Roger Clemens Or Martina Hingis: Which Legacy's In Worse Shape?
I'm out of the country, so I had to read the transcript from Roger Clemens' interview with Mike Wallace on "60 Minutes" last night. I knew Clemens would deny he ever used steroids, but I was more interested in his willingness to file a lawsuit against George Mitchell (and by default, Major League Baseball) for slander.
Here's a look at what Clemens had to say: "Everybody's talking about sue, sue, sue. Should I sue? Well, let me exhaust. Let me just spend. How about, let's keep spending. But I’m gonna explore what I can do and then I want to see if it’s gonna be worth it, worth all the headache."
Worth all the headache? Roger. You just spent all this time explaining how your whole career has been compromised and you're not willing to blow a couple million to try to change societal opinion? (To get it to the point of a summary judgment against you, it might not even cost that much).
Yes, it's a shame that you're guilty until proven innocent and the libel laws as a public figure give you no shot of winning, but you can explain all that after you lose the case.
UPDATE: I'm glad Clemens (or his lawyers) reads this blog, he has sued his trainer Brian McNamee for defamation. This should be interesting to see how it now plays.
Meanwhile, allegedly taken steroids is clearly proving to be more damaging to a reputation that testing positive for cocaine.
It's gotta be the most out of nowhere drug positive we've ever seen: Martina Hingis snorting and getting caught at Wimbledon?
But Hingis' legacy--because, at least at this point, cocaine doesn't seem to be performance enhancing -could be in better shape than Clemens. And that's with Hingis' manager telling the Associated Press upon Hingis getting a two-year suspension: "Since Martina has retired from competitive sports, it makes no sense for her to challenge the judgment."
Sounds like Hingis, among other things, needs a new manager.
Questions? Comments? SportsBiz@cnbc.com