Sunday, February 17, 2008

Clemens Vs. McNamee: There are No Winners

I was in the overwhelming minority in believing that Congressional hearings were positive and necessary in the steroids scandal. Congress has oversight responsibility and regulatory responsibility over interstate commerce. For the most part, Congress ought to leave sports leagues to their own devices, however in this case, we have a major sports league involved in systemic cheating, and while it would be nice for Congress to look at other matters, it would be irresponsible to overlook it. In fact, I was perfectly happy with the hearings turning into a witch hunt on Clemens because witch hunting players is, in my opinion, the best way to deter future ones from doing the same. I just didn't want the witch hunt to stop with Clemens but rather to continue to as many accused players as possible.

That said, while I thought that hearings were a good idea in theory, they turned out to be nothing more than a disaster with every party, including and especially Congress itself, coming out looking terribly ugly. The first and unexplicable problem was that Congress excused Andy Pettite. He was the Keyser Soze of the hearings. He was alluded to over and over again but never actually heard from. Over and over again, Pettite's statements were used to try and impugn Clemens and Clemens maintained that Pettite was mistaken. It would have made a whole lot of sense for Pettite to be able to answer Clemens. It is inexplicable why Pettite was allowed to be removed from the hearings. His testimony became critical throughout. It was referenced by numerous Congress people and used to impugn Clemens. Clemens continued to maintain that Pettite was mistaken, however it would have only made sense for Pettite to be able to answer that charge face to face.

Second, the hearing lost all control and credibility when it, like everything, became another partisan exercise. While partisanship is nothing new in Congress, once it creeped into this hearing there was frankly no more reason to pay attention. Suddenly, the Republicans sided with Clemens and the Democrats with McNamee. I don't know why, but I do know that each side attacked each with equal vigor. That means that all the Congress people should have attacked each with equal vigor. Steroids aren't a partisan issue, and neither is perjury. One of those two people lied, and deciding truth shouldn't have become an issue of R and D. Once it did, the hearing lost any credibility it may have had.

Third, and most importantly, ultimately, neither person was believable. The problem, for me at least, with figuring out which one lied is that I don't believe either. One of them is definitely lying but the problem for me is I believe they both are. Long before the Mitchell report came out, I suspected something wasn't right with Clemens. The report only confirmed those suspicions. I don't believe Pettite was mistaken about any conversations, and I don't believe he didn't know his wife was taking the exact same performance enhancing drug he himself is accused of taking. I certainly don't believe that he used McNamee to inject some vitamin into his backside. That said, McNamee leaves a lot to be desired as far as truth telling. He has all sorts of contradictory statements, Shays, while one sided, was right in pointing out that he is a cop turned drug dealer. One of them is definitely lying, and one may be telling the truth, however to me neither one sounds like they are telling the truth.

Ultimately, all we were left with was a spectacle that was long on drama and short on any reasonable results. Whatever one's view was of Clemens going in, it likely didn't change. The issue of steroids in baseball was certainly not moved in any meaningful way, and once again, Congress turned into a partisan battlefield.

2 comments:

  1. this will end exactly like the supposed scandal in 1971.keith hernandez of the mets started out as one of the first subjects. from that point on, every player implicated, pointed a finger at someone else,and from that point on it became an absolute circus when dale berra (i think) said willie stargel was a major supplier in the dressing room.
    from that point it really went downhill. and here we are today

    ReplyDelete
  2. So far, that has only happened to a small extent. If that happens, that would actually be the best way to rid it of the sport. If players start to point fingers at each other en masse, there is no greater message for the consequences. So far, that sort of thing hasn't happened in the numbers necessary though.

    While that would be an ugly spectacle, I actually believe that if it happened the way you describe in 1971, before I was born so I will take your word, then I believe it would be good for the sport.

    ReplyDelete