Posts
Comments

Clemens dug himself a deeper hole

Jan 8th, 2008 by Bill Burt

Even a slick lawyer like Rusty Hardin, who could have given Johnnie Cochran are run for his money in the “smooth as silk” to department, couldn’t change the obvious.
Roger Clemens is in deep trouble.
If this the 17-minute slimy and secret phone conversation, which Clemens allegedly made because he “cared” about Brian McNamee’s sick son, is the — pardon the pun — ace in the hole, then his troubles have only just begun.
Here are five problems I had with Clemens yesterday:
1. He wouldn’t call steroids abusers cheaters.
After shouting at the assembled media, saying he never “took short cuts or cheated,” he wouldn’t call performance enhancing drug users cheaters. Why not?
2. Why didn’t he ask for McNamee to come to the press conference?
That would have settled everything. McNamee comes to Houston with the media there and he tells the world he was coerced into saying things that weren’t true about Clemens. Clemens could have asked him. In fact, McNamee begged him for an answer “What do you want me to do, Roger? … I’ll do anything.” Clemens didn’t say a word.
3. Hiding behind lawyer.
Clemens is not an orator. He never was and never will be. So you can understand why he has been in hiding from the public eye and his lawyer took all of the blame. That’s a copout. When you have to protect your reputation, you don’t need a lawyer’s help. The fact that his lawyer said he wouldn’t allow Clemens to take a polygraph says it all. My guess is if Clemens took it on his own, and it was administered by a separate party, he would win a large chunk of the public’s approval.
4. Why wasn’t Clemens mad at McNamee?
Clemens was 10 times worse with the assembled media than he was with the guy who allegedly “lied’ about Clemens abusing drugs. Why didn’t he blow up at McNamee? Clemens needs McNamee, that’s why.
5. Clemens says steroids don’t help.
Barry Bonds tried the same thing. Nice try. Steroids make bad players good, good players great, and great players Hall of Famers. Guys go from 20 homers to 50 homers (Brady Anderson) or 15 homer guys to MVPs (Ken Caminiti). So he’s basically saying steroids is not cheating. If that’s the case, stick by that and admit you took them.
Going in front of a Congress is another animal altogether. I can’t imagine him doing that without pleading the fifth amendment, especially if McNamee is there as well.
This is going to be a circus.
Barry Bonds must be enjoying this.

Posted in Red Sox | Comments

  • Colin
    In response to No. 2, he could have been accused of witness tampering if he asked or told McNamee to do anything except "tell the truth." And in response to No. 4, Clemens knew it was being taped and so kept his cool to make him look like the better man. I'm sure McNamee would have done the same thing had he known.

    I'm not necessarily defending Roger, because I definitely think there is something shady going on here. Just pointing out why he did some of the things he did.
  • Colin
    Wasn't it pathetic that he told McNamee the reason he called him back was because of his son's illness, but in reality it was so he could tape the conversation? I do not believe Clemens will answer any questions at the Congressional hearings. His lawyer will take the fall, saying he has recommended Roger don't speak.
  • Marcel
    http://shysterball.blogspot.com/

    Here's an actual lawyers take on the whole situation. You should read it. Unless, you know, the added perspective would take away from you preconcieved ideas on Clemens guilt.

    And as for Brady Anderson, he had a one year power spike. In the four years before he hit 50hr, he averaged 17/yr. In the four years after he averaged 19/yr. In those 4 year periods he hit almost the same number of doubles (122 vs 121) and several more triples before (33 vs 15.) Yet one fluke year is all the proof anyone needs. How about Norm Cashs huge 1961 season where he posted a line of .361/.487/.662? That line is so far out of whack with his career averages. Good thing steroids weren't around back then or else you know what he'd have been labeled as.
  • Marcel
    BTW, I'm not trying to defend Brady Anderson. I'm merely pointing out that guys do have career years. If his performance has remained at an unreasonabley high level, then I could understand all the finger pointing. But it was just a one year spike before his production dropped right back down to his established career baseline.
  • Sorry, but the Shysterball post didn't add any perspective that makes Clemens less guilty. The fact is Roger is one of the few athletes who was on the downward spiral as he hit mid-30s and suddenly from 40 onward spiked upward. That's not possible in a sport like baseball without steroids.
  • Dave
    If Clemens goes in front of Congress and uses the "I can't discuss the specifics because I am involved in an active lawsuit" line we will all know why he brought the lawsuit. There is zero doubt in my mind that he is guilty.My concern is how they prove he is guilty if this truely stays a he said vs. he said case. I can't believe everyone is letting Pettite off so easy "I only used it twice to try and help my team".This is right up there with the "I can't believe I am pregnant since we only had sex once".
blog comments powered by Disqus