You gotta feel for him though.  I'd change my name and move to Suriname if that was me.

I'm sure by now you've heard that the rights had already been sold to a book titled "19-0: The Historic Championship Season of New England's Unbeatable Patriots." In fact, Amazon.com and the Boston Globe were offering people the chance to preorder the book. Given this past Sunday's events, perhaps the publishers should take a queue from O.J. Simpson and change the book's title to "19-0: If They Had Done It, This Is How It Would Have Happened."
-- Ricardo, Dallas

I don't know if you guys have heard the story of this kid, but I thought it was really interesting. What did he think was going to happen?

* Did the hearing produce any evidence that will cause problems for Roger Clemens?

Yes. Clemens and his team of lawyers and crisis management experts should worry about two developments in the hearing.

First, Clemens had no solid answer for the devastating testimony and written statement from Andy Pettitte. Not only did Pettitte confirm and corroborate McNamee's testimony about Pettitte's use of HGH, he also established a chronology on Clemens's statements about HGH that could lead to a perjury charge. Responding to Pettitte's assertion that Clemens told him he used HGH, Clemens insisted on several occasions during the hearing that Pettitte had "misunderstood" him. He suggested that the subject of the Pettitte-Clemens conversation was the use of HGH by Clemens' wife. Clemens even tried to interrupt committee chairman Henry Waxman to repeat his claim at the end of the hearing, and Waxman gaveled him into angry silence. The problem for Clemens is that Debbie Clemens' use of HGH came two years after Clemens' conversation with Pettitte. And, as Waxman explained, that means Clemens "made untrue statements in his deposition [sworn testimony to the committee]."

Second, Clemens and his legal team blundered into the possibility of a charge of tampering with a witness. The potential charge could stem from their handling of a committee request for information about a woman who once served as a Clemens family nanny. (The committee staff requested the woman's contact information last week.) The committee wanted to ask her about a luncheon barbecue at Jose Canseco's house in Miami in June 1998, and whether Clemens attended the party. The protocol for producing a witness requires that a lawyer, or an investigator for the lawyer, contact a witness and send their information to the committee. Instead of following the protocol, Clemens called the former nanny personally and invited her to his home for a meeting on Sunday. We do not yet have the entire content of their conversation, but it is clear that he discussed the inquiry with her. Waxman, the committee chairman, was clearly angry that Clemens talked with the nanny before the committee's staff and said, "At the very least, it has the appearance of impropriety."

* Did the hearing produce any evidence that will cause problems for Brian McNamee?

No. Although he was attacked viciously by a few Republicans on the committee and called a "liar" and "drug dealer," McNamee performed surprisingly well. He admitted that he had been less than truthful with federal agents and the Mitchell committee. He withheld some of his information -- and his box of syringes, vials, and gauze pads -- in an effort to "downplay the use of these drugs" and protect players. But, in the course of interviews with five groups of investigators (including Clemens' detectives), he gradually, revealed the information knew and the physical evidence that he had accumulated. His statements have been corroborated by Pettitte and Chuck Knoblauch. Mitchell and his staff have endorsed his veracity on numerous occasions. It is unlikely that the committee will recommend charges against McNamee and equally unlikely that the FBI or the IRS will investigate him.