Taking the Minority Opinion Too Far

Okay, I realize I've been straying a bit from the original purpose of this blog, which is to make fun of Peter Gammons and express incredulity over the notable lack of editing of his work, either by Gammons himself or by ESPN.com editors. Let's get back to that, shall we?

We don't even have to get to the circus that will remind us why Congress has a 22 percent approval rating. This is where we are: The voices the public is listening to are Jose Canseco, John Rocker, Brian McNamee and Kirk Radomski.

Wow, these are some tortured sentences. First he implies that he somehow already knows that Congress will do a shitty job interrogating Clemens, McNamee, et al. (Did anybody else catch the irony of Gammons implying that somebody in a high-profile job actually performs said job terribly?) Then, he seems to say that the American public is retarded, because it's listening to the voices of a group of people who are, well, less than savory. But wait! If the American people are retarded, shouldn't the fact that they disapprove of Congress shed a positive light on Congress? Am I overthinking this?

Through his designer shades, Canseco saw how much money the players, owners, agents and enablers were making in the steroids era, and he questioned why he shouldn't be making his buck his way. But once Roger Clemens and McNamee are finished in the halls where the Voting Rights Act once was framed, Canseco is going to seem like Madeline Albright.

Damn that Canseco and his designer shades! Why can't he just get the Foakleys for $15 like the rest of us? And isn't Gammons ignoring the pink elephant in the room, the fact that Canseco didn't just see how much money the players were making, he also was one of these players? I mean, clearly Canseco is a weasel just trying to make more money, but Gammons is reduced to sounding like a 15-year-old girl in his criticism of Canseco. I must say, Foist's theory that Gammons is just pissed that he wasn't the journalist to break the steroid scandal looks stronger and stronger every day.

We don't know why McNamee would lie about Clemens and not about Andy Pettitte or Chuck Knoblauch, or why Rep. Tom Davis would say Pettitte corroborated McNamee's testimony. We don't know why Clemens would risk jail and his legacy by risking perjury, or, for that matter, why he kept McNamee in his employ all those years.

It is correct to say that "we don't know why McNamee WOULD lie..." because we're not sure whether he did or not, so it's a conditional statement. It is, however, incorrect to say that "We don't know why Rep. Tom Davis WOULD say Pettite corroborated..." because it's a fact that he DID say that. Also, the phrase "Clemens would risk jail and his legacy by risking perjury" is painfully redundant.

Theoretically, we will learn all that in time. And we will learn whether Rusty Hardin can prove there is a conspiracy against Clemens. Hardin is doing what he is paid to do. The late Edward Bennett Williams might have been the most charismatic, fascinating man I have ever met, and he defended Joseph McCarthy, Jimmy Hoffa, John Connally, Frank Costello …

Somebody please convince me that there's a reason for Gammons dropping the name of Edward Bennett Williams other than him trying to impress us with the fact that he met him. Also, what the hell is the point of talking about some famous lawyer's charisma? I really believe that Gammons writes a coherent column and then just rearranges the sentences around just to fuck with us. So far, we're three paragraphs in, and Gammons has informed us that Congress sucks, Canseco sucks, and Clemens's lawyer is attempting to defend Clemens, in the same way that Edward Bennett Williams defended Joseph McCarthy. Any questions? Me neither.

Clemens is a good guy who worked as hard as anyone in the game, who truly enjoyed working with the Houston Astros' minor leaguers, who savored every moment playing with his son, Koby. Now he has been made into a villain.

Here's my question. Why wasn't Gammons invited to testify before Congress?

Senate Committee: Mr. Gammons, why do you believe Clemens has been wrongly accused of taking steroids?

Gammons: Well, I know that he enjoyed working with the Houston Astros minor leaguers, and he savored every moment playing with his son, Koby.

Senate Committee: How is that even remotely relevant to whether he took steroids?

Gammons: Did you know I once met Edgar Bennett Williams?

If you read the New York papers every day, you would believe the media hates Clemens. Some appear to be consumed by him. They remember his retirement and the ovation the Florida Marlins gave him during the 2003 World Series, his resurrection in Houston, then his return for what supposedly was a higher average annual salary than Alex Rodriguez's, which made greatness seem mercenary. There are daily reminders of him beaning Mike Piazza and buzzing Alex Rios.

A few things:

1. What "supposedly" was a higher average annual salary than Alex Rodriguez's? It's four years later, and you still don't know? Let's see how long it takes me to find out.

...

Okay, that took two minutes. Rodriguez's salary in 2005 was $26 million. Clemens's was $18 million. So, Clemens's annual salary was "supposedly" higher than Rodriguez, but it was actually $8 million lower.


2. "...Which made greatness seem mercenary"? Can anybody dispute that? These are facts! Clemens sold his services to the highest bidder, and demanded all kinds of other special clauses, in exchange for his (allegedly tainted) greatness! That is mercenary!

3. He DID bean Mike Piazza.

If I may summarize what we've learned from this Gammons column: He criticizes Canseco for presenting facts to the public about the steroid scandal. He criticizes the New York media for presenting facts to the public about Clemens. On the other hand, he advocates Clemens, because of some heartwarming bullshit. I ask you: WHAT KIND OF JOURNALIST IS PETER GAMMONS? Onward!

In Houston, where Clemens should live out his life as a Texas legend, he is remembered by too many as the loyal Houstonian who went back to the Yankees for the annual average value, or AAV, which might mean that years from now, to expand on a very funny line, Clemens' stat lines might be DNA, AAV and ERA.

For the eighth time, Peter: Clemens is NOT A VICTIM. You can write that he "should" live out his life as a Texas legend, but HE CHOSE to go back to the Yankees for the "annual average value". While we're here, I like how Gammons tries to sound smart by saying "average annual value" instead of "more money", as if figuring out a player's annual salary, particularly when he's only signing one-year contracts, is some complicated statistical algorithm. Also, if you have to tell us that something is a "very funny line"? Probably not all that funny. That would certainly seem to be the case here.

Barry Bonds wasn't the only one, yet he has honors, riches, glory, fame and nothing much more than a warehouse to show them off. This seems to be where Clemens is headed unless Hardin can break McNamee down into a Perry Mason-esque confession if the defamation suit ever goes to trial.

The obvious error here would be that McNamee would not break down into a "Perry Mason-esque confession", since Mason was the one causing the confession. Yes, I know what he means. Still don't get why he gets to write ambiguously with no repercussions. The less obvious error would be stating that Bonds's life is severely lacking, not because he doesn't have honors, riches, glory, and fame, but that he "can't show them off", and this is the most tragic occurrence of all. Woe be unto Clemens if he suffers a similar fate! Woe, I say!

Maybe Hardin can pull that off. And maybe Bonds, separately, will end up being judged innocent of perjury. But what will Clemens and Bonds have five years from now for all their hard work and greatness?

Umm...more money than God? The reputations, albeit stained, as the best pitcher and hitter, respectively, of their era? Because Gammons's writing is so damned incomprehensible, I'm not sure, but I think he's trying to portray Clemens as a sympathetic character. If this is true, well, it is a sad, sad effort.

Perhaps that is the lesson: No matter what mountain you climb, if you break the law while scaling the peak, it can come back to roll you down the side of the mountain on your behind. If kids look at Bonds and Clemens and ask, "What did 762 home runs and 354 wins get them?" George Mitchell will have accomplished something, as inherently unfair as it might be to those two men.

Another excellent metaphor. I dunno, I kind of like the thought of climbing a mountain and then getting "rolled down" the other side. Sounds fun. More fun than climbing down, anyway. Also: as "inherently unfair" as it might be to those two men? Both have already been tried and found guilty, in the court of public opinion, of using steroids. In fact, federal prosecutors have just confirmed that Bonds failed a steroid test shortly after hitting his 73rd home run in 2003. (EDIT: This story indicates that this confirmation was the result of a "typo". However, my point still stands, as there have been other failed steroids tests for Bonds.) What, exactly, is "inherently unfair" about this?

If you want to argue that it's unfair that Clemens and Bonds catch an inordinate amount of flak for taking steroids, considering that the problem was widespread throughout baseball and there are many, many people at fault, well, that's one thing. (I could dispute that by saying that Clemens and Bonds were the very best of their time and broke records of players who were probably not juicing. Thus, if they did take steroids, which is looking more and more likely, their entire legacies must be called into question. Nobody will remember David Segui and Carl Everett for their incredible baseball accomplishments.) But Gammons doesn't even mention why Bonds and Clemens would find the Mitchell Report "inherently unfair".

Canseco has been right about a lot. Rocker is right when he laughs that only about 80 names were thrown into the media feeding pool through the Mitchell report. McNamee and Radomski have been granted more public credibility than one of the greatest position players and one of the greatest pitchers.

Okay, this has really gone too far. Please, somebody correct me if I am wrong. Is Gammons actually suggesting that, even though mountains of circumstantial and physical evidence point to the guilt of Clemens and Bonds, they should get more credibility than Radomski and McNamee, two guys who have nothing to gain by lying, just because they happen to be two "of the greatest"?

I have really never seen such an egregious display of slanted, factless, biased, obsequious journalism. I do believe that there are arguments to be made in favor of Clemens. Gammons, however, seems to be siding with him, and worse, sympathizing with him, purely based on the fact that he was really, really good. Just...disgusting.

Baseball season really can't get here quickly enough, can it?