<%=siteName%>

12:10 AM Eastern

I just finished watching Mike Wallace’s “hard-hitting” interview of steroid user Roger Clemens on 60 minutes (I PVR’d it - you know, so I could spend time with the kiddies while they were awake), and I have to say that I’m thoroughly unimpressed by one of the greatest investigative reporters in the history of anything. Wallace, who considers himself a good friend of Clemens and who the disgraceful righty specifically requested for the interview, called Clemens on absolutely nothing for the duration of the 20-minute segment.

The toughest question that was asked (other than the ridiculous “Swear?” - what are we, in Grade 2?) was why would Brian McNamee have lied to George Mitchell’s investigators, when he knew that being caught in a lie would have enabled the FBI to reinstate federal charges against him. Clemens’ answer, “To stay out of jail, I guess”, at the very least cried out for further digging. Instead, Wallace asked him why McNamee needed to stay out of jail - when we already knew he was facing federal charges if he was found to NOT be telling the truth. Clemens answered by saying that he heard McNamee was in trouble for selling steroids. And how did Clemens find out that his former trainer was facing federal drug charges? Must have been because he’d been hanging out with this guy for 10 years and knew a little bit about him and his life. Ahhh, wrong again - Clemens knew this because he’d read it in the Mitchell Report, which, of course, WAS FULL OF HORRIBLE LIES, though only about Roger Clemens.

Aside from a very disappointing performance from an 89 year-old journalistic icon, Clemens didn’t do horribly, but I wouldn’t say he did especially well. Watching him shake his head to all the accusations, hearing him stay on his obviously well-coached talking points (”never happened”, “quick fix”, “why would I want to shorten my career”), I kept thinking that he was pretty shifty-eyed. I don’t know what was going on off-camera, but something that was to his left really seemed to be distracting him a lot. He did look right into Wallace’s eyes when giving his answers, though, which is what you’re supposed to do if you want people to think you’re telling the truth.

Funny, though, that the whole quick-fix thing kept coming up. It’s true, steroids shorten a player’s career. Unless that player is Clemens, who played 24 years, or Barry Bonds, who has played 22 seasons, or Gary Sheffield, who’s heading into his 21st. Rafael Palmeiro played 20 years before being forced to go into hiding - he wasn’t necessarily going to be done after ‘05 if he hadn’t been outed. Heck, Jose Canseco played 17, and would have made it to 20 had he not been blackballed.  Yes, tese are only a few examples, but they’re the best of the best of the players we know about, and Clemens certainly has to be counted in that stratosphere.

By the way, I do believe Canseco was “retired” from the game early because of his outspokenness and general arrogance about his place in the game. In his last season, at 37 years of age, he had an .843 OPS (117 OPS+) and 16 homers in 76 games. Tell me somebody couldn’t have used that.

Anyway, back to Clemens. Obviously, the steroids don’t shorten everybody’s career. And did anyone else find it funny that Clemens said that if he had been doing ‘roids, he’d have grown a third ear out of his forehead or be pulling tractors with his teeth? Cute, very funny, Roger. Excellent comparisons to say how stupidly strong the cheaters get. You know what would have been another good one? How about having the best ERA, best ERA+ and second-best WHIP of a career that might already have been the best of all-time AT 42 FREAKIN’ YEARS OLD? That could never happen, right? Right? Swear?

A couple of other things before we go. At one point, Clemens said, “My body hasn’t changed”. I direct your attention to the following link, because I don’t know how to put pictures up in this thing yet:

http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/magazine/06/26/where.clemens0703/

Also, the whole Andy Pettitte thing really bothered me.  Wallace completely glossed over the two pitchers’ relationship, how close they were, how Pettitte followed Clemens to Houston and Clemens followed Pettitte back to New York.  The only mention of Pettitte was to say that he’d confirmed McNamee’s statement that Pettitte had used hGH (only twice, though, and only to rehab an injury, and because he had this killer headache and besides, he had a note from Epstein’s mother), another place where McNamee was telling the truth about something in his massive web of lies.

And the lawsuit question came up, though it was Clemens who brought it up.  He said that he needed to figure out whether it was worth all the time and money and hassle of suing McNamee in order to clear his name.  Time is a tough one.  At the very least, Clemens is semi-retired, even though he said we would likely “never see him pitch again”, so where will he find the time?  Money?  Well, who has the kind of money to put together a massive lawsuit in an effort to clear up a name, which could be argued is the most important thing a person has in this world?  Surely not someone who has made about $150 million in salary alone over the past 20 years.  Hassle?  Well, that’s a whole other story.  It is one hell of a hassle.  Maybe Clemens is right, it’s just not worth doing.

The problem is, it’s nearly impossible to prove that someone didn’t do something.   Thing is, it’s also very easy to prove that someone did, and I’m thinking that McNamee might have some sort of proof that what he’s said is true.  We’ll see.  McNamee has said that he would sue Clemens for defamation if he was called a liar during the 60 minutes spot.  Clemens never actually used the word “liar”, but he did say “never happened” a lot.

Comments are welcome.  E-mailically, I’m at wilner590@hotmail.com

This entry was posted on Monday, January 7th, 2008 at 12:03 am and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.