Sunday, January 6, 2008

Didn't do it...?

The interview just ended. Some quick thoughts (free-thought portion of our program):

  • Besides Wallace's face/lips scaring me and I know I'll have nightmares from them, Clemens said a lot of "didn't do it". I know a few attorneys who might have liked to hear more as a defense than that, but I can't figure out how to prove a negative.
  • Roger challenged whomever supplied him with the PEDs to step forward (sounds like OJ wanting to find his wife's murderer, if you ask me)
  • I'm not sure what else he could have said since it's one man's word vs. another's.
  • He looked justifiably angry, as he should. He lost, even if he eventually "wins" somehow, he's irretrievably lost the faith of many.
  • The early comments about him "deserving" the benefit of the doubt were silly and show how some athletes lose touch with reality.
  • Re: Not speaking with Mitchell, I would imagine that Mitchell told him that there is some pretty damning evidence and would he like to come in to defend his case prior to publishing? Hanging it on counsel is a cop-out, IMO.
  • I'm not a pro in body language translation but Clemens seemed to divert his eyes at key moments. Could be the magic of editing, but it looked, I dunno, strange.
  • He could have said "yes, I will sit for a lie detector test" rather than question it's accuracy, knowing he never would really sit.
  • Bringing Vioxx into this was silly; using the parallel of "healthy/not healthy" fell on deaf ears. Yes, it was probably to lay groundwork in the event of future health issues so he can deflect to Vioxx and away from PEDs (if had he done them, of course. *wink*)
  • Clemens' mentioning the things he did for McNamee did one thing for me: It made Clemens look, to me, hurt that this "nobody" didn't go to the wall for him, like Greg Anderson has done for Bonds.

I guess what I took from this interview is that we will never know. I pretty much assume at this point that these guys, all ballplayers, have taken something at one point or another. The motives might be vastly different. Some to heal faster, some to make it in the first place, some to stay playing, others for immortality. Is one excuse more acceptable? Do you "forgive" Pettitte and Brian Roberts and Rick Ankiel who supposedly took HGH to heal from possibly career threatening injuries to get back to their team faster? Do you condemn the Clemens and Bonds of the game who were already at the pinnacle but wanted to go higher?

Is there ANY name in all of baseball in the last 20 years, if implacated in a Mitchell-like expose down the road, that would flat out surprise you? There isn't one for me that would floor me. Would I be disappointed if a Jeter or Gwynn or Maddux or Hoffman or Ripken got "named"... you betchya. But nothing would surprise me.

Oh, and by the way, pitchers and catchers report in about 5 weeks. Play ball!

Site Meter

No comments: