The difference between the Bonds and Clemens trials

19 Comments

The New York Times has an article up this morning in which various legal experts talk about the differences between the Barry Bonds trial and the upcoming Roger Clemens trial. Both are for perjury and both are about steroids, but the folks the Times spoke with believe that the fact that Clemens is accused of lying to Congress might make things harder for the prosecutors. The harm — lying to an oddly politically-motivated Congress as opposed to a grand jury in the course of a criminal investigation — may seem more dubious to jurors, they say.

And then there’s the question of, well, the questions:

Michael N. Levy, another former prosecutor, said Clemens might have an advantage because members of Congress were not as skilled as federal prosecutors at questioning witnesses about criminal matters. As a result, his lawyers may be able to raise questions about whether Clemens really lied in response to imprecise questions.

That part seems nuts to me. The entire problem with the Bonds prosecution were the vague and rambling questions. Congress was awful at this when it came to the Sammy Sosa/Mark McGwire/Jose Canseco stuff — in my mind it’s Congress’ awful questioning which allowed Sosa to skate — but when Clemens was under oath he was asked multiple straight forward questions about his steroid use. And he gave multiple straight forward answers. Answers which were directly contradicted by Brian McNamee.

And while, yes, Brian McNamee has his own credibility issues — he’s primed for the always-wonderful “well, were you lying then or are you lying now, Mr. McNamee?” question — the fact that someone will take the stand and call Roger Clemens a liar when no one could do that to Bonds makes all the difference in the world.  Enough difference to where I think Clemens is in way, way more trouble than Bonds, regardless of the identity of the people he lied to.

Report: Royals sign Neftali Feliz

Andy Lyons/Getty Images
1 Comment

Ken Rosenthal of FOX Sports reports that the Royals have signed free agent reliever Neftali Feliz, pending a physical. The Brewers designated Feliz for assignment last week and released him on Monday.

Feliz, 29, opened the season as the Brewers’ closer, but struggled and was eventually taken out of the role in mid-May, giving way to Corey Knebel. In 29 appearances spanning 27 innings with the Brewers, Feliz posted a 6.00 ERA with a 21/15 K/BB ratio.

The Royals have had bullpen issues of their own, so Feliz will try to provide some stability given his track record. It’s not clear yet if the Royals want to let Feliz get his feet wet at Triple-A or throw him right into the bullpen mix.

Mets may move Asdrubal Cabrera to second base upon return from DL

Mike Zarrilli/Getty Images
1 Comment

Newsday’s Marc Carig reports that the Mets may move Asdrubal Cabrera to second base when he returns from the disabled list. Cabrera has been on the disabled list since June 13 with a sprained left thumb, but he’s expected to be activated on Friday.

Cabrera, 31, last played second base in 2014 with the Nationals. He has played shortstop exclusively as a Met the last two seasons. Jose Reyes would continue to play shortstop if the Mets were to go through with the position change. Cabrera would displace T.J. Rivera, who has been playing second base in place of the injured Neil Walker.

In 196 plate appearances this season, Cabrera is hitting .244/.321/.392 with six home runs and 20 RBI. He has made 11 defensive errors, which is tied for the third-most among shortstops behind Tim Anderson (16) and Dansby Swanson (12).