How Can a Poor Man Stand Such Times?

by jscape2000 on Dec 21, 2007 2:28 AM EST in New York Yankees News

I know I said no more steroid stories, but this one is important.

Four names, including that of Roger Clemens and Andy Pettitte, were not mentioned in the [Jason Grimsley] affidavit, despite a newspaper report last year that singled them out.

At the request of federal prosecutors, a judge in Phoenix unsealed the 20-page affidavit signed by Novitzky in May 2006, used to obtain a search warrant for Grimsley's home in Scottsdale, Ariz. When the affidavit first was released in June 2006, players' names were blacked out. The Associated Press asked a federal magistrate judge to make the complete statement public, but the request was denied until July 2007.

First of all, Grimsley is a man "co-operating" with the feds in the same way that Brian McNamee did. Under threat of prison time. If you held a man's feet to the fire in the same way during a trial it'd be coercing the witness.

Second, this means that McNamee is only person to accuse Clemens of wrong doing. Maybe Clemens juiced, maybe he didn't; but it's now McNamee v. Rocket, and McNamee gave his testimony thinking that Clemens had already been branded a steroid user.

It doesn't clear anyone's name, but it ought to give us pause before we drag those same names through the mud.

Tweet Comment 6 comments | 0 recs |

Do you like this story?

Comments

Won't drag anyone through the mud

but I will always assume Clemens was juiced.

To me what has come out so far + our knowledge about Clemens and his behaviour, the story makes sense.

by TLVP on Dec 21, 2007 3:42 AM EST reply actions

You shouldn't feel guilty

about posting another steroids story, jscape. I think the Mitchell report is forcing all of us to form an opinion on something we'd all have rather seen get swept under the carpet.

In my view, I hope Rocket is able to clear his name, but I don't think the odds are in his favor. Even so, my perspective on Bonds, Clemens et al is tempering a bit. There was an interesting bit from one of the Times columnists a few days ago (think it was Chass or Vesey) recalling Mark McGwire smiling with his bottle of andro: What? There's something wrong with this?

A lot of this calls to mind the House Un-American Activities Committee. In the 30s, a lot of Hollywood liberals joined the Communist Party out of a sense of idealism: the people's party...cool! And then, after the war, as word of Stalin's purges filtered out of the Soviet Union, Communism wasn't just a bad call, it was evil.

Whatever anybody feels about steroids today has got to be balanced against what we've learned in the last decade.

History has cast Dalton Trumbo, Paul Robeson & others who refused to name names for HUAC in a far more sympathetic light than Elia Kazan, who did. We can throw Clemens under the bus, but in my view, Selig, Schilling and a lot of sportswriters' phony sanctimony is the worse sin.

I always feel pressure. What I don't have is fear. -- El Duque

by LateInningRelief on Dec 21, 2007 10:27 AM EST reply actions

I don't think this does much to help Clemens

They weren't teammates when Clemens allegedly began using steroids. Same goes for Pettitte - Grimsley was on the Royals in 2002.

Granted, Grimsley and Clemens were together 1999-2000, but that means next to nothing because Roger could very well have kept his steroid use on the down-low.

The difference between Grimsley and McNamme is simple: Grimsley is forced to give testimony under oath, so he cannot just rattle off any name that comes to mind. He has to be damned sure he knows what he's talking about, or he'll have a perjury problem to deal with as well.

McNamee, on the other hand, was not put under oath for the Mitchell report (far as I can tell), and therefore could spout off any name he wanted without consequence. This, in my opinion, is the fatal flaw of the Mitchell Report - there is no penalty for witnesses lying.

by docgonzo on Dec 21, 2007 10:44 AM EST reply actions

Correction

I just read on another thread that McNamee was granted immunity on condition of telling the truth. Please disregard.,

by docgonzo on Dec 21, 2007 10:47 AM EST up reply actions

I hate

how every picture of Clemens that deals with these allegations he is in a Yankee uniform (he "allegedly" started to use when he was a Blue Jay). If his name is cleared and he goes to the Hall he should be wearing the pinstripes.

It is HIGH! It is FAR! It is! GOOONNEEE!!!

by yankeesRfirst on Dec 21, 2007 1:32 PM EST reply actions

Clemens

It helps in cases like this to consider the motivation. McNamee is very likely to be telling the truth, since he doesn't benefit by lying. Quite the opposite, it will worsen his situation if he's lying about it. McNamee also doesn't benefit any more if Roger's a user than he does if he's not. The reality of it has no real consequence on McNamee's life from here on out.

Clemens, on the other hand, has a pretty clear motivation and vested interest, and his future options differ dramatically.

It's word vs. word right now, sure, but they're not quite even. We need Clemens on Capitol Hill testifying under oath. Then at least you have both McNamee and Clemens under the same risk of perjury and jail-time if they lie, and you can decide which you believe. Until then, it's an unbalanced comparison, since Roger's under no oath yet.

I also have to side with the loudmouthery of Schilling on this. If Roger's clean, that means all of these people are slandering him, so Roger better let loose with some major lawsuits, including a big one vs Mitchell and MLB, for defamation or worse. If he does not... well. An innocent man with means would go after those spreading lies, I think.

Top Baseball Prospects and Fantasy Tools at ScoutingBook.com

by scoutingbook on Dec 23, 2007 11:17 PM EST reply actions