Roger vs. Brian

by Rant on January 6, 2008 · 19 comments

in Brian McNamee, Doping in Sports, Roger Clemens

Got done watching the Mike Wallace’s interview of Roger Clemens on 60 Minutes about an hour ago. And I have to say, it’s not necessarily easy to know who’s telling the truth — Clemens or his former trainer, Brian McNamee. McNamee’s side of the story is told in the Mitchell Report, and in the report McNamee is quoted as saying that he injected Clemens with steroids and human growth hormone on a number of occasions. But during the seasons that McNamee said he injected Clemens, the use of steroids and human growth hormone wasn’t yet against major league baseball’s rules.

Federal law, however, is a different matter. That all depends on how Clemens or McNamee might have acquired the drugs. One story has it that McNamee bought drugs from AIDS patients who needed the money. If that’s true, McNamee (and those he sold the drugs to) took advantage of other people’s misfortune for his/their own ends. But we’ll leave the matter of breaking the law until later.

Clemens, in his interview with Wallace, seemed angry and full of indignation. He’s either a good actor or someone who’s been burned by a person he trusted. Or, perhaps, both. But he could be telling the truth. Clemens made the point of challenging whoever might have provided him with steroids to come forward. Gutsy move, that. Just ask Gary Hart how such a challenge turned out in 1987. Hart, confronted with allegations of womanizing, challenged the media to prove it. Well, guess what? They did. (It was a friend of mine from journalism school who got the infamous picture of Hart and Donna Rice leaving his townhouse in Washington together. A dubious honor, that.) Hart went from a good shot at winning the Presidential nomination the following year to a political pariah. Can you say, “Oops”?

So Clemens, if he’s not telling the truth, is setting himself up for an awful fall by issuing that challenge. And if he is telling the truth, how will we know? Just because no one comes forward doesn’t mean that there’s no one who could rat him out. Clemens asked perhaps the most pertinent question of all, “How can I prove my innocence?” Indeed. How could he.

At this point, the court of public opinion has already tried and convicted him. Doesn’t matter what the truth is, Clemens observed, “In this country, you’re now guilty until proven innocent.” Well, in the media and public opinion, yes, that’s how it is today. Part of the reason people aren’t warming to his story is that he waited to respond. Clemens contends that he had no idea what McNamee told the Mitchell Report authors. And that McNamee had sent him a friendly email just days before the report came out. Boy, if that happened to me, I’d be beyond p*ssed. I won’t even hazard a guess as to what I’d do in response.

The problem with what’s going on between McNamee and Clemens is that it’s a he said/he said situation. There’s no hard evidence, other than McNamee’s story. Those who believe McNamee say that because of his deal with federal prosecutors (as long as he tells the truth, he won’t be prosecuted), McNamee’s testimony has greater credibility. [begin sarcasm] I’m sure that there’s never, ever been a time when a witness told prosecutors what they wanted to hear rather than what was really true. [end sarcasm] Just because that’s McNamee’s deal doesn’t mean he’s telling the truth.

Now, Andy Pettite admitted that McNamee’s testimony in regards to him was true. So that adds at least some credibility. But ultimately, it boils down to one person’s word against another. Unless and until someone comes forward with evidence of when and how Clemens acquired steroids and human growth hormone, that’s it. The question is who should we believe. Your guess is as good as mine.

Hell’s Angels of the Cycling World?

I caught this picture of a Rock Racing team support van over at CyclingNews.com.

Hell's Angels of the bike racing world?

Michael Ball, Rock Racing’s owner, is certainly prone to saying some pretty wild things. And apparently he’s very much the one who’s running the team (which is said to have led to Frankie Andreu’s departure).

I don’t know if he’s trying to create an outlaw image for the team with the logo and the hiring of some riders that seem to have become persona non grata as far as other teams go (due to doping allegations or suspensions). But as wild and outspoken as Ball is, one thing he ain’t is Sonny Barger.

Of course, if he keeps up the hyperbole, he may acquire the same reputation in the cycling world that Barger did as a Hell’s Angel. At least Ball will keep things interesting with his outspoken personality. (I don’t buy the hype, however.) One question, though: Who the heck would actually pay $300 for a pair of blue jeans?

Wait. Now I see. The logo is the Rock & Republic logo. Hmm. Fashion with a Hell’s Angels bent? I wonder what Sonny would have to say about that? 😉

rawdawgbuffalo January 6, 2008 at 7:47 pm

i have a different purview of the issue clemen—-cy

Rant January 6, 2008 at 7:53 pm

Well, raw dawg, I agree with you that if Clemens gets into the Hall of Fame, so should Bonds (and vice versa). As far as who’s telling the truth … I really don’t know. In a lot of ways, McNamee seems to have the credibility, with Pettite backing up what he said about him. And you may be right, Clemens may be trying to save face. Long and the short of it, for me, is that without any real proof it’s one person’s word against another. That’s a tough call.

Michael January 7, 2008 at 7:44 am

Clemens:
“Where did I get em?” Even I know that China and the internet is a good source. So why does he ask such a question? Perhaps he knows that the Postal Service won’t talk?
And then they ask him if he ever took any “banned” substances. What about any prescription drugs without a doctor’s prescription? What about any drugs on the IOC list of prohibited substances? Did he use any of those? Oh and while were asking, why on earth would an athlete worth HUNDREDS of millions of dollars let a trainer and not a doctor, inject him with anything, unless its illegal?
Just another dog and pony show.
Of course the real issue here is that the whole thing is irrelevant. Are they going to suspend a retired athlete?
This is what happens when a sport fails to manage these problems.

Rant January 7, 2008 at 9:03 am

This is what happens when a sport fails to manage these problems.

Exactly.

William Schart January 7, 2008 at 11:54 am

I really am not sure what to make of the Mitchell report. It seems to be based a lot of accounts from people like McNamee, Radomski, etc. I am sure ultimately the basic contention, that MLB has a far great PED problem that what has been admitted by MLB is true; however with respect to accusations against individual players, I haven’t seen anything like a smoking gun. Perhaps there’s more, Mitchell could be holding his cards close to his vest in case there’s any criminal action.

We have talked a lot about “Burden” and who has it when. Who has the initial burden in a libel or slander case? Would McNamee have to actually prove his accusations against Clemens were true, or would the burden be on Clemens to disprove them? In the write-up on the Wallace interview, it appears that McNamee’s lawyer is back-tracking a bit and saying “we’ll wait until after Congressional hearings” to decide whether or not to sue. That could indicate they’ll see what additional evidence, if any, turns up which might have a bearing on such a suit. Or the threat may have just been a bluff. But I’ve never heard of someone suing someone else for denying accusations the suer made, although I’ll not say it’s never happened.

As for records, I think, as much as I personally think Bonds used, unless this is actually proven in some way, his record should stand without an asterisk. The only asterisk I am aware of is that which went with Maris’ HR record, which was put in because he broke the Babe’s record in a season with more games in it (and needed every one of them), a fact which is beyond dispute. But I somewhat question even that; many sports records are broken due, at least in part, to better equipment, better venues (think how the roads in France today compare to those in 1903), and the like, and have no asterisk. If Bonds is proved a doper, then take the record away, until then it should stand, else we risk having every record astericked because someone felt there was some problem.

Similar for the HOF: if proved a doper, than I would hope he (and anyone else so proved) would be barred by regulation, like Rose is for his betting. Otherwise, it is up to the voters, who can consider the allegations along with other factors when voting.

Larry January 7, 2008 at 6:40 pm

Just curious here. I don’t normally ask the “who do you believe?” question. But I watched the Clemens press conference this afternoon and listened to the recorded conversation between Clemens and McNamee. I thought that Clemens was very believable at his press conference. I also thought that McNamee all but admitted that he lied to the Mitchell investigation and that he was sorry for what he had done. But then I listened to the commentators, who clearly did not hear the press conference and the tape the way I did. And I checked in on the ESPN poll, where opinion is running more than 2:1 against Clemens.

Honestly, before the press conference, I did not think I was either pro-Clemens or anti-Clemens. I don’t think I carried a bias into the press conference, but who knows? Obviously, I’m willing to consider things from the athlete’s perspective. Also, I know my mind is somewhat warped by law school and law practice. So it does not surprise me when my take on these things does not line up with the majority of non-experts, or the majority of experts. But I’m curious what the rest of y’all are thinking.

Yes, preface your thoughts with the usual “we can’t know for sure” stuff. Same way that we can’t know for sure what FL did, or what anyone accused of doping has really done. I just want to get your impressions at this point.

Rant January 7, 2008 at 7:11 pm

Larry,

Interesting perspective on the press conference. I wasn’t actually able to listen in when it was live, so I’m going to have to troll the Internet a bit to find a video or mp3 of the thing. I thought Clemens was passionate in his own defense on 60 Minutes. I haven’t heard McNamee speak, but his lawyers sure talk an interesting game. They seem to be backing off the defamation threats, right when Clemens is ramping up a defamation lawsuit.

I’d say this is going to get more and more interesting as time goes on. My own impression is that many people already made their minds up when the Mitchell Report came out as to who was guilty and who was innocent. My hunch is that those who see the press conference differently than you may have been looking more for things to reinforce their own conceptions of who’s right, rather than looking at the situation objectively. As a certain Congressman once said, “Don’t confuse me with the facts. My mind’s made up.”

To be honest, I stopped watching and caring about baseball after the 1994 strike/lockout. My interest in the story is from a professional curiosity standpoint, rather than caring if a certain player doped or not. Given how lax the major leagues have been in addressing the use of performance enhancing drugs, I wouldn’t be surprised if certain players were using them. At the points that McNamee claims to have injected Clemens, it wasn’t against baseball’s rules. So why the ruckus? From where I see it, it’s because (as a whole) our society frowns on such use. Now, distributing steroids would have been illegal, and using them without a proper prescription would have probably skated right on the thin line between legal and not (most likely, not).

It wouldn’t at all surprise me if McNamee spun a tale that prosecutors all but told him to tell — with the implication being that if he didn’t tell that tale, he’d have a roommate named “Killer” for some time to come. At the same time, I can make a case that Clemens is in damage control mode, trying to salvage whatever (if any) is left of his good name. I’ll have to dig into it a bit more before I draw a more firm conclusion one way or the other.

Morgan Hunter January 8, 2008 at 2:48 am

Larry,

Let me preface my thoughts on this, (what is the subject?), by indicating that I want to use what has been “said” so far to point to my response. The problem as it seems to me, is that we are asking “multiple questions” and mixing up observations with subjective value judgments.

Let me try to assure you Larry, that I am not doing this merely to be “clever” or to cast any of the writers in any light whatsoever. I simply think that this may be the clearest way to truthfully respond to your request.

It is my fervent hope that you all know that I respect you all deeply and my effort with using what you have “stated” – is not an attempt to use your “words, thoughts, feelings and beliefs,” against you. Rather I think that each of your statements “points” directly to what problems Larry is trying to address.

The “order” in which the “statements” are being used to address the question has little significance, other then that it helps me to make my points. None of the statements are to be judged from a point of view of them being “good or bad” — “right or wrong.” Each statement is considered to be “truthful and honest.” — So having said this, let me begin.

William states —“I am sure ultimately the basic contention, that MLB has a far great PED problem that what has been admitted by MLB is true; however with respect to accusations against individual players, I haven’t seen anything like a smoking gun.”

—William begins his statement by giving us his “personal opinion about the state of MLB.” He tells us that he believes that MLB has had a problem and he agrees with this.

—But the second part of his statement, involves sharing his “observation” that he can draw no conclusions from what he has read in the (Mitchell Report). This being that he finds nothing of a “smoking gun” in the report.

—If we are to “see things clearly” then, what is important is that we always try to identify “subjective” opinion from “observations.” A subjective opinion always needs something else to “prove” itself one way or another. While an “observation” is able to stand on it’s own.

—The problem, as I see it is that they were made in the same breath, so to speak, and therefore it is not necessarily “clear” to the casual reader. This is not a “judgment” against William’s way of speaking on my part; rather I am trying to sort out the “short hand” of his statement, because William actually made two statements and made one out of them. This is a “habit” that most of us are all guilty of, some more then others.

Rant quoting a Congressman —“Don’t confuse me with the facts. My mind’s made up.”

—Is on the surface, a very funny “spoonerism,” which it is, but at the same time, to the careful reader points directly to one of the major problems in communications. The average reader will react to the “fun” of the statement and more then likely seldom look behind it as to its true meaning.

—Without realizing what he was actually stating, the Congressman, tells us what his true state of mind is about the topic being discussed. This kind of “self-revelation” is priceless and most people are able to see the irony in the statement.

—Now I make an “assumption” – from reading Rant’s comments, from getting to understand how he uses language to communicate — Rant is applying sarcasm and dry wit. He is commenting on the “unaware” use of language to make his point to Larry. I cannot “know for sure” that Rant actually did this intentionally or not. I can only make an “assumption” about it.

—But if I only “look” at the statement from this point of view, I am left with addressing Rant as a “writer” not what he is trying to communicate. In my opinion, and it can only be called an “opinion,” Rant is pointing out that people use language mostly unconsciously. This is a very important piece of knowledge that we must all take into consideration when we communicate.

—The majority of people do not use language to “communicate” rather they use language as a mask of defense and to hide behind. This may not be considered, “communication.”

William states, —“We have talked a lot about “Burden” and who has it, when. Who has the initial burden in a libel or slander case?”

—In his statement, William tells us that the “subject” of proving guilt or innocence has been discussed before and often, and indicates that the “issue” has not been resolved. This can be looked at as the “clearest” form of presenting this situation.

—He addresses directly what he “sees” as the central issue of the MLB situation along with the Mitchell Report. This direct pointing to the “problem,” in my opinion is what is most important. It allows us to respond, if we understand what he is stating, that the issue is around the simple question of who is responsible for “proving his statement” when an “accusation” is made. This is very clear and completely uncomplicated, in otherwords it is a “direct question.”

—Logic would tell me, that if and when an individual makes an “accusation”, the “burden to prove his accusation” must rightfully fall on the accuser. Not on the accused.

—If the “burden” of proof is allowed to be foisted on the “accused” then we are right back and facing the same warped situation that we have with Landis and Clemens and every other WADA case that we are looking at. It has been noted over and over what WADA has done with the concept of “proof.”

—WADA is turning the problem around to suit itself, ignoring that it is not logical to place the “burden of proof” on the “accused.” It is merely WADA’s way of stacking the deck with the sole ambition of “winning.” This turning of logic around is a WADA “convenience” — it is itself not logical, or fair in nature. That is unless we have all decided that we would all adhere to “Salem Witch Trial” rules of litigation. As far as I know, no one asked me, or anyone else for that matter, if this is the kind of jurisprudence that I agree to.

—So the question comes down to simplicity itself. Does WADA have the right to foist on the world of athletes and the general populace its illogical and absurd point of view of what may be considered “Law?” From our looking at the Salem Witch Trials in retrospect, we now realize that this was a “warped” form of putting people on trial.

—Notice, I do not use the word “justice,” because it is not appropriate. One can be “put on trial” and accused, without the trial being “just” or “legal.” In my opinion, this is obvious simplicity itself, and should be quiet clear.

—The question then arises naturally, “Why isn’t it?” I put to you that it isn’t because people do not address the important question — what is logical and fair? We do not have to “reinvent” new laws — we have laws in place that address this question. The burden of proof must be assigned to the accuser, and not as WADA desires it, on the “accused.”

Larry gives us his point of view, —“I watched the Clemens press conference this afternoon and listened to the recorded conversation between Clemens and McNamee. I thought that Clemens was very believable at his press conference. I also thought that McNamee all but admitted that he lied to the Mitchell investigation and that he was sorry for what he had done.”

—In my opinion, Larry states his point of view fairly and without prejudice. He expresses that he had watched the “press conference” and then proceeds to express his opinion about the two major actors of the conference.

—Larry indicates that according to his “impressions” of how Clemens presented himself; Clemens was “believable.” Meaning that Larry would, if asked to judge, what was before his eyes, Clemens was believable. Notice though, Larry does not “commit” himself completely, he merely states that Clemens’ “media behavior” was believable. He does this more then likely because he does not have enough information to “judge” Clemens to answer the question as to “guilt or innocence.”

—If I were accused, I would want someone like Larry to judge me — I would feel that from such a person, I might expect fair behavior. Why? Because he is aware enough to know that he needs to remain nonjudgmental till he has in hand all the facts.

—How do I know this? Because when I look at his statement, I can assume that he made them as consciously as possible. I cannot know how this ability in Larry came about, but I can look at the result. He does not judge before he has all the facts.

—As to Larry’s comment about McNamee, here he is giving us his own pure “impression.” He tells us that in his “impression” of McNamee’s behavior and words, he finds that McNamee reveals himself to have lied to the Mitchell investigation. He is giving his impression and he states this clearly. We all have a right to have impressions. This is not a “judgment” against McNamee. It is Larry’s impression of what he was “seeing.”

—But — he adds that McNamee is sorry for what he had done. Now this part IS a judgment on Larry’s part. At least it is a “judgment,” because we do not know why he states this in the way he does. Larry does not “tell us, “what impression or statement” on McNamee’s part caused him to draw this conclusion. In this statement Larry “judges” McNamee and finds him being “sorry for what he has done.” We the readers are therefore left with nothing but either accepting his judgment or rejecting his judgment. Therefore, Larry here is making a “biased statement.”

—Given that Larry is a lawyer, one’s normal expectation is that he seldom makes such statements. So it should be obvious that Larry at this point is giving us a “conclusion” of how he feels about the whole thing.

In my “opinion,” Larry is “indicating” that on some level, he is aware of what he had done and is asking for “feedback” because of this statement, —“Also, I know my mind is somewhat warped by law school and law practice. So it does not surprise me when my take on these things does not line up with the majority of non-experts, or the majority of experts.”

—In a self-deprecating manner, Larry states his credentials. He states clearly though that his thinking is “shaped and molded” by his “law school education” and his “practice as a lawyer.” The fact that he presents his “creds” in this manner is to “show” us that he is “open” to input.

—When he further continues, he makes it clear that his “point of view” is different from the Majority of “non-expert and experts.” When the question is put to this statement of “why is Larry having a different view point?” We can safely assume that it is because he has been trained in Law and his thinking is “shaped” by this training and is maintained by his “practice” of Law.

—He has set himself apart intentionally and attempts to “look at” situations, statements, individuals and actions, as Legally Logical as possible. This is a very admirable and the highest level of “professional” adherence to his chosen profession.

Larry further indicates, —“But then I listened to the commentators, who clearly did not hear the press conference and the tape the way I did. And I checked in on the ESPN poll, where opinion is running more than 2:1 against Clemens.”

—This is another reason for me to wish that Larry represented me, if I were ever in the “shoes of the accused.” What is Larry saying? He tells us that while listening to the commentators, he found that his “opinion” was not the same as those of these “experts.”

—He also tells us that these “experts,” in his “opinion” did not come to the same conclusion as Larry did from the “press conference.” Here Larry is giving us his completely subjective but honest reaction to the “experts” understanding” of the situation, along with his own apparent divergent view. It may be also interpreted that Larry may have been quiet frustrated at the “interpretation” of the experts.

—He further tells us that he went to look at the ESPN poll — this is a very logical move on his part if he is trying to get the “opinions” of the “public” at large. His reaction is to report to us that “public opinion” is best explained by the quote from Rant’s congressman; “Don’t confuse me with the facts. My mind’s made up.” In otherwords, Larry is saying that he believes that the public opinion is that the “public” has addressed the guilt or innocence question and they find all the players “guilty.”

Okay Larry, I don’t know if this will help you in any way. But this is my way of reacting to your request.

I will admit that I am also “guilty” of not always having thoughts that go along with what appears to be the “favored majority opinion.” Unlike you, my “thinking” was not shaped by “law school” and maintained by a “law practice.”

My thinking is shaped from the underlying premises that there is a “difference” between an education that fills the mind with “facts or beliefs,” as compared to an education that emphasizes learning how “thinking is done.”

With my response to your request Larry, I hope I have managed to put it in a clear manner, and that it addresses your request.

William Schart January 8, 2008 at 6:09 am

Morgan:

Let me clarify a bit: my statement above about burden was directed solely at the question of whether Clemens could be convicted (not sure that’s the proper legal term) in a suit for libel/slander. I know that an absolute defense to such a suit is that the allegedly libelous/slanderous statement is true, and the burden here would almost assuredly fall on the defendant. But is there a burden on the plaintiff to actually prove the statement in question is false? In otherwords, in regards to Clemens, would McNamee, if he were to sue, actually have to prove Clemens had been injected by McNamee with steroids. I suspect that this is one reason why they have backed off with the threat of a suit; by waiting until after congressional hearings more evidence could come to light on one side of the case or another.

Think back to my post a week or so ago about how it is impossible for an athlete to actually prove he didn’t dope: Clemens is in this situation. Unless McNamee makes some every specific accusations, detailing date, time and place, Clemens can’t provide an alibi. There are no test results to attack, a la Landis. McNamee, on the other hand, could possibly produce witnesses to alleged injections, or witnesses who heard Clemens make admissions, etc., to back up his statements. Now, I am not saying that such exist, but there is that possibility.

As to whether the Rocket is believable, I have no opinion. He certainly is passionate in his own defense, but that says little. Contrary to popular opinion, some people are quite capable of lying in such a manner. Clemens has been known as having a strong personality, often outspoken, and he has many years of dealing with interviewers and reporters (unlike Landis). McNamee has not had that experience, and could thus come off looking less sure of himself, whether or not he is telling the truth. I wouldn’t be surprised if Clemens did use steroids, but I’ll withhold an opinion unless and until further evidence is made public.

Morgan Hunter January 8, 2008 at 8:47 am

William,
Forgive me if I had unintentionally “put words in your mouth.” This was not meant to be read in such manner. If I have inferred something that was not your intention – It was merely to “use” you words to make a point of mine – not yours.

It is damned hard to “respond” to Larry’s query – it seems so “innocent on the surface” but when “looked at” a little closer it is not so easy or obvious at all.

Yes – I do recall your comments concerning the difficulty in “proving non doping.” I found it really excellent and direct and very clear. Have I in some way strayed from this?

As I mention in the beginning of my “comment” – the quotes are not to be interpreted as being judgmental in anyway. I am applying them as “tools” to clarify what I was trying to communicate to Larry.

I hope this addresses what ever misrepresentation I may have inadvertently brought about – the fact is that I admire your clarity of thought and the resulting comments in general.

Larry January 8, 2008 at 10:42 am

Morgan, I REALLY did intend for my comments to be “innocent”! Did you find Clemens to be believable, or not? At this point in the he said – he said battle between Clemens and McNamee, I believe Clemens. It seemed to me, based on the reactions I saw and heard yesterday, that I’m in the minority. That caused me to consider whether I was missing something, and I wanted to know what y’all were thinking.

It appears that you are all taking a wait-and-see approach, which is the prudent and responsible thing to do. To be certain, there are many unanswered questions.

However, the Clemens case may end up being more typical than the FL case. It is clear to me that the ADAs no longer believe that drug testing is good enough, and that instead they plan to rely more heavily on police tactics. In particular, I think the ADAs are going to rely on informants: like McNamee, like Sinkewitz. (In cycling, I think they are going to rely on the biological passport to help identify the riders that will be the subject of these police-style investigations.)

It isn’t going to be pretty. If you watched the press conference yesterday, it’s clear that McNamee is a desperate and unhappy person, a person who was given the choice between prison and ratting out someone he cared about and admired. It was truly a sad thing to watch, regardless of who you believe. The press conference was also a reminder that there are real people’s lives in the balance here. We’re not just talking about who gave who what kind of shot in what body part. We’re talking about the relationship between a husband and his wife, a father and his sons. And on the other side, we’re talking about a man whose son is dying, a man who ratted out another man, yet hope that this other man could be persuaded to say some comforting words to his dying son. All of which was broadcast world-wide.

You DO have to ask yourself this question: if THIS is what we have to do to win the battle against doping in sports, then is the battle really worth the price we have to pay to win? I think the answer is “yes”, but it’s a closer question for me after hearing the Clemens press conference.

So … the typical doping case may not be a battle between an athlete and a lab. The typical doping case may be a battle between an athlete and an informant. We may not ever get any closer to the truth in these cases than we did yesterday.

Most of the participants in this forum have come to the conclusion that FL was treated unfairly. Some of you may believe FL on a personal level, and think that he did not dope. Some of you may not have an opinion on whether FL doped, but have concluded that FL was subjected to an unfair ADA process, and that the proof against FL is inadequate. In either event, you’ve taken a stand.

So, I’ll raise a second question, and honestly, I DO intend these to be innocent questions! You all are, relatively speaking, experts on sports doping. You all know a hell of a lot more about this subject than the average talking head on ESPN (Bonnie Ford is an exception, she’s one of us). Do you feel any internal pressure to take a stand on the Clemens case? Do you feel that a non-commital “wait and see” approach to the Clemens case is consistent with your strong stance in support of FL? Also … my guess is that you’re all like me, that you chose to stand with FL before you learned much of what you presently know about doping and the anti-doping tests. Do you think that today, you’d be more reluctant to take a stand in favor of another athlete accused of doping?

I’ll give you my answers to these questions. Yes. No. Yes.

William Schart January 8, 2008 at 11:56 am

Larry:

I’ll answer, at least in part. My wait and see stand in regards Clemens (and others) is partly based on my experience with the Landis case over the past 17 months. Many of us here at Rant, TBV, etc. have taken a position that an athlete should be considered innocent until proven guilty, and have also argued for a more rigorous standard for guilt than seems to be used in some doping cases. I, in particular, am wary of informant testimony, when there is not corroboration from either hard evidence, or at least other informants/witnesses. McNamee may be telling the truth, or he may be hoping for leniency if he serves up a big enough fish, so I don’t think his testimony is enough to make any rational judgement. On the other hand, Clemens impassioned defense of himself is no clue either, Marion Jones denied any use until this summer.

I would like to diverge a moment to the concept of “ratting out”, and this is not meant as an attack against you, Larry. We have this strong concept that a “rat” or “tattletale” or whatever you choose to call an informant is a creature beneath contempt. While I’d say that someone who manufactures a story about someone to gain leniency is indeed a vile creature, an informant who give true, to the best of his or her knowledge, information should not be reviled. A lot of discussion about the doping issues of cycling talk about the “omerta” in the peleton and how it needs to be cracked. We have also discussed the “omerta” in WADA, where one who works for a ADA lab cannot testify in defense of an athlete, and how that should be changed.

Then, part of my reason for a wait and see attitude about Clemens is that I don’t really care for him all that much, ever since the incident where he got tossed in the WS game back around 1989 or 1990 for telling the ump “F— you!).

Morgan Hunter January 8, 2008 at 2:59 pm

Larry —

Let me try and answer your questions. By the way — I want you to know — that my previous “comment” was in no way intended as any form of insinuation that you were merely being “clever.” If I have failed to communicate to you with the piece — it is my entire fault. All I can say is — sorry Larry — I meant nothing negative by it towards you or your comment.

I began to speak up in defense of Floyd Landis as I began to see how the Malibu hearing was progressing. Actually, all I “know” of law is what I managed to glean from you and Bill Hue and observing it rather seriously on TBV. I did not immediately find myself responding. I am no great shakes with the computer and its marvelous abilities — but one day — I got on the Rant Line and I was impressed at the intelligent and human viewpoints that Rant and others were making. I never write to papers or do editorials.

But Rant inspired me to put my feelings of anger and frustration on the net. I was ANGRY but not at Floyd Landis — I was pissed at what was happening in the governing bodies of pro cycling! The more I learned — the more pissed I became. What would you do if you see someone “ganged up on?” — Me, I couldn’t just watch it going down — I’d step in.

What really got my goat and the goat is still pissed, as I see it — “nothing has really changed!” All the righteous malarkey being passed out to the media, the character assassination of an individual — all of it — in my opinion is just plain wrong. Something HAS to be done about it — my writing on the Rant Line is my way of “doing.”

I cannot say clearly what I was “expecting” from Mitchell and his Report — but I think I was hoping not to see what actually happened. I watched in shock as another person with responsibility to the public — USE THE SAME TECHNIQUES as does WADA. The so-called Report turned out to be a collection of hearsay and no “evidence” to actually prove the “public” accusations being made.

Further searching I found evidence that Mr Mitchell should never have been assigned to do this so called “study.” He has direct ties to MLB. You ask if I feel “pressure to react” to what is happening to Clemens and McNamee — yes — but not specifically about the two people themselves. The pressure that makes me want to react is what is appearing to happen in how we handle “justice in sports!” I find it outrageous.

I am also in a quandary. My conflict is that I do not believe any accused athlete has a chance to really defend himself. EVERYBODY seems to take for granted that the question being asked is about the “guilt or innocence” of the accused athlete — I put to you that it is IMPOSSIBLE to actually address this question! So to put it very bluntly — I have NO PROBLEMS with making a stand for an athlete. The question of his “guilt or innocence” turn into a moot point — when — as I see the situation — the whole governing process is corrupt.

I do not see any point in “arguing” guilt or innocence when the accusation is allowed to stand merely on the “say so” of a governing body or on the unproven allegations of another. With the basic digging that Google allows, one finds that every one of them has “ties of interests” that should in any “fair process” rule them out of being able to hold their governing positions!

Rant January 8, 2008 at 7:14 pm

Larry,
In answer to your questions. Other than the fact that this blog seems to be about doping in sports, I feel no particular pressure to have an opinion on the Clemens allegations or the Mitchell Report. Given that I’ve spent more than a year researching and writing the book, it’s become a bit of an avocation, however, so the impulse to make a comment is certainly there. But no pressure. Baseball hasn’t been something I’ve followed closely for 14 seasons now.
I’m a big believer in the innocent until proven guilty approach, which is part of what got me going in the first place. That and a strong sense that the media didn’t understand what they were reporting on in Floyd’s case (Bonnie D. Ford and Michael Hiltzik are two prominent exceptions to this, however), especially when an 11:1 ratio morphed into comments like “11 times normal” which turned out to be patently untrue.
When I first started supporting Floyd, I had a strong feeling that Landis was being railroaded — in part because of my knowledge of the doping issues in cycling, and the lab’s reputation, and the general way the story was playing out, combined with behavior at the beginning on Floyd’s part that I believe is consistent with an innocent person struggling to understand what the hell just happened to him.
From Clemens’ press conference yesterday, he sounds like he’s fighting back hard against the allegations made by McNamee (and Mitchell’s report). And what I get out of the conversation between the two is much the same as what you said. McNamee doesn’t sound good, he sounds like he’s sorry about selling his friend out. That’s my impression, anyway. I’ve got to say, it’s pretty gutsy to sell your friend down the river, and then just days before the report comes out, ask to borrow his fishing equipment. That, to me, is truly odd behavior. I wouldn’t sell a friend out, but if I had, I sure as heck wouldn’t be calling and asking him for a favor afterwards. I wouldn’t be able to talk to him or face him, knowing what was going to go down.
I believe that Clemens, like everyone else, has the right to be presumed innocent until proven otherwise. In a he said/he said situation, I don’t know that there will ever be proof one way or the other. And that’s not a good enough reason, in my book, to crucify someone for crimes real or imagined. Before Clemens gets thrown to the wolves, there ought to be more proof than just one person’s claims.
As for you last question, would I be more reluctant to take a stand? Depends on the situation and my knowledge of the issues involved. If I understand the situation and the issues, I would be pretty comfortable taking a stand.
Back to Clemens vs. McNamee, given the 60 Minutes interview and yesterday’s press conference (with the excerpt of the phone conversation), I’m leaning more towards Clemens side of the story.
One interesting thing to note about steroids in baseball. Care to guess what position the first baseball players to use anabolic steroids played? The earliest reference I found was to several pitchers in about 1969, or perhaps a bit earlier, who used anabolics. The drugs had infiltrated pro baseball twenty years before the era that Mitchell’s report covers.

Larry January 8, 2008 at 8:33 pm

William, Morgan, Rant, thanks for letting me know where you stand.

Morgan, I took no offense here, I knew what you meant!

William, I did not mean anything negative by my reference to “ratting out”. I get the fact that sometimes, the person who tells the story to the authorities is a hero. One man’s “rat” is another man’s “whistleblower”.

Michael January 9, 2008 at 7:07 am

This does relate to the problem in cycling. . .Let me see if I can make a connection quickly:
My argument has always been that unless the test/evidence is a slam dunk, it is not in the sport’s best interests to even talk about the possibility of a particular athlete doping (publicly pursuing Operation Puerto when the Spanish authorities wouldn’t makes no sense – privately perhaps. . .). It is bad for business and bad for the credibility of the sport and its’ authorities. That’s why Floyd’s case should never have seen the light of day, and that’s why the Mitchell report should never have been made public.
What good has it done baseball? Is cycling better off because the authorities allow poorly executed tests to be used to convict athletes (Floyd, Mayo, et al)?
I have believed for years that Clemens doped (see his last few years in Boston and then the remarkable improvements at what should have been the tail end of his career), but baseball has not improved the credibility of the product by stating this in public.
When a report was completed on Pete Rose’s gambling problems, baseball never released it – we all knew what it probably said, but Giamatti cleaned house without bringing the credibility of Rose’s accomplishments (or the sport as a whole) into question.
I guess what I am saying is that a sport cannot deal with the problem of doping in public and maintain any sense of credibility. It’s easy to blame the dopers for the problem, but they have always been there – it’s mismanagement that has made this fiasco.

Morgan Hunter January 9, 2008 at 8:04 am

Michael,

You have stated the problem well – but may I point out one or two things here. In the present times of WADA et al, the “solution” that Giamatti used cannot work. I am not familiar with the specifics of the Pete Rose case – rather know it from news blurbs and such.

The problem that we face in Cycling and the way the UCI and WADA “treats” the present situation is NOT WITH THE INTEREST OF THE SPORT at its center. Quiet the opposite in my opinion. Perhaps Giamatti could handle the problem the way he did with Rose – because he dealt directly with the situation. And getting rid of Rose was the simple and direct solution.

But the situation is different here. WADA and the UCI seem to desire “ultimate control” of sports and cycling – they do not care at what price – that is why the athletes are being thrown under like cheap garbage. So the issue is not “doing what is best for sports” it is “get the damned doping bastards!”

You see there is a preconceived notion here by the WADA and the UCI that “they are all doping AND since “its completely out of hand” there are no rules in the fight.

If you look at the WADA codes and the Rules of governance in cycling – you may just notice that the burden of proof is placed on the accused – thereby the situation becomes “I know you did it you scum dropper” so prove to me you didn’t.

So how do you think you would deal with someone who came up to you and made “claims” against you and then “the only way” you are “allowed” to rebuff is to “prove that you didn’t do it!”

Personally, I think the nuts have been let out of the hospital and they are running the system. I hope I have clearly responded to your comment.

Michael January 9, 2008 at 11:21 am

Morgan,

I couldn’t agree more.

However, I think that the organizations are more craven than you outline. I think that there are some true believers (despite all his faults, I think that the Dick Pound believed that he was doing “god’s work”). But it seems that most of them are not motivated by a need to replace the cheating by dopers with fairness and honor.

Here on the dark side, we relish the opportunity to stick one to the “Man.” But Roger Clemens is so unbelievable and unlikeable, that it is hard to comment on the injustice being perpetrated upon him.

Morgan Hunter January 9, 2008 at 11:52 am

Michael,

You know Michael – after this year of writing my opinions about that “bunch” – I have decided to stay away from acting like them. Don’t let my “staid” exterior fool you – when I say I am pissed off about them – believe it. You know what else – they are going to be making more and more mistakes – and a “lot” of people are watching and just waiting. Just be patient – I’m in this to the end bro – you can lay money on that!

True-Believers scare the Sh*t out of me. But with me – I get calmer the more the stuff hits the fan. By the way Liked that link you provided on the other thread. I just finished reading the “less then friendly Cycling News piece on Ball and RR. I am so hoping that the guy is not just all mouth and glitz…

As to the MLB – issue. For me it is a question of following fair rules and laws – all the loudmouth talk about fair play and stuff – it all comes down to who “controls” everything. I see that IOC and WADA are making a move on pro American sports – very little difference from what the UCI is doing on this neck of the woods in Europe.

The thing is Michael – fair rules and laws – allow us to deal with people that we may not like, agree with or even want walking our streets. Without this glue to any “society” we might all just go and by our six-guns now…I’m too old for that kind of chaos, but to be honest man – I am an old gunslinger at heart.

Previous post:

Next post: