Mickey Mantle's Liver

I am pretty sure one of Clemens' advisors is George Costanza...

I watched today's congressional hearing with Roger Clemens and Brian McNamee with a lot of interest, because it was evident that someone was going to perjure himself today.  As an attorney, I have a hard time believing that lying under oath is ever worth the punishment that comes with perjury.  So I guess in the back of my mind I somewhat expected either McNamee or Clemens to scream "Uncle!" at the last minute and confess they were perpetuating a lie.

And then the hearing started, and the bombshell was dropped on Clemens that his pitching buddy Andy Petitte confirmed that Roger Clemens spoke with him on at least one occasion about using performance enhancing drugs - steroids and HGH.  Then it came out that Chuck Knoblauch had a similar conversation with Clemens.

When asked to explain, Clemens answered affirmatively that he thought Petitte was an honest, upstanding guy, who would never lie about such things.  Then Clemens said Petitte "Misremembered" or "misheard".

Then Congressman Elijah Cummings from Maryland laid out the case against Roger Clemens beautifully - so far everyone that McNamee has said he injected with performance enhancing drugs has admitted so, confirming that McNamee was telling the truth.  Corroborating evidence had been gathered that seems to support McNamee's claims and refutes Clemens' story.  How, Congressman Cummings asked, are we supposed to believe that McNamee was telling the truth when it came to everyone else, but he is not telling the truth when it comes to Clemens.

Clemens' response: McNamee is lying.

Clemens response reminded me of an old episode of Seinfeld.  In the episode, Jerry is dating  a cop, who accuses Jerry of secretly being a fan of Melrose Place.  When Jerry denies the accusation, the cop challenges Jerry to take a lie detector test.  Panicking, Jerry asks George how to beat a lie detector.  George offers the following sage advice to Jerry: "Remember, it is not a lie if you believe it!" (despite the advice, Jerry failed the lie detector test).

I am pretty sure that Costanza also advised Clemens, because it sounded like Clemens had repeated the same lie often enough that he (Clemens) actually believes he never used steroids.  Despite the fact that McNamee's story is far more plausible and reasonable than Clemens', Roger continued the character assault on McNamee.   He repeated the same line over and over that the only conclusion one could reach is that Clemens actually believes what he was saying.  Despite the fact that Clemens' story is just not reasonable.  George would be proud.

Now don't get me wrong, McNamee is not a saint by any means.  But like Canseco when he made steroid allegations nearly four years ago, McNamee's allegations are continuing to be affirmed over and over.  McNamee has his own personal demons, without question, but after today's hearing, unless you are a real Clemens homer, you had to conclude that McNamee was far more believable than Clemens. 

In short, this was a bad day for Clemens.

A couple of other observation about the hearing itself.  Having worked on Capitol Hill, I am familiar with the committee process in addition to committee traditions.  On the positive side, I have to congratulate Chairman Waxman.  I am by no means a fan of Mr. Waxman, but he deserves a lot of credit for the way he has handled this entire affair.  If anyone comes out smelling like a rose, I think it was Chairman Waxman.  He was fair, courteous, yet stern.  Waxman's demeanor was consistent not only with the committee's rules, but also with the longstanding traditions in Congress.

On the flip side, as a Republican, I was embarrassed today by the actions of the minority Republicans on the Committee (with the exception of Mark Souder).  Dan Burton was absolutely idiotic, and Tom Davis wasn't much better.  The Democrats did focus more on Clemens than on McNamee, but by no means were the Democrats easy on McNamee.  But at no point did the Democrats call anyone a liar, the way Congressman Burton did.  While it was clear that someone was lying today, it was impossible for anyone (let alone Burton) to reach a conclusion today.  I understand the Republicans may want to believe Clemens over McNamee, and that is fine, but the committee process in Congress is supposed to have an air of fairness and respect.  Burton and Davis flushed those traditions down the toilet.

Is this an issue Congress should be involved in?  Yes and no.  Yes Congress should be concerned about the proliferation of 'roids and HGH in sports and society.  No, Congress should not be concerned about specific players and accusations against those players.  But it is understandable how Congress may want to make an example of someone who lies about the use of steroids under oath.  Barry Bonds is already being taken care of on the West Coast.  Consider that Clemens was the first - and biggest - name Congress could go after.  And they did.

In my opinion, with the exception of Chairman Waxman, Congressmen Cummings, Shays and Souder, the rest of the actors in today's drama acted in a boorish and inexcusable manner.

However, at the end of the day, I can say without question that George Costanza lost his title as "Lord of the Idiots" to Roger Clemens.

Mike Wallace's upcoming softball interview of Roger Clemens

You have to hand it to Roger Clemens, he is doing an excellent job of controlling his message in order to protect his image.  First was the statement he issued through his agent denying the allegations made by Brian MacNamee - Clemens' personal trainer - in the Mitchell Report.  Clemens' first statement was issued only hours after the release of the Mitchell Report on Thursday, December 13th.

Carefully read Clemens' statement:

"I want to state clearly and without qualification: I did not take steroids, human growth hormone or any other banned substances at any time in my baseball career or, in fact, my entire life," Clemens said Tuesday in a statement issued through his agent, Randy Hendricks. "Those substances represent a dangerous and destructive shortcut that no athlete should ever take.

"I am disappointed that my 25 years in public life have apparently not earned me the benefit of the doubt, but I understand that Senator Mitchell's report has raised many serious questions. I plan to publicly answer all of those questions at the appropriate time in the appropriate way. I only ask that in the meantime people not rush to judgment."

Ten days later, on December 23rd, Clemens posted a video on YouTube in which Clemens said:

Let me be clear, the answer is no, I did not use steroids, human growth hormone and I've never done so.

I did not provide Brian MacNamee with any drugs to inject into my body.  Brian MacNamee did not inject steroids or human growth hormone into my boy either when I played in Toronto for the Blue Jays or the New York Yankees.

This report is simply not true.

Here is Clemens' YouTube video:

Each of these statements, as we are learning, we carefully crafted by Clemens' lawyers (more on that in a minute).

Now, we are learning that in fact Brian MacNamee DID inject drugs into Clemens' body.  According to this report, we are learning that Clemens did have MacNamee inject his body with drugs - B-12 and Lidocaine. 

Significantly, this report also explains why Clemens' response to the Mitchell Report has been proffered in such a piecemeal fashion:  Clemens' lawyers are writing the script for Clemens, which means the public has to be aware that every word out of Clemens' mouth has been carefully chosen by Clemens' lawyers.

As a lawyer myself, I have learned that lawyers will craft responses in order to provide as much wiggle room as possible for their clients.  But why has Clemens' team seemingly backtracked from Clemens' original and unequivocal denial first issued only hours after the release of the Mitchell Report?

Again, consider the first sentence of the statement release by Clemens' handlers on December 13th:

I want to state clearly and without qualification: I did not take steroids, human growth hormone or any other banned substances at any time in my baseball career or, in fact, my entire life

That is a pretty clear denial by Clemens that he never used steroids or human growth hormone.  So why doesn't Clemens continue to say the same thing every time he is asked a question about whether he has used steroids or HGH?

If anything, Clemens' subsequent statements actually backtrack from his original statement issued on December 13th.  Consider the statement from his YouTube video:

I did not provide Brian MacNamee with any drugs to inject into my body.

But based upon his interview with 60 Minutes, we know that MacNamee did inject Clemens with drugs.  The beauty of the Clemens' statement is the wiggle room his lawyers put into the statement: I did not provide.....

OK, so Clemens didn't provide MacNamee with the drugs that Clemens was injected with, but it is clear now (again, from the excerpts of the transcript from 60 Minutes) that MacNamee did inject Clemens with something.  The question is: what was in the syringes that MacNamee stuck into Roger's butt?

We may never know.  It may end up being MacNamee's word versus Roger's.  However, almost from day one Clemens and his team have been working very hard to get their stories straight and provide Clemens with enough wiggle room to be able to say "I've never used 'roids or HGH" without actually saying it.  Some would say the Clemens team is working too hard....

Do you think Mike Wallace is going to ask Clemens about the inconsistencies in his prior statements?  Me neither.

One last point.  Some of you reading this might think that I am hyper-parsing these statements, and therefore you may dismiss my points.  That is exactly what Clemens' team wants you to think, that is why they carefully word each statement, so that when someone like myself provides critical analysis, the average reader thinks "Man that is really nit-picky."

I am convinced now, more than ever, that Clemens 'roided up.

Steroids, Baseball, the Mitchell Report and Baseball's Anti-Trust Exemption

Today, the long-awaited Mitchell Report on the use of performance enhancing drugs will be released to the public.  The report is scheduled to be released today at 11 a.m. pacific time by Senator George Mitchell.  However, reports are already surfacing that as many as 80 players some of whom are MVPs and past Cy Young award winners will be named.  Another report also claims that among the players who will be named is Roger Clemens, the 43 year-old right-hander who seems to have a perpetual 95 mile-an-hour fastball.

Media reports claim that the Mitchell report will attempt to allocate blame equally between players and management.  I sincerely doubt it.  Mitchell's investigation is supposed to quantify the use of performance enhancing drugs in baseball and develop concrete suggestions to rid baseball of these drugs.

So why then is the Mitchell Report wasting everyone's time "naming names"?  What relevance does naming the 80 or so players who may or may not have used 'roids or other drugs to suggesting a course of action for Major League Baseball to take to clean up the game?  After all, what is done is done.  Whether or not David Segui took performance enhancing drugs -- while interesting water-cooler gossip -- doesn't help clean up baseball into the future.  All it does is satisfy the publics curiosity about who in Baseball was cheating.

It also satisfies Congress's curiosity.

And satisfying Congress is important to Major League Baseball.  Why?  Well, it all has to do with Baseball's anti-trust exemption.

You see, Major League Baseball is the only unregulated monopoly allowed to operate in the United States.  Court cases and congressional inaction have allowed Baseball to enjoy this unique status.  Baseball's anti trust exemption is critical to the long-term health of Major League Baseball; the exemption allows Major League Baseball to control the "baseball marketplace" and enjoy profits no one else can realize.

And the only way MLB loses the exemption is if Congress decides to take it away.

Which brings us back to the Mitchell Report.  It is no coincidence that immediately after Congress held hearing on the use of performance-enhancing drugs that MLB decided to conduct its own investigation into the use of such drugs. 

It is also no coincidence that MLB chose former Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell to lead the investigation.  Senator Mitchell is still widely respected on Capitol Hill by members of both political parties.  Senator Mitchell is "one of them", and his report will go a long ways towards alleviating pressures from Congress on MLB to clean up its act.

Keep in mind, Senator Mitchell is also an executive with the Boston Red Sox.  If his report were to call out MLB and team management groups, Mitchell would ostensibly be "biting the hand that feeds him," so to speak.

So how does Mitchell go about giving Congress the impression that MLB is cleaning up its act without revealing the systemic problems with MLB, and thereby angering his cohorts?

Names.  Plenty of names.

Even better.  Names of players who are no longer active players.

I fully expect Mitchell's Report, and the subsequent media coverage, to focus on the players named in the report, rather than what the report should be focusing on - how baseball allowed steroids and other performance enhancing drugs to take over baseball for more than a decade, and how to stop that from ever occurring again.

But by naming names, the Mitchell Report will give Congress, the media, and the public the false impression that baseball has addressed the problem and is cleaning up its act.  When, in fact, nothing could be further from the truth.  I want to know how the players got the steroids, how MLB allowed the "steroid-era" to occur, and how MLB and team management turned a blind-eye to what was obviously occurring in the clubhouse.

Instead, for the next several months - or perhaps years - we will debate whether or not the players named in the Mitchell Report did or did not use steroids, amphetamines, human-growth hormones, the "clear", the "cream", flax seed oil, or whatever drug may enhance on-the-field performance.  It will turn into the classic "he-said, he-said", without the real problem ever being solved.

Politically, you have to hand it to Selig.  When the dust settles, Selig will have protected the anti-trust exemption and deflected criticism away from MLB and onto individual players.

As for the health of the sport?  We'll just have to wait and see.