Will Carroll at Baseball Prospectus did a great job summing up the hearings. Here are some of the key details with commentary.

For those with Baseball Prospectus premium subscriptions, you can read the text of Will’s excellent article here. If not, he made some great points that provide some sanity on the issue, and with his permission I am going to outline and comment.

In the interests of full disclosure I am linking something I wrote last year on Barry Bonds. It is my belief, based on a somewhat novel use of Bayes’ Theorem to the case of Barry Bonds, that at least in his case it is likely that performance enhancing drugs did contribute to his performance. I have never written about my personal views aside from that one article above until now, so before I address Will’s article I should make it clear what my views are and that at no time has Will ever indicated what his personal views are, so this is no apologia by a sycophant.

Do not take from my position on Bayes’ Theorem that I am against the use of steroids in baseball or sports, or that I believe Bonds’ record is illegitimate. Professionals should be allowed to use steroids from a “morality” standpoint in my opinion. That is to say, while it may be government’s or the baseball industry’s right to proscribe their use, there is no moral reason I can see that the use should be proscribed.

Let’s even assume that steroids shorten a player’s life (which is by no means true, in fact there is no proof of this, Lyle Alzado and his medical education notwithstanding). “Abuse” of steroids is far different than the mere usage. It is not for me to say that this is not a worthy trade off; playing major league ball and gaining economically is a choice that many people might make. Moreover, the hypocrisy of older players is stunning. It was fine, in their minds, to take greenies by the handful; but let someone provide them with a soapbox on the steroid issue and they may never get down from it.

The appeal to “the children” is laughable in my opinion. Yet again the public chooses to prop up a boogeyman rather than confront its own failures, abdicating one’s own responsibilities for the easy out of a straw man. On virtually any political issue “the children” are trotted out as a trump card to play that ends the discussion. Again, trying steroids once or twice is far different than “abuse” and should be recognized as such.

That Bonds was helped by PED’s I believe to be true for now, and I also think that it will eventually be proven should it be pursued scientifically; but that does not imply that I am casting judgment on him from a moral standpoint. Far from it.

1. Will makes the quite important point that Pettitte and Clemens’ accounts can in many ways be reconciled. Citing the actual documents, Will points out that:

Pettitte himself says that after discussing the use of PEDs with Clemens, he felt that “when Roger told me that he didn’t take it [HGH] and I misunderstood him, I took it for that, that I misunderstood him” (Pettitte, p. 28)…What is interesting is that the differences between Pettitte’s statement and Clemens’ statement are so easily reconciled. It’s not without problems, but it’s hardly the diametrically-opposed case that was presented.

At no point—no point—does Pettitte ever state, even in passing, that he knew or saw the use of any substance by Clemens.

This is a far cry from the position of the mainstream media.

2. From what I saw of the hearings McNamee was clearly not credible. I say this having for ten years been a trial litigator in New York City who has tried many cases and has argued a dozen or so times before the New York State Appellate Division (the state’s second highest court). From what I observed of his demeanor and body language, (which admittedly was somewhat limited since I didn’t obviously attend the hearings) about this I am fairly certain. This does not imply, of course, that for each statement McNamee made, that statement is false. I would be willing to wager the majority are, however. Someone who allegedly saved needles for seven years needs to find a windmill to attack.

3. Another great observation is the fact that Steve Phillips is able to address the issues for ESPN. This is beyond the pale in my view. Will aptly pointed out that:

Unfortunately, Phillips failed to read the testimony given at those hearings, where some of the most respected endocrinologists in the world stated that there was no scientific basis for either of his claims. At some point, someone at ESPN is going to turn to Phillips and ask him about why Kirk Radomski was allowed to visit players in his clubhouse, much the same way that Greg Anderson visited the Giants. I can’t wait for that answer.

All I can say is that this assessment says so much about Phillips’ lack of credibility that it is unbelievable that he can even keep a straight face.

4. Will makes the intriguing point that:

There was what appeared to be a clear, partisan divide on the Oversight Committee, with the Democrats, led by Rep. Henry Waxman (D-CA) tending to side with Brian McNamee, and with the Republicans tending to side with Roger Clemens.

This definitely appeared to be true, and seeing Dan Burton attack McNamee brings it home. I have my own theory on why this is the case but I invite all readers to comment if they are so inclined.

Agree or disagree, and I freely admit that I do not have anywhere near the pedigree that Will does, his writing on the issue is as trenchant as commentary gets and is required reading for anyone interested in the issues.

For my own view, it is no surprise that this current Congress gets historically low approval ratings with the likes of Waxman as its public majority face. While it is clearly within Congress’ purview to hold such hearings, the fact that they were held is a travesty, and let’s hope that for once Waxman is telling the truth when he says this will be the last of it.