I guess it depends on who you ask. Steve Campbell:
Clemens and his defenders can attack McNamee's credibility and motives all they want. But how can they explain away the damaging testimony of Pettitte?
Clearly, Pettitte had no desire to speak evil about an old teammate, friend, workout partner and traveling buddy. Pettitte didn't want to have anything to do with discussing the Mitchell Report. He also didn't want to lie under oath in a congressional hearing.
Pettitte reluctantly implicated his friend. In a Feb. 4 deposition, Pettitte didn't merely tell of a 1999 conversation in which Clemens admitted to using HGH. Pettitte made embarrassing revelations about himself -- things no investigator could have uncovered. For instance, Pettitte told of using HGH furnished by his father again in 2004.
"I have to tell you all the truth," Pettitte said in his deposition. "I mean I told y'all the stuff about my dad because I have to live with myself. And one day I have to give an account to God and not to nobody else of what I've done in my life.
"And that's why I've said and shared the stuff with y'all that I've shared with y'all today that I wouldn't like to share with y'all."
Keep in mind, Pettitte could have claimed he didn't remember any conversations with Clemens about performance-enhancing drugs. Nobody could have proved otherwise.
"I believe Andy has mis-heard," Clemens said. "I think he mis-remembers."
To believe Clemens is to believe that Andy Pettitte is a liar.
A potential key to yesterday's proceedings was the inexplicable absence of Andy Pettitte. Several Congressmen, most notably Rep. Elijah Cummings (D-MD), pointed to Andy Pettitte's testimony in sworn affidavits as the tipping point for their divinations. However, Pettitte's testimony is hardly the slam-dunk takedown of Clemens that it was made out to be. Pettitte, in many places, actually corroborates Clemens's version. Pettitte himself says that after discussing the use of PEDs with Clemens, he felt that "when Roger told me that he didn't take it [HGH] and I misunderstood him, I took it for that, that I misunderstood him" (Pettitte, p. 28). Pettitte barely recalls the initial conversation, but states that it was in passing--that Clemens "heard that it worked." At no point--no point--does Pettitte ever state, even in passing, that he knew or saw the use of any substance by Clemens. There are certainly elements of Pettitte's testimony that are problematic for Clemens, but I think as much as anything, the opportunity to hear Pettitte in person could have made or broken yesterday's hearings.
What is interesting is that the differences between Pettitte's statement and Clemens' statement are so easily reconciled. It's not without problems, but it's hardly the diametrically-opposed case that was presented.