Quantcast
Channel: The Captain's Blog » Roger Clemens
Viewing all articles
Browse latest Browse all 2

Does Jon Heyman’s Allegation Against Pettitte Belie a Conflict of Interest?

0
0

Roger Clemens stares down Brian McNamee during his 2008 Congressional testimony. (Photo: LA Times)

Was Andy Pettitte’s less than perfect recollection while testifying last week during the Roger Clemens’ perjury trial a genuine lapse in his memory, or a concerted effort to help his friend beat the wrap? Although lawyer-turned-blogger Craig Calcaterra did a good job demonstrating that Pettitte did not flip flop on the stand, that didn’t stop CBS’ Jon Heyman from implying otherwise. According to Heyman, Pettitte’s fuzzy memory was suspicious enough to not only call into question the validity of his testimony, but also his own HGH-related admission.

Make no bones about it. Heyman is essentially accusing Pettitte of committing perjury. That’s a powerful allegation, but because the Yankees’ pitcher is a public figure and Heyman is a journalist, it probably falls into the class of fair speculation. Unfortunately, it may also represent a serious conflict of interest.

McNamee is one of those old-school people who believes to his core the sign on the clubhouse door that says ‘What happens in here, stays in here’”. - Jon Heyman, Sports Illustrated, November 14, 2006

Ever since the Clemens’ HGH allegations emerged, Heyman has expressed his belief that Brian McNamee, the former trainer who claims to have provided the seven-time Cy Young award winner with the drugs, was and is telling the truth. Heyman’s trust was so strong that in the midst of the PED furor, he wrote at least two relatively positive profiles of McNamee. The first article, which was published about one-year before the Mitchell Report, paints McNamee as a beleaguered, but innocent victim of a railroad campaign. In that piece, Heyman portrays McNamee as being “loyal to a fault”, which is presented as an explanation for his other proclivity: being at the center of false allegations. Even an accusation of rape is dismissed by the article as another example of McNamee “taking the hit”.

As we now know, just about everything McNamee told Heyman was a lie. That’s not Heyman’s fault. According to many accounts, McNamee has earned the reputation of being a clever con man, so it’s no surprise that he was able to pull the wool over the eyes of an unsuspecting journalist. As the old age goes, fool me once, shame on you. However, Heyman wasn’t fooled only once. After the Mitchell report was released and the Clemens furor broke, the then Sports Illustrated columnist still seemed to be in McNamee’s corner. On January 7, 2008, Heyman scored an exclusive sit down with the embattled trainer. Together in the latter’s Long Island home, the two watched Clemens’ appearance on 60 Minutes during which the pitcher repeatedly professed his innocence. This time, instead of portraying himself as an honest victim, McNamee now claimed he was only guilty of trying to do what was best for his clients, or, as Heyman writes, “steer them to safer drugs if they were already so inclined”. As for his previous denials, well, McNamee described them to Heyman as white lies, and, apparently, Heyman bought them all.

What McNamee says he did back then was to educate players in what he recognized to be a steroid epidemic. He says he didn’t push players to performance-enhancing drugs, but only helped steer them to safer drugs if they were already so inclined.”  - Jon Heyman, Sports Illustrated, January 7, 2008

After reading Heyman’s second article back in January 2008, I began an email correspondence with the SI columnist. Despite coming on strong by accusing Heyman of a conflict of interest, he graciously replied to several of my concerns, but did little to dispel the impression I had that the writer had become too fond of his subject. In fact, his replies only made my suspicion grow stronger. Then, during the course of our back and forth, Heyman made an appearance on the Mike and the Mad Dog radio show, during which he not only defended McNamee against the aforementioned rape allegations, but also admitted to “liking” him. Again, his fondness was hardly a crime, but certainly something that Heyman should have disclosed in prior reporting.

Is Jon Heyman engaged in a concerted effort to defend Brian McNamee, even if it means making false accusations? Most likely not. However, it is very possible that his judgment on the matter is colored by his personal or professional relationships. After all, we do know he likes McNamee better than Clemens (as he again admitted during a recent exchange on Twitter).

Heyman isn’t alone in thinking that McNamee’s allegations against Clemens are true (in the interest of full disclosure, I do not believe they are), but that doesn’t give him the right to make accusations about other’s ulterior motives without providing some evidentiary basis, not to mention considering and disclosing the possibility of his own. The power of the pen is a very big responsibility. When writing about free agents and clubhouse gossip, it’s ok to take some poetic license, but when the subject is a federal crime, more discretion should be used. In this case, it seems as if Heyman allowed his emotional connection to the case lead to an overreaction. Is that libel? Probably not, but, at the very least, it does seem as if an apology is in order.


Viewing all articles
Browse latest Browse all 2

Latest Images

Trending Articles





Latest Images