I'm betting he did...use illegal performance-enhancing drugs, I mean. And of course you know I'm talking about Roger Clemens and the current, unpleasant debate about whether he came by his mid-career resurrection honestly and naturally.
My opinion: any athlete who is better, stronger, faster, lasting longer and throwing harder at age 38 than he was at 28 is getting artificial help from somewhere. And, midway through that time period Clemens spent a season or two in the company of Jose Canseco, notorious and admitted 'roid fan, supplier and user. Connect the dots, baby, and they form a topographical map of the needle marks in Clemens' ass...and that ain't no lidocaine.
"Circumstantial evidence can be quite revealing, as when one finds a trout in the milk." (Thoreau)
"Circumstantial evidence can be quite revealing, as when one finds a trout in the milk." (Thoreau)
UPDATE: Commenter Comm offers a provisional defense of Clemens, citing his aggressive lawsuit against his accuser, among other things, as evidence of innocence. Not to put too fine a point on it, but the lawsuit is crap and will be quietly withdrawn or settled once the media glare dies down.
I'm an armchair lawyer at best, but I know that suits for libel, slander, defamation and similar such "offenses" are almost impossible to win, and rightfully so. To win, you must (a) prove that someone said or printed something about you that they KNEW was false, and (b) that the falsehood caused damage to your reputation or future earning potential.
Moreover, truth is an unassailable defense in these sort of matters. Say or write whatever you want; as long as it's true it ain't slanderous, libelous or defamatory, period. No matter what. If you're called a murdering, thieving child molester and you happen to be in Federal prison doing 5 consecutive life terms for murder, armed robbery and child molestation, you ain't winning a defamation suit...even if your lawyer is from Texas.
And here's the kicker: by hastily filing suit, Clemens has given the defendant the RIGHT and the DUTY to prove the truth of what he said, AND THE LEGAL RIGHT TO PURSUE THAT TRUTH WHEREVER IT MAY BE FOUND - including in the heretofore hidden nooks and crannies and shreds of Clemens' life, every receipt, every phone call, every e-mail and IM and text message sent and received, all now subject to subpoena and legal discovery. Clemens' lawyers may seek to limit the probing but, in the end, it'll be like getting a prostate exam from a construction crane.
Suing your antagonist makes for great headlines but it's dumb strategy. Like grooving a fastball with the bases loaded.
iPod Shuffle: "Standing Outside A Broken Phone Booth With Money In My Hand" by the Primitive Radio Gods, from "Rocket."
I'm an armchair lawyer at best, but I know that suits for libel, slander, defamation and similar such "offenses" are almost impossible to win, and rightfully so. To win, you must (a) prove that someone said or printed something about you that they KNEW was false, and (b) that the falsehood caused damage to your reputation or future earning potential.
Moreover, truth is an unassailable defense in these sort of matters. Say or write whatever you want; as long as it's true it ain't slanderous, libelous or defamatory, period. No matter what. If you're called a murdering, thieving child molester and you happen to be in Federal prison doing 5 consecutive life terms for murder, armed robbery and child molestation, you ain't winning a defamation suit...even if your lawyer is from Texas.
And here's the kicker: by hastily filing suit, Clemens has given the defendant the RIGHT and the DUTY to prove the truth of what he said, AND THE LEGAL RIGHT TO PURSUE THAT TRUTH WHEREVER IT MAY BE FOUND - including in the heretofore hidden nooks and crannies and shreds of Clemens' life, every receipt, every phone call, every e-mail and IM and text message sent and received, all now subject to subpoena and legal discovery. Clemens' lawyers may seek to limit the probing but, in the end, it'll be like getting a prostate exam from a construction crane.
Suing your antagonist makes for great headlines but it's dumb strategy. Like grooving a fastball with the bases loaded.
iPod Shuffle: "Standing Outside A Broken Phone Booth With Money In My Hand" by the Primitive Radio Gods, from "Rocket."
1 comment:
I don't believe Bonds. I didn't believe McQuire. I wanted to believe Floyd. I still want to believe Roger.
The one thing Roger has done, whether he is guilty or not, is acted like he is innocent the way an innocent man would. He has sued, he has gone immediately to tv and print, he has not hid one second from these allegations.
It makes a too convenient a juxtaposition in the media for the best hitter ever in baseball who is black to be charged with steriods AND the best pitcher ever in baseball who is white to also be charged with steriods.
in the end he may be guilty. I'm not saying he's not. But he has thus far, even beyond Floyd, acted like an innocent man.
Post a Comment