My least favorite refutations of steroids allegations are those in which the accused offers a non-defense defense. One which doesn't at all preclue the steroids usage.
Jason Giambi, back before his grand-jury testimony was unjustly leaked, used to complain about the steroids rumors surrounding him, saying something equivalent to, "I'm working my *** off in the batting cage." Similarly, when Jose Canseco's book came out, Tony La Russa defended Mark McGwire by recalling McGwire's incredible work ethic.
Of course, it's no great leap to say that illegal, performance-enhancing drugs aid and abet those very off-the-field workouts, rather than the two items being mutually exclusive.
Which brings us to the Roger Clemens Report, which Clemens' representative Randy Hendricks released yesterday with the thought of putting Clemens' remarkable career in a new light. There are theories and explanations that attempt to shoot down the notion that Clemens' late-career surge was attributable to steroids.
It's a very interesting study, even more so if you dropped in from Mars and had no idea why such a report was being compiled. But it hardly lays a glove on Brian McNamee and his accusations, because the report could be 100 percent accurate (and it isn't, as Rob Neyer explains here), and it wouldn't challenge any of the Mitchell Report.
Undoubtedly, Clemens is an extremely smart pitcher who, as his velocity dropped, relied increasingly upon a split-fingered fastball and two-seam fastball, as Hendricks argues. His "legal" workouts, and the way prepared for every start, watching mounds of video, are legendary. But just like with Giambi and McGwire, why couldn't he have done all of that, PLUS the steroids?
Furthermore, Hendricks and his associates break out a chart of "peak" 1-5 month periods in Clemens' career; there are a total of 24. But two of those 24 constitute two of McNamee's three alleged periods of steroids usage. In July and August of 1998, Clemens put up a 1.25 ERA, and in July 2000, Clemens talled a 1.91 ERA. Hendricks points out that Clemens recorded an even longer, more dominant stretch in 1997, so that 1998 surge shouldn't seem so unusual. Yet a cynic would respond, "Who's to say Clemens wasn't using illegal PEDs in 1997, too? He just didn't meet McNamee until 1998."
I covered the 2000 Yankees. For his first year and a half in pinstripes, Clemens was surprisingly mediocre. Then, when he returned from the disabled list, that July, he was a completely different pitcher: Better velocity, better bite to the splitter, more confident. We all thought, "What the heck happened to this guy?" I find it pretty believable that steroids helped create that guy. Hendricks points out that Clemens' August ERA that year went back up to 3.23, but that's still quite good, and a considerable improvement from the prior year and a half.
I admire Hendricks for putting this report together. I admire Clemens for throwing heat under the chin of the profoundly conflicted George Mitchell. Mitchell deserves far more scrutiny that he has received, as I might have mentioned in the past. But ultimately, this report does virtually nothing to refute the former Senator's work.
Comments (8)
Ken - I am confused by the press reaction. Clemens doesn't defend himself at first in public and he is bashed. He strongly defends himself, and he is bashed. ?????
And as for HgH, does Mike Lupica have a therapeutic use exmeption in the press box?
Baseball stats may be useful in determining relative compensation and predicting on-average performance, but I don't believe Hendricks' observations and conclusions are helpful in exculpating Roger in any way.
While the report is an elegant primer on pitching stats, it has "backfire" and "specious" written all over it. The document proves nothing and engenders even more scrunity as folks try to link Roger's upticks in performance to the dates of alleged usage.
I'm afraid that a truly helpful study, e.g., a controlled experiment measuring the correlation of pitching velocity to PES (over a range of substances, dosages and pitching styles), overlayed with Roger's pitching speeds in the first four innings captured over various career windows centered on "before steroids" and "after steroids," is not in the cards any time soon. And even then there would be slightly more data than is needed to generate a public debate (see global warming, obesity, etc.)
If this is the best Roger's team can do to clear his name, he might as well just hop on the express train to McGwiresville.
While we are playing character assassination - what about adderall/etc. and ADD and other all-time greats?
famous baseball players with ADD..
http://www.addforums.com/forums/archive/index.php/t-2819.html
Nolan Ryan Athlete - Baseball
Pete Rose Athlete - Baseball
Babe Ruth Athlete - Baseball Legend
The list also includes Bruce Jenner and Michael Jordan - care to comment, or are only baseball players able to be treated like pinatas by the "court of public opinion"?
Loved the George Vcsey article about Shawn merriman and Rodney Harrison - caught with a positive test and no none gives a damn!
I'm still not there yet on Clemens. Until I see a smoking gun (i.e., video, audio, medical records, cancelled checks, confirmation from a second source, etc.) I am not jumping to any conclusion. He may be guilty as sin, but where's the evidence other than McNamee's accusation? Why would McNamee lie? That's a question I can't answer and it troubles me. Then again, I have no idea what pressure he was put under by federal agents. If Roger is innocent, many people should be ashamed of themselves - writers, fans, pundits, George Mitchell, etc. If he is guilty, so be it. He's in a no-win situation. If he says nothing, he looks guilty. If he defends himself, people take potshots at him.
I'm with RMT, suspend Rodney Harrison immediately. At least hold him out of the next game, do it for the children!
Santana? Very nice.
RMT, you know I can't speak for the entire media. I can speak only for myself. I didn't bash him when he took his time defending myself - that didn't particularly bother me. And now, I felt compelled to critique the review that Hendricks put out, and point out that it's essentially a distraction.
Why do people say Clemens waited a long time to defend himself? When his lawyer came out the day the Mitchell Report was released and said it was wrong, that wasn't defending himself? I mean, the person has to be in front of the camera saying the words for it to be "defending himself"? He said -- through someone -- that it was not true. It's not like he deliberated. It's amazing how if you repeat something enough it somehow becomes a fact.
The other thing I don't understand is why only Pettitte, Clemens and Knobby have to testify. By only making it about the McNamee people, the whole hearing has become "Did Clemens Do Steroids?," and who cares if he did or didn't? This is (ostensibly) about steroids in baseball -- not Clemens. Many people in the report have said they didn't use -- so why not call them, too? And why not call Do Luca and Gagne and everyone else that was named? Don't they want the whole truth and to find out how steroids make their way into the sport? The whole thing is a sham and ridiculously limited.
Steroids in baseball might be a topic worthy of the government; finding out if Clemens used 'roids surely isn't.
baileywalk, while I am with you on the bigger picture, keep in mind that the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee originally intended to have just one hearing, the one from Jan. 15 with Mitchell, Selig and Fehr. It was Clemens himself who forced the issue with his constant challenges of Mr. Impeccable. Remember that Clemens very much wanted this hearing to happen, in another effort to clear his name.