Judge dismisses bulk of Clemens' defamation suit against McNamee

HOUSTON -- A federal judge dismissed most of Roger Clemens' defamation lawsuit against his former personal trainer on Thursday, saying statements made in the Mitchell Report on doping in baseball are protected.

Brian McNamee has told federal agents, baseball investigator George Mitchell and a House of Representatives committee that he injected Clemens more than a dozen times with steroids and human growth hormone from 1998-2001.

McNamee's attorneys said Clemens' lawsuit should be thrown out because McNamee was compelled to cooperate by federal investigators.

U.S. District Judge Keith Ellison agreed, but he left in McNamee's statements to Andy Pettitte, Clemens' former New York Yankees teammate. McNamee told Pettitte that Clemens had used HGH and steroids.

Ellison said Clemens must file an amended complaint within 30 days to pursue that claim further and provide specific information about how he was harmed by the statements.

Earl Ward, one of McNamee's attorneys, said the decision was a total victory for McNamee and proof that Clemens' lawsuit never had merit.

"If they were doing things in a wise and reasonable manner, they would just abandon this," Ward said. "It's frivolous because there's nothing that Brian said that wasn't truthful. Roger knows that. Brian told the truth, and so you can't bring a defamation lawsuit for comments that are truthful."

Clemens has repeatedly denied McNamee's accusations and sued last year. Prosecutors have asked a federal grand jury in Washington to decide whether to indict the seven-time Cy Young Award winner for lying under oath to Congress last year when he denied using steroids or HGH.

Rusty Hardin, Clemens' attorney, said in a statement that he was pleased with Ellison's ruling on McNamee's statements to Pettitte.

"We are reviewing other parts of the decision that we disagree with to determine how we should best proceed," Hardin wrote.

Ward said Clemens' side would be wise to formally withdraw the lawsuit, or simply let the deadline expire.

"If that claim goes forward, we will eventually prevail," Ward said. "It would be more problems for Roger. He's going to have to testify again under oath. He's going to have to be cross-examined. The deposition would be very intense and not in his favor."