How about this one question for Clemens:

"Mr. Clemens, if the physical evidence Mr. McNamee gave the Fed investigators proves that your DNA and HGH were on the syringes and given your testimony under oath today, would you be lying under oath? "

Anabolic steroids were added to Schedule III of the Controlled Substances Act in the Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 1990. You get up to 7 yrs in prison for Schedule III drugs. Other Schedule III drugs are: barbiturates, Hydrocodone, codeine. Though MLB didn't ban steroids until just a few years ago (baseball banned steroids only in 2002, 27 years after the Olympics), MLB doesn't set the laws of the USA-Congress does and Congress decided steroids should be illegal 17yrs ago. If you or I were arrested w/ steroids we would be thrown in jail, not get some small token suspension from our employer - in this case Major League Baseball.

HGH..
These laws are supported by various parts of the Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act and resulted from investigations indicating that people were distributing human growth hormone, a prescription drug, without a prescription. According to law human growth hormone can only be legally administered by a physician as part of the treatment of a disorder for which administration of HGH was indicated. Use of the drug for any other purpose is illegal. If a person is found to be administering prescription HGH with an intent to defraud or mislead, they are subject to a minimum of three years imprisonment in a federal prison. As the proliferation of illegal prescription HGH increased Congress passed two additional laws that were designed to further restrict illegal use and, especially, illegal use by athletes. Congress added wording to include steroids as well. The first Congressional action was an amendment to the 1988 Anti-Drug Abuse Amendments which became effective on November 18, 1988. The intent here was to make the distribution of anabolic steroids and HGH illegal unless it was both done by order of a licensed physician, and it was for the purpose of treating a disease.
---Chain of custody on the physical evidence will keep it from ever being introduced as evidence in a potential future Clemens perjury trial...but ....

I want him to offer as an explanation that McNamee tampered w/ this evidence… as my last sentence stated , the chain of custody makes this evidence inadmissible…
In other words, besides calling McNamee a "liar” Clemens would have to now call him a criminal for tampering w/ evidence and faking evidence while lying to federal investigators –all crimes. So the public would have to believe this guy would commit these crimes in order to smear Clemens? Not likely… but possible. I just want to pin Clemens down on the importance of testifying under oath…
Or Clemens might just say, I took it and it was a mistake.