Ooops, I didn't get the message

Seems that Clemens didn't get Mitchell's message, or letters, requesting him come to discuss specific instances. Oh yeah, Clemens denied that he was given this specific a request, only something generic.

Mitchell twice sent letters to the Major League Baseball Players' Association requesting to speak to players who would be mentioned in his report into illegal use of steroids and other performance-enhancing drugs in Major League Baseball. The letters included the dates of their alleged steroid use and the teams they played for when they allegedly used performance enhancers.

In an e-mail sent to USA Today, Mitchell said he sent letters to the players' union in the summer and in October, requesting to talk to players named in the report.

In the October letter, Mitchell wrote: "During the course of any such interview, I will inform the player of the evidence of their use, including permitting him to examine and answer questions about copies of relevant checks, mailing receipts, or other documents, and give him an opportunity to respond."

Of course, Clemens had this to say:

Last Monday (1/7/08), Clemens claimed he did not know that he was going to be named in the Mitchell report and that Mitchell wouldn't disclose the nature of the allegations to his agents. "They wouldn't respond to what it was about," Clemens said. "Obviously if I had known what Brian McNamee was saying about me I would have been there."

Somebody's got some 'splaining to do! Did the MLBPA not forward the message/mail? Did Clemens' attorney not do the same? Did Clemens not share this with his attorney? What gives?

UPDATE:

Traded a few emails with fellow seamhead and blogger extraordinaire, Shysterball, and his salient thoughts included:

"Well, Mitchell says the letters went to MLBPA. My guess is that the line goes: MLBPA-agents-players. So either the MLBPA didn't forward it, or they did and the agent didn't forward it, or they both did and Roger can't read, or they did, he can read, and he is just lying.

"The biggest problem on anything re: Clemens' testimony, whether it be about what he knew would be in the Mitchell report, what he took, or anything else, is going to be corroboration. It's very possible that he could come off looking like an awful liar but have no legal action taken against him. After all, remember Palmiero: obviously lied (failed a steroid test a couple of weeks after his testimony) and no legal action taken."

Thanks to Craig for the comments on the subject. As I have said before, his site is worth bookmarking. His legal background allows him to give us some greater insight than we'd otherwise have on these legal wranglings.