Clemens' tepid denials not helping

ShareThis

What a relief to hear that Roger Clemens' lawyers plan to investigate the steroid allegations against their client. And here I was worrying we might never get to the bottom of this.Can't wait for the results. I understand they're going to check with O.J. Simpson to see if they can learn anything from his search for the real killer.I admit I didn't find Clemens' YouTube video particularly persuasive. If my personal trainer claimed in a public report that he shot me up with steroids or human growth hormone at least 16 times and it wasn't true, I'm not sure I would choose that moment to break out my impression of Mr. Spock.Where is that famous temper? Where is the outrage? Where is the sense of personal betrayal? I can't help wondering if the antiseptic denials we've seen so far reflect Clemens' reluctance to take up acting at this late date.Belatedly, Clemens' lawyers are making noises about lawsuits. As I recall, the Barry Bonds camp made similar noises after "Game of Shadows'' was published. Nothing ever came of it.Unlike Bonds, Clemens has one easy target for such a lawsuit. The Los Angeles Times has already admitted getting it wrong when it claimed his name appeared in an affidavit based on a federal investigation of former pitcher Jason Grimsley. That mistake has become a convenient smoke screen in the face of recent, more substantial allegations.Like Bonds, Clemens has a major hurdle to overcome in making his case to the court of public opinion. For Bonds, it was the reams of documentation offered in Shadows. For Clemens, it is the first-person testimony of his former personal trainer, Brian McNamee. For Clemens' denials to be believed, he must explain why McNamee would lie. Of all the people George Mitchell and his staff spoke with for the report on steroids in baseball, McNamee was one of the few with a serious incentive to tell the truth.McNamee made a deal with the feds after he was identified as a customer of Kurt Radomski, the former Mets clubhouse attendant who allegedly became a supplier of performance-enhancing drugs to any number of ballplayers. As part of the deal, no truthful statements can be used against McNamee in court. On the other hand, any lie opens him up to federal perjury charges. His interviews with Mitchell and his staff, which were attended by federal agents, were subject to those same terms, Mitchell reported.In short, if Clemens' lawyers or anyone else can prove McNamee lied by rebutting any of the specifics in his story, McNamee is in the same sort of legal trouble as Bonds and Marion Jones.Clemens, on the other hand, has been free of any oath or legal consequence when addressing this subject. There's no predicting how someone will react when confronted with that oath. According to leaked grand-jury testimony, sprinter Tim Montgomery and slugger Jason Giambi elected to take advantage of legal immunity by telling the truth and incriminating themselves.Bonds and Jones did not, and the feds went after them for perjury.Certainly, its possible McNamee invented the Clemens story to give himself a bargaining chip with the feds. But when Andy Pettitte confirmed McNamee's allegation that he used human growth hormone, it helped McNamee's credibility while damaging Clemens'.And the halting, tepid nature of Clemens' denials hasn't helped his case. It's as if he's facing a bases-loaded jam and throwing nothing but changeups. First, he issued a brief written statement. When that was criticized as inadequate, he made the YouTube video. Two weeks after the release of the Mitchell Report he has yet to take questions on the subject.That will change Jan. 6, when "60 Minutes'' airs an interview conducted by Mike Wallace, who happens to be a Yankees fan and a friend of Clemens. Belatedly, Clemens' lawyers announced he would also take questions from other reporters that night, although where and from whom has not been determined.The most difficult circumstantial evidence in the court of public opinion is Clemens' late-career surge in performance, which is so uncharacteristic of baseball players and so similar to Bonds'."One of the classic signs of steroid use is when a player's basic performance actually improves later in his career," Jose Canseco wrote in his 2005 book, Juiced. Canseco said he never saw Clemens do steroids, nor did Clemens ever tell him he did. "But we've talked about what steroids could do for you, in which combinations," Canseco wrote."Canseco told members of my investigative staff that he had numerous conversations with Clemens about benefits of Deca-Durabolin and Winstrol and how to 'cycle' and 'stack' steroids," Mitchell reported, referring to two popular steroids."It wasn't his late-career surge that made him great," Canseco wrote of Clemens. "But he certainly stayed great far longer than most athletes could expect. There's no question about that."To date, Clemens' denials have been unconvincing. They have lacked passion, rebuttal evidence or any rationale for McNamee to tell the truth about Pettitte but lie about him. If there was ever a moment for Clemens to bring the heat, it would be now.(Contact Dave Krieger at kriegerd@RockyMountainNews.com.)(Dave Krieger writes for the Rocky Mountain News at www.rockymountainnews.com.)