Congressional Hearing on Steroids

Roger Clemens vs. Brain McNamee

J. J. Tecce
Boston College
tecce@bc.edu

February 13, 2008

Query

Konstanty Siemaszko of the New York Daily News wants to know if there are any indications of lying in today's Congressional hearing on steroid use in professional baseball.

Comments

There were two sessions in the hearing--one for three hours in the morning and one for almost two hours in the afternoon. This report is based on the morning session and has three components in the evaluation of Roger Clemens and Brian McNamee: body language, method of answering questions, and content of responses.

Sometimes called nonverbal communication, body language is an accurate indicator of how people are feeling. For example, fast blinking reflects an unpleasant emotional state, such as stress. On camera, the normal range for blink rate (blinks per minute or bpm) is 30 to 50 bpm. As can be seen in Table 1 below, blink rates for Clemens and McNamee are virtually the same--47 bpm for Clemens and 46 bpm for McNamee. These rates are in the upper level of the normal range and suggest that both men were experiencing substantial stress but not exceptionally so. Given the importance of the hearing, it is likely that pre-hearing rehearsal with their attorneys may have blunted the stressful impact of the rigorous question-and-answer format.

While both men had similar blink rates, it was a different story for the use of head and eye movements as ways of avoiding eye contact with Congressional committee members. Most of these movements involved looking down. As can be seen in Table 1, Clemens often looked away 18 times a minute or, on average, more than once every four seconds. In contrast, McNamee looked away only 8 times a minute.

Clemens showed the same gaze avoidance in the 60 Minutes interview on January 6. I have not seen this much visual evasion in the many televised interviews that I have evaluated in the past 25 years. One interpretation is that Clemens lacked confidence in what he was saying and that looking his questioners straight in the eye would have magnified his psychological discomfort. Given his disposition to express anger readily, one might have expected him to look straight at his questioners and go eyeball to eyeball with righteous indignation. But, it didn't happen; it didn't happen; it just didn't happen--to use Clemens' own phraseology from the 60 Minutes interview. There is some question as to whether this extraordinary use of gaze avoidance might indicate emotional discomfort from not being totally open with answers.

Incidentally, the body language of Clemens' two attorneys was also unusual. They showed a lack of impulse control. The two attorneys stood and even spoke as they disrupted the hearings in violation of procedural rules. They had to be cautioned at least twice by Chairman Waxman. Even in the post-hearing press conference, the attorneys disrupted questions by reporters. This inquiry interruptus created a free-for-all and an unprofessional atmosphere at the press conference. By contrast, McNamee's lawyer did not show this lack of impulse control and did not interrupt anyone at any time.

A second way to assess the discomfort level of someone answering a question is to look at how they formulate an answer. There are three strategies used by people who wish to avoid being entirely truthful. Their answers are too long, off the point, and vague. Clemens gave answers that were typically too lengthy, often irrelevant, and sometimes vague. McNamee gave concise, specific, and relevant responses.

Finally, what a person says can give a clue as to whether they are telling the truth. Victimization is often used as a distraction and an attempt to elicit pity. When challenged as to whether he was telling the truth, Clemens said that his father died when he was young, that he was raised by his mother and grandmother, that he has worked hard all his life, and that he does charity work--all of which were implied to show that he is not lying. These factors, of course, bear no connection with his ability to lie. When confronted with the fact that he had lied on previous occasions, McNamee readily admitted that he had lied and expressed regret.

In conclusion, based on three considerations--body language, the manner of responding, and the content of answers--McNamee was distinctly more credible than Clemens.

Endnote

In this Congressional hearing on steroid use, truth was elusive. First, McNamee said that he injected Clemens with human growth hormone and steroids, but Clemens maintained that it was vitamin B12 and lidocaine. Second, several medical experts stated that the abscess on Clemens buttocks was consistent with an injection of the anabolic steroid called winstral, but not consistent with an injection of vitamin B12, as claimed by Clemens. By contrast, the physician who examined Clemens stated that the abscess was not consistent with an injection of steroids. Third, Congressman Waxman, who chaired the hearing, stated that the hearing took place because Clemens wanted it. In the post-hearing press conference, one of Clemens' attorneys contradicted Waxman and said that Clemens was not at the hearing by choice. Yes, indeed, getting at the truth in this hearing was like trying to grasp a wisp of smoke.

Table 1

Blink Rates (BR) (blinks per minute or bpm) and
Look Away Rates (LAR) (movements per minute or mpm)

More on Professor Tecce's report in the New York Daily News Expert on body language says Roger Clemens had something to hide.