THE BOOK--Playing The Percentages In Baseball

I *love* lawyers:

Mr. Scheeler replied, “Sitting here at this moment I can not think of a single fact we would recant.”

Did you spot the legalese?  Let me restate what he could have said:

Mr. Scheeler replied, “Sitting here at this moment I can not think of a single statement we would recant.”

See?  Facts are facts, not open for interpretation, nor do they require to be recanted.  Every fact is true.

Now, he’s a lawyer isn’t he?  He knows this.  Why not simply say what you mean, if he simply meant to say “statement”?

Why not have Roger Clemens say “Sirs, every fact I’m about to tell you today is the truth.” Game, set, match.

That satisfied Rep. Norton, anyhow.

“Mr. Clemens,” she concluded. “All I can say is, I’m sure you’re going to heaven.”

What is required for a committee to recommend a charge of perjury?  I mean, Norton here would obviously oppose one.  Would it require a substantial majority of the panel?  After all, if you can’t get a substantial majority of the panel to agree to indict, what with having full access without lawyers to the witness, what’s the chance that a jury would convict?

Sometimes, it’s great to be white.  This is just like that Eddie Murphy skit on SNL.

Btw, the hearing is titled:

“The Mitchell Report: The Illegal Use of Steroids in Major League Baseball, Day 2”

And not:
“The McNamee Report: Is Roger Clemens a liar?”

If the hearing was actually based on the latter title, I understand the questioning.  But, if it’s based on the former, does it require 300 minutes of questioning?  Shouldn’t you be getting questions and answers from as many players as possible?  What does it matter if the nanny puts the ballplayer somewhere?

And since the previous day’s hearings established that hGH is not a PED, the committee members are not making any distinction between hGH and steroids.

***

Interesting info on the legality of these things:

http://www.steroid.com/growthhormonelaws.php

Okay, here’s the law: hGH is a prescription drug but is not on the federal list of controlled substances (found in 21 USC § 812(c)). Congress considered scheduling it along with steroids, but chose not to do so. However …

When Congress bootstrapped anabolic steroids into the Controlled Substances Act by passing the Anabolic Steroid Control Act of 1990, steroids were already covered under 21 USC § 333(e), a part of the Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act. That law, passed in 1988, made it a felony to distribute steroids (without criminalizing their personal use). When the Control Act effectively took steroids out of that section, Congress filled the void by sticking hGH in there. So, while hGH is not scheduled, 21 USC § 333(e) prohibits the distribution or possession with intent to distribute hGH for any use in humans other than for recognized medical reasons and pursuant to a valid prescription. Violations may be punishable by imprisonment of up to 5 years (10 years if to a person under 18 years).

Of course, all this pertains only to federal law. The individual states are free to pass their own laws about hGH, and many have. Idaho, Oregon, Rhode Island, and West Virginia have all scheduled hGH. Colorado makes hGH a schedule III controlled substance by including it in the definition of “anabolic steroid,” and curiously making its use a misdemeanor but its possession a felony. Illinois doesn’t schedule it, but makes its non-medical distribution a felony. Minnesota controls “anabolic substances” in its Schedule IV, and includes the vaguely described “growth hormones.” In Maine and Massachusetts, all prescription drugs are controlled substances.

I believe in Clemens’ moral (although not legal) right to commit perjury here.  I do not believe the government should have the power to subpoena people and force them to testify under oath to embarrassing matters, just because they feel like it.

Although I have to admit that I’m not really following all this ... while Clemens might be there voluntarily, it’s government overstepping that put him in the position that he’s in.

If the goverment has evidence that Clemens broke the law, they should charge him.  Otherwise, it should be between him and MLB.

Some sanity:

[Rep. Lynn] Westmoreland questioned what the heck everybody was doing there in the first place, saying it wasn’t Congress’ role to investigate individual players and that “if we called everyone who was accused of using steroids before this committee, we’d have to shut this place down.” Amen to that.

Hahaha:

why he never told Clemens during that recorded phone call that he was telling the truth. McNamee repeated his earlier alibi that when he said, “It is what it is,” that was his way of saying he had said he’d told the truth. McNamee then said, “If I’d know he was going to air [the tape] on national TV, I would have said, ‘I did tell the truth.’ “ Westmoreland seemed clearly bemused by that rationale, then got off the congressional quip of the day: “It depends on ‘is-what-it-is’ means, I guess.”

Can’t we have congressional hearings on cockfighting in the Dominican Republic, or the deifying of cows in India?

I can understand having Organized Crime congressional hearings (ala The Godfather, 2), so that this information could be used by the Feds in their pursuit of justice. 

But, do the Feds need a hearing from Congress on McNamee v Clemens?  If the Feds cared about a view into the steroids distribution ring, or steroids in sports, then why don’t they have hearings on that?

Amazing how much face time their egos need.

Does the constitution have something to say about use of government coercion for fishing expeditions?

Here is the full set of texts in the “Is Roger Lying” hearings:

http://oversight.house.gov/story.asp?ID=1743

Phil - regarding (5) - I’m not sure I agree.  Clemens is accused of breaking the law… and there’s a reasonable chance he did.  At the very least, he is supposed to be questioned about that, right?  Some of the process is missing - he’s supposed to be formally “charged”, right (at least that’s how they do it on TV...)?  But when you’re a public figure accused of something, and you have a press conference where you play an audio tape of a phone call you had with a relatively private figure, I think your reasonable expectation of privacy is gone.

Just reading the Knoblauch statement, where he corrects the Mitchell report for getting the most basic things wrong.  For example, on page 225 of the PDF of the Mitchell report (page 177 if printed out), in the very first line after his name, it says:

Chuck Knoblauch played as an infielder for three teams in Major League Baseball

Chuck corrects this as saying:

A The part that says I was an infielder for three
teams?
Q Uh-huh.
A I played infield for Minnesota, New York, but I
didn’t play infield for Kansas City.

A quick check of Retrosheet corroborates Chuck:
http://www.retrosheet.org/boxesetc/K/Pknobc001.htm

I know this is extremely benign, but it is such an easy thing to verify.

Now, while earlier the Mitchell report said he played for 4 seasons, it then says:

Knoblauch played for the Yankees during 2000 and 2001, the two years when McNamee served as the Yankees’ assistant strength coach.

He corrects this as:

I also played for the Yankees from ‘98 to 2001, not only just when McNamee was there those 2 years.

I guess they are both right.  A better statement by Mitchell would have been: Of the 4 seasons that Knoblauch played on the Yankees, he was on the team in 2000 and 2001, the two seasons…

But, I love it that Chuck points out such minor details.

The last line, “In order to provide Knoblauch with
information about these allegations and to give him an opportunity to respond, I asked to meet with him. He did not respond to my request.” I got a request from Senator Mitchell, but I didn’t know the specifics of what he was going to ask me about.

I love it.  And he’s right.  You see, Mitchell prefaces it by saying: “In order to provide xxx with information about these allegations and to give him an opportunity to respond”, however, the player doesn’t know his intent!  All Mitchell actually said is “I asked to meet with him”.  He didn’t specifically say why he asked to meet with him, a claim that Chuck is making here.  Mitchell made a very legalese statement here, but I think it’s very poor form for Mitchell to have done so.  All Chuck knows is that he wanted to meet with him… he didn’t know he had evidence, he didn’t know anything. 

If this report wasn’t out to get players (like management wasn’t complicit), Mitchell should have said “We’ve got alot of allegations here against you.  We want to present those allegations to you, and ask you to respond to those allegations.”

After all, Mitchell could have simply asked Chuck questions without ever producing the allegations at all.  Simply take his side, without a rebuttal.

Chuck is funny:

Q I’m sorry, I just don’t remember when the throwing problem started. I remember, I just can’t—

A Well, Yankee fans will say it started when I first got there, but that’s not really correct.

Talking about the letter from Mitchell:

That didn’t state that. I had no idea what he was interested in me for.

He seems like a good guy:

And let me add this, and hopefully you won’t get mad at me for adding what I want to add, but it is a little bit more about my story. And I appreciate what you guys are doing. I really do. You know, my son was here, my son was here today. And I am trying not to get emotional about this, but I mean, I am trying to teach him a lesson that you need to do things 30 in life that you are going to be willing to talk about openly and to tell the truth. I am here today on my own to cooperate with you guys, to tell the truth; and that is why I brought him. We were on vacation. But that is why I brought my family, to let him know. And he will be able to look back on this and read about this.

That is the first thing I want to say. The second thing, when I played, when I started in ‘91—I am a little emotional about that, I am sorry, I am sorry. My life has obviously changed since I played baseball. I am a father now, so a lot of things mean different things to me now. But when I played, and not right after, but you had the cocaine problem of the Pirates and some other players—Q Right. A—in the late 70’s, and then you had Pete Rose with the gambling. So the bulk of my career—‘91 to almost ‘02, when this ‘02 stuff started coming out about the steroids and things like that, but the bulk of my career, it was drilled into my head about gambling and recreational drugs and night spots and staying away from, you know, because there was all kind of those bad things happening. So that is what I was educated about when I played. So those are the things that I tried to stay away from when I was—during my career, you know. So I got out when 31 this really—and now this is a huge deal. And it is important to me because I love baseball.

You know, I want it to be fair. I want the players to be healthy. You know, if my son plays one day, I certainly don’t want him to have to, you know, be involved in this. Hopefully—hopefully, what is happening now is what happened with gambling and the drug situations when I played—you know, hopefully, with what you guys are doing. You know, this generation of players, this is what will be drilled in their head. And the gambling thing is gone, you know, from baseball. So I just wanted to add that.

Saying he would have professed his truth if he had known he was on TV would be like Bill Clinton saying he wouldn’t have received oral copulation from Monica Lewinsky if he knew it would become such a big deal.

I think the point Knoblauch mentions in that excerpt, though not absolutely justifiable on the usage of steroids, does give much insight into the rationale.  The fact that the cocaine and gambling were such big deals alerted him to stay away from them and today, the steroids issue now will serve as a similar deterrent.

I think he makes a very valid point there.  I do find it funny about the baseball facts, though, that made me laugh out loud.

Of course you are not going to meet with Mitchell, especially if you know you did something that you don’t want anyone to know about.

Plus, your lawyer and the union’s lawyers are going to vehemently recommend that you don’t meet with him.

Now, if Mitchel says that there are allegations against you that will be in the report, and you have a chance to respond to them or defend yourself, that is a completey different story.

If Mitchel did not tell a player or has representative the “whole story,” only that he wants to meet with that player, that is an unbelieveably reprehensible thing to do.  I can’t think of any reason why he would do that unless he DID NOT want players to respond (maybe he thought it would be too much work and create a qagmire).  I would love to hear Mitchell’s reasoning as to why he did not tell the player’s the “whole story” when he asked to meet with them.  And if he did not, he has no right to crticize them for not meeting with him, or saying, “Well they had their chance to defend themselves and they chose not to.” That would be preposterous.

MGL,

It’s absolutely reprehensible.  I can recall at least three instances on “The Simpsons” where a character somewhat tricked another character into saying/doing something by not providing the full details to the vehicle used to coax him.  In other words, it’s not only reprehensible, it’s downright cartoonish.  With all of the money and time put into a report supposedly as important as this we are left with the word of mouth from a trainer and clubhouse manager as well as some deceitfully coaxed admissions.

What’s even worse is that Mitchell knew the fallout.  He knew exactly what would have happened, essentially making this the McNamme v Clemens Report.  Apparently, you can put a beautiful lipstick (as Mitchell is apparently one of the most upstanding guys around from what is said) on any pig.

If only Celebrity Deathmatch was still around…

http://www.nationalpost.com/news/story.html?id=308925

Zaun:

He said he declined to talk to Mitchell investigators because they refused to tell him in advance about the allegations against him.

“Had I known anything about the Radomski situation, you can believe I would have met with them to discuss it,” he said. “But they wouldn’t tell me or any of the other guys they named in the report anything. I would have told them what I’ve told you and maybe avoided this mess.”

Of course, the media as usual is asleep at the switch here. 

The see nothing wrong with this situation:

Cesar Mitchell: Mr Zaun, Mr Clemens, Mr Pettitte.  Please come to the lion’s den.  I just want to ask you something. 

Players: Uh?  What exactly?

Cesar: It’s about the uh… wallpaper.  I’d like to know what wallpaper to put up.  You know those lions.

Players: Lions?

Cesar: Oops, sorry.  That slipped out.  I can’t tell you about the alleged lions right now.  All I can say is that I’d like you to come to the lion’s den.  Bring someone with you, if you don’t trust me.  I’m going to ask you a whole bunch of questions.  You can refuse to answer them if you like.

Players: And afterwards?  Then, are you going to tell me what they’ve been saying about me?  I’d like to rebut accusations.  Even a first-year journalist will call me and ask for my reaction to accusations.

Cesar: Sorry, you’re breaking up.  I’m going through the tunnel here.  I’ll see you in the den.

Cesar (to himself): I can’t believe my firm is going to make millions of dollars by simply transcribing what two drug distributors are telling me!  I don’t even have to confront anyone with the accusations; I’ll simply write it and say that I gave them a chance to respond.  The media is at my fingertips, and they won’t even bother to ask me the right questions.  Thank the world we live in an ESPN age.  RIP NY Times.  RIP Washington Post.

Right on, Will Leitch:
http://nymag.com/news/intelligencer/44224/

What was initially billed as a Great Attempt to Get to the Bottom of Steroids in Baseball became, essentially, Congress mediating the divorce between a ballplayer and his trainer.

...

Sure, most would prefer that their favorite players not use steroids, or at least not be outed for using, or if they must use, at least win… Baseball is, ultimately, just a form of entertainment—and one that insists upon, and rewards lavishly, superhuman physical ability. Use steroids, don’t use steroids, whatever—just keep up your end of the bargain.

Now, when are we going to get to the real problem here.  I’m pretty sure cocaine-related deaths outstrips those of steroids.  I’m also pretty sure that the cocaine distribution ring is much bigger than the steroids one. And, I’m pretty sure that when you go to a stadium, there is far fewer fans injecting steroids while watching a game, than there are fans stoned out of their minds at a rock concert.

In my day, the most influential non-family adults were not athletes, but rockers.  Why doesn’t Congress go after them if they care about “the children”?  And not this trumped up “devil backwards music” defense.

Congress almost acts like a bully, ready to pounce on those the most defenseless, than to pounce on those with the most influence.

I guess no one cares that there’s congressional hearings with the eight heads of the leagues (commish, union head) going on right now.  No liveblogging by Stark or Schwarz.  I guess the parallel is that Clemens and McNamee are like Paris, Britney and Lindsay, while the heads of their leagues are like the heads of other organizations.  And the media loves to cover Britney.

Ha.  Don’t tell me you care.  “Care” as in the emotional feeling of care, not “care” as in interested because someone else is talking about it care.

Here’s Betteman (NHL):
http://www.cbc.ca/sports/hockey/story/2008/02/27/gary-bettman.html

NHL players are the most stringently tested (every four years at least), since virtually all the Olympic hockey players from the big 7 nations (Canada, USA, Russia, Sweden, Finland, Czech, Slovakia) come from the NHL ranks.  No other league subjects as many pro players to Olympic-level testing.

USA Today is liveblogging:

http://blogs.usatoday.com/sportsscope/2008/02/capitol-hill-he.html

More “fun”:
http://republicans.oversight.house.gov/Media/PDFs/Reports/20080325SteroidsStaffReport.pdf