|
|
No, it is not what you think.
In the legal profession, there is a saying when a lawyer must advise a difficult client about bad news. In that situation, the lawyer is in the same dangerous position as telling a person their "baby is ugly."
Quite frankly, this is news no one ever wants to hear and few take well.
 In the ongoing Roger Clemens saga, his lawyer, Rusty Hardin, needs to tell the Rocket that his "baby is ugly."
Given the latest revelations, the defamation claims just stink. In a defamation lawsuit, the plaintiff's (here, Clemens) reputation in the community is at issue. Clemens' reputation is beginning to collapse under the weight of negative public opinion, nagging steroids allegations and rumors of extramarital affairs.
In addition, given Clemens' recent "apology" for undisclosed mistakes, the question now is fairly raised: If Clemens would lie to his wife and family, why wouldn't he lie to the public about steroids or Brian McNamee?
Once a plaintiff admits to breaking vows, how can a jury give him the benefit of the doubt?
All things considered, Clemens cannot take another personality hit or his lawsuit "baby" will get too ugly for any future juror to look at fondly.
MORE:
Just a few days ago, the NFL announced that it reached an agreement to have a discussion with Matt Walsh about whether the Patriots had a past policy of improperly filming their opponents.
You may recall that Walsh claims he filmed the St. Louis Rams walk-through before the 2002 Super Bowl.
 The question is: Why did this deal take so long to happen?
Walsh disclosed that he may possess some videos at the time of the Super Bowl in Feb. 2008. It then took Walsh and the NFL's lawyers over two months to negotiate what should be a relatively simple agreement.
In sum, Walsh will agree to provide all the evidence he has and be truthful. In return, Walsh will not be sued by the Patriots for violating the terms of his employment contract. That's not too difficult, is it?
The unusual length of these negotiations strongly suggests that one side may be dragging their respective feet. Either Walsh may not have the goods or the Pats want him to remain silent.
After Commissioner Roger Goodell speaks with Walsh, he should provide a clear explanation of why it has taken so very long for the truth to be made public.
MORE:
Quietly, the first major development in the Roger Clemens perjury investigation has occurred. While not widely noticed, this occurrence may prove to be the most important in the Clemens criminal case. Technically, the FBI should be investigating whether Clemens may have perjured himself in front of Congress. But this is not the normal criminal investigation.
 We have now learned that IRS Agent Jeff Novitzky has entered in the investigation. This is critically important because Novitzky has shown a relentless ability to pursue a target defendant in the steroids controversy. Ask Marion Jones, Barry Bonds or the gang at Balco how hard Novitzky pursued them until criminal convictions or indictments were obtained. Apparently, Novitzky is now asking questions about Clemens alleged steroid use and is also having a sit down with Jose Canseco to discuss his famous party.
One final aspect to remember is that, in the Clemens case, Novitzky has "skin in the game." In Clemens' defamation lawsuit the Rocket made serious allegations that Novitzky pushed Brian McNamee to name Clemens as a steroid user. In short, if it wasn't for Novitzky's improper tactics (Clemens claims) then he would not have been listed in the Mitchell Report. This is an extremely personal attack on a very successful law enforcement agent. For now, its up to Novitzky to stick to "just the facts."
MORE:
As of now, Roger Clemens has become the potential target defendant of a criminal investigation.
The news for Clemens did not get any better when we learned that the letter seeking the investigation was signed by both the Democratic and Republican leader from Congress. So much for a partisan split!
The Republicans must see that Clemens did not perform well and the country seriously doubts his story.
 The criminal investigation means that Clemens must abide by new rules. He can not give any more interviews or press conferences about the case, he can talk only through his lawyers.
Clemens should make sure that any further public comments can not be linked to a criminal case. Remember anything you say can be used against you.
While Clemens may greatly resist, he must withdraw his lawsuit (at least temporarily) against Brian McNamee. If Clemens pursues his defamation suit, then he must give a sworn deposition (a copy of which will go straight to the FBI) and comply with discovery demands. He simply cannot risk any more bad information coming to light.
For Clemens, it is time to circle the wagons.
MORE:
I am going to give you the moral of the story first: If you are a professional athlete, NEVER go to a party at Jose Canseco's house.
 Today's news that Congress is close to referring Roger Clemens (and his testimony) to the FBI for an investigation is an absolute mess for the multiple Cy Young Award winner.
This agency is not George Mitchell and his "report" or the bumbling Congressmen and their poorly crafted questions. The FBI (and Justice Department) means the potential for a sitting Grand Jury targeting Clemens for criminal prosecution.
Unlike any time in this controversy, a Grand Jury can subpoena witnesses who must appear and give testimony under oath about potential crimes. The FBI can conduct a full investigation into every word Clemens uttered. Moreover, if a Grand Jury is assembled, an indictment may not be far behind.
I also stress that each and every time Clemens may have lied to Congress, he may have completed a separate crime. So not only can Clemens face perjury charges for lying about steroids, but he may have criminal exposure for each potential lie about the Canseco party, his "nanny" and anything else he "misremembered."
As a lawyer, this is the exact reason why you take every necessary step to protect your client from testifying under oath when he is out-of-control and has a poor command of the facts.
MORE:
When you testify under oath, our legal system gives you two options: you can (1) tell the truth or (2) take the Fifth and clam up. Believe it or not, lying is not a viable choice.
I have to believe that Roger Clemens' lawyers advised him of the rules, but after watching his testimony I am starting to have my doubts.
 Now as the investigation has continued, the Canseco party "non-issue" for Congress's purposes is beginning to blow up. We know that Clemens testified that he wasn't at the bash. Brian McNamee stuck to his story that Clemens was there and they discussed steroids (hey, at the Cansecos, when in Rome ...).
Now, the New York Daily News is reporting that a picture exists showing Clemens at the party. If this is true, then Clemens will be in major legal jeopardy. The Feds don't care whether Clemens was at the party or ever discussed steroids with McNamee, but the fact that he may have lied about it, under oath, will get their attention.
I would also keep in mind that Congressional investigators are already annoyed with Clemens and his counsel for meeting with his former nanny (who also told Congress he was at the party) before turning her over to the authorities for questioning. In addition, Clemens has had a lot of unfavorable things to say about the way the Feds conducted their interviews with McNamee.
All of this provides ample incentives for the Justice Department to open a perjury investigation against Clemens. From his conduct, Clemens seems like the classic "out of control" client who won't listen to his counsel and gets himself into trouble. Either way, he may need a top criminal lawyer very quickly.
MORE:
In Wednesday's mega-hearing, if you were looking for a reason to believe Roger Clemens and were willing to wade through the surprising and disgraceful partisan politics, you didn't get one.
 Clemens wants us to believe that it is truthful that Brian McNamee injected steroids and HGH to Andy Pettitte, Chuck Knoblauch, Mrs. Clemens AND injected the Rocket himself, but just not with steroids.
Moreover, Clemens wants you to believe that Pettitte was dazed and confused when he "misremembers" Clemens admitting to him that he used HGH.
I just can't buy it.
Even with Clemens and Pettitte's differing accounts, Clemens watched his story about not being at a Jose Canseco party explode when his long lost nanny told the committee he was there, just like McNamee said.
At that point, it should have been quite clear to Clemens' lawyers that their client's story wasn't holding up and that he was getting into legal trouble. Let's not forget Clemens and his attorney may have influenced his former nanny and tried to change her story.
As for McNamee, he took his rightful lumps.
As a former prosecutor, I can tell you McNamee acted exactly like you would expect a "cooperating witness" to behave. Initially, he tried not to implicate Clemens, then he only gave the government a little bit of evidence before he faced a jail sentence.
McNamee has told many lies, but yesterday he admitted that he has made major mistakes in his life.
In the end, Pettitte's "misremembering" and "mishearing" will shoot down the Rocket.
MORE:
Wednesday sure was interesting on Capitol Hill as Roger Clemens and Brian McNamee both testified before Congress, and the American public.
Everybody wanted to find out who was lying and who was telling the truth, but we didn't get that. So, I appeared on MSG, NY with Jason Horowitz to give a legal analysis of the hearing. MORE:
Yesterday, when Congress excused Andy Pettitte and Chuck Knoblauch from testifying, the Congressional hearings became much more of a potential criminal matter than a simple governmental inquiry. In short, the perjury trap is now fully set.
It is critical to note that the FBI (through Major League Baseball) had watched and listened to Clemens' lawyers verbally beat up Brian McNamee and call a cooperating federal witness a liar. This tactic certainly isn't winning the Rocket any friends at the FBI.
I strongly submit that Pettitte wasn't not excused from his testimony without specific conditions. For now, a decision was made not to subject Pettitte to additional questioning (under oath) that might weaken him as a witness in a potential perjury case (against Clemens or McNamee).
I can tell you that no witness testifies the same way twice. To protect your witness, you shield him from unnecessary testimony.
Pettitte most likely must cooperate with the government in a future prosecution in exchange for being spared from the Congressional inquiry. If the government pursues Clemens, then Pettitte could be the "hammer."
Pettitte, who may speak with "the ring of truth," could place Clemens (or McNamee) in serious legal jeopardy if he can show the Clemens has lied to Congress.
If the government can prove a perjury case against Clemens or McNamee, then Pettitte may be the "hammer witness" that tips the balance and shows who has lied.
WATCH: Fusco on what to expect from the hearings on Wednesday
MORE:
While Roger Clemens was making nice with members of Congress, Brian McNamee was adding another layer to this baseball controversy by offering that he had injected Clemens' wife with HGH and steroids in 2003.
 Clemens' attorney, Rusty Hardin, needs (hopefully once again) to act with extreme caution. The big difference here is that if McNamee is found to be a liar, he will go to jail. If Clemens is found to be a liar, he could (stress could) be prosecuted and he will lose his legacy.
Given the claims of Clemens and McNamee, one of these men is not only lying, but totally delusional.
If I was Clemens' lawyer, I would sit him down (once again) and tell him that he must be truthful, even if his baseball legacy is lost.
Clemens' lawyer's first responsibility is to protect his client from committing a federal offense, even if it costs him the Hall of Fame.
This task is one of the hardest things a lawyer has to do. We all want to believe our clients, but to be an effective counsel, you need to know the truth.
Hardin doesn't know what bomb McNamee will drop next, but his client might.
MORE:
And now it's done.
Under oath, Roger Clemens says he didn't, Brian McNamee says he did.
The sides are locked into their stories and there's no hope of going back. As an attorney, that's not a good position for one of your clients to be in. The stakes are high and the risk (as well as exposure to the potential for jail time) is very real.
 The most intriguing part of this drama is that both men will now have to publicly face Congress, under a microscope, and tell their stories. Only then, can members of Congress (and us) truly judge who is more believable and who is speaking with the ring of truth.
Wednesday, we learned that McNamee may have DNA evidence that can connect Clemens to steroids. As we learned in the first OJ Simpson trial, DNA sometimes doesn't work out.
Rest assured that if the government finds that Clemens' blood is in a needle provided by McNamee, Clemens' attorneys will find the most expensive and notable expert to claim the samples were tainted or improperly tested. That's the way it works.
The issue that I am stuck on is this: What is McNamee's incentive to lie?
McNamee's deal with the federal government hinges on him telling the truth. If he is found to have lied about Clemens, he is going to federal prison.
Given this circumstance, what is McNamee's reason to lie? Is it for revenge? If McNamee told the truth about Andy Pettitte,then why would he lie about Clemens? It just doesn't make logical or legal sense to me. Yet, on the other hand, Clemens has unleashed a spirited defense of his legacy and his denials.
For now, the bottom line is that on Feb. 13, you should be watching the testimony with "your critical eye." Make sure you listen to all the testimony before forming an opinion of who is telling the truth. This may be a very tough call, and ultimately, a prosecutor will have to decide who is truthful and who could be going to jail.
MORE:
There is no way to understate the tragedy that Florida police allege was caused by former Yankee, Jim Leyritz.
On December 28, 2007 at approximately 3:20 am in Fort Lauderdale, Leyritz's 2006 Ford Expedition illegally entered an intersection (ran a red light) and collided with a 2000 Mitsubishi Montero driven by Fredia Ann Veith. Ms. Veith, who apparently was not wearing a seat belt, was ejected and killed in the crash. She was 30 years old.
 When the police responded, Leyritz appeared to be intoxicated and had the odor of alcohol on his breath. At that point, Leyritz refused to submit to a blood test and was arrested.
It is critical to note that later that morning, pursuant to Florida law, blood was forcibly taken from Leyritz. Leyritz was charged with DUI Manslaughter and now faces the potential of 15 years in jail.
Obviously, Leyritz is in major legal trouble. In a DUI Manslaughter case, the prosecution must prove that the defendant was driving a vehicle, while intoxicated, and caused a fatal accident. We know Leyritz was involved in a fatal auto accident and the police have his blood sample.
If Leyritz's blood reveals that he was over the legal limit, he will have virtually no defense to the serious charges against him. Given this situation, Leyritz's attorney must indicate a willingness to enter into a plea agreement at the earliest possible opportunity.
Ms. Veith's life has been lost, now Leyritz's future hangs in the balance.
Just a day after I posted my thoughts on the Roger Clemens-Brian McNamee case in written form here at Game On!, I had the opportunity to analyze the situation from a legal perspective on Tuesday night's airing of MSG, NY.
MORE:
If you are interested in the Roger Clemens case, mark this day down on your calendar.
Today, Clemens started a defamation lawsuit against his former trainer Brian McNamee, revealed a secretly recorded conversation with McNamee and committed to testify under oath in front of Congress. All of this means the Rocket is blasting off the legal cliff.
 I think the most we have learned from the conversation is that McNamee is upset and heartbroken that he had to testify against his former friend and client. However, at no point did McNamee say he lied.
It is quite interesting that McNamee stated to Clemens that he was now willing to go to jail. Under these circumstances, if McNamee recants his testimony to Mitchell and the feds, he goes to jail. McNamee made the offer to give up his liberty, but promised to recant nothing.
As for Clemens' lawsuit, I think it is critical to note that he only sued McNamee. Clemens did not sue MLB or George Mitchell. In the normal defamation suit, the plaintiff will sue all those who put false information into the public arena. In this case, that would certainly include MLB and Mitchell. If Clemens wanted to destroy all those who may have "defamed" him, he would not have left out the most important actors.
If I was Clemens' attorney, I would be very concerned (and angry) about his conduct and choice of language during today's press conference. While Clemens may feel wrongly accused, this situation is not a license to be rude, use foul language and storm out of the press conference. This type of "dumb jock" mentality raises the issue of "protesting too much."
Clemens needs to compose himself before he says something he regrets. You would assume that he would be able to control his feelings and perform calmly like a starting pitcher for over two decades. There is also no excuse for his attorney's failure to control his client.
Once Clemens testifies in front of Congress and under oath (January 16), he will be locked in to his story with no chance for a "redo." Clemens must understand that due to the conduct of the players and their union on the issue of steroids, there can reasonably be no benefit of the doubt for any player and a player's prior reputation means nothing.
This situation may not be fair, but it defines the playing field Clemens will be entering before Congress.
Remember when O.J. was starting his own investigation to find his wife's "real killers?" How did it that go? I think he's still looking.
Not to be outdone, Roger Clemens, through his lawyers, is starting his own investigation of the statements that his former trainer, Brian McNamee, made to George Mitchell. At least it should be easy to show that McNamee is a bad guy - most drug dealers are not exactly up for sainthood.
Clemens' investigation has four major problems:
1) We already know the results of the Rocket's probe, he is innocent of these outrageous allegations (the problem is that this self-serving conclusion doesn't help him).
 2) It is impossible to prove that McNamee lied about steroid injections he gave to Clemens, going back to 1998, unless McNamee completely recants.
3) McNamee (unlike Barry Bonds' trainer) was not willing to go to jail to protect Clemens. McNamee's lawyer has now revealed that this was the choice his client faced, either cooperate with the Feds and Mitchell or be indicted. McNamee picked his personal liberty over Clemens' chance at the Hall of Fame. However ...
4) The largest problem is that Clemens' buddy and "training partner," Andy Pettitte has admitted to HGH use (through injections) from illegal drugs obtained from the infamous McNamee. This stunning concession gives McNamee the means (the drugs), the method (the injections)and the opportunity to cheat with Clemens.
Will Clemens' investigation really explore McNamee and Clemens' means, methods and opportunity to cheat? I would doubt it.
Clemens biggest flaw is that he did not cooperate with Mitchell during the real investigation. If all of this was false, then Roger should have run to New York to clear his name and expose McNamee as a liar and a fraud.
Apparently, without the Yankees' money as a lure, Clemens stayed home. Even if Mitchell did not believe Clemens, his cooperation would have shown his desire to clear his name no matter what the evidence was against him.
Now Clemens will pay a lot of money for an "investigation" that will not make this go away. Clemens needs to understand that because of the players' code of silence and failure to police the game when it came to HGH and steroids, there can be no benefit of the doubt for any accused player, even one with 300-plus wins.
At this sensitive moment, I can only hope Clemens can get a better investigator than O.J.
Let's understand where we are in this HGH mess. Yesterday, Andy Pettitte admitted that the evidence about his HGH use, as set forth in The Mitchell Report, was true.
 However, Pettitte's statement of apology is little more than a slap in the face to anyone who really cares about baseball. Pettitte states that he only did HGH for two days to "heal." He adds that he didn't do it to gain an "edge" and has never used steroids. Pettitte states that "perhaps" he made an error in judgment and he is "sorry." Funny, he left out how he lied to the LA Times when he was previously asked these similar questions.
This typical player apology is nothing more than flimsy and disgraceful. When Pettitte used HGH, it was (and is) a violation of federal law. Why, because HGH was and is a performance-enhancing drug that gives a player an unfair edge by building body mass and muscle. It is and was cheating. Therefore, Pettitte is and was a cheat and phony.
HGH can be legally used by doctors to treat illnesses like dwarfism and chronic wasting disease. It is illegal, however, for a doctor to prescribe HGH to help highly trained athletes recover from sports injuries. By the way, I don't think Pettitte's trainer had his MD.
Taken illegally, HGH can be used to increase a player's physical size and performance (and it lasts more than two days once you inject it). Andy Pettitte knowingly cheated and lied about it. He, illegally, changed his body and every pitch he has thrown after he got his HGH boost is tainted.
Not to be out-done, the Yankees issued a statement supportive of Pettitte and his "apology." Shame on them all.
After reviewing The Mitchell Report and hearing the comments of Commissioner Bud Selig and Union Head Don Fehr, a full scale battle could be close at hand.
Former Senator George Mitchell has certainly provided a detailed report that corroborates the wide use of performance-enhancing drugs by prominent and fringe baseball players.
 Today, the Union danced around its instructions advising players not to cooperate with Mitchell and his investigation. Gary Sheffield, a player named in the report, stated that the Union told the players that the investigation was a "witch hunt" and not to cooperate. A review of the report reveals multiple efforts by Mitchell to seek out players for explanations of the facts that might implicate them in drug use. By and large, those efforts were reject by the players.
Of great importance is how the Commissioner views the players named in the report.
If Selig intends to suspend and/or discipline a player who has not tested positive but is named in the report, the Union will declare war. Unless a player accepts the punishment (such as Jay Gibbons), the Union will fight each attempt to discipline a player to the death.
In his comments, Fehr has already warned about due process violations in the creation of the report. Thus, all disciplinary decisions will be arbitrated and the Union may claim violations of the Collective Bargaining Agreement.
Although the MLB doesn't have "clean hands" with regard to steroids, it has gained the high ground in this controversy.
When the Union balks at the possibility of discipline, Selig (and Mitchell) should make a call to Capitol Hill for more hearings. Selig should force Fehr to explain to the nation why his Union members failed to cooperate with Mitchell and why they will not accept punishment in light of a compelling report from a former United States Senator.
Make no mistake, Judge Hudson threw the book at Michael Vick today. Yes, he could have sentenced Vick to five years in jail, but Judge Hudson went about as high as he could go under the circumstances.
 As a former prosecutor, I can report that in the thousands of sentencings I have been a part of, I have only had a judge give more time than my sentencing recommendation on one occasion. Vick thought he could get as little as one year's time from Judge Hudson, instead, Vick got almost double that amount.
Apparently, the increase in Vick's sentence was due to his poor cooperation with the government on other dog fighting cases. You may recall that Vick, as part of his plea agreement, had to assist the government in other criminal cases. Reports from Richmond reveal that Vick was evasive in his answers to investigators and not helpful. Maybe, Vick still has more growing up to do.
If Judge Hudson had given him the maximum sentence, Vick would have appealed the decision. However, this sentencing midpoint from the court, will withstand any challenge from Vick's attorneys.
I previously wrote that a Vick controlled his own sentence by cooperating fully with the government. He didn't cooperate, and thus, Judge Hudson made sure justice would prevail.
In the life of a criminal case, the "arraignment" is not the most exciting part. Simply put, when a person is "arraigned," he is officially notified of the criminal charges against him and then can plea guilty or not guilty. At that point, the court may set bail if the defendant is deemed a flight risk.
In the Bonds criminal case, however, the arraignment was interesting for two different reasons.
First, Bonds can no longer ignore the suspicions of his alleged steroid use that have surrounded him for an eternity. The years of "what me worry" are over. Bonds has serious felony charges against him that will not simply go away.
 Second, and more importantly, we learned a lot about Bonds' defense team's strategy. It is now obvious that Bonds' lawyers are going to pursue a legal attack on the indictment itself.
Through a motion to dismiss the charges, Bonds' lawyers will likely argue that the questions posed, in the grand jury, to the former Giant were vague and confusing.
In light of these poorly-worded questions, Bonds' lawyers will contend, Bonds answered them honestly, and thus, could not have perjured himself.
The thing to remember is that motions to dismiss in criminal cases are often made and rarely granted. In addition, if the court detects any technical flaws in an indictment, the prosecutor can always correct a legal defect by means of obtaining a new (and amended) indictment.
Whether Bonds will fight these charges through trial remains to be seen (ask Michael Vick, if you could).
I believe that Bonds' lawyers have advised him that they (and he) will not consider any plea agreement unless and until his technical legal attack on the indictment had been decided by the court. After that point, if unsuccessful, Bonds and his legal team may have a very different and difficult choice to make about the future.
It is pretty safe to say that our judicial system can move at a glacial pace. But when it actually does move, everything can change.
 No one was expecting that today would bring a federal indictment against Barry Bonds. Yet, it happened. Now the question is how?
For years it was believed that Bonds' personal trainer, Greg Anderson, was the key to building a case against Bonds. The problem was that Anderson refused to testify against Bonds, and while Bonds was free, Anderson was serving time in jail for contempt. After Bonds was indicted, however, Anderson was suddenly released from prison.
What changed?
We now can conclude that either Anderson finally cracked and flipped on Bonds, or the government has developed new evidence that Bonds was using steroids and lied to a grand jury about it. In short, the government did not need Anderson to provide proof of Bonds' steroid use.
If the government has new proof of Bonds' steroid use, then an indictment of Anderson may be next. At this point, there are few details to comment on, but that will change very soon.
While Alex Rodriguez has captured the media market by "opting" out of his contract, the Yankees should be given a substantial amount of credit for winning the first round of negotiations with agent, Scott Boras.
A-Rod is no longer a baseball issue, he and his new contract are now a battle of agents, executives and lawyers. As someone who spends a large part of my day negotiating the settlements of lawsuits, I can tell you that the A-Rod contract negotiation is not a "normal" discussion of terms.
First, it is important to consider that the market for baseball players contracts has been rising at a rapid pace. As such, there is no established "floor" or "ceiling" (what's known as a settlement range) to negotiate in.
 Given these circumstances, it is A-Rod and Boras' goal to have the Yankees establish a "floor" in the $300 million range. Once the Yankees make such an offer, Boras would reject it and solicit higher offers from other clubs. If Boras could get an offer higher than the Yankees, he would then place the Yankees in a position to bid against themselves or lose A-Rod.
In sum, Boras wanted the Yankees to be the "low bidder" in the $300 million range and the "high bidder"' in the $350-400 million range. Wisely, however, the Yankees didn't bite. The Yankees offer was well less than what Boras wanted and they knew he would refuse it. Now, Boras may have a problem.
We know that there are only a select number of teams that could consider signing A-Rod. But, what if, the Dodgers and Angels are too cheap, and the Giants are not willing to go nuts for a single player? In addition, the Red Sox seem to be getting along just fine without A-Rod.
After last year's disaster, I believe it's safe to say the Mets need pitching, including massive bullpen help, as their top priority.
It is conceivable that the A-Rod market might be thin, so thin as to put Boras in a position that the Yankees are the only realistic bidder. If (and this is a guess) that situation were to develop, the Yankees would be in position to drive the negotiations and recover the $21 million A-Rod has already cost them by opting out.
I believe the Yankees want A-Rod back, but only on their terms.
Well, we have yet another baseball player caught up in the never-ending performance enhancing drug scandal.
Cleveland Indians pitcher, Paul Byrd, admits that he bought and used thousands of dollars worth of Human Growth Hormone (HGH). However, the pitcher's explanation is somewhat different from the usual denials that we have heard from other players caught up in this morass.
 Byrd claims that he was "prescribed" the HGH to treat a pituitary gland condition. Byrd points out that the HGH was authorized by a doctor. However, during his long-winded explanation, Byrd left out a few important details.
While Byrd is correct that a "doctor" prescribed the HGH, he forgot to mention that the same doctor had his license suspended by the State of Florida for fraud and incompetence. Not good.
Moreover, the "doctor" Byrd relies upon was actually a dentist and not exactly a gland specialist. Not good again.
And yes, we can't ignore that Byrd purchased the HGH from the same Florida company that is currently under investigation for the sale of illegal steroids and HGH.
Finally, while Byrd was being treated for this "pituitary disease," he apparently did not tell the Indians' team physicians, the Indians' General Manager or anyone at MLB.
Only time will tell whether Byrd is being truthful or not. However, there are two important facts that weigh against him. First, the circumstantial evidence concerning his "HGH dentist" and the rogue facility where Byrd purchased the drugs is not favorable. Secondly, and maybe more importantly, is that given all the half-truths told by players about steroids and HGH, you would have to suspend your common sense to give the benefit of the doubt to any explanation.
The sad reality is that baseball players have burned their rights to be "presumed innocent."
Can this really be happening? Are we fixated on O.J. Simpson once again? Can I ignore that the O.J. "If I Did It" book is going to be a bestseller? No, its true, O.J.'s making a comeback, of sorts.
The O.J. murder case was once characterized as containing a "mountain of evidence." However, this Las Vegas caper may better be described as having a "mountain of weirdness." While, the prosecutor in Las Vegas is going hard against O.J. and his band of merry men, this case is really bizarre.
 In sum, O.J. (and his co-defendants) are accused of committing armed robbery in a criminal attempt to recover items of O.J.'s sports memorabilia. According to published reports, O.J. was alerted by an individual named Thomas Riccio that two men were selling O.J.'s sports collectibles without O.J.'s knowledge. O.J., then, conspired with others to retrieve the items at gunpoint.
We know that two guns have been recovered and that a hotel security video shows O.J.'s men taking boxes from the hotel. The story then goes from strange to just plain weird. Somehow Riccio taped the crime and then sold the recording. The taped revealed many charming statements from O.J., as he burst into a hotel room, yelling "nobody move" and "you think you can steal my s***?!."
One of the two victims, Bruce Fromong, had a heart attack and was in the hospital. The other victim, Alfred Beardsley (a former convict) has been appearing on every talk show possible to say that although he was robbed at gunpoint, he doesn't think O.J. should have been arrested. He also is now unsure who the rightful owner of the O.J. memorabilia is (even though Beardsley was selling it).
All of this means that this is a very out of the ordinary armed robbery. To their credit, the Las Vegas police and prosecutors offices seem to understand that this bizarre incident still could be a serious and dangerous crime.
A lot changed for Michael Vick on Monday.
In a few short moments, in open court, Vick was transformed from star NFL quarterback to convicted felon. The Judge, Henry Hudson, told Vick that his |
