Posted on 01/10/2008 8:35:18 AM PST by canuck_conservative
Most of you have never heard of Ralph Beard, or if you did, had forgotten him by the time he died a few weeks ago just short of 80. But back in the 1940s, Beard was a terrific All-American basketball player, who led Kentucky to two national championships and the United States to a gold medal in the 1948 Olympics. He was already a first-team NBA All-Star when it was revealed that he had taken money from gamblers to shave points in games at Kentucky.
Beard, like so many other players of that era, was summarily banned for life from the game. He admitted his guilt, too, saying that he had simply grown up poor and just couldn't resist taking the money. He lost it all for only about $700 -- branded forever as a fixer.
We tend to be more critical of athletes, like Ralph Beard, who conspire to lose, rather than those, like steroid users, who cheat trying to win. That's often dismissed as just being canny, looking for an edge. Why, Gaylord Perry was celebrated outright for his ability to throw illegal pitches; he tricked his way into the Hall of Fame, everybody laughing right along with him.
But the fact is that it makes no difference in which direction an athlete cheats. Either way, he is distorting fairness, which is the very essence of sport. Ralph Beard's transgressions cost his own team victory. If Roger Clemens -- or any other baseball player named as a user of steroids and human growth hormone (HGH) in the Mitchell Report -- is guilty as charged, then he cost other teams their fair due. What, pray, is the difference?
Now, of course, Clemens has taken a refrain from so many other accused athletes' lyrics by claiming that he didn't know that he was being given a banned substance. Barry Bonds swore he thought it was all just flaxseed oil -- remember? Hasn't C l e m e n s read that Bonds is up for perjury, that Marion Jones may well be sentenced to prison this very Friday for the same sort of lies? But here Clemens is, disputing his trainer, Brian McNamee, who testified -- under threat of jail if he was caught lying -- that he injected Clemens with steroids and HGH. The sad and bizarre phone call with McNamee that Clemens
taped last Friday, and then played in public, seemed only, to me, to confirm the pitcher's guilt. Mc-Namee was distraught for having testified against his old friend and meal ticket. Time and time again, he pleaded: What do you want me to do, Roger?
Wouldn't an innocent man, with the tape secretly running, say: just tell the truth, Brian. Clemens so often
told McNamee that he wanted the truth out, but when McNamee specifically asked Clemens what he should do, Clemens did not flat out ask him to tell the truth. Because, one can only surmise, then McNamee would say that he had already done that. And never did McNamee volunteer that he had lied. He seemed only to regret that the truth had hurt so.
All right, I'm sorry. Perhaps I'm just too cynical and hard-hearted. Perhaps I have just heard it all too often -- even emotionally, to my face -- from athletes claiming, with just as much dramatic insistence as Clemens supplied, that they were innocent …only to be convicted later.
Even after he told the truth, Ralph Beard spent more than 50 years of his life in shame. If Roger Clemens is guilty, then he deserves no better. Let's put the right word on it. Any player who took steroids is a fixer. He fixed games.
- Frank Deford is the senior contributing writer at Sports Illustrated and a regular commentator at National Public Radio, where this column originally was aired.
I don’t know if Clemens is lying or telling the truth. I just know that appearances can be deceiving.
The problem is that its the evidence that points to Clemens' guilt, irrespective of the conclusion drawn by the media.
Clemens' phone call is indicative of guilt, not innocence.
The idea that multi-millionaires would let non-authorized untrained people give them injections of legal medicines, is frankly laughable. However, it makes sense if it's an illicit substance.
Clemens' career, not only the chart of success but also his bizarre psychological breakdowns in high-pressure games, suggests steriod use.
Also, he's just plain dumb enough to do all of it.
If this is the case, well hell, ever wonder how Hillary got that big second wind campaigning in N.H. and carried through to win? Yep, it was me. I gave her a gulp of my private illegal hooch stock.
I agree. Everyone except Bill Clinton. He displayed that kind of anger because he he was caught.
Thanks for making my point. Clemens made the phone call so he is guilty? Would be innocent if he hadn't made the phone call?
My thoughts, as well. McNamee had no incentive to lie to the feds. He was a friend of Clemens, so why would he say Roger took steroids if it wasn't true? McNamee told the ruth because he knew he'd go to prison if he didn't.
Now does anyone still believe him?
All one had to do is look at her physique to know she was lying.
I will not be too hard on players who used steroids. MLB knew they were being used and turned a blind eye to the usage of them.
Like Britney Spears.... ehehehehehehehe....
The most obvious thing to me? None of these guys today....compare to Bob Gibson, Johnny Bench, or Micky Mantle. Their use of various medical achievements...whether legal today or illegal tomorrow...make today’s players (since the mid-90s)...a step down from the great stars of years ago. It puzzles me that we have to pay $150 for a family of four to attend a game...that doesn’t even match up to a game in 1968.
If a professional athlete wants to take steroids or HGH it none of the Government’s business.
If a professional sports league wants to ban these substances or even coffee, vitamins and aspirin, that is their business and not the government’s.
Let me be PERFECTLY clear.
Your answer would be a good one, if we were talking about someone of normal intelligence.
However, Roger Clemens is a retard.
And this retard thinks that his guilty-as-all-hell performance on that call actually exonerates him.
Guilty, AND stupidity on display for the whole world to see besides.
Great job, Roger.
As I phoned into Sound Off here in Mobile, I find it more than coincidental that the author of the Mitchell Report is on the payroll of the BoSox - strange that the majority of those named played for the Yankees, the hated Yankees, and the most pages written about one player was in fact Clemens - a former BoSox - who’s as maligned by BoSox fans as the Yankees are.....just my humble, Yankee-loving opinion!
I don’t know if Clemens used Steroids and neither does this BoZo. This smells of Duke Rape case journalism. Surely the witness there wasn’t lying. Right.
If Clemens lies under oath, he should go to jail(if proved). If he didn’t take Steroids, why can’t he defend himslf?
um, if they were mob-backed wagers wouldn't they be illegal, and the people making them equally guilty of involvement with, and subsidizing, organized crime?
I’m going to have to look up more about Frank Beard and his part in the scandals. While the actual transgressions happened before I was born, I remember when the scandal broke - though I was a tiny tyke.
There was a cover of LOOK or Life magazine with an electric shaver mowing down big red “whiskers.” My hometown in OK was intimately involved with Beard’s b-ball activities, because our locals were the other half of that winning Olympic team and a friend’s dad was the coach.
They were all heroes to us and I don’t remember the taint associated with Beard or any other of the KY players, if there were others involved. Thanks for the article.
I’m still undecided about Clemens - as I’ve posted before, I *want* to believe him, but down deep in my heart, I don’t yet do so “beyond a reasonable doubt” (yeah, I know, I don’t have to - in his civil suit, it just takes a preponderance of evidence). Unless McNamee has some kind of proof of his allegations - and I’m not sure what it would be - it’s still *he said/he said.*
Well, your logic runs like this:
The Duke rape 'victim' was a liar.
The Duke victim was a witness.
Therefore all witnesses are liars.
ERROR!
BTTT
That’s the most convoluted response that I have ever seen. I love the way you create a pseudo-syllogism out of one statement (mischaracterized at that) and then make up the remainder yourself. I guess there are actually two Bozos out there on this subject, not one.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.