On August 18, 2010 Roger Clemens, former major league baseball player and multiple Cy Young award winner, was indicted on three counts of making false statements, two counts of perjury and one count of obstruction of justice. Less than 2 weeks later on August 31, Clemens pleaded not guilty in federal court to the charges.
The charges of perjury and making false statements stem from a report on doping in baseball dating 3 years ago in 2007. The report alleged that Clemens had used anabolic steroids on multiple occasions in 1998, 2000 and 2001, and human growth hormone on multiple occasions in 2000.
According to a recent news article, Clemens “repeatedly told lawmakers and congressional staff that the allegations in the report were false”, including during a 60 minutes interview with Mike Wallace back in January of 2008. The video can be seen below.
It is important to note that “The indictment does not offer specific proof that Clemens used the banned drugs but alleges that he lied to Congress when he rebutted the claims of others who said he had used the substances. Federal prosecutors said Monday that they have agreed to provide the defense with a 34-page master index of evidence, computer disks and “scientific evidence” as stated in a recent Los Angeles Times article. An interesting blog was also written in the Washington Post about the possibility that Clemens could be telling the truth.
Take a look at the videos below, including House Oversight & Govt. Reform Committee hearing on the use of performance enhancing substances by major league baseball players back in 2008.
Can you spot any hot spots (discrepancies in verbal and nonverbal behavior) during Clemens’ interview with Wallace? Weigh in with your thoughts in our comment section and remember that seeing a hot spot does not necessarily mean that someone is being deceptive.
This is an EXCELLENT example for discussion. I see several hot spots during the interview with Mike Wallace, and I’m surprised and disappointed that Mike did not follow up on them. For example, at 2:07, Mike Wallace says, “From the Mitchell report…” and Roger Clemens has a very visible gulp and it’s very clear that Clemens is very uncomfortable at this point in the conversation. Another one is at 3:27, when Mike Wallace asks what he wants to say to his accuser, Roger Clemens replied “I helped him out…”. I would expect something along the lines of “You are a liar and I demand that you come forward with damning evidence or shut up.”
I’m NOT saying I believe Roger Clemens is guilty. The physical evidence against him is so flimsy as to be nearly worthless (unless by my error). No lab tests, as Clemens said himself – where are the changes in his body size – and why didn’t his “tendons turn to dust”? The real evidence in the Sixty Minutes piece is one person’s word (his accuser), and that’s it. I know there’s more in the Mitchell Report, but I’m not aware of enough physical evidence for me to say that Roger Clemens is guilty. The body language is clear, I don’t think it’s proof on its own, and I would have liked Mike Wallace to follow up on the many hot spot points. But Roger Clemens is absolutely right when he said at the beginning that it’s virtually impossible to prove innocence in this situation. That’s got to be a very difficult spot to be in.
So many hot spots. Several gulps as well as lip licking on one or two occasions, I think I saw a couple brief flashes of duper’s delight, nodding his head when saying “it was so good for me” followed by shaking his head no while saying all steroids are good for is turning your tendons to dust, and a head nod when following that up by saying he doesn’t believe in it. There are way too many to list in a short comment, and that doesn’t even get into statement analysis which shows many more red flags.
None of that makes him guilty, but there are truckloads of red flags in that clip with Wallace.
Dr. Matsumoto had a chance to review the 60 minutes interview. Will have this thoughts in a blog post tomorrow.