Verducci On Clemens

Verducci on Clemens ... sounds like the worst porno ever made.

 

this is my problem: This wasn't just a straight news story in which the writer can allow the facts to speak for themselves. Verducci went into first-person mode when discussing his workout with Clemens and McNamee. there was PLENTY of opportunity for Verducci to say he'd been just as fooled by Clemens' manical workout methods and his "I didn't do it" defense at the 21 club as anyone else...and that, for whatever reason, he did not view Clemens' 35-and-beyond success with the same type of skepticism reserved for so many of Clemens' peers.

But he didn't. So many chances now for the premier baseball writer in America to say he was fooled--and that would provide an appropriate summation of the steroids scandal: if Verducci doesn't know who's using, then how can the rest of us?--and he continues to ask for accountability out of Selig and the rest of the game without partaking in self-analysis.

The story, while damning in the details, still seemed to me to be a rationalization of Clemens' methods...a defense, even. I don't see a single word in that story that will test Verducci's relationship with Clemens.

 

Ragu your reasoning is flawed.

Verducci wrote the definitive steroids in baseball story in 2002. Said article blows cover of notion that only hitters were using. Story showed clearly that Verducci was well informed about PED use by players.

He follows with Clemens story a year later - 2003. He attributes Clemens apparent fountain of youth to his workout regimen without even a suspicion of steroid use.

As BYH wrote since Verducci went into first person analysis in his recent story he owed it to SI readers to tell us his state of mind at time he wrote 2003 Clemens story. Did he at all suspect that Clemens was a steroid user? Did he think that Andy Pettitie who gaiined 5 mph on his fastball was using?

I've reread this story again and agree with BYH-- nothing was in there that will hurt is friendship with Clemens. Verducci tried to walk the tightrope between informing readers and not angering Roger. He badly failed his readers.

 

In 2003 story Verducci did not even raise the issue of steroids with either Clemens or Mcnamee.

To me at that point in time it seems like a natural question or observation unless you were concerned about keeping access to Clemens or getting Clemmens to write intro to your book.

 

I don't think Verducci's latest story is a defense of Clemens at all. His basic point is that Clemens seems to have convinced himself of his own lies, which I don't think is going to get him another workout invitation from the Rocket anytime soon. But I do find the story ultimately unsatisfying because Verducci seems unwilling to subject himself to the same scrutiny that he's now applying to Clemens. He may be the only journalist who actually worked out with Clemens and McNamee. Well, what happened? Did he ever bring up the subject of PEDs? If so, what did they say? If not, why not? If Verducci has what he feels is a reasonable explanation about why he never brought it up, I'd like to hear it. Or if he feels like he blew it and he should have asked about it, I'd like to hear that. But say SOMETHING. Don't act as if those stories never happened.

 

Ragu--I think you'll agree there's a big gap between 'can't print what you suspect' and 'heard the rumor but lalalalala not listening!!'

Verducci, by any account, is a complete baseball insider with unique access and information. At what point should he have stopped aggressively advancing the Clemens-hardest-working-man-in-baseball myth?

 

That's really my beef with Verducci in a nut shell. He is the baseball writer most closely associated with Clemens and also the baseball writer that gets the most credit for drawing attention to PED use in baseball.

His 2002 story on PED use was so astute that it's hard to accept that he did not consider or ask if Clemens used steroids when he wrote 2003 story.

His current first person account in this weeks SI crys out for some further explanation. Either he was completly fooled or was aware and chose not to write about it.

In same timeline Verducci was suggesting that Clemens success was due to training regiment and Bonds success do to PED's.

 

This is a good discussion.

At the time of Verducci's previous articles on Clemens, I don't see how he could print anything about what he "supected," but I have to agree with Boom that, in hindsight, I'd like to know if he ever asked Clemens about PEDs. What was the response (though we all know what it would have been)? I have no problem if Verducci asked, Clemens denied using and, without further evidence, Verducci left the whole bit out of the story.

But in the here and now, as he talks about Roger deluding himself (and this article was in no way a defense of Roger), I'd like to hear Verducci tell us if he was fooled at the time or if he had suspicions and no proof.

Some self-analysis on his reporting I think could be enlightening.

 

"The guy has been one of the hardest workers around, whether he cheated or not to gain an edge."

This is an argument -- an undeniably true one -- that has been blithely dismissed in many quarters as regards the relative culpability of other players. Now, with the testimonial (at least) evidence mounting against Clemens to the GOS level, the question must be asked:
And Bonds wasn't?

 

Many members of the Mafia are hard workers also.

It's commom knowledge that you can't just get results from taking PED's. You also need to train. PED's allow you to train at a more intense rate.

Ragu when you did your story on Clemens did your ask him about steroids?