I watched the Clemens interview with Mike Wallace on 60 minutes. I missed his news conference this afternoon, but what I've heard reported about it doesn't change my impression of what's going on.
That interview was spin in its purest form. It included ad hominem attacks on his accuser, the advancement of another theory (Vioxx) to explain possible future debilitation, and whines about how he gets 'no respect'. My wife, who watched his body language rather intently, is convinced he lied through his teeth (head movements, paper/pencil he was holding giving the appearance it was staged, etc).
For me, this has now disintegrated into a divorce proceeding. He said/she said. Who's to blame, who's wrong. And I don't care.
I couldn't figure out why he would call a news conference the day after his "interview" aired; it certainly wasn't to make himself more accessible to the media (who he blew off for a month). No - it was to announce his suit of McNamee and to play a recorded conversation with McNamee. Clemens called him Friday so the conversation could be recorded and used against him.
Whatever. If McNamee countersues as promised this will drag on for years. That will keep Clemens' name linked to steroid use in the public eye and permanently damage Clemens' reputation, as well as probably ruin his chances of getting into the Hall.
Actually being named in the report probably ruins his chances of getting into the Hall. I'm sure the BBWAA voters will apply the same strict standards they're using on McGwire, against whom there is also no hard proof, when they consider Clemens' candidacy.
Of course, I still believe in Santa Claus and the Tooth Fairy too.
If you didn't see it, take a look at yesterday's post. Again, all reasonable questions will be accepted and posed to Mr. DePodesta.
1 hour ago