U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

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

43–333 PDF 2008

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

(II)

COMMITTEE ON OVERSIGHT AND GOVERNMENT REFORM

HENRY A. WAXMAN, California, Chairman

TOM LANTOS, California

EDOLPHUS TOWNS, New York

PAUL E. KANJORSKI, Pennsylvania

CAROLYN B. MALONEY, New York

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

DENNIS J. KUCINICH, Ohio

DANNY K. DAVIS, Illinois

JOHN F. TIERNEY, Massachusetts

WM. LACY CLAY, Missouri

DIANE E. WATSON, California

STEPHEN F. LYNCH, Massachusetts

BRIAN HIGGINS, New York

JOHN A. YARMUTH, Kentucky

BRUCE L. BRALEY, Iowa

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

BETTY MCCOLLUM, Minnesota

JIM COOPER, Tennessee

CHRIS VAN HOLLEN, Maryland

PAUL W. HODES, New Hampshire

CHRISTOPHER S. MURPHY, Connecticut

JOHN P. SARBANES, Maryland

PETER WELCH, Vermont

TOM DAVIS, Virginia

DAN BURTON, Indiana

CHRISTOPHER SHAYS, Connecticut

JOHN M. MCHUGH, New York

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

MARK E. SOUDER, Indiana

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania

CHRIS CANNON, Utah

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

MICHAEL R. TURNER, Ohio

DARRELL E. ISSA, California

KENNY MARCHANT, Texas

LYNN A. WESTMORELAND, Georgia

PATRICK T. MCHENRY, North Carolina

VIRGINIA FOXX, North Carolina

BRIAN P. BILBRAY, California

BILL SALI, Idaho

JIM JORDAN, Ohio

PHIL SCHILIRO, Chief of Staff

PHIL BARNETT, Staff Director

EARLEY GREEN, Chief Clerk

DAVID MARIN, Minority Staff Director

(III)

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

(1)

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

2

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

3

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

4

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 playVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:48 Jul 24, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00008 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6633 C:\DOCS\43333.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
5

ers 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

6

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

7

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:]

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

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 obstaVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:48 Jul 24, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00019 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 C:\DOCS\43333.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
16

cles: 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:]

17

18

19

20

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

21

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:]

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

29

30

31

32

33

34

35

36

37

38

39

40

41

42

43

44

45

46

47

48

49

50

51

52

53

54

55

56

57

58

59

60

61

62

63

64

65

66

67

68

69

70

71

72

73

74

75

76

77

78

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.

79

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.

80

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:]

81

82

83

84

85

86

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 volunVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:48 Jul 24, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00090 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 C:\DOCS\43333.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
87

teered 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

88

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.

89

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

90

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 inVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:48 Jul 24, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00094 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 C:\DOCS\43333.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
91

vestigators 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.

92

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

93

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.

94

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?

95

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

96

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

97

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

98

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?

99

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

100

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.

101

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?

102

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?

103

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.

104

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:]

105

106

107

108

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

109

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:]

110

111

112

113

114

115

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?

116

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 rememVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:48 Jul 24, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00120 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 C:\DOCS\43333.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
117

ber 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

118

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——

119

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?

120

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.

121

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?

122

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?

123

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,

124

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

125

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?

126

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.

127

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

128

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.

129

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——

130

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?

131

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

132

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

133

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.

134

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.

135

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?

136

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.

137

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

138

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

139

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 71⁄2 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

140

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 51⁄2 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:]

141

142

143

144

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 mid1970’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

145

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.

146

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

147

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

148

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.

149

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

150

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.

151

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

152

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 seaVerDate 11-MAY-2000 15:48 Jul 24, 2008 Jkt 000000 PO 00000 Frm 00156 Fmt 6633 Sfmt 6602 C:\DOCS\43333.TXT KATIE PsN: KATIE
153

son 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.

154

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

155

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

156

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.

157

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

158

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

159

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 indepth 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

160

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

161

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.

162

That concludes our hearing today and we stand adjourned.

Thank you.

[Whereupon, at 2:40 p.m., the committee was adjourned.]

Æ