Photo Evidence might exist that Clemens was at the Party

[zahavasdad]

The New York Daily News report that a photo from the party that Clemens denied attending (The Steroids one) exisits and from a reliable source

http://www.nydailynews.com/sports/baseball/yankees/2008/02/22/2008-02-22_new_photographic_evidence_could_prove_da.html

If true, not good for Clemens especially since he told congress he wasnt there

[Imgran]

Altogether now...


*yawwwwwwwwwn!!!!!*

It's gotta be a matter of substance before it's perjury. I have my doubts that this qualifies.

[ipitch]

Here's the photo. Looks like they decided to put on their uniforms and mess around in Canseco's backyard. Apparently they couldn't find a bat. :cap:

[Brian McKenna]

Just one more piece affirming McNamee.

[KCGHOST]

Claiming to have a photograph that can verify something (at least as far as time and date goes) and producing one can be two different matters. After all this The Daily News.

[Mattingly]

How exactly does a photo prove that Clemens was at a specific party on a specific date? I think I'll likely hear the word "Photoshop" mentioned sometime soon.

I'm missing something. Clemens said he'd never attended the party, which Canseco's affidavit supports. However, McNamee said that Clemens was there. What supposedly happened at that party which is so significant? Did Clemens allegedly make a comment regarding PED usage while at the party?

[rockin500]

Just one more piece affirming McNamee.

how so? theres a difference between saying you have one and actually proving you have one. and is it really a photo or is it a digital picture and photoshopped?

if its a verifiable picture, then yes it helps corroborate what mcnamee said, but until then, it doesnt corroborate anything.

[Imgran]

Speaking of photoshop, is it just me or do the shadows not quite work?

[bob]

Is there any proof that he was at that specific party and was doing something wrong? If not then its not really useful either way.

[Zito75]

How exactly does a photo prove that Clemens was at a specific party on a specific date? I think I'll likely hear the word "Photoshop" mentioned sometime soon.

I'm missing something. Clemens said he'd never attended the party, which Canseco's affidavit supports. However, McNamee said that Clemens was there. What supposedly happened at that party which is so significant? Did Clemens allegedly make a comment regarding PED usage while at the party?

What an odd looking photo... Did you see the size of Jose's arms?

The reason why this is such is a big deal is because it's a credibility issue- plain & simple. Rocket's lawyers are looking to catch McNamee in any lie possible, that way they can question his character and make him look like he's lied all along. Typical smear tactic, and it just might work since there are a million events that have happened along way that must either be proven or defended on circumstantial evidence.

[Mattingly]

What an odd looking photo... Did you see the size of Jose's arms?

The reason why this is such is a big deal is because it's a credibility issue- plain & simple. Rocket's lawyers are looking to catch McNamee in any lie possible, that way they can question his character and make him look like he's lied all along. Typical smear tactic, and it just might work since there are a million events that have happened along way that must either be proven or defended on circumstantial evidence.

I've seen bodybuilders that had arms like Canseco's. Not top-tier like Mr Olympia, but he's got bigger arms that are more well-defined than quite a few serious weightlifters I've seen. Why in the world is hit "batting" without a bat?

Anyway, I thought we'd see a pic of Roger Clemens at the party. I guess we're waiting for McNamee's lawyers to show this, right?

Yes, I know about the "discredit everything he says" thing. I've worked in the legal field re litigation. It can get nasty.

What I'm asking is, what was alleged that Clemens supposedly did or said at the party which is so significant that this becomes a point of contention between the two sides?

From the US Congress' website, here's the 3-page affidavit of Jose Canseco from Jan 2008 re that 1998 party at his house in Miami:

http://oversight.house.gov/documents/20080213150353.pdf

If you don't have Adobe Acrobat or your browser won't read this file, you can get this at www.adobe.com.

[MyDogSparty]

Is there any proof that he was at that specific party and was doing something wrong? If not then its not really useful either way.

It's not about what went on at the party. Clemens is attacking the validity of the Mitchell report. The report is extremely important to the Committee because it shows the drug abuse in baseball that they want cleaned up. The report claims Clemens did PEDs. Clemens claims otherwise. The report claims Clemens went to this party. Clemens claims otherwise. This is about the credibility of the Mitchell Report. Can Congress rely on this report to show the drug abuse that has gone on in baseball?

[Mattingly]

It's not about what went on at the party. Clemens is attacking the validity of the Mitchell report. The report is extremely important to the Committee because it shows the drug abuse in baseball that they want cleaned up. The report claims Clemens did PEDs. Clemens claims otherwise. The report claims Clemens went to this party. Clemens claims otherwise. This is about the credibility of the Mitchell Report. Can Congress rely on this report to show the drug abuse that has gone on in baseball?

So you're saying that Clemens and his attorneys are merely attacking a point brought up by McNamee, that he was at this Canseco-hosted party? So there's nothing which allegedly was said and/or done at this party which connects Clemens with PED usage? If so, now it finally begins to make sense.

[Old Sweater]

Next thing you'll know there a be a date marked photo showing McNamee sticking a needle in Clemens butt with giant HGH letters on the syringe.

[TonyK]

Next thing you'll know there a be a date marked photo showing McNamee sticking a needle in Clemens butt with giant HGH letters on the syringe.

When that happens Roger's defense will be it was Andy's butt, and not his.