Return to Transcripts main page


Baseball Star Roger Clemens Testifies in Congressional Probe Into Steroid Use

Aired February 13, 2008 - 10:00   ET


RICHARD ROTH, CNN CORRESPONDENT (voice-over): Parents have to talk about the birds and the bees, but before that, it's baseball.

MICHELLE DECKER, MOTHER: Matt and I have talked about steroids and how steroids are drugs and drugs are bad. They're bad for your body and why not to do them.

MATT DECKER, BASEBALL PLAYER: Well, she told me that they're bad for you and you shouldn't take them. Even if you're really kind of stink at it.

ROTH: John Wolf was good enough to play three years in professional baseball's minor leagues, where the show, the major leagues, is one phone call away.

JOHN WOLF, PLAYED IN MINOR LEAGUES: Guys feel the urge, feel the temptation to try it. Does that make it right? Of course not. It's definitely not right. But it's certainly a problem.

ROTH: And a more immediate problem for a player who was a hero to many, now just taking the field.

Richard Roth, CNN, Mt. Kisco, New York.


COLLINS: Good morning, everybody. I'm Heidi Collins.

HARRIS: And I'm Tony Harris. Stay informed all day in the CNN NEWSROOM. Here's what's on the rundown for you. Baseball great Roger Clemens, and he is that, face to face with his accusers this hour. Who's lying about steroids in front of Congress under oath and why? In minutes.

COLLINS: Democrats gearing up for their next contest. Barack Obama comes out of the Potomac Primaries with a lead in delegates.

HARRIS: The mastermind behind the attack on U.S. Marines in Lebanon, terror leader, killed today. Wednesday, February 13th, you are in the CNN NEWSROOM.

COLLINS: Performance-enhancing drugs in baseball. A star pitcher on the Hill, Capitol Hill. Roger Clemens finally set to testify in front of everybody. It's going to can be happening just minutes from now. Here are some pictures of him arriving in the building just moments ago. We have, actually, seen a copy of Clemens' opening statement. Want to give you just a small part of that. You see here.

He says this, I am saying that Brian McNamee's statements about me are wrong. Once again, I never took steroids or human growth hormone. Clemens' denials, though, under oath could lead to a criminal investigation. McNamee is also testifying today. So both appear side by side and under oath. There he is. McNamee has said he injected Clemens with steroids and human growth hormone.

Of course, he's the former trainer, just in case you're not familiar with that name in all of this, Brian McNamee. Yes, he said he did it, according to our reporting, 16 times or so. He actually saved some of the syringes. Who knows why.

HARRIS: Yes, and who knows how that will ultimately shake out.

COLLINS: Or how about prove, I guess DNA or something.

HARRIS: That's part of it here. I'm just sort of curious, and we were talking about this with Congressman Cummings, who's on this committee, just a short time ago, just wondering what it is that is ultimately the goal of these hearings.

If you listen to some of the comments from Congressman Cummings and other members of the committee, the idea is to move forward. The idea is to bring Major League Baseball, the ownership, the commissioner, Bud Selig, and the players onto the same page, a, to clean up the game, but also to send the very strong message to young people that the idea of using performance-enhancing drugs to enhance your performance, to make you more competitive, is just the wrong idea, a bad way to go for sure.

COLLINS: Well, it's cheating, yes.

HARRIS: For sure, it's cheating. So, I'm just sort of curious as to the tone and the direction, because it feels at this point like a big old game of gotcha right now, where you have the Mitchell Report that seems to be, in the eyes of many of these committee members, to be the unassailable truth here. So, what are we setting the stage here for? Do -- is it the idea that the committee members want Roger Clemens to come forward and say, I did use performance-enhancing drugs? Well, we know he's not going to say that. So, what is the perjury trap that's been set for him this morning? And I mean, just...

COLLINS: Well, I don't know, but if there is, he's taken the bait, if that's the case, certainly. Because there have been other people who have admitted this has happened, plenty of them, in fact.

So, as we continue to watch these proceedings, give you a little bit more of the flavor of what Roger Clemens will be saying very shortly here. Again, this is going to be in front of the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. What he says is, "I appreciate the opportunity to tell this committee and the public under oath what I have been saying all along -- I have never used steroids, human growth hormone, or any other type of illegal performance-enhancing drugs. I think these types of drugs should play no role in athletics at any level."

You see Roger Clemens coming into the room now. There he is. "And I fully support Senator Mitchell's conclusions that steroids have no place in baseball."


COLLINS: Again, Roger Clemens now in the room, getting ready to be seated and begin the testimony. We'll hear some of those words that we have just provided for you. Wow, listen to all the camera flashes.

HARRIS: Yes, the shutters going like crazy. You know, and given the deposition from Andy Pettitte, his friend and teammate for a lot of years, which according to reports, has Pettitte saying that Clemens talked about using human growth hormone in, what, 1999 and 2000, you wonder what the burden of proof here is. It feels, again, like Roger Clemens has to come in and refute not only the words and the testimony of Brian McNamee, but of someone who was a close, or a longtime dear friend, Andy Pettitte, who is saying, according to reports, that he talked about it, Clemens talked about using, you know, HGH in 1999 and 2000.

So, what's the burden of proof here for Roger Clemens when it looks like, again -- I guess we're getting close here to the start, where it looks like the Mitchell Report is being taken by this committee as fact.

COLLINS: I thought we were going to get ready to hear some of that opening statement.


COLLINS: But now he is getting seated. So, obviously, it will be happening any second. But I think that some people will find this opening statement particularly interesting, because he does continue to vehemently deny any use of steroids or HGH. So, as you say, it's going to be very difficult to prove.

HARRIS: Yes. There's Brian McNamee right there about to take his seat and down in the chair he is.

COLLINS: Yes, I think just moments ago he walked him and patted him on the back, Roger Clemens.

HARRIS: Oh, did he? I missed that.

Henry Waxman, California congressman.

REP. HENRY WAXMAN (D-CA), CHAIRMAN: 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 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's appropriate that, as a longtime 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'd like to recognize Mr. Davis.

REP. THOMAS M. DAVIS III (R-VA): 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 he 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.

WAXMAN: Thank you, Mr. Davis.

And if you would all just please remember him in a moment of silence.

This is our second hearing on Senator Mitchell's report on the illegal use of steroids and other performance-enhancing drugs 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 substance 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 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 steroid era, we have investigated the evidence 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 had 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've 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, quote, "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 1 and told us that Mr. McNamee was accurate when he told Senator Mitchell that Mr. 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'm 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 wiling 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 4, 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 when 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'll 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, quote, "I have to tell you the truth. And one day I have to give an account to God and not to nobody else about that what I've done in my life, and that's why I've said and shared the stuff that I wouldn't like to share with you all," end quote.

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'd be off on some details. I think most of us can relate to that.

It's 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 four years Mr. McNamee repeatedly injected Mr. Clemens with steroids and human growth hormone.

It's 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's anything in between.

After we had completed our depositions, my instinct was to cancel this hearing and issue a written report. We've learned about -- a lot about Mr. McNamee's allegations and Mr. Clemens' 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 players 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's 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 he -- and I quote him: "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," end quote.

That's no excuse. It's 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's also relevant that Mr. Clemens is a credible and convincing person.

I'm 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' 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 your 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 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 this 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's representatives and told them about the report. Mr. McNamee also allowed Mr. Clemens's 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's testimony and Mr. Pettitte's.

During his deposition, Mr. Pettitte told the committee that, in 1999 or 2000, Mr. Clemens, quote, "told me he had taken HGH," end quote.

During this deposition, Mr. Pettitte was asked whether he had any doubt about that recollection. And he said, quote, "I mean, no, he told me that," end quote. Mr. Clemens said this conversation never took place.

Mr. Pettitte also said he had a second conversation about HGH in 2005. This conversation took place after the committee's hearings on steroids in baseball when Mr. Pettitte asked Mr. Clemens, what would he 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," end quote.

Debbie Clemens is Mr. Clemens' wife.

What we learned through our depositions of Mr. Clemens and Mr. McNamee, that Mr. Clemens did inject Mr. Clemens -- Mr. McNamee did inject Mr. Clemens' wife with HGH.

Mr. Clemens and Mr. McNamee give 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 Mister -- 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, and I'm quoting.

"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 where 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 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.

"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 the second conversation with Roger about HGH and his comment about his wife."

That's what Mr. Pettitte told us in his affidavit. And this is what his wife, Mrs. Pettitte, wrote.

Quote, "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 believed 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." End quote.

Well, we'll sort through all of this today. I suspect we'll 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've taken the depositions of Mr. Clemens, Mr. Pettitte, Mr. McNamee; we conducted transcribed interviews of Mr. Knoblauch, several team trainers and doctors, and Jim Murray, a representative of Mr. Clemens.

We've received e-mails, communications, and transcripts of tape recordings. We've 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've tried to be as fair as we can throughout this investigation, and I'm determined that this hearing will also be conducted in the fairest way possible for everyone.

I'd like to now recognize Tom Davis for his opening statement.

T. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

I just hear the bells ring. Let me ask, we may be interrupted frequently today with votes. I think there's some chaos on the floor, which isn't uncommon. I'm willing to sit through the hearing, if you are, and pair each other on motions to adjourn and dilatory motions. If that's OK with the chairman, and the members can make their decisions.

WAXMAN: Well, 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.

T. DAVIS: Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Thank you for holding this hearing today, and thank you for reminding us all why we're 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're grandstanding, that we're 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 backroom 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 of 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 the 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 dangers 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're here: We're 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'll let the American people judge who's 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're in many ways incompatible. Someone's lying in spectacular fashion about the ultimate question.

But we have not prejudged, nor should anyone tuning 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've learned leaves the Mitchell report in a less glowing light than it's 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 obstacles: 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 further examination of 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's 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's 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'll ask our witnesses about the contradictions, open threads and mysteries we've uncovered through interviews, depositions and document review. We'll find out if witnesses are sticking to their stories. We'll probably discover that some lines of inquiry are red herrings. We'll undoubtedly learn things that are new to us. And perhaps we'll 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. It may not fit the story line anticipated by many and hoped for by some.

That's OK. I think we'll 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're here to save lives, not ruin careers.

Why? Because the health of young athletes across the country is at stake, and we won't hesitate to defend their interests, even if the process isn't always pretty.

Thank you.

WAXMAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Davis.

By agreement, we will proceed, without objection, in questioning in the following way after the witnesses presented their testify -- testimony: one 15-minute round for both the majority and the 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's 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 hand.

Do you solemnly swear that the testimony you will give before this committee will be the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth?

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'd like to start with you, Mr. Clemens.

There's a button on the base of the mike. Be sure it's on and be sure it's close enough to you so that we can hear everything you have to say.


First, I'd 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 all of you.

Thank you for allowing me to tell you a little bit about myself and how I've conducted my professional career over the past 25 years. I've 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 my grandmother.

Over the course of my career, I've 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 for 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've done everyone else I've 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'm a human being. Baseball is what I do. It's not who I am. I played the game because of my love and respect for it. I've devoted my life to it and pride myself an example for kids, my own as well as others.

I've 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'm guilty of anything, it is of being too trusting of everyone, wanting to see the best in everyone, and being too nice to everyone. If I'm considered to be ignorant of that, then so be it.

I've chosen to live my life with a positive attitude, yet I'm accused of being a criminal and I'm not supposed to be angry about that?

If I keep my emotions in check, then I'm accused of not caring. When I did speak out, I was accused of protesting too much, so I'm 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'm 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've been blessed with a will and a heart that carries me on in life. I've 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 are 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'm not guilty of. How do you prove a negative? No matter what we discuss here today, I'm never going to have my name restored. But I've got to try and set the record straight.

However, by doing so, I'm 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'm 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.

WAXMAN: Thank you very much, Mr. Clemens.

Mr. McNamee?

Be sure the button is pushed on the mike and that it's close enough to you so that we hear every word.

BRIAN MCNAMEE, FORMER PERSONAL TRAINER TO ROGER CLEMENS: Thank you, Chairman Waxman, Ranking Members 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'm 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 that 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 had 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.

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 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've 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 that, if this ever blew up and things got messy, Roger would be looking out for number one. 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.

MCNAMEE: 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've 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 to a 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.

Thank you. And I'll be happy to answer all your questions.

WAXMAN: Thank you very much, Mr. McNamee.

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'd like to yield at this time five minutes to Mr. Cummings. I'd like to yield the full 15 minutes to Mr. Cummings.

REP. ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS (D-MD.): 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's what this was all about when we started -- so many children trying to emulate their sports stars. I'm going to ask you a few questions, Mr. Clemens. And I first want to make sure that you're very clear: You understand that you're under oath, is that correct?

CLEMENS: That's correct, Mr. Cummings.

CUMMINGS: And you know what that means. Is that correct?

CLEMENS: That's correct.

CUMMINGS: Very well.

First of all, Mr. Pettitte, Andy Pettitte, is one of the most respected players in the major league. And commentator after commentator has said that he is one of the most honest people in baseball.

Would you agree with that?

CLEMENS: I would agree with that, yes, sir.

CUMMINGS: Keep your voice up.

CLEMENS: I would agree with that, yes, sir.

CUMMINGS: In fact, this is what your own lawyer, Rusty Hardin, said about Mr. Pettitte in the New York Times, and I quote: "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?

CLEMENS: I would agree with that, yes.

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?

CLEMENS: It is not.

CUMMINGS: So you did not tell Mr. Pettitte that you used human growth hormone?

CLEMENS: I did not.

CUMMINGS: And -- but at the same time, you just said that he's a very honest fellow. Is that right?

CLEMENS: I believe Andy to be a very honest fellow, yes. 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?


CUMMINGS: Then he told us that he injected himself again in 2004. We did not know about the 2004 injection, but he volunteered 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's 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, and I quote. "I have to tell you all the truth. And one day, I have to give an account to God, and not to nobody else, of what I've done in my life. And that's why I've said and shared the stuff with you all that I would not like to share with you all," end of quote.

Now, Mr. Clemens, I'm reminding 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? CLEMENS: Mr. Congressman, Andy Pettitte is my friend. He will be my -- he was my friend before this. He will be my friend after this. And, again, I think Andy has misheard.

CUMMINGS: I'm sorry. I didn't hear you.

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 expressed to him about a TV show, something that I've 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's how close our relationship was.

And then, when he did use it, I'm 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 at some -- 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's 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.

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 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?

CLEMENS: Mr. Congressman, once again, I believe in my -- I'm sorry?

CUMMINGS: I just want you to just go ahead and answer that. Do you think he would do that?

CLEMENS: I think he misremembers of our conversation.

CUMMINGS: Very well.

CLEMENS: 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 coaches' 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'm going out here, I'm 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'm going to go out here and tell them the truth.

That alone should have confirmed Andy's misunderstanding that I've ever told him that I used HGH.

CUMMINGS: Very well.

Let's continue because I want to make sure that I get through some very key points.


CUMMINGS: 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?

CLEMENS: Andy would have no reason to.

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. 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 had a conversation with Roger Clemens in which Roger admitted to him using human growth hormones."

Mr. Clemens, once again, I remind you you're 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?

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 had done HGH, which I now know, if he was knowingly knowing that I had taken HGH, we would have talked about the subject. He'd have come to me to ask me about the effects of it.

CUMMINGS: Well, the fact is, Mr. Clemens, that apparently now you know he knew it and he didn't know it. Has your mind changed about his credibility?

CLEMENS: Andy's a fine gentleman. I have no reason -- again...

CUMMINGS: Very well.

CLEMENS: ... I think he misremembers.

CUMMINGS: Very well.


CLEMENS: Again, our relationship was close enough that if I knew that -- if he knew that I had tried HGH, which I hadn't, he would have come to me and talked to me and discussed the subject.

CUMMINGS: I understand.

The 1999 or 2000 conversation was 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.

And I quote, "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 three 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?

CLEMENS: I don't believe I had a conversation in 2005 with him in Kissimmee, Florida. We would have been with the Houston Astros at the time. But I don't remember that conversation whatsoever.

CUMMINGS: Are you saying that you don't remember it, or you're telling us that you didn't have it? Do you know?

CUMMINGS: And the reason why I'm asking you that is because we're dealing with some serious matters here, and I want to give you...


CUMMINGS: You wanted a fair chance to address this committee, and I'm just wondering -- are you telling us under oath that it didn't happen, or you're saying you just don't remember?

CLEMENS: I don't remember that.

And again, I'll 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 -- you know, it was just general talk...

CUMMINGS: All right.

CLEMENS: ... about HGH.

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 their 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's -- 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 you -- let me read to you, again, that affidavit, and I quote: "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?

MCNAMEE: Yes, sir.

CUMMINGS: Did it happen?

MCNAMEE: Yes, sir.

WAXMAN: Mr. Cummings, your time has expired.

CUMMINGS: Thank you very much.

WAXMAN: The chair now recognizes Mr. Davis for 15 minutes.

T. DAVIS: Thank you very much.

Good news is everybody, I think, understands the dangers of steroids and HGH, and I think we're -- the one thing both of you agree on.

Mr. McNamee, let me start with you, just because they asked all of their questions to 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 have constantly risen every time you've testified somewhere.

You've alleged Mr. Clemens' steroid use to at least five groups of people: your lawyers, federal agents, Senator Mitchell and his staff, private investigators for Mr. Clemens and then our staff during depositions.

Why has the number continued to change if we're coming clean each time?

MCNAMEE: Thank you for the question.

The beginning of the investigation with the federal government, as 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 two 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 lower end/high end as I thought about the regimen over time.

T. DAVIS: I mean, the ballpark for Knoblauch went from seven to nine times to 50 times.

MCNAMEE: 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.

T. DAVIS: OK. So you didn't keep any records or anything. This is just going back...


MCNAMEE: Every time I met each individual time, "Did it go up? Anything change? Anything go up?" And I was specifically living this every single day as opposed to I didn't think about it for years.

T. DAVIS: Did you reinform the federal government about these changes as you went forward to the federal prosecutors?

MCNAMEE: Yes. Yes, sir.

T. DAVIS: Mr. Clemens, shortly after your call -- I'm 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's nothing to talk about unless he admits he is lying.

Did you ever get a response to this e-mail?

CLEMENS: I'm sorry?

T. DAVIS: To the e-mail. Did you ever get a response to your e- mail to Mr. McNamee on Friday, January 4th, where you -- this was after your phone call.

CLEMENS: Congressman, after the phone call that was taped, I believe I sent an e-mail back to him saying that, "Unless you're going to come forward and tell the truth, we have nothing to..."


T. DAVIS: Right. Did he ever respond?

CLEMENS: He did not.

T. DAVIS: That's what I'm asking.


T. DAVIS: In the -- 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 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'm not trying to hurt anybody"? That's 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 a 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."


T. DAVIS: Why in that conversation didn't you say that?

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."

T. DAVIS: How in your jargon did you say that?

MCNAMEE: I said, "It is what it is," meaning that I did tell the truth.

T. DAVIS: 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.

MCNAMEE: I was afraid of hurting Roger Clemens.

T. DAVIS: In your testimony, Mr. McNamee, your testimony about 2001, you added an additional substance, peraboan (ph), 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?

MCNAMEE: That's accurate, sir. I just -- it wasn't until -- I don't remember actually that question being asked, if there were any other steroids being injected, by anybody else except for the congressional panel. And I thought about it. I thought about it. And it just, like increasing the numbers of injections, it just -- it came to me that peraboan (ph) was also another steroid used by Mr. Clemens.

T. DAVIS: 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 you bought Band-Aids.

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 it bled." That's your quote.

"He said something to Roger about growth hormone. I think it was Stanton starting taking growth hormone, and he said something, knowing that. And I walked right into Roger -- just turned around to Stanton and said, 'Hey, man, whatever I can do to get the edge.' And Stanton was asking him, thinking I told him he was taking steroids or growth hormone," et cetera.

Do you recall any -- let me ask this, Mr. Clemens. Do you recall any bleeding through your pants in 2001?

CLEMENS: I don't.

T. DAVIS: Do you recall Mike Stanton ever talking to you about growth hormone?

CLEMENS: I don't. And I had no knowledge that Mike Stanton was using growth hormone.

T. DAVIS: Do you recall him asking you about blood on your pants?


T. DAVIS: Did you ever say -- do you recall saying anything to Mr. Stanton about getting an edge, even as a joke? Could that have occurred?

CLEMENS: When I'm -- Congressman, when I'm on the mound, I want an edge.


I mean, so...

T. DAVIS: Let me ask you, Mr. McNamee, could you describe that a little clearer, what happened at that point?

MCNAMEE: Involving Mr. Stanton?

T. DAVIS: Yes, the incident involving him and bleeding through the pants, and how...


MCNAMEE: Excuse me.

My best recollection was that I didn't witness Mr. Stanton witness him bleeding through his 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 into 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, and I was upset that...

T. DAVIS: So you didn't witness any of this? This was all...

MCNAMEE: I witnessed the conversation, as Roger had turned around and said, "I'll do whatever it does 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.

T. DAVIS: But did Stanton use steroids?

MCNAMEE: I know he used growth hormone, yes.

T. DAVIS: Did you tell the Mitchell report that?

MCNAMEE: I believe so, yes.


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. It included a Marlins series, after the Blue Jays returned home to Toronto.

This was -- allegedly Mr. Clemens then approached you and, for the first time, brought up the subject of steroid.

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?

MCNAMEE: Yes, sir.

T. DAVIS: Now, all the evidence that the committee's obtained goes the other way.

For example, Jose Canseco completed an affidavit and 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 that he was unable to introduce the coach to Clemens.

Canseco's affidavit reads, "On Tuesday June 9th, 1998, I hosted a barbecue at my house for my teammates and other Blue Jay 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. An 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?

MCNAMEE: I don't think it's that critical in regards to Mr. Clemens' 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 (ph) shorts. She was a thin, probably mid- to late 30s 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 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...

T. DAVIS: How do you know he showed up later? Because you saw him later?

MCNAMEE: I saw him there at the house of Jose Canseco. 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 iced tea -- because Jose had a really nice house.

T. DAVIS: Mr. Clemens, your golf receipt that day is time stamped 8:58. Do you recall what time you teed off?

CLEMENS: Well, the time I would get out of the pro shop and get ready to tee off it would you been a good 30, 40 minutes probably. The time was 8 -- again, what? I'm sorry.

T. DAVIS: 8:58. It would have been after 9 that you would have teed off.

How long does it generally take you to play a round?

CLEMENS: It would be four -- every bit of four hours, four and a half, depending on the traffic.

T. DAVIS: How far was the golf course from Mr. Canseco's house? Any idea?

CLEMENS: I don't -- I wouldn't think it was 20 minutes at best.

T. DAVIS: Did you eat lunch after your round of golf that day? Do you remember?

CLEMENS: I don't remember.

T. DAVIS: You pitched seven innings the night before. What would have been your pattern and practice on the day after pitching? What time you ordinarily show up at the ballpark the day after you started?

CLEMENS: The day after is -- 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 the -- you know, obviously, getting outdoors anytime I can, especially when we're on the road. I do not like hanging in the hotel room.

T. DAVIS: The night before the barbecue, the Blue Jays lost four to three in 17 innings. Does that ring a bell?

CLEMENS: It does.


CLEMENS: And you said earlier I threw that game, so obviously there was no decision involved, I would imagine.

T. DAVIS: Were your wife and children in Miami for this series?


T. DAVIS: OK. Do you think you might have gone on to the barbecue after golf?

CLEMENS: I don't remember his party.

T. DAVIS: OK. Is it possible your wife and some of your kids could have gone without you?

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...

T. DAVIS: OK. But you don't remember being there at all.

CLEMENS: I don't.

T. DAVIS: The reason I ask that is because this was brought up, and this was the beginning, I think, as I look at the testimony, of you're starting to ask about these questions, right at this time or right thereafter.

We've also spoken to a number of medical professionals inside and outside of baseball -- this is about the vitamin B12 shots. And I know a lot of players seem to take it. We had a hearing on this yesterday.

Most of them say B12 is not an beneficial unless you have a dire medical need for it, like if you had anemia. What's your experience been through injecting B12?

CLEMENS: I was encouraged to take B12 all the way back since 1988. My mother encouraged me to take B12. I think it's beneficial. I take vitamins every other day. I take B12 in a tablet form, I take vitamin E, I take a multivitamin, again, just about 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.

T. DAVIS: Did you inject yourself with B12 or would Mr. McNamee ever inject your, or do you remember?

CLEMENS: I've never injected myself. Mr. McNamee has given me three shots of -- when we were in Toronto, three shots of B12, two in New York.

T. DAVIS: Mr. McNamee, do you concur with that?

MCNAMEE: The first time I heard of Roger taking B12 was on "60 Minutes." I've never given Roger Clemens B12, and I never heard of B12, really, before.

WAXMAN: Thank you, Mr. Davis.

Chair recognizes Mr. Tierney for 10 minutes.

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 have 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?

MCNAMEE: No, sir.

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. 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 claim you used to inject Mr. Clemens in 2001.

Mr. McNamee, were you truthful to federal investigators last year?

MCNAMEE: No, sir.

TIERNEY: Why did you mislead the investigators?

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 with the federal investigators and Senator Mitchell. But everything I told them about their use was true.

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 that we have to keep that in mind as we move forward.

But, Mr. Clemens, let me turn to you...


TIERNEY: ... if I might.

I know you've been visiting members of Congress recently, and members seem to have been impressed by your apparent credibility in person. But we know that some of the things you told 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.


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 too many questions about it?"

And 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 it was an article or show about some elderly man that had a curve in his 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?

CLEMENS: Yes, they were.

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, there 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 is 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 found out is she was telling me that something was going on 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 some luggage of Mr. McNamee that he had stored in your house looking for other evidence of drugs.

Do I have that right so far?

CLEMENS: That is correct, sir. Yes.

TIERNEY: You then told us about two specific conversations you had with Mr. McNamee about your wife and HGH. The first happened that night when you called him on the telephone. Let me read that part of the transcript to you. That's on page 174. You said, "We had a pretty heated discussion about it, but 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 about this. He says it's legal. There's no law against it.'"

Now, Mr. Clemens, you told the committee that you had 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 show 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?

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 told me that Andy was a part of this. I'm certain, again, I would have known about all of this.


TIERNEY: Well, help us (inaudible) Mr. Clemens, if I might.

Later in your deposition is when you talked about your wife. The early part of your deposition, three times, in 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 (sic)?"

You answered, "Never asked him."

The third time, said, "Do you recall a specific incidence when 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?

CLEMENS: Mr. Congressman, again, I never had any detailed discussions with Brian McNamee about HGH.

TIERNEY: Well, didn't you call him on the phone after your wife had told you that she had taken HGH?

CLEMENS: That very much is detailed conversation.

TIERNEY: It certainly is.

CLEMENS: It sure is.

And if I may...

TIERNEY: Well, I just want to know if you can reconcile that. How do you say three times that you never did speak to him about it and then, later on, acknowledge that in fact you had? A pretty heated conversation, you said.

CLEMENS: Very heated conversation about it. And, again, prior to that we had not had discussions about HGH.

TIERNEY: But, Mr. Clemens, the questions in the early -- they hadn't been prior to your wife's, the questions were had you ever. And you can see where that leads us to some credibility issues here. You three times said "never," and then only when somebody really presses you on a specific incident you have a recollection of two memorable conversations.

CLEMENS: Again, prior to, Mr. Congressman, we had not detailed discussion about HGH.

TIERNEY: Prior to what?

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.

TIERNEY: That's all helpful, Mr. Clemens, but these questions I'm reading to you right from the transcript. What you're referring to now happened later.

CLEMENS: That's correct.

TIERNEY: 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 have some question, because -- I'll 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."

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?

CLEMENS: I talked to Deborah about calling our doctor, and she said that 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 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 it was about. I was comfortable with my wife's reaction.

TIERNEY: She told you she had circulation problems.

CLEMENS: She felt that she was having circulation problems, yes.

TIERNEY: But you never called a doctor. Certainly it seems most reasonable people, I think, that if that were the case, your wife told you that 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.

CLEMENS: Without -- we did not, and I did talk to Deb about that, if we should call our doctor.

TIERNEY: What steps did you take to learn about the effects of HGH after you learned that your wife had taken the injection?

CLEMENS: I didn't take a lot of steps, Mr. Congressman. To be -- in the last two months since this has been going on I've learned more about HGH than I ever thought. I still don't know enough about it. I don't know -- you know, I've heard that -- you know, I've seen things on T.V. that these guys talk about how it helps them, actors and different things of that nature. I don't know anything about it.

TIERNEY: Well, I guess that's where the question comes in.

If I might, Mr. Chairman? Mr. Clemens, you want us to believe that Mr. McNamee injected your wife without your knowledge, that she started suffering serious side effect 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 never even looked up to see what the effects might be. Is that right? CLEMENS: Mr. Congressman, I don't believe I ever said serious -- serious effects. She said she was having itching, and she had some type of circulation problem that she was feeling.

WAXMAN: Gentleman's time has expired.

Chair yields to Mr. Davis 10 minutes to control.

REP. DAN BURTON, (R-IN): Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

The tapes of the Toronto Blue Jays-Florida Marlin 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. How do you square that with what was on television, on the radio and what the sworn affidavit of Canseco's was on that? I mean, there's some inconsistency there.

MCNAMEE: My recollection is not inconsistent. What they said, they said. I recall Roger Clemens being at that party.

BURTON: Why did you keep those gauze pads?

MCNAMEE: I'm sorry?

BURTON: Why did you keep the needles and the gauze pads?

MCNAMEE: Like I had mentioned in my opening statement...

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?

MCNAMEE: 2001, 2002, sir.

BURTON: OK, 2001, 2002. And you worked for Clemens up until what? 2006?

MCNAMEE: 2007.

BURTON: 2007, so you stayed with him five years after you kept these materials. Right?

MCNAMEE: Yes, sir.

BURTON: OK. I want to read what you said: "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 excop, 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 five years if he was your friend and you thought that he was to be distrusted?

MCNAMEE: He was my employer.

BURTON: Do you do this to all your employers? I mean, is this the kind of employee you are? You keep gauze pads and needles and everything for five years and go on and keep working for them?

MCNAMEE: Well, it wasn't something that I thought about. It was just there. And it kept coming up. It was in the basement. And 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 the fact that 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 I've got hurt by it, I might as well hold on to these things. It wasn't something I dwelled on.

BURTON: How many other people did you treat that you kept their gauze pads and needles?

MCNAMEE: Possibly one other.

BURTON: And who was that?

MCNAMEE: Chuck Knoblauch.

BURTON: Do you still have them?

MCNAMEE: I believe it's in the possession of the federal government.

BURTON: Why did you not give those to the Mitchell report committee immediately when you were contacted by them?

MCNAMEE: Because I felt horrible about being in the position that I was in.

BURTON: Now, let me get -- I want to make sure I've got this straight. Your friend Roger Clemens, you allegedly gave him these shots. You kept the pads and the needles for five years and went on and kept working for him because he was your employer.

And then you say you said you felt bad -- you felt bad about proposing and giving these to the Mitchell committee when you first started talking to them?

MCNAMEE: Yes, sir.

BURTON: Gee whiz! Are you kidding me?

MCNAMEE: No, sir. BURTON: My goodness.

And as I understand it from my colleague here, you told the New York Times that you had no direct proof at the beginning of this investigation. Right?

MCNAMEE: I'm sorry?

BURTON: You told the New York Times that you had no direct evidence like the gauze and needles at the beginning of all this.

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 (inaudible).

BURTON: On January 5th, 2008.

What's that?

So you didn't tell the truth then initially to them?

MCNAMEE: No, sir.

BURTON: You lied.

MCNAMEE: Yes, sir.

BURTON: There are several things here that really bother me. First of all, you lied about him being at Canseco's. Canseco said he wasn't there in a sworn affidavit. On the radio and 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?

MCNAMEE: No, sir. And I'm not lying about Jose Canseco's house.

BURTON: So you just -- you just lie when it's convenient for you.

MCNAMEE: No, sir.

BURTON: Yes. What's that?

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 to federal authorities after being threatened with criminal prosecution if he did not implicate you. That's an allegation, of course.

And why do you consider McNamee trustworthy on this point? And how do you have this kind information that he might have been coerced into his testimony?

CLEMENS: I just -- what I have heard on different occasions about what he said and what he hasn't said.

There was a tape that I heard. The timeline would have been four or five 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 about using HGH. I said, absolutely, no way.

And, of course, now that I've learned that Andy has done it, I was shocked.

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 T.J. Quinn (inaudible), New York Daily News, December 10, 2006. Did you say that?

MCNAMEE: Yes, I did.

BURTON: Is that a lie?

MCNAMEE: Yes, it is.

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?

MCNAMEE: Yes, sir.

BURTON: Is that a lie?

MCNAMEE: Yes, sir.

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" -- a transcript of an interview by Jim Yarlborough (ph) and Billy Beck (ph). Is that correct?

MCNAMEE: I'm sorry. Can you repeat that, please?

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 Yarlborough (ph) and Billy Beck -- Belk (ph) and Brian McNamee -- December 12, 2007. Is that correct?

MCNAMEE: I'm not sure. What are you referring to? What am I saying I don't know anything about -- sir?

BURTON: Let me read to you -- well, let's pass on that because...


BURTON: Oh, this was a quote you 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?


BURTON: That's a lie, right?

MCNAMEE: Partial.

BURTON: Partial?

MCNAMEE: A partial lie.


"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 (ph). "Clemens' trainer denies link to (inaudible)."

Is that a lie?

MCNAMEE: Yes, sir.

BURTON: OK. 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, where you've told this committee and the people of this country that Roger Clemens did things that -- 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 -- if he did, he ought to be held accountable -- but Roger Clemens is a baseball -- he's a titan in baseball. And you, 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 the thing I want to say is that we have this pension 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, as 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.

WAXMAN: Gentleman's time has expired.

Chair recognizes gentleman from Massachusetts for 10 minutes.

REP. STEPHEN F. LYNCH, (D-MA): 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 12th, 2007.

Is that correct?

CLEMENS: That's correct.

LYNCH: OK. During the interview, Mr. McNamee, you told investigators that you had injected Mr. Clemens with Winstrol, 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, quote, "It was probably my fault, because Winstrol, 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."

LYNCH: Now, being under oath today, is that basically correct, as far as your testimony goes, regarding that incident?

MCNAMEE: Yes, sir.

LYNCH: OK. In pursuit of further information on this, we in the committee asked for medical records during this time period. 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," quote/unquote, on the right buttock of Mr. Clemens.

On another record, it also noticed a similar mass on the left buttock.

And the July 28 record said also that Roger received a B12 injection approximately seven 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 B12 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 B12 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 glut (ph), 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, and I quote, the injury was, quote, "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 of the Armed Forces Institute of Pathology, Dr. Mark Murphy. He is one of the lead -- 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..."

WAXMAN: Without objection, that will be...

LYNCH: "The MRI report we received says that the injury," and this is a quote from Dr. Murphy that says, "that 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 of trauma, so he concluded the injury was not a strained muscle.

Next, he gave his opinion about whether the injury was more likely caused by B12, 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 in the imaging descriptions are more compatible with the Winstrol injection, as the inflammatory component is prominent by report."

UNKNOWN: 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?

WAXMAN: The rules of the committee provide the counsel may advise their clients, but not speak directly to the hearing itself.

UNKNOWN: Well, Mr. Chairman...

LYNCH: Reclaiming my time, Mr. Chairman, if I may.

UNKNOWN: Mr. Chairman, I would request that I be permitted, given that...

WAXMAN: I'm sorry, the rules don't provide it. Please talk to your client and have him answer any questions that are outstanding.

LYNCH: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Reclaiming my time, if I may. During our investigation, we also asked Dr. Taylor about whether he thought the B12 shot 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 a thousand B12 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 by Mr. Clemens from a B12 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 B12 shot cause that kind of reaction.

Based on the MRI results, it also appears definitive that the mass was not caused by a strained glut or other muscle strain.

LYNCH: It also appears definitive that the mass was not caused by a strained glut 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 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 testimony?

As someone who's simply looking for the truth and looking it to be supported by the physical evidence, 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 me the import of this evidence. How can this all be wrong? Help me here...

T. DAVIS: Mr. Chairman, could I just asked a second. He's inserted into the record report by a Dr. Murphy. We ask unanimous consent to insert into the record a report by Dr. Bert W. O'Malley, professor and chair of molecular and cellular biology, looking at the same thing.

WAXMAN: Mr. Davis, we will have...

T. DAVIS: It comes to a much different conclusion. I'd ask unanimous consent.

WAXMAN: We will take whatever you walk into the record, but this is Mr. Lynch's time.

CLEMENS: Congressman Lynch, if I may, from what I understand, we provided everything that we could possibly provide to the staff. We fully cooperated with everything that was asked of us.

I know, obviously, by looking at the medical records I got a B12 shot, and it obviously gave me some discomfort.

CLEMENS: 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, any time I need an MRI, I've had many MRIs on my body, so that's -- again, I don't have any idea -- I don't who the gentleman is that you're expressing is today.

But I -- all I can tell 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 that I could possibly think of to look wherever they need to look about this subject.

So, I've 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.

T. DAVIS: 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...

WAXMAN: Well, Mr....

T. DAVIS: ... to the simple fact that...

WAXMAN: You'll have to conclude. Your time has expired.

T. DAVIS: OK. 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 people who are very familiar with this; there's probably 60 years of experience here in giving B12 shots.

WAXMAN: Gentleman's time has expired.

Mr. Davis?

REP. DANNY K. DAVIS, (D-IL): Thank you. I'd ask unanimous consent that a...

TONY HARRIS, CNN ANCHOR: OK. You've been watching the -- let's call it what it is, the Roger Clemens hearing there, congressional hearing, Capitol Hill today. We will get back and analyze it just a bit in just a couple moments.

But right now we want to get to Fredricka Whitfield in the CNN newsroom. And Fred is following the developments in the story, oh, that takes us back to the 2nd, February 2nd.

Fred, Tinley Park, Illinois. And I'll let you pick up the story from there.

FREDRICKA WHITFIELD, CNN ANCHOR: Right. Earlier this month, folks might remember that someone walked into a Lane Bryant store just outside of Chicago in the Tinley Park shopping mall there and opened fire. Five women killed in that store. A search has been under way ever since trying to find the suspect.

Well, now the "Chicago Tribune" newspaper is reporting that a suspect is in custody. The Tribune reports that the U.S. Marshals Fugitive Task Force actually picked up a young man between the age of 25 and 35 fitting the description that had been posted ever since this February 2nd shooting.

They picked him up on a parole violation. He was picked up in a home, did not resist arrest. No weapon was found. However, here's where the story gets a little bit more confusing.

The Tinley Park police are now saying that that report is not completely true, that there is no one in custody. So again, you've got a few different jurisdictions in play here, as the U.S. Marshals Office, which is saying that a suspect is in custody, but the Tinley Park police say no suspect is in custody.

So, it's unclear whether it's the issue of the two jurisdictions have yet to talk, or if there is, indeed, a suspect, they're simply in the custody of the federal agents until they hand over to the local authorities. All that still being worked out. And, of course, when we get the information, we'll be able to bring that to you -- Tony.

HARRIS: OK, Fred. Appreciate it. Thank you.

The weight is over. Pitching great Roger Clemens testifying right now on drug use in baseball and allegations he used steroids.

CNN's Larry Smith on Capitol Hill for us this morning.

And Larry, what have you borne witness to here this morning? Pretty amazing stuff.

LARRY SMITH, CNN SPORTS CORRESPONDENT: It's pretty compelling stuff, good compelling TV. Two hours in, and really nowhere close to this thing wrapping up.

That man positioned right in the middle between Roger Clemens and Brian McNamee, in case you're wondering, is Charlie Sheler (ph). He is an investigator for the former senator, George Mitchell, who put together this report over 17 months, the report on steroids legal -- steroids and performance enhancers in Major League Baseball.

Both of these men, Roger Clemens, a seven-time Cy Young Award winner, and his former trainer, Brian McNamee, sticking with their initial comments and their initial accusations, initial things.


SMITH: Here's what they had to say.


ROGER CLEMENS, BASEBALL PLAYER: I'm 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.



BRIAN MCNAMEE, CLEMENS' FORMER TRAINER: 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.

(END VIDEO CLIP) SMITH: Again, both men sticking with the statements they made before. Credibility -- and attacking each credibility has been the real topic here.

And Tony, by the way, one other thing. There are as many photographers here for this as the Valerie Plame CIA leak case.

HARRIS: Isn't that the truth?

SMITH: It is something to watch.

HARRIS: OK, Larry. Appreciate it. Thank you.


HEIDI COLLINS, CNN ANCHOR: Want to take a moment now to talk with Jon Wertheim. He's a senior investigative reporter for "Sports Illustrated." He's covered a number of stories dealing with steroids and HGH. He's been listening to every word of these proceedings.

And Jon, I don't know about you, but I don't know where to begin. I mean, all of these -- there were taped conversations that apparently people didn't know about. There was admissions that were made that others didn't know about. There was syringes that were saved.

You tell me what you heard and what really stood out to you.

JON WERTHEIM, "SPORTS ILLUSTRATED": I keep thinking this is like "Bonfire of the Vanities"...


WERTHEIM: ... this culture clash, sports and politics, and even the accents of -- the contrasting accents of Texas versus New York.


WERTHEIM: It's really got everything. But so far, we haven't heard a whole lot.

We haven't gotten to Andy Pettitte's testimony too much. We've had a couple of red herrings. A little jarring to see Congress reconstructing Jose Canseco barbecues from 10 years ago.


WERTHEIM: But, you know, I think as Larry said, we've got hours to go on this.

COLLINS: What do you make of this taped conversation that I guess that's referring to a January 7th conversation between Roger Clemens and Brian McNamee? Some information there that was kind of stunning.

WERTHEIM: Well, that had been played, you know, weeks ago. And I think it is stunning. And, you know, I question the probative value of a tape where one party knows it's being recorded and the other doesn't.


WERTHEIM: We've seen a lot of inconsistencies on both sides. That tape on the surface seemed to work in Clemens' advantage, but if you really reconstruct it again, keeping in mind he knew it was being taped and the person on the other end of the line didn't, I'm not sure how much I would read into that.

CLINTON: Yes. Well, we would continue to watch this.

I'd like to ask where you where you think it goes from here. I have a feeling you don't know.

WERTHEIM: Well, if they both stick to their scripts, and I think enough sort of secondary and circumstantial evidence comes in, we'll hopefully have a better idea of who's lying and who's telling the truth.

COLLINS: Yes, hopefully. All right. Well, interesting, indeed.

Jon Wertheim from "Sports Illustrated."

Sure appreciate that. Thank you, Jon.


COLLINS: CNN NEWSROOM continues one hour from now.

HARRIS: "Ballot Bowl" is next with the very latest political news and analysis from the best political team on television.

I'm Tony Harris.

COLLINS: And I'm Heidi Collins. Have a good Wednesday, everybody.