Mr. Clemens goes to Washington

Right off: I couldn't care less about steroids. If Roger Clemens wants to do steroids or HGH or smoke angel dust in the dugout before the game, its his choice not mine and I don't believe for 1 second that it actually makes him better at anything. These drugs are not 'performance enhancers', they just make you bigger not better. For all the hand-wringing about the influence on the children the moralizers are completely missing the point--they're making it worse! By dragging Mark McGwire in front of Congress you're tacitly telling the children that if you do steroids you'll hit 500 HR's when nothing could be further from the truth! Why not bring up schlubs like Ryan Anderson? He actually got busted for steroids--unlike McGwire, Clemens or Bonds--and he stunk! What kind of 'performance enhancement' did he get? None because he stunk and it don't matter how many drugs he does, he's still gonna stink. Women in America have fought for decades for the right to control their own bodies, why don't these athletes stick up for their rights once in a while instead of pretending to not be guilty?

Tomorrow Clemens goes before some relatively unimportant Congressional committee (*) to proclaim his victimhood at the hands of Brian McNamee and the blood-sniffing American media that lives to point out the faults of others while ignoring its own culpability. Is Clemens a liar? I don't know and I don't care. To me he's a Hall of Famer and he always will be regardless of how many packs a day he smokes or what websites he peruses in the off-season. He played baseball at a very high level for a long time and contributed to a lot of good teams over the years, that's all I know. His 'morality' is his own problem, its not like I'm buying a used car from the dude.
(* To be fair, I consider all Congressional committees to be 'relatively unimportant')

Virtually all of the input I've gotten on this story is from the sports media which has its own point of view, its own narrative structure for this story that may or may not be relevant to reality. None of these sports talk guys have mentioned that today that committee had a hearing on Human Growth Hormone. Do you see? These Congressmen probably aren't interested in the he said/he said sportsy bullshit. This committee is interested in HGH and baseball (for whatever reason) is the high profile HGH case. Prediction: This committee is likely to conclude that HGH is the medicine of the future and won't give a shit about Clemens or McNamee or Major League Baseball (probably a good 2 years down the road when we've moved on to a gajillion other things and forgotten all this noise). You gotta remember: Congressmen spend most of their day listening to old people complain about health care costs. HGH may well be what keeps people alive longer for cheaper. Roger Clemens may be the test case for the wonders of the medicine of the future and what Congressman could pass up a health care victory? Clemens may become a Babe the Blue Ox for the ever-increasing elderly voting bloc, the new Matlock, the new Joe Dimaggio--he'll go down as the man who made Obama's health care plan look prescient! And what first term president could pass up a health care victory?

If this committee even notices Clemens at all it may be for what makes life better. Are you ready for Roger Clemens to be hailed as a hero?

Africa's game is the world's game

Al-Jazeera has a checkered reputation in the western world. Sure, their news items morbidly dwell on the Gaza Strip or the shifting winds of Iraq (and the Business Editor is lamentably unimpressed with their reportage on international commerce). But we dwell on Britney Spears, steroids and real estate crises in a pessimism-inducing manner when they could just as easily be seen as examples of what a stunningly varied culture and vibrant economy we have at our fingertips.

And westerners are a mildly (and thoroughly) paranoid lot. Good god, how many of us detest Fox News or CNN or PBS or the BBC or Bloomberg, Sky Sports, ESPN, CNBC? So you can see western skepticism of Al-Jazeera as a product of xenophobia but I prefer to see that western skepticism permeates everything in the free world. Its annoying when it leads to paralysis of self-doubt but it comes in handy for driving innovation and expanding cultural choices. So to me Al-Jazeera is just another news organization, no more anti-American than any of the American news outlets.

Here is a good overview of the African Nations Cup courtesy of Al-Jazeera's fine sports page. They're all over international soccer and auto racing and Olympic events. When it comes to cricket they're second to none (I'd love to admire that but I kinda hate cricket) and they also have a curious fascination with the NBA routinely and breathlessly updating the exploits of Kobe, Dirk, Nash, etc., in a manner I find quite encouraging for b-ball as an international sport. And they're plugged into You Tube as well as any news outlet I've encountered. Bravo to you, Al-Jazeera! And being hated for your radical views is the American way of welcoming you to the world, like a dog that growls before humping your leg.

Al Jazeera's African Cup round-up

Super Bowl XLII (NYG 17-14 Pats)

My thought was that the offensive lines would both be marvelous and Brady and Eli would both have great games and the Pats would pull away in the 4th. Thinking back on it, they both moved the ball very well, they just didn't score. They were both consistently converting on 3rd down until they got near FG range and then they'd falter. Not til the 4th did the offenses finally break through. And on that last drive I knew the Pats would be looking long for Moss but with 3 timeouts I thought they could've tried at least one underneath route for Welker or Faulk. Not sure why they pissed their time away like that, very unlike what the Pats offense has been like this year.

Brady wasn't sharp. A fair amount of credit for that goes to the NYG pass rush which was in his face all night and the Pats o-line which picked a bad time for their worst game of the year. Funny, for all the talk of Brady's walking boot nobody noted Moss's comment about Brady's high ankle sprain--in all that endless talk about the boot I never anyone heard anyone say 'high ankle sprain'! That said, I thought Brady moved well he just wasn't sharp on his passes, man, he was spraying balls all night. Looked more like a shoulder problem which could've been exacerbated by that pass rush.

So are the Giants the best team in the league? Sure, dude, they won the championship which is how we determine who the best team is. I don't see much room for an argument there. Winning the Super Bowl is what it's all about and the Giants did it. And the Pats didn't. Good season but they didn't win the game that everybody's trying to win so in a lot of ways it was all for naught. Funny, the 2 highest score teams in NFL history, 1998 Vikings and 2007 Patriots, both featured Randy Moss and both failed to win the championship. Oh well. Nobody remembers that the 1995 Indians had the best winning percentage ever or that Manny Ramirez hit 7th or that Sandy Alomar hit 30 HR's in the 9 spot--shit, most don't even remember that they were the victims of the Braves' only World Series title. You don't win the big one, you don't get remembered.

Early pre-pre-pre-season pick for next year: Cowboys over Steelers. We'll see if I still think come draft day (April 26).

Aussie Open update

Didn't get to see as much as I would've liked. I caught most of Djokovic taking out Federer in the semis and it was what you might expect. Just because Federer has whipped everybody in straight sets for as long as anyone can remember doesn't exactly mean that his matches aren't competitive. Quite the contrary! Tennis is a game of inches and the slightest advantage can look like an avalanche on the scorecard. Andy Roddick's best tennis has probably been straight set losses to Federer. For the first time in ages Federer didn't get those inches, the breaks didn't go his way and he went out early (yeah, great champions consider the semi-finals 'early'). Federer has always been vulnerable in tie-breaks and that's where Djokovic got him in the 2nd set. A breakthrough win for Djokovic, a good player in Federer's shadow for a while, he may be peaking at just the right time. I didn't see any of Tsonga's upset of Nadal in the semis nor of the final. Bet they were good. Djokovic over Tsonga in the final was not anyone's prediction.

I did see most of Sharapova over Ivanovic. Again, it wasn't a whipping, it was a close contest where Sharapova was able to exert her will when she needed it most. Good match by a good champ. Sharapova has won a Wimbledon, a US and an Aussie now. Can she take a French? Serena Williams has won all the majors but I believe she's the only one since Andre Agassi to win on all surfaces.