maybe.  Okay, probably.  There is a reason that lie-detector tests aren't admissible in court.  But if he is willing to submit to one, that certainly says something.

I did watch the segment.  I was surprised that I found him pretty believable.  There's still the issue of why lie about him but not Pettitte, but I dunno. . . book deal?  

And I've been concerned about Pettitte's silence, but I didn't know about the accident his teenage son had, either--broken arm and around 100 stitches.  Might keep a fellow busy.

Clemens was pretty good. I don't think it is possible to draw conclusions from the script. Clemens was pretty animated showing frustration, anger, and bewilderment. The lie detector questions were answered with some rhetorical questions and doubt as to whether he would do it or if it would even help.

I don't know if Clemens could have done a much better job in the interview. He really didn't duck anything, answered some questions, and gave decent excuses/explanations to others.

He made me think that he at least should have been left out of the Mitchell report due to lack of evidence. He may not be 100% clean(is anyone for sure the last 20 years) but he has some deserved anger being persecuted like he is. He mentioned suing people if it was worth it. And Mitchell and baseball have warned players of further investigating if they go after the report like Clemens is. I hope both happen quietly and are resolved at a later date when people are less reactionary to this situation.

that's not going to happen.

but it was on in the other room while I was cooking.  I thought he handled the interview fairly well from a sticking to his guns standpoint, and I have to admit that I've entertained the thought that he's telling the truth a bit more than before the interview.  We'll see if anybody's story changes when they're sworn in and sitting in front of a judge or a congressional hearing.  If Clemens continues to claim his innocence and no further evidence is brought forward, I'd have to think that public opinion will be a bit more torn on the subject and more people will believe he didn't actually ever use.  It's different than with Bonds, who we pretty much KNOW used, but it's only a matter of whether or not he knowingly used.

I don't think this interview exonerates him at all or really brings much new to the table.  I laughed a little when I heard him say, "Where are the people that supposedly sold me the steroids?  Why don't they step forward?"  Yeah, Roger and admit to being a illegal dealer of controlled substances.  I know I would.  He also dropped quite a bit of arrogance with the whole history of public life and commitment to the game thing.

Anyway, I wish the Astros would sign a free agent pitcher or something so we'd have something else to talk about.  When does the list of invitees to the Ryan and Bagwell elite pitching and hitting camps come out?

I saw the interview. To me, Clemens seemed coached. His answer to the injection question (lidocaine and B12) seemed especially scripted, as did his assertion that PEDs are a "quick fix," that only cause athlete's bodies to deteriorate.

Dude seems to believe bluster, arrogance and sticking to his story may get him through this, and I have no reason to doubt it will. If no one else was in the room when McNamee supposedly injected him, isn't it always going to be he said/he said? How can either side prove anything? McNamee is a demonstrable scumbag and I'm sure Rusty Hardin would love to depose or cross-examine him. Clemens doesn't need to win the lawsuit, and his lawyers may already know they can't win, but by filing it they can "prove" how serious he is about clearing his name. If the jury doesn't agree, well, he tried, right? If nothing can be proved either way, spending a lot of money to clear his name may sway enough HoF voters to give him the benefit of the doubt, which is what this is all about from this point forward.

I doubt that it changes a lot of minds.  People probably will react in a way that is consistent with how they felt about the allegations prevously.  The interview was interesting, but not very surprising. Two things did catch my attention.

I was impressed somewhat by Clemens calling on the people who supposedly sold him the steroids to step forward.  If he is guilty, he would say that with some trepidation, because he knows that the people exist...and what he did is motivate federal agents and reporters to spend time trying to find those people.  Even if he is innocent, it also creates a big target for nutjobs facing drugs charges to claim that they supplied him in an attempt to get a deal.

The other thing is just the anecdote about McNamee calling him a couple of days before the Mitchell Report was released...and asking Clemens if he could borrow deep sea fishing equipment stored by Clemens in Cancun...all without even mentioning what he told the Mitchell people.  That seems kind of creepy.