I would interpret any statement in this thread about how a team or player will perform in 2008, regardless of the verbiage used, to be in the nature of supposition or speculation or opinion as opposed to a statement of fact.
Regarding Clemens, I was this morning and most of this afternoon on the other end of the questioning so I did not see the hearing, although I heard Clemens performed rather badly. One thing I have learned about witnesses testifying under oath and under pressure of astute examination whether in a deposition, in Court or before a legislative body as was the case with Clemens, is that the performance of the witness will depend in part on how well he/she is prepared by his/her attorney, how well the witness can think on his feet in answering questions, and the witness's native intelligence. The best testimony I ever got in Court was from a blue collar, high schooled educated man with high native intelligence, whom I prepared for approximately 45 minutes stressing the "big picture" items he needed to hit on direct examination. I was careful not to overprepare and overwhelm him. When we got into Court, he delivered a 45 minute, direct responsive answer to my very simple question: "how has your life changed since the accident?" The answer became so powerful that at one point defense counsel objected and the judge practically brained him with the gavel in overruling his objection. I was stunned and in awe of my client and I did not see that powerhouse testimony coming. Court can be like a box of chocolates, with hidden surprises, and that was one of my most memorable pleasant surprises.
In the case of Clemens, my sense in hearing him speak in interviews (especially the interview with Mike Wallace) is that he is a man of average intelligence who gets heated and confused by tough questions. Unfortunately average or below average native intelligence, inability to think on one's feet and getting angry are a horrendous combination for a witness in Court, and lead to the kind of rambling and stumbling testimony Clemens apparently gave.
Frankly, Clemens should have come out and said right off the bat that McNamee gave him some stuff, he did not know what the stuff was and that he relied on McNamee to give him stuff that was helpful and within the rules at that time. Sort of a variation on what Bonds did. Clemens never should have denied taking any substance in an unequivocal manner, especially if he had talked about it with Pettite and others. It's also possible his attorneys gave him this advice and he stubbornly rejected it. I have had a few clients stubbornly reject my advice and then watched them get their fucking asses kicked in Court. You never say "I told you so" because they know it after it has happened.
