I like the ideal of "innocent until proven guilty". I also like the idea that people honor the contracts they sign, but we all know how binding that seems to be for pro athletes. Maybe the public is being too hasty in judging Roger Clemens, but he's contributed heavily to a lot of his own problems. After reading several blogs here, there are things which require a general response for everyone who is supporting Clemens.

 

Assertion #1:  Roger Clemens has done everything correctly in dealing with this steroid/HGH mess.

Comment: Clemens has NOT made all the right moves, and that's despite the fact that he has a high-profile attorney and a whole group of attorneys below Dusty Hardin guiding him. He's a bit too late with his denials. Do we really believe that he didn't meet with the Mitchell Committee because he didn't know what they were looking at? Do you think they called him and said, "Roger, we need to talk with you but we can't tell you why until we see you face-to-face?" Highly doubtful. There are only two possible reasons he didn't meet with them: his lawyer told him not to for fear of possible self-incrimination, and probably because his lawyer Dusty Hardin probably needed more time to review the situation.

In the '60 Minutes' interview, Clemens used excuses like "Where would I even get the needles and syringes for the stuff?" My guess is that he probably would have gotten them from the same place that he got the needles and syringes for his supposed lidocaine and Vitamin B-12 shots. Just an fyi, you can't just press the bottles containing that stuff onto your ass and pray for absorption. Where are his prescriptions for those needles and prescription drugs? If he has no paper trail for those, then of course he's probably not going to have a paper trail leading to the steroids. Clemens might be a lot of things, but he's not stupid enough to pay for his steroids with a personal check or credit card. And what would be the incentive of his steroid suppliers to step forward and be prosecuted themselves?

 

Assertion #2:  Clemens filiing a lawsuit while McNamee hasn't supports his claims of innocence.

Comment: This does not suggest anything, except that Dusty Hardin is looking for ways to try and convince the public that Clemens is innocent, and that Clemens has the deep pockets to fund those efforts. Also, at least Clemens has potential grounds for defamation of character, but Clemens has been very careful about what he's said about McNamee. So, does McNamee really have enough solid ground to file a lawuit against Clemens? Once again, that's why the rich get high-profile attorneys and get the upper hand.

Second, the only way that a penniless McNamee is going to file a countersuit is if his lawyers (now working pro bono) really feel that there is a solid case. In a case like this which is one man's word against another, the burden of proof in a McNamee countersuit would be on McNamee to prove that Clemens has been lying. If he had that kind of solid proof, don't you think he would have already handed it over to the feds?

 

Assertion #3:  Clemens waited to respond because he was being a good friend and giving McNamee a chance to recant.

Comment: Some may look at Clemens tardiness in defending himself as a man in turmoil that a close friend has betrayed him. Some might say that a strong bond of loyalty has prevented Clemens from going on the counterattack earlier. Let me give you a different perspective on Clemens's tardiness. What if the reason he waited so long to respond was to make certain that no smoking guns would pop up later? If I were guilty, the first thing I would do is to try and plug any potential leaks in my future story. That takes time.

Some might say that Clemens has been a loyal friend and that's the reason he hasn't attacked McNamee until now. Do you really believe that after the Mitchell Report came out Clemens still considered McNamee a friend? If your close friend publicly destroyed your entire reputation as well as damaged your family, would you still consider him/her a friend? Would you secretly tape a conversation with a friend in hopes of trapping him?

 

Assertion #4:  Clemens appeared on '60 Minutes' which proves that he has nothing to hide.

Comment: That '60 Minutes' piece wasn't exactly a hard-hitting interview. It was just providing Clemens with a large forum to say he's innocent. Also, admitting that he was abusing strong prescription painkillers is not exactly a smart way of convincing us that you didn't abuse other drugs.

Did Clemens appear angry during the '60 Minutes' interview? Yes. But I also believe that Clemens is a control-freak, and so he and his legal team spent days doing mock interviews. You don't really think that Dusty Hardin let him go on camera without any preparation, do you?  I think that making such a big deal about the potential heart damage he could get from abusing Vioxx (a prescription painkiller) was planned to garner sympathy and show everyone what a tough cookie Clemens was and how he was a team player. What Clemens' legal team probably gambled on (and won) is that the American public would be so focused on the issue of steroids and HGH that they wouldn't question whether Clemens had been abusing painkillers. A 65-year old person with severe ostearthritis who needs high-dose painkillers just to do basic functions of everyday life is far different than a 40-year old who just wants to pitch one more game.

 

Assertion #5: McNamee must be a sleazeball if he could rat out Clemens and then later ask to borrow his fishing gear.

Comment: If you watched the '60 Minutes' interview, Clemens ruffled a sheaf of papers which supposedly had an email sent by McNamee four days before the Mitchell Report was issued. In that email, he allegedly asked to borrow Clemens's fishing equipment. I say "allegedly", because we never saw the document, and Mike Wallace didn't say anything to confirm that he had actually read it either. Anyways, I would rather look at the actual email itself on Clemens' computer, because then I can be more sure that it wasn't altered.

That whole part of the interview was yet another reason why Clemens is difficult to trust. He said that at that time he (Clemens) had no idea about what McNamee had told the Mitchell Committee about him. And he used that email from McNamee to portray McNamee as a sleazebag with a lot of chutzpah who would stab a close friend in the back and then borrow something from him a short time later. And guess what? If you just believe that part of the interview, then McNamee does look like sleazy.

What Clemens failed to tell everyone is that he had spoken to McNamee four days prior to that email at which time McNamee told Clemens about his testimony to the Mitchell Committee. We know this from Clemens's own lawyer Dusty Hardin who was left in the unenviable position of having to publicly contradict Clemens's earlier statement that he had not had any contact with McNamee prior to the release of the Mitchell Report.

Here's a common sense question. Do you think that during their conversation 8 days before the Mitchell Report was released that Clemens said, "Brian, you're a complete sleazebag and a rat, and never call me again!" and then 4 days later McNamee sends him an email asking to borrow his fishing equipment?

Does that even remotely make sense? More likely, McNamee told Clemens about the testimony and Clemens said not to worry because no one knew if that part of McNamee's testimony was going to get into the final report. My guess is that they ended that conversation on fairly friendly terms, and that is why McNamee sent him the email for the fishing equipment. But that's the part of the story that Clemens most likely left out.

It's probably the same reason why McNamee would even agree to meet with 2 private investigators (Jim Yarbrough and Billy Belk) hired by Clemens' attorneys. That meeting occurred on December 12th, the day before the Mitchell Report was released. There's no doubt about that meeting or who funded those private investigators because Clemens signed a document acknowledging that those guys work for his attorneys. If Clemens really didn't know what McNamee had told the Mitchell Committee, then why would he have his investigators meet with McNamee at that time?

And again all of this makes one wonder, "If Clemens knew that far in advance about McNamee's claims against him to the Mitchell Committee, then why didn't Clemens and his lawyers whip up a denial to release to the media just in case his name was in the Mitchell Report?

Also, parts of that December 12th interview were used to file Clemens' lawsuit against McNamee, but now we find out that the interview in its entirety tells the story not of an untruthful McNamee, but rather of a meeting set up to force McNamee to recant and McNamee insisting that he had told the truth. Basically, Clemens' lawyers filed a lawsuit based on a soundbite. And we all know how misleading soundbites can be.

 

Assertion #6: Clemens worked hard for his success and everyone knows this.

Comment: I'll be the first one to say that Clemens worked hard. I'll also be the first one to say that steroids or HGH optimally help those who exercise hard.

When you look at some ominous signs in this whole Clemens-Steroids mess, one very noticeable thing is the nearly absolute lack of other players who have come to his defense. There have been a couple. But Clemens had a lot of teammates during his tours with several teams.

Where is then Blue Jays manager Tim Johnson? Oh yeah, he's still in exile for lying about his Vietnam War service record. Where is Joe Torre? He declined to back up Clemens. That is a telling statement because everyone who knows Torre says that he's a very honest guy who sticks up for his players. Why has he taken a pass on commenting about Clemens' situation? Ominous...

 

 

Conclusion:

There are some people in Clemens' corner, but not many of them are from Boston.

We've seen him do a lot of great things here, and it's a shame that he didn't win a World Series Championship here.

However, we've also seen a lot of the half-truths that he tends to tell.

Clemens has said multiple times about how he doesn't want to do anything to be disrespectful towards baseball. That doesn't include the way that he ignored new manager Butch Hobson during their first spring training? Does anyone remember the famous scene of Hobson trying to talk with him but Clemens refusing to listen and instead focusing on the music pumping through his walkman?

Boston fans will also remember Clemens emphatically saying in 1996 (his final year with the Red Sox) that he wasn't chasing the money but rather trying to win a World Series Championship before the end of his career. At that time Boston had wrapped up another season of not making it to the playoffs and being 7 games out of 1st place in the Eastern Division. Who won their division? The Yankees, and Baltimore came in second. Toronto was in 4th place (out of 5 teams) and 18 games out of 1st place.

For those of you not in Boston at the time, the city was split. Some viewed him as a traitor for wanting to leave the Red Sox, but there were also others, including several prominent sportswriters, who felt that Clemens had already given a lot to the Red Sox who at that time weren't in a position to contend and so he should be allowed to go to the team that gave him the best chance for a World Series Championship.

So where does Clemens go to chase after his World Series ring? Toronto. In the end he went there because Toronto offered more money than the Yankees. Toronto then finished dead last the next year in 1997 (22 games out of 1st place). The Yankees offered less money, but were perennial contenders and had just won the World Series in 1996. What better team to go if you want to have the best chance of winning a World Series Championship? Do you see why it's difficult for people to trust Clemens?

The last thing to point out is that Clemens is not a guy without money. He isn't now and he wasn't then. Professional baseball players have access to the best medical teams in the world. Even if he's telling the truth and he was getting lidocaine and vitamin B-12 injections in his apartment, does that really seem like something he should be doing without the knowledge and approval of team doctors? It's the same question I often wonder when a pro athlete gets caught and says that it was a supplement. Why wouldn't a player who has a lot to lose in terms of money and fame protect themselves from potential accusations by running everythinig by the team's medical staff? Maybe it's laziness, maybe it's stupidity, or maybe it's just something a whole lot more sinister.