I have railed against the Roger Clemens trial for a couple of months now, and its recent conclusion finally spares sports fans from a monstrosity: a trial funded by taxpayer dollars which exposed baseball’s largest steroid report to date as unsubstantiated and changed nothing about general opinion towards Roger Clemens.
First and foremost, the Clemens trial seals the fate of the Mitchell Report. Baseball’s largest effort to illuminate steroids in the sport found the spotlight amid tons of pageantry, attention, and the all-important “wow” factor. George Mitchell, a former Senate Majority Leader hired by Commissioner Bud Selig, spearheaded the investigation, resulting in a 400+ page report complete with names and histories of steroid usage in baseball. Coupled with the release of Jose Canseco’s book Juiced, the sports world exploded.
The report marked a first step because it named players explicitly. Roger Clemens, Andy Pettite, Erig Gagne, the demon Chuck Knoblauch, Barry Bonds, Gary Sheffield, and Miguel Tejada highlighted the names of 89 players mentioned in the report. Amazingly, investigators obtained all this information without the subpoena power, meaning they could not coerce anyone to discuss steroids. As a result, plenty of players entered the report’s rolls through two guys: Kurt Radomski and Brain McNamee. While others undoubtedly provided some information, most information came from those two former trainers.
Congress sprung into action, deciding to avoid the bigger issues of the country and instead holding a series of hearings on steroids, brining in Mark McGwire, Roger Clemens, and others to learn more about the problem. At the time, Congress didn’t see any issue with the lack of subpoena power in the report, choosing instead to directly ask players if they ever knowingly took steroids.
The recent not guilty verdict for Clemens effectively dooms the Mitchell Report to relative obscurity. McNamee, the chief witness for the prosecution, proved unconvincing and speculative in rehashing his allegations towards Clemens, boring the jury rather than swaying them (three jurors were excused for sleeping during the proceedings). Baseball and federal prosecutors pegged their accusations on the word of one man, who being a firsthand witness should have been able to make events clearer. For fairness sake, prosecutorial misfires doomed the first Clemens proceedings to a mistrial, but McNamee provided the majority of information in this case and in the report 5 years ago.
The verdict immediately throws the entire Mitchell Report into doubt. Clemens saw his name in those pages over 80 times, but the accusations are unable to hold up in a court of law? When the biggest allegations can’t stand on their own merits, the whole process by which Mitchell investigated steroids looks clouded. Add the not guilty perjury verdict for Barry Bonds in the last two years, and the impact of the Mitchell Report looks more in question.
The Clemens trial, however, does not change his standing in the court of public opinion. Before these allegations, he would waltz into the Hall of Fame, one of the most dominant, most tenured pitchers since the days of Nolan Ryan. Now, that looks much more questionable. He’s almost guaranteed not to receive a first ballot invitation when he appears on the ballot for the first time six months from now. But, what voters do in the future will decide his fate.
Some are quick to point to his numbers before the alleged steroids use, saying his numbers with the Red Sox and the Blue Jays deserve Hall of Fame recognition. I couldn’t agree more. Clemens won five Cy Youngs during that time and one AL MVP award as a pitcher, no small feat. Add in his numbers after the supposed use, and Clemens would be guaranteed a spot.
But, there’s an inherent inconsistency with letting Clemens into the Hall after one not guilty verdict…that needs to be applied elsewhere. Pete Rose still holds the all-time hits record and can’t get into the Hall because baseball banned him. He never had a chance for a not guilty verdict, and the allegations against him spawned from the Dowd Report, a comprehensive look into his gambling finances (baseball loves these reports). While Rose admitted in the past few years to gambling on games, his playing career deserves its own room in Cooperstown. In his case, baseball voters blocked him for years despite an absolutely incredible playing career and betting after he concluded playing. He never had a not guilty verdict, and now Cooperstown won’t take one of the best players ever because of his actions after playing.
The same holds for Barry Bonds. People forget Bonds also received a not guilty verdict for perjury. But few say he should be voted into the Hall yes? I’ve met very few myself, and I discuss sports with the homeless man on the street. Like Clemens, Bonds had multiple sources accuse him, but, unlike the Rocket, he receives no love from fans.
Often, smoke means fire. Multiple people named Clemens as a user and the government thought enough of it to press charges. That might not be legally conclusive but culturally Clemens will have to erase some serious stain. What the Hall of Fame voters do now will create the posterity of the steroids era. Should Clemens and Bonds be voted in because no one could legally prove they did not use steroids? The Pete Rose model seems to say they shouldn’t be voted in, at least for a long time.
As for the Mitchell Report, it revolutionized the testing process in baseball, introducing stricter regulations to weed out improper drug usage. After the Clemens verdict, it doesn’t look to be much else. What was once hailed as the biggest moment in baseball history now looks misguided and cloudy, worth little more than the paper used to print it. The game might be improved in the future through strict regulations, but do we as fans have any closure from the Steroids Era? Do we know how baseball will view those years in the future? If you have an answer, write a report.
Bit #1: Sandusky Trial Proves His Character Decrepit
Over the past two weeks, jurors in State College, Pennsylvania have listened to lawyers make claims, present evidence, and question witnesses during the trial of Jerry Sandusky, the former assistant for Penn State football accused of child molestation. Given the basketball and hockey postseasons as well as the possible Triple Crown competition, it’s easy to lose sight of this trial.
But details from this trial truly fascinate and disgust at the same time, simultaneously evoking emotions of sadness, anger, and interest, all of which hope the abuser of these young kids, Sandusky or not, will receive recompense for inherent ugliness, the taking of innocence away from young children. When these allegations aired last year, many Sandusky defenders cried “Witch Hunt!” claiming campus police and administrators blamed Sandusky as a scapegoat.
While Sandusky’s lawyer Mr. Amendola can perpetuate that theory, Penn State already found its scapegoat in the late Joe Paterno, sacking him unceremoniously last year. I also find it inconceivable that survivors of these abuses would be part of a giant conspiracy. For one thing, survivors of sexual assault rarely lie, with only 5% of survivor allegations being unsubstantiated. In addition, masterminds of a great conspiracy would play with fire basing their case on the testimony of young kids.
And that testimony has proved damning for Sandusky. At one point, a survivor said Sandusky would refer to himself as the “tickle monster.” (For those who still doubt, this man admitted to showering with young boys last year, so I’d say there’s a screw loose to begin with.) Stories like that deepen the horror at what transpired behind closed doors, and most likely will also disgust members of a jury as well, currently deliberating as I write this.
Overall, Sandusky proved to be as much a coward as we thought. Rick Reilly wrote a great piece this week on Sandusky’s refusal to testify, a refusal to answer questions about his alleged behavior and, in the eyes of public opinion, a tacit admission of guilt. For my money, the recent report by MSNBC that his adopted son was ready to testify against him about events he observed means Jerry Sandusky likely did act as he’s accused, with cowardice, greed, and cruelty.
Bit #2: Soccer needs goal-line technology
Another major tournament, another call for soccer to adopt goal-line technology. In the 2010 World Cup, England scored a goal on Germany, only to be denied because the referee did not see the ball fully cross the goal line. This past week, England again saw the need for goal-line technology, this time denying Ukraine a goal when video replay appears to show the ball fully crossing the goal line.
The NHL made the switch to goal-line technology after the contested Cup-clinching goal by Brett Hull in 1999, deciding to send video replays to the Toronto office. Those replay officials then determine if the puck fully crossed the goal line. Soccer has the same goal-line rule, requiring every part of the ball to cross the goal line. For the Euro Cup, there are extra referees on the endlines to watch for balls crossing the goal line. Well, the first time they are needed, they botched the call. A goal in the game might have given Ukraine a chance to advance to the next round, whereas right now they must watch like the rest of their countrymen.
A camera above the net would be very easy to implement for major tournaments. While England did not win in 2010 against Germany, calls as easy as this should not have such major implications in major soccer tournaments. Hopefully FIFA will take notice.
Bit #3: Thunder not deserving of championship now
I’m not a fan of the Heat. I don’t want a team with such a thin bench to win a championship, especially after their stars colluded to take the NBA by storm. But, at this point, they deserve the championship.
They have outplayed the Thunder in more games this series. A team cannot score 2 points in the first ten minutes of one game, give up a 17 point lead in another, and win the championship without a supreme effort. Competition has been decently equal in this series, but how many good quarters have the Thunder played in total? Of the 16 possible quarters, they’ve played maybe 5 quality quarters of basketball. If that continues, this team will be done, perhaps dooming the NBA to a few years of Miami dominance. They cannot keep an offense going and also cannot contain LeBron James defensively. He’s averaged more than 30 points in this series and, most importantly, has made players like Shane Battier and Mario Chalmers better due to his efforts.
While I hate to say it, a Heat victory would end the talk about LeBron not being clutch, one of the dead horse topics currently in sports. I fully believe the greatest players need at least one championship to their name. The added benefit of not hearing about LeBron will bring a welcome reprieve for sports media and fans alike.
Bit #4: Wizards trade for Emeka Okafor makes excellent sense
What’s been the worst part of DC sports? The Wizards interior defense. This team regularly gave up more than 100 points, even when they gained a top 5 seed in the Eastern Conference. With so many young players, offense has been at a premium for the Wizards, so trying to outscore the opposition no longer presents itself as a smart strategy.
Thursday’s trade for Emeka Okafor and Trevor Ariza will help the Wizards immensely. Not only will Okafor now be paint defender extraordinaire, and Ariza brings a championship pedigree to the team after starting for the Lakers. Financially, the trade looks genius, as Rashard Lewis’ mega contract now leaves the books and the Wizards still have their amnesty clause, the right to release any player without taking a salary cap hit. That means we might be rid of Andray Blatche, one of the least motivated players you will ever see in the NBA.
No comments:
Post a Comment