Wasting Taxpayer Money: Clemens-McNamee Gamer

Pitchers and catchers report tomorrow. Unfortunately, that’s about the last thing on everybody’s mind this morning.

Things don’t look good for Roger Clemens. We don’t know if he was kissed, but it appears he was certainly betrayed by a friend, as Andy Pettitte apparently filed an afidavit saying he discussed using HGH with Clemens, and the New York Times also is reporting that congressional investigators dug up their own corroborating evidence for Brian McNamee’s story.

It’s a story fascinating for its tawdriness. You don’t want to watch, yet you can’t look away, so you might as well comment on the hearing here.

184 comments… add one

  • You can watch it live online from CNNSI, except you have to download their special video player, asshats. When will people realize Flash video won the race.

    LocklandSF February 13, 2008, 10:14 am
  • That’s how I’m watching it, Lockland. Waxman is saving the Pettitte affidavit for last :-P

    Paul SF February 13, 2008, 10:16 am
  • Love the opening, basically…
    “One of you is lying, so, which is it?”

    LocklandSF February 13, 2008, 10:18 am
  • Waxman says Clemens hasn’t been telling the truth about discussing HGH with McNamee and being injected with lydocaine in the team’s training area.
    Pettitte told the committee that in 1999-2000 Clemens “told me that he had taken HGH.”

    Paul SF February 13, 2008, 10:24 am
  • For the record, I’m having no problem looking away.

    YF February 13, 2008, 10:28 am
  • Wow, they are missing votes on the floor for this.

    LocklandSF February 13, 2008, 10:31 am
  • BOMBSHELL!
    roger clemens in his opening statements:
    “…I am guilty….”

    Yankee Fan In Boston February 13, 2008, 10:33 am
  • that quote in full:
    “If I keep my emotions in check, then I am acused of not caring. When I kept quiet at the advice of my attorney until he could find out why in the world I was being accused of these things, I was accused of having something to hide, so I am guilty. When I did speak out, I was accused of protesting too much, so I am guilty.”
    will this all end today?

    Yankee Fan In Boston February 13, 2008, 10:34 am
  • Really Mr. Cummings is this the most important thing you can be doing for the state of Maryland and the United States? Stop reminding him he’s under oath.

    John - YF February 13, 2008, 10:55 am
  • Clemens appears to be the OJ Simpson of this whole saga. Not to create an equivalency between the two men since that would be grotesque, but Clemens seems to have truly convinced himself that he didn’t do any of the things that many people have now corroborated he actually did. It’s like he has no memory of the events, or truly believes that what he did wasn’t wrong and as such they have been assimilated and consumed completely by his storied career; they were such tiny blips amidst his greatness that a few injections were inconsequential or, worse, his entitlement.
    Clemens is just the figurehead, he’s certainly not alone in his “guilt”. But his guilt seems, at this point, to be pretty well established, at least to me. The fact that he is in complete denial of his transgressions reflects the game at the time he took HGH, etc. Don’t ask, don’t tell. Now that look-away policy has morphed into simply “don’t remember”, basically. It’s like an existentialist trap. If it isn’t remembered, it never occurred. I am sure there are many fans that wish that we could all forget this stuff, act like it never happened, just move on, rest on the accomplishments of the past and forget the context in which they were achieved. But that’s Clemens’ mindset, in the extreme. Me, I think it is important that we don’t forget. I find the generic “this is a waste of taxpayers’ money” quip to be simplistic at best, unconscionably cynical at worst. The amount of money that this is “wasting” should be quantified before a charge like that is leveled. How much is it worth if these minimal hearings help clean up the game, even a small amount? Why should people be allowed to lie under oath with impunity, just because these hearings cost money? What is the social cost of establishing that kind of principle?
    I am extremely liberal. I have tremendous faith in government, even as the government continually fails it’s citizenry. But baseball occupies a special place, culturally (and economically). It has an antitrust exemption granted by the government. And therefore the sport and those who have profited from it should be obligated to answer to questions asked by the government that granted such an exemption, truthfully. I have no quarrel with these guys being called to committee and expected to tell the truth. This isn’t a waste of money, at least not a significant one worth bleating about. Wars are wastes of money. Using valuable time to grant telcos immunity for their violations of thousands of citizens’ civil rights is a waste of money, effectively, as well as flat-out offensively undemocratic. These hearings pale in comparison by that measure, even as the sport they interrogate has great value to us as Americans. The cost of them (or value of them) shouldn’t be measured in dollars.

    SF February 13, 2008, 10:55 am
  • This isn’t a waste of money? I respect you tremendously SF, but this is the definition of waste of money.

    John - YF February 13, 2008, 10:58 am
  • He’s not even giving Clemens a chance to talk. Cummings is an idiot. Clemens is mid sentence and he is cutting him off. He has an agenda here and it’s crystal clear.

    John - YF February 13, 2008, 11:02 am
  • How much money could this hearing possibly cost, really?

    LocklandSF February 13, 2008, 11:03 am
  • In all fairness, Clemens just keep repeating him self anyway, “misremember..blah blah” “he would have come to me…blah blah”

    LocklandSF February 13, 2008, 11:05 am
  • Money, time, effort, it’s a waste. This country has much bigger issues then steroid or HGH use in baseball. I wonder if Cummings attacks Maryland’s problems REAL problems with the same vigor. I have been to Baltimore, Cummings needs to treat Baltimore like he did Clemens.

    John - YF February 13, 2008, 11:07 am
  • What part of the interest in this story is based on disliking Roger Clemens and watching him go down or caring about finidng out about the role of steroids in the sport. I find the whole thing to border on farce. When the Mitchell Report first came out, I thought it was actually pretty important that it name names. Since that time though, I have come around to YF’s point of view on the subject.
    Even if Roger Clemens screams out to Waxman for redemption, I don’t really feel as if we have gained very much.

    DR February 13, 2008, 11:07 am
  • It doesn’t matter Lockland, he asked him a question, he gets the chance to answer it.

    John - YF February 13, 2008, 11:09 am
  • This country has much bigger issues then steroid or HGH use in baseball.
    Well, I don’t want to get into a huge political argument. What you say is completely true, John. There are far more important things. But the existence of much more important things doesn’t make the less important things irrelevant or not worth investigating or discussing. They aren’t mutually exclusive.

    SF February 13, 2008, 11:11 am
  • “It doesn’t matter Lockland, he asked him a question, he gets the chance to answer it.”
    Rog was being asked a yes/no question- an answer regarding a conversation in 2006 doesnt answer it.

    Ric February 13, 2008, 11:12 am
  • Also, if it wasn’t this dog and pony show, these politicians would find something else to waste their time with, at least this is interesting to me.

    LocklandSF February 13, 2008, 11:15 am
  • And John, I know next-to-nothing about Elijah Cummings, but a quick read of his biography shows that he has a lot more on his plate than just these hearings.
    http://www.house.gov/cummings/about.shtml

    SF February 13, 2008, 11:15 am
  • Understood SF, but in order for this investigation to have value the result would need to be something worth while. What is going to come from this other than he said, he said. The focus should be on fixing baseball and setting up new testing and protocol for today’s game. If this is about the love of the game then focus on the NOW, not the past.

    John - YF February 13, 2008, 11:34 am
  • Elijah Cummings was combative and short with Clemens. That’s all I know of him, good bad or otherwise. But like I said earlier use that same vigor towards things that matter.

    John - YF February 13, 2008, 11:36 am
  • John, I notice that you’re paying attention to it, you’re a fan of baseball and you’re watching it.
    Frankly, this hearing has little to do with baseball and Waxman was very up front about that at the start of this hearing.
    This has to do with Roger thinking he’s above the law or not.

    LocklandSF February 13, 2008, 11:38 am
  • I am home on a snow day, so yes I am watching it.
    “This has to do with Roger thinking he’s above the law or not.”
    Well that’s a great reason to waste the money and time of our government. I am not a Roger Clemens fan and never really have been, but Roger Clemens is not where this problem begins and ends. If that is the only result of this hearing it was a failure. How does proving Clemens guilt or innocence help the game of baseball or the country we live in?

    John - YF February 13, 2008, 11:45 am
  • I’m not sure it’s a matter of proving Clemens guilt or innocence as much as validating the Mitchell Report. Let’s say Roger had done the same as Pettite and admitted some use but said he also went years without it. Maybe MLB could have agreed that the Mitchell Report was the tip of the iceberg (as it most surely is) and moved on to implement new measures to combat PEDs. No punishments for past abusers, no fiddling with the record books, just a big sigh and “OK guys let’s fix this”. With Roger saying that it’s all a lie, the point becomes proving the the Mitchell Report is valid and focus is moved away from fixing anything.

    soxgirl February 13, 2008, 11:53 am
  • Oh god, the abscess. I can’t believe they went there.
    It is my sincere goal to never, ever during the course of my life have to use the word “buttock” on television.
    I may be too easily embarrassed to watch any more of this…

    Emma February 13, 2008, 11:54 am
  • “With Roger saying that it’s all a lie, the point becomes proving the the Mitchell Report is valid and focus is moved away from fixing anything.”
    I don’t think Clemens is saying the entire MR is a lie, just what is being said about him. The MR’s validity is not linked to Roger Clemens usage or non-usage of PEDS. The focus of the MR was on the game’s problems, not the individual’s problems. The MR was put together not to out individuals, but determine if the game had a problem.

    John - YF February 13, 2008, 12:01 pm
  • Little known fact: Joseph Conrad, at the insistence of a nitpicky editor, changed the what was originally written as “the abscess, the abscess!” to the now-classic “the horror, the horror”. Coppola (and we) are forever indebted.

    SF February 13, 2008, 12:02 pm
  • The MR’s validity is not linked to Roger Clemens usage or non-usage of PEDS.
    But this is naive. The MR has been branded a “witch hunt”. That implies that there was a goal to brand players guilty regardless of the evidence. And this nomenclature, by its nature, tears down the validity of the MR. So if the MR’s revelation that the greatest pitcher ever (as some believe) was using illicit substances, and that revelation is shown to be truthful, then the entire report gains credibility, whether that is a justifiable result commensurate with the revelation.
    Conversely, if these allegations are proven to be utterly false, shouldn’t the MR’s credibility suffer? Isn’t that a paradox? If Clemens is exonerated, wouldn’t the MR be dealt a blow, regardless of the rightness of its conclusions about what should be done in the future to combat steroid use?

    SF February 13, 2008, 12:09 pm
  • “Little known fact: Joseph Conrad, at the insistence of a nitpicky editor, changed the what was originally written as “the abscess, the abscess!” to the now-classic “the horror, the horror”. Coppola (and we) are forever indebted.”
    Looks like SF owes me a new keyboard.

    soxgirl February 13, 2008, 12:14 pm
  • This is indeed a waste of taxpayer money. Is it Congress’ job to prove or disprove the Mitchell Report? No. I thought the first hearings had merit because baseball and drug use are both of interest to the American public, and the sport got a much-needed shaking up.
    This time, the issue is so narrowly focused, it’s clearly a governmental intrusion into a matter I have no interest in seeing legislators govern.
    It’s interesting. I’m watching it. I just don’t think it should be taking place.

    Paul SF February 13, 2008, 12:20 pm
  • Though, granted, Congress wastes far more money on far worse things than a hearing. That doesn’t make this any less a waste of money, however.

    Paul SF February 13, 2008, 12:22 pm
  • Paul can defend his own locutions, but to me the phrase “wasting taxpayer money” is shorthand not just for the financial cost of this hearing, but for the cost in diversion from matters of actual significance: the war, the recession, health care, education, environment, etc., and is therefore appropriate. In an election season, Roger Clemens makes a convenient target for grandstanding politicians. And that’s what this is about; not “truth” or reform or what have you. Clemens’s culpability, whatever it may or may not be, is not the issue here. He doesn’t need to be held up in front of an open hearing to change baseball’s testing policy. Certainly Chuck Knoblauch doesn’t. I think those of us who are disgusted by this charade are not saying “forget history,” as SF suggests. We remember it in its full scope, and don’t need to see a scapegoat’s shoved over a cliff, howevermuch that goat might stink, to make some point about what I’m not even sure. That’s a disservice to history.

    YF February 13, 2008, 12:24 pm
  • I don’t think the Mitchell Report has been branded a witch hunt because it was intent on naming players regardless of the evidence. It has been argued that naming a select group of players does not necessarily illuminate much about how widespread the problem was or the effect certain drugs actually have on athletic performance. As evidenced by the whole hearing today, it actually seems that the naming of players has distracted from the other more instructive parts of the Mitchell Report.
    Mitchell himself said that he thought it was important to look to the future, not try to punish for things that have happened in the past. What conclusions are we going to reach about combating steroid use based on these hearings?

    DR February 13, 2008, 12:26 pm
  • “What uniform will you wear to the Hall of Fame?”
    Good grief.

    Paul SF February 13, 2008, 12:33 pm
  • “But this is naive. The MR has been branded a “witch hunt”. That implies that there was a goal to brand players guilty regardless of the evidence. And this nomenclature, by its nature, tears down the validity of the MR. So if the MR’s revelation that the greatest pitcher ever (as some believe) was using illicit substances, and that revelation is shown to be truthful, then the entire report gains credibility, whether that is a justifiable result commensurate with the revelation.”
    The MR should be bigger than who it brought down. The goal of the MR should have been to resolve MLB’s issue with PED’s. The MR should never have been about who it brought down. Why would it’s validity be ehnanced due to the stature of the player it brought down? The game is about the whole, not the individual and the same can be said about it’s problems.

    John - YF February 13, 2008, 12:39 pm
  • This thing over the Casneco party is a huge red herring, but it seems like Clemsns is wrong (lying?) about that, too. His nanny contradicts his story.

    Paul SF February 13, 2008, 12:39 pm
  • Ouch. Clemens invited the nanny to his house the day before his attorneys finally gave congressional investigators her name and number.
    Uh, that’s not good.
    Clemens’ response: “I was doing y’all a favor.”

    Paul SF February 13, 2008, 12:42 pm
  • Your time is up? For crying out loud, will someone please ask Clemens if he was at the Conseco party or not?
    I can’t believe they just let him slide there.

    Dirty Water February 13, 2008, 12:46 pm
  • That’s your classic coverp-not-the-crime scenario. Is it horrible if Clemens can’t remember whether he was at a pary 10 years ago? No.
    Is it horrible that Clemens made contact with a potentially damaging witness before turning her name over to investigators? Absolutely.

    Paul SF February 13, 2008, 12:50 pm
  • Yeah Roger, why did you continue to employ McNamee after you knew he had injected your wife, which led to her having medical complications?
    So busted. So damn guilty

    Dirty Water February 13, 2008, 12:50 pm
  • I’m just getting NYT blog updates, not listening. Did someone really ask him what hat he would wear into the Hall of Fame?

    soxgirl February 13, 2008, 12:54 pm
  • Yes. I was disgusted with the question

    Dirty Water February 13, 2008, 12:55 pm
  • He said his friend a congressman or something from Mass wanted to know what uniform he would be wearing into the Hall of Fame.

    John - YF February 13, 2008, 12:56 pm
  • I have to ask this question…
    What is the true purpose of this hearing?
    If you answered to prove Roger’s guilt or who is lying, please tell me how that helps the game of baseball?
    YF makes some very good points above. Adding to that please someone tell me how this helps the game of baseball and after all wasn’t that the GOAL of the MR? I could be missing it, but I just don’t see how this is good for the game.

    John - YF February 13, 2008, 1:03 pm
  • I wonder if Roger chose to be enshrined with a Sox cap they (the Sox) could stop him from doing so. Not that he has indicated he would, and not that he’ll be enshrined before Rose.

    Dirty Water February 13, 2008, 1:04 pm
  • “Is it horrible that Clemens made contact with a potentially damaging witness before turning her name over to investigators? Absolutely.”
    Roger Cossack just called the lawyers attempts to contact the nanny “Standard Operating Procedure” and that “I would have done the same.”

    John - YF February 13, 2008, 1:05 pm
  • “The choice of which team’s logo appears on a player’s plaque is the Museum’s decision, though we always consider the wishes of an inductee. As a history Museum, it’s important that the logo be emblematic of the historical accomplishments of that player’s career. A player’s election to the Hall of Fame is a career achievement, and as such, every team for whom he played is listed on the plaque; however, the logo selection is based on where that player makes his most indelible mark.”
    Neither the player or the team has say. But thanks for trying to make this a Sox/Yankees issue.

    John - YF February 13, 2008, 1:09 pm
  • Pete Abraham watching the hearings in the Legends field press box has this comment “The question I have is what will come of this? This looks and sounds like a trial but there will be no verdict.”

    John - YF February 13, 2008, 1:11 pm
  • Well, John, if you heard the disgust from the committee chairman about how all of baseball has been unwilling to cooperate, I think at the very least the culmination of these hearings will lead to issues like drug testing being conducted by some company completely detached from MLB. And that’s a real good start because it’s pretty obvious at this point that the league believes it is above the law.

    Dirty Water February 13, 2008, 1:13 pm
  • but to me the phrase “wasting taxpayer money” is shorthand not just for the financial cost of this hearing, but for the cost in diversion from matters of actual significance: the war, the recession, health care, education, environment, etc., and is therefore appropriate.
    Get real. There is nothing about this hearing that has any bearing on Congress’ ability (or inability) to deal with those larger issues. Just witness the FISA BS that transpired yesterday: did that have anything to do with these hearings? Did approving Sam Alito? Does Barney Frank not do his job because a handful of congresspeople are spending a few hours with Clemens and McNamee? Is there a more unimpeachable symbol of integrity than Henry Waxman? Does Bush’s new budget (and the future negotiations with congress) have anything to do with these hearings? Congresspeople can walk and chew gum at the same time, and brandishing these hearings as evidence that they are distracted or not doing their jobs or, gosh, wasting money is, I hate to use the word, stupid. There are all sorts of problems which lead to bad governance and the worst you can say about these hearings is they are evidence of that (if you in fact believe that, which I don’t). But these hearings have no bearing on whether or not these congressmen and women do their jobs addressing other issues or whether they address them well. Their failures on other fronts are independent, glaring, and in some cases unforgivable. But baseball, steroids, and these hearings have less than nothing to do with that. These are systematic failures and failures of principle which have nothing at all to do with the Mitchell Report or these hearings.

    SF February 13, 2008, 1:14 pm
  • Did we really need to waste all this time and energy to come to the conclusion that MLB needs drug testing? What I would really like to have seen was the Owners and Selig in front of these politicians and have them be grilled since they are the root of the problem. In addition the testing that is required to eliminate all the problems is blood testing and that will never happen, ever! So at the end of the day what differences came from this hearing?

    John - YF February 13, 2008, 1:18 pm
  • Dude, I wasn’t trying to make it a S/Y issue. Matter of fact, I doubt your Yankees would be too excited about Roger’s polluting their history.
    Didn’t I read that Fisk was contemplating bids from CHI and BOS for which cap he would be enshrined with? That does not sound like the HOF committee deciding.

    Dirty Water February 13, 2008, 1:21 pm
  • Did we really need to waste all this time and energy to come to the conclusion that MLB needs drug testing?
    I don’t know, John. I think that’s as close to unanswerable a question as you can ask.
    I have one question amidst all of this: is it ok, regardless of context, to lie under oath? Whether you agree with the circumstance of Clemens’ appearance or whether it is “fair” to him, is it justifiable for him to (conceivably) lie to congress? If so, why? Honest question.

    SF February 13, 2008, 1:24 pm
  • “The choice of which team’s logo appears on a player’s plaque is the Museum’s decision, though we always consider the wishes of an inductee. As a history Museum, it’s important that the logo be emblematic of the historical accomplishments of that player’s career. A player’s election to the Hall of Fame is a career achievement, and as such, every team for whom he played is listed on the plaque; however, the logo selection is based on where that player makes his most indelible mark.”
    That’s directly from the HOF website. The player has no choice.
    If Clemens does ever make the HOF it will most likely be wearing a Red Sox cap, like it or not.

    John - YF February 13, 2008, 1:27 pm
  • It is not a useful question without the context.

    DR February 13, 2008, 1:27 pm
  • “I don’t know, John. I think that’s as close to unanswerable a question as you can ask.”
    SF, again I respect you tremendously. You are a very smart man and I know that you cannot honestly believe that we needed this scandal to decide we needed testing. McGwire, Canseco, Sosa, ring a bell? The owners, the PA, Selig swept this under the rug for years and suddenly now we have this epihany that we need testing? Come on.

    John - YF February 13, 2008, 1:33 pm
  • Did Roger just attribute his “B12″ use to his mother? Oh man, this guy has no shame. None.

    Dirty Water February 13, 2008, 1:45 pm
  • SF: You’re talking about hours of the day–and i don’t agree with you even on that front, for what it’s worth–but the greater issue is symbology. The hearings are a representation of misaligned priorities and sanctimonious grandstanding to no good purpose. That’s my opinion. If you think it’s stupid, that’s fine. I’m not going to take offense. We’re just going to have to disagree on this one. And I’m not sure I’d describe Waxman as any kind of beacon of integrity. He’s a politician. And I don’t quite think he’s acquitted himself too well in this situation.

    YF February 13, 2008, 1:45 pm
  • I’m pretty that is a relaivly new policy, in the past I think players were allowed to pick their cap and there is a good reason the HOF put an end to that. Can anyone back this up?

    LocklandSF February 13, 2008, 1:47 pm
  • Wow, I hit post WAY too fast on that one.

    LocklandSF February 13, 2008, 1:47 pm
  • John-
    “Clemens said Saturday he will not attend his own induction ceremony if he is not allowed to go into the Hall of Fame as a member of the New York Yankees”
    http://espn.go.com/mlb/news/2003/0615/1568234.html
    Yeah, I know Roger is always full of shit, but still, I thought I had read that.

    Dirty Water February 13, 2008, 1:48 pm
  • SF-
    I think the “waste of money” involved here goes to the face that this “hearing” has very little to do with uncovering the truth of the matter or fixing the problems of PED in professional baseball.
    The Mitchell Report Executive, sitting there in the middle, might as well get out some pop-corn and a fork because this is a big cake-walk for him. He’s had to answer two or three questions about the shoddy-quality of his investigation. Everything else about this hearing is personal political ambition. Representatives telling everyone how they are against drugs and what bills they’ve supported seem to have very little to do with finding out anything more than why they should either be re-elected or why they should possibly run for even higher office.

    walein February 13, 2008, 1:56 pm
  • Wasting taxpayer money? This represents probably something like 1/10,000th of of 1% of the national budget.
    If this site is so worried about budgeting, maybe it could help track down the billions in cash that the U.S. airlifted into Iraq but can’t account for.

    Hudson February 13, 2008, 2:13 pm
  • Should Congress be having this hearing? No. Is Congress spending money (real money and paying staffers to investigate, be at this hearing, etc.) to hold this hearing? Yes. Then it’s a waste of money. Period, regardless of how long they walk or how many pieces of gum they chew.
    “I would have done the same.”
    Yes, the attorneys should have contacted her — not Clemens. It looks like he was trying to intimidate her, and if this were a real trial, there would be charges for witness tampering. Lawyers have every right through discovery to know what witnesses called by the other side will say, and I understand wher Clemens’ attorneys are coming from because this is like a trial but with none of the rights for the defendant. But having Clemens himself get involved was stupid, stupid, stupid.

    Paul SF February 13, 2008, 2:16 pm
  • This represents probably something like 1/10,000th of of 1% of the national budget.
    In that case, it’s time to lay off the Bridge to Nowhere. It costs less than the war in Iraq, too.
    Look, no one’s saying this is the most egregious use of the Congress’ time, or the biggest waste of money Congress has made this year — or even this month, or perhaps even just today, depending on what votes are taking place. But it is a waste, and calling it for what it is does not seem unreasonable to me.

    Paul SF February 13, 2008, 2:22 pm
  • What’s crazy to me, is that the best hitter and pitcher of the Steroids Era will have gone on “trial”. This is well beyond the scandal of the Black Sox. It included every team, every record, every result. This is the worst moment in the history of the game and we have yet to see the end.
    And still, I love this sport.

    A YF February 13, 2008, 2:23 pm
  • “I must say, Mr. Clemens, that I have a hard time believing you. I really have a hard time believing you”
    You and the rest of us, buddy.

    Dirty Water February 13, 2008, 2:28 pm
  • And I’m not sure I’d describe Waxman as any kind of beacon of integrity. He’s a politician.
    This kind of cynicism depresses me. The broadstroke generalization that this involves is just unfair. Certainly it takes a certain breed to become a politician, but not all politicians are created equally corrupt, or narcissistic, or misinformed, or have mistaken priorities. Certainly Dan Burton does not equal Barney Frank, and certainly Henry Waxman doesn’t equal Dana Rohrbacher. This reductivism serves your cause very poorly.
    And nobody has answered my question: when is it ok to lie to congress or Federal investigators? Is the fact that a hearing is a “waste” justification for lying at that hearing?

    SF February 13, 2008, 2:30 pm
  • The NYT blog notes that Democrats seem to be ganging up on Clemens, while the GOP is going after McNamee. They say it comes down to the Democrats backing up their chairman while the Republicans are trying to show what a waste the hearing is.
    “If you had 89 players here, I’d feel a whole lot better.” That quote by a GOP rep seems to back up the NYT’s analysis.
    Or maybe more Democrats are Red Sox fans? ;-)

    Paul SF February 13, 2008, 2:32 pm
  • Is the fact that a hearing is a “waste” justification for lying at that hearing?
    Absolutely not. I’ve made similar arguments about the perjury and obstruction charges against Bill Clinton. Just because an investigation is frivilous doesn’t make lying to the investigators justifiable.
    I’m like you, SF. I’m very much an idealist when it comes to the governmental system set up in this country, and regardless of whether Congress should be having this hearing, whoever is lying to the committee should absolutely be prosecuted.

    Paul SF February 13, 2008, 2:35 pm
  • The owners union and players association are ruining the game of baseball. The gouge us fans; lie, scheme and complicate. For lack of better terms, they both suck.
    So if it takes our federal legislators to bring that to all light, so be it. Someone has to stand up and put an end to their arrogance.

    Dirty Water February 13, 2008, 2:39 pm
  • Wow, that came out right – NOT

    Dirty Water February 13, 2008, 2:40 pm
  • Interesting to note, by the way, that if not for Clemens’ attorneys insistence, this hearing wouldn’t have taken place.
    And it’s over.

    Paul SF February 13, 2008, 2:41 pm
  • Paul –
    The whole thing is over?

    soxgirl February 13, 2008, 2:43 pm
  • As an aside, I think it is very interesting that I may be the only author at this site who isn’t extremely bothered by this/these hearing/s. I don’t know the absolute politics of my co-authors (though I have a general sense of most of their “leanings”) but knowing myself as almost insanely liberal wouldn’t one expect me to be irate over this supposed “witch hunt”, over the scapegoating of “innocents”? I give to the ACLU. I have voted for one non-liberal in my life and still feel tremendous guilt. So I find it curious that these things don’t really bother me. I am no “law and order” type, by any stretch of the imagination, but I have a (naive?) faith that government has the power to do good things, and these hearings in general strike me as plenty innocuous with some degree of upside. I am skeptical of grandstanding politicians to a great degree, but again this stuff hasn’t gotten me nearly as apoplectic as others here. Is it because Roger is from Texas and I basically don’t really like what’s come out of Texas lately (besides Paul, of course)? I can’t figure myself out on this one.
    It’s a bit odd to me as I do a little bit of self-analysis that I am not too exercised by this stuff.

    SF February 13, 2008, 2:43 pm
  • Like it or not, waste or not, it happened.
    More than ever, I’m certain Clemens is guilty and he’s really backed him self in to a corner on this.

    LocklandSF February 13, 2008, 2:44 pm
  • I don’t know what cause you think I’m trying to serve. If you don’t think politics is a dirty business, well, I’d disagree, and I don’t suggest that all political figures are “created equally.”
    Nobody has answered your question because, under the circumstances, it’s a non-sequitor.
    But if you insist: No, it’s not acceptable to lie before Congress. But Congress doesn’t do much to encourage a sense of benign authority and justice when it yanks (no pun intended) Chuck Knoblauch out of obscurity for no good reason, and trammels on the reputations of citizens, however repugnant, so its members can score political points with their constituencies.

    YF February 13, 2008, 2:47 pm
  • Post-game interview with Cummings is going on now and it’s pretty funny.
    “Why would he only lie about Clemens?”

    LocklandSF February 13, 2008, 2:47 pm
  • Well, I feel like in the course of defending my portrayal of it as a “waste of taxpayer money” that I’ve sounded far more strident than I really feel about it also.
    I think it’s a waste, and so it is, but as others have said, far worse wastes occur all the time in Washington, and I for one was interested in seeing Clemens questioned.
    Now that it’s over, I’m not sure anyone’s going to be swayed one way or the other, but I don’t think Clemens looked very good, and part of that is Waxman’s nuggets of new information were very detrimental to Clemens’ case.

    Paul SF February 13, 2008, 2:48 pm
  • Yeah, I’m pretty happy Texas gave us Ron Paul.

    A YF February 13, 2008, 2:55 pm
  • So what happens now? Will there be a perjury charge against someone stemming from this? I do think the committee has put themselves in the position of being a laughing stock if this is the end of it.

    soxgirl February 13, 2008, 2:55 pm
  • if you don’t think politics is a dirty business, well, I’d disagree
    Where did I EVER assert anything like this? I am optimistic about what government can provide, that’s a totally different issue. And yeah, you basically did (passive aggressively) suggest that all politicians are dirty when you wrote what you did about Waxman. He’s one of the lone voices of strong oversight of this administration in congress, so you do him (and your case) a disservice by stating what you did. Nobody disputes that politicians range from the clean and honest to the lowdown and despicable.

    SF February 13, 2008, 2:57 pm
  • “waxman’s nuggets” sounds like a concept album.

    Yankee Fan In Boston February 13, 2008, 2:57 pm
  • lol
    Waxman in posthearing comments says he found McNamee “very credible.”

    Paul SF February 13, 2008, 3:01 pm
  • so its members can score political points with their constituencies.
    This too seems like one of those stock answers – is there any study, poll, that shows that the baseball hearings are registering at all with the voting populace? Every national poll that I have seen as of late about issues concerning voters (from Rasmussen, Zogby, SurveyUSA, etc – I am something of a political junkie) shows that this is nothing like what you represent. I find it very, very hard to believe that people are voting for congresspeople because they asked Roger Clemens questions today. If you can substantiate that this is “scoring points with constituencies” I’d be happy to eat crow. Otherwise, this line of yours comes off as completely canned, cliche.

    SF February 13, 2008, 3:02 pm
  • Funny that folks are talking about the role of government in oversight and yet the Democratic Senate just allowed the most sweeping spying on it’s own citizens – in the past and in the future. The House will be next to approve it because, even 6 years after 9/11, politicians can’t stand the thought of being labeled weak.
    Meanwhile, a Republican House impeached a president who lied when no one died, but a Democratic one (with Waxman near the front) won’t do the same when tens of thousands of people have died.

    A YF February 13, 2008, 3:05 pm
  • My mother is in politics so I would like to think that there are some honest, trustworthy politicians.
    As for our political affiliations, my family is made up of Republicans and I am the lone Democrat. Makes holidays tough, but in a way it helps hammer home your convictions even more. Long story short I don’t think political affiliation has anything to do on how you feel today or how you judge the hearing.

    John - YF February 13, 2008, 3:09 pm
  • Funny that folks are talking about the role of government in oversight and yet the Democratic Senate just allowed the most sweeping spying on it’s own citizens – in the past and in the future.
    Right. This pisses me off about eleven billion times more than today’s stuff. And again, it’s not Waxman. If anyone has asked the questions it’s been him: he needs backup, and a good number of his Democratic brethren are doing little to nothing to help him.

    SF February 13, 2008, 3:09 pm
  • As for our political affiliations, my family is made up of Republicans and I am the lone Democrat.
    My family is made up of Democrats and I am the lone Bolshevik…
    (or at least used to be, back in college. Now I am a garden-variety BHL)

    SF February 13, 2008, 3:11 pm
  • I usually manage to vote for three political parties in each election. Not sure what that makes me. The plurality of the votes tends to be Republican, but that’s more a function of the area — half the Republicans running for office were Democrats 15 years ago.

    Paul SF February 13, 2008, 3:15 pm
  • I’m trying to be diplomatic here, SF, and you simply keep piling on. About Waxman I wrote: “I’m not sure I’d describe Waxman as any kind of beacon of integrity.” That’s all. I’ll stand by that. Your response was that this was “cynical.” I’m not trying to distort your positions. They’re all here for everyone to read.
    Political posturing isn’t like some kind of baseball game. We can’t just go and check the box score tomorrow morning to see how many “points” have been scored by the Congressmen here. These me live by publicity; by appearing to be effective, whether they are or are not. Hence the obsession with mom-and-apple pie issues (I’m against steroids!) that provide a convenient platform for publicity. Chuck “Red Light” Schumer, a man I’ve happily voted for several times and gladly will again, is a master of this. I really think you’re so far off base here Johnny Damon could pick you off first from Monument Park.

    YF February 13, 2008, 3:17 pm
  • Right. Waxman is all alone. He really wants to hold the telecoms accountable. Let’s see how he votes on the House version. Hmmmm, the chair of a major committee has no power to influence his colleagues. Yeah, that seems plausible.
    How many hearings has he held though on the lies in the sprint to war? Or the continuing lies of the Vice-President in linking Hussein and Bin Laden? Or the lies in Powell’s UN testimony? Or the lies of the Niger claims? Or the lies in? outing Valerie Plame?
    Good thing he has Clemens and McNamee in his crosshairs though! Thank goodness for honest, hardworking politicians in Washington!

    A YF February 13, 2008, 3:18 pm
  • Honestly, after today, if anyone still believes Roger, they need to answer these questions…
    Why would McNamee lie? Would would Andy Pettitte lie? Why would Andy Pettitte’s wife lie? Why would Roger’s own nanny lie?
    Yes, everyone is lying EXCEPT Roger.

    LocklandSF February 13, 2008, 3:22 pm
  • That’s fine Lockland, I don’t think many could argue with you BUT:
    1. Other then Knoblauch (who has NOTHING to lose) and Pettitte (Who fears God) how many other players would be 100% honest? Clemens is trying to protect his legacy, not that I agree with lying at all.
    2. If other players were involved, other less hated players (Not Clemens or Bonds) and say Pujols, Ortiz, etc…would the quest for truth and the idea that these players need to always tell the truth be the focal point? I am not sure this is the case. Clemens is a hated man, Bonds the same, what if a fan fav was at the center of this? Unfortunately Sen. Mitchell only gave us the tip of the iceberg and not the whole iceberg!

    John - YF February 13, 2008, 3:29 pm
  • John, Clemens was only hated by RS fans, he was still a national baseball hero to many before the Mitchell report.

    LocklandSF February 13, 2008, 3:32 pm
  • I am not convinced of that. I am not a Sox fan and I never really cared for the man.

    John - YF February 13, 2008, 3:40 pm
  • the MRI results from the examination of roger clemens’ buttocks was CC’ed to a dr. gross.
    http://tinyurl.com/3xf9t3
    that made me laugh, but i am a child.

    Yankee Fan In Boston February 13, 2008, 3:40 pm
  • Also, Sen. Mitchell gave us what he could find, had the players association been more cooperative, had Selig given him more power to enforce mandatory testimony, maybe you would have gotten your more liked players, or every Yankee fan’s dream, Ortiz.
    The quality of the Mitchell report, or lack there of, is the fault of Selig and the MLBPA, not Mitchell.

    LocklandSF February 13, 2008, 3:43 pm
  • just my luck….debbie takes HGH and it makes her look 10 years younger. my girlfriend uses HGH and she picks up 3 MPH’s on her fastball. cruel cruel world.

    sf rod February 13, 2008, 3:44 pm
  • I disagree, every Yankee fans dream would be Schilling.

    John - YF February 13, 2008, 3:46 pm
  • I am less inclined to single out Henry Waxman than scores of other members of congress. Just look at Chris Dodd with the FISA bill: in the end he was unable to do anything against the rest of his principle-less cohorts.
    And YF, I am not trying to be needlessly antagonistic here. I have a firm belief that the right politicians can do great things when so inclined. But I am not naive about the cynicism on display from the politicians themselves at times, that there is a game being played. I get it. I don’t really like many politicians, even the most right-minded of them. Barney Frank is an absolutely amazing and devoted public servant, and even he has had his missteps. Perhaps today’s hearing doesn’t represent the best inclinations by the politicians, but in the end it also isn’t nearly as wasteful and detrimental to our society as it is being portrayed. I find the reactions against these hearings to be overly dramatized, extreme.

    SF February 13, 2008, 3:52 pm
  • Lockland: Who cares how believable Roger is. Nothing in this testimony or anywhere else can possibly suggest how long, how much, or to what effect he used peds, or to what extent this was or was not deviant from the norm. Why can’t we all just acknowledge that until recently (and arguably still) there was no effective ped testing policy, that we’re never going to know who got away with what, and that if you’re looking for answers as to why the problem was allowed to fester, the place to begin searching is baseball’s dismal labor history? The rest of this is just bullshit that makes everybody looks bad for no good end. Baseball is supposed to be a positive distraction in our lives. As Paul has noted, while we’re having this charade forced down our throats, pitchers and catchers are warming up in the florida sun. Thanks for nothing, Mr. Selig, Mr. Mitchell, Mr. Waxman.

    YF February 13, 2008, 3:52 pm
  • John- Really?? Cuz if I had to live with one Red Sox getting caught with ‘roids and dragged through a legal mess, I’d lovingly throw Schilling to the wolves.

    soxgirl February 13, 2008, 3:52 pm
  • i really like ortiz, lockland. i would be upset if he was ever implicated. i really don’t see how anyone could wish that man any ill, regardless of the fact that he is playing for the wrong team.

    Yankee Fan In Boston February 13, 2008, 3:52 pm
  • I am kidding. I don’t care what team you play/played for. I care more that they get rid of the problem completely. This game is too important to me.

    John - YF February 13, 2008, 3:55 pm
  • John, Clemens was only hated by RS fans, he was still a national baseball hero to many before the Mitchell report.
    No, he was hated by a good many vocal Sox fans. My mom has hated him since he was on the Sox, while I loved watching him, and actually yearned for his return to the Sox this year. I know several other Sox fans who wouldn’t have minded Clemens signing on for closure, either. The fact is that those who root for the Sox who hated Clemens were numerous but also vocal. Those who adored him and chalked up his surliness to personality were also numerous (though probably less numerous than those who dislike him), and perhaps less vocal.
    I also know Yankee fans who never particuarly liked Clemens but who rooted for him because he played for the Yankees. And what is wrong with that? That’s an extremely common paradox of sports fandom: rooting for a player you don’t like because he’s wearing your uniform. How many Bruins fans cheered Ken Linseman when he put on the “B”? I know I did, even though the guy was a complete dirtbag.

    SF February 13, 2008, 3:57 pm
  • YF, Clemens had a chance to admit his guilt and go away quietly, that’s why I care how believable he is. Instead, he decided to lie to us, and also use his clout and status to get away with it. That annoys me more than anything. For me, today had nothing to do with baseball, it had to do with yet another wealthy celebrity thinking they are above the law.
    Ok, Clemens was hated by more than just Red Sox fans, but to a lot of people he was still a baseball hero. I don’t think he’s anywhere near the same league as Bonds, that’s for sure.

    LocklandSF February 13, 2008, 4:25 pm
  • “Wealthy celebrity thinking they are above the law.”
    We can’t always have justice in this life. It’s a shame but a fact. There are times when unpleasant individuals will get away with things. For that matter, there will always be someone who has more money, a better apartment, a faster car, etc. Getting hung up on those individuals will only lead to unhapiness. The best thing you can hope for is that the systems you have in place reduce the frequency of bad actors escaping unpunished. The unfortunate thing about the PED scandal is that the system was intentionally left in non-functioning state. There’s no way to go back in time to change that now.

    YF February 13, 2008, 4:42 pm
  • Jesus, YF, you can be really patronizing when you want to be.
    “We can’t always have justice in this life”
    Exactly, which is why in times like this that the person is so obviously caught red handed, I’m going to enjoy some justice being served, even if it’s only in the eye of the public.

    LocklandSF February 13, 2008, 4:48 pm
  • Not intentionally patronizing. Not my meaning at all. I receive no joy from this mess. I think it’s all just nasty. But everyone draws their own conclusions, obviously.

    YF February 13, 2008, 4:55 pm
  • “If this site is so worried about budgeting, maybe it could help track down the billions in cash that the U.S. airlifted into Iraq but can’t account for.”
    to explain mine and AG’s absence from this thread. We were out all day, doing this. We made it to a Ponderosa on 95, then decided to call it a day after the meat loaf.

    Nick-YF February 13, 2008, 5:30 pm
  • “But Congress doesn’t do much to encourage a sense of benign authority and justice when it yanks (no pun intended) Chuck Knoblauch out of obscurity for no good reason, and trammels on the reputations of citizens, however repugnant, so its members can score political points with their constituencies.”
    I believe that this is the point and problem with this whole process.
    “The unfortunate thing about the PED scandal is that the system was intentionally left in non-functioning state. There’s no way to go back in time to change that now.”
    That speaks to the inherent problem with these hearings. Was there any single moment today when anybody watching thought Congress was even pretending to try to pretend they were “investigating” rampant illegal drug use in the game of baseball and why and how and what to do about it?
    I agree whole heartedly with YF on this entire thread. I will go one step further however, and say that I will remain profoundly cynical and skeptical of these types of congressional oversight committees (especially during elections years) UNTIL politicians prove otherwise.

    walein February 13, 2008, 5:33 pm
  • Walein, at the start of the hearing today, Waxman made it very clear that this was about Roger and only Roger. Today’s hearing had nothing to do with the state of PED use in baseball, what to do about it, or anything like that and they never tried to make it about that.

    LocklandSF February 13, 2008, 5:59 pm
  • good work nick.
    ps. the answers to the Savings And Loan scandal can be found during happy hour at Applebees. but i didn’t tell you that.

    sf rod February 13, 2008, 5:59 pm
  • So what was the point of the public hearing Lockland?

    walein February 13, 2008, 6:02 pm
  • > then decided to call it a day after the meat loaf
    I told you not to fill up on the bread.

    attackgerbil February 13, 2008, 6:13 pm
  • The point of today’s hearing was to TRY and determine the validity of Roger’s claim that the portion of the Mitchell report about him was false. It’s also my understanding that this particular hearing was actually requested by Roger’s lawyers.

    LocklandSF February 13, 2008, 6:32 pm
  • There have been 1000s of citizens asking for a re-investigation of the 9-11 committee but that ain’t happening.

    walein February 13, 2008, 7:02 pm
  • I think when you’re named in a report published by a former US Senator and you publicly call that report horrible and disgraceful, you get the attention of a few people.

    rootbeerfloat February 13, 2008, 7:15 pm
  • Just to clarify:
    Once again, sf rod, I think Nick misremembers the conversation that we had. Nick and I’s relationship was close enough to know that if I would have known that he had eaten the meatloaf, which I now know, if he was knowingly knowing that I had eaten meatloaf, we would have talked about the subject. He’d have come to me to ask me about the effects of it. Namely, it turned me into a lazy sack prone to run-on sentences and U-Turns on 95.

    attackgerbil February 13, 2008, 7:28 pm
  • that’s the best thing i’ve read all day ag.

    sf rod February 13, 2008, 7:54 pm
  • Yes, but did Nick administer the the meatloaf in the buttocks, Gerb?
    If so, then there’s really no way of knowing it was meatloaf and not, say, Vitamin B12. In which case, you might want to retain Rusty Hardin.

    SF February 13, 2008, 7:58 pm
  • > did Nick administer the the meatloaf in the buttocks, Gerb?
    Well, he did buy me dinner. Wait.. I mean I plead the fifth.

    attackgerbil February 13, 2008, 8:13 pm
  • zzzzzzzzzzz

    dc February 13, 2008, 9:01 pm
  • dc back in the hizzzzzzzzzzzzzzouse!

    SF February 13, 2008, 9:08 pm
  • Ok, maybe it was a waste of money…
    “Have you ever been a vegan?” Braley asked.
    “I don’t know what that is,” Clemens responded.

    On the other hand, who the hell doesn’t know what a Vegan is, particularly a fitness nut?! LIAR!!!!!!

    SF February 13, 2008, 9:12 pm
  • The “little band-aids for the butt” was my personal high-light. I’ve already begun stitching it on my tea-cosies.

    walein February 13, 2008, 9:15 pm
  • If I were a more industrious lad I’d have the t-shirts already in production.
    “Band-Aid for my butt”
    on the back
    “If it bleeds.”
    All black, with red, gothic lettering, a pentagram, Clemens face illustrated on front, tour dates in white on back (what of? who cares).

    Anonymous February 13, 2008, 9:18 pm
  • // Clemens invited the nanny to his house the day before his attorneys finally gave congressional investigators her name and number. //
    Isn’t this otherwise known as witness tampering?

    Hudson February 14, 2008, 8:16 am
  • To me it is never a waste (and all too rare in our society) to spend some time providing an object lesson to millions of people — many of them youngsters — that lying and cheating is wrong.
    Those who keep bleating the “waste” mantra have limited the ostensible purpose of this hearing down to some infinitesimally narrow, lawyerly set of issues.
    The waste line is just a way of saying “I don’t like it” while dressing that opinion up in faux sanctimony.
    Let’s stop ignoring that baseball is the national pastime (even if football is more popular) and that sports heros are among the most venerated people in our culture.
    I’m glad Congress didn’t pass this one up, even if some of these Congresscrittes are idiots motivated just by the presence of cameras.
    If these hearings teach even a few kids something about honor and playing the game [of baseball, of life] right, it’s hardly a waste.

    Hudson February 14, 2008, 8:29 am
  • For me the level of outrage over the “trampling of people’s rights” is simply not commensurate with what has actually happened and in comparison to other things that this administration (with many complicit Democrats) has perpetrated in the name of democracy. This is a parking violation to the FISA bill’s premeditated murder. Relativism is important.
    (And yes, I know this is a baseball blog, not a civil rights blog, hence the course of discussion.)

    SF February 14, 2008, 9:04 am
  • I don’t think anyone here is making those equivalencies SF, except maybe you.

    YF February 14, 2008, 9:56 am
  • Hudson you make some very good points, but…
    1. Teenagers/Young Adults don’t think like that. They (a.) think they are immortal and (b.) think they are different and will never get caught. It’s just not how they think. In the case of my school we randomly test for these things so that’s pretty much all the motivation they need.
    2. Also this would be a far more effective example if Roger Clemens was say Jimmy from Central High or State U. These kids cannot and do not relate to Roger Clemens and honestly I don’t see how this teaches them anything. Example for us old guys would be Bill Gates getting caught for Tax fraud. Would you be sitting at home saying boy I have really learned from Bill Gates mistakes, no more fradulent write offs for me?
    This was all about Bud Selig having the ability to stand up and say look what we are doing to clean up the game. Again I will say that I am not a Clemens fan, but he is getting the short end here. He is not alone in his mistakes, yet he is fighting this battle alone.

    John - YF February 14, 2008, 9:58 am
  • John… Come on man, everyone named in the Mitchell report got the short end, not just Clemens.
    The thing that makes Clemens different is that he was arrogant enough to think he could lie to the American public and get away with it.

    LocklandSF February 14, 2008, 10:22 am
  • Clemens chose how to fight this battle, John. He refused to talk to Mitchell. He hired Rusty Hardin, who defended Clemens by calling McNamee a “psycho”. He has, to me, pretty clearly lied about what he has done. He’s no victim. I find that the hardest thing to accept as criticism of what has gone down. Crap on Selig for being soft and late in addressing the PED issue. Crap on the Owners for being complicit in the propogation of PED use. Crap on the MLBPA for taking a hardline stance against accountability in testing. But Clemens made his bed. He’s taken a situation that may have been engineered against him (if you believe that, which I don’t necessarily) and made it exponentially worse for himself. His arrogance is incredible. It’s like he was advised by Martha Stewart or something.
    As for equivalencies, YF, I am offering none of them, that’s misrepresentation on your part. I am only reacting to the level of outrage over these hearings, which I find extreme. There are far more important things for which we should hold our government and public servants to task. This, for me, isn’t one of them.

    SF February 14, 2008, 10:29 am
  • What bothers me about this whole thing (and I do think Clemens is guilty, FWIW), is that it’s really a terrible subversion of the justice system. It seems to me that the Justice Department couldn’t get ample evidence to prosecute some of these players, so they work out a deal with Mitchell to have them publicly named in a report where the accused reall;y have no recourse for defense. On top of that, despite the fact that it seems Mitchell was right about all or close to all of the players named, it’s becoming more and more apparent he didn’t engage in even the most cursory effort to corroborate the testimony of his witnesses. Nor did he make much effort to investigate the problem outside of the two witnesses the DoJ giftwrapped for him. How do you conduct a steroids investigation without talking to Canseco?
    But he didn’t have to do his homework, because Selig and the owners (who he works for) would blindly praise the his report, because they saw it as a giant hammer with which to whack the Players’ Union. And the Committee members wouldn’t question the work of one of their own.
    Then we get the Senators bombarding the witnesses (both Clemens and McNamee) as if they were on trial and these were real legal proceedings with testimony from witnesses who were not even in the room, and will never have to be.
    The whole thing is a sham and everyone involved is one kind of scumbag or other, as far as I’m concerned. It’s really disgusting.

    Mark (YF) February 14, 2008, 10:39 am
  • I think you would find the level of outrage disproportionate to its relevance in society based on the fact that this is a baseball blog. You will no doubt find the outrage you are looking for on the sites devoted to politics, law, etc.
    The statements you made before “But Clemens made his bed.” are actually the important points. I don’t think Congress should be in the comeuppance business. The hearings yesterday shed light on nothing pertaining to the supposed goals outlined in the commissioning of the Mitchell Report.

    DR February 14, 2008, 10:40 am
  • All this grandstanding from the politicians and fans alike is making my head spin every which way. I know the BS when I read it because I have no doubt, none at all, that many folks would be singing different tunes had (a) players from their favored team been named; (b) Clemens finished the year with the Sox or ‘Stros; (c) no Yankees been named. Let’s cut the crap. It’s demeaning to your intelligence.
    On a much funnier note, Steve at WasWatching has a post relating to Big Stein’s B12 use in a 1991 Playboy interview:
    PLAYBOY: Or eccentric: According to another story in Damned Yankees, you occasionally dropped your pants at Yankees executive meetings to receive a shot of vitamin B-12 from Gene Monahan, the team trainer.
    [GEORGE] STEINBRENER: I did do that on one or two occasions. I would get these shots, but I didn’t want to go down to the locker room, because then somebody would write. “Oh, he’s down there telling Piniella what to do.” So Gene Monahan would come up with a vitamin shot and, you know, I’m a man, I’ve been in locker rooms all my life and, sh*t, those guys walk around with nothing on. I’m not your typical owner. I mean, I’ve worn a jockstrap myself. Now, if I’m standing there and I’ve got my guys around me and we’re talking, and Gene Monahan comes in and says, “Boss, I got your shot,” I’d say, “Fine. Come on over.” I’d stand up, go behind the chair, drop my drawers, he’d stick a needle in and — boom! I mean, what the f*ck am I going to say? [Affects a coquettish tone] “Oh, fellows, you have to get out, he’s going to give me a shot.” F*ck that! Call it macho, call it what you like, I don’t give a sh*t. Besides, I think he kind of enjoyed sticking the needle in. The guys loved to see if I would grimace. [Laughs]

    A YF February 14, 2008, 10:45 am
  • SF: You are specifically making equivalency comparisons. See your parking violations comment.
    For the reason Mark YF mentions above, Clemens had very good reason not to talk to Mitchell, and it’s worth noting that almost no player did. Hiring an aggressive lawyer to defend himself is simply his right.
    I find a disturbing willingness on your part to accept ends produced through the most ill gotten and unjustifiable means.

    YF February 14, 2008, 10:46 am
  • DR,
    The hearing yesterday was about Roger and only Roger, Waxman made that TOTALLY clear at the start of the hearing. This had nothing to do with the PED problem in baseball and what to do about it. It was actually held at the request of Roger’s legal team, no less.

    LocklandSF February 14, 2008, 10:50 am
  • Great. So? Why does Congress need to indulge him? Can we now have a hearing to find out if Doc Ellis really was tripping when he threw his no-hitter?
    The fact that they would stand up and declare at the outset that the hearing had no real relevancy does not absolve it from the crime of wasting my valuable blog reading time! I barely had time to watch all of the Chris Berman videos.

    DR February 14, 2008, 10:56 am
  • I couldn’t agree more, Mark.

    A YF February 14, 2008, 10:57 am
  • “everyone named in the Mitchell report got the short end”
    That’s the point NOT EVERYONE was named in the report. That’s the short end. Pettitte, Knoblauch, etc…all got the short end. The difference is Clemens has MORE to lose then any of them. The MR is incomplete, it fell way short of being a complete list of players who are/were guilty of cheating. In Clemens mind he must have thought this was the only way to possibly keep his good name. I am sure at this point he is regretting it, but when faced with the alternatives at that time he chose what he thought would be most effective and that was to fight.
    “He’s no victim.”
    He sure is a victim, like it or not. He may have cheated, but he most certainly was not the only one. He is a victim of an incomplete MR.

    John - YF February 14, 2008, 10:59 am
  • He is a victim of his own hubris.
    Don’t forget, there would have been no hearing without Clemens and his attorneys insisting on having one. You can argue that it was the only way for Clemens to get his side of the story fully out there, but that requires the extraordinary step of actually believing that Clemens’ version of his side is truthful.
    And while the MR did put him in this situation, the MR wouldn’t have done so if Clemens hadn’t violated federal law and baseball policies by using steroids and HGH. I absolutely reject labeling Clemens a victim when everything that’s taken place is directly caused by his own actions.

    Paul SF February 14, 2008, 11:07 am
  • “Don’t forget, there would have been no hearing without Clemens and his attorneys insisting on having one.”
    Don’t forget there would be no need for a hearing if he had not been named in an incomplete report.
    “the MR wouldn’t have done so if Clemens hadn’t violated federal law and baseball policies by using steroids and HGH. I absolutely reject labeling Clemens a victim when everything that’s taken place is directly caused by his own actions.”
    He’s not a victim because he cheated, he’s a victim because he is getting crucified by the public and he is simply not alone. It’s foolish to believe that he is the only player of his magnitude that cheated. Sure he may have cheated and he gets no sympathy from me on that, he deserves punishment. But he should NOT be the only one being punished.

    John - YF February 14, 2008, 11:21 am
  • I know none of you, and I don’t mean to pick on anyone, but because I’m a YF, I’ll single out this comment:
    “He sure is a victim, like it or not. He may have cheated, but he most certainly was not the only one. He is a victim of an incomplete MR.”
    I absolutely can’t imagine a YF making this argument had (a) no Yankee been named; and (b) Clemens finished the year with the World Champion Sox.
    If I had more energy I’d pick out many more obviously lopsided arguments in this thread. Please, stop the BS.

    A YF February 14, 2008, 11:22 am
  • You are barking up the wrong tree A YF. Those regulars who know me know I am not a homer. My feelings are not based on the fact that Clemens was a Yankee. I do not like Roger Clemens, never really have, so the fact that he was a Yankee has zero to do with my passion towards this argument. You don’t have to agree with what I say but do not think for one minute that I see things through pinstriped glasses. Anyone here that knows me knows that’s not the case.
    So in a span of 2 months I have been called a homer and a closet Sox fan…LOL. Can’t win.

    John - YF February 14, 2008, 11:27 am
  • “It’s foolish to believe that he is the only player of his magnitude that cheated. Sure he may have cheated and he gets no sympathy from me on that, he deserves punishment. But he should NOT be the only one being punished.”
    Uh, Barry Bonds is about to go on trial after being pretty much banned from the game.
    All I know is the best hitter and pitcher of the last twenty years will have gone on “trial”. Someone who once hit 70 homeruns in a season is now a hermit. Another player with 3000 hits will never make the HOF because of his fingerpointing. Clemens is hardly alone.
    This scandal is the absolute worst in the history of the sport. Over 80 players were named. The sad fact is, that represents just a small portion of the guilty.

    A YF February 14, 2008, 11:30 am
  • “It’s foolish to believe that he is the only player of his magnitude that cheated.”
    Seriously, who thinks this? Does anyone?

    LocklandSF February 14, 2008, 11:33 am
  • Way to take things out of context. My statements were based on the MR. In the context of the MR Clemens is alone. He is by far the most high profile player named, with the most to lose.

    John - YF February 14, 2008, 11:34 am
  • A YF: I’m confused, so you’re saying that people are on Roger simply because he was most recently a Yankee? And, had it been a member of the Red Sox, no Yankee fans would reacting the same way as some Red Sox fans are to Clemens?

    LocklandSF February 14, 2008, 11:36 am
  • Who called anyone a homer? All I’m saying is that the “analysis”, all around, leaves much to be desired. I have no doubt that many would be emphasizing something else had the context been changed. It all comes down to what seems most prevalent and there it absolutely becomes an issue of motivation. What keeps me level-headed is the old trick of trying to argue the other side.
    If (a) Clemens became a Sock, and (b) no Yankees were named, I also have no doubt that many people wouldn’t be saying yesterday was a waste of time. The report was absolutely deeply flawed. But even there I question my own interests in saying that. Had no Yankees been named would I be so worried? I’m not sure.

    A YF February 14, 2008, 11:39 am
  • We have been down this road before Lockland. To us, the informed public we know that this report was incomplete. To the millions of others who do not follow and love the sport like we do this point is not as clear. Clemens reputation is shot, win, lose or draw. His reputation with baseball fans, as well as the public. He brought this on himself, but there are hundreds or thousands of other players who did the same thing that are never going to have to lose their reputation the way Clemens has due to the MR.

    John - YF February 14, 2008, 11:41 am
  • You are waaaaaay off base. I am not going back and forth with you on this one. My reputation as a thinker free of Yankee bias speaks for itself. I have been playing and coaching this game for a long time, I love this game not just the Yankees. I am passionate about the flaws of this report because it hurts the GAMES public image, not JUST Roger Clemens image. Again disagree with my arguments, that’s fine, but don’t tell me my arguments are based on who was named and what team they played for.

    John - YF February 14, 2008, 11:46 am
  • “Way to take things out of context. My statements were based on the MR. In the context of the MR Clemens is alone.”
    Did you read it? Bonds got quite a section devoted to him. Just because it had already come out doesn’t make Clemens alone. Not by any stretch.
    “I’m confused, so you’re saying that people are on Roger simply because he was most recently a Yankee? And, had it been a member of the Red Sox, no Yankee fans would reacting the same way as some Red Sox fans are to Clemens?”
    I think that’s part of it, yes. Not the only part. All I’m saying that had a few important Sox been named, Clemens recently among them, many, many YF’s would be harping less on the process than on the results. By contrast, many SF’s would similarly flip their indignant tones.
    “You are waaaaaay off base.”
    All I’m asking you to do is to think about how your arguments would change if the context changed. I have a very, very hard time believing, that you and many, many others would be arguing the exact same way. That tells me that something complicated is going on psychologically when we try to discuss the topic objectively and our presumed objectivity is an illusion. That sets off my BS detector – BIG time.

    A YF February 14, 2008, 11:57 am
  • This scandal is the absolute worst in the history of the sport.
    No, it isn’t. It’s not even close.
    As for John, I am tired of people accusing him (and any other poster, for that matter) of being a homer, or being a closet fan of some other team, just because they take a view contrary to someone else’s. There should be no question about the allegiance of YF, Paul, Gerb, John, Nick, or myself to the teams that we root for, even if at times we are critical of those teams, their policies. Or, if we are critical of the rival team that we dislike that isn’t necessarily borne out of irrational dislike. We pride ourselves here on being critical (not impartial, always) and being as fair as we can be.

    SF February 14, 2008, 12:00 pm
  • I find a disturbing willingness on your part to accept ends produced through the most ill gotten and unjustifiable means.
    Again, my “acceptance” is relative. This statement of yours is exactly what I am reacting to: it’s over the top, extreme. “The most ill gotten and unjustifiable means”? Seriously? I can’t imagine the Mitchell Report and MLB’s PED investigation, however flawed, deserving that kind of hyperbolic description.

    SF February 14, 2008, 12:05 pm
  • “No, it isn’t. It’s not even close.”
    Seriously, way to make a claim then do absolutely nothing to back it up.
    All I know is that this scandal has questioned the integrity of a huge swath of players, their records, game results, and many championships won. Which scandal was worse than THAT?
    And this nonsense about someone being called a homer is a distraction. No one was called that in anything I read or wrote. But instead of reducing everything to soundbites, I’d like everyone with an opinion to take one minute to think about how their opinion would change had the list of those named, and their employers, been different. It’s too easy to say you would be one of the few to be consistent in your thought. The history of human psychology says otherwise.

    A YF February 14, 2008, 12:11 pm
  • I think the “outrage” we’re hearing on this thread is amplified by the fact that we’re commenting on a specific case as it happens, so we’re not getting a lot of context.
    This whole thing saddens me. I don’t feel any outrage at Roger Clemens for what he did, nor at Barry Bonds. I probably would actually feel MORE outraged if a prminent member of the Sox was found to have used, particularly if it was someone (like Ortiz) who had been outspoken against PEDs because then it would be a case of feeling I had been lied to by someone I trusted.
    There are other things in the history of baseball to be outraged over. All Red Sox fans should be outraged and embarrassed over the vile, racist conduct of Tom Yawkey, Joe Cronin and Pinky Higgins in the 1940s. To me, that’s the worst scandal ever perpetrated by any figure associated with Boston sports, and probably always will be.
    PEDs doesn’t rise to that level for me. Don’t get me wrong, it’s terrible. I’m angry and frustrated over the fact that we won’t be able to know which records are “clean” and which are not (while recoognizing that plenty of records aren’t clean for many reasons predating steroids). I think PED users have done some damage to the sport, but not nearly as much as some have claimed. In the end, the use itself is not as egregious as the owners’ and players’ collective refusal to acknowledge it as a problem and clean it up. It’s unfortunate Bud Selig and Don Fehr were not questioned as closely by the panel as Roger Clemens and Brian McNamee were.
    So in the context of the hearing and scandal itself, Clemens came off yesterday as a self-delusional, chronic liar whose own ego led to the situation he’s in. I don’t have sympathy for him, and while I agree there should be others singled out for the treatment he received yesterday, it was treatment he requested, and he deserved every bit of what he got.

    Paul SF February 14, 2008, 12:22 pm
  • See, I’d call the racism, across baseball, a distant second in the annals of the sport because it was a sin of omission. The players kept out of the game didn’t actively change the nature of the games played and the records achieved. Sure, some of the best minority players could have contributed their own records and help shift some of the results. And they did when they were finally allowed into the sport. But in being kept out if anything the era suffered from an overall lack of greatness.
    But the PED Era, spanning almost 20 years, drastically altered the entire history of the game. The homerun title will forever involve an argument now. 500 homeruns became a meaningless marker of individual greatness. The championships won by many, if not all teams, have question questions marks starting as early as 1988. That’s a sin of commission. This era we were led to believe was a ridiculous explosion of offense and longevity across the game. Sure, PEDs aren’t the only explanation. But when the story is written about this time, it no doubt will feature the chemicals and characters at the center.
    Talk about being lied to.

    A YF February 14, 2008, 12:37 pm
  • A YF:
    The discrimination by baseball, to me, was a far more egregious sin (though perhaps not a “scandal” in the way you seem to term it). 1919 comes to mind, for me, as a scandal that had far deeper implications about the integrity of the sport than does this PED stuff. Gambling’s infiltration into the sport was dastardly and could have killed the game.

    SF February 14, 2008, 1:04 pm
  • Dastardly?
    I love it, a little too much time in the NYT archives, SF?
    Ok, ok, enough of this tomfoolery!

    LocklandSF February 14, 2008, 1:19 pm
  • Seriously, 1919? That was one team in one year, even as that era may have involved a few others.
    Again, the racism was a big problem, but it detracted from the the games that were played. It didn’t drastically inflate the results, and records, of every game played. Now one says the players of that period didn’t earn the results and records they achieved, only that they could have faced greater competition.
    Right now, we’re talking about teams that go back at least to 1988 and the Bash Brothers. With the heart of that order now admitted steroids users, I question every team from that point forward.
    This scandal hasn’t just tainted almost the entirety of my baseball watching days, it calls into question every career and result that occurred during that time. Since sports are wholly a function of the players and teams, I’d say I can’t see how any scandal in any other sport has been worse. Sure, football may be just as involved with PEDs, but then they don’t have their best stars of a generation on trial.

    A YF February 14, 2008, 1:39 pm
  • In other words, no other era calls into question every player and every result. And not one of the politicians felt it necessary to point this out. The entire history of the game has been dramatically while we cheered them on. That’s disgusting, frankly.

    A YF February 14, 2008, 1:43 pm
  • In other words, no other era calls into question every player and every result.
    Except, as we’ve discussed above, the gambling era from 1901-1925, or thereabouts.

    Paul SF February 14, 2008, 3:07 pm
  • Again, some players throwing some games is far different than every game being affected.

    A YF February 14, 2008, 5:04 pm
  • A YF:
    I think you are underestimating the influence of gambling on literally decades of games. See the above thread’s comments for further information from Paul and Allan of The Joy of Sox.

    SF February 14, 2008, 5:10 pm
  • A player that juiced affects every game they played in. A player that helps bookies still has to make an active decision in each and every game and has to have the opportunity to affect the outcome.
    Meanwhile, from the gambling days, were the best hitter AND pitcher put on trial? Joe Jackson might qualify as the former (even as Babe Ruth is the best historical comp to Bonds based on the inflated numbers), but the comp would only hold if Cy Young himself was convicted in the court of public opinion. That wasn’t Eddie Cicotte testifying yesterday.
    It might be easier for folks to swallow if they think the worst is far behind in the past. But it ain’t true. We’re living through the worst. And as another ten or twenty years pass before anyone even gets close to 61, we’ll see it that much more clearly. Still, never again will a player accomplish anything significant in the game without questions at least being asked about whether he’s clean (see A-Rod). The stench from this era is just starting to ferment.

    A YF February 14, 2008, 5:26 pm
  • A YF:
    Do you plan on continuing to watch baseball? If so, why? Why would you spend time paying attention to something so corrupt, so tainted, so stench-filled? Why have you been watching? Did you not suspect that there were lying cheats?
    Serious questions. Why are you still interested in MLB if this is your attitude? Or are you not?

    SF February 14, 2008, 5:32 pm
  • We are clearly prioritizing things differently. I would argue that having essentially a whole team on trial for trying to directly throw a game is far worse than having two individuals called on the carpet for ingesting substances that had an undetermined effect on their performance ability.

    Paul SF February 14, 2008, 5:41 pm
  • I’ve thought about giving it up. I really have. Will I? I don’t know. It’s like a woman I’ve loved deeply for over 25 years, then come to find out that she was cheating on me for 15 of those years even as I continued to get great enjoyment from our relationship. Just cause she says she’ll never cheat again doesn’t change the way I see her now and our time together.
    Did I think everyone was cheating? Of course not. Andy Pettitte? Hell no.
    But I do know that every game from this point forward is going to be very different. As a kid I used to love projecting mid-season numbers to see if anyone had a shot a Maris. Now? Why bother? To remember Bonds?
    I’m hopeful now that things have changed. But the Boys of Summer it ain’t.

    A YF February 14, 2008, 5:52 pm
  • Hmmm, having one whole team on trial versus 90 players named across the sport (from clubhouse attendants of just three teams).

    A YF February 14, 2008, 5:54 pm
  • And again, in 1919 Babe Ruth and Cy Young weren’t on trial.
    In 2008, Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens will be. And it ain’t over yet. By the end of the year there’s a very good chance both will be facing significant jail time.

    A YF February 14, 2008, 5:57 pm
  • > We’re living through the worst.
    That is completely a matter of perspective.
    > Still, never again will a player accomplish anything significant in the game without questions at least being asked about whether he’s clean (see A-Rod).
    You are working under the assumption that everyone cares; not everyone does.
    > The stench from this era is just starting to ferment.
    This may seem strange to some, but I am not at all troubled.

    attackgerbil February 14, 2008, 5:58 pm
  • To come back around to the political overtones, what truly sickens me is when did America become Russia circa 1980?
    Win at all costs in sports?
    Torture people to get information?
    Widely spy on your own citizens?
    Launch wars with little provocation?
    You know things are bad when the distractions are corrupt. What next, we find out that Rocky used HGH?
    Whoops.
    http://abcnews.go.com/Entertainment/wireStory?id=3174543

    A YF February 14, 2008, 6:16 pm
  • No one team — not even the late-90s Yankees or mid-80s A’s, who seem to have the most players implicated in this mess (or at least the highest profile) — has anything close to the eght principal figures that were tried and tossed from the game in 1919 on one team.
    It’s not my duty to restore your faith in the game — perhaps your faith was misplaced, considering the rampant use and abuse of amphetamines that has been known about for decades, or the spitballs thrown by players who are now in the Hall of Fame, or the corked bats that have cropped up every so often since before I was born — but it seems you are overstating the problem, for whatever reason.
    In 1919, eight players on one team were discovered. Extrapolating that across all of baseball will lead to a far higher percentage of implication than extrapolating your 90 players of the thousands upon thousands who have tasted a cup of MLB coffee since the late 1980s.
    Add the anecodtal evidence from both cases, which is far stronger for the gambling scandals that directly affected (probably) every World Series for more than 15 years. If you truly emphasize records more than championships, then consider Cy Young’s 511 victories. Walter Johnson’s strikeouts, Joe Wood’s consecutive wins streak, Ty Cobb’s hits total. How many of those ocurred because the other team was throwing a game; how many hits or wins or strikeouts occurred because the opponent was intentionally flubbing grounders, flailing at bad pitches or simply playing at half speed? Baseball’s oldest records — and thus its most cherished — occurred during an era of rampant cheating that directly affected the outcome of hundreds of the sport’s games.
    I’m not saying we should excuse the PED users or ignore the scandal that has occurred in our lifetimes, but it seems hyperbolic — or at least shows a poor understanding of the reality of MLB history — to be so upset by this scandal without acknowledging that baseball has allowed, and survived, far worse.

    Paul SF February 14, 2008, 6:17 pm
  • You can’t extrapolate 1919 through the rest of the game because while there may have been rumors, few other players were publicly named and “tried”. Then, history was written to reflect one bad team. And that’s what the common fan remembers. And again, no one ever hit 60 HRs because they were trying to fix a game.
    Now? It really is the entire sport. That’s not an overstatement. We have 90 players named from only three sources. And by the end of the year our Babe Ruth AND Cy Young are likely in jail or fighting hard to stay out.

    A YF February 14, 2008, 6:32 pm
  • while there may have been rumors, few other players were publicly named and “tried”
    Funny, this sentence could just as easily be applied to the steroids scandal.
    And there were more than just rumors:
    The Boston Globe and Boston Post both accused the Americans of throwing Game 1 of the 1903 World Series; Game 2 was thought to be fixed in the opposite direction. Fans believed Boston also threw Game 3. Lou Criger, the Boston catcher, later said future Hall of Fame player-manager John McGraw had offered him $12,000 to throw the entire Series.
    In 1912, Joe Wood and the Red Sox were widely believed to have thrown Game 7 in revenge for their owner’s decision to start a subpar pitcher in Game 6. His reason for forcing the manager to do so? To extend the series and enlarge the gate receipts.
    And you keep referring to Bonds and Clemens — would a betting scandal involving Tris Speaker and Ty Cobb do it for you? Because Kennesaw Mountain Landis accused them of fixing games over a multiple-year period beginning in 1919.

    Paul SF February 14, 2008, 7:02 pm
  • Accusations are different from a league-wide report, one in which few doubt the veracity – unless you believe Clemens? And I put little faith in what newspapers report – now or in 1902. They get paid is to print rumors. Ask the LA Times.
    Did Tris Speaker and/or Ty Cobb face years of jail time? Ever?

    A YF February 14, 2008, 7:09 pm
  • You’re moving the goalposts, A.
    You said: Meanwhile, from the gambling days, were the best hitter AND pitcher put on trial?
    Currently, the best hitter (Bonds) has yet to stand trial, and the best pitcher (Clemens) has been charged with no crime. They have been investigated by various entities, which is exactly what happened to Cobb and Speaker — meanwhile, Jackson did in fact stand trial and I wouldn’t belittle Cicotte (whose top two comps are Hall of Famers and was one of baseball’s top pitchers from 1913-1919).
    In the 1920s, Ty Cobb, Tris Speaker and Joe Wood were investigated by the baseball commissioner for betting on a fixed game after the AL president paid Dutch Leonard (the informant) $20,000 to keep his information quiet. Landis cleared them only after Cobb threatened to expose further gambling scandal in MLB.
    So we’ve got the longtime career hits leader, one of the best center fielders of all time, the pitcher with one of the best single seasons in history, one of the best pure hitters of all time, and a likely Hall of Fame pitcher all implicated in betting scandals centered on 1919 alone! Certainly that at least rivals the steroid scandal on every level.

    Paul SF February 14, 2008, 7:19 pm
  • What does “moving the goal posts” even mean in this context?
    The fact is, very little ever came out of the gambling scandal. Eight players were banned. And in the 90 years since, no one else was ever truly implicated nor had their HOF chances severely hurt, TY Cobb and Tris Speaker included. The HOF means something. But it’s also a very clear marker of how history sees those players.
    By contrast, we’re barely two years out from the true breaking of the PED Era (based on when the Mitchell Mafia came together). 90 players have been formally implicated by the commissioner’s office in writing. The two greatest players are already facing a very real prospect of jail time. At least five other certain HOFers look like they’ll never make it there.
    The worst of it? This is far, very far, from over. I shudder to think of the implications in 10 years, let alone 90.

    A YF February 14, 2008, 8:05 pm
  • Dear God,
    When does baseball begin?…Please deliver us…
    …what i know is that i am disappointed in my favorite sport…i don’t know who is being truthful with me and who isn’t…to some extent i don’t care, because the folks who are supposed to be protecting me from this stuff, the baseball executives and lawmakers don’t really care either…they seem to be more concerned with grandstanding and covering their asses…a first-grader would recognize the mitchell report as incomplete…not that mitchell’s heart wasn’t in it, but his hands were tied, as we’ve discussed until it hurts…so, some yankees were caught up in it…big deal…fans of other teams, count your blessings, and don’t be so high and mighty…
    …as for john, there are a few posters here that i respect, and he is definitely one of them for his objectivity and insight…i agree with him more often than not, but he has set me straight a few times…yeh, he’s a yankee fan, but one of the more objective ones i’ve encountered…he doesn’t deserve the stuff A YF is dishing him…
    …someone said clemens is getting shXX, and being defended, because he is a yankee…really?…he started as a sox, left rather unceremoniously, then became somewhat of a mercenary, but if he were to go into the the HOF today, i bet it’d be as a sox…i didn’t want to make this about soxfan hatred of rog, but that does color the argument a bit…honestly, i would have loved to see a current sox player named just to even the score, as crummy [if honest], as that sounds…personally, i could give a shXX about rog…i wanted to believe him, hoped he was telling the truth, but in the end, he, and all players for that matter have turned me into the classic cynic…i don’t care about them as people–they could be cyborgs…if they wear the right uniform, i’ll root for them…

    dc February 14, 2008, 8:27 pm

Leave a Comment

Next post:

Previous post: