Feds Move to Indict Roger Clemens

According to an NY Daily News article, federal authorities are convening a grand jury to consider evidence that Roger Clemens perjured himself at hearing relating to the Mitchell Report and PED use in baseball.

Yankees fans will, of course, already know that the Rocket/McNamee saga is well documented from last December.

Honestly, though, one has to think that federal prosecutors have better things to do with their time.

Like, I don't know, trying to convictthis dude first?

Did Rocket use PEDs or HGH? Probably. Was McNamee kind of a weirdo for saving syringes? Oh yeah. Did Rocket lie under oath? Probably. In the grand scheme of things, does it matter to anyone that's not a baseball fan, lawyer or BALCO member? Probably not.

News N' Notes

So, for the record, I love Fridays. Today in particular.

Anyway, in case you've missed it, some news and notes from around the league:

Radomski avoids prison time. Moral of the story: It's okay to commit crime, as long as you rat out your accomplices, especially if your accomplices are from New York. Sam Waterson's Law and Order universe, this is not.


Santana would get to choose whether or not to exercise 2014 option. Isn't this a fancy way of saying that Santana's now got an opt-out clause? Have the Mets learned nothing re: A-Rod? I mean, I know Santana's agent is not Boras, but still, that can't be the smartest move the Mets have ever made.


Curt Schilling has shoulder injury and disagrees with team over surgery/no surgery. All that blogging must have taken a toll. Guess it's on the list of verboten off-season activities such as motorcycle riding and pick up basketball...


FIVE days to go.

Roger That!

About the Clemens press conference today, there is one thing I'm focusing on:

Clemens says that Brian McNamee injected him with Lidocaine and B12. Clemens says he never provided the drugs, and thus inferred that McNamee did.

Thus:

How does Clemens know that what McNamee injected him with was in fact what McNamee said it was?


The phone conversation, engrossing as it was, is embellishment.


My thoughts with McNamee's family; I know how difficult Celiac disease can be to deal with, it is not something to be taken lightly.

Clemens did come across much more natural today than he did last night which I found reassuring. You may (and I expect, will) disagree.

Roger Clemens and Brian McNamee Asked to Testify

According to ESPN and NBC news, Roger Clemens and Brian McNamee have been asked to testify before Congress.

On that note,

Among the things people are recommending in terms of anti-PED activism, the one that strikes the most resonance for myself is the idea of education directed at students and young athletes.

We already do anti-drug and anti-alcohol programs like DARE, so i have to wonder, would it be that hard to add in a little bit about PEDs?

We could even do it in stages--broader for younger students, but more intense for older students, and especially for student athletes.

Just something to think about...



Meanwhile, this has easily been one of the most boring weeks in the year (I'm a Jets fan, so I don't have football fever)...but every day is a little bit longer, and it's one less day until the start of spring.

Initiation Rights

So I was talking with a friend last night, and he had an interesting quandry:

If Roger Clemens had, in fact, retired in 2002, he would have likely gained first-ballot admission to the Hall of Fame this year.

With all the talk about whether or not he (or any known steroid user) should gain HoF admission, there is the question that arise: what if someone well known and respected gets into the Hall of Fame, only to later be implicated in PED use?

What if Clemens had gotten into the Hall of Fame, before the Report came out? I'm sure the question now would be whether or not Clemens deserves to remain in the Hall?

It might be uncomfortable addressing such a question, but I will be surprised if it does not come up, and sooner rather than later. It'd certainly be more crushing--to find someone we all believed to have gotten in on talent and work ethic had successfully deceived us--than it would be if the deception is caught before the Hall of Fame vote becomes an issue.

Perception is often more important than reality. There are numerous instances of this throughout history--but I'll attempt to restrain my own political bias on a sports blog. There are other examples, though--think of Santa, the Tooth Fairy, even judged competitions--the gold might not go to the best skater, but instead the best competitor for that one performance.

It might not be right, but the hall of fame inductee isn't necessarily the best player out there--just the one we believe is the best. Think of Derek Jeter and Alex Rodriguez--Alex has the pure numbers, Jeter has the rings. Which one do you take?

What happens when, of two guys in the same class, one gets in and the other doesn't, and then, g-d forbid, the one that gets in is shown to have used PEDs, what then? Yeah, it's likely the one that didn't get in will eventually get in, but he'll have missed out on the whole first ballot thing.


What do you guys think? What happens if someone gets into the Hall and it's later revealed he used PEDs? Should there be an asterisk? Something more? Can you revoke someone's HoF status?

It's an interesting question, and I don't really have an answer for it.

Where Are We Going from here?

"On a long road, miles to go,
It's winding and cold and covered with snow
But I ask you what we all want to know
Where are we going from here?"

--Blackmore's Night, "Where Are We Going From Here?"

So now that the Mitchell Report is out, and the "Mitchell 86" are rightfully or wrongfully excused, the question now becomes: What next?

Do you punish the offenders? I am going to break ranks with the majority and say I agree with Bud Selig--you have to take everything on a case-by-case basis. Someone who asked about HGH once but never actually used it is far different from someone who injected themselves with steroids for five or ten years, consistently.

What should the players do who are named? If you're guilty, fess up. It's that simple. Purists will probably never forgive you entirely, but at least both parties can move on--denying it, if you're guilty, only makes you look like a bigger fool in the end. If you're innocent, stay that way.

What about people getting into the Hall of Fame? This is a tough one--I've felt for a while that McGwire and Bonds should not be allowed into the Hall, so, by that logic, I would have to say that Clemens, if he is guilty, should also be barred...but if you consider what he did while on the Red Sox, it's likely he would have been Hall of Fame caliber anyway. Then again, the same is true with Bonds and when he was on the Pirates. Unfortunately, this is a question we will be debating for a long time to come.

What do you do now? You get an independent testing body. You make sure the random tests really are random. You screen clubhouse managers ad any package coming into the locker room that's, say, large enough to hide whatever drug of choice. You don't just go after the players, but you go after the suppliers as well.


Are there criticisms of the Mitchell Report? Galore. I need not recount them all for you, as I am sure you are well aware of most of these.


What now? We move on.

Take the hits and move on. Don't let it become the defining moment of baseball--1919 certainly is not; neither should this be. Rise above it.

The fans will still be there come April 1st, because, as always, there is nothing higher than the game.

This is Where it gets Interesting...

Heh.

If fate didn't love irony so much, I'd have my last final today, and not tomorrow evening, when the Mitchell Report is released.

Oh joy.


Mitchell has planned a news conference for tomorrow (no time is given, so I hope it's in 'early afternoon' territory), and then the report will be released online on MLB.com afterwards.

I've already told you where I stand on this--Mitchell might be one of the most honest senators in government (and, by his track record, it looks like that), but Selig and MLB erred when they chose someone who is part of the front office for the Boston Red Sox. I am not saying this because I am a Yankee fan; the same conflict would exist if he was in a similar position with the Dodgers, Giants, Marlins, Cubs, Rangers...and yes, even Yankees.

Mitchell might be an honest man and the names in the report balanced among the 30 teams, but it's the concept of appointing him as head of the commission that is at fault.

If current or ex-Yankees are named at a greater rate than Red Sox, expect to hear considerable outcry. I would expect at least one former or current Red Sox athlete to be named; Mitchell will be crucified otherwise.



In other news, the Yankees are working on signing Robinson Canó and Chien Ming Wang; according to Pete Abraham, Wang would prefer a multi-year deal, but the Yankees are hesitant to do so.

Hopefully, the situation gets resolved before it gets nasty.

Andy Pettitte's deal has been finalized, which leaves A-Rod, Mo and new acquisition LaTroy Hawkins to be finalized.



Have to get some going-home preparations taken care of today; the SportstalkNY webcast will air Thursday evening this week. If you get a chance, click the link and look at the guest list...

'Roid Rage and Reportage, or Something Like It

This winter is not just a crazy off season because of the new Yankees’ manager or the new vacancy at third base, or even the uncertainties of whether Mo, Po and the free agent co will resign. This winter, there is the probable release of the Mitchell Report, the results of the congressional investigation into the use of performance-enhancing drugs.

While we might joke about the baseball names that seem to be obvious to be released in connection with the report, such as Rafael Palmeiro and Barry Bonds, and while we might dread the idea that any of our favorite players might be revealed, there is something else we need to consider.

George Mitchell, the leader of the investigation, is not merely a senator assigned to the task. He is a director for the Front Office of the Boston Red Sox.

Consider that for a moment. Ask yourself if that’s not a bit unlike asking the CEO of Ford to lead an investigation into car safety, or asking the head of Prudential to investigate insurance fraud.

Can I get a ‘conflict of interest’?

Can I get a ‘why has this not been mentioned by the mainstream media’?

I had no idea that George Mitchell was in Boston’s front office until others mentioned it to me on a Yankees’ blog. I had a hard time believing it at first—it seems so unprofessional, to say the least.

Now, I don’t know George Mitchell. As far as I know he could be the world’s most honest man. However, whether or not Mitchell is an honest man, and that he’s treated those on the Red Sox the same as those on all of the other major league teams, is not the point.

The point is, hiring someone with a direct stake in the results of the report is unethical, to say the least. We’ll probably not know for sure whether or not any special treatment was given to Boston players, but what’s done is done.

What’s getting to me right now, though, is the lack of coverage this conflict of interest seems to be getting. It’s a no-brainer that it would come up on Yankees’ forums; we have a great sense of Schadenfreude, especially when applied to the Red Sox. However, the Yankees are not the only team Boston plays in the course of a year.

Is it coincidence that Paul Byrd was mentioned in connection with HGH just as he was pitching in the ALCS? An ALCS that happened to go seven games? It’s not entirely likely Cleveland would have won at Fenway, but again, that’s besides the point.

Like many Yankees fans, I tend to see a pro-Boston bias with ESPN and some of the other mainstream media outlets, so perhaps I’m a bit jaded, but for this to get no mention at all? Are people really that thick? Do they just not care?

All right, I’m done ranting.

I’m setting the odds on when the names are leaked at 5:1 before Thanksgiving, 10:1 between Thanksgiving and 14 December (the end of my Semester), 20: 1 between 15 Dec and Christmas, and 50:1 between Christmas and New Year’s.