When former Mets clubhouse attendant Kirk Radomski testifies Thursday before a federal grand jury, Roger Clemens shouldn't be the only one who's nervous. Miguel Tejada may be implicated as well for his alleged actions in trying to obtain steroids. While playing for the Oakland A's in 2003, Tejada was said to have asked then teammate Adam Piatt if he had access to steroids. Piatt then purchased performance enhancing drugs from Radomski, who was told that the drugs were for Tejada.
If a prosecutor asks for an indictment from a grand jury, they'll probably get one. As the article says, the defense isn't allowed to make objections, present evidence or anything of that sort. It's the prosecutor's courtroom, which could spell disaster for Clemens and possibly Tejada. As far as Clemens is concerned, ex-teammate Andy Pettitte and former trainer Brian McNamee are slated to testify as their knowledge of any performance enhancing drug use by the seven time Cy Young winner.
0 recs | 5 comments
Although Tejada should be concerned....
I would also point out that there is a fair amount of speculation in that article. The NY Daily News has a way of framing speculation as fact. Anything that the Daily News knows about the grand jury proceedings is leaked by people who are supposed to say anything about secret proceedings. The article is less than clear on what they really know and what they surmise.
clack - January 14, 2009
I think Tejada is probably safer
than Clemens, because he is not quite as big a fish. Also, even if he lied (and it’s mostly a hearsay case) Tejada quietly went away and wisely chose not to make a spectacle of the process. There is at least one other bigger name (Mark McGwire) whose testimony was squirrelly enough to receive consideration, and he would make a much better trophy for the committee.
Not to mention that Rep. Waxman depends to a huge extent on the Hispanic vote to keep him in office.
bwhite2323 - January 14, 2009
That's an intersting factoid about Waxman
Stephen Higdon - January 15, 2009
Not to be too much of a nit
…but don’t you mean “implicated” instead of “implemented?”
tehGrindCrusher - January 14, 2009
thanks for catching that
i made this post right before going to class this morning, and my mind was in going in two places at once.
Evan Hochschild - January 14, 2009
You must Login with your SB Nation account and be a member of The Crawfish Boxes to post a comment.