WE'LL NEVER KNOW THE TRUTH

Unless someone other than Brian McNamee comes forward with something significant, we'll never know who is telling the truth about Roger Clemens and steroids.

You have the accused whose alleged steroid and PED use is not impossible to believe, given among other things (a) his late-career success, (b) Andy Pettitte's admission that he (Clemens) discussed using PEDs with him (Pettitte) when they were teammates, (c) the fact that his own wife admitted to using HGH injected by McNamee, and (d) may have tampered with a witness (his former Nanny) prior to her meeting with Congress regarding his absence or presence at a party thrown by admitted steroid-user Jose Canseco.

Conversely, you have an accuser who is (a) a pathological liar, (b) an admitted drug-dealer and (c) in possession of little more than his own version of what happened along with so-called "forensic evidence" that is years old and would hold absolutely no legal clout due to chain of custody issues.

After watching the bulk of this 4 hour 40 minute hearing today, I went back and forth several times as to who I believed before reaching the conclusion, impossible as it is given their diametrically-opposed testimony, that I don't believe either one of them.

In my opinion, Clemens rambled too much, used the crutch word "again..." in nearly every single one of his responses, and was unable to provide cogent answers to tough questions, while McNamee came across as a smug, sniveling, street-smart, conman.

I am sure there will be pressure for some sort of follow-up, whether it's more questioning for Andy Pettitte (who Congressman Elijah Cummings said is the only person he believes in all this), a Department of Justice investigation, or perjury charges. But as for proving Clemens' guilt or innocence today, I don't think either happened.

For the record, Jayson Stark has an incredibly-detailed and at times, quite humorous blog about all this. It's definitely worth a read.

The Rocket's Red Scare

If this is true, if Roger Clemens talked with Andy Pettitte about his own HGH-use in the late-90s, then the Rocket might be grounded for good. Pettitte has been excused from testifying today on Capitol Hill, but it's what's in his affidavit that could put his former teammate into "Barry Bonds territory"- accused of lying to the feds about performance-enhancing drugs and potentially facing jail time.

As Howard Bryant writes, somebody or several somebodies will come out of today's hearings looking awfully bad. It's either going to be Clemens...or McNamee and George Mitchell (Mitchell isn't actually testifying, but Charlie Scheeler, one of the investigators who worked on the Mitchell Report, is). There's no way all three men will escape unscathed because all three have taken such vehement and opposing positions. Either Clemens will emerge in Duke lacrosse player fashion as the victim of unthinkably false allegations and McNamee will look like scum and Mitchell will look like an incompetent dope...or the exact opposite will happen.

Stay tuned. The hearings are scheduled to begin at 10 o'clock...ironically, in the same room as the 2005 hearings featuring a finger-wagging Rafael Palmeiro, a suddenly-non-English-speaking Sammy Sosa, and a not-here-to-talk-about-the-past Mark McGwire.

I'm Back, And Baseball Needs To Be Soon

Sorry I haven't posted in a while. No good excuse other than the holidays and a busy work schedule.

Anyhoo...I must say, after the Steroid Report To End All Steroid Reports came out, I felt like I didn't really know what my opinion was, so I didn't want to write anything about it until the dust had settled somewhat and until I had some time to reflect. So now that a month has passed, here's my assessment, for what it's worth.

First, I guess my main problem with the SRTEASR is that it is merely a snapshot of the problem. George Mitchell openly admits that players weren't at all helpful during this and that the players mentioned were the only ones he felt confident "outing." Plus, as several ESPN Radio talk show hosts pointed out, if Kirk Radomski hadn't landed squarely in Mitchel's lap, the SRTEASR would have been a leaflet rather than a 400-page novel. So my question is, how is it fair to guys like Andy Pettitte and Brian Roberts that there are likely hundreds of other players out there who are just as guilty, or perhaps even more guilty (i.e. juiced for longer stretches of time), but somehow get a pass because they weren't associated with Radomski or Brian McNamee?

Second, I still find myself dealing with somewhat of a moral dilemma when it comes to the similarities (and differences) between Barry Bonds and Roger Clemens. Allegations aside, they are hands-down the two best players in the last 20 years, having padded already remarkable stats significantly in their late 30s and early 40s. Allegations aside, these are also two of the greatest players ever. Allegations aside, if you were to make a team of the best statistical performers of all time, you'd better believe these two are on the roster. But now, there are allegations and the slam-dunk-first-ballot-Hall-of-Fame-credentials of these two men are being scrutinized. I wondered why I wasn't instantly feeling the same animosity towards Clemens that I often do with Bonds. I thought Jayson Stark's article about these two was a total bull's eye, but after seeing Clemens on 60 Minutes, and seeing his press conference with the taped phone call with McNamee, I still wasn't as convinced of his innocence as I would have liked, and I hate that. Clearly there is much more evidence linking Bonds to PEDs as compared to Clemens, but I think Mike Wallace's question hits home- "what did McNamee gain by lying?" I know this much. You can't lie to the federal government. You can lie to yourself, to fans, to the media, and to George Mitchell. But you can't lie to the federal government. If you do, they're going to get you. I think it will be very interesting to see what Clemens says when he meets with lawmakers next month and if he adamantly maintains his innocence then, it could help his case significantly. But if he goes all "Mark McGwire" on them, it will do the exact opposite.

And third, I wonder if the general frustration I feel towards the whole steroids scandal is something a lot of baseball fans feel. I kind of miss the days when I'd click on ESPN.com's MLB link and the top stories were about offseason moves, not about who's saying what about which former or current player and whether that former or current player is admitting or denying it. I'm sick of it. And it's not going to go away any time soon, until all the players implicated in this thing are done playing.

But now that Erik Bedard may be headed to Seattle, and now that the Twins may still deal Johan Santana, perhaps we can get back to what's good about baseball, and away from what's so wrong with it.

The Mitchell Report...So What?

His year-and-a-half investigation is over and according to some, he's going to call out 60-80 former and current players for using steroids. But what I want to know about former Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell's report is this: what happens next?

What if one or more of those 60-80 broke a single season record? An all-time record? Won an end of season award? Have since been voted into the Hall of Fame? Are still playing today? Are now managing a team? Are now working in a front office? Are now working as an analyst somewhere? What, if anything, happens to these people? Is the fact that they've been named as part of this probe punishment enough? And perhaps most importantly, is being named in this report sufficient proof that said player did, in fact, use steroids?

Commissioner Bud Selig never addressed these issues during his press conference on March 30, 2006, when he first announced what Mitchell would be doing. I would imagine he can't hide from these queries after today, though. Mitchell will announce his findings at 2 this afternoon, and Selig will follow up with his own newser at 4:30.

Let's just say it should be an interesting day for the game of baseball.