I watched a bit of the 60 Minutes interview and while he sounded strong and tried to keep his eyes steady, there was something that felt off to me. Sadly, I don't think I believe him.

It's hard to tell where this is going. One is tempted to think that he wouldn't file suit unless he had proof, but I can tell you from experience that is not how things work.

He didn't seem like he was lying in the interview, but it wasn't exactly cross-examination, either. It was, as one op-ed put it, a celebrity interview that wouldn't have been out of place on Inside Edition or Entertainment Tonight.

So I go back to the same question: how do you propose to prove what he didn't put in your body a decade ago? If the trainer were mixed up in the steroid mess, which he assuredly was, then it would be no trouble for him (presumably) to come up with proof that he had steroids (whether through documentary evidence, witness corroboration, or whatever). But there's only one way to prove what was or wasn't in his system that I can think of (blood testing), and I can't imagine that's available.

Assuming that Clemens is correct in saying that McNamee is lying (although I don't believe Rog either), what is McNamee's motive for coming out with this supposedly false information?

That is where it gets tricky. McNamee could be playing this from any angle. He got immunity from the Mitchell commission for his cooperation. So you would think that he would be truthful, since this gives him the opportunity to lay it all out there. Of course, the reason he was given immunity is that he needed it-- i.e., because he dispensed all these illegal substances, he was in danger of criminal prosecution. So that would give him a reason to embellish, in order to make sure he's got a story worth selling to the Commission. Telling them you injected JoeBob McGillicuddy and Porfirio Hortencia aren't going to get the authorities as excited as saying you juiced Andy Pettite and Roger Clemens.

This situation highlights the wisdom of "biblical rules of evidence." It is impossible to disprove the non-occurrence of an alleged action, when said action reportedly took place with only two people present and when said action cannot be narrowed beyond a general frame of time—unless of course, Mr. Clemens happened to have a video camera installed on his head, with a 360 degree visioning lens, which records 24/7. Mr. Clemens’ athletic accomplishments and hence his MLB legacy are permanently stained, regardless of what substance was or was not in Mr. McNamee’s syringe.

The call is an interesting wrinkle. There's potential legal troubles for Roger with it - witness tampering and all that. I'll be interested to see how it all plays out.

I think Roger kept himself pretty clean on the phone call. After all, his lawyer was right there with him. I think the witness tampering issue answers the question of why he didn't really answer McNamee when the latter kept asking him, "What do you want me to do?"