In Defense of Clemens and Bonds

[Zen653]

How can you imply that I implied that?

In response to kflo's interpretation of Pettitte's credibility, you said, "This is a laugher." I took that to mean that you did not consider Pettitte's testimony credible. In my opinion, for the reasons stated in my previous post, I consider Pettitte to be the most credible because he had the least to lose by being dishonest. He could have sided with his friend. He could have demurred with the "I don't remember" defense. He did neither. While the motivations for Clemens and McNamee to lie are self-evident, what possible motivation does Pettitte have to defame his best friend and commit perjury?

While I agree with you that Pettitte does not come off as particularly literate individual in the quoted portion of the deposition, I'm willing to give him (and any witness) the benefit of the doubt when it comes to clarity of legal presentation. Lawyers tend to be aggressive in their interrogations. It's perfectly normal for witnesses to succumb to the stresses of a probing investigation. In my limited experiences as an attorney (just a handful of months at this point), I've already seen many people reduced to the verbal skills of a child. I would also remind you, as I'm sure you already know, that depositions are oral, and people tend to speak less formally than they write. To dismiss someone's testimony on the basis of his choppy circumlocution strikes me as arrogant and unfair.

Clemens stated, not fewer tan six times, that all he could suggest was that Petitte "mis-remerbered" the conversation. On two other occasions, Clemens said that Pettitte misquoted the conversation, fully implying that Pettitte believed what he was saying at the time he spoke, wrote or deposed. I did not ompugn Pettitte; neither did Clemens.

Exactly, Clemens did not at any time impugn Pettitte's credibility. He merely suggested that Pettitte honestly "misremembered" the nature of the conversations and the contexts in which they arose. As Congressman Cummings noted, we essentially had Clemens calling McNamee a liar, McNamee calling Clemens a liar, McNamee calling himself a liar (with respect to prior inconsistent statements), and everyone (Clemens, McNamee, Knoblach, Stanton, etc.) vouching for Pettitte's integrity. When there's only one person who everyone considers trustworthy, why wouldn't you trust him above the others?

Oh, yes, the lawyers noted the improprieties of a "principal" getting involved; but let me put myself in Clemens' place, from a purely human standpoint:

I appreciate and concur with your analysis of the human side of the situation regarding the nanny. But let's examine the impropriety of Clemens' attorneys here. They knew that the House Committee wanted the identity of the nanny. They failed to disclose that identity until after they had an opportunity to interview (coerce?) her. This is a flagrant violation of standard protocol. You always cooperate with the legitimate investigatory requests of the fact-finder and opposing counsel. Had Clemens' attorneys met with the nanny before Congress requested that she be identified and independently deposed, then that would be fine, because it's accepted procedure for attorneys to privately meet with their own witnesses and even non-defendant witnesses of the opposition. However, that's not what transpired here. The Clemens team made no effort to find the nanny prior to the House Committee's request to speak with her, and when notified of this request, the Clemens team did not immediately cooperate. This is borderline obstruction of justice, and possibly a handful of other things such as witness tampering, duress, coercion, and whatever else may have occurred in the meeting with Clemens.

And this is not the only example of Clemens' attorneys violating at least the spirit of the code of legal ethics. Let's not forget the secretly recorded conversations between Clemens and McNamee, the shameful public revelations about McNamee's son, the apparent stonewalling of Senator Mitchell and his investigators after repeated warnings, and other less than professional conduct. While Clemens should not be squarely blamed for his lawyers' deficiencies, he similarly should not be completely absolved of culpability. It does not take a lawyer to realize that some of these actions might be tainted by impropriety. If you really want to be viewed as credible, you don't stoop to these levels. Clemens' answers did little to assuage the valid concerns raised by his attorneys' actions.

I, on the other hand, would not AGREE with any Congressperson who expounded out-of-place conclusions to a hearing which the Chair himself avowed [before he breached that himself, repeatedly, would leave the question unanswered and open to individual conclusion].

I agree with you about the circus-nature of the proceedings, designed more to produce fodder for the tabloids than to address the purported objective of the Mitchell Report. The Report was intended to illustrate the prevalence of drug abuse in professional baseball and propose solutions as to how best combat it for the good of young aspiring athletes. While most of the Congressmen paid lip service to this mission, about 95% of the hearing was wasted on the he said/she said nature of the allegations levied against Clemens. If we're honest with ourselves, though, the vast majority of us are far more interested in the gossip side of this story than in the substantive policy one.

[nanwynnfan]

Here's a time line, which is about the end of the line on this topic for me.

Season......................Approxomate MLB Pad. Attendance

1992.............................55.9 million
1993.............................70.3 million* expansion

Conclusion: Expansion is good for MLB paid attendance

1994.............................50.2 million**strike

Conclusion: strikes are bad for MLB paid attendance

1995.............................50.5 million***strike ends April 2

Conclusion: Fans of MLB are averse to strikes and abbreviated seasons

1996.............................61.0 million $$$

1997.............................63.1 million $$$

1998.............................68.6 million $$$

Baseballs are defying gravity.

Conclusions: a. Fans are slow to forgive; but they do come around and they love home runs;
b. Jose Canseco had a barbecue in Miami in June; Roger Clemens played golf;
c. Roger Clemens had a nanny; d. a guy named McNamee was at the party; d. Clemens says he wasn't there; e. Canseco, too says Clemens wasn't there; f. McNamee says Clemens was there; g. the nanny was allegedly there; h. Mrs. Clemens and a Clemens offspring may well have been there

AND ............. what did everybody here do on the weekend of June 8-10, 1998?

1999............................70.1 million

2000............................72.9 million

2001............................74.0 million

Conclusion: something is putting fan fannies back into the seats again.

2002............................72.0 million oops, a flat year

2003............................71.0 million oops, another flat year

2004............................73.0 million, a rebound****

Conclusion: Has MLB attendance hit a saturation point? Are all the records worth breaking, broken? Oh-oh! December = BALCO, Giambi and Bonds.

2005............................74.9 million, a record

January 12: MLB NOW HAS OFFICIAL STEROID RULES ANY FOOL CAN READ & COMPREHEND.

2006............................76.0 million, a new record

2007............................79.5 million, a new, new record

George Mitchell has issued a report on steroid abuse in MLB, urges: Move on.

2008.............................0, to date; but then the season hasn't started.

Conclusion: Time for Henry Waxman to swing his gavel. Has Congress nothing better to do? If so, can they please conduct themselves more professionally than they did today?

[kflo]

once again, nan making this about anything other than actually having to honestly assess steroid and hgh use, and players telling the truth and taking any responsibility for their own actions. instead, it's everyone else's fault. always. no assessment of whether clemens actually perjured himself. not any concern. clemens has a spartan work ethic!

[nanwynnfan]

Originally Posted by kflo

once again, nan making this about anything other than actually having to honestly assess steroid and hgh use, and players telling the truth and taking any responsibility for their own actions. instead, it's everyone else's fault. always. no assessment of whether clemens actually perjured himself. not any concern. clemens has a spartan work ethic!

Look. You are not alone in your convictions. For cryin' out loud, Lawrence Kudlow, for whom I once held great respect as a student of economics, jumped on his increasingly extraneous and verbal soapbox to say today, "I believe Roger Clemens was lying through his teeth." I fully respect Kudlow's right to voice any opinion he likes on his business program; but the respect I once had for him simply fell another notch below its already discounted level today.

Your posts have increasingly become a tedious exercise in dogging my own with a relentless challenge containing two predictable components:

1. Nan, you are making of this something it is not; and your focus is wrong-headed in that you are blind to the truth that eveyone else can plainly see: Clemens [Bonds .... pick your "cheater name" - they are interchangeable here] is a lying cheater, a disgrace to the game, a terrible example for our youth ............................... is that nearly close enough?

2. You [Nan] choose to blame everybody else because of your blindness to the facts as I [kflo] see them ................ is that close enough?

I have on too many posts here provided time lines, facts, stats, even tables of extraordinary seasons at advanced ages going back to 1901; and those efforts get the same hollow and endlessly echoing responses.

Perhaps, at the bottom line, my moral standards have atrophied with the years. I have grown weary with moral righteousness, lawyers, speechifying elected officials with gavels, iconic sluts as social revolutionaries and standard bearers, and burned out young superstars being morally autopsied by talking heads and moralizing media hosts whose claim to fame is a law degree or former prosecutorial or defensive practice.

For me the most telling testimony today was that which suggested ownership had approached player agents to collude on fighting off the demonizing of substances, rigorous testing and prosecution - each a link in the chain we are now beholding.

The fact is I do not really care at this point who used what and to what degree he [they] kept themselves informed as to substance chemistry, dosage, federal legality or the provision of an illicit edge. In a nest of vipers, wriggling for every buck, promotion, headline, photo op, demonstration of authority, I see little value in excoriating the ones to whom talent & tempting apples have been distributed.

When I recall my childhood favorites, my hero was heavily fined on one occasion for flashing the finger and again, even more severely taxed for giving the "Italian salute" to another crowd of hostile fans. However, he was great with kids, gave this 9 year old his autograph outside the players' entrance at Yankee Stadium and served almost 6 years in two wars.

Joe DiMaggio, a non-favorite, but another "great" made a living selling coffee and autographs, with a nothing-for-nothing, grubby attitude. Not everyone can be as quietly classy and self-effacing as Cecil Travis, who paid quite a price for his service; or as exhuberantly happy for making it to the Big Show and sticking it out for over a decade [with wartime out] like a Jimmy Bloodworth.

These guys are human. They have a very narrow and brief window of opportunity. Some are good guys; some are legitimate heroes with quirks of anger or superstition; some are arrogant SOB's. And, truth be told, at my age, I can look at every player in a MLB uniform as a "kid." [And too soon, old].

So, whatever else he may be, Roger Clemens has been humiliated by public charge and "trial;' publicly scolded by the likes of a Henry Waxman; accused by a diploma-mill "doctor," ex-street cop drug dealer; tried in front of his kids and their generation; and NO MATTER WHAT THE TRUTH MAY BE has had his reputation indelibly slimed.

Barry Bonds may be looking forward to even worse, if this is the last of the hearings.

I will sleep soundly tonight. I will also sleep soundly if worse comes to Clemens, Bonds and others. There will be many who may chest-thump if such "justice" is served; but I, happily and proudly, will not be among them.

It won't be naivete, either.

[kflo]

one thing nan, is that i don't condemn them personally for the choices they made in that timeframe as much as i condemn them for how they handle it afterwards. we can discuss the right/wrong of doing it in the first place. if they took the same stance you are taking, this would look alot different. if they took some responsibility for their own actions, yet also gave context for why they did it, they'd be more sympathetic figures. instead, they try and indict everyone else. if you come out with a scortched earth campaign and make it about everyone else instead of your own choices, then i lose compassion. and you bring on more to yourself. clemens own choices brought him the spectacle we saw yesterday.

so, again, i don't condemn the choices, because in many ways, it is understandable. i do condemn the response and the indignation they show (clemens and bonds in particular), and i do discount their chemically enhanced performances.

[nanwynnfan]

Well, that is encouraging and I was happy to read it. I just go that extra step further because, as I see it, at least in Clemens' case, he was nudged into his position by his attorney.

Even Waxman, during his introductory remarks, suggested the hearings would not have been held had it not been for the insistence of Clemens' legal team.

I'd like to see them brought before the bar for [IF Clemens is lying] subornation of perjury.

[Zen653]

Barry Bonds tested positive for steroids in 2001, a month before he hit his record-breaking 71st homerun:

ESPN - U.S. says Bonds failed steroid test in November 2001 - MLB

If this is true, how can Bud Selig pretend to care about the integrity of the game? Even if the steroid policy in 2001 did not explicitly allow for a long-term suspension, why didn't he invoke the "best interests of baseball" clause and suspend Bonds for the rest of the season (thereby preventing him from breaking McGwire's record)? On the other hand, I suppose it would look bad for Selig to stop one cheater (Bonds) from breaking the record of another cheater (McGwire.) There would be allegations of racism. It's also not clear whether this was a test given by MLB, or some unrelated organization. If Selig truly didn't know about it, then that would absolve him of culpability.

[nanwynnfan]

Newsday.com

Timeline, MLB steroid testing and publication of results:

"October, 1988 Washington Post baseball writer Thomas Boswell claims Jose Canseco is "the most conspicuous example of a player who has made himself great with steroids." Canseco denies it. June 7, 1991 Commissioner Fay Vincent sends a memo to each team announcing that steroids have been added to the league's banned list. No testing plan is announced.

"Aug. 22, 1998 A jar of androstenedione is discovered in the locker of Mark McGwire, who admits using the drug and goes on to hit a record 70 home runs. The precursor to steroids is not yet illegal in MLB.

"Aug. 7, 2002 Players and owners agree to their first joint drug program since 1985, calling for anonymous testing to begin in 2003."

Errrrr, "anonymous testing to BEGIN in 2003?

The story reports that the initial release had Bonds' failed test in 2001 after his 73 HR season, an ERROR now corrected to 2000 - even worse on any rational timeline.

Link: Typo Spurs Erroneous Bonds Drug Reports -- Newsday.com

Now, for me, I really want to see ALL player names and test results EITHER from that first "joint drug program" inception [1985], OR ALL player test results publically published on any test taken after Fay Vincent's June 7, 1991 edict was published.

If that can't be done, then start your righteous clocks in 2003, or with a greater sense of justice being served, on opening day of the season the new and rigorous protocols were published.

Otherwise, I'd suggest - shut up & sit down!

[djwhokid]

Originally Posted by Zen653

Barry Bonds tested positive for steroids in 2001, a month before he hit his record-breaking 71st homerun:

ESPN - U.S. says Bonds failed steroid test in November 2001 - MLB

If this is true, how can Bud Selig pretend to care about the integrity of the game? Even if the steroid policy in 2001 did not explicitly allow for a long-term suspension, why didn't he invoke the "best interests of baseball" clause and suspend Bonds for the rest of the season (thereby preventing him from breaking McGwire's record)? On the other hand, I suppose it would look bad for Selig to stop one cheater (Bonds) from breaking the record of another cheater (McGwire.) There would be allegations of racism. It's also not clear whether this was a test given by MLB, or some unrelated organization. If Selig truly didn't know about it, then that would absolve him of culpability.

E!SPN

I remember when they had integrity.

[nanwynnfan]

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/02/15/sp...rssnyt&emc=rss

Waxman regrets hearings. He must have watched himself in action on the replays.

[nanwynnfan]

Found this link to a poem cited by one of the doctors tesetifying before the Congressional panel on HGH and steroid use:

32. To An Athlete Dying Young. A. E. Housman. Modern British Poetry

[Edge]

Players union expresses concern that no team wants to sign a cheater and liar

NEW YORK - The players’ association has expressed concern to the baseball commissioner’s office over the lack of offers to Barry Bonds, asking for additional information about the offseason’s free-agent market.

The union did not go as far as to file a collusion grievance on behalf of the 43-year-old outfielder, who remains unsigned since the San Francisco Giants decided not to make him an offer last year and he became a free agent.
...
“I haven’t received any offers on Barry since he became a free agent,” said Bonds’ agent, Jeff Borris.

http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/24491833/

[Grandstander]

He's old, he's fragile, he's expensive, has limited utility, is famous for being a clubhouse cancer, is hated by fans everywhere outside of San Francisco and he's under indictment by the Federal government.....gee, why wouldn't any team want him? Must be collusion.