Wednesday, February 13, 2008

What Did We Learn From The Clemens Hearings? Well Not Much Other Than The Fact That Clemens Is A Lying Sack Of Shit.

Clemens won this contest in a landslide.

Remember when you were a kid and you did something wrong but thought you could get away with it, so you lied (or at least that’s what I did)? Even though you knew it really wasn’t the worst thing you've ever done and it was very likely your parents weren’t going to be that mad about it anyway, you lied. And maybe you got away with it but in support of that lie you had to create all of these secondary lies a long convoluted twisted tales (Dane Cook actually does a rare funny bit about this type of thing in his "Vicious Circle" special). And these secondary lies never really made a whole lot of sense but in order to bolster your original lie, you had to stick by them. You know, the real lie was that you weren’t hanging out at the bad kid’s house but in support of that lie you create an alibi and a timeline and you get real defiant about it: "Mom, I couldn’t have been over at Dirty McChainsmoker’s house because me and Carl were riding our bikes over by the sand banks and then we went for a swim and stopped by Rite-Aid to pick up some gum and then played a best of 13 Sega ‘93 Hockey Series but neither of us were allowed to be the Blackhawks or Blues because Roenick is too good and Al MacInnis’ one-timer is too unstoppable and I won in 10 games because I picked the Edmonton Oilers and subbed in Petr Klima at center who was secretly the second best player in the game even though Carl picked the Canucks (the best overall team in Sega ‘93 because Kirk McLean was a friggin brick wall and the Bure-Linden combo was borderline unstoppable). After that we went to Jreck’s and got a Meatball sub and then a sundae from Morgan’s before we took our clubs over to the 15th hole over at SLU to play the 4 hole post-dawn-sneak-on (15, 16, 14, 15) where I flew the ditch on 16 from the tips (260 carry) and then sculled my second onto the 17th tee. So you see, I never had time to stop at Dirty’s place. No siree." All you really needed to say was "No mom. I was riding bikes." Unfortunately you don’t take this route because you want to make it seem inconceivable that you could have been at the bad kid’s house. But mom’s no dummy. She may not have been willing to let it slide until you came up with this story. But this is your story and mom sees the holes in it.
Mom: "So you were playing Sega ‘93, eh?"
Me: "Yup. Great series. Klima dominated"
Mom: "But didn’t you say that neither of you could be St. Louis because MacInnis’ one-timer was too unstoppable?"
Me: (realizing I fucked up) "Ummm, yeah."
Mom: "But I thought Sega ‘93 was the year BEFORE they put in the one-timers?"
Me: "Well, I, we meant that maybe... I misspoke and, misremembered but, Petr Klima was the one..."
Mom: "You’re grounded."
Me: "Fuck"

You see it wasn’t the lie that got me, it was the lie in support of my lie. Clemens’ contention that he didn’t do steroids is only as credible as he comes off. And because of his secondary lies, he doesn’t come off as all that credible. He came off as a guy who if found with cookie crumbs and chocolate on his face wouldn't simply deny eating the cookies, but would deny eating the cookies, deny liking cookies, deny liking chocolate and deny liking food or ever haven eaten anything that someone would describe as sweet tasting.

Throughout the entire hearing, I couldn’t figure out (and still can't) why Clemens was so set on fostering these unnecessary secondary lies. My favorite one was when Clemens said that he’d never heard of HGH until this whole thing came about. Now this may be irresponsible of me but I call absolute bullshit on this claim. Clemens is CLEARLY lying about this fact. Never heard of it? Are you fucking kidding me? Even if we didn’t know that Clemens knew that his wife had been injected with HGH, there is no way that Clemens didn’t know about HGH or have conversations with people about it. Now I’d be more than willing to believe that he never had discussions about DOING HGH or asking people of the benefits of HGH (I don’t believe him, but I could see how that is more believable) but why is it necessary to go to the extra step of saying "I’ve never had a discussion about it ever." Never a casual conversation, Rog? You never talked to someone about the allegations regarding Bonds or Giambi a couple years back? What is the point of denying in totality knowledge of HGH the substance? My guess is that in Roger's world, he thinks that it if denying use is good, denying knowledge must be fucking super good. What he doesn't seem to factor into the equation is that it just seems so unreasonable to believe that an athlete in the 2000's had never even heard of HGH and it becomes such a stupid lie that it undermines EVERYTHING else you have to say. If we know you’re going to lie about something so stupid, why wouldn’t we then believe that you are willing to extend that lie to everything else? But Clemens wasn’t done there. He did the same thing when asked by rep Maloney (my representative!) about notice of the Mitchell inquiries.

Congresswoman Maloney asked Clemens why he changed his story about getting notice from George Mitchell that indicated Mitchell wanted to speak to him. Originally, in his 60 minutes version, Clemens stated that he knew about the letters from Mitchell but was told they wouldn’t tell him what the evidence actually was so he decided not to talk. Under oath, Clemens new tune was that he never knew Mitchell wanted to talk to him. When he fell back on his under oath remarks, Rep Maloney asked him if we are to believe that his agent never notified him of the letters from Mitchell, what the fuck is he doing by still employing such an irresponsible representative? He had no response because it’s simply not true. Do we honestly believe that the Hendricks brothers never mentioned to Clemens that Mitchell Report sent three letters to them asking their client to come in and talk? No fucking chance. Do you really expect us to believe that when their biggest client gets notice that there is evidence--evidence that will be made public in a couple months--that this client used steroids and HGH that they then wouldn’t pick up the phone and say, "Hey Rocket, what do you want us to do about this?" It’s not like the Mitchell Report was as secret and no one cared what it was going to say. OF COURSE Clemens’ agent told him about the fucking letters from the Mitchell Report. And OF COURSE Clemens said there was no chance he was going to meet with Mitchell because Clemens didn’t believe they actually had anything on him. And then when the report was released and we learned that they had a TON of shit on Clemens, he had to now explain why he never spoke with Mitchell after Mitchell's repeated requests. His only recourse at that point was to throw his agent under the bus. What are the Hendricks’ brothers going to do? If they were truly his lawyers at the time, the conversations would likely be privileged but even beyond that there is no way they’re going to disclose that conversation as it would be horrible for future business. But more importantly to the greater poitn, this lie was unnecessary. If he had simply said he got notice and decided that it would be improper to speak with the Mitchell Report unless they were willing to provide he and his lawyers with the evidence ahead of time, that wouldn’t be great but at least it makes sense. It’s a conservative legal decision based on sound judgment that is explainable. Instead we get, "Sorry ya’ll, my super agents never told me that I was going to go down in a heap of flames." That’s simply not true. And despite the fact that its overall relevance to the proceedings is minimal, it just speaks volumes as to how much of a freaking lying sack of shit this guy is turning out to be.

The final explanation I found really troubling was the convoluted story about Clemens and Pettitte’s relationship being such that Pettitte would have told Clemens about his HGH use. And because Pettitte never did talk about HGH with Clemens, this somehow means that Clemens never used it. Yes, I know this sounds like friggin loony tunes so let me get this right. I think it went something like this: Clemens and Pettitte were tight. The two were so tight in fact that they would approach eachother about anything. So if Pettitte knew that Clemens used HGH in the past and Pettitte was thinking about using it himself, Pettitte would have approached Clemens to ask him about it before he (Pettitte) used it. And since Pettitte never asked Clemens about it (which must be confirmed on the deposition in order for any of this to make sense), this somehow confirms that Pettitte never thought Clemens used HGH. Aside from being a horrendously weak argument, there are a couple of things that don’t make sense about this.

First, if Pettitte and Clemens were so tight, why didn’t Pettitte mention to Clemens that he was taking HGH? Pettitte admitted to taking HGH and Roger claims he never knew about it. Doesn’t this kinda throw cold water on the idea that Pettitte would have approached Clemens about using it in the first place if he could never muster the courage to tell him he was actually taking it? It would seem that that would be one of those things that buddies talk about. And yet, Clemens claims they never spoke about it. My guess is that Clemens’ answer in response to that would be that Pettitte wouldn’t have felt comfortable talking about cheating with Roger because he respected him so much (again, in Roger's head we're working under the assumption that he never did any drugs). Andy was embarrassed. I don’t fucking know. I don’t find it in any persuasive that because Pettitte didn’t ask Clemens about HGH (according to Clemens), that this means Clemens didn’t take HGH. Especially when held against the evidence that Pettitte AND HIS WIFE both confirmed that it was their understanding that Clemens took HGH. And when you throw in that Roger’s own wife took HGH (without Clemens’ knowledge, allegedly. Another point that is HORSEFUCKINGSHIT (tmesis)), the plot just got too damn thick. And all the defiance in the world doesn't make Roger look any less guilty.

With dust all settled, here’s where we are at: it has been confirmed that Brian McNamee injected Roger’s best friend, Roger’s wife and claims he injected Roger; and Roger’s best friend and his best friend’s wife back up McNamee’s claim. Given ALL OF THAT, we’re supposed to believe that because Pettitte didn’t ask Clemens about HGH, this means that Clemens couldn’t have done it. If that’s what you’re hanging your hat on Rog, you are fucking sunk.

Lastly, and this is completely subjective, doesn’t it just feel like Clemens is lying through his fucking teeth? Between his greasy lawyers and his feigned defiance and indignation, I just don’t believe him. I don’t think there is anything that can be done to change my mind about it. I’m sure all the evidence against him has affected my judgment but more than anything, I find him to be completely unbelievable. He just seems like a big fat liar. I suppose that’s not fair of me, but neither is shooting up drugs and striking out Mark Bellhorn during a roid rage. You see Roger didn’t worry about fairness during his career, so why should I give a shit about being fair when opining about that same career?

2 comments:

mrs. said...

You're right, it's exactly the way a child lies. Clemens can't seem to see things from the point of view of his audience. It's as if he has the poor perspective-taking skills of a 4-year-old who just makes up crap until you leave him alone. Probably a symptom of megalomania. That's my diagnosis.
-Sigmund Roid, MD

nor said...

the real reason the NHL got popular in the mid 90's...Sega / EA Sports Hockey