Baseball Toaster was unplugged on February 4, 2009.
“Ambition makes you look pretty ugly.”
– Thom Yorke, Radiohead, in “Paranoid Android,” from 1997’s OK Computer
The Roger Clemens-Brian McNamee divorce dominated the Valentine’s Day sports headlines. And yet while media members clamored to dissect the proceedings in Washington, most people I spoke to, both in and out of the business, treated it with a resounding “Who cares?”
Newsday’s Johnette Howard summed it up beautifully here.
As far as the Capitol Hill proceedings were concerned, I found two poignant snippets of analysis from writers for whom I have great respect: ESPN.com’s Howard Bryant, and the Post’s Phil Mushnick (Laugh all you want. He’s cynical, yes, but he gets it right).
From Bryant: "Ultimately, we did not learn that Roger Clemens lied, nor did we learn he did not. As expected, the truth lies somewhere in the creases of the memories of the people involved. What we did learn is that Roger Clemens had an answer for everything the committee asked him. At the ready, his finger was always pointing at a reason, but it was never at himself. And that is why so many of the committee members did not believe him.” (Newsday’s Jim Baumbach and Robert Kessler echoed Bryant’s summary.)
From Mushnick: “Wednesday's hearings weren't quite as party-divided as many have claimed. While all the Republicans were seen as anti-McNamee and pro-Roger Clemens (vice versa with the Democrats), Mark Souder, Republican from Indiana, was one of the committee members who wisely refused a social meeting with Clemens days before the hearing. Souder condemned such chumminess as inappropriate.
And it was Souder, Wednesday, who was the only Representative to ask why team owners weren't being called to answer for their look-the-other-way role in MLB's drug scandal. And that's still a very good question. How did team owners miss what was obvious to everyone outside of baseball?”
Some other highlights:
Jayson Stark had a typically strong piece about the emotional toll Pettitte’s testimony could have on the Yankee clubhouse. A great quote from Mike Mussina in there comparing it to what Jason Giambi went through in 2004. (Mussina didn’t mention Sheffield, who at the time was also embroiled in the BALCO investigation.) The only detail Stark failed to mention regarding Pettitte’s absence from camp was that the Yankees gave him permission to report Monday, four days after the scheduled report date. With that said, it’ll be interesting to see the reaction in Tampa when he does report, and to see how willing or dismissive he is during reporters’ interrogations.
While I’ve found the coverage of these hearings to be fairer than the “rush to judgment” style exhibited following the release of the Mitchell Report, I’m feeling like Cush in “Jerry Maguire:” I just want to watch and enjoy baseball. I’m ecstatic to see stories with slugs like “Joba Chamberlain throws off a mound for the first time since ALDS.” At least if the word “injection” or “infusion” is used in and article with that angle, it won’t have anything to do with a needle.
SPEAKING OF COMPARISONS …
NFL Commissioner Roger Goodell was also on Capitol Hill this week, testifying before Senator Arlen Specter (R – Pa.) on the New England Patriots’ “Spygate” case. Can the media please stop attaching the word “Gate” to every scandal? It’s not original, nor is it applicable. I’d venture to guess that a sector of the population believes Nixon’s scandal took place at the Water Hotel because of this.
Mr. Goodell destroyed the Pats’ tapes in the League’s investigation. In not so many words, Goodell said, “It’s my league. We reserve the right to reopen the investigation if we see fit, and I stand by my actions.” Why can’t Mr. Selig do this?
I’m not a fan of many of the NFL’s administrative practices, particularly on the issue of health insurances and pensions for retired players, but one thing the league has done consistently is preserved its autonomy when pressed on how it polices itself. Meanwhile, MLB has continually sought help from external sources, including the federal government, and demonstrated disunity and a lack of leadership in this regard. Based on the coverage I tracked, few writers or sports/legal pundits addressed that fact.
Moreover, for politicians to cry foul on sports and attempt to legislate the leagues on a basis of purity, competition, and character is eminently hypocritical. Politics and athletics, since ancient times, have been two of the most corrupt entities, largely due to the presence of the most intrinsic and addictive of drugs: the thirst for power, success and fame.
Until next week …
1) Mushnick, while insightful at times, is more often sanctimonious. What's more, he has the tendency to harp on irrelevancies (ok, so football analysts use 3rd conversion stats out of context…who cares! That doesn't make you a better person). Also, I always found it hypocritical when he would rail against "scam-di-cappers", only to then look below his column to see the Post running a whole slew of adds for them. I always felt that if Mushnick was so outraged, he should have resigned from the Post. Even today, a NY tabloid is hardly a credible place from which to launch attacks at other media targets.
2) I don't think baseball "invites" government scrutiny. Instead, it seems as if the government prefers sticking its nose into baseball. Of course, MLB has the strongest anti-trust exemption, so that could be the reason why. I don't think the NFL is inherently better at "preserving its autonomy".
He should get in.
As for Congress having better things to do, well, I'd almost rather have them mess around with baseball than apply their real talents toward messing up something much more vital (although, having said that, I sadly realize that there might not be many things more vital to me than baseball!)..
Oh boy, talking about Opening Day starters!
that just deserves to be read a second time. perfect.
Andy, I'd like Andy to get the start.
http://tinyurl.com/3bot7h
Charles Scheeler, an attorney who worked closely with Mitchell and seemed pressed into service mainly to separate the rivals, stumbled through incomprehensible answers about why, for $20 million, he couldn't get his facts right. At one point, he answered that he couldn't be held responsible for facts that showed he'd gotten his facts wrong. His performance was so dismal and inept, there was nowhere to go but to the wash room and flush the whole thing.
I had to check his 2007 IP, and he had 153. He's 25 and more of a power pitcher than a finesse guy, so he's probably capable of 190 IP in 2008. I realize he's not on the 40-man, but there's still some dead wood that can be pared to make room for him.
How big of a splash will it take for him to get to the bigs before summer? Even if he's only league average, he sounds like someone who can be (to a degree) an innings eater.
13 great last line
and i vote for wang too.
As for MLB not being as defiant as the NFL, could it be that they have more trepidation because they have more to lose if they lost their more robust anti-trust exemption?
In any event what you wrote in 4 was "I believe that is entirely a DoJ matter." and that is not correct. Congress does have authority to move DOJ to investigate suspected perjury and prosecute it through the courts if that is warranted. DOJ has the authority to pursue independently as I said above in 12 or through Congressional authorization; they do not however maintain sole discretion in the matter.
i would love nothing more for this to go away, but i am curious to see if another "strain" does come to light - bonds (and giambi, sheffield et al) were implicated (i am using that loosely) through balco; clemems (pettitte, lo duca et al) were implacted through radomski which led to mcnamee and the three names associated with mcnamee. it is possible that someone (like a novitsky if not himself) finds another strain. seems like the mail order people got off much lighter than these two bunches.
this whole thing with the bonds steroid test is quite odd.
alright sorry for the steroid talk.
17 In theory, I think MLB is right to worry about losing its vast anti-trust exemption. In practice, I don't think it should give a damn. I don't think such a measure would ever pass a vote of the entire Congress, and be signed into law. But forget that and even leave aside the fact that anti-trust law has been castrated over the last 30 years - what practical concerns does MLB they have if the A-T E is gone? The government might force them to put another team in NYC? The Marlins won't be allowed to move?
The NBA and NFL survive quite nicely without the vast anti-trust exemption MLB has. No reason MLB can't do the same if it needed to.
I'm so frustrated by the whole damn thing: Congress, Clemens, McNamee, Selig, etc. Ugh.
-------------
Perhaps this is sacriligeous, but why not let the greatest Yankee pitcher of the last 40 years start the last Home Opener, and throw the first pitch, in the last year of the old Stadium? He doesn't have to pitch more than an inning. And seeing as we'd all like to see him throw the last pitch in the old Stadium (version 2) as well, it'd be the perfect bookend.
This is Yankee Panky #42, after all - which is what gave me the idea.
A question, real one, as I'm wrestling with it: perjury is very serious. It sends a dangerous message. No one wants this to go further (with Miggy too, to my mind). Do we prefer the perjury issue to be ignored, in favour of just letting this single focus aspect die? Remembering that SOMEONE has committed flat-out perjury.
I wonder if it has to do with MLB having an anti-trust exemption while other leagues never had that crutch.
http://tinyurl.com/325nyp
It isn't entirely DOJ, as I think I also said above. If that was your disagreement ... we're all square. Have a beer.
Oh. This is NOT baseball (sorry!) but it ties in by way of the courts getting enlisted in damn nearly everything now:
APNewsNow: Suit filed over spy charges
NEW ORLEANS - A lawsuit filed Friday by a former St. Louis Rams player and others seeks millions of dollars in damages from the alleged taping of Rams practices by the New England Patriots before the 2002 Super Bowl.
The Patriots won the game 20-17 in the Superdome.
The $100 million suit, filed on behalf of former Rams player Willie Gary in U.S. District Court in New Orleans, names the Patriots, team owner Robert Kraft and head coach Bill Belichick.
http://sports.espn.go.com/espnmag/story?id=3246484
Boy can this stuff lead to misunderstandings and short fuses. Think I'll by-pass the beer and head straight for the Bushmills. I'll drink the first one to you and WM.
If the Democrats had been staying at the DoubleTree Hotel, would all scandals have "tree" after them?
SpyTree
TravelTree
SteroidTree
StarTree: Atlantis
And think they brought up the post-season starts? That worth $300,000?
I honestly don't see it.
31 Who the heck do you think you are being nice to anyone HCE? :-)
Sorry. Sorry. Friday night and all that. Have another Bushmills for me.
Mushnick calls the showboating of athletes, one of my pet peeves, what it is--bad sportsmanship, plain and simple. It's not celebrating, and it's not spontaneous; it's simply an effort to get face time on ESPN and the other highlight shows.
In regards to his criticism of scamdicappers, Mushnick has written in his own column about the Post's decision to carry such ads; he's taken the Post to task more than once on that issue. Now, expecting him to resign his position is a bit extreme. Everyone has an employer who does something they object to; if we decided to resign for every infraction, we wouldn't have any job for very long.
I agree about Mushnick. He's been doing it for a very long time, too. That he speaks out against his employer is enough to keep his credibility-what's surprising is that his employer hasn't swatted him for it.
Comment status: comments have been closed. Baseball Toaster is now out of business.