A Sporting View

Roger Clemens

I'm watching ESPN a few days ago and there's a discussion about Roger Clemens and steroids. It's kind of a three-person panel and the topic is "do we believe Roger?"

Of course, one person reminds us that the Mitchell Report mentioned Roger Clemens 82 different times in relation to performance enhancing drugs. And we're told that Brian McNamee's "testimony" is now somewhat "validated" because Andy Petit came forward and admits to some wrongdoing, which was alleged by McNamee AND McNamee is the chap who says he personally injected Clemens twice.

Now, I agree with most reasonable people that this is a lot of damning information: 82 mentions in a 400 page report and testimony by someone who has now had a piece of his overall testimony corroborated, if only slightly.

And then the woman on the ESPN panel sits back in her chair and gives her final bit of journalism: "Well, the burden of proof is definitely on Clemens."

Something tells me there are a few others who feel the same way: "the burden of proof is now on Roger."

Can I ask one very simple question here? How do you prove you didn't do something?

We all know the classic conversation:

"When are you going to stop beating your wife?"

"Well, I never beat my wife!"

"Is that so? Prove it!"

How does the chap prove he never beat his wife?

Let's suppose the testimony from McNamee stated that at 4:15PM on June 3rd, 2003 he injected Roger Clemens with a banned or illegal substance. What does Roger need to do to "prove" his innocence to that allegation? I guess he could go back into time and find someone who he was with at 4:15 on June 3rd, 2003 who would be able to give Roger an alibi for that incident.

And of course we all remember what we were doing four years ago at a specific time in the afternoon on a very specific day. Right?

I'm not here to tell you that Roger's guilty or Roger's innocent. But the burden of proof is NOT on Roger, no matter how many mentions there are in the Mitchell Report or the testimony of a club trainer.

I had a feeling this Mitchell Report would fall short in certain ways. It has produced a few admissions, albeit what appear to be scripted admissions of having taken such-and-such only once (or twice) and "I did so to help with the recovery form an injury" and "I only did so to help my team," etc.

I wrote a letter to Commissioner Selig—a copy of the letter can be viewed here—that presented an alternative solution. Bud wrote back and in several paragraphs thought my suggestion had merit but he wanted the Mitchell Report to run its course. Hard to argue with that then, but not so hard now.

The one thing many fans don't want is to have this whole thing linger on for months and years. To have unanswered questions about records and World Series, etc., etc.

Anyway, I'm glad the Mitchell Report came out. It was forward motion on a very important issue. But it fell short of giving the players, the owners, the fans what we really need and want: full disclosure.

Bobby Petrino, Nick Sabin, Steve Spurrier...

The names of three coaches who coached college football and then took a stab at coaching a team in the NFL. All three failed at the position of NFL Head Coach and headed back to college. I won't go into "how" they left their coaching positions, as enough ink has been spread on that subject, especially regarding Sabin and Petrino.

Why was it so hard for these exceptionally talented coaches to make the grade in the NFL?

Well, let's examine one very critical aspect of being a coach: leverage.

What is probably THE key point of leverage a coach has with his players? The ability to sit the player down.

The way it works in college, players choose the school. They know ahead of time what kind of "system" the football team uses and they know something about the coach. So they go into this with some element of self-determinism. And when it comes to playing time, I would imagine every college football player WANTS to be on the field. With the very talented players, they HAVE to be on the field. Why? Well, if they're not playing, then the NFL scouts are not seeing them. A college player that has his sights set on playing in the NFL is absolutely determined to showcase his talents. And you can NOT showcase your talents on the bench.

So, from a leverage point of view, the college football coach has LOTS of it. This is not to say every college player wants to be on that field solely because of the need to prove their worth to pro football scouts. But I think it's safe to say that those college players who do have a pro football career in mind -- these players are not super eager to rock the boat.

How much of this very same leverage does an NFL coach have? Certainly some, but I submit NOWHERE NEAR the amount a college coach has. A pro football player can be benched and he is still going to make an enormous amount of money. Whether he plays or not. If a pro football player wants to mouth off to his coach, he can pretty much do so without anywhere near the downside if the college player attempts the same. The pro player has made it. He's there. He's got the big money coming in. And most people know that it's an awful lot easier to fire the coach than it is to "fire" the player.

So leverage is a factor.

Yes, a pro player can be fined and he can even be suspended. But when you are working your butt off to put all the pieces together so that you can HAVE a pro career, your willingness to be a team player and stay on the same page as the head coach is very high. That same willingness has dropped to some degree when the player turns pro.

I am not saying that every pro player has this reduced willingness. There are a tremendous number of professional football players who take their job seriously and work extremely hard to play their very best and be a real team player. But there are some who do not have this "professional" viewpoint. And these guys grate on the coach and they grate on their fellow players.

It's just a bit tougher for some professional athletes to put in the same intensity when they've "arrived."