has done for many years,
deserves this opportunity.
And so does his former friend, trainer, and now accuser,
Brian McNamee.
At our first hearing, on January 15th, we learned from
Senator Mitchell that players were required to consent to an
interview before seeing the evidence against them; and they
couldn't simply appear, review the evidence and leave if they
concluded they had nothing further to say.
It is not hard to imagine why players like Roger Clemens
might have opted to remain mum under this scenario. Today is
his chance to speak free of these constraints, yet under oath
and before a multitude of interested observers.
We will ask our witnesses about the contradictions, open
threads and mysteries we have uncovered through interviews,
depositions, and document review. We will find out if witnesses
are sticking to their stories. We will probably discover that
some lines of inquiry are red herrings. We will undoubtedly
learn things that are new to us. And perhaps we will end up as
confused and as uncertain as ever.
But reaching consensus on whether the Mitchell Report is
now sullied does not require us to reach firm conclusions or
judgments on the veracity of our witnesses today. Factual
resolution, whether through exoneration or heightened
skepticism, need not be our goal.
Today's testimony and questioning may not be tidy. Our
hearing may not end up wrapped in a neat package and may not
fit the story line anticipated by many and hoped for by some.
That is OK. I think we will have heard and learned enough to
soon conclude whether we can return to the process of
implementing the best of Senator Mitchell's recommendations.
This is not a court of law. The guilt or innocence of the
players accused in this report and of the accusers is not our
concern. Our focus is, and has been, on Senator Mitchell's
recommendations more than his findings. We are here to save
lives, not ruin careers. Why? Because the health of young
athletes across the country is at stake, and we don't hesitate
to defend their interests, even if the process isn't always
pretty.
Thank you.
[The prepared statement of Hon. Tom Davis follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Waxman. Thank you very much, Mr. Davis.
By agreement, we will proceed without objection in
questioning in the following way after the witnesses have
presented their testimony: one 15-minute round for both the
majority and minority, controlled by the chairman and the
ranking member; two 10-minute rounds for both the majority and
the minority, controlled by the chairman and the ranking
member.
Gentlemen, we welcome you to our hearing today. We
appreciate your being here.
It is the practice of this committee that all witnesses
that testify before us testify under oath. So the Chair would
like to ask the three of you to please stand and raise your
right hands.
[witnesses sworn.]
Chairman Waxman. The Chair will note for the record that
each of the witnesses answered in the affirmative.
There are only two of you who will be making opening
statements. Mr. Scheeler is here to answer questions. We will
give each of the witnesses adequate time to make their
presentation.
And we would like to start with you, Mr. Clemens. There is
a button on the base of the mic. Be sure it is on and be sure
it is close enough to you so that we can hear everything you
have to say.
STATEMENT OF ROGER CLEMENS, MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL PLAYER
Mr. Clemens. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First, I would like to express my sympathy to the committee
on the passing of Chairman Lantos, a man, I understand, with a
remarkable personal history, and a man who served this country
with great distinction. My condolences go out to his family and
to all of you.
Thank you for allowing me to tell you a little bit about
myself and how I have conducted my professional career over the
past 25 years.
I have always believed that hard work and determination
were the only ways to be successful and to reach goals.
Shortcuts were not an option. This was instilled in me since I
was a young boy by my mother and by my grandmother.
Over the course of my career, I have had the opportunity to
work with many trainers, chiropractors, physical therapists,
and other professionals to try and educate myself and to use
what knowledge they had to keep my body in the best shape it
could possibly be.
I met Brian McNamee while playing with the Toronto Blue
Jays in 1998. I trusted him, put faith in him, brought him
around my family and my children. I treated him just like I
have done everyone else I have met in my life, like family.
I am a positive person, and I enjoy doing things for
others. I am not just a ballplayer. I am a human being.
Baseball is what I do; it is not who I am. I played the game
because of my love and respect for it. I have devoted my life
to it, and pride myself as an example for kids, my own as well
as others. I have always tried to help anyone who crossed my
path that was in need.
To that end, here we are now with me being accused of
steroids and cheating the game of baseball. If I am guilty of
anything, it is of being too trusting of everyone, wanting to
see the best in everyone, being too nice to everyone. If I am
considered to be ignorant because of that, then so be it.
I have chosen to live my life with a positive attitude, yet
I am accused of being a criminal, and I am not supposed to be
angry about that. If I keep my emotions in check, then I am
accused of not caring. When I did speak out, I was accused of
protesting too much, so I am guilty. When I kept quiet at the
advice of my attorney, until he could find out why in the world
I was being accused of these things, I must have had something
to hide, so I am guilty.
People who make false accusations should not be allowed to
define another person's life.
I have freely, without question, shared my talents God gave
me with children, young and old, and I will continue to do so.
I have been blessed with a will and a heart that carries me on
in life. I have had thousands of calls, e-mails from friends,
working partners, teammates, fans, and men that have held the
highest office in our country telling me to stand strong. These
words were welcomed during some very tough times for my family
and me.
Do I think steroids are good for helping someone's
performance? No. In fact, I think they are detrimental. These
types of drugs should play no role in the game of baseball and
athletics at any level.
Should there be more extensive testing? Yes. I think
whatever is necessary for everyone involved to satisfy
themselves that it is not going on should be done. I have been
accused of something I am not guilty of. How do you prove a
negative?
No matter what we discuss here today, I am never going to
have my name restored, but I have to try and set the record
straight. However, by doing so, I am putting myself out there
to all of you, knowing that because I said that I didn't take
steroids that this is looked as an attack on Senator Mitchell's
report. Where am I to go with that?
I am not saying Senator Mitchell's report is entirely
wrong. I am saying Brian McNamee's statements about me are
wrong.
Let me be clear. I have never taken steroids or HGH. Thank
you.
Chairman Waxman. Thank you very much, Mr. Clemens.
[The prepared statement of Mr. Clemens follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Waxman. Mr. McNamee? Be sure the button is pushed
on the mic, and it is close enough to you so that we can hear
every word.
STATEMENT OF BRIAN McNAMEE, FORMER MAJOR LEAGUE BASEBALL
STRENGTH AND CONDITIONING COACH
Mr. McNamee. Thank you, Chairman Waxman, Ranking Member
Davis, and other members of the committee. My name is Brian
Gerard McNamee, and I was once the personal trainer for one of
the greatest pitchers in the history of baseball, Roger William
Clemens.
During the time that I worked with Roger Clemens, I
injected him on numerous occasions with steroids and human
growth hormone. I also injected Andy Pettitte and Chuck
Knoblauch with HGH. The Mitchell Report documented the
pervasiveness of steroids and HGH in Major League Baseball, and
I was unfortunately part of that problem.
I want to be clear that what I did was wrong. I want to
apologize to the committee and to the American people for my
conduct. I have helped taint our national pastime. I hope that
my testimony here today allows me in some small way to be part
of the solution.
I am not proud of what I have done, and I am not proud to
testify against a man I once admired. To those who have
suggested that I take some personal satisfaction in bringing
down Roger Clemens, let me assure you nothing could be further
from the truth. I take responsibility for my actions in the
hopes that others may learn from my mistakes.
My father, who served for 24 years with the New York City
Police Department, instilled in me that people are human and
make mistakes, and I should always step up and acknowledge my
mistakes despite the consequences.
And so, here we are. Providing information to Federal
investigators has been very painful for me, and I did not seek
out Federal investigators. They sought me out. I did not want
to cooperate, because I knew that if I told the truth, I would
be providing damaging information against people who I worked
for. And in the end, I cooperated with Federal investigators
and with Senator Mitchell.
Make no mistake, when I told Senator Mitchell that I
injected Andy Pettitte with performance-enhancing drugs, I told
the truth. Andy Pettitte, who I know to be honest and decent,
has since confirmed this.
And make no mistake, when I told Senator Mitchell that I
injected Chuck Knoblauch with performance-enhancing drugs, I
told the truth. Chuck Knoblauch has also confirmed this as
well.
And make no mistake, when I told Senator Mitchell that I
injected Roger Clemens with performance-enhancing drugs, I told
the truth. I told the truth about steroids and human growth
hormone. I injected those drugs into the body of Roger Clemens
at his direction. Unfortunately, Roger has denied this and has
led a full-court attack on my credibility. And let me be clear,
despite Roger Clemens' statements to the contrary, I never
injected Roger Clemens or anyone else with Lidocaine or B-12.
I have no reason to lie and every reason not to. If I do
lie, I will be prosecuted.
I was never promised any special treatment or consideration
for fingering star players. I was never coerced to provide
information against anyone. All that I was ever told to do was
to tell the truth to the best of my ability; and that is what I
have done. I told the investigators that I injected three
people, two of whom I know confirmed my account. The third is
sitting at this table.
When I first provided information to Federal investigators,
I had not spent much time going back over these facts and
trying to piece together the details. And I guess maybe I
wanted to downplay the extent of their use because I felt I was
betraying the players I had trained.
In the following weeks and months, I have had the
opportunity to think about these events and consider the
specific drug regimens we used. As a result, I now believe that
the numbers of times I injected Roger Clemens and Chuck
Knoblauch was actually greater than I initially stated.
Additionally, I recently provided physical evidence to
Federal investigators that I believe will confirm my account,
including syringes that I used in 2001 to inject Roger Clemens
with performance-enhancing drugs. This evidence is 100 percent
authentic, and the DNA and chemical analysis should bear this
out.
To put in context, the issue of steroids and performance-
enhancing drugs in baseball was starting to pick up steam in
2000. While I liked and admired Roger Clemens, I don't think
that I ever really trusted him. Maybe my years as a New York
City police officer had made me wary, but I just had the sense
if this ever blew up and things got messy, Roger would be
looking out for No. 1. I viewed the syringes as evidence that
would prevent me from being the only fall guy.
Despite my misgivings about Roger, I have always been loyal
to a fault, a trait that has gotten me into trouble in the
past. Even though I saved the material, I never considered
using it.
When I met with Federal investigators, I still did not want
to destroy Roger Clemens. I was hoping this issue would just
fade away. It has not faded away, and everything changed for me
on January 7th, when Roger Clemens' lawyer played a secretly
tape-recorded conversation between me and Roger, in which my
son's medical condition was discussed on national TV. It was
despicable.
The next day I retrieved the evidence and contacted my
lawyers and the Federal investigators.
The whole experience has been a nightmare for my family. I
have had to revisit and read about, in the press, mistakes I
have made in the past and serious mistakes concerning an
incident that happened in Florida in 2001, when I was a member
of the Yankee organization. I lied to police officers to
protect friends, ballplayers, coaches, and myself with whom I
worked. I was wrong, and I deeply regret my actions.
Today, my livelihood is in ruins, and it is painful beyond
words to know that my name will be forever linked with scandal
in the sport I love. Yet the spotlight generated by Senator
Mitchell's report and this hearing can help clean up the drug
culture in baseball so that young people no longer see
performance-enhancing drugs as a necessary shortcut to success.
Maybe, just maybe, all the pain and shame will have served a
greater good.
Thank you, and I will be happy to answer all your
questions.
Chairman Waxman. Thank you very much, Mr. McNamee.
[The prepared statement of Mr. McNamee follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Chairman Waxman. Under the previous unanimous consent
agreement, we will control 15 minutes in the first round and
Mr. Davis, 15 minutes on his side.
And I would like to yield at this time 5 minutes to Mr.
Cummings. I would like to yield the full 15 minutes to Mr.
Cummings.
Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
And thank you, gentlemen, for being with us this morning.
And I was very pleased to hear both of the witnesses talk
about children, because that is what this was all about when we
started, so many children trying to emulate their sports stars.
I am going to ask you a few questions, Mr. Clemens, and I
first want to make sure that you are very clear. You understand
that you are under oath; is that correct?
Mr. Clemens. That's correct.
Mr. Cummings. And you know what that means; is that
correct?
Mr. Clemens. That's correct.
Mr. Cummings. Very well.
First of all, Mr. Pettitte, Andy Pettitte, is one of the
most respected players in the major leagues, and commentator
after commentator has said that he is one of the most honest
people in baseball. Would you agree with that?
Mr. Clemens. I would agree with that, yes, sir.
Mr. Cummings. Keep your voice up.
Mr. Clemens. I would agree with that, yes, sir.
Mr. Cummings. In fact, this is what your own lawyer, Rusty
Hardin, said about Mr. Pettitte in the New York Times, ``We
have nothing to fear about what Andy may testify to. Everyone
says that Andy is honest. We have no reason to believe he will
lie.''
Would you agree with that statement your lawyer made?
Mr. Clemens. I would agree with that, yes.
Mr. Cummings. Very well.
Now, Mr. Clemens, I want to ask you just one thing. In his
deposition, Mr. Pettitte told the committee that he had a
conversation with you in 1999 or 2000 in which you admitted
that you used human growth hormones.
Is this true?
Mr. Clemens. It is not.
Mr. Cummings. So you did not tell Mr. Pettitte at this time
that you used human growth hormones?
Mr. Clemens. I did not.
Mr. Cummings. And--but at the same time you just said that
he is a very honest fellow; is that right?
Mr. Clemens. I believe Andy to be a very honest fellow,
yes.
Mr. Cummings. Very well. Let's continue.
In his deposition, Mr. Pettitte was honest and forthcoming
with the committee. He told us things that were embarrassing,
that we had no way of knowing except through his own testimony.
First, he confirmed that Mr. McNamee injected him with HGH
in 2002, which is in the Mitchell Report.
You understand that, right?
Mr. Clemens. I do.
Mr. Cummings. Then he told us that he injected himself,
again, in 2004. We did not know about the 2004 injection, but
he volunteered that information because he wanted the committee
to know the entire truth.
It was hard for Mr. Pettitte to tell the committee about
the 2004 injections. The circumstances which he described in
length were exceptionally personal and embarrassing. But it was
even harder for him to talk about you, Mr. Clemens. He is
friends with both you and Mr. McNamee, and he felt caught in
the middle.
During his deposition, he was asked how he would resolve
the conflict between two friends. Here is what he said, ``I
have to tell you all the truth. And 1 day I have to give an
account to God, and not to nobody else, of what I have done in
my life. And that is why I said and shared the stuff with y'all
that I would not like to share with y'all.''
Now, Mr. Clemens, I reminded you that you are under oath.
Mr. Clemens, do you think Mr. Pettitte was lying when he told
the committee that you admitted using human growth hormones?
Mr. Clemens. Mr. Congressman, Andy Pettitte is my friend.
He will--he was my friend before this. He will be my friend
after this. And again, I think Andy has misheard.
Mr. Cummings. I am sorry, I didn't hear you?
Mr. Clemens. I believe Andy has misheard, Mr. Congressman,
on his comments about myself using HGH, which never happened.
The conversation that I can recall, that I had with Andy
Pettitte, was at my house in Houston, while we were working
out. And I had expressed to him about a TV show something that
I have heard about three older men that were using HGH and
getting back their quality of life from that. Those are the
conversations that I can remember.
Andy and I's friendship and closeness was such that, first
of all, when I learned when he was--when he said that he used
HGH, I was shocked. I had no idea.
When I just heard your statement and Andy's statement about
that he also injected himself, I was shocked. I had no idea
that Andy Pettitte had used HGH.
My problem with what Andy says, and why I think he
misremembers, is that if Andy Pettitte knew that I had used
HGH, or I had told Andy Pettitte that I had used HGH, before he
would use the HGH, what have you, he would have come to me and
asked me about it. That is how close our relationship was. And
then when he did use it, I am sure he would have told me that
he used it.
And I say that for the fact that we also used a product
called Hydroxycut and ThermaCore. It had ephedra in it, from
what I understand to be a natural tree root. I believe ephedra
was banned in 2004, something of that nature. A player in
Baltimore passed away because of it.
Andy and I talked openly about this product. And so there
is no question in my mind that we would have talked, if he knew
that I had tried or done HGH, which I did not, he would have
come to me to ask me those questions.
Mr. Cummings. Well, let's continue.
In the deposition, we wanted to make absolutely sure,
because we knew the significance of this, that Mr. Pettitte had
a clear recollection. And let me read another excerpt from the
deposition, and this was a question to Mr. Pettitte: ``you
recollect a conversation with Mr. Clemens. Your recollection is
that he said he was taking human growth hormone?'' Answer:
``yes.'' ``And you have no doubt about that recollection?'' ``I
mean, no, he told me that.''
Now, Mr. Clemens, you know Mr. Pettitte well. You just
again described your relationship. You described him as a close
friend in your deposition. Would he tell the Congress that one
of his close friends was taking an illegal, performance-
enhancing drug if there were any doubt in his mind about the
truth of what he was saying?
Mr. Clemens. Mr. Congressman, once again, I believe----
Mr. Cummings. Please.
Mr. Clemens. I am sorry?
Mr. Cummings. No, I just want you to go ahead and answer
that.
Do you think he would do that?
Mr. Clemens. I think he misremembers----
Mr. Cummings. Very well.
Mr. Clemens [continuing]. Our conversation.
And let me add, in 2006--in 2006, he and I had a
conversation in Atlanta's locker room when this L.A. Times
report became public about a Grimsley report, and they said
that Andy's and my name were listed in that. And I remember him
coming into that room, the coach's room, the main office there
of the clubhouse attendant, and sitting down in front of me,
wringing his hands and looking at me like he saw a ghost.
And he looked right at me and said, What are you going to
tell them? And I told him that I am going out there and I am
going to tell them the truth, I did none of this. I never
worked out with Jason Grimsley. He was a teammate of mine, and
I never worked out with him. And I am going to go out there and
tell them the truth.
That alone should have confirmed Andy's misunderstanding
that I have ever told him that I used HGH.
Mr. Cummings. Very well. Let's continue, because I want to
make sure that I get through some----
Mr. Clemens. Yes, sir.
Mr. Cummings [continuing]. Very key points.
Mr. Clemens, you have been very critical of Mr. McNamee's
motives. You just did it a few minutes ago.
What possible motive would Mr. Pettitte have to fabricate a
story about you, his friend?
Mr. Clemens. Andy would have no reason to.
Mr. Cummings. Very well.
This was so important we went back to Mr. Pettitte a third
time, a third time. We asked him to submit an affidavit to the
committee. This gave him a chance to express his recollection
clearly, without the pressures of a deposition. I want to read
to you what he wrote.
It says, In 1999 or 2000, I had a conversation with Roger
Clemens in which Roger told me that he had taken human growth
hormones. This conversation occurred at his gym in Memorial,
Texas. He did not tell me where he got the HGH or from whom,
but he did tell me that it helped the body recover.
It is not just Mr. Pettitte who recollects this
conversation. During his deposition, Mr. Pettitte told us that
he tells his wife everything. So we asked his wife to give us
an affidavit about what she knew. And understand, this is under
oath. Let me read to you what his wife said in her affidavit.
I, Laura Pettitte, do depose and state, in 1999 or 2000,
Andy told me he had a conversation with Roger Clemens in which
Roger admitted to him using human growth hormones.
Mr. Clemens, once again I remind you. You are under oath.
You have said your conversation with Mr. Pettitte never
happened. If that was true, why would Laura Pettitte remember
Andy telling her about the conversation?
Mr. Clemens. Once again, Mr. Congressman, I think he
misremembers the conversation that we had.
Andy and I's relationship was close enough to know that if
I would have known that he was--had done HGH, which I now know,
that he--if he was knowingly knowing that I had taken HGH, we
would have talked about the subject. He would have come to me
to ask me about the effects of it.
Mr. Cummings. Well, the fact is, Mr. Clemens, that
apparently now you know he knew it and he didn't tell you.
Has your mind changed about his credibility?
Mr. Clemens. Andy's a fine gentleman. I have no reason,
again----
Mr. Cummings. Very well.
Mr. Clemens. I think he misremembers.
Mr. Cummings. Very well.
Mr. Clemens. I know it. Again, our relationship was close
enough that if I knew--if he knew that I had tried HGH, which I
hadn't, he would have come to me and talked to me and discussed
this subject.
Mr. Cummings. I understand.
The 1999 or 2000 conversation is not the only conversation
that Mr. Pettitte remembers having with you about HGH. He also
remembers a second conversation very clearly. This conversation
took place in 2005. Let me read to you what he wrote about this
conversation in his affidavit:
In 2005, around the time of the congressional hearings into the
use of performance-enhancing drugs in baseball, I had a
conversation with Roger Clemens in Kissimmee, Florida. I asked
him what he would say if asked by reporters if he had ever used
performance-enhancing drugs.
When he asked what I meant, I reminded him that he had told me
that he had used HGH. Roger responded by telling me that I must
have misunderstood him. He claimed that it was his wife Debbie
who used HGH; and I said, ``OK,'' or words to that effect, not
because I agreed with him, but because I wasn't going to argue
with him.
This conversation happened just 3 years ago, and it is the
kind of conversation that most people would remember. It is
hard for me to imagine that Mr. Pettitte made up this
conversation.
Did you have a conversation with him to this effect?
Mr. Clemens. I don't believe I had a conversation in 2005
with him in Kissimmee, FL. We would have been with the Houston
Astros at the time.
But I don't remember that conversation whatsoever.
Mr. Cummings. Are you saying that you don't remember it, or
are you telling us that you didn't have it? Do you know?
And the reason why I am asking you that is because we are
dealing with some serious matters here, and I want to give
you--you wanted a fair chance to address this committee; and I
am just wondering, are you telling us under oath that it didn't
happen, or are you saying you just don't remember it?
Mr. Clemens. I don't remember that. And again, I will
address the--any conversation about my wife Debbie using HGH.
I know that at one point she read a USA Today article about
that. I don't know the year. It sure could have been 2005 when
this article came about, and they just--it was just general
talk----
Mr. Cummings. All right.
Mr. Clemens [continuing]. About HGH.
Mr. Cummings. Let me go on.
Laura Pettitte also has a clear recollection of being told
about this conversation by her husband. Let me read what she
wrote:
A few years later, I believe in 2005, Andy again told me of a
conversation with Roger Clemens about HGH. Andy told me that he
had been thinking that if a reporter asked him, he would tell
the reporter of his own use of HGH in 2002. He said that he
told Roger Clemens this and asked Roger what he would say, if
asked.
Andy told me that in the 2005 conversation Roger denied using
HGH and told Andy that Andy was mistaken about the earlier
conversation. According to Andy, Roger said that it was his
wife Debbie who used HGH.
Now, the timeline is very important here. According to Mr.
Pettitte, his first conversation with you, Mr. Clemens,
occurred in 1999 or 2000. But you told us that your wife did
not use HGH until 2003. That makes it impossible that you could
have been referring to your wife's use of HGH in the first
conversation.
These aren't the only relevant conversations that Mr.
Pettitte told us about. He told us that after his first
conversation with you, Mr. Clemens, he spoke with Mr. McNamee.
Let me read what--let me read to you again that affidavit:
``Shortly after my conversation with Roger, I spoke with Brian
McNamee. Only he and I were parties to the conversation. I
asked Roger about HGH, and told him that Roger said he had used
it. Brian McNamee became angry. He told me that Roger should
not have told me about his use of HGH because it was supposed
to be confidential.''
Mr. McNamee, do you remember that conversation?
Mr. McNamee. Yes, sir.
Mr. Cummings. Did it happen?
Mr. McNamee. Yes, sir.
Chairman Waxman. Mr. Cummings, your time has expired.
Mr. Cummings. Thank you very much.
Chairman Waxman. The Chair will recognize Mr. Davis for 15
minutes.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. Thank you very much.
The good news is everybody, I think, understands the
dangers of steroids and HGH, and it is the one thing I think
you both agree on.
Mr. McNamee, let me start with you just because they asked
all the questions of Mr. Clemens. I have questions for both of
you.
You mentioned in your earlier statement how the number of
times that the players--you injected the players has constantly
risen every time you have testified somewhere. You have alleged
Mr. Clemens' steroid use to at least five groups of people--
your lawyers, Federal agents, Senator Mitchell and his staff,
private investigators for Mr. Clemens, and then our staff--
during depositions.
Why has the number continued to change if we are coming
clean each time?
Mr. McNamee. Thank you for the question.
The beginning of the investigation with the Federal
Government, I didn't know what questions they were going to ask
me about specific players and injections. I had no recollection
of the amounts of times because it wasn't part of my regimen
where I would mark it down. It was pretty much, you know, done
by the players; they would tell me when, and I would do it.
But it came because I downplayed at the beginning where I
didn't want to hurt the players, even though I told the truth
about their injections and their use.
And then, as I lived this for the last 2 months and--then I
had realized, as I said in my opening statement about the
regimens--there were specific different types of regimens for
testosterone, Winstrol, and growth hormone that--I started to
think more about it.
Even though I can't be accurate, you know, these are just
ballpark numbers, or best guesstimate as far as low end, high
end, as I thought about the regimen over time.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. I mean, the ballpark for Knoblauch
went from seven times to nine types to 50 times.
Mr. McNamee. Yes.
You have to understand, every time I met, sir, with
investigators, Senator Mitchell, with the congressional panel,
I had more time to think about it. And the regimen for growth
hormone was four times a week, so then I just did the math.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. So you didn't keep any records or
anything? This is just going back----
Mr. McNamee. Every time I met, each individual time, did it
go up? Anything change? Did it go up? And I was specifically
living this every single day, as opposed to, I didn't think
about it for years.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. Did you reinform the Federal
Government about these changes as you went forward?
Mr. McNamee. Yes, sir.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. Mr. Clemens, shortly after the
call--I am going to ask some questions about the January 4th
call between you and Mr. McNamee.
Shortly after your call with Brian McNamee on Friday,
January 4th, you sent him an e-mail. In the e-mail you very
clearly tell Mr. McNamee there is nothing to talk about unless
he admits he is lying.
Did you ever get a response to this e-mail?
Mr. Clemens. I am sorry?
Mr. Davis of Virginia. To the e-mail, did you ever get a
response to your e-mail to Mr. McNamee on Friday, January 4th?
This was after your phone call.
Mr. Clemens. Congressman, after the phone call that was
taped, I believe I sent an e-mail back to him saying that
unless you are going to come forward and tell the truth, we
have nothing to discuss.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. Did he ever respond?
Mr. Clemens. He did not.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. That's what I am asking you.
During the phone call, Mr. McNamee, during that call that
you had with Mr. Clemens, Mr. Clemens said, I just need you to
come out and tell the truth. And you didn't respond.
Why didn't you just tell Mr. Clemens during the course of
that conversation, Roger, I did tell the truth. I had to tell
the truth. I am not trying to hurt anybody. That is all you
needed to say in this conversation.
This was a conversation between the two of you. It seems to
me, this would have been the time where, if this was a friend
and you felt pained about having to expose him, you would have
said, Roger, I had to tell the truth.
Why, in that conversation, didn't you say that?
Mr. McNamee. Because at the state of that conversation I
realized that it was being taped, and I also didn't know if
anyone else was listening, so--I also was trying not to hurt
him if it wasn't just him taping me.
But if you listen to it and you know my jargon, I did say
that. It is what it is.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. How in your jargon did you say that?
Mr. McNamee. I said, It is what it is, meaning that I did
tell the truth.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. And you knew it was, I mean, for
posterity and everything else? I would have thought this would
have been a good opportunity for you to step forward. But you
were afraid of hurting others at this point.
Mr. McNamee. I was afraid of hurting Roger Clemens.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. In your testimony--Mr. McNamee, in
your testimony about 2001, you added an additional substance,
parabolen on the list of steroids you injected into Mr.
Clemens. You didn't tell Senator Mitchell about that. Is that
again because you weren't focused on that at the time and you
hadn't had time to think about it?
Mr. McNamee. That's accurate, sir. I just--it wasn't
until--I don't remember actually that question being asked, if
it was any other steroids being injected by anybody else except
for the congressional panel. And they--I thought about it, I
thought about it and it just--like--like increasing the numbers
of injections, it just came to me that parabolen was also
another steroid used by Mr. Clemens.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. You testified in your deposition
that Mr. Clemens on one occasion bled through his designer
pants and a player noticed it and that's when he bought Band-
Aids. There weren't a lot of--there wasn't a lot of blood a lot
of times. But since he was wearing his dress pants, he bled
through and Mike Stanton had noticed it and made a comment. So
he then--he always traveled now with those little Band-Aids for
his butt if he bled. That's your quote. He said something to
Roger about growth hormone. I think it was Stanton started
taking growth hormone and he said something about knowing that,
and I walked right into Roger and just turned around to
Stanton, and said, hey, man, whatever I can do to get the edge.
And Stanton was asking him, thinking that I told him he was
taking steroids growth hormone etc. Do you recall any--let me
ask this, Mr. Clemens. Do you recall any bleeding through your
pants in 2001?
Mr. Clemens. I don't.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. Do you recall Mike Stanton ever
talking to you about growth hormone?
Mr. Clemens. And I don't and I had no knowledge that Mike
Stanton was using growth hormone.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. Do you recall him asking you about
blood on your pants?
Mr. Clemens. No.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. Do you ever recall saying anything
to him about getting an edge, and even as a joke, could that
have occurred?
Mr. Clemens. Congressman, when I'm on the mound, I want an
edge, so----
Mr. Davis of Virginia. Let me ask you, Mr. McNamee, could
you describe that a little clearer, what happened at that
point?
Mr. McNamee. Involving Mr. Stanton?
Mr. Davis of Virginia. Yes. The incident involving him and
bleeding through his pants.
Mr. McNamee. Excuse me. My best recollection was that I
didn't witness, Mr. Stanton witnessed him bleeding through the
pants. It was just a comment that Mr. Clemens had told me.
That's why he started buying Band-Aids, those little Band-Aids
to cover up any blood that might bleed. And on a separate
occasion, if not the same occasion on the plane I had walked in
to Mr. Stanton talking to Roger about growth hormone. And I was
upset that--I believed that Mike Stanton duped Roger into
thinking I had told Stanton about his growth hormone use and
Roger's response was, I'll do anything to take an edge. And I
didn't respond to it.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. You didn't witness any of this?
Mr. McNamee. I witnessed the conversation as Roger had
turned around and said, I'll do whatever it takes to get an
edge. And then I figured out because I also trained Mike
Stanton on a somewhat one-on-one basis that the conversation
that he duped him into telling him because I wouldn't tell
Stanton.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. Did Stanton use steroids?
Mr. McNamee. I know he used growth hormone, yes.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. Did you tell the Mitchell Report
that?
Mr. McNamee. I believe so, yes.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. OK. The Mitchell Report talks about
the party at Jose Canseco's house on or about June 8th through
10th, 1998. This was toward the end of the road trip and it
included a Marlin series after the Blue Jays returned home to
Toronto. This is allegedly--Mr. Clemens then approached you and
for the first time, brought up the subject of steroids. I think
that was your testimony. I want to ask some questions about
that because the Canseco barbecue is a key event in 1998 where
your testimonies differ significantly. You described the
barbecue as potentially the time and place where Roger Clemens
comes into possession of anabolic steroids. You told us in your
deposition you have a vivid recollection of Clemens being at
the barbecue. Do you stand by that?
Mr. McNamee. Yes, sir.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. Now all the evidence the committee's
obtained goes the other way. For example, Jose Canseco
completed an affidavit and he was interviewed by the staff. He
said he remembers the barbecue as if it were yesterday. Canseco
says, Clemens was not there. He remembers being disappointed
that Mr. Clemens wasn't there. He specifically remembers having
his high school baseball coach at the barbecue and being
disappointed he was unable to introduce the coach to Clemens.
Canseco's affidavit reads, on Tuesday June 9, 1998, I
hosted a barbecue at my house for my teammates and other Blue
Jays staff members. It was an honor for me to host a luncheon
for my new team. During that luncheon, there were approximately
30 to 40 people present. I specifically recall that Clemens did
not come to the barbecue. I remember this because I was
disappointed that he did not attend. According to news reports,
Blue Jays catcher at the time Darrin Fletcher doesn't remember
seeing Clemens there. The Blue Jays trainer at the time, Tommy
Craig and Scott Shannon, told us they don't remember Clemens
being at the barbecue. The Blue Jays' traveling secretary at
the time specifically remembers Clemens not being on the team
bus to travel to the barbecue and does not remember Clemens
being there.
Mr. Canseco's wife at the time, the then-Jessica Canseco,
now Jessica Fisher, has supplied an affidavit to the committee
that she does not remember Clemens being there. And audio from
the television broadcast of two different games during the
three-game series has the announcers talking about the barbecue
and how Roger Clemens did not attend. And Mr. Clemens has
produced a golf receipt showing that he played golf that day.
Now how do you explain--you're the only person that remembers
him that day and is that a critical juncture.
Mr. McNamee. I don't think it's that critical in regards to
Mr. Clemens's steroid use. But I guess as far as asking me is
it critical in my recollection, I have two distinct memories of
that party. And one of them is as I was eating a sandwich next
to Mr. Canseco's pool by myself, I noticed a young child
running toward the pool. And as I looked up, there was a woman
chasing after the young child and she was wearing a peach
bikini with green in it with board shorts and she was a thin
probably mid to late 30's woman, and she grabbed the kid, the
child, who was about 2 years old at the time, if not younger.
And I later found out from one of the ball players, I said
who's that? And they said, it's Roger's nanny. And I had turned
around to see Roger and Debbie Clemens talking in the middle
and then they went inside the house. I did believe I said hello
to Roger, and I know Roger showed up a little bit later, and I
also have--
Mr. Davis of Virginia. How do you know he showed up later,
because you saw him there?
Mr. McNamee. I saw him at the house of Jose Canseco's. And
I believe--we've had numerous conversations about how great
that party would have been if it wasn't for the fact that we
had a game that night and all we had was sandwiches and ice tea
because Jose had a really nice house.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. Mr. Clemens, your golf receipt that
day is time stamped 8:58. Do you recall at what time you teed
off?
Mr. Clemens. Well, the time I would get out of the pro shop
and get ready to tee off, it had been a good 30, 40 minutes
probably. The time was 8--again, I'm sorry?
Mr. Davis of Virginia. 8:58. So it would have been after 9
you would have teed off. How long does it generally take to you
play a round?
Mr. Clemens. Maybe 4, every bit of 4 hours, 4-1/2.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. How far was the golf course from Mr.
Canseco's house, any idea?
Mr. Clemens. I don't. I would think it was 20 minutes at
best.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. Did you eat lunch after your round
of golf that day, do you remember?
Mr. Clemens. I don't remember.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. You pitched 7 innings the night
before. What would have been your pattern of practice on the
day after pitching? What time do you ordinarily show up at the
ballpark the day after you started?
Mr. Clemens. Well the day after--well, obviously the day
after I enjoy playing golf. I usually enjoy playing golf the
day before I pitch and the day after when I can. I like--you
know obviously getting outdoors anytime I can, especially when
we're on the road, I do not like hanging in the hotel room.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. The night before the barbecue, the
Blue Jays lost 4-3 in 17 innings. Does that ring a bell? Does
that----
Mr. Clemens. It does. And you said earlier I threw that
game. So obviously there was a no decision involved I would
imagine.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. Were your wife and children in Miami
for this series?
Mr. Clemens. Yes.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. You think you might have gone on--
onto the barbecue after the golf?
Mr. Clemens. I don't remember his party.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. OK. Is it possible your wife and
some of your kids could have gone without you?
Mr. Clemens. I believe my wife Debbie was in my golf
foursome and the kids sure could have been. I don't remember
that they were----
Mr. Davis of Virginia. But you don't remember being there
at all?
Mr. Clemens. I don't.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. The reason I ask this is because
this was brought up and this was the beginning I think of--as I
look at the testimony of your starting to ask about these
questions right at that time or right thereafter.
We've also spoken to a number of medical professionals
inside and outside of baseball. This is about the vitamin B-12
shots. And I know a lot of players seem to take it. We had a
hearing on this yesterday. Most of them say B-12 is not
beneficial unless you have a dire medical need for it, like if
you had anemia. What's your experience been through injecting
B-12?
Mr. Clemens. I was encouraged to take B-12 all the way back
since 1988. My mother encouraged me to take B-12. I think it's
beneficial. I take vitamins every other day. I take B-12 in the
tablet form. I take vitamin E, I take a multivitamin. Again,
just about every other day. And I think it was most common if
anybody was sick on the team or if your energy felt run down
and so on and so forth. I don't know the technical benefits for
it. But I've always assumed that it was a good thing to have.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. Did you inject yourself with B-12 or
would Mr. McNamee ever inject you or do you remember?
Mr. Clemens. I have never injected myself. Mr. McNamee's
given me three shots--when we were traveling, three shots of B-
12, two in New York.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. OK. Mr. McNamee, do you concur with
that?
Mr. McNamee. The first time I heard of Roger taking B-12
was on 60 Minutes. I've never given Roger Clemens B-12. And had
never heard of B-12 really before.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. Is my time up? OK.
Chairman Waxman. Thank you, Mr. Davis. The Chair recognizes
Mr. Tierney for 10 minutes.
Mr. Tierney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Chairman, my
questions I guess are going to be a little bit about who's
telling the truth here as well. I have questions for both Mr.
McNamee and Mr. Clemens about whether or not they've been
telling the truth to us or to investigators. Mr. McNamee, let
me start with you if we could. We know that in some previous
investigations you haven't always been honest. You were
involved in a criminal investigation in Florida in 2001, you
told committee investigators that you provided the police in
that investigation with statements that were not truthful. Mr.
McNamee, were you truthful to government investigators in
Florida in 2001?
Mr. McNamee. No, sir.
Mr. Tierney. You also told the committee that you withheld
information from Federal prosecutors who were investigating the
steroid use by professional baseball players. You didn't give
prosecutors the whole truth about the number of injections that
you gave Mr. Knoblauch and Mr. Clemens and you now say that
there were more injections than you previously admitted to. And
you withheld physical evidence, syringes, needles and gauze
pads that you claimed you used to inject Mr. Clemens in 2001.
Mr. McNamee were you truthful to Federal investigators last
year?
Mr. McNamee. No, sir.
Mr. Tierney. Why did you mislead the investigators?
Mr. McNamee. The part about the injections were part
recollection and part withholding, trying not to hurt these
players. And about the evidence. Once again, I really felt bad
for the situation that I was in. I felt bad for having to be
confronted to--with the Federal investigators and Senator
Mitchell. But everything I told them about their use was true.
Mr. Tierney. Well, I think it's important that we establish
that on the record. You've admitted credibility problems in the
past. And I think we have to keep that in mind as we move
forward. But Mr. Clemens, let me turn to you if I might.
Mr. Clemens. Yes.
Mr. Tierney. I know you've been visiting Members of
Congress recently and the Members seem to be impressed by your
apparent credibility in person. But we know that some of the
things you told us with great earnestness appear to not be
accurate. And this raises questions about your own credibility.
Let me read to you from page 66 of your deposition.
Mr. Clemens. OK.
Mr. Tierney. You were asked, did you ever speak with Mr.
McNamee about human growth hormone? And you answered, I have
not. Then you were asked, never asked him any questions about
it? You answered, never asked him. You were then asked the
question a third time, the question was, do you recall a
specific instance where you did speak with Mr. McNamee about
HGH? And your answer was, I don't remember. The only thing I
remember about the topic was, there was an article or show
about some elderly man that had a curve in the spine and then
later on in the show he was able to play golf. And that's
basically the conversation we had. When you gave those answers
in your deposition, you seemed earnest, you seemed credible,
according to those who were questioning you, much like you do
today. Were your answers truthful?
Mr. Clemens. Yes, they were.
Mr. Tierney. With respect to you, we know that you didn't
give the committee the truthful answers much later in your
deposition then because you were asked whether any members of
your family had taken HGH. In answering that question later in
your deposition, you told the committee staff about two
specific conversations that you had with Mr. McNamee about HGH.
So I want to walk you through that testimony about the time
your wife was injected with HGH by Mr. McNamee.
At the outset it doesn't appear to be any dispute between
you and Mr. McNamee about whether your wife Debbie Clemens was
injected with HGH by Mr. McNamee in 2003. You both told the
committee about this in your depositions, but you gave very
different accounts of what actually happened.
Mr. Clemens, according to your account, Mr. McNamee
injected your wife in your bedroom without your knowledge.
Here's what you said on page 174 of your deposition. I was not
present at the time. I found out later in the evening, and the
reason I had found out is she was telling me that something was
going wrong with her circulation and this concerned me. You
also said on page 176 of your deposition, the next day, she
still was not feeling comfortable, something about her
circulation. You told us you had a very strong reaction. You
told us you were so concerned about what happened that you
searched the luggage of Mr. McNamee that he had stored at your
house, looking for other evidence of drugs. Do I have that
right so far.
Mr. Clemens. That is correct, sir, yes.
Mr. Tierney. You then told us about two specific
conversations you had with Mr. McNamee with about your wife and
HGH. The first happened that night when you called him on the
telephone. So let me read that part of the transcript to you.
That is on page 174. You said we had a pretty heated discussion
about it, that I don't know enough about it and that we don't
know enough about it.
You then told the committee, I also called him the next day
because she still was not feeling comfortable, something about
her circulation. I wasn't happy about it. I said, we don't know
anything about this. He says that it's legal. There's no law
against it. Mr. Clemens, you told the committee that you had no
conversations with Mr. McNamee about HGH. You did that three
times in the early part of your deposition. But your own
statements now showed that you had two specific and memorable
conversations with him about HGH.
So when you were asked on three specific occasions why
didn't you tell the committee about those conversations when
you were asked, did you ever speak with Mr. McNamee about human
growth hormone.
Mr. Clemens. Prior to he injecting my wife, Mr.
Congressman, we had no conversation about HGH in any substance
or any detail whatsoever. And definitely, again, I'm going to
read a statement from my wife here in just a minute. But we
never discussed HGH in detail. I go back to, again, Andy
Pettitte. If I was a part of using HGH or a user of HGH, Brian
McNamee would have come and told me that Andy was a part of
this. I would--I'm certain, again, I would have known about all
this.
Mr. Tierney. Well, help us out, Mr. Clemens, if I might.
Later in your deposition is when you talked about your wife.
The earlier part of your deposition three times, very clear and
unambiguous questions and answers, did you ever speak with Mr.
McNamee about human growth hormone? I have not. The question,
did you ever. Second time you said you never asked him about
any questions? You answered, never asked him. The third time,
do you recall a specific instance where you did speak with Mr.
McNamee about HGH? You said I don't remember. Then later on you
go to recall two very specific conversations. How do you
reconcile three times saying you didn't and then later when
somebody specifically finally asks you about your wife you have
a recollection of two very distinct and memorable
conversations?
Mr. Clemens. Mr. Congressman, again, I never had any
detailed discussions with Brian McNamee about HGH.
Mr. Tierney. Well, didn't you call him on the phone after
your wife had told you that she had taken HGH?
Mr. Clemens. That very much is detailed conversation.
Mr. Tierney. It certainly is.
Mr. Clemens. It sure is. And if I may----
Mr. Tierney. Well, I just want to know if you can reconcile
that. How can you say three times that you never did speak to
him about it, and then later on acknowledge that you had, in
fact, a pretty heated conversation you said.
Mr. Clemens. Very heated conversation about it. And again,
prior to that, we had not had discussions about HGH.
Mr. Tierney. But Mr. Clemens, come on, the questions early
in the morning hadn't been prior to your wife. The questions
were had you ever. You can see where that leaves us with some
credibility issues here. You have three times said never and
then only when somebody really presses you on a specific
instance you have a recollection of two memorable
conversations.
Mr. Clemens. Again, prior to Mr. Congressman, we had no
detailed discussion about HGH.
Mr. Tierney. Prior to what?
Mr. Clemens. During my testimony with the committee. And I
believe the committee ran down when they were asking me the
question about front office people, other employees and that's
when they said family on the question.
Mr. Tierney. That's all helpful, but these questions I'm
reading to you right from the transcript. What you are
referring to all happened later. The three distinct questions
were specifically about whether you ever spoke with Mr.
McNamee. And three times you said never. Later somebody brought
up the fact about your wife. And that's the inconsistency that
we have. Let me go on a little bit. It's not the only area
where we've got some question. I will read to you another
excerpt from your deposition.
You were asked--it's on page 67, if you want. Did you do
any research on your own about human growth hormone? And you
answered no, I haven't. I've never researched it. I couldn't
tell you the first thing about it. It seems a little difficult
to believe. You testified that your wife was injected by Mr.
McNamee without your knowledge of HGH. She didn't feel well and
started to have circulation problems. You felt so strongly
about what Mr. McNamee had done that you searched his luggage
to make sure there were no drugs in the house. What did your
doctor say about this?
Mr. Clemens. I talked to Deborah about calling our doctor,
and she said she was just feeling very uncomfortable and in her
words, wigged out about it. And not only did the reason I
searched his luggage for the fact that he would always leave
his luggage behind and have us mail out his luggage and leave
without his luggage at my house, no differently than when I
spoke to him about bringing alcohol onto my property. I had
young kids. That is the conversation that was about. I was
comfortable with my wife's reaction.
Mr. Tierney. She told you she had circulation problems?
Mr. Clemens. She felt that she was having circulation
problems, yes.
Mr. Tierney. But you never called a doctor. Certainly it
seems, with most reasonable people I think if that were the
case, your wife told you she was having a reaction, circulation
problems and particularly if it was administered by a fitness
trainer without your knowledge that you would have called a
doctor to find out what the consequences were. You never did
that?
Mr. Clemens. We did not and I did talk to Deb about that,
if we should call our doctor.
Mr. Tierney. What steps did you take to learn about the
effects of HGH after you learned that your wife had taken the
injection?
Mr. Clemens. I didn't take a lot of steps, Mr. Congressman.
To be--in the last 2 months since this has been going on, I've
learned more about HGH than I--than I ever thought. I still
don't know enough about it. I--you know I've heard--I've seen
things on TV that these guys talk about how it helps them,
actors and different things of that nature. I don't know
anything about it.
Mr. Tierney. Well, I guess--that's where the question comes
in, if I might, Mr. Chairman. If you want us to believe that
Mr. McNamee injected your wife without your knowledge, that she
started suffering serious side effects of the drug, that you
were upset enough to call Mr. McNamee and then search his
luggage. But despite all that you never made inquiry of a
doctor and you never even looked up to see what the effects
might be, is that right?
Mr. Clemens. Mr. Congressman, I don't believe I ever said
serious effects. She said she was having itching and she had
some type of circulation problem that she was feeling.
Chairman Waxman. The gentleman's time has expired. The
chair yields to Mr. Davis 10 minutes to control.
Mr. Burton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. The tapes of the
Toronto Blue Jays-Florida Marlins game has several comments on
it about Mr. Clemens not being at that Canseco party. And Mr.
Canseco provided a sworn affidavit, stating that Clemens did
not attend that party. And you indicated that he came to the
party late. Now how do you square that with what was on
television on the radio and what the sworn affidavit of
Canseco's was? I mean there's some inconsistency there.
Mr. McNamee. My recollection is not inconsistent. What they
said they said. I recall Roger Clemens being at that party.
Mr. Burton. Why did you keep those gauze pads?
Mr. McNamee. I'm sorry?
Mr. Burton. Why did you keep the needles and the gauze
pads?
Mr. McNamee. Like had I mentioned in my opening statement--
--
Mr. Burton. I want to read to you what you said in the
sworn testimony. OK? And this was 2000, 2001 that these pads
were accumulated, right?
Mr. McNamee. 2001, 2002, sir.
Mr. Burton. OK. 2001 2002. And you worked for Clemens up
until what, 2006?
Mr. McNamee. 2007.
Mr. Burton. 2007. So you stayed with him 5 years after you
kept these materials, right?
Mr. McNamee. Yes, sir.
Mr. Burton. I want to read this to you. It says, I kept
them well because throughout my time with Roger Clemens, it was
there always somewhat in the back of my mind that I distrusted
him to a degree. And my gut feeling and the fact that I was an
ex-cop, I just felt that--and I think there were bits and
pieces coming out in the paper. Why in the world would you work
for somebody that you thought was unethical and would lie? And
why would you keep this information for 5 years if you--if he
was your friend and you thought that he was to be distrusted?
Mr. McNamee. He was my employer.
Mr. Burton. Do you do this to all your employers? I mean,
is this the kind of employer he was, to keep gauze pads and
needles and everything for 5 years and go on and keep working
for him?
Mr. McNamee. It wasn't something I thought about. It was
just there and it kept coming up. It was in the basement. And
as I--as I thought about it, more things came up. And as you
saw in 2000, I wrote an article in the New York Times regarding
the more stuff that kept coming out about steroid use in
baseball. So for the fact that I would--I never felt good about
what I was doing, the fact that it was illegal, I figured
because I've done things before for other people and have
gotten hurt by it, I might as well hold onto these things. It
wasn't something I dwelled on.
Mr. Burton. How many other people did you treat that you
kept their gauze pads and needles?
Mr. McNamee. Possibly one other.
Mr. Burton. And who was that?
Mr. McNamee. Chuck Knoblauch.
Mr. Burton. Do you still have them?
Mr. McNamee. I believe it's in the possession of the
Federal Government.
Mr. Burton. Why did you not give those to the Mitchell
Report committee immediately when you were contacted by them?
Mr. McNamee. Because I felt horrible about being in the
position that I was in.
Mr. Burton. Now let me get--I want to make sure I got this
straight. Your friend, Roger Clemens, you allegedly gave him
these shots. You kept the pads and the needles for 5 years and
went on and kept working for him because he was your employer.
And then you said you felt bad, you felt bad about proposing
and giving these to the Mitchell Committee when you first
started talking to them?
Mr. McNamee. Yes, sir.
Mr. Burton. Gee whiz, are you kidding me?
Mr. McNamee. No, sir.
Mr. Burton. My goodness. As I understand from my colleague
here, you told the New York Times that you had no direct proof
at the beginning of this investigation, right?
Mr. McNamee. I'm sorry?
Mr. Burton. You told the New York Times that you had no
direct evidence, like the gauze and needles at the beginning of
all this?
Mr. McNamee. I told the--I didn't talk to the New York
Times. I told the Federal investigators and the Mitchell people
that I had no direct evidence as far as physical evidence.
Mr. Burton. On January 5th--so you didn't tell the truth
then initially to them?
Mr. McNamee. No, sir.
Mr. Burton. You lied?
Mr. McNamee. Yes, sir.
Mr. Burton. There's several things here that really bother
me. First of all, you lied about him being at Canseco. Canseco
said he wasn't there in a sworn affidavit. On the radio, on
television they said he wasn't there. And yet you still
maintain that he did come there. And now you admit you lied
about this. Are you lying about anything else? I mean why don't
you tell us?
Mr. McNamee. No, sir. I'm not lying about Jose Canseco's
house.
Mr. Burton. So you just lie when it's convenient for you?
Mr. McNamee. No, sir.
Mr. Burton. No. Can you pull the microphone a little bit
closer, please?
Mr. Clemens, in your defamation lawsuit against McNamee, it
says that according to McNamee, he originally made his
allegations of Federal authorities after being threatened with
criminal prosecution if he did not implicate you. That's an
allegation of coercion. Why do you consider McNamee trustworthy
on this point? And how do you have this kind of information
that he might have been coerced into his testimony?
Mr. Clemens. I just--what I've heard on different occasions
about what he said and what he hasn't said, there was a--a tape
that I heard. The timeline would have been 4 or 5 days before
the report came out. It was a taped conversation from Jim
Murray. And that's basically where I heard the allegations that
were being said by Brian McNamee about myself and Andy Pettitte
also, which again, that's the first time that I heard Andy
Pettitte's name. And--about using HGH, I said absolutely no
way. Of course, now that I've learned that Andy has done it, I
was shocked.
Mr. Burton. Mr. McNamee, I'm going to read to you a series
of prior statements attributed to you regarding steroid use or
the lack thereof by Mr. Clemens or Mr. Pettitte. I never gave
Clemens or Pettitte steroids. They never asked me for steroids.
The only thing they asked me for were vitamins. That was
William, Sherman and TJ Quinn, Andy Totes Baggage to Bronx, New
York Daily News December 10, 2006. Did you say that?
Mr. McNamee. Yes, I did.
Mr. Burton. Is that a lie?
Mr. McNamee. Yes, it is.
Mr. Burton. Oh, it's another one. OK. I told Federal
investigators twice that Roger and Andy had nothing to do with
it. Is that right?
Mr. McNamee. Yes, sir.
Mr. Burton. Is that a lie?
Mr. McNamee. Yes, sir.
Mr. Burton. OK. I said, Roger and Andy, you know what, you
have to talk to them. I don't know anything about that. I don't
know anything about that. Transcript of interview by Jim
Yarborough and Billy Belk. Is that correct?
Mr. McNamee. I'm sorry can you repeat that please?
Mr. Burton. I said, Roger and Andy, you know what, you have
to talk to them. I don't know anything about that. I don't know
anything about that. That's a transcript of the interview by
Jim Yarborough and Billy Belk and Brian McNamee, December 12,
2007. Is that correct?
Mr. McNamee. I'm not sure. What are you referring to? What
am I saying I don't know anything about, sir?
Mr. Burton. Well, let's pass on that because--oh, this is a
quote she told the investigators. We'll pass on that.
Mr. McNamee, I'm going to read you a series of statements
attributed to you regarding your involvement with steroids. ``I
don't have any dealings with steroids or amphetamines. I don't
buy it, sell it, condone it or recommend it. I don't make money
from it. It's not part of my livelihood and not part of my
business.'' Did you say that?
Mr. McNamee. Yep.
Mr. Burton. That's a lie, right?
Mr. McNamee. Partial.
Mr. Burton. Partial?
Mr. McNamee. Partial lie.
Mr. Burton. McNamee pleads guilty to knowing the ins and
outs of steroids but says I have no involvement as far as
supplying it, getting it, selling it, telling them to use it.
John Hayman, the sixth man. Clemens' trainer denies links to
Grimsley. Is that a lie?
Mr. McNamee. Yes, sir.
Mr. Burton. You know, I'm not going to read any more of
this. This is really disgusting. You're here as a sworn
witness. You're here to tell the truth. You're here under oath.
And yet we have lie after lie after lie after lie of where
you--you've told this committee and the people of this country
that Roger Clemens did things, and I don't know what to
believe. I know one thing I don't believe and that's you. The
other thing I want to say is that--and I want to say this about
this whole investigation. You know, Donovan, who was the
Secretary of Labor, was accused of wrongdoing and went to
trial. And he was found innocent within about 20 minutes. And
he came out and said, how do I get my reputation back?
You know, Roger Clemens, unless it's proven that he used
steroids--and so far I haven't seen anything like it, if he
did, he ought to be held accountable. But Roger Clemens is a
baseball--he's a titan in baseball. And you and with all these
lies, if they're not true, are destroying him and his
reputation. Now how does he get his reputation back if this is
not true? And how can we believe you because you've lied and
lied and lied and lied?
And the thing I want to say is that we have this penchant
in the country of trial by media. I mean, I understand the
media has a right to come to these things and to get all the
information that they can. But until--in this country, until a
man is proven guilty, he's innocent. And this kind of a hearing
and this kind of a circus that I call it really bothers me. If
he's done something wrong he ought to be indicted, he ought to
be prosecuted and he ought to be punished for it. But I don't
see any evidence of that so far. And with that, I'll stop.
Chairman Waxman. The gentleman's time has expired. The
Chair recognizes the gentleman from Massachusetts for 10
minutes.
Mr. Lynch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and the ranking member.
Since the testimony is so contradictory in this case, I'd like
to at least refer to some of the physical evidence that we have
before the committee. Mr. Clemens, earlier in the investigation
you provided the committee with a transcript of a secretly
taped interview by--conducted by two of your investigators. The
interview was of Brian--with Brian McNamee and it took place at
Mr. McNamee's home on December 12, 2007. Is that correct?
Mr. Clemens. That's correct.
Mr. Lynch. OK. During the interview, Mr. McNamee, you told
investigators that you had injected Mr. Clemens with Windstrol,
a steroid, in 1998. And your exact testimony is that--well,
actually, that he probably developed an abscess on his buttocks
as a result of the injection. And you said, ``it was probably
my fault because Windstrol, I learned later, that you're not
supposed to inject it quickly. You're supposed to do it very
slowly. That way it dispenses slowly. If you do it quickly,
then it settles in a pool of fat and that is how an abscess is
formed and that's what happened. So it was probably my fault.''
Now, being under oath today, is that basically correct as far
as your testimony goes regarding that incident?
Mr. McNamee. Yes, sir.
Mr. Lynch. OK. In pursuit of further information on this,
we and the committee asked for medical records during this time
period. And a medical record from July 28, 1998 was provided by
the Toronto Blue Jays at the time that said that there was a
palpable mass ``on the right buttock of Mr. Clemens.'' On
another record, it also noticed a similar mass on the left
buttock. And the July 28th record said also that Roger received
a B-12 injection approximately 7 to 10 days ago into his right
buttock from Dr. Taylor at the Skydome.
So we brought in Dr. Taylor and asked him some questions
about this. He said that he did give a B-12 shot to Mr. Clemens
but he could not remember exactly when. We also asked Mr.
Clemens about it. And in his previous testimony he said, it
says right here, Dr. Taylor had given me a B-12 shot so that
surely could have happened. Mr. Clemens, you also told us that
the palpable mass could have had other causes. For example, you
said that the muscle strain--that a muscle strain, which you
called a strained glute, could have led to the problem. The
medical records indicated that after the July 28th diagnosis,
Mr. Clemens was sent to have an MRI. And this MRI was not
provided in the original set of documents that the committee
received.
And in fact, it was not easy for the committee to receive--
to obtain the MRI from counsel for Mr. Clemens. And repeated
requests were made for this MRI. And we only received the MRI
report on Monday after the committee informed counsel for Mr.
Clemens that the committee would consider stronger options if
the document were not provided to the committee voluntarily.
The MRI report provides important additional information about
the injury to Mr. Clemens and the palpable mass on his
buttocks. According to the report, the injury was ``likely
related to the patient's prior attempted intramuscular
injections.'' I want to repeat that. It says ``it was likely
related to the patient's prior attempted intramuscular
injections.''
And to get more insight into the significance of this MRI,
we actually stripped the name, we redacted the report from the
records and provided them to the chief of muscular--excuse me,
musculoskeletal radiology at the Armed Forces Institute of
Pathology, Dr. Mark Murphy, he is one of the country's leading
experts on MRI. And we asked him to review the records and give
us his opinion. He issued a report, which I'd like to make part
of the hearing record. The MRI report----
Chairman Waxman. Without objection, so ordered.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Lynch. The MRI report we received said the injury--and
this is a quote from Dr. Murphy. It says it was likely related
to the patient's prior attempted intramuscular injections. And
Mr.--excuse me. That Mr. Murphy agreed with that--Dr. Murphy
agreed with that diagnosis. He said that the MRI showed that
the muscles of the buttocks showed no strain or trauma. So he
concluded that the injury was not a strained muscle. Next he
gave his opinion about whether the injury was more likely
caused by B-12, as you've asserted, or steroids, as Mr. McNamee
claims. And to be fair, Dr. Murphy stated that he could not be
definitive without seeing the films and he cautioned that the
patient's reaction can vary. He said it wasn't a true abscess.
But he did say this, and this is a quote. It is my opinion that
the history and the MRI imaging descriptions are more
compatible with a Windstrol injection, as the inflammatory
component is prominent by report.
Mr. Breuer. Mr. Chairman, I know it's highly irregular. May
I as counsel to Roger Clemens please address the point of the
Congressman for one moment, please?
Chairman Waxman. The rules of the committee provide that
counsel may advise their clients but not speak directly to the
hearing itself.
Mr. Breuer. Well, Mr. Chairman----
Mr. Lynch. Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Breuer. Mr. Chairman, I would request that I be
permitted----
Chairman Waxman. I'm sorry. The rules don't provide it.
Please talk to your client and have him answer any questions
that are outstanding.
Mr. Lynch. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Reclaiming my time if I
may. During our investigation we also asked Dr. Taylor about
whether he thought the B-12 shots that he gave to Mr. Clemens
could have caused the mass on his buttocks. He told us that
this was unlikely. He stated that he had given close to 1,000
B-12 shots in his medical career and that he had never seen a
complication like the one presented with Mr. Clemens. The head
trainer, we also questioned Tommy Craig, the head trainer. He
also told--he had never seen a side effect like the one
exhibited from Mr. Clemens from a B-12 shot in 30 years as a
trainer.
As well we asked the assistant trainer, Scott Shannon, in a
career of almost 20 years he said that he had never seen a B-12
shot cause that kind of reaction. Based on the MRI results, it
also appears definitive that the mass was not caused by a
strained glute or other muscle strain. In addition, we have Mr.
Canseco's testimony that on numerous occasions, he had
conversations with Mr. Clemens regarding cycling and stacking
of steroids as well.
Given the--given the physical testimony--the physical
evidence that we've had there that seems to be consistent with
much of what Mr. McNamee is saying, Mr. Clemens, how am I
supposed to receive this--this testimony? As someone who's
simply looking for the truth and looking for it to be supported
by the physical evidence, how--this is not--this is not
supportive of your claim. Much of this is supportive of Mr.
McNamee's assertions. And I just want, as someone who went
through all of this, I want you to explain to me the import of
this evidence. How can this all be wrong? Help me here.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. Mr. Chairman, could I just ask a
second, he's inserted into the record a report by Mr. Murphy.
We ask unanimous consent to insert into the record a report by
Dr. Burt O'Malley, professor and chair of molecular and
cellular biology, who comes to a much different conclusion.
Chairman Waxman. We will take whatever you want into the
record. But this is Mr. Lynch's time.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. OK.
Mr. Clemens. Congressman Lynch, if I may, from what I
understand, we provided everything that we could possibly
provide to the staff. We've fully cooperated with everything
that was asked of us. I know obviously by looking at the
medical records, I got a B-12 shot and it obviously gave me
some discomfort. I hate to get on Dr. Taylor who gave the shot,
but if he gave me a bad shot, he gave me a bad shot. I don't
know how to explain that. But looking at my medical records and
fully cooperating, you know anytime I need an MRI--I've had
many MRIs on my body. So that's--I have--again, I don't have
any idea. I don't know who the gentleman is that you're
expressing this today. But all's I can tell you is what I know
by my medical reports. We've had a Dr. O'Malley review
everything and he concludes there was no steroids.
So I don't--I'm doing every due diligent thing that I can
possibly think of. And given the staff everything I could
possibly think of to look wherever they need to look about this
subject. So I--I have not heard that we weren't cooperating on
giving you everything that you could possibly need to look into
this in any way shape or form.
Mr. Lynch. Well, and again, there was difficulty--some of
the information came over quite readily. It was difficult to
obtain others, especially this MRI report. But let's get back
to the simple fact that----
Chairman Waxman. You'll have to conclude. Your time has
expired.
Mr. Lynch. This is not the report of some unknown physician
that we're contesting here. This is the reports of Dr. Taylor,
this is the reports of the trainer, Mr. Shannon and others who
have said that in over--Scott Shannon, Dr. Ron Taylor and
Melvin Thomas Craig, these are these are people who are very
familiar with this, probably 60 years of experience here in
giving B-12 shots.
Chairman Waxman. The gentleman's time has expired. Mr.
Davis.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. Thank you. I ask unanimous consent
that a commission study look at the same MRI records done by
Burt W. O'Malley M.D. professor and chair of molecular and
cellular biology at Baylor University be admitted into the
record.
Chairman Waxman. Was this given to you by Mr. Clemens's----
Mr. Davis of Virginia. It was. They had this done.
Chairman Waxman. Without objection the request would be----
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Davis of Virginia. I mean, practically, I think
requesting Mr. Clemens to answer a medical technical question
like this isn't fair on a report he's never seen before. This
was just made available to our side this morning.
Chairman Waxman. The gentleman from Virginia is recognized.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. I would also note that Alan Gross,
who was the doctor who ordered the MRI and actually is the only
doctor here who viewed Mr. Clemens's injury himself gave a
deposition to the committee that will be released this
afternoon under oath and he came to a different conclusion. And
he didn't even see an abscess at that point. The only reason he
ordered an MRI was because this was Roger Clemens, this was the
franchise. And if you see a bruise on your star player, you are
going to get an MRI and you are not taking any chances.
And there was zero evidence at that point or even suspicion
that drugs or anything had caused this. And that deposition as
we said will be released this afternoon. So listen, I will just
say this was literally a new definition of lynching with the
last question that came in, asking Mr. Clemens a technical
medical question like this on a report that he had never had
the opportunity to see before. He is not a doctor.
Chairman Waxman. Evidently his lawyers were able to get a
report for you to give for the record on that issue. So you are
not completely taken by surprise.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. That was an exhibit that they had
before from this committee, Mr. Waxman, for weeks.
Mr. Clemens. Mr. Chairman, out of respect, I believe the
committee got the report also. I'm sure I've given----
Mr. Davis of Virginia. This has been part of your
submissions. There's no surprises here. You didn't give this to
us special. We just pulled it out of the records because I
don't really think this tells anybody--none of these doctors
physically looked at you. They're looking at an MRI and taking
a different view. And I'm just saying the doctor who looked at
this originally came to a much different conclusion. People can
judge whatever they want. But I think what's fair is fair on
this.
Mr. McNamee, let me just return to you since--the other
side seems to be focused on Mr. Clemens. At your deposition,
you testified that one of your alleged injections of Windstrol
went wrong, is that correct?
Mr. McNamee. I'm not saying one of them. I'm just relating
that it--possibly I did it too fast, that it could have led to
this abscess. Which one I'm not sure.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. I think it was the one in the Tampa
Bay Clubhouse. Does that ring a bell?
Mr. McNamee. I know I mentioned that. But I was just--I
didn't know when that trip took place.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. I'm just trying to get into this
abscess question. That's not as important. Now when you said
you inject Windstrol too quickly, one of the risks is having an
abscess formed is that correct?
Mr. McNamee. That's what I believe.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. And you said you thought that Mr.
Clemens developed an abscess?
Mr. McNamee. I was told by the head trainer that he
developed an abscess.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. You said that the head trainer Tommy
Craig told you that?
Mr. McNamee. Yes, sir.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. You said, Clemens came to you around
this time and said something along the lines of get rid of this
stuff, is that correct?
Mr. McNamee. Yes, sir. A little bit after his treatment of
the abscess he had come to me and said that.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. And you interpreted to get rid of
this stuff, meaning he did not want to use Windstrol?
Mr. McNamee. He threw it in my locker and he said get rid
of this stuff. So yes.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. You said there was a good portion
left of the season when he stopped using the Windstrol.
Mr. McNamee. That was my recollection.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. Now if you go back and look at the
Blue Jays schedule for 1998, the team was in Tampa where in
your testimony, you noted that it was Tampa. Your testimony
will be released today. The team was in Tampa in the middle of
June and toward the end of September. As you testified, this
botched injection supposedly occurred at the end of July or in
the beginning of August. Can you reconcile this at this point
as you look back on the schedule?
Mr. McNamee. Sir, the botched injection is just something
that I felt bad about that I might have done. I'm not exactly
sure it was a botched injection. That's what I had told the
people. But my recollection is----
Mr. Davis of Virginia. Your deposition said this happened
in the Tampa Clubhouse, and I'm just saying the only times they
were in Tampa were in the middle of June and the end of
September. And as you testified before us, it was at the end of
July or the beginning of August. And I'm just saying, could
your memory be faulty on this?
Mr. McNamee. Very much so.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. Another problem is that the head
trainer, Tommy Craig, recalls nothing about any abscess in our
conversations with him. Is it unusual that Tommy Craig would
fail to recollect an injury like this to the star pitcher at
the time?
Mr. McNamee. Tommy Craig was a trainer for a very long
time, and we're talking about 10 years ago. So----
Mr. Davis of Virginia. But you seem to have a very vivid
memory of and no one else seems to.
Mr. McNamee. That's why I told--in my deposition, I felt
bad because I had assumed it was my fault.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. If Craig treated an injury to
Clemens's buttocks, wouldn't that be something he would recall?
This was the star.
Mr. McNamee. You'd have to ask Tommy Craig.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. Now he wasn't the only member of the
medical team that failed to recall the injury to Mr. Clemens's
buttocks. Assistant trainer Scott Shannon, when asked, didn't
remember it, team doctor Ron Taylor didn't remember it, team
orthopedist Alan Gross who ordered the MRI, didn't remember.
In fact, when--in his testimony, he came to a much
different conclusion than these-after-the-fact people who just
looked at the MRI. If Roger Clemens, the most famous pitcher in
baseball and really the franchise for the team at that point,
at least on their pitching side, had developed an injury known
to be the type of injury known to be associated with steroids,
wouldn't you expect that someone would have recollected it
along the way--except for you, you're the only one who seems to
recollect.
Mr. McNamee. Well, none of those people were injecting
Roger Clemens with illegal steroids in his butt.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. No. And whether you did or not I
think remains an open question. But the question I'm asking is,
we're talking here about an injury to him that was a result of
that. And they don't--they did see an injury and they ordered
an MRI as a result of that. But none of the alarms went off.
Now, the medical records showed that Clemens had some type
of injury to his buttocks at the end of July. There's no
question about that. But according to the MRI, it was not an
abscess. It was simply described as a palpable mass. In
laymen's terms, this could have simply been a bruise. Are you
certain that Tommy Craig told you that Clemens had an abscess?
Mr. McNamee. Yes, I'm certain.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. OK. Both head trainer Tommy Craig
and team doctor Ron Taylor told us the MRI was ordered because
they thought the bruise or buttocks injury might have been
caused by a muscle tear. The MRI was not ordered to look for an
abscess. The MRI was ordered because the team's star pitcher
was injured. Now that you know Tommy Craig, Scott Shannon, Ron
Taylor, Dr. Gross all say no abscess and no memory of this
injury, you still stand by your allegation that he had an
abscess?
Mr. McNamee. It's not my allegation. It was--he was getting
treated for an abscess diagnosed by the head trainer and he was
getting treated with ultrasound, which it was right or the
area--the ultrasound was right over the area where I injected
Roger Clemens with Windstrol.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. OK. Now, Dr. Taylor says he gave two
B-12 shots in his life and one was to Roger Clemens in July
1998 which was the time of the injury and was not in Tampa. The
medical records also say Clemens started complaining of
soreness in his buttocks after receiving this injection. How
can you be so sure this buttocks injury was not the result of
the B-12 shot, since that was the only shot that could have
taken place at that point, Tampa, where you allege this
originally took place, were going to be in June and September?
How do you reconcile that?
Mr. McNamee. I'm not sure I follow your question.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. Well, the question is simple. The
only time they were in Tampa where you testified this took
place was in June and September. This injury took place in
July. The MRI, July August timeframe. And we know that he
received a shot for B-12 during that time. So if there's any
kind of shot or abscess, it would have had to be the B-12 shot.
It couldn't have been the steroid shot you are talking about
because they were in Tampa at the time.
Mr. McNamee. I know, but you misunderstood the deposition
then because what happened was I assumed not knowing when the
Tampa trip was. I just said because it was a hurried--a hurried
instance where we were in the closet and that's where the
injection took place. But I was unaware of the dates.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. Yes, you were unaware of the dates
which is why we have an inconsistency here.
Mr. McNamee. That's right. I wasn't aware of the dates.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. That's right. And now that you are,
it makes your statement inconsistent because this took place in
the July August timeframe when they weren't in Tampa. Let me
ask you this, Mr. McNamee, why do you inject professional
athletes with substances you know to be forbidden or illegal as
a former police officer?
Mr. McNamee. It was something I shouldn't have done and I'm
ashamed of it, and that's why I'm here today.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. Why did you keep doing it?
Mr. McNamee. I believe that I haven't since 2002.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. Why did you keep doing it for so
many years?
Mr. McNamee. I just accepted it as the norm and it was a
part of the culture in baseball.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. How prevalent was it?
Mr. McNamee. Excuse me? Excuse me?
Mr. Davis of Virginia. How prevalent was this in clubhouses
across baseball at the time?
Mr. McNamee. I think within the players, it was pretty
prevalent and I'm not sure about other strength coaches and
their--and their involvement.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. OK. Again, Mr. Shays, I'll yield to
you.
Mr. Shays. Just listening to your testimony, you said you
believe you haven't injected anyone with any illegal drugs
since 2002. What does the word ``believe'' mean? Did you or
didn't you?
Mr. McNamee. I wasn't really--about ballplayers, I haven't,
but I inject--I injected Debbie Clemens in 2003.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. Let me ask a question before our
time runs out. Did you ever tell Andy Pettitte you were
contemplating suing Hendricks Sports Management?
Mr. McNamee. I might have.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. Did you ever contemplate litigation
against the L.A. Times following the stories relating to Jason
Grimsley's affidavit?
Mr. McNamee. Yes, I did.
Chairman Waxman. The gentleman's time has expired. Just for
the record, as I understand it, there was an injury on Mr.
Clemens's buttocks. This was in the team records. And in the
records, it said that the injury was related to an injection.
Do any of you disagree with those three statements?
Mr. McNamee. No.
Mr. Clemens. No.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. Let me just add, if there was an
injection, a B-12 injection----
Chairman Waxman. That's one contention. The other
contention, it was an injection of something else. But those
three points I made for the record are accurate. Mr. Kanjorski
is recognized for 5 minutes.
Mr. Kanjorski. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. In an attempt not
to have Mr. Scheeler appear to be a potted plant, I gather you
were instrumental in preparing the Mitchell Report, is that
correct?
Mr. Scheeler. I did assist Senator Mitchell, yes,
Congressman.
Mr. Kanjorski. OK. Can you pull that a little closer to
you. When you get to be my age, you lose about 20 percent of
your hearing capacity. And I just don't want to embarrass the
other younger citizens in the audience. OK.
Let me preface my remarks with one or two comments. I have
the highest regard for Senator Mitchell. As a matter of fact,
at one time he was my proposed candidate for President. So--and
I've known him for more than a quarter of a century. So any of
the remarks that I make to you or questions I ask of you are
not intended to impugn his credibility or his reliability. But
having been involved in Washington a few years and knowing that
the Mitchell Report was quite extensive--in excess of 400
pages, is that correct?
Mr. Scheeler. That's correct.
Mr. Kanjorski. Now, I know George Mitchell is a very
dedicated person. But I don't suspect that George Mitchell
wrote every one of those 400 pages in his own handwriting or by
his own dictation. Is that reasonable to assume?
Mr. Scheeler. He did not do the first draft of every word.
But I will tell you that he reviewed every sentence, every
comma, every semicolon on multiple occasions.
Mr. Kanjorski. So would you say that he substantially
stands by every fact set forth in that report?
Mr. Scheeler. Everything that we said in the report was at
the time we wrote the report, we had a good faith belief for
it----
Mr. Kanjorski. You had a what?
Mr. Scheeler. We had a good faith belief for it and we
believed it to be true.
Mr. Kanjorski. OK. Have you changed that opinion now?
Mr. Scheeler. No.
Mr. Kanjorski. You believe every fact set forth in the
report as it's set forth?
Mr. Scheeler. Sitting here at this moment, I cannot think
of a single fact that we would recant, no.
Mr. Kanjorski. So the supposed meeting that occurred at
Canseco's house, you've reviewed that and he has told a lie,
and the people that reported the ball game, they've told a lie?
Is that correct? Or did that meeting not occur? Did it or did
it not occur? That's the question.
Mr. Scheeler. I would say at this point, we're not in a--
it's not our role to judge what the subsequent facts are that
have come into play.
Mr. Kanjorski. Whoa, whoa, whoa. You mean to tell me, if
you were going to say, I committed perjury or lied about some
substantial fact and, in doing that, you place me at a
particular location, and then it turns out that you couldn't
possibly have been there and you weren't there, that's not
material to your report?
Mr. Scheeler. Well, let me try and put the Canseco lunch
into perspective then for you.
Obviously, Mr. McNamee told Senator Mitchell that Mr.
Clemens had been at Mr. Canseco's house for a luncheon. And
this, I would add, is an instance which shows it is one of the
reasons why we would have liked to have talked to the current
players, because we could have gotten additional facts.
Mr. Kanjorski. You would have liked to talk to God to find
out, but you didn't. You relied on one witness, and he put Mr.
Clemens at a location that, supposedly, other impartial parties
have provided affidavits that he wasn't there and couldn't have
been there.
Now my question to you is, as the writer of that report--
and I will assume you are the writer of that report--which of
those facts is this committee and the public of the United
States to accept? Did this meeting occur where the conversation
of steroids occurred or didn't it?
Mr. Scheeler. Let me take issue with a premise of your
question, because it is important to understand that at that
meeting we do not write that any conversations about steroids
took place at the Jose Canseco luncheon.
Mr. Kanjorski. OK. Assume----
Mr. Scheeler. If I could complete my statement----
Mr. Kanjorski. I only have 5 minutes, so I don't want you
to filibuster. We are used to the Senate doing that, but we
don't do that in the House. So I want you to respond as quickly
as you can so we can move through these facts.
Mr. Scheeler. I will do my best.
Mr. Kanjorski. OK.
Now, are you contending that the fact that meeting occurred
and whether or not Mr. Clemens was there is not important and
it meaningless and shouldn't have been in the record?
Or was it placed there for some purpose to show that there
could have been a semiconspiracy occurring and discussions
being had, and this was just another element of that evidence?
What is it?
Mr. Scheeler. This was placed in the report in large part
because of the fact that we also interviewed Jose Canseco, and
Mr. Canseco advised us that he had repeated conversations----
Mr. Kanjorski. Didn't he advise you that meeting did not
occur under oath?
Mr. Scheeler. He was not under oath when we spoke to him.
We did not have the ability to place people under oath.
Mr. Kanjorski. OK. So now are you concluding that what he--
did he tell you that meeting did not occur?
Mr. Scheeler. He did not answer that question because we
did not ask it.
At the time we interviewed Mr. Canseco, that was July 11,
2006 in Fullerton, CA. At that time we did not know of this
issue of the Canseco lunch.
Chairman Waxman. Mr. Kanjorski, your time has expired.
Mr. Kanjorski. Can I just close with a last question, Mr.
Chairman?
Chairman Waxman. Please, go ahead.
Mr. Kanjorski. Are we to assume now at this hearing--did
that meeting occur or didn't that meeting occur?
Mr. Scheeler. I think you can draw your own judgments. I
have heard, since the report came out, evidence suggesting that
Mr. Clemens was at the lunch, evidence suggesting Mr. Clemens
was not at the lunch.
The one point I would like to make about that lunch is that
Senator Mitchell did not state in the report that there was
either performance-enhancing substance use discussed, nor were
any performance-enhancing substances exchanged during the
course of that luncheon.
Chairman Waxman. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Mica for 5 minutes.
Mr. Mica. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. McNamee, you have come up with so-called physical
evidence of possible steroid use that I believe you turned over
to investigators?
Mr. McNamee. Yes, sir.
Mr. Mica. OK. And is that--as I understand it, there is
gauze and there is a syringe?
Mr. McNamee. Yes, sir.
Mr. Mica. Is that the extent of it? The physical evidence?
Mr. McNamee. There are empty, broken ampules that were used
with those syringes. There are some unused ampules, about seven
or eight of them, I believe. There are also about 30 or so 2-
inch needle heads, along with a bottle of white pills, along
with the evidence.
Mr. Mica. The gauze that I saw looked like it had some
blood stains on it; is that correct?
Mr. McNamee. Yes, sir.
Mr. Mica. And that blood would, if it was DNA tested, you
think it would be Mr. Clemens'?
Mr. McNamee. Yes, sir.
Mr. Mica. OK. And you could have had gauze with his blood
stains on it because you had done several injection procedures
on him and also treated him; is that correct?
Mr. McNamee. Yes, sir.
Mr. Mica. Mr. Clemens claims that he was treated with
vitamin B-12, I guess it was. And did you do some of those
injections?
Mr. McNamee. I can't hear you, sir.
Mr. Mica. I said Mr. Clemens has said that you treated him
with injections of vitamin B-12; is that correct?
Mr. McNamee. Negative.
Mr. Mica. You never did any B-12?
Mr. McNamee. No, sir.
Mr. Mica. OK. What color is this--well, then you claim you
gave him a steroid or a compound.
What was it that you claim that you gave him the injections
of?
Mr. McNamee. It was--throughout the course of the years it
was Winstrol, also known as stanozolol; there was
testosterones, steroids, and HGH, human growth hormone.
Mr. Mica. What colors are they, the testosterone, the
various liquids?
Mr. McNamee. The Winstrol, the stanozolol, from 1998, was
like a powdery white or a milky white liquid, water-based
somewhat.
The testosterones were more of an oily, clear to a little
bit darker, almost like a honey color.
And the HGH, once it was mixed with the diluted water, it
would become clear.
Mr. Mica. So basically clear to honey tone?
Mr. McNamee. And milky white.
Mr. Mica. Mr. Clemens, you claim that--you did admit that
you were injected with vitamin B-12, and also you admitted to
Lidocaine.
OK, what color is the vitamin B-12 shot? You told me you
had quite a few shots.
Mr. Clemens. Brian McNamee gave me shots on four to six
occasions of B-12. It is red or pink in color.
Lidocaine, I do not know the color of Lidocaine. He gave me
one shot of Lidocaine in my lower back, and that happened in
Toronto. I have no idea----
Mr. Mica. Now, he could have gauze with your blood sample
on it; is that correct?
Mr. Clemens. Absolutely.
Mr. Mica. OK. But you have said that the only two injected
substances you had--was it Mr. McNamee that injected those two
substances?
Mr. Clemens. That's correct.
Mr. Mica. OK. And you also said that you knew very
distinctively the color of the B-12 because you had that
injection, and that is a fairly distinctive color.
Mr. Clemens. That is correct. It was red or pinkish in
color and----
Mr. Mica. What color was what he injected you when you
thought it was B-12?
Mr. Clemens. I am sorry?
Mr. Mica. What color was it when he injected you when you
thought it was B-12?
Mr. Clemens. It was red and pink. B-12 is red and pink that
he gave me.
I don't remember the color of the Lidocaine. It was one
shot. He told me it would give me some freeness in my back.
Mr. Mica. So we may never know, because he may in fact--and
you say he would have gauze with possibly your blood DNA sample
on it. That would be correct?
Mr. Clemens. He sure could have.
Mr. Mica. OK. But we don't know what he injected.
But he just testified that the substance was a different
color than, in fact, you recognized. And, in fact, you told me
on a prior occasion the color of the substance you were
injected with; is that correct?
Mr. Clemens. I am sorry, I didn't----
Mr. Mica. I said you told me the color of the substance you
were injected with. That is why I asked him that----
Mr. Clemens. That's correct.
Mr. Mica [continuing]. Question first.
You don't think he is telling the truth then?
Mr. Clemens. Brian McNamee has never given me growth
hormone or steroids.
Mr. Mica. Thank you.
Chairman Waxman. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mrs. Maloney, do you want to take your 5 minutes now?
Mrs. Maloney. Yes. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
First of all, Mr. Clemens, as a New Yorker, we are very
proud of your professional achievements. Thank you for your
many efforts to help children through your foundation. And you
are an important role model to many young people. And I am
concerned about these allegations against you and your
conflicting response to many of them.
First of all, the Mitchell Report was released in December
2007, and after it was issued, you began speaking out against
these allegations. One question that I have is, why did you
refuse to talk to Senator Mitchell when he reached out to you
before the report was released? And specifically on page 175 of
his report it says, ``In order to provide Clemens with
information about these allegations and to give him an
opportunity to respond, I asked him to meet with me, and he
declined.''
As part of your public statements, you went on 60 Minutes,
and during an interview with Mike Wallace, he asked you, Why
didn't you speak to George Mitchell's investigators? And in
response you stated, ``I listened to my counsel. I was advised
not to. A lot of the players did not go down and talk to him as
well.''
And do you remember saying that to Mike Wallace on 60
Minutes?
Mr. Clemens. Yes.
Mrs. Maloney. Mr. Clemens, in your deposition with our
committee you gave a very different explanation. You did not
tell us your lawyers told you not to speak to Senator Mitchell.
You repeatedly told us you had no idea Senator Mitchell wanted
to talk to you. And let me give you some examples from the
transcript.
First, on page 112 of your deposition, you were asked, Were
you aware that Senator Mitchell was seeking to interview you?
And your answer was, I was not.
Then later, on page 112, Senator Mitchell sent a letter to
the players union in July 2007 requesting an interview with
you, and you were not--you testified that you were not aware of
this request. You said, I was not aware of it.
Then on page 117, when Mr. Hendricks, your agent, heard
about the invitation, did he communicate with you that you were
invited to talk to Senator Mitchell? And your agent, you
answered that he did not even communicate this request to you.
Then on page 115, in the July timeframe there, your agent,
Hendricks, never said to you, By the way, Senator Mitchell
wants to talk to you. And your answer was, that is correct.
Then on page 116, in October, Senator Mitchell informed the
players union that any player who agreed to an interview would
be provided with the evidence that Senator Mitchell had. Did
you know of this in 2007? And your answer was, I did not.
And then you made this definitive statement, ``I had no
idea that Senator Mitchell wanted to talk to me. If it was
about baseball and steroids in general, I would have wanted to
see him. And obviously, if I knew what Brian McNamee was saying
about me in this report, I would have been there.''
So, Mr. Clemens, there were six times that you told our
committee under oath that you had no idea that Mitchell wanted
to talk to you. Yet you said on national television that you
refused to talk to Senator Mitchell on the advice of your
attorneys. So I have two questions about this.
First, why did you give one explanation on 60 Minutes for
why you failed to talk to Senator Mitchell and a different
explanation in the depositions before this committee?
Mr. Clemens. Congresswoman, the fact of the matter was I
was never told by my baseball agent/attorney that we were asked
to come down and see Senator Mitchell. Like you said in that
statement, if I knew the lies that Brian McNamee were telling
about me I would have been down there to see Senator Mitchell
in a heartbeat, in a New York minute, if you will. I was never
told about that.
The Players Association, from my understanding, reached out
to a lot of the players. I don't believe any player went down,
other than, from what I understand, Jason Giambi; and it was
relayed to Mr. Hendricks who--you stated his name in that, my
earlier testimony. It was never brought to me.
From talking to Randy Hendricks and I believe the Players
Association, in my situation, I had to answer allegations back
in 2006 about an L.A. Times report.
Mrs. Maloney. But would you say then that your agents did
you a terrible disservice by not bringing this information to
you that you had an opportunity to talk before the report came
out?
Mr. Clemens. I would say so. And with all----
Mrs. Maloney. Can I ask, what actions did you take after
you learned that your agents kept from you Senator Mitchell's
inquiry?
I would say that if the Ethics Committee in the House sent
me a letter about possible illegal action and my staff kept
this information from me, I would have fired my staff. And so
my question to you, have you fired these agents that did not
inform you about this? What action have you taken with this,
really, breach of trust?
Mr. Clemens. No, I haven't. And with all respect, Senator
Mitchell, from what I understand, again was asked by members of
the Players Association, what do you have to talk about with
these players? And would you please tell us what it is? And
they said, We are not going to respond to that. You will have
to come down and see us.
Mrs. Maloney. My time has expired.
Chairman Waxman. Thank the gentlelady.
Mr. Souder for 5 minutes.
Mr. Souder. Thank you.
This has been very frustrating. I am sure it has been very
frustrating to those watching, too. When you testify in front
of this committee it is better not to talk about the past and
to lie about the past.
Somebody is not telling the truth today.
Now, I am disappointed that the other witnesses are not
here. And I understand from the chairman that we plan to
release those depositions, and I hope that the public
understands that what we are having today is a very short
forum. I went through most of these depositions last night,
hundreds of pages; and when this is released, you are going to
get somewhat of a more comprehensive view.
What is interesting today is to see the interaction. But I
would argue that those depositions are fairly devastating.
Mr. McNamee, there was something that caught my attention
that I would like to raise. It was a side comment fairly far
into your testimony. You were discussing related issues, and
you alleged that David Cone, a player rep for, I believe, then
the Toronto Blue Jays, said, ``The owners want the union--the
owners went to the union and said, `We don't want to test,' but
you have to give us some valid excuse to go to the media.''
Do you have any more knowledge of that? And is that an
accurate characterization of what you said? Because--that is an
incredible allegation here, because the union is being blamed
for not testing. And there hasn't been an investigation of the
owners thus far. And what you are saying is a player rep went
to who and said that? Did you hear this second-hand, third-
hand?
Mr. McNamee. The player rep came to me, and that's what was
told to me, those statements.
Mr. Souder. And why did he come to you?
Mr. McNamee. Because of my background, and he wanted to
know--he was talking to me on the back of the plane about the
current state, which reverts back to, I guess--I believe it
was--yeah, it was 2000.
And I think--it was just a conversation, and he thought
maybe I had--maybe I had some knowledge that might have led to
believe that steroid use didn't enhance hand-eye coordination,
which is what baseball is mainly depicted as, as far as
ability.
Mr. Souder. Mr. Chairman, I know you don't want to have
another hearing, I am not advocating another hearing; but the
Mitchell Report was not targeted toward the ownership, and it
is one thing we haven't investigated. This is a second- to
third-hand type of revelation.
But I think that the staff needs to look at this because
this comes to the core question of the legislation that you, I,
Congressman Cummings, Congressman Davis, and Senator McCain
introduced about whether we can trust baseball to, in fact, do
testing on themselves. And if it is true that the owners wanted
to, in effect, cover up and not have testing, this is a very
serious allegation.
Chairman Waxman. I thank the gentleman for his comment. We
will discuss it.
Mr. Souder. Also, Mr. McNamee, when he held the press
conference and played the tape live to the national media, that
appears to have really ticked you off.
Mr. McNamee. Yes, sir.
Mr. Souder. You made a reference in your deposition that's
when you produced the physical evidence.
Mr. McNamee. Yes.
Mr. Souder. Do you believe that physical evidence--my
friend Mr. Mica was questioning, yes, there will be blood; Mr.
Clemens said the blood could be from a number of other things--
do you believe that physical evidence will tie him directly to
an illegal drug?
Mr. McNamee. Yes, I do.
Mr. Souder. Do you believe it can be debated whether or
not--in other words, will it be on a needle or something that
clearly takes the DNA to that?
Have you ever handled physical evidence when you were a
policeman?
Mr. McNamee. Physical evidence?
Mr. Souder. Yes, like this. How to track it----
Mr. McNamee. No.
Mr. Souder [continuing]. How to protect it, what it is
likely to show?
So are you speculating at this point, or do you know, in
fact, that the DNA will be traced to HGH or steroids?
Mr. McNamee. I am speculating.
Mr. Souder. OK. Because the DNA, if it is clear, will not
disremember. In other words, it will help settle a debate. But
if there is a dispute whether it was B-12 or that, that even
could be confusing.
But I think it is important for the record, because I
chaired the narcotics committee for a long time, and I can't
tell you how much these depositions look like any kind of a
narcotics debate we had--it looks like cocaine, it looks like
methamphetamine.
And when you talked in your testimony about lying in the
early stages, we often see witnesses who are caught, who go to
the Federal Government and initially give us just enough so
they think they are not going to go to jail, but they don't
really turn over their major clients. And then something ticks
them off, and they go a step further.
And that could be another explanation. But it may be, if it
doesn't show the tracking, that it is going to be very
difficult to resolve.
But the other reason, Mr. Chairman, I think it is very
important that you have committed to release the depositions is
that, in fact, Mr. McNamee has been verified by Mr. Knoblauch
as accurate. He has been verified by Mr. Pettite as accurate.
Radomski, who is under Federal investigation, supports a lot of
that, although we don't have a deposition on him.
And one last thing. It would have been great to have Mr.
Knoblauch here today because it was a sad testimony that he had
about his life experiences and about how he wanted to come
clean for his family. I urge people to read that.
And if I could make one last statement, I am incredibly
disappointed with the players and the pressure that they put on
that comes through all these depositions about not to talk. If
families in America don't talk about the drug abuse in their
neighborhoods--and the locker room would be your neighborhood--
if you don't talk about that drug abuse--there was a family in
Baltimore that Congressman Cummings and I did a bill on, the
Dawson family, that their house was fire-bombed, that all of
them were killed, all their children, because they talked.
And yet baseball players somehow--and management and
trainers--think that they are above it, that they are some kind
of a snitch, that there is some kind of a thing wrong if you
talk about other players.
The fact is, we can't get control of drug abuse unless you
turn over other people and cooperate. And this wall of silence
coming out of baseball has been disgusting. And it took the
Federal Government, the Balco case, to get anything out of
this. And then it took the hearings to get the Mitchell Report.
And now we have all kinds of questions coming off that and
whether management was, in fact, involved. When people say that
there should not be an independent test, I don't see how, given
this track record, they think there can be anything but
independent testing.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Waxman. Thank you, Mr. Souder.
Mr. Clay.
Mr. Clay. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Clemens, in our previous hearing in 2005 one witness
clearly misled this committee, another temporarily lost his
ability to speak and understand the English language, while a
third witness decided that he didn't want to talk about the
past.
You have four sons, and you understand how young athletes
admire players of your caliber. Can I look at my two children
with a straight face and tell them that you, Roger Clemens,
have always played the game with honesty and integrity?
Mr. Clemens. Yes, sir.
Mr. Clay. And there would be no doubt that's true?
Mr. Clemens. Without a question. I took no shortcuts.
I can tell you about my upbringing. There were--you know, I
have heard the thing about pampered athletes and million-dollar
ballplayers. I have heard that from my own counsel. And I take
a little offense to that for the fact that my father passed
away when I was 9 years old.
My mother--I was raised by great, strong women, my mother
and my grandmother. They gave me my will and my determination.
I have had my work ethic--which again has come in question
here by a man at this table, that he made me, he made me who I
was. I didn't meet him until 1998. In 1997, I won the Triple
Crown in Pitching. I already had over 200 wins. But he coaxed
me--on a statement he says he coaxed me to four Cy Youngs. And
if you do the math, I would have nine Cy Youngs according to
his math, and I don't.
Mr. Clay. You have seven.
Mr. Clemens. I have seven. Thank you.
My career, Mr. Congressman, didn't happen by accident. I
worked extremely hard. I have had a great work ethic since I
was in high school. I didn't have a car in high school. I ran
home, which my condominium or town home was about 2 miles from
my school.
My sister reminded me that when you went to the University
of Texas, the only way I was going to further my education--my
mother didn't have the means; she worked three jobs; she didn't
have the means to send me to college. So it came through the
game of baseball, which we love.
So it is very--it is very hurtful to me and my family and
to the children that look up to us.
The Congressman earlier--I guess he stepped out. My
innocent sister-in-law was murdered, brutally murdered because
of drugs. It hurt our family. My mother pulled my other
athletic brother, my middle brother, if you will, my next-older
brother--I have two brothers and three sisters--out of college
because of an incident that happened on campus involving
marijuana, pulled him out of campus. And I tip my hat to my
brother. He went on to finish school and get his degree.
These are the values that we have, that I have, and that I
will continue to have.
Somebody's tried to break my spirit in this room. They are
not going to break my spirit. I am going to continue to go out
and do the things that I love to do and try and be honest and
genuine to every person I can be. It is the way I was brought
up. It is what I know. But you can tell your boys that I did it
the right way, and I worked my butt off to do it.
Mr. Clay. Thank you for that response. You have a very
compelling and telling story about your life and career.
A colleague of mine, Mr. Capuano of Massachusetts, wants to
know what uniform you will wear to the Hall of Fame.
Mr. Clemens. Can I ask you--may I state that I didn't hear
that question?
Mr. Clay. That's fine.
Let me ask, Mr. McNamee, sir, when you first spoke to the
government about this matter, did you deny that Roger Clemens
ever used steroids or HGH?
Mr. McNamee. No, sir.
Mr. Clay. You never denied it to Federal authorities?
Mr. McNamee. No, sir.
Mr. Clay. OK. I recognize how intense the pressure can be
when testifying for a Federal prosecutor. Did their
intimidation tactics influence you to give conflicting
testimony?
Mr. McNamee. No, sir.
Mr. Clay. You are sure about that?
Mr. McNamee. Yeah, I am pretty sure.
Mr. Clay. Were you granted 5 years probation in exchange
for your testimony?
Mr. McNamee. No, sir.
Mr. Clay. You don't have a deal sitting on the table with
the Federal prosecutors----
Mr. McNamee. No, sir.
Mr. Clay [continuing]. To come before this committee and to
say what you have said? You don't have a deal at all?
Mr. McNamee. No deal, sir.
Mr. Clay. Were you simply telling the prosecutors what they
wanted to hear in order to secure a deal for yourself?
Mr. McNamee. No, sir.
Mr. Clay. You have answered truthfully to all my questions?
Mr. McNamee. Yes, sir.
Mr. Clay. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Waxman. Thank you, Mr. Clay. Your time has
expired. The Chair is going to take his time for questioning.
Mr. Clemens, I am puzzled about something that happened
last week, and I would like you to help me understand why you
did what you did.
You have a tough job today, and you said you find it very
hard to have to prove a negative. But your attorneys have
provided documentation to rebut the passage in the Mitchell
Report about a party at Jose Canseco's house.
I don't view this passage as anything central to the issue
before us, but it is important that we know if it is true; and
your attorneys and you have been very forceful in telling us
that the report is wrong, you were not at Canseco's house
between June 8th and June 10, 1998, when the Toronto Blue Jays
were playing in Miami.
During your deposition you were asked, Could you have been
at this house during this time period, June 8th to June 10,
1998, and you answered ``no.'' Is that a correct statement?
Mr. Clemens. On the dates, sir?
Chairman Waxman. Did you answer ``no'' to the question
whether you were at Jose Canseco's party?
Mr. Clemens. If you will repeat your question then I can--
please.
Chairman Waxman. Well, during your deposition you were
asked, could you have been at his house during this time
period, which was June 8th to 10th, 1998? And you answered
``no.''
You have given us supporting materials. You have provided
an affidavit from Jose Canseco that said that you were not at
his house during the team party on June 9th. You provided a
golf receipt from 8:58 a.m. on June 9th, which showed that at
least that morning you were purchasing merchandise at the golf
course next to Canseco's house. And you provided excerpts from
a baseball broadcast that reported that you were not at the
team party. And these came up when several other Members asked
you about it. It is all very helpful.
When the committee took Mr. McNamee's deposition, he had a
completely different recollection, as he has today. He had a
clear recollection that Mr. Clemens was at Mr. Canseco's home.
So our committee staff investigated this issue, and we received
conflicting evidence.
I am not surprised by conflicting recollections of a party
around 10 years ago that was really of no special importance.
But Jose Canseco thinks Roger Clemens and Mr. Canseco's ex-wife
weren't at the party. Mr. Canseco's ex-wife, Jessica Fisher,
believes that she was there, and so was Debbie Clemens.
Mr. McNamee told us that one key witness who would know
whether you were at Canseco's house for that party was your
former nanny. And the committee staff asked your attorneys for
her name last Friday so we could contact her. We made
additional requests for her name and contact information over
the weekend.
Around 5 p.m. on Sunday afternoon, committee staff made
another request, and asked your attorneys to refrain from
contacting the nanny before the committee staff could speak
with her. It wasn't until Monday afternoon that your attorneys
provided the nanny's name and phone number to the committee;
and it wasn't until yesterday that the committee staff actually
spoke with the nanny.
Are you aware of all this timeline about the nanny?
Mr. Clemens. I am not sure of all the timeframe. I know
that----
Chairman Waxman. OK.
Mr. Clemens. Yeah.
Chairman Waxman. Well, what the nanny said to us when we
finally contacted her yesterday was important in several
respects. First, she said that she was at Mr. Canseco's home
during the relevant time period. In fact, she said that she and
Mrs. Clemens and the children stayed overnight at the Cansecos.
Second, she told us she did not remember any team party as
described in the Mitchell Report.
And third, she said that she did not--she did remember that
you were at that home during the relevant time period, although
she didn't know how long you stayed or whether you spent the
night with your family.
The third point directly contradicted your deposition
testimony, where you said you were not at Mr. Canseco's home at
any point June 8th to June 10, 1998. But it is entirely
understandable to me. It was 10 years ago.
Here is what puzzles me about your actions: We have a
transcript of the interview with the nanny, whose name I am not
going to release to protect her privacy; but in this transcript
she says that on Sunday, this last Sunday, you called her and
asked her to come to your Houston home. She had not seen you in
person since 2001. But after you called, she went to your home
on Sunday afternoon. And I would like to read a portion of the
transcript of the committee interview.
Question: ``when you said you didn't remember a party, what
did he say?''
Answer: ``he says, you know, the reason you don't remember
that party is because I wasn't there. He said because I know
that he was playing with Jose.''
Question: ``so did he ask you, do you remember a party, and
then you said you did not remember a party?''
Answer: ``that's right.''
She also told the committee staff that you told her that
she should tell the committee the truth. And after your
meeting, an investigator working for you called her and asked
her a series of additional questions.
Your meeting took place 2 days after the committee staff
made a simple request for your former nanny's name. And then it
took 24 hours after your meeting for your attorneys to provide
her name to the Republican and Democratic staffs, and that is
why I am puzzled about this.
Was it your idea to meet with her before forwarding her
name to us, or did someone suggest that to you?
Mr. Clemens. Mr. Chairman, I believe that just like through
this whole hearing, I was doing y'all a favor by finding a
nanny that was--supposedly came in question, so----
Chairman Waxman. You might have been trying to do us a
favor, but who told her you should invite her to your house,
that you haven't seen her in all those years?
Mr. Hardin. Mr. Chairman, this is unfair. What his lawyers
tell him is unfair for you to ask. And I will tell you in any
case----
Chairman Waxman. OK. Well, I accept that. I accept that.
Would the gentlemen please be seated?
Mr. Breuer. Mr. Chairman----
Chairman Waxman. Was it your idea? That is the question.
Was it your idea?
Mr. Hardin. It was my idea. It was my idea to investigate
what witnesses know----
Chairman Waxman. OK.
Mr. Hardin [continuing]. Just like any other lawyer in the
free world does.
Chairman Waxman. Did you think, Mr. Clemens, it was a good
idea to invite her to your home on Sunday after not seeing her
for 7 years?
Mr. Clemens. I am sorry?
Chairman Waxman. Did you think it was a good idea to invite
her to your home after you hadn't seen her for 7 years?
Mr. Clemens. I was told on Friday night to see if you--you
know, we could locate the nanny. Obviously, it is very nice of
you, I don't think she needs any publicity; but I was told on
Friday night that you guys may want to talk to her, and so----
Chairman Waxman. And you felt you should talk to her first.
Well, I don't know if there is anything improper in this.
Mr. Clemens. Mr. Chairman, I hadn't talked to her in years.
And I did everything I could to locate her to--if you guys had
any questions for her. And I did tell her to answer truthfully.
Again, I am not sure----
Chairman Waxman. I don't know if there is anything improper
in this, but I do know it sure raises an appearance of
impropriety. The impression it leaves is terrible.
The right way to have handled this would have been to give
the committee information immediately and not have your people
interview the nanny before we did, and certainly for you not to
personally talk to her about the interview as you did.
One option for you was to have given the committee the
nanny's contact information and had no contact with her.
Another option could have been to give her a heads-up that the
committee would be calling her. But you chose, I think, the
worst approach. That is my opinion.
You invited her to your home, had a specific conversation
about whether you were at Mr. Canseco's house, and you did this
before you gave the committee her contact information.
Is there anything else you want to add?
Mr. Breuer. Mr. Chairman, with all due respect, this is
nothing but innuendo. Your committee asked on Friday evening
for this information. We have done everything to give you that
information in a fast and in a thorough manner.
The innuendo is terrible.
And I spoke to your own staff member, who is speaking with
you now. And your statement is--and I have the highest respect
for the chairman--is calculated to do nothing but to have
innuendo against this man.
We have cooperated with the committee fully, as your own
staff sitting behind you now.
Chairman Waxman. As I indicated, the rules do not allow the
lawyers to speak, but I did not cut you off. This action means
there is always going to be a question whether you tried to
influence her testimony, and I gather your lawyer thinks----
Mr. Clemens. Mr. Chairman, Mr. Chairman, I was doing y'all
a favor; and as far as I was concerned, I haven't seen this
lady in a long time. She is a sweet lady, and I wanted to get
her to you as quick as possible, if you had any questions for
her.
Again, I am hurt by those statements that I would get in
the way of finding anything that you guys were looking for.
That's--I am hurt by that statement.
Mr. Hardin. We asked her to come to the house so we could
interview her.
Chairman Waxman. The gentleman is not going to be
recognized. My time is up.
Ms. Norton is here, and I want to recognize her for 5
minutes to ask questions she might have.
Ms. Norton. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I want to thank
both Mr. McNamee and Mr. Clemens for having the guts to show up
here without having been subpoenaed.
Mr. Clemens, much of what we are about here turns on
concrete evidence, but much of it on credibility. And my
questions really go to your longstanding relationship with Mr.
McNamee, almost 10 years of relationship from 1998, with the
Blue Jays, until 2007.
And a whole string of evidence about the closeness of that
relationship, your training with him in Kentucky, got you Bruce
Springsteen--you got him Bruce Springsteen tickets. I call that
love. You lent him fishing gear. And to quote your statement,
``I trusted him, put my faith in him, and brought him around my
family and my children. I treated him just like I had done
others I had met in my life, like family.'' That's pretty
close.
Isn't it fair to say you were on quite good terms with Mr.
McNamee until you found out what he told Senator Mitchell?
Mr. Clemens. Congresswoman, I did not get him Bruce
Springsteen tickets.
Ms. Norton. Let us correct the record.
Mr. Clemens. And yes, I trusted Brian McNamee like I
trusted every other trainer or----
Ms. Norton. Well, I quoted you on how you trusted him.
Mr. Clemens. Yes, I totally understand.
Ms. Norton. But I asked you, therefore, don't your own
statements show that you were on good terms with him until you
found out what he told Senator Mitchell?
Mr. Clemens. I was--I would say I was on good terms with
him. We had a--obviously, what I have learned now----
Ms. Norton. Yeah, but you see I am not talking about now.
Now is after the Mitchell Report.
Of course, you and your legal team are raising very serious
questions about incidents in Mr. McNamee's past. Some of them
were public, some of them were not. But I think they would
cause reasonable people to lose trust and confidence in Mr.
McNamee, for example, that he gave you without your knowledge
what you later came to believe, while he was still your
trainer, an amphetamine.
Indeed, you describe a ``confrontation,'' your word, that
you had with him about this particular incident. You told us
that he falsely claimed that your own workout was his, and how
you bit your lip and your tongue as you watched him do this.
You even say that a company associated with McNamee used
your image in an advertisement without your consent.
And finally, of course, perhaps most personally, that Mr.
McNamee injected your wife with HGH in your master bedroom
without your knowledge. And you described here in prior
testimony today some of the repercussions she had from that
injection.
Now, you were well aware of all of these concerns before
the Mitchell Report was released. So I have to ask you, sir, if
Mr. McNamee did all of these things, and they appear not to be
in doubt, including injecting your wife with HGH without your
knowledge, why did you continue to employ him?
Mr. Clemens. Congresswoman, the incident that he told me
from the St. Pete situation, that he got let go from the
Yankees, I was told a different story. I was told that he saved
a woman's life, that again he took a hit for five other guys on
that situation. I believe I worked----
Ms. Norton. What about what he did to you, Mr. Clemens?
What about the incidents I have said and how seriously they
affected you? Why did you continue to employ him, given what he
had done to you?
Mr. Clemens. That's correct. And what I was--the point I
was getting to, I believe there was a work stoppage for 2 or 3
months. I believe Mr. Pettitte was playing again, continued to
play. I was in--still trying to make up my mind again.
I am not great at retirement. I tried to retire three
times; it is not working. But there was a work stoppage there.
There was a work stoppage with him until after the incident
with my wife, which he again--earlier he said----
Ms. Norton. There was a work stoppage--excuse me, a work
stoppage?
Mr. Clemens. Well, I didn't hire him as a trainer. I
actually had a different trainer for 2 months that I worked
with.
Ms. Norton. The reason for that was?
Mr. Clemens. I was going in a different direction, so----
Ms. Norton. Then you had him as your trainer again?
Mr. Clemens. I am sorry?
Ms. Norton. And then you had him as your trainer again?
Mr. Clemens. I did in----
Ms. Norton. My question, Mr. Clemens, is, why did you keep
the man? It is very simple. Why did you keep the man? He did
some pretty horrendous things which are on the record, which
you yourself said.
Why did you keep him? And why only after the Mitchell
Report did your relationship with him end?
Mr. Clemens. Well, Brian McNamee--again, we had a heated
discussion. He apologized to me on the situation with my wife.
Ms. Norton. How about the other things?
Mr. Clemens. I am a forgiving person. I don't--like I said,
I don't--when he told me that he was a doctor, and he had a
Ph.D., I had no reason to look behind that. I mean, he was
employed by Major League Baseball.
He ran an ad, and basically I let him have it about that,
told him about it, that you cannot do that kind of stuff. I
think that is when he said that he was going to sue my baseball
attorney; and quite often it happens in my life.
The other day I had a gentleman come and talk to me about
that they were excited, that they just bought a lot down from
my house in the area that they were playing golf in. And I let
them know that I hate to burst their bubble, but I don't have a
lot at that house. So it happens quite often.
Again, I learned--I learned, Ms. Congresswoman--I learned,
like I said, about the--I had no reason to believe that he
wasn't a doctor; and these--obviously, the lies that I know now
that he has told me.
Ms. Norton. And all this stuff that he did to you.
Listen, Mr. Clemens, all I can say is, I am sure you are
going to heaven.
Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Waxman. Thank you, Ms. Norton. We are going to
take a 15-minute break, and then we will reconvene and continue
the questioning.
[Recess.]
Chairman Waxman. The meeting of the committee will come
back to order.
Mr. Davis.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. While I was
gone I know the chairman asked some questions about an
affidavit from--or an interview with Lilian Straim. This has to
do with a very critical issue that the two of you don't seem to
agree on, and that is the party at Jose Canseco's house.
We have an affidavit from Mr. Canseco and his wife saying
they remember you not being there, being hurt that you weren't
there. We have contemporaneous sportscaster reports noting that
you were not there. We have your golf ticket that you have
given us that shows you probably couldn't have been there,
although maybe it is possible. We have a number of other people
who were interviewed who say they don't remember you there.
So when they talked to your nanny, understandably, we are
trying to find out what she knew about it.
This committee had no way to reach her except through you.
Is that right, Mr. Clemens?
Mr. Clemens. That's correct.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. We could never have interviewed her
had you not intervened for us and found her; is that correct?
Mr. Clemens. That is correct.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. And her English, as I understand it,
is not that good. Is that correct?
Mr. Clemens. It is not that good.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. And she probably never testified
before a congressional committee or congressional investigators
before either----
Mr. Clemens. Never.
Mr. Davis of Virginia [continuing]. So understandably would
be reluctant to do that.
Can you just give us the circumstances of your--obviously,
if you hadn't contacted her, we probably never would have been
able to find her and been able to interrogate her. Can you just
give us, from your perspective, how you contacted her, what
meetings and what was said at that point, so we can put this
into an appropriate perspective?
Mr. Clemens. Yes, Mr. Congressman.
I was told on Friday that our nanny, or sitter at the time,
back at that time period, was wanting to--that they wanted to
talk to her. And I reached out to her and made the phone call,
and that was it.
I haven't talked to her in--I don't know how many years it
has been, but we haven't talked to her since. And I know, when
she came to the house, it was great to see her. We hadn't seen
her in a long time. And that is basically the conversation.
I said, We are all trying to remember some kind of party at
Canseco's house. I know that I golfed at that house. And I
golfed, and then we had a golf game, and I am not totally
positive that I wouldn't have taken back my wife and dropped
her off at the house. I believe that the nanny was there with
my kids; they sure could have been. They could have gone over
there in the afternoon after the party.
But I was focused on--what I was asked, Congressman, was
about attending a party, so----
Mr. Davis of Virginia. A barbecue, in particular, right?
Mr. Clemens. Yeah, a barbecue or a luncheon or something of
that nature.
So could I have gone by the house later that afternoon and
dropped my wife or her brother-in-law, the people that golfed
with me? Sure, I could have. But at the time of the day that I
would have expressed it to be, I was on my way to the ballpark.
I would have had to have gotten to the ballpark extremely
early.
I know one thing. I wasn't there having huddled up with
somebody trying to do a drug deal. I know that for sure.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. This is what, 8 years ago? 9 years
ago?
Mr. Clemens. Yes.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. Thank you.
Mr. McNamee, let me ask you, did you ever use Roger
Clemens's likeness without his permission?
Mr. McNamee. No.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. Have you ever obtained a doctorate
degree from a college or university?
Mr. McNamee. Yes.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. Can you explain to us how you
obtained it?
Mr. McNamee. I obtained it when I was in Toronto at the end
of 1998. And it was a situation where the--at the time I was
living in Toronto, so I was looking for something I could do
correspondence-wise. And I applied to several different
colleges at the time, and I got accepted to Columbus University
in Louisiana, and started to take courses in accordance to
nutritional counseling to achieve a Ph.D. in nutritional
counseling.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. How many courses did you take?
Mr. McNamee. It was 11 courses and, upon completion, a
dissertation. I took every course, and what it was is, they
would mail you the course work.
I would take it, write a thesis paper at the end of the--at
the end of--when I finished it on my time--when I did it, as
fast as I could do it, and submit it and get graded, and moving
forward to the dissertation work at the end of the course work.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. Did you finish?
Mr. McNamee. Yes, I did.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. And did you write a dissertation?
Mr. McNamee. Yes, I did.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. And what was the subject of the
dissertation?
Mr. McNamee. The subject was weight training,
supplementation, and improving miles per hour on a fastball
with pitchers.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. It would be an interesting one to
read.
Have you ever told law enforcement investigators that you
held a Doctorate in Behavioral Sciences?
Mr. McNamee. Yes.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. That's not what your Doctorate was
in, was it?
Mr. McNamee. No. It is Behavioral Sciences with a
concentration in Nutritional Counseling.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. OK. So you held yourself out as
doctor then to athletes?
Mr. McNamee. Ph.D.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. Ph.D. Can you tell us a little bit
about the university? Does it have a campus?
Mr. McNamee. As I found out later, no, it doesn't.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. Is this what you call a ``diploma
mill'' to some extent?
Mr. McNamee. As I found out later on, yes, it is.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. OK.
On the checks you wrote Kirk Radomski, and printed in the
appendix of the Mitchell Report at page D-11, you list yourself
as Dr. Brian McNamee.
At that point, you still feel you could hold yourself out
in good faith as a doctor?
Mr. McNamee. I am not sure if I follow.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. On the checks you wrote Kirk
Radomski you printed in the appendix there in the Mitchell
Report, you list yourself on the checks as Dr. Brian McNamee.
This was in good faith? You still hold yourself out as a
doctor, right?
Mr. McNamee. I am sure--if that was under my business
account, then I probably did if it was a business check.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. OK. I see my time is up. But let me
just ask quickly, did you ask Roger Clemens' or Andy Pettite's
permission to use pictures in one of your advertisements which
promotes McNamee as Dr. Brian McNamee, who is widely recognized
for his work with Roger Clemens, Andy Pettitte, Jorge Posada,
Mike Stanton, and many other star athletes?
Mr. McNamee. No. I never asked their permission.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. OK. Thank you.
Chairman Waxman. Thank you, Mr. Davis.
Mr. Davis on our side.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Mr. Clemens, it was a pleasure to meet with you last week.
Mr. Chairman, in your questions, you asked whether it was
appropriate for Mr. Clemens to meet with his nanny, a fact
witness, on Sunday before the committee spoke with her. You did
not ask the one lawyer on the panel. So I would like to ask Mr.
Scheeler, a former Federal prosecutor, is it usual for a client
to meet with a fact witness, as Mr. Clemens did?
Mr. Scheeler. No, that is not usual. I don't know any of
the facts and circumstances about these meetings other than
what I have heard today.
But what I will tell you from my experience is, in the
course of investigation what is typical, if there is a witness
who has potentially relevant information, you have an attorney
reach out to that witness or you have an attorney's
investigator. What is unusual is to have the direct witness or
principal to the controversy reach out to that, because that
could create the impression that the witnesses are trying to
get their stories together or something like that.
So I would say, by far the most customary practice in a
situation like this is, you would have the lawyer or the
lawyer's investigator reach out to a potential witness and try
to get the information that witness has and understand it as
best you can.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Thank you very much.
Mr. Clemens, on December 12, 2007, private investigators
who were working for you had a meeting with Mr. McNamee to
discuss the upcoming Mitchell Report; and although they denied
recording the meeting, we now know that they did record it. You
used portions of this recording when you filed your defamation
lawsuit against Mr. McNamee, but you were selective in which
portions you made public, and you never released the entire
recording. Now the committee has the entire recording of that
meeting, and I want to ask you about it.
Without knowing he was being recorded, Mr. McNamee told
your investigators, one, that he injected you with the steroid
Winstrol in 1998; two, that he injected you with human growth
hormone in 2000; and three, that he injected you with other
steroids on multiple occasions in 2000 and 2001. Mr. McNamee
confirmed to your own investigators virtually all of the facts
about your alleged steroid use that were reported by Senator
Mitchell.
Mr. Clemens, what Mr. McNamee told your investigators in
private confirms the basic facts that he told Senator Mitchell.
My question is, do you think the fact that Mr. McNamee gave
your investigators in private the same account as Senator
Mitchell, that should be viewed as corroboration of his
account?
Mr. Clemens. I am not sure exactly what all he did tell the
investigators. I heard--what I can recollect is a tape
recording from a conversation he had with Jim Murray when I
returned home from vacation, when I met at Randy Hendricks'
house and with Rusty Hardin's group.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Yes.
There is another part of this secret recording that you did
not make public, Mr. Clemens. When I read the transcript of the
secret recording, I was struck by the fact that your private
investigators seemed to be fishing for information about what
evidence Mr. McNamee had against you.
For example, your investigators asked Mr. McNamee, Was
there any kind of paper trail documentation on any of this
stuff? They asked him also, Was anybody ever there besides you
and Roger?
Mr. Clemens, why did your investigators ask these
questions?
Mr. Clemens. Mr. Congressman, I have no idea. I didn't talk
to my investigators. They went out and did the investigating. I
don't----
Mr. Davis of Illinois. OK. I have one final question----
Mr. Clemens. Sure.
Mr. Davis of Illinois [continuing]. About this transcript.
One of your investigators asked Mr. McNamee this question:
Hypothetically, if Roger Clemens said that is absolutely BS,
none of that ever happened, is there any doubt in your mind
that what you told us today is the absolute truth?
Mr. McNamee answered, I told you more truth than I have
told the Federal Government.
The question is, why did your investigators ask Mr. McNamee
this question and what do you make of Mr. McNamee's answer?
Mr. Clemens. Congressman, again, I had no idea the
investigators were doing that with the lawyers. And again, this
man has never given me HGH or growth hormone or steroids of any
kind, so that's----
Mr. Davis of Illinois. So you really don't know, and you
were not instructing them as they did their investigation?
Mr. Clemens. That is correct. I didn't have--I wasn't a
part of that investigation.
Mr. Davis of Illinois. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Waxman. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Duncan.
Mr. Duncan. Thank you, Mr. Chairman, and thank you for
calling this hearing. Let me say I think almost everything has
been asked and said that could have been asked at this point,
so I won't try to belabor this or delay it much longer.
But I have heard some holier-than-thou types on television
say that Congress has much more important things to deal with;
and you know, I will say this. We all work on all these other
important issues all the time, but a lot of them aren't as high
profile as this, and so we don't have some of the crowds that
we have.
But--we are working on other major issues, too; but because
of that, I was very interested when I read this comment this
past Sunday in the Parade magazine. They had an article, Should
Congress Umpire Baseball? And they said in that article--it
said, ``Federal scrutiny, however, has led to positive changes.
After the 2005 hearings, the sport tightened its drug policies
and launched an extensive probe. Now Congress is pushing
baseball to implement an investigative unit dedicated to
steroids, independent drug testing, and better player
education.''
So I think some good things have come out of these
hearings, and I think it has served as a wake-up call to many
parents of young athletes around the country. Because they have
heard, I think for the first time, reports of people committing
suicide or having to have psychiatric treatment because of the
use of steroids. So I think it has been--there has been some
good news.
I did see a report yesterday in the Washington Times in
which a legal expert said that the case against Mr. Clemens was
``very, very weak''; and those were his words. And I spent 7\1/
2\ years as a criminal court judge trying felony criminal cases
before I came to Congress. And I would have to agree,
particularly on the syringes. There are all sorts of chain-of-
evidence problems that I don't think those syringes would be
admissible in almost any court in this country.
But one thing I am not clear on--and maybe it has been
covered because I have been in and out because of these votes--
but, Mr. Clemens, did you refuse to meet with the Mitchell
Commission?
Mr. Clemens. Congressman, I was not told about--to come
down and visit with Senator Mitchell. He was--again, he was--I
believe he asked the Players Association is the way that the
process worked, and the Players Association then contacted
agents.
I don't believe any players--from what I understand, maybe
Jason Giambi did go down. He had already talked to the grand
jury or what have you.
But no, sir, I was never told by my baseball agent or the
Players Association that Mr. Mitchell requested to see me.
Those letters or phone calls never came to me.
But once again, if I knew what the lies this man were
telling about, I would have been down there to see him in a
heartbeat, without a question.
And I would like to say again I got a little emotional--a
little emotional in my testimony with the staff, but I am a
public person. I am easy to find.
When the Commissioner asked me to get myself together to go
out there, and the league asked me to put USA on my chest and
represent my team, my country, I did everything I could do to
get ready. They pushed my date up to try get me ready sooner.
I told them, I could shake hands and wave flags and sell
tickets for you if you want me to do that, but if you want me
on the field it is going to take longer to get this body going.
And I did, and I went out there and I did the best I very--I
could probably do. And I was proud to have the USA on my chest.
When a player went down in the All-Star Game in Chicago, I
happened to be on my All-Star break with my youngest son at a
lake house about an hour north of my house in Houston. They
found me.
This player was hurt, he didn't want to pitch--collect his
bonus, but did not want to pitch. They asked me if I would come
pitch an inning in this game. I told them, let me talk to my
family. But they found me.
When all this happened, the former President of the United
States found me in a deer blind in south Texas and expressed
his concerns, that this was unbelievable, and to stay strong
and keep your--hold your head up high. These people found me.
All due respect to Senator Mitchell, I am on the same
subject with him and steroids and baseball. But Bud Selig, that
league, Bud Selig could have found me. If he knew that within
days what this man said was going to destroy my name, he could
have found me.
I am an easy person to find. I am an easy person to find in
the public.
Mr. Duncan. Let me just say this, and I appreciate
everything you have just said. You know what they have ended up
with is a report based primarily--at least as it applies to
you, a report based on statements by a man who unfortunately
has admitted here several times today he has lied to law
enforcement people and many, many others. And based on
information of a man who I understand pled guilty in court and
received a 5-year sentence this past Friday, it seems to me
that there may have been some people a little too anxious to
get this report out and get all the publicity attendant
thereto.
And, you know, I hate to say those things. I spent 5\1/2\
years as a batboy for the Knoxville Smokies baseball team--
clubhouse boy, ball chaser, scoreboard operator. I grew up in
Minor League Baseball. And there was a bond between the batboys
and the trainers. I hate to hear what I have heard from Mr.
McNamee today. I think it is a sad thing.
Anyway, my time is up.
Chairman Waxman. The gentleman's time has expired.
Mr. Clemens, didn't you meet with your investigators before
the Mitchell Report was out and hear what the Mitchell Report
was going to say?
Mr. Clemens. I heard a tape that was taped by Jim Murray.
And again, I don't know how many days. It was when I got back--
--
Chairman Waxman. I just want to clarify that.
So you did know before the Mitchell Report came out that it
was going to talk about you?
Mr. Clemens. I found out on, I believe--again, I don't know
the day of the week--maybe a Wednesday.
Chairman Waxman. Mr. Braley.
Mr. Braley. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I would ask unanimous
consent to submit as part of the record Report 9 of the Council
on Scientific Affairs from the American Medical Association on
hormone abuse by adolescents. And also Policy H-478.976, the
use of anabolic steroids, which is an ethical policy of the
American Medical Association.
Chairman Waxman. Without objection, we will receive it for
the record.
[The information referred to follows:]
[GRAPHIC(S) NOT AVAILABLE IN TIFF FORMAT]
Mr. Braley. Mr. McNamee, I was very pleased to hear you
admit that you were ashamed for your conduct in this whole
affair. I think that this report on hormone abuse by
adolescents includes the conclusion that survey data indicates
that middle and high school students have been using anabolic
steroids since the mid-1970's; and national surveys indicate
that the use is increasing among high school students,
particularly among females, and I find that very disturbing.
I got a text message from my 16-year-old son during this
hearing, because he is home sick and he is watching this on
ESPN, like many young people. And the example that you have
given by working with highly paid, visible, professional
athletes, and encouraged them to engage in illegal behavior for
the purpose of enhancing their performance is shameful and
something that everyone should be condemning. And I hope that
you will take the rest of your life going out and educating
young people about the dangers of steroid usage.
Mr. Clemens, I know we talked at length about this whole
issue of whether you have ever taken steroids and HGH, and I am
not going to talk to you about that. But I am going to tell you
I am concerned about your testimony of the use of B-12
injections and Lidocaine, and I am going to talk to you about
that.
You testified in your deposition that Mr. McNamee injected
you with B-12 in Toronto, in its weight room; and that he
injected you without a prescription, and you didn't know
whether he was even authorized to give those injections. Do you
remember that testimony?
Mr. Clemens. That is correct.
Mr. Braley. Have you ever been diagnosed with anemia?
Mr. Clemens. I have not.
Mr. Braley. Have you ever been diagnosed with senile
dementia or Alzheimer's?
Mr. Clemens. I have not.
Mr. Braley. Have you ever been a vegetarian?
Mr. Clemens. I am not a vegetarian.
Mr. Braley. Have you ever been a vegan?
Mr. Clemens. A what? I'm sorry.
Mr. Braley. A vegan.
Mr. Clemens. I don't know what that is. I'm sorry.
Mr. Braley. Well, there's a very simple explanation why I
asked you those questions because the medical literature has
indications for B-12 injections because most people have B-12
occurring naturally in their systems and ingest it all the time
from other substances. And the scientific literature is very
clear that it is indicated in an injection form only for
patients suffering from anemia, low red blood cell counts or
elderly patients who are experiencing senile dementia and
Alzheimer's. And the research maintains that monthly injections
of B-12 is required to maintain adequate levels in the elderly
and patients with a diagnosed deficiency. You have clearly
never been diagnosed with a deficiency. So the question for you
is, why were you taking it?
Mr. Clemens. Well, my mother in 1988 suggested I take
vitamin B-12. And Congressman, again, on the professional
level, my body's been put through the paces. I was always
assumed--and it's a good thing, it's not a bad thing. In the--
and I've--again I think it's fairly widely used. Again I take
B-12 in pill form. But yeah, I mean I look at it as, you know,
something to--it's healthy.
Mr. Braley. You also testified that Mr. McNamee gave you
chiropractic adjustments. Do you remember that?
Mr. Clemens. I do.
Mr. Braley. Are you aware that he is not a doctor of
chiropractic?
Mr. Clemens. Congressman, when I had my back adjusted in
different points of my career, I've had some chiropractors that
have given me--what I would explain--I would--put it this way,
when I would lay down on the table on--with a couple of the
chiropractors, I would hope that my lower back did adjust or
crack, if you will. If it didn't the first time, the guy--he
was either embarrassed or something. But he jumped on me like
he was trying to start a Harley-Davidson, that's how hard it
was. I explained this to Brian McNamee. And he said, I should
be doing that for you. Again, another trusted guy who had a
Ph.D. and I had no reasons not to trust him, just like other
trainers and doctors and physicians.
Mr. Braley. That's what I'm trying to get to. You also
testified he gave you a lidocaine injection in your low back
when you were having low back problems. Do you remember that?
Mr. Clemens. That's correct.
Mr. Braley. Did you ever administer a test dose of
lidocaine before he gave you the full dosage?
Mr. Clemens. The amount he gave me did give me comfort,
yes.
Mr. Braley. Did he give you--did he have you hooked up to
an EKG monitor when he gave you that dosage?
Mr. Clemens. No, he did not.
Mr. Braley. The problem I'm having, Mr. Clemens, is these
are medical procedures we are talking about, regulated
professional activities, and you are getting treatments from
someone who has no medical licensure to even administer these
injections or to perform chiropractic care. And I guess I have
a question, as a highly paid professional athlete why you would
trust your body, which puts food on your table and takes care
of your family, to somebody who has no professional training to
take care of you?
Mr. Clemens. Again he told me that he was a Ph.D. and I do
trust him. I am a trusting person. Congressman, I would not
doubt any of the trainers or doctors that would--I would trust
them not to harm me, just like you are talking about. I would
trust them not to harm my body.
Mr. Braley. Thank you.
Chairman Waxman. The gentleman's time has expired. Mr.
Issa.
Mr. Issa. Following up on that, it seems like Ph.D. must
stand for ``pile it higher and deeper.'' Isn't it true, Mr.
Clemens, that Mr. McNamee was at times paid by professional
baseball in addition to the work he did for you?
Mr. Clemens. That's correct.
Mr. Issa. So shame on professional baseball with their tens
of millions of dollars of experts for doing that. And quite
honestly for my colleague, yesterday I told the committee in
front of a hearing about my mother getting B-12 shots from our
family physician. She was pre-menopausal and simply a little
anemic she thought. And the scientist who was the foremost
expert we could find on B-12 basically told us there's not a
really good test for a small deficiency. So the truth is,
taking it, which cannot hurt you, might help you. And it's not
easily tested for.
But of course that was yesterday's hearing. Now we go to
today's. I'd like to thank the chairman and ranking member for
the past work they've done. In looking through the Mitchell
Report I find that throughout the early eighties under Kuhn and
then Peter Uberoff we had a rampant problem with cocaine and
other drugs being abused. And little or no ramification for it.
Years of work went by. And in 2002 they had a major contract
negotiation, oddly enough with the same Don Fehr who was the
union negotiator. And they got an agreement with no teeth in
it. So it was due to the chairman and ranking member's work in
2005. But I believe we can all say that baseball had begun
cleaning up with real testing and real enforcement. And for
that, I'm really thrilled.
Last, I'm very thrilled that the chairman announced this
will be the last hearing on baseball for the time being. And I
think that's appropriate. I think we've done our job. But since
we have the Mitchell Report in front of us and since a portion
has been brought into question I'd like to focus us back onto
the Mitchell Report. And I'll start with you, Mr. Clemens.
Do you believe other than the allegations of some areas
that you say are incorrect as to you, that as far as you know
the rest of the report is accurate, well done and reflects the
need to clean up baseball?
Mr. Clemens. Congressman, I have not read the entire
Mitchell Report. But along the lines that you are speaking, I
do believe baseball's going in the right direction. I believe
that the testing is--is good, it's intrusive. I wish I could
remember the--I believe it was one of the Congressmen or women
that brought something up that I do that was surprising to me
that there was a study about the players getting the Ritalin.
And again, I'm not an expert but if it's--if it's some type of
speed, I think that needs to be possibly looked into. But I do
believe that baseball's going in the right direction.
Mr. Issa. Excellent. Mr. Scheeler, you have read the report
obviously and are a participant in it. Do you believe that
other than this area that we're dealing with today that you
stand by your report and believe that it is good work?
Mr. Scheeler. We stand by our report with respect to the
entirety of it, yes.
Mr. Issa. Even though Mr. Canseco says that there are
material flaws in it and he's presented information--I mean, I
guess the question is, do you--you're saying you stand by it,
including allegations by third parties that there are--there
are flaws, including video of saying that in a sense that Mr.
Clemens wasn't at a particular place that you say he was at.
You don't see that as at least opening the door for some small
doubt on a small portion of this report?
Mr. Scheeler. I stand by the report.
Mr. Issa. OK. That's fine. And to be honest, the part I
wanted was, you think you did good work. Mr. Clemens thinks for
the most part you did good work. Mr. McNamee, I realize that
you're both a principal and a participant. Do you think this
report is good, leaving aside for a moment one area of
controversy?
Mr. McNamee. I believe the report is good.
Mr. Issa. OK. Now do you think that the lies you've told
repeatedly have called into question the one portion that we're
having this hearing on today? Just the credibility question of
you. Has that hurt the ability for the people in this committee
to believe this one small portion?
Mr. McNamee. No, it shouldn't.
Mr. Issa. OK. And so you don't believe that the numerous
lies that you've told and admitted to, that Jose Canseco's
saying that you're lying about steroid pills being given, you
don't believe that the series of e-mails in which you
repeatedly asked for even while cooperating with the
investigation, asked for an endless series of freebies for
people on behalf of Roger Clemens, things like Under Armour
where you asked for all sizes, big and small, back in 2006, in
2005 where you know you said you were suing, contemplating
suing. But of course that wasn't a real threat. Or the L.A.
Times in 2007. You don't believe that any of those are the
reason, that although we all agree that this is generally a
good report and it closes a sad history, you don't believe that
creates a situation today in which we'd like to close this
report without your testimony and without believing you because
you don't seem to be believable? You don't see that as even
remotely possible?
Chairman Waxman. The gentleman's time has expired. But
please answer the question.
Mr. McNamee. No, no, I don't.
Mr. Issa. Well, shame on you.
Chairman Waxman. Thank you, Mr. Issa. Mr. Westmoreland.
Mr. Westmoreland. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me start off
by saying that 2 years ago when this committee held hearings on
this issue I supported that decision because we have
jurisdiction over our Nation's drug policy. But I think it's
important that we be very careful over how we exercise that
jurisdiction. And I'm convinced that this hearing today is a
shift away from questions about widespread use of steroids in
baseball. And instead focuses on alleged wrongdoing by
individuals. I certainly hope that in the future we'll be real
careful about how to approach situations like this one because
if we called everybody in sports that's ever been accused of
doing steroid before this committee then we would shut this
down and hold nothing but hearings with athletes that have been
accused of using performance-enhancing drugs. That's not our
role in this process, and I certainly hope this show trial will
teach us that very valuable lesson. The name of our committee
is Oversight and Government Reform. And I hope that there are
more important things for oversight and reform of this
government than alleged bad behavior of individuals.
Mr. McNamee, in your opening statement, you indicated that
your decision to release the so-called evidence of bloody gauze
pads and syringes supposedly of Mr. Clemens was because you
believe Mr. Clemens betrayed your trust when he recorded a
phone conversation that the two of you had, I believe on
January 6, 2007. You said just this morning that what angered
you most about the recording of that conversation was that the
entire country heard about your son's private medical
condition, and yet 15 minutes after making that statement,
Ranking Member Davis asked you about that taped phone
conversation. He asked you why you repeatedly said what do you
want me to do every time that Mr. Clemens told you that he
wanted the truth. You told Congressman Davis that it was
because you knew the conversation was being taped. If you knew
the conversation was being taped, then why would you talk about
the private medical condition of your son?
Mr. McNamee. It wasn't so much that I could be sure that
Roger was taping it, but I didn't know who was listening to it.
And I didn't think he would air it on national TV.
Mr. Westmoreland. Well, furthermore, if you knew it was
being taped, wouldn't it have been the perfect opportunity to
tell Mr. Clemens that you did tell the truth, that instead of
saying repeatedly, what do you want me to do, you would have
said, Roger, I've told them the truth. I mean, isn't this a
conversation that you were having with Mr. Clemens about what
the truth really was?
Mr. McNamee. The conversation was for him to call my son.
Mr. Westmoreland. Sorry?
Mr. McNamee. I didn't need to speak to Mr. Clemens. I asked
him to call my son. The conversation, he asked me to call his
office. I called his office with the hopes that he would call
my son.
Mr. Westmoreland. But during that conversation, you did ask
him what you wanted--what did he want you to say and did he not
tell you that he wanted you to tell the truth?
Mr. McNamee. As I--I said to--in the original statement
that I did in my own way, as I speak. And if you had known me,
you would have known what I meant to the answer of that
question. It is what it is, the truth is the truth. So what I
said was the truth.
Mr. Westmoreland. What you said was the truth. But you
never told Mr. Clemens that what you said was the truth. When
he asked you to tell the truth, why didn't you just say in
plain English so everybody could have understood you that----
Mr. McNamee. If I had known he was going to air it on
national TV, I would have said, I did tell the truth. But as
far as him taping a conversation and releasing personal
information on my son, I wouldn't have said that if I knew it
was going to be aired on national TV and I would have said I
did tell the truth. But it is what it is.
Mr. Westmoreland. That depends on if you--it is what it is
means I guess. Mr. McNamee, when you first spoke to the
government about this matter, did they threaten to prosecute
you for dealing drugs or maybe practicing medicine without a
license?
Mr. McNamee. No, sir.
Mr. Westmoreland. They did not? When you first spoke with
the government about this case, did they tell you that they
already knew that Roger Clemens used steroids or human growth
hormone?
Mr. McNamee. No, sir.
Mr. Westmoreland. When you first spoke to the government
about this case, did they pressure you into saying that Roger
Clemens used steroids or human growth hormone?
Mr. McNamee. Not so ever.
Mr. Westmoreland. Mr. Clemens, you have said publicly that
baseball should have done more to give you a chance to address
these allegations. And I just heard some more of that a while
ago. And Senator Mitchell sent a letter to the players union
advising that there have been allegations made against you for
use of performance enhancing substances between 1998 and 2001.
No. 1, I think you need to explain why you didn't respond
because they didn't try to get in touch with you. But is there
something more that baseball should have done to respond to
this? And to inform the players that were mentioned in the book
that this was going to come out?
Mr. Clemens. Well, from my understanding, the Mitchell
people made a phone call back to Mr. McNamee to go down the
list of everything that he said. And again, my stance is I
believe baseball is doing the right thing. I think with our
testing and everything is going in the right directions. Again,
Mr. Mitchell, what it says in the report, I was not made aware
that he wanted to speak to me.
Mr. Westmoreland. Well, Mr. Clemens, is it fair to say that
Mr. Selig or somebody from the players union would have known
about how to get in touch with you?
Mr. Clemens. Without question. I alluded to that, Mr.
Congressman, early about how I felt about that. And once again,
I believe being one of the more visible players in the game
over the last years, that courtesy would have been extended to
me.
Chairman Waxman. The gentleman's time has expired. Mr.
Tierney.
Mr. Tierney. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Scheeler, we've
given Mr. McNamee and Mr. Clemens an opportunity to discuss
what we saw as inconsistencies. I want to talk to you for a
second. In a defamation suit that was filed by Mr. Clemens, he
criticized the investigative tactics--of your investigative
tactics. He alleged that the interview with Mr. McNamee was
conducted like a cold war interrogation. He says that a Federal
agent just read Mr. McNamee's previously obtained witness
statement and had Mr. McNamee confirm each statement. The
implication was that you didn't question Mr. McNamee to assess
his credibility. Mr. Clemens' lawyers made this claim, they
said our understanding is the only in-person interview with the
chief accused of McNamee, it is our understanding that the
prosecutors made the deal, asked the questions in front of
Senator Mitchell. They indeed asked leading questions and
simply asked McNamee to affirm what he had previously said. So
in essence he was on a short leash with those who had of course
challenged and can take away his liberty. We have no reason to
believe whatsoever--maybe we're wrong--that Senator Mitchell's
people asked questions, that they asked questions in a setting
that was really conducive for McNamee to lay out what really
happened as opposed to the prosecutors themselves asking it.
What is your response to that, Mr. Scheeler?
Mr. Scheeler. That account is absolutely incorrect. We
interviewed Brian McNamee three times. The first interview
occurred in July 2007. It was at Senator Mitchell's law office
in New York. Present were Mr. McNamee's counsel, Senator
Mitchell and members of his staff, including me, as well as
some Federal law enforcement officials. At the very outset of
the interview, Mr. McNamee was informed that he faced criminal
jeopardy only if he failed to tell the truth. Senator Mitchell
could not have been more clear in following up on that, saying
that all Senator Mitchell wanted was the truth and the complete
truth. After that introduction, Senator Mitchell asked the
lion's share of the questions. And the interview with Mr.
McNamee proceeded much as many of the other 700-plus interviews
that we conducted were. Just seeking to find the truth. I
occasionally asked a question. Federal law enforcement
officials occasionally asked a question. But for the most part,
it was Senator Mitchell doing the questioning. And he made
clear he wanted the truth and the Federal law enforcement
officials made clear that Mr. McNamee faced criminal jeopardy
if he failed to tell the truth.
There was then a second interview by phone in October 2007.
Again, these same warnings were provided to Mr. McNamee. And
again, we went over the information.
Finally, there was a third interview in November 2007. At
that time I read to him the statements in the draft report
which we had attributed to Mr. McNamee to make sure that they
were 100 percent accurate. We told him at that time, this is
what we understood he had told us before. If there was any
corrections, we wanted to correct it because we wanted the
information to be 100 percent accurate as best he could recall.
He made a couple of minor corrections immaterial to these
proceedings and then we went forth from there.
Mr. Tierney. Just so we're all clear on this, the first in-
person interview, Senator Mitchell was not just reading
questions from a transcript of something that had transpired
between the Federal investigators and Mr. McNamee. He actually
created his own questions and asked those, is that right?
Mr. Scheeler. That is absolutely correct.
Mr. Tierney. I'm just going to wrap up. I don't have any
more questions on this. Obviously this is a hearing to try and
assess the efficacy of that Major League Baseball report. And
we have all tried--certainly I have tried to come here with an
open mind, and provide everybody an opportunity to address what
seem to be apparent inconsistencies in a lot of the testimony.
We've heard questions about those inconsistencies. Some of the
troubling things that are still out there are mindful that Mr.
Knoblauch confirmed Mr. McNamee's statements, that Mr. Pettitte
confirmed them, that in contemporaneous conversations
apparently that Mr. Pettitte had with his wife, she confirms
that those conversations with Mr. Pettitte occurred. Some of
the questions about Mrs. Clemens taking the HGH and having side
effects and no followup on that. I just think there's a lot of
open questions on Mr. McNamee's credibility as well. We'll have
to go back to the record and take a look at all the transcripts
on these things to make a decision.
I do make note though, Mr. Chairman, it made an opportunity
for people not to have a hearing on this. I hope that the
hearing that now has transpired has satisfied all of the
witnesses here that they've had their opportunity to address
any of the inconsistencies or uncertainties.
I thank the chairman for conducting the hearing, Mr. Davis
for his participation and cooperation as well. And I yield
back.
Chairman Waxman. Thank you, Mr. Tierney.
Mr. Souder. Mr. Chairman, I have a parliamentary inquiry.
Chairman Waxman. Yes, Mr. Souder.
Mr. Souder. Both Mr. Burton and Westmoreland and much of
the national public when they heard the taped conversation live
on national TV heard this expression, it is what it is. And
none of us are prototypical New Yorkers. I asked a New Yorker
on the floor, and he said that is a not only Mr. McNamee
expression but a New York expression for telling the truth.
Would it be appropriate in the record to have some discussion
of that phrase because it's a very pivotal phrase that has been
nationally debated?
Chairman Waxman. We'll hold the record open if you want to
submit some documentation. And whatever it is, it is, we'll put
it in the record. Ms. Foxx.
Ms. Foxx. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I appreciate this. I
have said to the chairman myself personally that I am very
concerned with the direction this committee has gone in the
last year or so because I think we've been playing gotcha
games, and I don't agree with that. I think there are billions
of dollars being wasted every minute by the Federal Government
and what this committee ought to be doing is looking, doing
government oversight. And we're not doing that. I am not a fan
of holding these hearings on issues we have no business dealing
with. However, I think since we're here, it's important to try
to get some questions answered. But I really wish we would get
back to what our job is, which is government oversight and
accountability.
I'd like to ask you, Mr. McNamee, a couple of questions.
And then, Mr. Clemens, I'd like to ask you a couple. Mr.
McNamee, are you planning on trying to make money off of this
situation?
Mr. McNamee. No, I'm not.
Ms. Foxx. Are you writing a book or do you plan to write a
book?
Mr. McNamee. No, ma'am.
Ms. Foxx. You don't have any deals in the works with book
publishers at all?
Mr. McNamee. No, ma'am.
Ms. Foxx. OK. We'll see.
Mr. Clemens, I'm sorry and I apologize to all three of the
witnesses that we've been pulled out to go vote and I have not
been here for all of the testimony. And I apologize for that.
But I thank you all for spending your time here.
Well, let me go back. Mr. McNamee, I want to ask you one
more question. In the Mitchell Report you say that Mr. Clemens
used HGH in 2000, but that he didn't want to use it again
because he didn't like it. If that's the case, why would he
possibly want to have his wife injected with it, which is what
you've alleged?
Mr. McNamee. I just--he asked me to instruct her on how to
do it. She continued to use it on her own, and I--you're asking
the wrong person.
Ms. Foxx. OK.
Mr. Clemens. Congresswoman, if I may, my wife has been come
into question here. Can I read a statement from my--from my
wife, please?
Ms. Foxx. Certainly.
Mr. Clemens. If I may. This is from Debbie Clemens, my
wife, who is here in the room with me. I'm not sure of the
dates but I read a news article about the benefits of growth
hormone. During that same week talking about the subject openly
Brian McNamee, who was at our house in Houston training people,
approached me to tell me about the article. She said, he said
it was not illegal and used for youthfulness. The next mid-
morning he said he had--he had some and would be able to give
me a test shot. He gave me one shot. He later left the house on
his way to the airport. During that time Roger was not at home
and I didn't have the opportunity to tell him about it later
that evening when he arrived home. In telling Roger about that,
that evening, I was also having circulation problems with
itching. It happened the following night, just not as bad. I
was very comfortable in trying it but it was a harmless act on
my part. Also since McNamee had a Ph.D. he was a trusted good
trainer. Roger said let's back off this. We need to know more
about it. And she agreed. She really didn't need it. She has
been broken up over this for a long time and she's said to me
now she feels like a pawn amongst his game.
I would have never instructed Brian McNamee to give my wife
these shots. Once again, I don't know enough about growth
hormone. I would suggest that young kids, kids of all ages,
athletics, I don't know enough about it. It doesn't help you.
But I also have heard--again, different news articles where
people for quality of life have used this product. I have
learned more about growth hormone in the last month than I ever
have known. I'm offended again that I--that I was instructed
and I think he said earlier it was his instruction earlier in
the day that I instructed him to give my wife growth hormone.
Ms. Foxx. Thank you. I have four photographs here I'd like
to you look at. We don't have the exact dates on them. But this
photo was taken somewhere around 1995-1996, this one 1998. The
one over here between 2000-2002. And this one here sometime
between 2004 and 2006. Mr. Clemens, you know, I am not an
expert in any of these issues, but you appear to me to be about
the same size in all of those photos. These were taken before
the accusations that you took human growth hormones. They were
taken during the time that you are accused of taking them and
after that. Again, it doesn't appear to me that your size has
changed much in these four photos.
Perhaps you'd like to talk a little bit about your regime
of conditioning that you go through. I know that you take it
very seriously. And maybe you'd like to say something about how
hard you work at keeping yourself in shape and how that would
result in the stamina and body build that you have.
Chairman Waxman. The gentlewoman's time has expired. If you
want to answer briefly.
Mr. Clemens. Thank you, sir. Congresswoman, yes. When all
these false allegations came out about me, I told them to go
talk to the trainers and the people around me that know me the
best. My body didn't change. I didn't start throwing harder.
The fact of the matter is, I started locating better as a
pitcher. I think this has gotten a lot of mileage out of it. A
general manager in Boston, who we'll leave his name out of it
because he's got a ton of mileage out of this--said--he made
what I feel is a smart-aleck comment, remark that I was in the
twilight of my career. And in that 1996 season when I was in
the twilight of my career, I tied my own single season record
of 20 strikeouts, I led the league in strikeouts that year. I
was in the top 10 in innings pitched and ERA. And if I was in
the twilight of my career, I doubt that the Toronto Blue Jays'
ownership would have made me the highest paid pitcher in the
game of baseball the following year. That following year, 1997,
I won the Triple Crown award of baseball, which is pitch wins,
ERA, and strikeouts. And that's before I met Brian McNamee.
Once again, it bothers me greatly that he has taken his Ph.D.
and gone out and from what I've learned he's coached high
school kids or college people, he told me Wall Street guys.
Chairman Waxman. Mr. Clemens, you don't know whether this
is true or not. The question you were asked is, do you have a
physical regimen for physical exercise. Do you? You've been
very successful as a baseball player. So you keep yourself in
good shape, don't you?
Mr. Clemens. Without question. I take a lot of pride in it.
Chairman Waxman. I see that. Thank you very much. Mr.
Murphy's time now.
Mr. Murphy. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman. And thank
you to all three of you for sustaining yourselves over this
long period of time. It's clear that someone's not telling the
truth here. And I don't think I can invent or create any new
questions to try to get at that, that answer. So I want to step
back for a moment and ask a couple questions to Mr. Scheeler
and to Mr. Clemens about how we got here and really where we
move forward from here.
Mr. Scheeler, we had some discussion earlier about the
notice that was given to Mr. Clemens and people that work for
him. And there certainly seems to be some degree of confusion
about who knew, why that information didn't get to Mr. Clemens,
why conversations did not happen between Mr. Clemens and the
committee staff. Can you just address this issue as to how
notice was given and why there wasn't potentially more
aggressive effort made to try to get Mr. Clemens to come in and
address some of these before his name was included along with
the information in the report.
Mr. Scheeler. Certainly. From the very first day of the
investigation, as a matter of fact, a press conference in which
the investigation was announced, Senator Mitchell made it clear
that he would give any person about whom allegations were made
an opportunity to respond before anything was printed. As a
practical matter, we were informed by Major League Baseball
that all communications with current players, such as Mr.
Clemens, had to go through the players association. Those were
the union rules and we played by the rules. So in the summer of
2007, Senator Mitchell sent a letter to the Major League
Baseball Players Association in which he requested the
interviews of Roger Clemens and a number of others and in which
Senator Mitchell stated that we had evidence that Mr. Clemens
had used performance enhancing substances during--some time
during the period of 1998 through 2001. We received a letter
back on August 8, 2007 from the players association in which
they stated, the following players have asked us to inform you
that they respectfully decline your request for an interview at
this time. Roger Clemens and several others.
We did not stop there, however. In October 2007, Senator
Mitchell, myself, and others had a meeting with mayors--members
of the players association, because the players association had
stated that they weren't clear on Senator Mitchell's invitation
that any player who came in would be provided the evidence,
which was--which had been--the allegations which had been
stated against them, shown any checks, shown any money orders,
shown any corroborating evidence and then be given a full and
complete opportunity to respond. So we had that meeting with
them in October and then we sent another letter, Senator
Mitchell sent another letter to the players association on
October 22 in which he stated, to be clear, I have been and
remain willing to meet with any player about whom allegations
of performance enhancing substance use had been made in order
to provide those players with an opportunity to respond to
those allegations. During the course of any such interview, I
will inform the player of the evidence of his use, including
permitting him to examine and answer questions about copies of
any relevant checks, mailing receipts or other documents and
give him an opportunity to respond. Five weeks later Senator
Mitchell received another letter from the players association,
indicating that the players had been recontacted and they said
some had been in direct contact with you, with Senator
Mitchell, which was accurate, some had. On behalf of the
others, we report that they continue to respectfully decline
your request.
So I would submit that given the limitations which we had,
which is to say we were required by the collective bargaining
agreement to do our communications through the players
association, we made repeated requests to Mr. Clemens and
others and we got three declinations. I would also add we
sent--Senator Mitchell sent a letter to all players, including
Mr. Clemens, which was--which were provided, asking anyone who
wanted to come in and provide any information about steroids
that they could come in.
Mr. Murphy. I want to turn this over to Mr. Clemens not on
the specific issue of notice--not on the specific issue of
notice but this to me--and I think to a lot of baseball fans
out there seems to be another instance in which a lot of people
are doubting the strategy and tactics of the players union. And
listening to the testimony that they gave before this committee
several weeks ago in which they made a claim, Mr. Fehr made a
claim essentially that the sole reason for the existence of the
players union was to represent the employment rights of the
players, not necessarily to represent the best interests of
baseball.
I'd be interested, Mr. Clemens, just to get your sense on
your opinion of how the players association and the union has
conducted themselves in this process and whether you have
criticisms of the players association's willingness to sit down
at the table. Because it's going to be their ability to move
from these hearings to sit down at the table and solve this
that's going to be the legacy of these hearings and this issue
going forward. I'd be interested in your opinion on that issue.
Mr. Clemens. Congressman, thank you. I never received any
of those letters on that topic there. And I'd--again, I believe
the--that baseball--the players association, the committee, I
think everybody's working in the right direction to clean up
our sport of baseball and sports in general. I think it is very
important that there's--we send a message to the young kids
about that. And I believe that the players association is well
aware of that and I believe it's going in the right direction.
Mr. Murphy. But Mr. Clemens, you don't think the players
association might have had a responsibility to make sure that
you were notified that you were being offered a chance to talk
to the Mitchell Commission? It seems to me as potentially the
highest profile player that they received notice regarding,
they had a little greater obligation than to just tell people
that worked for you. I mean, if I were you I would be angry not
just at the people who worked for me but I would be pretty
angry at the players association as well.
Mr. Clemens. I understand. And from my understanding, they
asked Senator Mitchell and his people, staff, what have you,
what it was concerning. And they said they would not tell them,
just to come down. That's what I--that's what I got.
Chairman Waxman. Thank you, Mr. Murphy.
Ms. Foxx. Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Waxman. Mr. Shays.
Ms. Foxx. I have a parliamentary inquiry, too, if I could.
Mr. Scheeler, I want to get a clarification on something you
said and then ask if we can make sure that we have exactly what
you're saying. You said that you--that Senator Mitchell sent a
notice--and this is how I wrote it down. We had evidence that
Mr. Clemens had used performance enhancing drugs or something.
But the key word here is ``evidence.'' You said, we had
evidence that he had used it. You didn't say we had allegations
that he had used it. Now I don't know technically evidence
allegations but it seems to me that you all had made up your
minds before you ever talked to Mr. Clemens. Is that a
technical term, we had evidence, wouldn't it----
Chairman Waxman. That isn't a parliamentary inquiry, but
you asked your question.
Mr. Issa. It's a great question.
Mr. Scheeler. Let me--just so there's no misunderstanding,
let me just quote what the letter said. This is a July 13, 2007
letter to the general counsel of the players association. We
listed a number of players. And for Roger Clemens we stated, we
have received information that this player allegedly used
performance enhancing substances sometime between 1998 and 2001
while a member of the Toronto Blue Jays and New York Yankees.
Now there were a number of other players mentioned as well. We
have not----
Ms. Foxx. Mr. Chairman----
Chairman Waxman. I'm sorry. But we have to follow the
regular order. And each Member has 5 minutes and you've had
your 5 minutes.
Ms. Foxx. Well, Mr. Chairman, I just want to say that this
is part of the problem here.
Chairman Waxman. I'm sorry to be rude. But I think I've
been more than generous and I don't think it's fair. Other
Members aren't getting extra time to do that. We're only going
one round.
Mr. Cummings.
Mr. Cummings. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Mr. Clemens, I want
to come back because I've got to tell you that of all the
testimony and the things that I've read, and if I had to--if I
walked in here and it was even Steven between you and Mr.
McNamee, I must tell you that the person I believe most is Mr.
Pettitte. You admit yourself that he is a good guy. He's a
truthful guy. And there have been a number of things that make
his testimony and his deposition and that--and his affidavit
swing the balance over to Mr. McNamee. I've got to tell you.
And part of it comes from your own words.
Now let me go back. This is about a conversation not
regarding HGH but steroids. Mr. Pettitte told us about a
conversation that took place in Mr. Pettitte's home in 2003-
2004. Mr. Pettitte told us that Mr. McNamee said, ``he had
gotten steroids for Roger.'' Let me read to you from the
transcript of the deposition with Mr. Pettitte. Question: Did
you have any reason to think Mr. McNamee wasn't being straight
with you about that? Answer: No. I had no reason to think that.
Question: Were you surprised? Answer: Yes. Surprised me when he
said that. That was the first time I had ever heard him say
anything about steroid.
Mr. Clemens, you have stated that Mr. McNamee is lying
about the use of steroids. If he is lying now, why would he
have told Mr. Pettitte in 2003-2004 about your use of steroids?
Mr. Clemens. Congressman, I have no idea. Again, Mr.
McNamee never told me about Andy Pettitte using HGH. The
running theme that I know of is that every time something came
up--again, that conversation with Jim Murray, Brian McNamee
said I'm trying to warn you but don't tell Roger. So I have no
idea. All's I'm telling you is if Andy--Andy Pettitte thought
that I had used HGH, our relationship was such that he would
have come to me.
Mr. Cummings. OK. You told us that several times. I got
that. I understand. Let me go on to this. I've listened to you
and I've listened to you carefully. Again, I'm trying to see
where to strike a balance. I have two people who are saying
kind of opposite things. I'm looking for an independent source
to help me try to figure out which side to believe. And I've
got to tell you, one of the most interesting things--and Mr.
McNamee said it, it's been borne out in the depositions--is
that when McNamee gave testimony about Knoblauch and Pettitte,
those allegations were borne out to be true. And for some
reason, your guy, who you admire, who you think is one of the
greatest guys and honest guy and everybody says he's a
religious guy, when he--although he--when it comes to you, it's
a whole another thing. You following what I'm saying? So you
are saying Mr. McNamee lied about you but he didn't lie about
the other two. How do you explain that?
Mr. Clemens. Again, Congressman, I am--I am certain that
when Andy Pettitte--when Andy Pettitte used HGH, why didn't he
tell me that he used HGH? I never learned about any of this. I
am--Andy and I are close friends. We were playing travel mates.
If he misheard me on a subject that I was talking about, some
gentleman's using HGH for quality of life like I stated, then
he misunderstood that. I'm telling you in--again, that he
should have had no doubt in his mind when he came into the
locker room when the Mitchell Report was--the L.A. Times report
was released about having us implicated in that ordeal, he sat
down and looked at me. I still at that time did not know----
Mr. Cummings. My time is running out. I hear you, but my
time is running out.
Mr. Clemens. Again, he looked at me wringing his hands,
white as a ghost and asked me, what are you going to tell them?
I told them, I'm going out there to tell the truth. I didn't
use any of that stuff. That alone should have took Andy off of
any kind of wavering of whatever he had.
Mr. Cummings. As I said before, I have listened to you very
carefully and I--I take you at your word. And your word is that
Andy Pettitte is an honest man and his credibility pretty much
impeccable. Your lawyer says the same thing. But suddenly--and
the committee gave him time after time after time to clear up
his testimony and he consistently said the same thing under
oath. Not only that, his wife, he goes and tells his wife
everything and she says the same thing. But suddenly he
misunderstood you. All I'm saying is it's hard to believe, it's
hard to believe you, sir. I hate to say that as--you're one of
my heroes. But it's hard to believe. Thank you.
Chairman Waxman. The gentleman's time has expired. Mr.
Shays.
Mr. Shays. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Thank you and Mr.
Ranking Member for beginning these hearings in 2005. I felt the
initiation of these hearings were spectacular in the sense that
we finally got Major League Baseball to wake up and the other
sports as well. They originally refused to come in in 2005 and
they said, we don't have--you know, we have our rules and
requirements. But they're not in writing. We found out they
were in writing. Then they said it was only a draft. We found
it was in the draft. They said that the standard was tough and
we looked at it, and it was--you were either suspended or fined
and it was 10 strikes and you were out. And so major
improvements have happened since then. I think the value of the
Mitchell Report was that it said things were pervasive, but
this was not a document where the players have been, for
instance, tested. Is that correct? You had no test results of
any players that it had performance enhancement drugs. Is that
correct, Mr. Scheeler?
Mr. Scheeler. It's correct that we did not have any test
results prior to 2005. In 2005 test results became public----
Mr. Shays. Right. But my point is most of these players,
it's accusations, it's slips, and so on. I'm not suggesting
where there's smoke there isn't fire.
Mr. Scheeler. Sure.
Mr. Shays. But this is not a document that sends people to
jail. And my recollection of Mr. Mitchell's report was, he was
saying, we've got a problem, you need to clean it up and start
to go back and see about who you prosecute and so on. And his
judgment was I think you know you'd be going down in the wrong
direction. So now we have a player here, one player. There were
89 players, one player is here. And he's here because everyone
in this audience knows he is the icon in baseball. He's what
brings all these cameras, and all those people out there, in my
judgment, were lining up like you're going to a Roman circus,
seeing the gladiators fight it out. And so my view of this
hearing is, this isn't where it's at. It's not where it's at. I
mean, for you, Mr. Clemens, it's where it's at because it's
your life.
For you, Mr. McNamee, I believe some of what you say. But
you know, it depends when. I view you as a police officer who
is a drug dealer. And when I read your comment, to put it in
context, the issue of steroids and performance enhancing drugs
in baseball was starting to pick up steam in 2000. While I
liked and admired Roger Clemens, liked and admired Roger
Clemens, I don't think that I ever really trusted him. Maybe my
years as a New York City police officer had made me wary. What
a strange comment.
Mr. McNamee. If the players didn't ask--excuse me.
Mr. Shays. I read that comment and I think maybe a police
officer would have made you not want to be a drug dealer. But
instead it made you be wary of him. But I just had that sense
that if this ever blew up and things got messy--and they are
pretty messy, aren't they--Roger would be looking out for No.
1. Well, that's understandable. He's going to look out for
himself. I viewed the syringes and evidence that would prevent
me from being the only fall guy. So congratulations, you're not
the only fall guy. Congratulations.
Mr. McNamee. I understand your concerns. But as far as your
comment about a drug dealer, I only did what players asked and
it was wrong.
Mr. Shays. Mr. McNamee, you are a drug dealer. You may----
Mr. McNamee. That's your opinion.
Mr. Shays. No, it's not in my opinion. You were dealing
with drugs.
Mr. McNamee. OK.
Mr. Shays. You were dealing with illegal drugs. Tell me as
a police officer how that is not being a drug dealer.
Mr. McNamee. That's your opinion.
Mr. Shays. No, it's not my opinion. I'm asking you to tell
me. Tell me how it's legal to do illegal things and you not
call it what you were. You were dealing in drugs, weren't you?
Mr. McNamee. Dealing in them, yes.
Mr. Shays. Were they legal drugs?
Mr. McNamee. No, they weren't.
Mr. Shays. Thank you.
Chairman Waxman. Would the gentleman yield? I certainly
think you would agree that the players who asked him for drugs
were also dealing with an illegal----
Mr. Shays. I would. And reclaiming my time, that's a good
point. If you had 89 players here, I'd feel a lot better about
this hearing. But we just have one.
Mr. Issa. Would the gentleman yield?
Mr. Shays. I'd be happy to yield.
Mr. Issa. Just one more question for you, Mr. McNamee.
Isn't it true that if you were injecting people with drugs,
illegal drugs, and that made them perform better, that helped
your career as a performance enhancing trainer and wouldn't it
be true that if you couldn't have done as well without drugs,
in fact, what you were doing is putting drugs into people to
benefit your career? And please don't give me a ``I used to be
a cop'' answer, OK?
Mr. McNamee. I just do what they ask.
Mr. Issa. I do what they ask. You know, that's what every
drug pusher says, is we wouldn't be selling them if they
weren't asking for them. You know, I really when I talked about
``piled higher and deeper,'' I wasn't talking about Ph.D.'s who
get their degrees through the front door. I was talking about
people like you who obtain one through a mill for the purpose
of tricking and deceiving people.
Thank you, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Waxman. Mr. McNamee, did you deceive anybody when
you gave them a shot? Or did they know what they were doing?
Mr. McNamee. They knew what they were doing.
Mr. Clemens. Mr. Chairman, he deceived me.
Chairman Waxman. Well, that's your opinion, too. Ms.
Watson.
Ms. Watson. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. And I do hope that all
the witnesses have had a break. This has been going on a long
time. I've listened to the questions. I've listened to the
responses. And I really don't know where this hearing is going.
But I do hope that there will be something learned with the
hours that we have spent listening. And I do hope that there
are messages that will come out of this for those who look on
our athletes and our celebrities, and so on, as their heroes
and heroines. And Mr. Clemens, since you've been the subject of
the questioning for the most part, Mr. McNamee, No. 1, what did
you think about the Mitchell Report as a document that
represented some research, whether it was in-depth or
substantive if not. What did you think about what you read?
Mr. Clemens. Congresswoman, I've always agreed with the
Mitchell Report. I have disagreements, obviously strong
disagreements what this man, the claims he's made in that
report about me. I've lived my life--I want--I've lived my life
knowing that if I ever had the opportunity to chase my dreams
and to make it to the major leagues then I would be an example
for kids. Not only mine but the other children. I want them to
know that there are no shortcuts, that you have to work hard.
When I give these talks to young kids and I give--to younger
kids, to high school kids, to college kids, who the man was
present with me at the University of Kentucky, about these
college kids, about taking care of your body, your body's your
temple, understand that you're a student athlete, not an
athlete student. And that I put this man out in front to also
say that same message to them. I want the kids to know that
with hard work that you can achieve your goals, whatever it
might be. Yes, you are going to fail. You're going to fall
down, you're going to stumble. And that's the message I try to
preach to these kids, but you've got to pick yourself up and
go. And I want the kids that are out there listening this day
to understand that, that there are no shortcuts, that steroids
are bad for your body. Everything that we've heard about
steroids, they're bad for you, they break you down. I believe
it's a self-inflicted penalty. I want the children to know
that.
Ms. Watson. Mr. McNamee, what did you think about the
Mitchell Report?
Mr. McNamee. I think it was a document that needed to be
done and it's not really up to me on what people's opinion of
that is. All I know is I told the truth in that document.
Ms. Watson. As you know, all of you were sworn in. That is
what happens in this committee. And if you don't speak the
truth, and there's evidence that showed that you were not
telling the truth, you can be found guilty of perjury. And so
what would you like to say to the public? This is all on C-
SPAN. There have been at least 100 press people out there, if
not more. So this is going out across the Nation and probably
abroad as well. What would you like to say, not in your own
defense but about that report and about baseball to young
people?
Mr. McNamee. You're addressing the question to me?
Ms. Watson. Yes.
Mr. McNamee. I think the report is maybe the first chapter
in maybe a bigger document that would have to disclose more
information on how--how much this--this really was involved,
the drug use in baseball was involved. And as far as young
people, we really need to address that deeper in the roots of
the younger people's coaching staffs and the parents. We need
to educate parents what to look for. We need to educate high
school coaches, youth ball coaches, we need to educate the
college coaches. Major League players, they're adults, they're
going to make adult decisions. You have to get to the root of
the problem. All you did was--all the Mitchell Report would
do--it did was scratch the surface of a much larger problem,
but at least it started it, it's chapter one.
So it's up to you guys. We're sitting here now. Let's go
back down to the grassroots of where baseball started. If you
want to get into the high school and the colleges and youth
balls, let's educate the trainers, let's educate the fathers,
the mothers, the baby sitters, let's educate everybody about
the signs, what to look for. And what's going to be encouraging
to these people is alternative methods.
Ms. Watson. Let me just ask you this. My time is running
out. There's some pretty harsh things said just a few minutes
about you. And what would you say about your own involvement in
all of this as a trainer? What--how would you describe your
involvement?
Mr. McNamee. Well, my involvement, as I mentioned in my
opening statement, I'm not proud of it and I wish I wasn't here
but I am. So there's got to be something good that comes out of
this, and hopefully it will start happening after this meeting.
Ms. Watson. Thank you very much, Mr. Chairman.
Chairman Waxman. Thank you, Ms. Watson. That concludes our
questioning and our testimony. I want to recognize Mr. Davis
for a concluding statement.
Mr. Davis of Virginia. Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Let me
thank the witnesses. It's been a long day. I'm sure there are
other things you would have preferred to have done today. But
let me just say that the underlying report by Senator Mitchell
I think remains largely intact. There is this bone of
contention on this particular item that I think we've tried to
give some focus to today. But I think we'll have--that doesn't
in any way shape or form, I think, take away from the
underlying recommendations that the report has made. As far as
this goes, I think this has been a robust discussion, a lot of
questions at issue, and I guess history will judge that. Mr.
Waxman and I will talk about how we handle it from here. But I
want to thank both witnesses for being here. I think--I have my
own opinions on this, but I think so do probably the viewing
audience. Our goal when we started this was to send out the
message that steroid use was dangerous, it was wrong, it was
illegal, and you had a million kids taking them. Major League
Baseball's changed their policies and we're hoping they will
change them again in light of the Mitchell recommendations. And
it's good to hear the one thing you agree on is that you agree
with that underlying recommendation.
So I want to thank you both for coming here today and, Mr.
Chairman, thank you for holding the hearing.
Chairman Waxman. Thank you very much, Mr. Davis. We've
worked together on this whole issue from the very beginning in
2005 when you were chairman and now when I'm chairman, and this
is not anything that separates us as Democrats or Republicans.
We all care about this issue. Each Member and perhaps everyone
in the audience that watches this hearing will reach his or her
own conclusion. But this is what I think we've learned: Chuck
Knoblauch and Andy Pettitte confirm what Brian McNamee told
Senator Mitchell. We learned of the conversations that Andy
Pettitte believed he had with Roger Clemens about HGH. And even
though Mr. Clemens says his relationship with Mr. Pettitte was
so close that they would know and share information with each
other, evidently Mr. Pettitte didn't believe what Mr. Clemens
said in that 2005 conversation.
Mr. Clemens. Doesn't mean he was not mistaken, sir. It does
not mean that he was not mistaken, sir.
Chairman Waxman. Excuse me. But this is not your time to
argue with me. Evidently he didn't believe it in your second
conversation because he went ahead and issued a statement to
us, as did his wife.
Mr. McNamee, you've taken a lot of hits today. In my view,
some were fair and some were really unwarranted. There will be
some Members who will focus on your inconsistencies. But as Mr.
Souder pointed out, that may not be unusual in these types of
situations. I want you to know though that as Chair of this
committee I appreciate all your cooperation with our
investigation. And I want to apologize to you for some of these
comments that were made. The rules do not allow us to comment
on each other when we have time that's yielded and a Member can
say whatever he or she wants in that 5 or 10-minute period of
time. I think people who look at this whole question will not
just look at the conflict of testimony between the two of you,
but others who expressed views on this matter as well.
But let me end by saying that we started this investigation
in baseball to try to break that link of professional sports
and the use of these drugs. And we don't want to look at the
past any longer in baseball and we didn't even want this
hearing today, as I indicated in my opening. We want in the
future to look at making sure that we don't have steroids,
human growth hormone, and other dangerous drugs used by
professional sports who are role models to our kids because
we're seeing the culture of the clubhouse become the culture of
the high school gym.
That concludes our hearing today and we stand adjourned.
Thank you.
[Whereupon, at 2:40 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]