WHO'S ON FIRST?
Baseball is a funny thing. A good baseball fan can simply throw out a group of stats and prove a point. According to Allen Barra, an expert in baseball and the life of Wyatt Earp (and a friend of mine) Bob Costas has done some numbers crunching. If Costas is correct about this numbers Roger Clemens did not use steroids. I have a source in the "know" who thinks Clemens may have taken a little something, but not much, but that McNamee is doing some serious lying. This person also wants to know why Waxman is even bothering to hold these hearings. There is one theory that Roger Clemens is the one who asked for the hearing. There is another theory that Waxman is grandstanding. There is an obvious Democrat bias against Clemens and bias for Clemens by Republicans. We have a President of the United States who once owned a baseball team and wants to see the whole steroid thing cleaned up.
If it weren't for the fact that there are some very good friendships that are going to be destroyed over this, it would be rather funny. The whole hearing is more Abbott and Costello's classic Who's On First than serious national security. Let's face facts. It's an election year. The committee chair's numbers are in the tank. Need I say more?
Baseball Digest has more information on the hearings, Pettitte and the fascinating little ditty from John Rocker about Bud Selig. I think it has reached the point where no one is going to come out of this thing looking good.
I'm a life-long baseball fan. I am also knowledgeable enough a fan to know that baseball statistics do not lie. If there is no change in Roger Clemens year by year statistics then it is going to be very difficult to prove he ever used steroids. If this is the case, we are dealing with a witch hunt and an innocent man is having his good name destroyed by a nasty little snit of a lier and by a grandstanding Democratic Congressman who is posturing and preening for the cameras.
This morning, watching the Waxman hearings on MLB, steroids, and Roger Clemens, I was struck by how abjectly tragic the whole thing was. I think for the first time I've been able to grasp the feeling that must have circulated the nation when Shoeless Joe Jackson was grilled and then banned from baseball for something he did not do. While he took the money from the gamblers, once one understands Jackson's psychological baggage and his background, it is easy to understand why he did it. The important thing is the fact that Jackson did not cheat in the World Series in 1919.
Clemens opening statement.
Allen Barra, a very good friend of mine, and a Wyatt Earp colleague (his Inventing Wyatt Earp is one of the best books out there on the subject) writes in the WSJ today:
"...That could then backfire on MLB and its commissioner, Bud Selig, who chose Sen. Mitchell and funded his report in order, many believe, to placate congressional critics of MLB's exemption from antitrust laws. (The removal of this exemption could destroy baseball's status as a self-governing body.) And a vindication of Mr. Clemens could damage the reputation of the committee's chairman, Rep. Henry Waxman (D., Calif.), a close friend and supporter of Sen. Mitchell.
In a story that is furnishing the media with headlines on an almost-daily basis, the committee announced late Monday that Yankees pitcher Andy Pettitte, former Yankees infielder Chuck Knoblauch, and former clubhouse attendant and convicted drug distributor Kirk Radomski will not be testifying at today's public hearing as originally scheduled. According to a statement issued by Rep. Waxman and the committee's ranking Republican, Rep. Tom Davis (R., Va.), "Mr. Knoblauch and Mr. Pettitte answered all the committee's questions, and their testimony at the hearing is not needed."..."
In a story that is furnishing the media with headlines on an almost-daily basis, the committee announced late Monday that Yankees pitcher Andy Pettitte, former Yankees infielder Chuck Knoblauch, and former clubhouse attendant and convicted drug distributor Kirk Radomski will not be testifying at today's public hearing as originally scheduled. According to a statement issued by Rep. Waxman and the committee's ranking Republican, Rep. Tom Davis (R., Va.), "Mr. Knoblauch and Mr. Pettitte answered all the committee's questions, and their testimony at the hearing is not needed."..."
Most importantly, Allen brings up the fact that Bob Costas has been crunching numbers and stats. Stats are the life's blood of a real baseball fan. While Costas can prove there is a decided difference between Barry Bonds' stats before and after so to speak, there is absolutely no statistical proof that Roger Clemens ever used steroids.
"...This didn't happen with Clemens, who simply sustained a Hall of Fame level of performance over the time in which he is accused of taking PEDs. Whatever Clemens did or didn't do, he didn't become superhuman late in his career."
The statistical record seems to support Mr. Costas. Mr. Clemens's association with Mr. McNamee began in 1998 when Mr. Clemens, pitching for the Toronto Blue Jays, was 35 and went 20-6 with a 2.65 ERA. But in the previous season, also with Toronto, he was even better -- 21-7 with an ERA of 2.05. Steven Goldman of Baseball Prospectus sums up Mr. Clemens's record from 1984 to 1997, before he began working with Mr. McNamee: "He was 213-118 with an ERA of 2.97, this in a league where the average ERA was usually well above 4.00, and in two seasons over 5.00. There's no question he was the best pitcher in baseball over that period. From 1998 through last year, Clemens had some terrific seasons. But he wasn't a better pitcher after age 35 than he was before."
In contrast, from age 35 through age 39, Barry Bonds not only bettered his earlier record but became, arguably, the greatest hitter in baseball history.
There is no statistical evidence, then, that Mr. Clemens received any artificial boost from the drugs Mr. McNamee claims to have provided from 1998 to 2001. Aside from Mr. McNamee, in fact, there's not yet been evidence linking Mr. Clemens to any use of performance-enhancing drugs.
"It may turn out that Clemens is no different than Bonds," says Mr. Costas, "but until we have more evidence, there's room for reasonable doubt. Let's at least admit that Clemens has done what Bonds did not do. He filed a defamation suit against his accuser; he went on '60 Minutes'; he marched up to Capitol Hill and told them, 'I'll say the same thing to you that I did to Mike Wallace.' And when McNamee claimed to have drug paraphernalia that Clemens had used, he said, 'Sure, take my DNA.' I don't know whether or not Roger Clemens is innocent, but at this point at least, it has to be admitted that he's done the things an innocent man would do."
The statistical record seems to support Mr. Costas. Mr. Clemens's association with Mr. McNamee began in 1998 when Mr. Clemens, pitching for the Toronto Blue Jays, was 35 and went 20-6 with a 2.65 ERA. But in the previous season, also with Toronto, he was even better -- 21-7 with an ERA of 2.05. Steven Goldman of Baseball Prospectus sums up Mr. Clemens's record from 1984 to 1997, before he began working with Mr. McNamee: "He was 213-118 with an ERA of 2.97, this in a league where the average ERA was usually well above 4.00, and in two seasons over 5.00. There's no question he was the best pitcher in baseball over that period. From 1998 through last year, Clemens had some terrific seasons. But he wasn't a better pitcher after age 35 than he was before."
In contrast, from age 35 through age 39, Barry Bonds not only bettered his earlier record but became, arguably, the greatest hitter in baseball history.
There is no statistical evidence, then, that Mr. Clemens received any artificial boost from the drugs Mr. McNamee claims to have provided from 1998 to 2001. Aside from Mr. McNamee, in fact, there's not yet been evidence linking Mr. Clemens to any use of performance-enhancing drugs.
"It may turn out that Clemens is no different than Bonds," says Mr. Costas, "but until we have more evidence, there's room for reasonable doubt. Let's at least admit that Clemens has done what Bonds did not do. He filed a defamation suit against his accuser; he went on '60 Minutes'; he marched up to Capitol Hill and told them, 'I'll say the same thing to you that I did to Mike Wallace.' And when McNamee claimed to have drug paraphernalia that Clemens had used, he said, 'Sure, take my DNA.' I don't know whether or not Roger Clemens is innocent, but at this point at least, it has to be admitted that he's done the things an innocent man would do."
The Politico has Andy Pettitte "selling out" his friend, Roger Clemens. The NYPost has more. According to Waxman, the only reason they held the hearing is because Clemens insisted on it. Waxman also thinks McNamee is credible. The bottom line is it went down Party lines with Republicans siding with Clemens and Dems siding with the lying little weasel. Everyone is saying that Andy Pettitte is "honorable" and above board, but he admits to using the steroids. The next part of this is that HGH was not banned in baseball until 2002 or so. If Pettitte or Clemens were to have used steroids before that time, it was not illegal in MLB. Even more interesting is the fact that it appears as though Clemens does not have a history of political contributions, so the party line treatment of Clemens during the hearing is fascinating. Why was Waxman so against Clemens?
THE BOTTOM LINE
The statute of limitations has long expired if there was to be a charge of taking a prescription drug without a prescription. Baseball banned HGH in 2002 so there is no MLB rule broken. This is nothing but grand-standing on the pint of Henry Waxman. The gauze and needles are a joke. Evidently the only thing going here is Waxman must cover his tushie so he is grand-standing. Evidently there can't even be a perjury trial because there is no physical evidence to prove perjury indeed occurred.
If you want my personal opinion, Roger Clemens came out ahead today. McNamee has been given immunity to lie as much as he wishes too. Maybe this will help Clemens hold on to his reputation and cement his niche in the HOF. There is nothing here but the allegation of an admitted lier. The other part of it - is the Mitchell Report now discredited?
Hat tip to Ballbug
Additional Ballbug
Trackposted to Outside the Beltway, Rosemary's Thoughts, Right Truth, Stuck On Stupid, Cao's Blog, Leaning Straight Up, Conservative Cat, Adeline and Hazel, Pursuing Holiness, third world county, The World According to Carl, Pirate's Cove, A Newt One, Dumb Ox Daily News, Right Voices, and The Yankee Sailor, thanks to Linkfest Haven Deluxe.
Dime con quien andas y te digo quien eres.
08 Bloggers Alliance
">
View my page on Political Voices of Women
![Pink Flamingo [Home]](http://i263.photobucket.com/albums/ii147/blog_photos_album/flamingo_crossing.jpg)
