What can one really draw from this hearing, other than that most of the committee members had already made up their minds before the hearing?
Obviously, McNamee told the truth about Pettitte and Knoblauch. It's also obvious that's he lied about many other things and that he is a generally unsavory character. So, there's no real reason to think that he lied about Clemens, but it's hard to ignore the fact that he has a history of being deceitful.
Clemens, on the other hand, appeared to be dodging a lot of questions. Specifically, he completley avoided the question about why McNamee would have told the truth in regards to Pettitte and Knoblauch but not about him. What motivation could he have possibly had to lie only about Clemens?
Pettitte should have been there. I think if he was there, the picture would have been much clearer and the hearing might have actually told us something. Pettitte obviously feels that it was understood between he and Clemens that both were using HGH, but Clemens does bring up a valid point: If Pettitte knew that Clemens was using, why is it that they only ever touched on the subject twice, and why is it they never did it together? Everyone knows that they always worked out together, and now everyone one knows that Pettitte use HGH. Why then, if Clemens told Pettitte that he was also using, did they seem to keep their use so private in regards to each other?
Again, I don't believe that Clemens is innocent, but this situation is obviously a lot more complicated than "is Clemens a liar: yes or no?".
He's been dead to me since 1997 anyway
Why?
. But I guess we'll see.
