From CBS Sportsline:
ST. PETERSBURG, Fla. -- Detectives believed the former New York Yankees trainer who says he injected Roger Clemens with steroids lied to them during the 2001 investigation of a possible rape, according to documents released Tuesday by police.
Police said Brian McNamee denied having sex with a possibly drugged woman in a hotel pool, even though security guards and other witnesses said they saw him. McNamee hired a New York attorney, who called detectives to arrange an interview. "I explained to him that his client did talk with me once, and he lied to me," St. Petersburg Police detective Donald Crotty wrote in a report. The state attorney's office, however, decided not to press charges.
Clemens cited the incident as an example of McNamee's dishonesty in a defamation lawsuit filed Sunday in Texas.
This is a valid use of past history to show that a person is capable and willing to lie during a criminal investigation to escape legal accountability. If this man's testimony is the only evidence of Clemens steroid use then there is no credible evidence that Clemens ever used steroids.
The same must hold true for everyone else named by McNamee. If his testimony is the sole evidence then there is no credible evidence that they ever used steroids.
Also if it is true that a date rape drug was found in McNamee's alleged rape victim then those athletes who claimed to have never knowingly taken steroids from McNamee must have their statements viewed as credible. Someone who will slip a woman a date rape drug to get his desired results has the ethical track record where it should be expected that he will slip others drugs to get his desired results.
Too many people wrongly assume that someone can be unethical to the point of rape while being completely ethical in the rest of their life. But it doesn't work that way. A willingness to abuse goes far deeper than a person's sexual actions.
From Accountability Central:
[veteran Los Angeles libel lawyer Anthony] Glassman said the chances were "better than 90%" that a judge would refuse to allow Clemens to introduce that report as evidence, so as to avoid "a trial within a trial" on an unrelated matter in which no charges were filed.
Jody Armour, professor of law at USC, agreed a judge probably would keep the report out of evidence but said Clemens could argue it should be used for the limited purpose of helping a jury assess McNamee's credibility.
I find it appalling that McNamee was caught in a lie with neutral witnesses, and apparently testing revealed a date rape drug in his alleged victim's body and he still wasn't charged with rape or any other crime.
Too often it seems like rape is a crime in name only.