So many Roger Clemens angles, so little time.
1. Clemens speaks to Texas baseball coaches (AP). Apparently the best 'cutting' anabolic steroid was not discussed.
WACO, Texas (AP) — Roger Clemens talked about pitching and conditioning. What he didn't talk about was steroids.
In a session before about 1,000 Texas high school baseball coaches Saturday, the seven-time Cy Young Award winner stuck to baseball and cracked jokes, making no mention of the allegations in the Mitchell Report that he used performance-enhancing drugs.
How are those Texas boys going to develop a 95 mph heater without some guidance on this?
2. A New York Yankee fan is suing the Yanks for sports fraud. USA Today.
A longtime baseball fan is suing the New York Yankees over some players' reported use of performance-enhancing drugs, saying he wants repayment for $221 in tickets and a public response from his once-beloved team.
"I look at it almost as consumer fraud," said Matthew Mitchell, 30, a Brooklyn resident who said he went to his first game at Yankee Stadium in 1984. "If I'm going to watch a baseball game, then I expect it to be the real thing."
The Yankees declined to comment.
The paralegal filed his lawsuit in small claims court in Brooklyn last week, less than a month after former U.S. Senate Majority Leader George Mitchell released a report linking 85 Major League Baseball players — including 20 current and former Yankees — to illegal use of steroids and other performance-enhancing formulations.
Matthew Mitchell wants to be reimbursed for tickets to five games between 2002 and 2007. They include Game 2 of the 2003 World Series, in which pitcher Andy Pettitte led the Yankees to a win.
3. Buster Olney's column is not all Clemens, but as usual, the content is excellent. He develops questions Congress should ask Bud Selig and Don Fehr. etc (found after the jump).
1. Former Senator Mitchell said, generally, that your sport developed a rampant drug culture, and that everyone was responsible. Among others, he meant you. Do you agree, and if so, what, specifically, do you think you, as commissioner, did wrong? If you disagree, please explain how and why.
2. The commissioners of the NFL and NBA chose to not open investigations into their sport, and you have been candid in acknowledging that your advisors told you that opening an investigation was not a good idea. What was it about baseball's situation, as compared to the NFL or NBA, that compelled you to commission your investigation?
3. How much did the Mitchell report cost Major League Baseball -- including any base fee paid to the former senator, the actual cost of the investigation and the costs incurred by teams as they dealt with inquires from the Mitchell investigators?
4. You say you are embracing the changes suggested within the Mitchell report, some relating to testing procedures. But some of these were outlined years ago by critics of baseball's drug policy. Why are you embracing the suggestions now, rather than before? For
1. Former Senator Mitchell said, generally, that your sport developed a rampant drug culture, and that everyone was responsible. Among others, he meant you. Do you agree, and if so, what, specifically, do you think you did wrong? If you disagree, please explain how and why.
2. On the day the Mitchell report was released, you indicated that in looking back, you believe action by the union did not come swiftly enough in dealing with the issue of steroids. First, can you elaborate on that? And secondly, given that history, do you believe it is prudent for the union, in dealing with the issue of performance-enhancing drugs, to continue to resist the kind of blood testing that is done in many other sports?
3. Gene Orza, the No. 2 officer within the union, is essentially accused, within the Mitchell report, of tipping off a player to a drug test. Can you elaborate on that, with details of whether this is what happened? And if it did occur, can you tell us whether other players were also tipped off, at other times? And if it did happen, do you think this has the potential for undermining the credibility of your union's drug-testing agreement?
4. Bud Selig has said he is committed to making the recommended changes contained within the Mitchell report. Are you? If not, what recommendations concern you, and why?
1. You did not have the ability to subpoena players during your investigation, but you had extraordinary power, nonetheless, because any player mentioned in your report was effectively damaged for life. You invited players to meet with you during your investigation -- but why did you choose not to inform them exactly what they were accused of? For example: If you were confident in the information that trainer Brian McNamee provided, why would you not inform Roger Clemens, before the release of your report, of what McNamee was alleging?
2. In most cases within your report, you provide corroborating evidence. In some cases, however, you included an allegation based on interviews with a single source -- in most cases, either McNamee or former Mets batboy Kirk Radomski. Can you explain how you came to view this as sufficient evidence?
3. You received help from federal investigators during your own inquiry, which was a private investigation commissioned by Major League Baseball. How did it come to pass that federal investigators provided you with information that is not accessible to the public at large? In your view, why should a private investigator for Major League Baseball have access that other citizens -- whether it be baseball fans, journalists or even the players -- cannot have?
4. There must have been steroid pipelines in baseball during the era. How much investigating did you do about these possible sources: A. Players obtaining the drugs while playing winter ball, particularly in the Dominican Republic. B. Players obtaining the drugs in Mexico, after crossing the border in Texas or San Diego county. C. Some player agents.
5. You have spoken generally about how baseball had a drug culture, and how everyone contributed to the problem. But there is very little in the report about the decisions made by the most powerful people in the sport -- the union leaders, the commissioner, the owners -- that helped to foster this culture. Can you elaborate on that here today? Can you characterize the conversations that took place in union meetings and owners meetings?
• Roger Clemens' effort to clear his name may have spun the wrong way, writes Alan Schwarz. At the moment, writes Richard Justice, Brian McNamee seems more believable. Clemens did not speak about the steroid flap when he met with Texas coaches, writes Bart Hubbuch. Meanwhile, his former trainer, Brian McNamee, is reportedly opening up in a way he did not last summer. Baseball is to blame for its troubles, writes David Steele. • The guys named in the Mitchell report will have no trouble from teammates, as Nick Cafardo writes.