A little more info for Cowstanza and crew regarding Clemens

[Coach34]

Question: How can McNamee's lawyers use an affair with a singer to show that Clemens was lying when he said he had never used performance-enhancing drugs?

</p>

Answer: They can't. Even assuming that the allegations are true, it is unlikely they would ever become evidence in a trial.</p>It is easy to understand why Richard Emery, McNamee's lead attorney, would exult in the allegations and claim that they will help McNamee. It's always fun to see your opponent in a bad spot. However, the issues in the Clemens defamation suit are whether McNamee lied and whether the lies damaged Clemens' reputation. Emery asserts that the supposed affair shows that Clemens was always a bad guy with a bad reputation. <font color="#FF0000">But the allegations are brand-new. They have never before been reported. And timing is important here: Clemens' reputation at the time of the McNamee statements is the reputation that matters, not the reputation he suddenly has now. The romance is not material to the two main issues in the defamation case.</font> <font color="#FF0000">Bottom line: The evidence of any romance will not be admissible if the Clemens defamation case ever progresses to a trial.

<font color="#000000">Subpoena whomever you want Johnnie Cochran and shut up Fatass.</font>
</font>

 

[TheCosmoKramer]

A few quick thoughts:

1) It's always dangerous to make a blanket statement about what will and will not be allowed into evidence at trial this far in advance.

2) This is the first time the allegations were widely reported, but how widely known was this prior to it being reported? If it was widely known within the Yankees organization, for example, it's not entirely true to say that the allegations are brand new.

 

[captaindawg]

unless this is the judge ruling on this in a trial (or more likely a hearing on a motion in limine) then it's just somebody's opinion.