Clemens: Legend of the Fall or Fall of the Legend?

With apologies to Mr. Pitt, Mr. Hopkins, and Mr. Quinn, a new figure has taken over this now infamous movie title. A true legend of the sport has now been tainted forever. He has no one to blame but himself.



Let's take a look at the very basics of this debacle...





The government's witness: Brian McNamee

He's one of the key figures behind the Mitchell Report. He was originally linked to the Mets trainer whom investigators found in their preliminary investigations. Sen. Mitchell and other law enforcement officials found him to be credible. Admissions of guilt by Andy Pettite and Chuck Knoblauch add additional credibility. After the hearings were over, the House Committee also released reports showing McNamee contacted Clemens and Pettite's representatives in an attempt to warn them before the Mitchell Report was released. If he were truly attempting to railroad Clemens, why would he warn him? This also feeds into the theory that McNamee has no motive for lying. If he told the truth, he wouldn't go to jail.

The McNamee doubters have a number of issues. First, he lied about his involvement in a date rape case. He also performed a number of dishonest acts including lying about a PHd, using Clemens likeness in advertisements, and even "stealing" Clemens workout regimen as his own. He also kept needles in a beer can and other items for a number of years and kept them from authorities. He's obviously not the most credible witness and you certainly wouldn't want him dating your daughter.

The bottom line is that the feds consider him to be credible. His story was backed up by at least 2 witnesses. Reports confirm that he tried to warn Clemens. Once Clemens taped their last phone conversation and was clearly throwing him under the bus, it upset McNamee. That's when McNamee introduced the needles he kept as evidence. Being a former policeman, he knew having evidence may come in handy for just such an occassion. That's actually smart, not creepy.
His quote that will be played in infamy: "I told the investigators I injected three people -- two of whom I know confirmed my account. The third is sitting at this table."

Despite being what most consider a sleazy person, he did own up to the responsibility of his actions. He stated his was both wrong and sorry for his affect to the integrity of the sport.



The Nail in the Coffin: Andy Pettite

He turned out to be Clemens worst nightmare. Not only did he backup McNamee's claims of injecting HGH, he also recalled multiple instances where Clemens told him he took steroids. Pettite's wife also recalled her husband's recounts of those instances. His 103 page deposition leaves little doubt about his recollections. Further, he recounts that both Clemens and McNamee BOTH told him about Clemens steroid usage. Clemens also admitted under oath that he thought Pettite was credible.




The Clemens Approach:

Clemens seemed to be undaunted during the entire process. But he may have adopted the George Costanza "it isn't a lie if you believe it" approach. There were many troubling actions and statements made by him.

Why 20+ Congressmen agreed to meet with Clemens in the first place is one issue. It's simply inappropriate. Taking photographs with staffers and providing autographs further muddies the waters. It obviously worked on a few members of the committee.

Clemens never took responsibility for anything. Nothing. Is he that dillusional?

He stated on his 60 Minutes interview (with buddy Mike Wallace) that his attorneys told him not to speak with Mitchell and his investigators. During the hearing he blamed his agents for not telling him they were contacted and saying he was easy to find.

He said Pettite misunderstood him taking HGH for his wife back in 1999 or 2000. But Debbie Clemens was injected in 2003, so that wasn't possible.

Inviting his former nanny to his home before she spoke with investigators raises a huge red flag. They hadn't spoken in 7 years, so why all of a sudden?

He blamed his B-12 shots on his mother, and that he was "trusting to a fault" in retaining McNamee after his trangressions. Couldn't be a lapse in judgement. Nah. He knew exactly who McNamee was and what he was all about.

According to the House Committee Report, when Clemens was first warned by McNamee, his lawyers wanted to know if there was any cash, receipt, or other evidence that could link Clemens to steroids. Why would they ask those specific questions if Clemens has never taken anything? There wouldn't be any evidence if he was clean.


Nannygate:

This had lots of play but really had nothing to do with the case. It was really an attempt for Clemens team to discredit McNamee as a witness. It backfired. Not only did McNamee provide details, it also called into question Clemens asking her to his home after a 7 year gap.


It really doesn't matter if Clemens and Canseco discussed steroids specifically there. They were golf buddies and hung around off the diamond. Canseco called himself the "Chemist" in those days. Clemens family and Nanny stayed at his house that night. They were obviously tight at that time. The subject of steroids most certainly came up.



Elected Officials: Welcome to Palookaville

How embarassing was that collection of buffoons? We can give credit to some, but overall that was a scary selection of folks. Not too bright, unprepared, and some too starry eyed to ask a relevant question. It also seemed that there was a division among Democrats (against Clemens)& Republicans (for Clemens). That is a fundamental flaw... Yikes.

While we can certainly debate the need for the hearing in the first place, Clemens team insisted on having it. Waxman clearly stated he would rather not use the Committee's time on this matter.

Most people had their mind made up before the hearing began. It was painfully clear what some had as opinions especially towards McNamee. Dan Burton from Indiana must have just taken his "Grandstanding 101" class at the local junior college. King of the buffoons.


The Fallout:

Will Clemens go to jail for perjury? That's the million dollar question. It may be a while before we find out. It certainly seems like there will be further investigation. Based on some of the contradictions he's made it seems like a sure thing. Will they be able to convict him of perjury? Good chance.

The investigators from BALCO have also gotten their hands on those needles from McNamee. While that evidence may be tainted and unusable in court, positive tests may cause them to dig deeper.

Clemens should have kept his mouth shut. His legacy has been tainted forever & the damage is unrepairable. He didn't keep his story straight in this forum and it may come back to haunt him.

The one time first ballot Hall of Famer may not get in. He had the opportunity to be the first uninamous first ballot candidate. It's a shame. It also extended that black cloud hanging over an entire era of baseball. Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens. Once opposite ends of the spectrum and now linked forever. Two of the best to ever play the game are the newest entrants to the Hall of Shame...

Cheating & the Hall...

The recent Mitchell report has stirred the debate about cheating & who deserves to be in the Hall of Fame and who doesn't.

First, what is considered cheating? Obviously anything that breaks a rule. For pitchers, spitballs, sandpaper or other ways of changing the flight of the ball. For batters, corked bats & too much pine tar come to mind. Most recently, the use of performance enhancing supplements & drugs are in the forefront. Just because MLB & the players association didn't have an agreed upon policy regarding specific enhancements, players knew full well what they were doing was wrong. Not to mention that steroids aren't legal, and obtaining HGH from a dentist isn't exactly above board.

Whether it was curiousity, feeling inadequate, or just wanting to keep your job, it's cheating to take enhancements that aren't allowed. Some old timers like Gaylord Perry insist that players must have ability for these enhancements to work in the first place. He admittedly used corked bats but proclaimed it didn't help because he was a lousy hitter anyway. His point was that enhancements only help if you have enough talent. "It won't help you throw strikes".

He doesn't get it. The point is they had a premeditated thought about using a substance to give them an edge. To what degree it helped or not doesn't matter. The point is they did something wrong intentionally to improve their performance. If you rob a bank and only take $10,000 vs. $500,000 you still go to jail. The amount doesn't matter, it's the act.

Are there different levels of cheating? Can you consider a spitball or corked bat as serious as taking HGH? Cheating is cheating. If you are changing the game at any point, what is the difference? From a pure baseball standpoint, why is one worse than the other? All are against the rules. Is it any different from a moral standpoint? No - because they did it with forethought and intent.

People tend to think steroids & HGH are worse because they are illegal and ultimately harmful to the individual. Hard to disagree. But "greenies" or amphetamines have been around forever, and apparently their use was widespread. They provided an advantage but no one is up in arms about that. Why? No difference.

Recently, a couple of local columnists with Hall of Fame votes were disscussing how things have changed. It was an honor to have a vote in the past, but now that has switched to being a burden. They have now become more than a gatekeeper deciding whose numbers warrant entry. Now they have to determine if someone in fact cheated, and if that cheating should keep them out of the Hall.

It sounds like that type of decision should be made by a committee. Maybe MLB should form one with specific criteria to determine who is eligible & who is not and keep certain players off the ballott. Right now, they rely on the personal viewpoints of sportswriters who have their own agendas and criteria. This should be in place throughout the steroid era.

Respected journalists like Tim Kurkjian want more proof that Bonds willingly took steroids. Others think that certain players had Hall of Fame numbers before they were linked by the Mitchell report and should get in. It's hard to accept those points of view. There was intent and proof of cheating. One of the reasons the Mitchell report has so much weight is that the sources will go to jail if their statements are proven false. There is also corroboration of the facts by at least one other witness. Pettitte pretty much sunk Clemens's ship with his admission. Do you really need a picture of a needle in someone's behind for proof? Look at the size of Bonds head...

Keep your asterisk's in the record books, but out of the Hall. Whatever the reason was for cheating, it should keep you out of the Hall. It shouldn't matter when, especially because we will never truly know the where & when. Just because the Mitchell report shows one timeline doesn't mean there aren't more instances beforehand. Those players should be considered tainted & ineligible.

With only 200+ members of the Hall, it is MLB's responsibility to ensure that only the best of the best get into the Hall. Today's voters have too much power and use their own criteria and prejudice to decide who gets in. There is no accountability for their actions. The process is broken, plain and simple. MLB needs to step up & fix it.

Pete Rose is out for gambling, not altering his performance
Gaylord Perry is in despite cheating, alterting his perfomance
Mark McGuire is out for steroids, altering his performance

Cheating is cheating regardless of the "degree". Perry shouldn't be in, bottom line. He admitted it became part of his craft.

But gambling is worse? At least you can defend it as a disease. Not saying that Rose should get in, but doesn't this seem backwards?

The Steroid Shuffle

How do we make sense of the steroid effect on baseball? Well, the HOF voters have apparently spoken volumes by shunning Mark McGuire. The message is that even without proof the mere appearance of involvement with steroids will keep you out of the Hall.

That’s at first glance however. McGuire has a career .263 BA with only 1,626 hits. It’s his gaudy HR’s (583) that give him consideration for the Hall. Should residing in the top ten HR hitters of all time automatically get you in? You could make a case that he shouldn’t get in. This same argument will be coming for Sosa and Palmeiro soon.

If you ask a number of sportswriters (HOF voters) why they didn’t vote for McGuire, guarantee that this first year is “punishment” for his performance in front of Congress. Instead of giving the guy some credit for trying to do the right thing (and not incriminate himself), they punished him. Remember too that there is no proof, only speculation.

That being said, it’s fairly obvious he had some “help” in the form of steroids and performance enhancing drugs. The argument is when and how much did it help. We’ll never know the answer to those questions. He did hit 49 HR’s in his first full season back in 1987, but his real power surge was between 1996 thru 1999. You can make an educated guess about his stats, but what do you do with them?

How do we view the rest of the players in the steroid era (which will be how the 90’s and early 2000’s will be named)? Isn’t it reasonable to assume that pitchers had the same advantage? By all accounts, more than 50% of players were using some type of enhancement during this stretch. You hate to give Canseco any type of credit, but it appears he was dead on in his book. There was never any punishment while coaches, management, and MLB all turned a blind eye. In that type of environment where performance equals dollars it’s a wonder most athletes weren’t using. While it certainly is not a valid excuse, this was the world they were living in. The ultimate question is how to quantify stats and achievements from this era. If a pitcher and batter are both using, does that negate the effect? So even if you were able to narrow down the who and when it’s still a baffling dilemma.

The Hall Effect…

The HOF voters are an odd bunch. Each has his own view of what is proper and what characteristics have more weight than others. Some change their minds about voting for the same player. There are no standards or criteria, but there are biases and personality conflicts that get in the way. It’s all subjective. Players who were downright nasty to reporters (and everyone else) also seem to get penalized. How else would you explain Albert Belle only getting less than 20% of the vote, while a player like Jim Rice (similar #’s with 500 more at bats) get over 60%? Now that the steroid era has been “exposed” do we now hold players before this era to the higher standard of stats within it? Do we discount the stats from the players from this era?

The good aspect is that players will be judged on an individual basis. Don’t expect the “steroid blanket” to affect all players in the same way. You’d hope that Palmeiro would be treated more harshly than others. He lied to Congress and threw a teammate under the bus after testing positive. Giambi admitted to taking them to a grand jury. Sheffield and Bonds both used the “I didn’t know what I was taking” defense. Bonds also tested positive for amphetamines in 2006 and said he got them from a teammate’s locker. See a pattern here?

By the way, did you miss the whole “players only get reported for a second amphetamines fail” thing?

Pete Rose bet on baseball, but he didn’t cheat. Why is that worse? Anyone testing positive for steroids or enhancers should also be banned from the Hall, no? How about failing the test twice and you’re out? Now that’s a good deterrent and satisfies the “false positive” crap.

Where does this leave us?

Unfortunately in a precarious position. As with many MLB awards there are inherent flaws and therefore snubs. Now we’ve been thrown the steroid curveball to further muddy the waters.

We can’t control any of it which is the most frustrating part. We are at the mercy of the bitter, jaded, cynical, overbearing, and homers called sportswriters. At least that’s what they are when things don’t fit our viewpoint. That will never change, and neither will the current system.

The only question is whether anyone associated with steroids will ever get into the Hall. Will the most prolific HR hitter ever not get in? A few in the top ten? We’ll see. Let’s just hope karma has a hand in it.