It is What it is--And it's Not Over

ESPN ran a poll after all the testimony and one of the questions asked, "who do you believe more, Roger Clemens or Brian McNamee." To be honest with you I don't believe either of them after today. Although I was working, I listened to the majority of the days events and when I missed things I referred to Jason Stark's live blog on ESPN. So what's in this post is for the most part, my own reaction to what happened today.

Let's start with McNamee. The big hit against him today was that he admitted to not telling the truth in the past. He lied to New York papers and to federal investigators. He stated that the number of times he reported to the Mitchell investigators of injecting Clemens was less than what actually happened. But on the flip side, McNamee's testimony to the Mitchell investigators on Pettitte and Knoblach matched what they had most recently given within the last week.

From Clemens' side Pettitte's affidavit of being told by Clemens that he used HGH and later in 2003 denying it was not good for him--especially since everyone beleives Pettitte the most. There was also contradictory testimony from Clemens in what he had just given in private just a few days earlier especially around conversations Clemens had with McNamee and HGH. Clemens' admitted he had a heated exchange with McNamee after he had injected Debbie Clemens with HGH in 2003 about the subject of HGH.

The day ended up being like a bizzare version of the movie National Treasure. Another clue lead to another clue which lead to another clue and there seemed to be no end in getting to the truth. With more accounts and evidence there are more questions and this is certainly not over. Do either Clemens or McNamee get a perjury charge? I think that's in the air, but if either Clemens or McNamee try to clear their names investigators and the media will continue to try uncover what actually happened. In other words, this is just getting started.

Some other points to note from what I heard:

• Clemens had a hard time speaking. I don't know what he looked like in person since I only listened, but he stumbled, made up words, and had a hard time at certain points in giving a clear fluid answer. At times he didn't answer the exact question asked or had trouble hearing the question at all. Very strange for a guy who wanted to speak the truth.

• There was this Canseco BBQ/Party in question involving a nanny of the Clemens' kids in 1998. McNamee testified that Clemens was there and talked to Canseco about steroids. Several major leaguers stated not seeing Clemens there. Canseco had an affedavit stating he and Clemens never talked about PEDs. Clemens denies being at the party, but leaves it open that maybe he stopped by to drop off his family. The party itself seemed to have little relevance, but the nanny did.

• Then there's this nanny who apparently was called on by the Congressional committee to give her account of Canseco's party. They called on Clemens' and his team to provide her contact info on Friday, Saturday, and Sunday. It was Sunday when they heard from her and she says Clemens was at Canseco's BBQ, but did not know about any steroid talk there. Worst of all, Clemens invited her over to talk on Sunday before providing her contact info. Although Clemens' lawyers accused the panel of it causing an innuendo against Clemens, it still was fishy.

• What does Clemens know about HGH and when did he know anything about it? There was the tale of Debbie Clemens getting HGH injections from McNamee in 2003 unbeknownst of Clemens until after the fact. He found out when his wife started having circulation problems. After this, he had a heated conversation with McNamee. This would count as Roger having a heated dialog about HGH with McNamee when he claims to never have had. Clemens pretty much admitted the heated exchange, but said he didn't know about HGH before 2003 and then added he has learned about HGH of late with these allegations. I couldn't follow his line of thought on this one.

• Mike Stanton, a former Yankee, claims to have seen Roger's butt bleeding. Stanton, admitting he took HGH to the Mitchell investigation, supposedly talked to Clemens about HGH use. Yet another teammate with a very different account.

• What color is HGH or B-12 or whatever was injected into Roger? This was a fairly silly exchange, but somewhat interesting for me since I have no idea what this stuff looks like.

• A panel member asked why Clemens continued to employ McNamee. Although Clemens claims to have treated McNamee like "family" he had "mistrust" for him, especially after injecting his wife without his knowledge. But while there was a "work stoppage" he brought him back. Clemens said he forgives people easily--so I guess the defamation lawsuit and Congressional hearing is part of that process?

• I have to wonder if McNamee has other client's syringes and bloddy gauze. Given his history as a cop, history of lying, and involvement with illegal substances in baseball, he just may, because the man seems to not trust himself or anyone around him.

On a final note, my impression is that more players may talk, Pettitte may be called on again to testify, and this is not going to go away. Bonds gave his testimony in 2003 on the BALCO case and is just now being charge with perjury--can we expect the same ahead?

Taking it to the Hill

In about 10 minutes Roger Clemens will be sworn in along with Brian MacNamee regarding his alleged steroid use. Since my last post, more evidence has been brought to light with Andy Pettitte claiming Clemens talked about HGH to him back in 1999 or 2000, and now Clemens says Andy misunderstood because it was his wife who took HGH. From what I read however, Pettitte's testimony was all over the place at some points and he contradicted himself. It will be a monumental day not only for Clemens, but for baseball as well. Here's what I'm looking to find out from the day on the Hill today:

1. Does Clemens say he unknowingly took steroids? Is it possible MacNamee said it was B-12 when it wasn't? I could see Clemens attacking MacNamee saying he lied to Roger about what he was giving him.

2. How strong a case is the Mitchell Report now? MacNamee and Radomski, two key sources for the report were the suppliers. If Clemens continues to deny use then was Mitchell working with bad leads?

3. What else did Andy Pettitte say? There has got to be more about his use and possibly Clemens'. This is one of the few times a player pointed out another player for their use of steroids.

4. The big question is--who is lying? Because whoever is will likely perjure themselves likely leading to jail time. Will both be on a tight leash in what they say? I think we're learning from Barry Bonds that no one player is immune from the law.

5. The bigger question is, how does baseball respond?

A Couple Things of Note

Super Bowl is Reminder of 2001 World Series

I'm not going to rub it in, but the Giants (of whom I'm certainly a bandwagon fan) beat the Patriots in quite a shocking Super Bowl win. While this blog is not about football, much was hyped all season about the Patriots having a perfect season and going 19-0. Of course since that's not the case, it serves as a reminder of that cliche that no one, no team, and nothing in sports, business, or the real world is perfect.

As the Giants were celebrating, I thought back to 2001 when the Yankees were in their fourth World Series in a row. In game seven, Mariano Rivera was on the mound in the ninth inning with the lead and we all know how it ended (the Yankees lost). Going into the game however, Rivera--certainly the best postseason closer--had not blown a save since 1997. In fact he'd gone 53.2 IP without blowing a save (and only giving up 4 ER in that time). Before game seven some analysts said Rivera was going to blow a save at some point in the playoffs, it was just statistically impossible for him to continue to be perfect in save attempts for as long as he'd been going--especially in the playoffs against the top teams and lineups in the majors.

And so that statistical reality came true at the wrong time albeit and exciting finish for a World Series. In any event, it seems the same happened to the Patriots. There are other arguements to be made, but being perfect just is not a reality very often.

One Syringe, One Gauze and One Beer

I'll be honest here, the Roger Clemens, MacNamee case is becoming a media circus. Wednesday's hearing will be somewhat of a tell all, I don't even know what to expect. But the fact that MacNamee kept syringes, gauzes with blood and a beer can that he claims Clemens used and only handed it over last month is a bit strange in terms of timing. And now Clemens' wife used HGH? It's becoming a bizarre series of events as both sides will try to discredit each other. Whatever happens, by the end I may not even be paying attention because it's that sickening.

On Deck

Aside from the steroid talks going on, Roger Clemens, and a few trades here and there in baseball, it's been quiet leading up to the 2008 season. And with a month to go until pitchers and catchers report for spring training there are a few things I need to report on. So here's what's on deck:

- A review of the Yankees 2007 season
- A preview of the Yankees 2008 season
- Possibly some Red Sox talk (Doug, where art thou?)

So, check back here the next couple months...things will be heating up soon!

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.

Everyone is to Blame

I didn't get around to reading the Mitchell Report yet, but I needed to post on some things about what I've heard other than just a list of names and some of those names admitting to usage. But before I start, I've been more MIA than I'd like, a promotion at work leaves me with zero downtime to post a work and I am exhausted when I come home, so I don't go on the computer much. Just another excuse to add to the list for this blog.

But onto the Mitchell Report. In my view, this is a start to getting performance enhancing drugs out of baseball. Is it a strong, choke full of evidence report? Not really, but it confirms that steroid, HGH, or whatever players used is true and has been part of the culture of the game the last 20+ years or so. The problem the report ran into in order to make a strong case is that baseball has a culture of not pointing the figure at other players for wrong doing. That's what Mitchell was up against the whole time and it will continue to be what baseball is up against as it attempts to clamp down on this problem.

The thing about it is that commentators, analysts and the like are pointing the finger at Selig, players, and a few other people when honestly, we're all to blame:

• The fans are to blame for showing up to games, supporting teams who signed players who used the juice, and continuing to watch the sport.
  

• The team owners and management are to blame for showering players with money who probably didn't deserve it because they were cheating. That may have knowingly heard about drug usage and did not attempt to have a team policy to ban it.

• The personal trainers, be they for the team or personal trainers, are to blame for allowing this stuff into the clubhouse. Several gave up names in this report. The trainers, whether they were involved in supplying the stuff or not, had access to it and use clouded judgment to bring these drugs into the game.
  

• The players are to blame not only because many of them took it, but many of them likely tried the stuff even just once. They let the culture fester. While not pointing the finger is admirable in some cases, it is also a lousy and cowardly excuse that has now tarnished players, careers, and the game itself. It shows a lack of leadership among ballplayers in today's era.
• The players Union is to blame as well for just agreeing in 2002 to keep the players integrity somewhat in check. The union is there to support the players, but not on this level.

• Finally, MLB is to blame for not having this investigation earlier. Sure politics are a big part of why this didn't happen until late (such as saving the game after 1994), but it seems that taking action is happening sooner rather than later. MLB has been weak until recently on this issue, and it will be interesting to see how committed Selig, et al are to making the game clean again.

So my point is, anyone involved in baseball from watching the game as a fan to playing it or managing it from a business standpoint is to blame for steroids, HGH, and all the other performance enhancing drugs that have entered baseball. Although the 2002 drug policy was a first step, there is a long way to go before the game is cleaned up and even when stronger policies are in place, those who supply and create the drugs are still going to try to find there way around drug tests.

Trade Wars, Rivalry Style

We still haven't heard, but Johan Santana, one of the best pitchers in baseball the last four years, could go to the Yankees or Red Sox tonight. To get him both teams are going to lose prospects and young players, but gain an ace capable of 200+ K's and a sub 3.00 ERA.

From the Yankees perspective, it's no suprise they're in this. On the one hand, it's a strategy to raise the price in terms of players and a subsequent contract to the point where the Red Sox would lose its future franchise players and a chunk of its budget for years to come. On the other hand, the Yankees need Santana more in too many ways to list here.

I'm a bit disappointed the Yankees would be willing to give up a couple of the building blocks that are part of the Cashman rebuilding plan. Chamberlain has been untouchable, but they are willing to give up future ace Phil Hughes or Ian Kennedy. Both are unproven, but looked promising this season. Additionally, it looks like Melky Cabrera would go who is a huge fan favorite. This would put Damon back in center and the Yanks would lose a decent outfielder who can fill in at any time in one of the OF slots.

But this is sometimes the cost of the Rivalry and both teams right now have assets they are willing to part with for one of the best young arms in the game. It's hard to say who is going to get Santana--they Yankees are saying now or never with the trade offer--and the Red Sox are hesitating a bit on what combination will be offered.