(l-r : Clemens, McNamee, Mike Wallace, shown in happier, if more physically exhausting days)
Sunday’s New York Times featured a report by Michael S. Schmidt and Katie Thomas relaying accusations former trainer Brian McNamee was paid for PED’s and his services by the non-profit Roger Clemens Foundation. While the Times reporters correctly point out such charges could lead to felony prosecution for Clemens, Hardball Times’ Craig Calcaterra submits, “this story seems like a hit job”.
Despite the big headline — “Clemens’ Foundation Comes Under Scrutiny” — the fact that McNamee could produce no documentary proof of his allegation when asked to by investigators is not mentioned until the seventh paragraph. Given that McNamee is a guy who actually wrote a 100% fraudulent editorial in the New York Times defending Clemens against drug use several years ago, I am shocked that the Times would bury this little fact as deeply as they do. The Times has first hand experience being burned by McNamee’s lack of credibility, and yet they are not at all critical of this allegation.
It’s also worth noting that the anonymous source of this story is almost certainly a federal agent or attorney (i.e. a person “briefed on the investigation” who can’t be seen as the one revealing the information). In light of the fact that Clemens can be convicted of perjury based merely on proof of drug use irrespective of the source of payment, what’s the purpose of this new information being leaked?