Pants not only on fire, but bleeding, apparently.

Clemens testimony to Congrefs includes a series of questions about how, on a certain occasion, possibly more than once, people in his clubhouse noticed that his ass was bleeding through his uniform pants. To wit:

From the blog of the formerly mustachioed Jayson Stark:
11:41 a.m. ET
Curt Schilling had the bloody sock. Roger now has the bloody pants.

Rep. [Tom] Davis reported that McNamee had testified that Mike Stanton once noticed that Clemens was bleeding through his dress pants -- which caused him to start carrying band aids around, presumably for his bleeding butt. Yikes.

Prompting the following surreal exchange:

Davis: "Mr. Clemens, do you recall bleeding through your pants in 2001?"

Clemens: "I do not."
End Quote.

So the duly elected representative (Republican) of Virginia's 11th Congressional District —who will not be seeking re-election — spent this morning asking the Rocket if he remembered his ass bleeding seven years ago. At which point Clemens maintained that he didn't.

I have decided that Roger is the liar here. He has more to gain from lying than McNamee does, in my estimation, and more to lose if the truth is damning. Because at this point, if he falls on his sword, he only does it to try and reduce his perjury penalties, and really he's even gone past THAT point of no return.

Three points for discussion amongst the group:

1) After all this, and the possible fallout in which anything could happen to Clemens including jail time, will he still beat Pete Rose into the Hall of Fame? Will he get in there ever?

2) What tarnishes his legacy more, the fact that he took steroids, or the fact that he straight-up, bald-face, lied directly into a camera about it, then did so again under oath, AFTER he was caught?

3) Who benefits most from Clemens being hung out to dry?

My submissions:
1) I think at this point, he doesn't beat Pete in, cause he gets stuck on the outside with him for eternity.

2) I can forgive someone for cheating if they're at least somewhat remorseful once they get nailed, but I don't sense that from Rog (or from Pete Rose, frankly), and that just makes them seem like they think they're above the law. So to Hell with that.

3) I don't think anyone is as happy about these ridiculous proceedings as Barry Bonds. For the time being, at least.

I'll File This Under "Not At All Surprising."

The New York Post apparently has video of Pedro Martinez and Juan Marichal gleefully participating in cockfights in the Dominican Republic, the most recent example of professional athletes love of 1) gambling, 2) animal cruelty, 3) getting caught participating in one or both of these things.

Also interesting, the article says: "The event shown in the video takes place in the Coliseo de Gallos - Rooster Coliseum - in Santo Domingo, the country's biggest cockfighting venue."

Is that like "Kitchen Stadium" on Iron Chef? Do they really need that? Apparently the bloodsport is so popular in the DR that the crowds were starting to overwhelm the previous largest cockfighting venue, known as "the cardboard box behind a strip bar."

The article also states that Martinez and Marichal pitted their trained fighting birds against one another (Marichal won, for those of you who are as grimly curious as I am).

It is legal there, so it's not like either of these guys are going to take any litigious flack for this, but my question is this: If guys like Pedro, Vick and Marichal are participating in this, definitely for gambling purposes, what's our estimate for the total number of players across all major sports and *shudder* NASCAR that push the envelope because of their crazy competitive desire?

We've watched steroids get out of hand because players are so crazy for competition that they'll even try and chemically alter the playing field within their sport, and I defintely think there's something to the "Jordan played baseball because he was secretly suspended" theory, I just want to know whether you guys think stuff like gambling and participating in the fighting and killing of [dogs, roosters, hookers in Jell-o, beta fish, etc.] is the exception or the rule?

Aces Wild?

Here's a fascinating yarn about Jacqueline Gagne, a retiree in Southern California who claims to have made 16 holes-in-one in the past six months. And here's the accompanying video from the local news outlet with real footage of one or her aces.

Now.... there's more holes in this story than I can count, but being one of the two members of TNH's editorial staff with an ace I consider myself quite the expert.

Points of interest:

• She's played 118 rounds this year, averaging one hole-in-one per 30 par threes.

• Seven times she's searched all over for her shot, only to find her Pro V1 nestled in the cup

• In the past five years, Tiger Woods has holed exactly ZERO shots competitively from the 100 to 165 yard range

More facts can be found at her personal website. She's now had 39 news stories reported on her, endorsement deals from Cobra, a book release, and appearances in celebrity tournaments. Certainly, this story is working out for her.

From the story:
"In July, playing off a Handicap Index of more than 6 -- in March it was 10.1, in September 4.0 -- she reported shooting a course-record 66 at Eagle Falls Golf Course. She followed two weeks later with a 61. The Eagle Falls pro, Robb Mihelic, doubts it: "We had just punched the greens, and I couldn't make a 10-foot putt that day. But she came right into the shop and said she'd shot 61." He asked her, "Did you play them down, or winter rules?" "What's that?" she said to Mihelic. Learning the difference, she said, "Oh, no, we never touch the ball." She had "chipped well" and "it was one of those days." But when another player and an Eagle Falls employee reported seeing her make higher scores than she reported, the pro decided he would not legitimize the round. "I didn't post the 61."

I'm nominating our West Coast Bureau Chief Chris to challenge Ms. Gagne to a competitive match play round. We need blow the cover off this national disgrACE.