The Fool on the Hill

***Note: I present the long overdue analysis of the Roger Clemens deposition. However, considering its length and the time of day that it was written, I would once again like to preface a post with a request to excuse any potential crappy writing. Thanks!


Thanks to a break in my class scheduling, as well as a lack of quality daytime television programming, I watched roughly three hours of the mammoth Roger Clemens congressional hearing. I watched mainly to gain amusement from seeing Clemens squirm under pressure (you know, like he does when he pitches in big games), and as a result, I did not so much as jot down notes. Therefore, as you could probably imagine, this particular post will have a very disjointed feel, due to the fact that I’m writing this post recalling facts…in a piece that was already going to be based on recalling random facts.

First of all, as was painfully obvious for anyone who actually found time to watch the proceedings; it was absolutely pathetic that congress made performance-enhancing drugs in baseball a partisan issue. The committee members each were able to spend a few minutes to give their two cents, and it seemed to flip-flop back and forth between a Republican and a Democrat. So, whenever a Republican member posed a question, it was either an attack on Brian McNamee or a pat on the back for Roger Clemens. Likewise, the Democrats followed suit, only vice versa.

Granted, no party should receive a free pass for the blatant side-choosing, but I will admit that the Republicans were the worst of the offenders. The Democrats, unprofessional as it was to favor McNamee, were at least polite to Clemens. They may have mocked his testimony here and there when he was trapped in a corner, but for the most part, the Rocket was never verbally attacked.

The Republicans, however, acted a bit differently. They were borderline abusive to McNamee from the get-go, all the while praising Clemens for his character on and off the field. Tom Davis (a congressman from Indiana, no doubt making my fellow Hoosiers proud) even acknowledged the line in the sand when he said to McNamee that “they (the Democrats) are focused on him (Clemens), so I guess I’ll go ahead and talk to you…” Thank you for being so selfless, Mr. Davis. ‘I could take the highroad, but I think I’ll just continue this immature trend.’ Oh, and I like the “they” reference. Could you at least attempt to make it look like our legislative branch is somewhat united?

Aside from a few glaring examples of pro-Rocket bias from the Republicans (one member went so far as to call Roger Clemens a baseball “titan”) and an uncomfortable, homo-erotic moment in which Rep. Davis repeatedly mentioned Clemens’ buttocks, the most obvious case of one-sidedness came when yet another Hoosier, the charming Dan Burton, decided to grill McNamee. To start, he decided that the best way to fill most of his ten minute block was to read aloud past fallacious statements attributed to McNamee, even though these fallacies had already been documented. He then asked McNamee if “we are supposed to believe that you are telling the truth now.” An affirmative was given, followed with an articulate “gee-whiz!” from Burton. This was all chased by the congressman concluding his allotted time to speak by admitting that he didn’t know what to believe, but that he surely didn’t believe McNamee.

Why wouldn’t he, or any of the other Republicans, believe McNamee…if not for Clemens’ close ties to the Bush family? Based on the evidence produced, party loyalty would be the only explanation as to why Clemens earned a free pass from the Republicans. McNamee’s contributions to the Mitchell Report have been backed up by all the named players…except Clemens. McNamee has DNA evidence from used gauze pads and needles. Clemens has either been ratted out by someone (McNamee, Andy Pettite), changed his story (my wife took HGH in 1999, no wait, 2003, no…), or had someone come forth with a tale out of the blue (his wife admitted to using HGH without his knowledge).

And really, Andy Pettite puts the biggest hole in Clemens’ case. He fessed up for his actions (and displayed a load of guts and class by giving an uncensored press conference) and made it clear that Brian McNamee was telling the truth. Very clear. Under Oath clear. He also admitted that he and Clemens had talked about HGH use. This is (well, probably ‘was,’ now) Roger Clemens’ best friend. Pettite says he came clean about his and Clemens’ use because one day he “would have to answer to God.” Would he go out of his way to perjure himself and anger God just to screw the Rocket? Who, I would like to reiterate, was his best friend!

If you believe Clemens, apparently so. But, politically correct Roger says it’s okay: ‘He’s still my friend, he just misremembers and mishears things.’ I swear to God, if I heard him say misremember one more time, I was prepared to throw the television out the window (this would also involve giving my roommate money for a replacement; you know what they say, discretion is the better part of valor). It seemed like any time evidence was brought against him, Clemens would either have a semi-believable excuse (wouldn’t hold up in court, but was able to work at the deposition), throw a friend or family member (his wife, notably) under the bus, or simply say that whoever brought up an allegation “misremembered.”

The one thing working in the favor of Clemens: the infamous Jose Canseco pool party. Pretty much everything else McNamee has claimed seems to hold up. Yet, he stands by his assertion that he and Clemens attended this party (and more importantly, the potential ‘popping of the HGH cherry’ for Clemens). The Rocket has countered with evidence of his own (a golf receipt from the day of the party and a television broadcast featuring a discussion of Clemens’ lack of attendance at the party). This looked to be Roger’s way out, but a new development put a hold on that pipedream: the introduction of Clemens’ former nanny.

The nanny, who as far as I know was not named, testified that not only was Roger Clemens at the pool party, but that she, Mrs. Clemens, and their children spent the night. If this held up, McNamee’s entire deposition would be validated and Clemens would be left hanging in the balance.

What I find more interesting about the nanny is how she was introduced to congress. The committee asked Clemens to provide her name on a Monday and were not able to come in contact with her until the following Monday. Clemens’ lawyers claimed to have fully cooperated, but the nanny noted in her testimony that she flew in to meet with Roger the day before her meeting with the committee. When accusations of tampering with a witness were hinted at, Clemens’ lawyers went berserk (as did ESPN legal consultant Roger Cossack, who was disturbingly pro-Clemens), claiming it was normal procedure. In my studies (a.k.a. perusing CNN.com), I have discovered that normal procedure dictates that the lawyers meet with the nanny, not Clemens. Did he tamper with the witness? Not for me to say, but I certainly have a hunch (hint: it starts with ‘y’ and ends with ‘es’).

Now, did the testimony of the nanny sway the opinions of any committee members who initially believed Clemens? Not exactly. Our good friend, Mr. Burton, brushed aside her comments, because Jose Canseco, the party’s host, has been on record as saying that Clemens was not there. Don’t get me wrong, this is a very valid point. But, I would lend it more credence if:

a) Jose Canseco was not a D-Bag.

and

b) Canseco was not just cited for extortion (you may or may not have heard, but Jose is slaving away on another tell-all steroids book; he discovered some info on Magglio Ordonez, and like any other reputable journalist he…offered to omit his scandalous deeds in exchange for millions of dollars; hmm, maybe I’ll think twice before I take his word as gospel in the Clemens situation).

Aside from the revelation of the nanny, the deposition was a major waste of time. As you can see above, each party had its mind made up ahead of time about who was to be believed and who was not. Still, I did not get the sense that I had wasted three hours of my life watching it, based solely on three things:

1) I saw Roger Clemens squirm (as well as emit a confused chuckle when asking what a ‘vegan’ was…I’m pretty sure he thought it was part of the female anatomy).

2) I saw Henry Waxman, the committee chairman, whip out the old gavel to quiet Clemens down when he repeatedly interrupted his closing remarks (an absolute bitchslap!).

3) I saw Waxman end the proceedings with an apology to McNamee for the harsh treatment he received from the Republicans (the camera was not on him, but I’m pretty sure that after he said this, he turned to the men he called out and gave them the “dick-grab”).

Also, my devotion to this deposition allowed me to see the Q&A session between Clemens’ lawyers and the media immediately following the event. Why so noteworthy? Because I witnessed the two men get trapped in one of the Rocket’s lies. One lawyer answered a ‘why did he meet with the nanny before…’ question by saying that woman had been a family friend for years. Later, the other lawyer noted that the woman has not associated with the Clemens family in almost eight years. I suppose the fact that Clemens’ reunion with his long-lost BFF occurred the night before she was to meet with the committee to answer questions about him was a coincidence? Yeah…I’m not buying it. Of course, the lawyers (who are making big bucks for a reason) were able to skate through the potential controversy. Nevertheless, this moment, and the three listed above, were enough to validate lending my attention to the deposition for three hours.

Now, after this analysis (which turned out to be longer than I expected), you might be wondering where I stand on the issue. Yes, I think Roger Clemens is a phony piece of shit who only cares about himself, and yes, I think the Republicans were way, way, way too hard on McNamee. But the fact of the matter remains that I really do not give a rat’s ass about performance-enhancing drugs in baseball. Granted, I think the drugs (specifically HGH, the main culprit in this case) help pitchers out a lot more than they do hitters (which is why people need to get off Barry Bonds’ ass immediately), but at this point, I’m reserving judgment until a later date. I may delight in seeing Roger Clemens foolishly perjure himself, but do I want to see him go to jail? No. Do I think he (or Bonds) should be singled out in an era when “clean” players were probably in the minority? No.

So amazingly, I do not want Clemens to be reprimanded for his actions (which now could be a lying under oath charge)…at least for now. That’s not to say that I do not enjoy watching him make a fool of himself. Because, let’s be honest, it’s still Roger Clemens…