Sherlock Clemens is on the case

December 26, 2007 by Benjamin Kabak 15 Comments

This is just weird. As per The Post’s Yankees Blog, Roger Clemens’ people are on the prowl:

Roger Clemens’ attorney has launched his own investigation into whether the Yankees pitcher used performance-enhancing substances as the Mitchell Report claimed.

“We are convinced the conclusions in Mitchell’s report are wrong and are investigating the findings ourselves,” lawyer Rusty Hardin told The New York Times. “At this stage we have uncovered a lot of logical people who we thought Mitchell was going to talk to but never talked to him or his investigators. That’s troubling.”

Who knows if this is all just for show? No one else in the Mitchell Report is doing much denying, and no one’s launching their own investigation. But no one else in the report is one of the top pitchers of all time with a Hall of Fame reputation on the line.

I hope Clemens’ people release their own version of the report, and I have to wonder if this will be a farce of an investigation or the thing that brings down the Mitchell Report. Either way, this is one surreal development.

http://www.riveraveblues.com Mike A.

Call me crazy, but I’m going to go out on a limb and say that Roger Clemens’ lawyers will find zero evidence that suggests Roger Clemens took PEDs. Just a hunch.
Jorge Steinbrenner

maybe he’ll find the “real killers” for OJ while he’s at it. ;)

in all seriousness, if he wants to clear his name, then get to it, Roger…
LiveFromNewYork

I thought about OJ and the real killers.

I hope he clears his name w/o looking like “If I Took Steroids”.
Steve S

This story has been appearing everywhere, not just on the Posts Blog.

http://sports.espn.go.com/mlb/.....id=3168534

And if you guys are going to pat yourselves on the back for not putting out that “early list” of players, then reserve judgment on things like this. David Justice has denied things left and right. An even Canseco has said that he never saw Clemens do anything. Im not saying that Clemens didnt do this but he has earned a right to be heard and to follow up on the allegations in the report. There is nothing “weird” about this, its probably the most appropriate step possible.
- http://www.riveraveblues.com Ben K.
  
  Steve,
  
  This isn’t about judging the investigation. I’m talking more about the terminology. This is a discovery-like effort to gather evidence for Clemens or against George Mitchell and his report-gathering techniques. I’m happy to give Roger the benefit of the doubt in light of the fact that no hard evidence has emerged.
  
  As for the comparisons to our decision not to print the blatantly false early list, it’s not even comparable. We didn’t print that list because it would have been irresponsible. It came to us via forwarded e-mails and there was absolutely no way to confirm the accuracy of the list. Any journalist worth his or her salt wouldn’t have reported on that list.
  - Steve S
    
    Ben
    
    I think it makes perfect sense. How is he supposed to prove Mitchell’s allegations wrong otherwise. he has already come out and denied it. Unless the man has urine and blood samples going back to 1997, then there is no other way for Clemens and his attorneys to proove the allegations false AND more importantly to determine whether they can assert a defamation claim against Mitchell and MLB.
    
    That being said, it seemed to me that the title of the post, as well as the terminology you used within it, and the actual information within it were somewhat misleading and touch planted firmly in cheek. Im have no problem with you expressing an opinion but extolling the virtues of journalism while writing something like that seems somewhat disingenuous.
    - http://www.riveraveblues.com Ben K.
      
      The criticism is duly noted, and I’ll keep that in mind in the future. I don’t mean to poke fun at Clemens in such a matter, and I think that what he’s doing is the right move.
Mike

They are right – Mitchell made no attempt to interview anyone that could call into question any of the claims. So if he wasn’t going to, somebody should. I wish the libel laws weren’t so slanted against the accused in this country. Most of what Mitchell “reported” never would have stood up in England.
steve (different one)

i would laugh my ass off if the “Clemens’ Investigation” turned up hard evidence of ignored leads on Red Sox or Brewers players.

that’s too much to ask though.
- Whitey14
  
  But then, just like the information in Mitchell’s report, you wouldn’t believe any of it because it was gathered by a biased individual, right?
  - Steve S
    
    No because Clemens’ attorney wouldnt be acting behind the guise of an unbiased party. He is openly acknowledging that he is investigating this for clemens.
  - steve (different one)
    
    that’s why i said “hard evidence”, meaning irrefutable.
    
    and saying that i don’t believe anything in the Mitchell report is a strawman, because i don’t remember saying that.
    
    but your larger point is valid: anything anyone says from here on out will be taken with a large grain of salt.
LiveFromNewYork

If Clemens attorneys do a pillage and burn discovery they will reveal a lot of what wasn’t done…and that is a good thing. If I were Clemens, I’d be paying for it. I think that they should blow the cover off what wasn’t done.

Through discovery, depositions etc. …they just have to keep asking who did you talk to? when did you talk to them? Did you ask about this or that?

THey will reveal the shoddiness of the investigation and the flimsiness of the investigation.

And they can ask all these people like Caneseco who pointed at so many people about Clemens. Ask everyone and anyone…and if everyone says, “I never saw him do anything…” it all raises a good specter of not guilty.
And that will be good for Roger. And I hope it works.
Pugzilla

What is this about a cover-up of a Red Sox club house employee found with steroids and syringes in his car at a routine police traffic stop?…hadn’t heard this before.
barry

Made my day with this articles title.