The biggest name in George Mitchell’s report was probably the least surprising, but it was also the one with the best evidence — first-hand accounts by his personal trainer of injecting Roger Clemens with steroids in 1998 and 2001.
A lot of discussion to be had on this subject, assuming the allegations are true (and I think that’s a safe assumption at this point):
- Was Dan Duquette right after all? I still believe 1996 was actually Clemens’ first full season on steroids — his K rate improved markedly, and his ERA+ was better. The Sox’ poor season affected his record terribly, but he had a good year after a poor 1993 and injury-plagued 1994-95. It’s my contention all those groin pulls those years might not have been, um, "natural."
- What’s Clemens’ Hall of Fame status? It seems the bulk of his accomplishments occurred before any documented steroid use — from 1986-1992. The general opinion with Barry bonds seems to be that he was a Hall of Famer before 1999, when he allegedly began using. But that gives Bonds a peak from 1986-1998 — 12-years of top performance. Clemens also came into his own in 1986, but his last great season in Boston was 1992. Are six fantastic years enough for the HOF under the logic used for inducting Bonds? Should this even matter? Hey, Ty Cobb was no "peach" himself, and he’s in the Hall.
[Ed Note: Just to be clear, the phrase “I think that’s a safe assumption at this point,” is Paul’s opinion, and not necessarily that of other authors here, or YFSF as a whole.]