One part of Roger Clemens’ press conference today that stood out to me was when a reporter asked Clemens if he considered HGH and steroids users cheaters. Clemens did not directly answer the question — like he was scared to call himself a cheater. He was put on the spot and danced around the issue. He went into some rehearsed spiel about his thoughts on HGH and steroids that they are a “quick fix” that harm bodies and only used to make people “look good in a three-piece suit in a lobby.” He also said he didn’t think they helped players run faster, hit the ball harder, etc. — which seems like a defense of performance-enhancers if you ask me. The reporter had to follow-up to re-focus Roger and ask once again if he considered it cheating. Clemens still didn’t answer the question as to whether or not he considered HGH and steroid users cheaters, which they clearly are. All he said was that he was not going to pass judgment on other people.
I give Clemens’ camp credit for ardently attacking these allegations (after fumbling around for a few weeks), saying they plan to sue McNamee. That’s something Bonds should have done if all the allegations against him in Game of Shadows were incorrect. But still, Clemens was so defensive and his arguments seemed inconsistent. It was like he rehearsed everything and it seemed too fake. Like, OK, “we’re calling everything B-12 and lidocaine.” And, “any question about steroids and HGH, here’s your answer.”
Another part of the conference I didn’t get was the taped phone call between Roger and Brian McNamee. What was the point of it? Much like he did on 60 Minutes, Roger proved to us that he has a great relationship with McNamee and that he did so much for McNamee — treated him well. I’m sure that was the same for Bonds and Greg Anderson. But what does it matter if Clemens treated him well? Is that just a precursor for the follow-up question: “If I treated you so well, why did you rat on me?” Or, “If I treated you so well, why did you make all this up about me?” Which one is it? Seems more like Clemens is upset that he was ratted on by McNamee, not that McNamee made stuff up about him. And moreover, why didn’t Clemens ask McNamee to show up at the conference and admit everything he said was a lie if it’s all not true? McNamee asked Clemens what he wanted him to do and Clemens should have told him to come clean in front of the media. Why didn’t he have him do it? And what’s Clemens getting at, that Congress and the Mitchell Report framed McNamee to do it? Am I really supposed to buy that?
