Even if Clemens wasn't at Canseco's, it won't help him

Brian McNamee has alleged that Clemens first took steroids as a member of the Toronto Blue Jays in 1998. AP

Roger Clemens' claim that he didn't attend the now-infamous Jose Canseco-hosted party in June 1998 is unlikely to score big points for him at Wednesday's hearing, people connected to the House Oversight Committee told SI.com.

So if Clemens' best defense is that he skipped that soiree, the party may be coming to a close for the Rocket, who has sworn under oath that he did not take steroids and has said that he plans to repeat that contention in Wednesday's hearing, during which he will be pitted against his former personal trainer, Brian McNamee.

Sources close to the House committee suggest that the evidence as to whether Clemens attended Canseco's Miami party for Blue Jays personnel appears "murky.'' Those sources point to differing memories regarding a gathering that was held nearly a decade ago.

Plus, McNamee's testimony that Clemens and Canseco spoke about steroids at that particular party may be tangential to the main issue of whether Clemens ever took steroids. While Canseco reportedly submitted an affidavit saying that Clemens wasn't at the party -- buttressing Clemens' claim -- Canseco wrote in his 2005 book, Juiced, that he and Clemens did discuss steroids and suggested that Clemens likely did take steroids (though Canseco also wrote that he had no first-hand knowledge of Clemens' alleged usage). "I've never seen Roger Clemens do steroids," Canseco wrote in Juiced, "and he never told me that he did. But we've talked about what steroids could do for you, in what combinations.''

Clemens' side has been hoping that his contention regarding the party would be persuasive, and he has produced a golf receipt from the day in question to suggest that he chose golf over the team get-together. Additionally, Clemens' lawyers have advanced the notion that Clemens wasn't at the party, which was held at Canseco's Miami house, by saying that the Blue Jays TV announcers noted on their telecast the next day that Clemens missed the event.

McNamee, meanwhile, provided details of the party to investigators, including his contention that not only Clemens was there, but so were others members of Clemens' family, plus the family's nanny, Lily, whose last name McNamee did not recall.

McNamee has told investigators that his memory is sharp regarding Clemens' attendance. Sources indicate that if asked on Wednesday McNamee will suggest that Clemens arrived late after playing golf in the morning on a hot Miami day. By arriving late, McNamee will contend that Clemens may not have been seen by the announcers, who may have left before he arrived.

Clemens' case appears already to have taken a heavy hit with the revelation that his workout partner and friend Andy Pettitte's account to the committee "mostly matches'' McNamee's account to the committee. That's how the committee's ranking member of the minority Tom Davis (R-VA) characterized it to Newsday. The committee excused Pettitte from Wednesday's proceedings, reportedly because members didn't feel the need to compel him to publicly contradict his good friend Clemens when they can use the account he gave them behind closed doors.

Clemens' attendance at the party is at issue because McNamee told Sen. George Mitchell that it was at that party where Clemens, Canseco and a third man McNamee couldn't identify spoke about steroids, and that it was shortly thereafter that Clemens began asking McNamee about using steroids. McNamee testified that he injected Clemens with steroids and HGH at least 16 times from 1998 through 2001, an assertion that Clemens has denied.

Clemens' lawyers have said publicly that they believe McNamee "made up'' the meeting at the party and have been hoping to use the story to damage McNamee's credibility.

Clemens' lead attorney, Rusty Hardin, has said that he hoped to play the taped telecast of the game the following day to "let the public see how dramatic and clear it is that Roger obviously was not at the party that McNamee is testifying started the whole thing.''

One question for Clemens, though, is why he didn't immediately say upon release of Mitchell's report that he didn't even attend the party in question, and why it took several weeks for him to refute that part of the allegations against him.