Reality TV At Its Finest

Hey there, long time no talk. When you've got a 5-month old that's kind of how it goes. Coops is doing great by the way. I just got done watching most of today's Congressional hearing and I'm not sure what it was that I just watched. It was part soap opera, part Law & Order, part Jerry Springer. For money, it was one of the best reality TV shows I've seen in a long time. I listened to most of it on my XM while at work but just had to DVR it to watch later. Good stuff.
My only bone of contention with this whole thing was how much they focused on the sworn testimony of Andy Pettitte and how damaging it was to Clemens' case. I think everyone that knows a lick about baseball knows that Andy Pettitte is a stand-up guy. There is no doubt in my mind that he told Congress what he believed to be true. But it's not adding up in my head.
I have yet to hear anyone acknowledge that Andy and Roger both knew that they were each taking PEDs. I believe Roger when he says that he was shocked to find out that Andy admitted to HGH use. If they each knew the other was using, wouldn't you think that they would have talked about it on more than 2 occasions, considering they were work out buddies and considering how close the 2 were? Clemens mentioned this in several of his answers. Pettitte in his sworn affidavit admits to 2 conversations. One where Roger admits to PED use. The other where he denies it. And that's where I struggle with putting so much stock in Pettitte's responses.
Pettitte admits in 2005 that Roger denied using PEDs when Andy asked him about what he was going to say to reporters about the information leaked by Jason Grimsley's testimony. Why would Roger deny use if the 2 had previously discussed that he did? Pettitte's admission of Roger's denial also tells me that the 2 never did talk about it. Why would Roger deny it to his buddy if his buddy knows he uses? He wouldn't. Is it entirely out of the realm of possibility that Pettitte did in fact get the earlier conversation wrong, or "misremembered" it as Roger so aptly put it? And of course Andy's wife is going to corroborate Andy's testimony because it's what he told her. Her testimony didn't really have much value. And why would Clemens bring up his wife's use of HGH to Andy if he himself wasn't confused? It doesn't add up.
I just pulled up Pettitte's deposition and I'm reading things in it that I didn't hear mentioned. Andy admits in his sworn deposition that after the 2nd conversation with Clemens that he was "confused and flustered" when Clemens denied saying he used in their first conversation. Pettitte also says that, "obviously I must have misunderstood him." When asked if he thought it was likely that he misunderstood Clemens in their first conversation, Pettitte responded, "I'm saying I was under the impression that he told me he had taken it. And then when Roger told me that he didn't take it, and I misunderstood him, I took it for that, that I misunderstood him."
Funny how i didn't hear anyone bring that up. Admittedly, I didn't hear/see the whole thing so I apologize if someone did. I wouldn't think so from the way everyone was saying how damaging his testimony was. Even before I read that part of Andy's deposition things weren't adding up. Now that I've read it, it makes even less sense to me why there was so much focus on what Andy said. He went as far as admitting that he must have misunderstood the earlier conversation. Perhaps if Roger wasn't so inarticulate, he could have better illustrated a defense to this. I never heard it. Am I the only one out there that has this line of thinking?
As much as it might sound like I'm being pro-Clemens, that's not the case. Quite frankly, I still think he likely used something. I'm not as sold on it as I once was. But a little piece of me believes that he did.
Hopefully we can quickly put this all behind us and focus on more important things like Spring Training is finally here!! Rejoice! Rejoice! Baseball is back baby!
J-Boogie

Something Is Rotten In Denmark

According to an article in the New York Times, an unidentified active major leaguer cooperated with the Mitchell investigation and kept his name out of the report by convincing Senator Mitchell that he disposed of the drugs without using them. The article says that the unidentified player admitted to buying them, but offered “substantial and corroborated evidence” that he junked them without using them. I'm sorry but something is starting to smell awfully fishy.
In my opinion, excluding this player from the "report" shows a complete lack of integrity on Mitchell's part. The player admits to buying PEDs from Radomski. Radomski admits to selling them to him. Regardless of whether or not he used them isn't the point. Mitchell had no proof that any player mentioned used them. Yet those names were included in the report? He included Brian Roberts just because Larry Bigbie said that Roberts said he tried it once. How does that get mention but a player buying them doesn't? If Mitchell was such a man of high integrity he would have included this player's story in his report.
Also, did I miss something? Was Mitchell put in charge of deciding who's innocent and who's guilty in all of this? Who appointed him judge? I thought he was supposed to serve the role of independent fact-finder? It was his job to report his findings. If he found out that a player purchased PEDs, that should have gone into his report. No question. The name should have been listed and his story should have been told, much like the other 90 or so names that were mentioned. Why not put in there the person's name and the "evidence" he presented to show he didn't use it? What possible evidence could this person have anyway? Did he have the unused HGH lying around his house? "Substantial and corroborated evidence." That sounds like hard proof. I say it's BS. The guy probably walked in said, "I threw it away. Here's my wife. Ask her. She'll tell you." I think everyone has a right to know the details of this.
Here's what else I don't get. It's been widely reported that the only active players known to have met with Senator Mitchell were Jason Giambi and Frank Thomas. This is what everyone was led to believe even after the report was released. Why did it take until 2 days after the report was released for this to come out? Shouldn't this have been made public on Wednesday? I find it extremely odd that the first anyone hears of this is on Saturday? Come on. I'm not buying it. I'm not picking up what's being put down.
I thought Senator Mitchell was a man of great character with unquestioned integrity? Am I the only one that thinks Mitchell's integrity should be called into question by omitting this from his report? If Mitchell is a man of such high integrity he'll do what's right and release this name, like he should have done in the first place. I could really care less who it is too. It could be Jeter for all I care. Let the speculation begin and let the rumors fly.
I'm telling you, something is definitely rotten in Denmark. Somebody has to get to the bottom of this.
J

The Mitchell Report: The Day After

So I've had a day to digest the Mitchell "Report" and my head is still spinning. I've spent a large part of the past 2 days watching ESPN, checking out various blogs and columns, and listening to MLB on XM and pretty much everyone has a different opinion and a different take on this whole debacle. Some see it as a banner day for the sport. Some wonder what the heck the point of this all was? Some are glad names were named. Some don't see the point in naming names. Some are taking every word of the "report" to be fact. Others see it as a bunch of hogwash and hearsay. If you read my entry yesterday, you know I thought it was a waste of time, money, and it didn't accomplish much except telling us what we already knew. Steroids in baseball is a problem. Well duh.
Like every Yankee fan out there, I want to believe that the allegations against Clemens and Pettitte are completely and utterly false. And for all I know they are. There's no solid proof anywhere that either of them ever used anything. All we have is the word of a guy pressured to give up information to stay out of prison. In my opinion, that's not a lot to go on. If you were to put me on the spot and ask me if I honestly think the 2 are guilty of using, sadly, I have to say yes. At first, I thought no way. And then as I said yesterday, David Justice opened up his mouth.
Justice was a guest on "Yankees Hot Stove" Thursday night and he spoke out about his innocence. He told a story about how McNamee approached him about using HGH, put HGH in Justice's locker, and Justice gave it back because he couldn't use needles. This was the first time I ever heard a player openly admit that HGH was in the clubhouse. Hearing this makes me wonder and unfortunately it makes me think McNamee is being somewhat truthful in his statements. After all, it was Clemens who brought McNamee with him to New York. Does anyone have any thoughts on Justice's comments? Am I reading too much into them? I'm looking for someone to try and sway me away from my current train of thought, but so far, everyone I mention this to has been inclined to agree.
Sadly, at this point, I have to believe that Clemens was doping. He's come out and denied the allegations but I don't believe him at this time. Is it possible Clemens played cleaned? Yes. And if he's truly innocent, as he says he is, the only course of action he has in my opinion is to file a lawsuit against McNamee and fight this to the end. Or maybe even take a lie detector test. As far as I'm concerned if his only response ends up being a public statement denying the allegations, well that's not enough for me. If you truly didn't do it, do what's right, and fight to clear your name. That's what I would do if I were in his shoes.
So what do you think about Clemens? Do you believe him when he proclaims he's innocent?
J

The Mitchell "Report"

What kind of baseball blogger would I be if I didn't chime in with my 2 cents about the Mitchell Report? I feel funny even calling it a "report" as it seems like a summation of what we already knew, and that's that MLB has/had a steroid problem. I'm glad it took 2 years and cost a lot of money to tell us that. What did the "report" really accomplish other than dragging some names through the mud?
After reading through the "report," I'm not shocked to see that most of the players named had connection to the Yankees. The whole "report" was based on the coerced testimony of two New York based individuals. It makes total sense that it focused on players with NY ties. I find it hard to believe that they couldn't find anyone in any other major league city that had some kind of knowledge on the subject. The "report" wasn't comprehensive. It didn't include anything about players who've tested positive for steroids. Didn't 7% of MLBers test positive a few years back? Where were those names? I still fail to realize what was accomplished by including names? If anyone knows, let me know.
The biggest names were without a doubt Andy Pettitte and Roger Clemens. One arguably the best pitcher of all-time. The other a Yankee fan favorite. Both with a reputation forever tarnished because of the "testimony" of a guy who on several occasions denied that he ever gave Clemens or Pettitte performance-enhancing drugs. A guy who only changed his story once threatened with federal criminal prosecution. Much like ex-Mets clubhouse attendant Kirk Radomski, a guy with a lot to lose by staying quiet and a lot to gain by signing like a canary. Clemens has already denied the allegations. And originally, I totally sided with Clemens and Pettitte, and the David Justice opened his mouth.
I'm not sure if anyone watched "Yankees Hot Stove" on YES tonight. They had David Justice, a player also named in the "report," on to offer up his story. He denied ever meeting Radomski, saying he wouldn't know him if he walked up to him today and said hey. He did however tell an interesting story about his interactions with Brian McNamee. He said right after he joined the Yankees he was approached by McNamee, who offered up some HGH to help rehab an injury. Justice said he didn't know what HGH was and wasn't sure. Per Justice, McNamee said he'd leave it in his locker and Justice could use it if he wanted to. Justice then went on to say that when he saw it in his locker and saw that he needed to use a needle, he said, "No way. Anyone that knows me knows that I don't do needles." Basically, Justice is admitting that HGH was in the Yankees clubhouse and McNamee was the one that had the access to it. I don't think Justice has any reason to make this up. Clemens brought in McNamee. McNamee had HGH. McNamee alleges he gave HGH to Clemens. Pettitte is Roger's hetero-lifemate. And now Jay (that's me) isn't so sure anymore. I want to believe these guys, but I don't know what to think. Justice's revelation that he saw HGH in the Yankees clubhouse has me wondering. And I'm not naive. I totally knew steroids and HGH were present in the clubhouse before Justice's admission that it was in his locker. It's a safe bet that it was, and probably still is, in every team's clubhouse. It's just hearing a player admit to it. That changes everything.
In the end though I'm still not sure what to believe. I don't put much stock in the "he said she said" BS that the "report" is full of. Show me a conclusive positive test. That's what I want to see. But for now my head is spinning. I don't want to be a hypocrite and speak ill of Barry Bond and give anyone named in the report a pass. I do think Bonds is totally different than Clemens. There's more hard evidence against Bonds than anyone named in the "report." As I mentioned that whole report is "hearsay" and in my opinion, is based on a lot of circumstantial evidence. A copy of a personal check to me isn't proof when MLBers give clubhouse attendants personal checks all the time. Quite often I hear for a lot of money. I also can't put much stock in the "coerced testimony" of Radomski and McNamee. They've got a lot to gain by running their yaps.
All in all the "report" is lacking and I think Senator Mitchell knows it. Poorly done. It accomplished absolutely nothing other than wasting a lot of time and a lot of money. I think the same would have been accomplished had the names been left out. I don't think anyone should have been mentioned without hard proof. Let the lawsuits begin. If the guy is truly innocent, he has to sue. it's really the only course of action they can take. Do nothing and to me, you're admitting your guilt. You don't let your reputation and career go down the tubes on a lie.
It's your move Rocket.
J-Boogie