To read the tribute to SFC Marcus Muralles, please click here
Wednesday, February 13, 2008
Somewhere Between Fair and Foul...
While the boys are getting their school work done, we usually have Fox News on. Today, FNC is wall-to-wall Waxman and his hearings with Clemens and McNamee on Clemens' steroid use. Plenty of CYA on display. I wonder, if they think Clemens and/or McNamee lied to the Mitchell Commission or the Feds, why do they think they'll tell the truth in the hearing? Is the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform that awe-inspiring or feared?) Of course, I have a few thoughts on the topic.
First, I'm a purist, and I don't think athletes should take steroids or performance enhancing drugs. As to what qualifies as "peformance enhancing drugs," it's up to others to decide what that means [are vitamins "performance enhancing?" Is the inhaler an asthmatic has to take (with a prescription) a "performance enhancer?"] There is a place in medicine for steroids, and on the playing field (or in the locker room) isn't it.
Second, it's not Congress' place to get into this. Congress has been sticking their fingers into way too many pies lately all in the name of "government reform." Where in the Constitution is it written that Congress can call witnesses and basically put them on trial? Why is OK for them to subpoena private medical records? Seriously, if it's there, let me know. They're all about grandstanding, and it's getting boring. (Yeah, it's on my tv- for background noise- but I wish they'd allow print journalists into the hearing room but not cameras. They wouldn't ramble on so much that way.)
Third, McNamee is coming off as a weasel. He just admitted to lying to the Feds about hard evidence. And there's something about a b-b-q at Jose Conseco's house, and everyone at the party said Clemens wasn't there, but McNamee is insistent that Roger was there. (teeheehee- Rep. Burton from Indiana is beating McNamee up right now about all the other lies he's told since the investigation began.) UPDATE: (1:30pm He just got pushed into admitting that he's a drug dealer. Well, that's interesting...)
Fourth, I'm not a Clemens' apologist. His neck is big enough to warrant speculation, at least. Unfortunately, from what I can tell, there is no way of proving he took PEDs or not. If he did, he may or may not face the consequences of his actions. If he didn't, his reputation will never be repaired. He's in deep kimchee either way. Oh, yeah... and his lawyer should have never taunted the IRS (but that's another story).
Fifth, there is some odd Catch 22 about the whole hearing process. They're being asked about conversations and events that happened years (a decade or more in some cases) ago. Granted, there are some things that stick out in your memory because they're personally important or historically significant (most people can tell you what they were doing when they heard about 9/11 or when JFK died). Some people can remember conversations from a while back because that's the way they're wired. I don't know that this is the norm. I have to admit, if I was called before Congress to answer questions about a conversation I had with so-and-so 15 years ago, I'd have to pull a Hillary and say "I don't remember." That would make me seem evasive or secretive or something. My memory just isn't that photo- (or phono-) graphic. To me, it seems like House hearings are grandstanding events that are lose-lose for the witnesses.
ok... it's lunch time now... maybe some pizza will clear this icky taste out of my mouth...
First, I'm a purist, and I don't think athletes should take steroids or performance enhancing drugs. As to what qualifies as "peformance enhancing drugs," it's up to others to decide what that means [are vitamins "performance enhancing?" Is the inhaler an asthmatic has to take (with a prescription) a "performance enhancer?"] There is a place in medicine for steroids, and on the playing field (or in the locker room) isn't it.
Second, it's not Congress' place to get into this. Congress has been sticking their fingers into way too many pies lately all in the name of "government reform." Where in the Constitution is it written that Congress can call witnesses and basically put them on trial? Why is OK for them to subpoena private medical records? Seriously, if it's there, let me know. They're all about grandstanding, and it's getting boring. (Yeah, it's on my tv- for background noise- but I wish they'd allow print journalists into the hearing room but not cameras. They wouldn't ramble on so much that way.)
Third, McNamee is coming off as a weasel. He just admitted to lying to the Feds about hard evidence. And there's something about a b-b-q at Jose Conseco's house, and everyone at the party said Clemens wasn't there, but McNamee is insistent that Roger was there. (teeheehee- Rep. Burton from Indiana is beating McNamee up right now about all the other lies he's told since the investigation began.) UPDATE: (1:30pm He just got pushed into admitting that he's a drug dealer. Well, that's interesting...)
Fourth, I'm not a Clemens' apologist. His neck is big enough to warrant speculation, at least. Unfortunately, from what I can tell, there is no way of proving he took PEDs or not. If he did, he may or may not face the consequences of his actions. If he didn't, his reputation will never be repaired. He's in deep kimchee either way. Oh, yeah... and his lawyer should have never taunted the IRS (but that's another story).
Fifth, there is some odd Catch 22 about the whole hearing process. They're being asked about conversations and events that happened years (a decade or more in some cases) ago. Granted, there are some things that stick out in your memory because they're personally important or historically significant (most people can tell you what they were doing when they heard about 9/11 or when JFK died). Some people can remember conversations from a while back because that's the way they're wired. I don't know that this is the norm. I have to admit, if I was called before Congress to answer questions about a conversation I had with so-and-so 15 years ago, I'd have to pull a Hillary and say "I don't remember." That would make me seem evasive or secretive or something. My memory just isn't that photo- (or phono-) graphic. To me, it seems like House hearings are grandstanding events that are lose-lose for the witnesses.
ok... it's lunch time now... maybe some pizza will clear this icky taste out of my mouth...
