Clemens v. Macnamee (and The World)

The story of steroids in baseball continues to be written. Roger Clemens, the most notable name in the Mitchell Report, may spend the beginning days of his retirement defending himself and trying to clear his name. But what exactly are we learning from all this?

I'm not going to offer an opinion on Clemens, Macnamee or the now defamation suit because honestly my guess is as good as anyone elses as to whether Clemens took steroids. The difficult part about it is that fans have already passed judgement on players based on their attitude, style of play, and contributions to the game. They have an idea of who is believable or not. For example, I would say most fans of baseball do not like Barry Bonds because of his large ego and me attitude, which leads them to conclude he likely took steroids because he was only interested in himself and homerun records (as well as the spotlight). We can't forget that his trainer won't talk about whether he injected Bonds or not leading to less credibility. In the case of Clemens, fans know he works out hard and is always thinking about doing his job for the team. It makes it a little harder for fans to then think Clemens took steroids.

The argument that Clemens took steroids was summarized well by Steve Phillips of ESPN. He pointed out that Clemens has continued to be good into his 40s, which coincides with my point of how Barry Bonds got better turning 35. I wouldn't say Clemens got better in his 40s, certainly a move to the NL Central helped some of his stats, but he was still consistent. But then again could you argue someone like Greg Maddux, also in his 40s, can still pitch a full season because he's on steroids? It's too simple an argument to make conclusions on to some degree.

My personal problem with steroids and performance enhancing drugs in baseball is that fans are not educated on what all these drugs do to ones body. We of course hear in health classes at a young age that steroids will increase your muscle mass but shrink your nuts. But other than that, what is B-12 vitamen? Human growth hormone? I couldn't even start to describe what each of them do and how at all they could improve ones performance or even what combinations of such drugs could potentially do.

And do we really know if these drugs improve performance? It must vary by player and as Bonds always pointed out, you still need have talent to hit a baseball.

One thing is for sure though, some of these drugs--as in the cases of Andy Pettitte and Paul Byrd--were taken to speed up the recovery from injuries. So one could argue or defend themselves that they were taken not to improve individual performance, but to get a player back on the field.

Whatever the case may be, some players have experiemented (ie, Brian Roberts). Some became addicted (David Segui). Others became advocates for taking the drugs (Jose Canseco). There must have been some noticeable change in performance for players to begin demanding steroids and over time needing better ones and even now wanting undetectable ones. Trainers probably know the correct dosages and frequencies to deliver the drugs into ones body.

But now that baseball is coming to grips with this problem it is creating other ones like in the case of Clemens. I forsee the steroid issue becoming more of a prominent issue for at least the next 10 years. Why? Because there's the Hall of Fame (for those eligible, Big Mac 0 for 2), mounting court cases, future investigations, and a culture that will try to "beat the system". The Mitchell Report and Clemens defamation suit are just the next chapter that's unfolding before us.