Roger Clemens: The Lifetime Original Movie
In this week’s Metro column, I note the ignominious end of Roger Clemens’ storied career. A virtuosic performance has worthy of the big screen has rapidly degenerated into a tawdry television drama. Two thumbs way down.
And though much ink and many pixels have been devoted to whether or not Clemens used steroids, whether he “seems guilty,” the PR of filing a lawsuit, what that tape was all about, and how Andy Pettitte must feel about all of this, it’s basically all been speculation. Leave it to Baseball Prospectus to actually look at the particulars of his lawsuit.
This is the article I’ve been waiting to read. After all, the Mitchell Report only had teeth because of the BALCO trial. By filing a lawsuit, could Roger Clemens be opening up a whole new can of worms? I suppose that depends on the particulars of the case. From BP writer Derek Jacques:
A claim of defamation (usually broken down into slander for spoken statements and libel for statements made in writing) accuses someone of
saying or writing something untruthful that is then “published” to a third party, for the purpose of injuring the reputation of the person making the claim. Because a statement can’t be defamatory if it’s true, the truth of the allegations McNamee made against Clemens is the main issue of the suit. The question is simply whether or not McNamee injected Clemens with steroids and HGH in 1998, 2000, and 2001.
[...]
Defamation is a notoriously hard case to prove. In this situation, the allegations are all about the actions of two men alone in a room together with no other
witnesses, and likely no physical or documentary evidence to connect or divorce them from what McNamee says they were doing. Clemens will face an uphill climb making his case, both because he bears the burden of proof and because he has to prove a negative—that an event that McNamee doesn’t tie to a specific date and time didn’t happen.
Clemens lamented during his 60 Minutes interview that people were treating him as “guilty before innocent,” instead of innocent until proven guilty. Ironically, filing this lawsuit puts the burden of proof right where he didn’t want it: on him.
And for those who were hoping that the Mitchell Report would close the door on the steroids era and let our beloved sport heal, the Clemens lawsuit effectively crushes those dreams:
Before this matter reaches trial, there would likely be months, perhaps years, of preparation, discovery, and depositions. If you give skilled litigators enough time to dig through someone’s life and financial records, all sorts of interesting and unexpected things can happen.
In other words, yes, the seal has been broken on a new can of worms. The only remaining question: is it a can of harmless earthworms, a can of annoying ringworms, or a can of fearsome Mongolian Death Worms?
January 10th, 2008 at 2:41 pm
Sarah your post just convinces me even more that Clemens’s strategy is going to be to try to force McNamee into a settlement.
I can’t imagine why he would possible want to go through years of trial and have all his secrets aired in the court of public opinion, even more than they already have been.
[Report comment]
January 10th, 2008 at 2:54 pm
Yes, it is a high-stakes game of chicken. But McNamee has so much at stake as well. Is he really going to go to jail for Clemens? Is he really going to abandon his children, one of whom is extremely sick? Is he really going to completely torpedo his own good name?
[Report comment]
January 10th, 2008 at 4:15 pm
Well, McNamee technically no longer has “a good name” either. Better than Clemens, I suppose, but it ain’t good.
Nick, McNamee’s broke supposedly. There’s nothing he can give up.
There’s a part of me that thinks this could actually be a good thing in the long run. Personally, I’m still a bit skeptical of the whole veracity of the Mitchell Report. That’s not to say that I think Clemens is innocent. But even if a shadow of doubt gets cast as to its credibility, it may force MLB to make additional moves to clean up. I’d love to see the sport “move on” after the Mitchell Report. But since I’m made up of 64% cynic (12% jerk, 23% baseball fan, 5% gumdrops, and 7% mathematical dimwit), I think it’s going to get worse before it actually CAN get better.
[Report comment]
January 10th, 2008 at 4:53 pm
Paul it’s already gotten pretty bad! And yes, I should have said “what’s left of” his own good name with regards to McNamee.
However, I fail to follow your logic here. If Clemens succeeds and casts doubt on the Mitchell report, MLB will have to make additional moves to clean up its act? How so? And why are you skeptical about the report’s veracity?
[Report comment]
January 10th, 2008 at 5:53 pm
Yeah, I did a piss-poor job explaining myself there. Take 2:
Yes, it’s bad. But I really think it’s actually going to get worse.
I’m skeptical about the Mitchell Report for reasons that aren’t unique to me. The Commission couldn’t get current players to talk. Mitchell essentially ended up with very little to work with. As a result, there was no way that the Report could even begin to accurately portray what was/is/will be going on.
So, at least in my mind, the Mitchell Report was very much incomplete. But it was enough to make it seem to the general public that MLB actually gives a rat’s ass about this. And that’s what they want. They don’t want a full expose. They wanted enough to win a PR war. And so far, that’s what they’ve gotten. Look at the fact that MLB donated $3m to PED-research. Sounds like a lot, but consider that Kip Wells will be making more than that in 2008. It’s enough to make it look like they care.
I just think there’s so much more to this than we know. And while Clemens is being a total idiot (unsurprisingly), this gives us a chance to potentially learn more about how the Mitchell Report was created. If it turns out that certain unfair liberties were taken by the Commission, it no longer becomes something that MLB can hide from. Ergo, they may have actually start taking this thing REALLY seriously.
Again, I’m a total cynic (actually, to be consistent, 64% cynic). I don’t expect many people to agree.
[Report comment]
January 10th, 2008 at 8:36 pm
Oh no, Paul, now that you’ve explained further, I completely agree. I thought you were saying you didn’t believe the report. I concur that the report is woefully incomplete.
WOOT we agree on something! Let’s mark this day on our calendars.
[Report comment]