"The higher you get up on the flagpole, the more your butt shows."
Roger Clemens -60 Minutes Interview
When Wallace asked whether it might be impossible to be that good at Clemens' age, the Rocket responded, "It's not impossible! You do it with hard work!"
Wallace reared back and fired his best fastball and asked, "Swear?" And Clemens responded, "Swear!"
HONEST INJUN. ROG? I MEAN COME ON MIKE, WHAT KIND OF A WEAK SOFTBALL QUESTION WAS THAT? THAT QUESTION PROBABLY DID MORE TO HURT ROGER THAN HELP HIM.
Clemens demonstrated a lot of signs that would give an experienced investigator cause to doubt his answers in terms of body language clues. Now, in theory this is as unreliable a form of evidence as the polygraph that Clemens attorney assured us he would not let him take. One wonders why he allowed Roger to appear with Wallace when he was apparently this unprepared emotionally to face the public with his defense.
HE CLAIMS THAT STEROIDS ARE A SHORT TERM FIX THAT CAUSES THE BODY TO BREAK DOWN, THAT IT DOES DAMAGE TO THE LIGAMENTS, WHICH I AGREE WITH HIM. BUT THEN HE NOTES THAT HE POPPED VIOXX LIKE SKITTLES IN ORDER TO GO OUT AND PERFORM.
THERE IS NO MORE SHORT-TERM FIX THAT DOES MORE LONG-TERM DAMAGE TO THE LIGAMENTS AND CARTILAGE THAN PAIN KILLERS. PAIN KILLERS SIMPLY MASK THE PAIN WITHOUT DOING ANYTHING TO ADDRESS THE UNDERLYING ISSUES THAT CAUSE THE PAIN.
"And that's our country, isn't it? Guilty before innocent. That the way our country works now."
CLEMENS HAS GONE THROUGH FOR A MERE FOUR DAYS WHAT BONDS HAS GONE THROUGH FOR FOUR YEARS AND HE'S ALREADY SHOWING SIGNS OF GREAT STRESS, ANGER AND DESPERATION. WITNESS THE TAPED PHONE CALL THAT WAS PRESUMABLY RELEASED TO ATTEMPT TO ENTICE SOME SORT OF STATEMENT FROM MCNAMEE THAT WOULD EXONERATE CLEMENS.
The taped telephone call at best is unethical conduct by Clemens attorney and at worst it's a blatant attempt at witness tampering.
DOES ANYONE REALLY BELIEVE THAT HE WAS SIMPLY RESPONDING OUT OF CONCERN FOR MCNAMEE'S SON AND HIS HEALTH? AFTER MCNAMEE THREW HIM UNDER THE BUS. COME ON, NOW?
Instead it gives the appearance that the Clemens camp engaged in some attempted form of witness tampering. Clemens claim that he did not know he would be named in the Mitchell Report is patently insane. He may have hoped against hope that Mitchell would not name names directly, but that would be engaging in wishful thinking to the most absurd degree. Reports have indicated that Clemens camp sent investigators to try and determine if McNamee named him, and possibly if he would recant, well in advance of the reports release.
We are now in a sports world where athletes are alternatively glorified and then destroyed for our entertainment and amusement. We build 'em up and then we tear them down.
Then Congress comes running, ready to pile on with it's attempts at political distraction from some of the more serious issues this nation faces. I guess this is their form of recreation from campaigning and trying to figure out how to get this country out of the mess that, quite frankly politicians are hugely responsible for getting us into in the first place.
One thing we consistently ignore is the cultural forces that led us here. We have newly-minted Hall of Famer Goose Gossage quoted as saying that the records of those who cheated should have their records stricken or asterisked, but then he adds, like fellow Hall of Famer Mike Schmidt did before him, that were this type of PED available and part of the culture, he likely would have taken them as well. Interesting. What happens in the present is a direct result of what happened and what was culturally acceptable in the past. Yesterdays greenies are todays HGH.
For example, in New York City for the longest time, the police department pension calculation was determined by a retirees salary during his last year on the police force. Not an average of his 20 years of service. Not his aggregate hours of services during his 20 years of service. It was based on his LAST YEAR of service. So guess what happened? In most officers last year of service, they worked incredible, unbelievable amounts of overtime and retired on an inflated final year salary. Is this what was intended? Was this cheating the system? Everyone was doing it, to the extent that it came to be viewed as an entitlement...a part of the culture....a part of the system.
If the rules were changed, does that make the officers who worked under the rules and norms prevailing at the time, guilty of criminal behavior ex post facto? If that's the case, we may have to take George Washington and Thomas Jefferson out of the history books and off our currency, because using that logic, as slave owners they were criminals. But as a society we generally don't do that.
Studies show that somewhere around 20% of people say they would steal if they knew they wouldn't get caught. The reasons for this are opportunity and reward. The worst abuses of any system arise when people have the greatest temptation. Most people understand this dilemma, and other than those who employ the equally sinful acts of jealousy and envy (sport writers and ex-players), are ready to move forward and let the issue of the sanctity of records and statistics issue be resolved later. I've never gone to a game and I've never measured my level of interest in the game based on this issue.
Now if it's integrity your talking about, how about that payroll disparity issue between the haves and the have-nots. There is not much more that goes to an un-level playing field situation in baseball than that. You want to talk about un-fair performance enhancement? Do you think the performance of the Yankees and the Red Sox is unfairly skewed due to payroll vis-a-vis the Devil Rays, Royals and Twins for example? Maybe Congress should ask them what sort of progress they have made on this issue. If they really care about the fans. Some fans are tired of their franchises being treated like a modern day version of the St. Louis Browns.
But back to Roger. One of the lingering questions I still have, is that given the level of anger Clemens has displayed at being named by Mitchell, why he did not direct the same anger and legal muscle in the direction of the L.A. Times when they named him as being part of the Grimsley Affidavit. In hindsight, it turns out that the Times had it completely wrong. He said he had to carry this in his gut for over a year, but he could have done then what he is doing now. I understand the difference between suing the media, who can hide behind the First Amendment, and suing Brian McNamee, but this is the current standard in the court of public opinion.
I'm still not 100% sure that the McNamee defamation suit is not a shield that Clemens will hide behind to avoid answering questions in Washington, although early indications are he is willing to testify under oath. It will be an interesting dynamic.
So if the Times names him in error, and Clemens is totally innocent, he knows there is no way anyone, including Grimsley, could possibly name him. McNamee and Radomski were still a gleam in the investigators eyes at the time.
These are the possibilities regarding the Grimsley report. Only Clemens knows for sure, but if he's doing them, he doesn't know if perhaps Grimsley found out while they were teammates and just ratted him out. It's possible he called or contacted Grimsley in a similar way he contacted McNamee and was satisfied that Grimsley did not implicate him.
DOING STEROIDS NOT DOING STEROIDS
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------
THE TIMES REPORT IS WRONG | Clemens does not sue | Clemens sues
THE TIMES REPORT IS CORRECT | Clemens does not sue | Impossibility
Although the media did a better job at tying up the loose ends that Mike Wallace failed to, I think they missed the boat on this question entirely. And the reason why, in my opinion, is the media, in general, are still in denial about this. They clearly do not want this story to be true in their heart of hearts. Locally, Jay Mariotti of the Chicago Sun Times, a reporter who can hardly be described as overtly player friendly, used those exact words. They want to believe in the Rocket.
Houston reporter Richard Justice wondered why Roger didn't just tell McNamee to recant or clam up on the taped call. Obviously Justice does not even have a surface understanding of the concept of witness tampering. We've certainly heard much about how much Federal prosecutors hate perjury and the damage it can do to the Justice system and it's processes. How do you think they feel about witness tampering, Mr. Justice?
Should be an interesting day when these guys testify in Washington, don't you think?
No comments:
Post a Comment