Find » Sports » MLB Baseball: Its Time to Defend R...

MLB Baseball: Its Time to Defend Roger Clemens

Proof the Pitching Great Belongs in the Hall of Fame

By Michael Grisso, published Dec 27, 2007
Published Content: 169  Total Views: 179,811  Favorited By: 65 CPs
Embed:  
Rating: 4.8 of 5
The more I read about the subject the more I feel it is time to defend Roger Clemens. Searching through fifty or more other articles on the Internet I quickly find myself coming to his aid like no other player. Why? I'm not sure, except I do enjoy watching him pitch, but I wouldn't consider myself a lifelong fan of Roger at all. Why don't I defend Barry Bonds? Again, I'm not sure. I don't see the guy that many baseball fans think is an s.o.b. All I see is a baseball player that I've watched over his entire career become the center of attention the last few years because of steroid allegations, 73 home runs in a season, and of course breaking the all-time homerun record the midst of it all.

Coincidence? Maybe. Are the denials of using steroids truthful? Maybe. Either way it is time to take readers somewhere they have not scratched the surface yet as far as the steroids topic is concerned, the stats. I've read Boston Red Sox pitcher Curt Schilling being quoted as saying in an ESPN article (linked on Schilling's name) that if Clemens is guilty of taking steroids he should give back the 4 Cy Young Awards he has won along with the rest of his statistical numbers between 1997-2007.

Many fans for the most part are quick to say, "If the players are not fighting back or denying allegations they must be guilty"! Which of course does look like an admission of guilt, but did we not already consider them guilty when the Mitchell Report was produced? Even if a player comes right back and denies any allegations doesn't the majority of people already think, "whatever liar". As a multi-million dollar player (whomever it may be) with a family and still maybe a career to look after it is in their best interests not to say anything and to seek counsel to build a case against the allegations. I have read several articles and blogs suggesting Clemens denial was too late. Did it matter? Would it have changed "the fans" perception? No. So in an effort to change this perception it is time. Time to take out the dusty old stat machine and the Mitchell Report, punch in Roger Clemens name and see what we have.

MLB Baseball: Its Time to Defend Roger Clemens

Has He Really Turned His Back On His Fans?

Credit: n/a

Copyright: n/a

Comments
Showing Comments 1 - 15 of 15
 
 
There's no doubt that he has an impressive resume. I'm just not sure I totally buy his claims. Shame on me if I'm wrong, but I suspected Bonds wasn't clean a long time ago, and it seems like Clemens is singing an all-too familiar tune. It'll be interesting to see how it pans out.

Posted on 01/07/2008 at 9:01:02 PM

 
I'm glad I dumped my Bonds and Clemens rookie card a few years ago. No telling how volatile the market will be on their rookie cards over the next 12 months. Good article, but something about that interview last night leads me to believe there's some un-truths coming from Clemens. He wants to question Congree about Vioxx... too funny!

Posted on 01/07/2008 at 2:01:14 PM

 
very true Carol thanks for the comments :)

Posted on 12/30/2007 at 7:12:10 AM

 
lol, hey i was just telling my son the other day that about sports cards. He always ask how I know all the players everywhere and I was telling him it started there :)

Posted on 12/30/2007 at 7:12:29 AM

 
:-) I can only make a wholly uneducated comment involving a baseball card collection, so I'll refrain.

Posted on 12/29/2007 at 10:12:37 PM

 
Interesting presentation of arguments. As an attorney, I can see why he might have refrained from commenting on public allegations. No matter what he might say, there are people who wouldn't believe him and his discussing the matter would likely keep it in the headlines. BTW, noticed we have the same "anniversary date" with AC.

Posted on 12/29/2007 at 10:12:28 PM

 
:)

Posted on 12/29/2007 at 5:12:54 PM

 
A.Nieves thanks again for the link to Wetzel's article. It is exactly what I spoke of about the perception of defending yourself and how you do it in the public eye. Also his article combats things said by his attorney which is irrelevant to this article. He is bombarding him by the way he handled the allegations. The 12-0 mark was interesting, but Wetzel doesn't mention he won his last 3 before the break and had a horrible All-Star outing. Does that mean he started taking steroids in June. Quit for a week in July and then started again? Please read my article on Winstrol, HGH, and Deca explaining how the steroids work.

Posted on 12/28/2007 at 7:12:47 PM

 
All I have said is Why don't I defend Barry Bonds? I'm not sure. Nothing more. Thanks for your comments again and I'll be sure to read the Wetzel article that you left on the page here. Hope you come back to respond. Happy New Year!

Posted on 12/28/2007 at 7:12:22 PM

 
A. Nieves thanks for your comments they are appreciated and I love people can debate this subject. Its addicting. I do want to give a rebuttal to your comments though. #1 I don't think you read my article thoroughly. I clearly stated that I was going by the allegations in the report. Saying that "we know that he consistantly took steriods for a few years and that his numbers went up" is a false statement. We don't know. We only know that allegations state the latter parts of 98',00', and 01' were when he was injected. We know that in the report McNamee said Clemens came to him in mid-00 season and said, "I'm ready to use steroids again". I also looked because I didn't believe I typed anything saying "read this objectively" and as I went back and searched I found nothing that said that. Whether I defend Barry Bonds or not that was not the point of this article and I personally have made no accusations saying he took steroids either.

Posted on 12/28/2007 at 7:12:50 PM

 
How can you expect Clemens to brag about steriods taken? We know that he consistantly took steriods for a few years and that his numbers went up. And like Bonds... he remained at the top of his game well past any non-steriods user. You are assuming that just because McNamee wasn't present, Clemens would suddenly stop. Then he would start up again *suddenly*, as soon as McNamee presented himself. There is an excellent article at Yahoo written by Dan Wetzel called 'Denials by proxy make Clemens look worse' - you said read this *objectively*: http://sports.yahoo.com/mlb/news?slug=dw-clemensquiet121807&prov=yhoo&type=lgns It not only goes over many of your points here - but does an excellent job of discussing his history, the hypocrisy of his statements, his image and his cowardice. You are defending Clemens because he was able to sell you his image - Barry was not. It's not that different from a young beautiful woman getting your benefit of the doubt because you find her more

Posted on 12/28/2007 at 3:12:28 PM

 
thanks for the comments Uncle Luck I appreciate them. Your right there shouldn't be different rules for different players. Although you can't say Clemens needs to get the same treatment if not worse. Then say don't make different rules for different players. My personal opinion is that Bonds gets more attention because he broke the single season homerun record, and the all-time record as the allegations were taking place. Not to mention when people associate steroids it is to get bigger and stronger which for many that don't understand steroids in their eyes it means more homeruns. However, both players at this point is more of a he said, she said ordeal. Thanks again UL.

Posted on 12/28/2007 at 1:12:50 PM

 
Clemens should get the same treatment if not worse than Barry Bonds. No one has stepped forward claiming to have injected Barry Bonds with anything. He has denied cheating and yet he is still considered public enemy number one. If you're not going to cut Barry some slack then Clemens doesn't deserve any either. Both have put up hall of fame numbers and deserve to be inducted when it's their time. But again don't make different rule for different players.

Posted on 12/28/2007 at 11:12:41 AM

 
Very true. Can't argue with that because otherwise its so freakin' complicated. Thanks for the comments Jake.

Posted on 12/27/2007 at 6:12:24 PM

 
I think the case I make most for Bonds in my articles on the subject is that the most important thing is consistency. Either consistently throw out EVERYTHING, or don't throw out anything. I'm for the latter.

Posted on 12/27/2007 at 5:12:56 PM

Type in Your Comments Below - (1000 characters left)
Your name:

Submit your own content on this or any topic. Get started »
Showing Comments 1 - 15 of 15
 
Most Commented On