Friday, January 11, 2008

Hare Soup

Let's not be stupid about Roger Clemens.

The would-be Hall-of-Famer has had several accused steroids users to go through the gauntlet before him, so his defense of Brian McNamee's accusations published in the Mitchell Report is a well-planned response based on three years of his colleagues' trials and, more importantly, their errors.

Hiring a good lawyer was a start. Getting angry is another approach. Telling his story to "60 Minutes" doesn't hurt, either. But the phone call between himself and McNamee wasn't just bizarre. It came along the same lines as Marcia Clark asking OJ to try-on the bloody glove.

There's a scene in the movie "Something About Mary," where Matt Dillon's character knows "Mary" (Cameron Diaz) and her neighbors are screening his calls via a scanner, so he scripts a call with a friend to paint himself as the male Mother Theresa to win Mary over. While Clemens' legacy is threatened by allegations of performance enhanced drug use, McNamee's 10 year-old son is dying, so no matter how bad Clemens' situation is, it's clear that McNamee needed Clemens more than Clemens needed him at this point. So McNamee reached-out to Clemens to try to get the Rocket to give his son some help, whatever help that is. In return, Clemens ripped a page from the Farrelly Brothers' movie to paint himself as a hero who had been framed like Roger Rabbit.

The ironic thing throughout the call, is Clemens didn't seem so angry with his accuser as he did with the media who attended his press conference. And every time McNamee pathetically begged Clemens by asking Roger "what do you want me to do?" the Hall-of-Famer in doubt didn't sound angry at all.

How's these for some hypothetical responses he could have given:

McNamee: "What do you want me to do?"

Clemens: "Tell these people why you lied."

(Again, why would McNamee lie about Clemens while telling the truth about Andy Pettitte?)

OR

McNamee: "What do you want me to do, Roger?"

Clemens: "I'm having a press conference on Monday. Come down to Houston and tell everyone the truth."

(McNamee sounded so desperate on the phone he probably would have done this if he did lie to Mitchell about Clemens.)

OR

McNamee: "What do you want me to, Rocket? I'll go to jail for you!"

Clemens: "Tell Senator Mitchell you lied because you know I didn't use steroids!!!"

(If McNamee says he'll go to jail for supposedly lying, what does Clemens have to lose?)

OR

McNamee: "What do you want me to do, Rog? I'll go to jail for you"

Clemens: "Well, why didn't you do that when they conspired to frame me and told you you'd go to prison unless you gave me up like they told you to do?"

(More on that in a bit.)

Clemens could have protected McNamee for protecting him the way Barry Bonds and Greg Anderson have shielded each other. He just earned $3 million a win for the Yankees this past season, so he certainly isn't hurting for cash.

Instead, Clemens' response was a casual "...well, somebody needs to tell the truth..."

Yeah, "somebody."

"Ladies and gentlemen of Congress, we would like to call Mr. Clemens' dog to the stand."'

Clemens would have been better served doing a Jack Nicholson impersonation from "A Few Good Men." Instead he saved that for a press conference to intimidate the Houston media. Oh those dang media.

Meanwhile, Clemens' attorney, Rusty Hardin, said he had the utmost respect for George Mitchell's investigation and his impeccable record, yet floated the theory that McNamee may have been told what to say by federal prosecutors or face more prosecution himself.

The question still needs to be asked: why didn't Raging Roger (sorry) try to strike fear into McNamee the way he said he would have been "afraid for (McNamee's well being)" if his former trainer appeared face-to-face with Clemens at Monday's press conference?

The call was clearly arranged. If this was the first time Clemens and McNamee made contact, Clemens should have sounded much more animated. And if anyone wants to say Clemens laid off McNamee out of respect for the trainer's ailing son, then shame on both of them for exploiting a dying 10 year-old. Also, there's no way of knowing what elements or arrangements finally brought these two characters together via the "new" AT&T. Although, it could have the makings of a very funny commercial.

McNamee: "What do you want me to do, Roger?"

Clemens: "Well 'somebody' needs to tell the truth."

McNamee: "Just say the word Roger and I'll do what you need me to do."

Clemens: (Shown speaking, while the call appears to be dropped.)

McNamee: "Roger?... Roger?... Just say the word and I'll go to jail... Roger?..."

Clemens: (Still not realizing the call was disconnected.)

McNamee: "...OK then. Great. See you in court!..."

Also, Clemens can tell everybody about his well-documented work-ethic. Tony LaRussa once said the same thing about Mark McGwire. Steroids allow users to recover faster, ergo, get to the gym more often than the normal person. They work harder than the average athlete because the drugs allow them to. Uh, that's why they're called performance enhancing drugs.

The interesting part is Congress has moved its hearing to February 13, gathering more time for a thorough investigation on Clemens knowing he's made his reservations public. Hence, Clemens better bulk-up on Axe Body Wash instead of B-12, or else congress may go "Fatal Attraction" on Roger Rabbit. Then again, the subcommittee may need more rehearsal time so it doesn't look as dumbfounded as it did when Sammy Sosa gave his patented No-Hablo-Ingles defense.

In hindsight, Sosa's lawyer, Jay Reisinger, was probably the smartest guy on Capitol Hill that day, which may be why he's been retained by Clemens' pal, Andy Pettitte. So don't act surprised if Dandy Andy's smiley, aw-shucks Texas drawl turns into tongues on Capitol Hill.

As far as Clemens goes, believe what you want. But if he is telling the truth, Clemens should tell his lawyer he just needs an attorney instead of an interpreter.

And you should talk to your doctor and see if injections of B-12 and Lidocaine are right for you.

0 comments: