The Texas Con Man

The Clemens / Mitchell report brouhaha fascinates me.

My initial reaction to the Mitchell report was skeptical. Although I'll admit that I enjoyed seeing a lot of Yankees players listed in the report, it also bugged me that someone affiliated with the Red Sox was in charge of the report. I didn't want the perception that specific teams were singled out while others were protected. The night before the Mitchell report came out, I remember dreading the thought of seeing Big Papi listed in the report. No one wants something like that to taint happy memories.

I believe that a good percentage of players have been using steroids and/or HGH. I'm no Mitchell report expert. I've read articles and summaries but haven't tried to wade my way through the actual report. What really surprised me was that a lot of what was in the report was such hearsay and could really affect how players were perceived. The link to Brian Roberts was the one that seemed most tenuous. Did anyone really believe that Brian Roberts (Brian Roberts?!?) had used steroids? Whoops! Apparently, he has. Roberts admitted that he'd used steroids once.

Personally, I think that players who used them should (and likely will) have a tougher time getting into the Hall of Fame. I don't care that they were competing against other players using performance enhancing drugs. Does anyone look back at Shoeless Joe and the Black Sox and say "Gambling was rampant and a lot of players probably fixed games at some point. What if we just look at their careers prior to the 1919 World Series?" The tough part can be determining where to draw the line. Do you think that the player's performance was affected by the drugs and/or did the player's decision to use the drugs affect the integrity of the game?

I have less of an issue with players that used steroids or HGH to recover from an injury. Yes, it's against the rules. Players who get caught doing this should receive an appropriate suspension. Yes, Rodney Harrison comes to mind. Andy Pettitte comes to mind, too, but we'll get back to him in a bit. I don't think that simply having used steroids and/or HGH to recover from an injury warrants keeping a player out of the Hall of Fame. It's still a gray area for me, but I don't lump "one time" offenders in with players who have been on doping schedules for years.

When Clemens' name appeared in the Mitchell report, I was surprised. Long before the Mitchell report, a good friend of mine sent me a link to an article that talked about steroid rumors and wondered why Clemens had gotten a free pass since much of the suspicion around Bonds stemmed from the dramatic improvement late in his career. The article pointed to Clemens' last four years with the Red Sox and then the resurgence with the Blue Jays and Yankees in the "twilight of his career" and wondered why Clemens' performance wasn't treated with more of a skeptical eye.

Admittedly, I have my own biases as a Red Sox fan. Most Red Sox fans' recollection of Clemens during those last four years was that he simply wasn't in shape. He perceived the Red Sox' contract offer as a slight, took the biggest offer he received in that offseason (despite repeatedly saying he could only imagine himself pitching for a team from his home state of Texas and could never pitch against the Red Sox, so he was pretty sure if he left that he'd go to Houston), worked out like a madman and was dominant once again. I'm guessing that, like most Red Sox fans, I watched him pitch in Toronto and said "This is how he should have been pitching with the Sox". In my mind, Clemens was simply back. All it took was some extra cash and extra motivation.

When Clemens first pitched against the Sox in Fenway and stared up at Duquette's seats after pitching a masterpiece, I was actually pleased for him. In his second season in Toronto, my opinion started to shift. Where had this guy been for the last few years? Of course, when he demanded a trade to the Yankees, all bets were off. Wiping his sweat onto Babe Ruth's monument at Yankee Stadium, his constant announcements about how retired/unretired he is on any given day, announcing his nth comeback over the Jumbotron from George Steinbrenner's private box, etc. all affected my opinion of him.

With all that said, I was still surprised to see Clemens not just listed on the Mitchell report, but as one of the second most frequently referenced player in the report behind Barry Bonds. The information in the report seemed a little iffy until Pettitte admitted that McNamee had injected him with HGH in 2002. Combine this startling announcement with the fact that McNamee can go to jail if he lied and the questions in my mind went from "What is McNamee's motivation to point the finger at Clemens?" to "Why would McNamee tell the truth about Pettitte's use of HGH but lie about Clemens?"

All of Clemens' bluster in the past couple weeks has only made him look more guilty. It's all so staged. Put out a press release about how upset you are and how you've hired OJ Simpson's private investigators to uncover the truth. Do an emotional nationally aired interview with your favorite reporter lobbing you softball questions. (Given how crying seemed to change New Hampshire's opinion of Hilary Clinton, maybe Roger should have chosen Barbara Walters to handle the interview so she could get him to cry.) Record conversations with your "friend" and try to get him to slip up. Play the recording to the press and make believe it helps prove your point. Get visibly upset when talking to reporters, wonder why no one gives you the benefit of the doubt given how true you've always been to your word and claim you don't care about the Hall of Fame. File a lawsuit. Stay on the offensive.

I'm really looking forward to the Senate hearings. Actually, it's not so much the hearings themselves I'm interested. It's the aftermath. I fully expect Clemens and McNamee will each tell their side of the story. He said / she said. They'll each look bad but neither will say they've lied. Which means that at least one of them is lying under oath. We know how well that's received. The Senate will release the hounds on both of them until they uncover something that proves that one of them is lying. That's no skin off McNamee's nose since he already goes to jail if he lied.

It's Clemens who is upping the stakes now, but only for himself. It's all he can do to try to salvage his image. But maybe while Congress is rescheduling hearings, Clemens should ask Bonds how much he's been enjoying the investigation that followed his denials before Congress and whether trying to salvage his image was worth it.