"Cleared" and "acquitted" are not the same thing...

There was a headline on the New England Cable News morning news this morning - "Clemens Cleared."

But he wasn't.  He was acquitted, which is not at all the same thing.  For him to have been convicted (in his perjury trial), the government would have had to prove him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.  One could sit on a jury, believe him to be guilty, and still find enough reasonable doubt to acquit. 

But I doubt that the verdict will change a single person's opinion over whether or not he ever used performance enhancing substances or lied about it.  If you believed it yesterday, you probably believe it today.,,

Better to remain silent and be thought a fool...

Worst. Defense. Ever.

Common sense…our family has a history of heart conditions. My brother had a heart attack in his late 40’s, my step-dad died of a heart attack. I mean it would be suicidal for me to think about even taking any of these dangerous drugs.

- Roger Clemens on Mike & Mike, Tuesday, 5/12/09

Roger's never been mistaken for a rocket scientist, but this, citing his step-father's heart attack as an example of family history of heart problems to try to convince people that he'd never use steroids, is special...

"General welfare," baseball, PEDs and Clemens

Over at Baseball Prospectus' Unfiltered Blog, Steven Goldman has the justification for Congress' steroid involvement resting in the "general welfare" clause of section 8 of the Constitution, "Powers of Congress." I'm sure that, if asked, that's what someone would say. I don't see a "general welfare" issue here, of course, though recognize that others may differ. But Goldman makes a point that I've seen elsewhere, and think needs to be addressed.

First, if PEDs do really affect the outcome of games and seasons (a debatable proposition at the least), and that is tolerated by Baseball, then baseball isn’t a sport, but verges on being a gigantic interstate confidence game perpetrated on the public. Second, the national health outlook is obviously a component of the general welfare.

As to the second point, I don't think that professional athletes use of performance-enhancing drugs has enough of an impact on the "national health impact" to justify Congressional action in a country where cigarettes are still legally sold, but that's just me. It's the first point which really concerns me, because I've seen other people make it, and I think that it's nonsense.

So let's consider if for a moment.

Thesis: If PEDs do really affect the outcome of games and seasons ... and that is tolerated by Baseball, then baseball isn’t a sport, but verges on being a gigantic interstate confidence game perpetrated on the public.

The Black Sox went to trial on that theory. Because they were involved in throwing games, the games were no longer "fair," as in, there was no longer the competitive athletic competition which was being advertised. Ticket purchasers had the assumption, and a reasonable expectation, of two teams doing their best to win. As that was not the case, the Series was, in fact, "a gigantic interstate confidence game perpetrated on the public."

In the case of PEDs, however, that is not the case. The "then" clause does not logically follow the "if" clause. "If PEDs do really affect the outcome of games and seasons ... and that is tolerated by Baseball," does not in any way call into question the game on the field as a competitive athletic contest which is what the public expects and is entitled to in exchange for its financial support. The "enhancement" of some players may have an impact on their performance, and may have some impact on the result, but the fundamental nature of the contest has not changed. The only way that this becomes an issue is if Baseball institutes rules or procedures preventing players on some teams from "enhancing" while allowing players on different teams to "enhance" with impunity. In an environment with no enforcement, as has largely been the case in baseball, there is no sytemic advantage to any team, and no affect on competitive balance. And, therefore, no case to be made that Major League Baseball "verges on being a gigantic interstate confidence game perpetrated on the public."

And no "general welfare" issues for Congress to address.


(Goldman's larger point, that there's no point whatsoever to Congress hectoring Mcnamee and Clemens, I agree with in toto.)

I would, again, like to express my contempt for this Congress

A committee of the United States Congress is meeting today with a baseball player and an athletic trainer to determine whether or not, when that trainer performed injections on the player that both acknowledge, those injections contained substances which may or may not have been explicitly illegal and against the explicit rules of the game at the time that the injections occurred. Substances which may or may not have any affect on the performance of said athlete and any other athletes he may have competed with. Because, you know, that really is one of the top issues facing the United States. I can't actually find any Constitutional support for this hearing in the enumerated powers of the Congress, but apparently they think that such support exists, and that this should be one of their priorities.

But they don't want to look foolish:

"I think we've got to resolve it. Otherwise, the whole committee and the entire Congressional hearing process is made a mockery of."

- Rep. Stephen Lynch, D-MA

Good heavens, we can't have that!

This is where better writers than I would come up with a few excellent cutting remarks. A little snark, a little sarcasm, a little biting satire, a pin stuck into the whole pompous "we know better and must protect you from yourselves" attitude of Washingtonitis. I find the task to be beyond me, because every time I start, the humor doesn't come, just the anger. The whole process is virtually self-mocking, isn't it? Isn't this the sort of thing you'd produce as satire? Seriously, if one wanted to mock a Congress for overstepping its bounds, wouldn't one produce a satirical look at something so beyond the pale as to be funny, like, say, hearings over whether a professional athlete used performance-enhancing drugs? But when they actually do that, how the hell do you satirize it?

Who is making a mockery of the Congressional hearing process, Congressman Lynch? How about the Congress that decided to use the process on such a ridiculously frivolous topic as private use of steroids among adult athletes? Is this really what the framers meant, and what the ratifiers accepted, when they gave Congress the power to "regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among the several States?"

Let me just say that I don't think so...

The plumbers did their work well

I must confess to being surprised. Here we are, less than 6 hours from the official release of the Mitchell Report on performance-enhancing drug use in baseball, and there have not yet been any leaks of names. The report was turned over to baseball two days ago, and no names have yet been named.


Obviously, that all changes this afternoon.

Update: The first name is out. Roger Clemens. The dopes on WEEI are acting as if that's shocking. I'd have been more surprised, frankly, if his name weren't in it.

And I still don't care...

The last to win 300?

A couple of pieces of media commentary:


More than likely, [X] will be the last 300-game winner

When [X] wins his next game -- which might be in his next start... -- that's probably going to be it. When [X] wins his next game, whenever that is, in all likelihood you're looking at the last 300-game winner.

[Y] Could Be Last Man To Reach 300-Win Mark

One of the more intriguing questions about [Y]'s 300th victory is whether the milestone ever will be reached again...It never has been tougher to win 300. Pitchers seldom get more than 35 starts because of the five-man rotation (consider that Old Hoss Radbourn was 60-12 in 73 starts for Providence in 1884); 20-game winners are decreasing (15 in 1969, three in 1989); increasingly, rules favor the hitters; and the amount of money commanded these days by a pitcher talented enough to win 300 is a disincentive to stay in the game long enough to accomplish it.

Current comments inspired by Tom Glavine's milestone victory the other night? Well, they could be. There has certainly been a lot of commentary to that effect. But no, neither quote is about Glavine.

X is Greg Maddux. John Donovan of SI wrote that just three years ago. No, Greg Maddux wasn't the last to win 300.

Y is Nolan Ryan. That piece ran in the Omaha World-Herald in August of 1990. At the time, Roger Clemens had 109 wins. Maddux had 52. Glavine had 29.

Meanwhile, Randy Johnson is just 16 away, one good season's worth of wins. Does anyone really think he's walking away this winter? No chance. If Barry Zito averages 15 for the next 5 years, he becomes a 35-year old with 200 wins. He won't have a chance?


In my opinion, it's a silly argument to make. There have NEVER been a lot of 300 game winners. And, while it's true that current pitching usage - 5 man rotations, pitch counts and bullpen specialists - make it harder to accumulate large win totals in a single season, those same factors, along with medical advances, also make it more likely that good pitchers will be capable of having longer careers.

And the money argument, in my opinion, is totally backwards. Many of us love the idea of being set for life and retiring from jobs that we don't love. Professional athletes are where they are because they're ultra-competitive. Many, if not most, do not walk away just because they've got enough - they need to be dragged, kicking and screaming, away from the game. With the money as a scorecard metric, that's just more incentive to keep going.

But when Johnson wins his 300th, in August of '08 or June of '09, bet big bucks that we'll see the same stories again. And when it happens again, in 12 years or 30, we'll see them again...

UPDATE: I meant to link to this post from the Baseball Crank the other day. He's looked at the average victory pace for 300-game winners, and identified the current pitchers who are at least close to it. Lots of good information, and emphasizes the silliness of supposing Glavine (and Maddux and Ryan) to be the last...