Media Bias
Headline from The New York Daily News:
Roger Clemens’ attorney: Maybe Rocket was at Jose Canseco’s party
Article opening:
Roger Clemens may be backpedaling on his long-time stance that he never attended a 1998 party at Jose Canseco’s house.
In the wake of the Daily News’ report Friday that a photograph exists of Clemens posing with a young man at Canseco’s Florida home - a photo said to have been taken on June 9, 1998 - the Rocket’s attorney issued a statement that seems to suggest Clemens may have attended the party after all.
Clemens’s congressional testimony:
In his testimony before Congress, Clemens told ranking member Tom Davis (R-Va.), “So could I have gone by (Canseco’s) 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 know one thing. I wasn’t there having huddled up with somebody trying to do a drug deal. I know that for sure.”
And the “backpedaling”:
Clemens attorney Rusty Hardin issued a statement Friday that in part reverses course. “We know that baseball announcers broadcasting the games at the time said Roger was not at the party. Jose Canseco has said Roger was not at the party, as has Canseco’s former wife. Roger was playing golf at the time of the party, and has stated that he may have stopped by the Canseco house after playing golf before heading to the ballpark for the game,” read Hardin’s statement.
Hardin’s statement merely reiterates the Clemens’s testimony. I see no backpedaling or change in the story. And people accuse me of being biased? Sheesh!
J.C. Bradbury is an economist and associate professor at Kennesaw State University in metropolitan Atlanta. He is the author of The Baseball Economist and has operated Sabernomics.com since March 2004.
February 23rd, 2008 at 12:28 pm
thats because you are biased. Ever since you wrote that, “see, clemens stats haven’t improved that much!” article, you’ve started to act like you actually believe that clemens didn’t use steroids.
February 23rd, 2008 at 4:25 pm
The fact that Clemens phrased his statement “So could I have gone by Canseco’s house and dropped my wife or her brother-in-law…Sure I could have” is a sure sign that he was trying to have it both ways just in
case additional evidence were to surface (such as the photos taken of him at the party).
Was he there “huddled up with somebody trying to do a drug deal”? Maybe, but probably not at the very same time he was posing with some kids for photographs.
Were those baseball announcers who said that Clemens wasn’t there just “misremembering”?
Bottom line: the new evidence (including photos)
is more proof that Clemens WAS at the party and lied about it in a Congressional committee hearing. Unless Clemens can prove that this newly found evidence isn’t credible then how can JC possibly say that he doesn’t see any backpeddling or change in the story?
Does JC have reason to believe that the kid ran out to Clemens’s car and Roger jumped out of the car long enough for a photo to be taken of him with the kid?
What else would you call it IF that isn’t backpeddling and a changed story?
February 23rd, 2008 at 5:16 pm
Clemens hasn’t changed his story. That is the point of the post.
February 23rd, 2008 at 6:34 pm
Clemens denied that he attended the party. He said that he may have “gone by Canseco’s house and dropped by wife or her brother-in-law”.
In Hardin’s statement, Hardin clearly carefully uses words that strongly imply that his client, Clemens, WAS at the party. His statement makes no mention of going “by” the house merely for the purpose of dropping people off.
Granted, Hardin couches his statement in words phrased as carefully as possible to make it SEEM like they haven’t changed their story, but now that there is new evidence of Clemens having been at the party, they are no longer saying that Roger
merely “went by” the house…ostensibly ONLY FOR THE PURPOSE OF DROPPING PEOPLE OFF. Hardin is trying to IMPLY that Clemens never denied that he was actually INSIDE the house, though in his testimony before the Committee, Clemens clearly limited his presence at the Canseco house to merely driving up and stopping there long enough to drop off some people.
Therefore, thru the statement released by Hardin, Clemens/Hardin IS changing his story.
They HAVE to. The question is will Clemens still be able to deny that he lied about being INSIDE the house/property?
If the photographic evidence is found to be credible, then a clear case can be made that Clemens perjured himself and he could be in big trouble if he is formally charged with perjury.
February 23rd, 2008 at 7:46 pm
No.
February 23rd, 2008 at 9:37 pm
Clemens denied he was there and he was there. Flip it. Your quibbles with McNamee have been less substantial than this disparity between facts and Clemens’ testimony.
So live with it and move on, as Roger claims to have done. Because unlike Roger, you need people to think of you as smart.
It’s great that you’ve finally come completely out of the closet as a blind-ass, grasp-any-twig, Clemens-is-necessarily-innocent-of-anything-bad fanatic.
Not that you needed this post to do that, but it puts it on the table.
The entire sabrenomics meme is sunk because you are a patsy and a sentimentalist. You’ve got your tenure — all colleges keep a few crazy professors on staff — so you won’t be ruined. But come on.
The real case to be made here is that it doesn’t matter in any significant way that Clemens used, and surely doesn’t matter in any provable way. But instead you go all cover-my-eyes-and-plug-up-my-ears.
Your book sales, such as they are, will suffer (consult with me if you want details and how to improve results; free advice: stop this patent nonsense).
You are about as credible now as one of the half dozen 911 Truth squads. If you keep this up you will lose een that standing and have the credibility of a guy who sleeps under a bridge.
Want a bet? Bonds walks and Clemens pleads out. This from a person who has read every page of evidence on both to date. You, sir, probably have not. You appear to be nothing more than a lovestruck fan who unfortunately on the side is trying to sell books based on the premise that you can effectively manage facts.
This is not going to work out for you.
February 24th, 2008 at 12:17 pm
JC you are ignoring other statements by Clemens where he denied being at the party. Look at his deposition. And he testified at the hearing that he did not go to the party - until he was confronted with the statement from his nanny that he was indeed present, at which point he started backpedaling.
February 24th, 2008 at 12:38 pm
mike,
If you are not going to even bother to read the quotes from the above post, then you shouldn’t be commenting. The point is about the potential bias in the reporting, in which it is very clear that Hardin is reiterating the statement that he made at the hearing. He also states the same thing in his deposition.
February 24th, 2008 at 1:57 pm
JC, I did read the quotes above and watched the hearing and read the deposition transcipts.
You can argue that the issue is about a biased media, but the real point here is that Clemens was trying to convince the hearing members that he didn’t have an opportunity to meet with Canseco at his house in 1998, as was claimed by McNamee. We now have independant evidence that supports McNamee’s claim.
Maybe you are the one who should stop commenting on this subject. You are so angrily dismissive of any evidence against Clemens that I am starting to question your credibility.
February 24th, 2008 at 3:18 pm
For the last time. This post is not about anyone’s credibility or determining who was at the party. It is about the insinuation by the Daily News that Clemens’s lawyer’s statement is “backtracking” on his client’s congressional testimony. It is clear that the statement reiterates Clemens’s testimony. That’s it. Please, stop reading more into this and attacking arguments that I did not make.
Also, please stop suggesting that I did not read all of the depositions and testimony. Aside from a few of the doctors, I have done so. Part of the reason I have been posting on the topic is that the media is not reporting relevant testimony from these public documents.
February 24th, 2008 at 9:25 pm
I see absolutely no contradiction here. He said he could have stopped by to drop people off, and the statement said he may have done that. Where is this contradiction mike? It sounds to me like you fell into the trap the newspaper set — by calling it backpedaling, you’re seeing a contradiction that doesn’t seem to exist in what was actually said.
February 24th, 2008 at 9:34 pm
Ha ha, something tells me JC won’t be taking up Darius’ magnanimous offer of free advice on selling his book. His book sales appear to be doing just fine.
February 24th, 2008 at 9:58 pm
Nice string of ad hominems there darius. Were you drunk or something?
February 25th, 2008 at 1:19 am
For the love of god, JC, give it up. Yes, the headlines are sensational. Welcome to our media? But every claim McNamee makes seems to end up confirmed, substantiated, and checks out. Everything Clemens and his team say turns out to be a dodge.
Two weeks ago:
Hardin: “…how dramatic and clear it is that Roger obviously was not at the very party that McNamee is testifying started this whole thing. It’s the foundation of it.”
Hardin: “One of the things the committee is going to hear on Wednesday is about this party that is supposed to have started this whole thing. Roger wasn’t even at this party.”
http://abcnews.go.com/Sports/WireStory?id=4268178
February 25th, 2008 at 7:30 am
I’m confused.
Why would you expect anything but sensationalism from the Daily News?