• Clemens Attempt To Break From His Prison Without Bars

    Posted by on December 27th, 2007 · Comments (5)

    Hey, if Theodore “T-Bag” Bagwell can keep on staying alive, why not the Rocket?

    First, some recent Clemens news. From the Star-Telegram -

    Roger Clemens is either an idiot of Michael Vick-ian proportions, or he’s telling the truth about not taking steroids.

    My hunch is it is the former.

    If Roger wants a flying Fig Newton of a chance of being in Cooperstown, it had better be the latter.

    You see, there is a natural order to athlete screw-ups: Do whatever it was you should not have been doing, get busted, publicly apologize (entering rehab optional, depending on the crime) and watch as a very understanding public forgives just about any gaffe, big or small.

    When problems arise is when a prolonged deny-and-lie is introduced into this equation.

    The whole “sincere” apology tends to feel a little slimy when it follows a prolonged period of deny, deny, deny and is issued only after the initial denial is proven undeniably to be a lie. The court of public opinion has a statute of limitations for coming clean.

    Or, in the case of steroid users, admitting you were not.

    The window already has closed for Clemens, who has been steadfast in his denial of steroid and HGH use since the Mitchell Report had an eyewitness placing his butt on the receiving end of a juiced syringe. Originally, he denied via a lawyer statement, upgrading to an agent statement and a YouTube video in recent weeks.

    Next up: 60 Minutes and Mike Wallace.

    It used to be, back in the day, just sitting across from Wallace could make a squeaky clean CEO sweat and a dirty politician cry. In fact, 60 Minutes was the show nobody wanted calling them for an interview because their interest probably meant you were guilty of something, and they had you nailed.

    Is this the same Wallace and 60 Minutes? Who knows?

    There is much skepticism, especially in New York, where it has been noted that Wallace is both a Yankees fan and friend of Clemens. He had better go high and tight with his Clemens questions, starting with how the trainer is standing by his story and how he already has been proven reliable with Andy Pettitte.

    What we know now suggests Clemens is lying.

    He is an idiot if he is and he has a lot of convincing to do if he isn’t.

    That’s not exactly a bucket of love for the Rocket there from one of his hometown newsies. Related to Clemens, the Times today (among many other sources) is reporting:

    Roger Clemens’s lawyer has hired private investigators to try to challenge the credibility of Brian McNamee, the trainer who told federal agents and former Senator George J. Mitchell that he had injected Clemens with steroids and human growth hormone, a lawyer familiar with the matter said Wednesday.

    The investigators may have a tape of McNamee contradicting what he said about Clemens, the lawyer added, although it was unclear whether the tape predated McNamee’s interviews for the Mitchell report on performance-enhancing drugs in baseball. The lawyer was granted anonymity because he was not authorized to talk about the case.

    To me, it’s pretty clear what Roger Clemens is doing here – he’s making a Pete Rose play. And, considering how close Clemens and Rose are, in terms of their personality, it does not shock me.

    For those who don’t remember, “The Dowd Report,” released in 1989, said that Pete Rose bet on baseball. This is much like “The Mitchell Report,” released this month, that said Roger Clemens used PEDs.

    For 15 years, Rose kept saying that the Dowd Report was not true – and that he never bet on baseball. It wasn’t until 2004 that Rose came clean on the subject.

    I expect Clemens to do the same – he’ll keep his fight going for as long as he can. And, then, someday, maybe as late as the year 2022, perhaps he’ll come out with a book or something telling the true story.

    After all, what does Roger have to lose here? The court of public opinion has already made up their mind on him – he’s guilty. If he fights that, and loses, he’s still guilty – and all he’s wasted was time. But, if by some miracle, by protesting, he can win over some people, maybe it works out in his favor down the line? Maybe, in a few more years, we find out that just about every “Hall of Fame” type pitcher, who’s thrown in the last 15 years, has used some sort of PED? Who knows? But, if that happens, then Clemens is just one of the crowd – as opposed to being the PED Pitcher Poster Boy – and then it’s a better time for Roger to fess up.

    Hey, it’s a reach. But, again, at this point, what does Rocket have left to throw out there?

    Comments on Clemens Attempt To Break From His Prison Without Bars

    1. JeremyM
      December 27th, 2007 | 9:37 am

      Steve, I don’t really think Clemens and Rose are that close in terms of personality. OK, they’re two competitive guys. But everything we know about Rose suggests the guy is a complete and total jerk. Bet on baseball, bet on his own team, barely saw his kids (at least his son Pete Rose Jr. anyway), doesn’t do charity work, etc. I’m sure Clemens has his skeletons, but he appears to be a good father, his teammates rave about him, he does do charity work no matter how self-serving it might really be. Hell, I know a die-hard Mets fan that was in the Air Force. He HATES Clemens. But Clemens flew into the base here in town, unannounced and unreported, and met with a bunch of airmen here. The guy reluctantly admitted to me that he was a super nice guy and he got his autograph. Pete isn’t signing until Pete is paid, period.

      Now I’m not saying Clemens didn’t use, and I’m not saying he’s perfect, but it seems to me that people are demonizing the guy, as they have been since he left Boston to some degree, and it’s not fair (not saying you are Steve, but I wouldn’t want to be compared closely to Rose).

      As far as Clemens, if he is innocent, he’s so far doing about everything that could be expected. You would hope that if he’s guilty, he would have learned from the Pete Roses, the Palmeiros, etc. and his advisors would’ve as well. So maybe he’s innocent?

    2. December 27th, 2007 | 11:53 am

      FWIW, by saying they were the same, I just meant that they both have huge egos, want to win every time they compete, are perhaps driven by some sort of “daddy” issue, and would stop at nothing to ensure they don’t lose.

    3. Rich
      December 27th, 2007 | 12:36 pm

      “As far as Clemens, if he is innocent, he’s so far doing about everything that could be expected…”
      ___

      I think he has done the opposite of what an innocent person would do.

      Instead of “den[ying] via a lawyer statement, upgrading to an agent statement and a YouTube video in recent weeks,” and then choosing to do an interview with an 89 year old Mike Wallace, an innocent man would likely have denied the Mitchell Report’s findings himself on the day it was released, then immediately made himself available to answer questions from the toughest sports and news journalists who are still in their prime.

      That is basically what David Justice did, appearing on YES via telephone to deny the allegations made against him.

      In contrast, Clemens seems to be acting like a politician who needs weeks to get prepped on how to answer questions before facing the press.

    4. Sonny M
      December 27th, 2007 | 1:11 pm

      Just something to point out.

      The Dowd Report, also had and contained actual evidence against Rose, in fact, John Dowd himself stated they had overwhelming evidence that not only did Rose bet on baseball, but also on his team.

      This wasn’t just eyewitness testimony, but numerous people and solid hardcore evidence.

      Its why I wanted him to run the steroid investigation (which he offered to do, for free, and was turned down).

      The Mitchell report has limited evidence (limited to checks written out), and very few witnesses to give testimony (who were under federal force), and in the case of clemens, no evidence, and only one persons testimony (which apparently can’t even be corroborated by Ramdomski).

      The 2 reports have almost nothing in common.

      One case proves the facts and accusation, the other is more or less faith based, where you have to believe the accusation, on faith, but without facts and dismiss motive in relation to that testimony….i.e. you have to believe it because you want to believe it, but there is nothing in there to prove a point regarding clemens.

    5. DanTheRedSoxMan
      January 1st, 2008 | 4:38 pm

      Sonny M., it is time to take off the Pinstripe Glasses and take a closer look at the Mitchell Report and McNamee’s sworn statements.

      Nothing need be taken on “faith” to believe that Clemens used. The man has every reason to tell the truth and no reason to lie, because his freedom depends on it. On top of that, Clemens’ buddy Pettitte has acknowledged that McNamee’s statement about his HGH use was accurate. That is one huge boost to the man’s credibility and will always stand against whatever slime Clemens’ mouthpiece may dig up against his former trainer.

    Leave a reply

    You must be logged in to post a comment.