Yeah, that lawsuit is still around. It was filed in 2009, before Clemens found himself up on criminal charges but after the Mitchell Report came out and Clemens decided that the best defense was a good offense and went after his former trainer in a high-pitched P.R. campaign. And maybe the best defense is a good offense. It’s just that Clemens’ offense was pretty damn dumb and now he finds himself in a judge’s doghouse.
As the Daily News reports, Clemens and his legal team have been called on the carpet by the federal judge hearing McNamee’s defamation case. Clemens has stalled and delayed, apparently in an effort to avoid turning over hundreds of emails between him and his advisors in the days following the release of the Mitchell Report. It was then that the idea to come out with a coordinated P.R. campaign in which Clemens denied drug use, trashed McNamee as a liar and a criminal and portrayed himself as the best pitcher and biggest victim in baseball history.
The questions about McNamee’s character were fair game in the criminal case against Clemens — you have to go after the credibility of your accusers when your freedom is on the line — but my feeling back in 2008, as now, was that Clemens never should have launched the P.R. offensive to begin with. It was unnecessary — if he stayed silent it all would have gone away — it led to all sorts of damaging personal information coming out about Clemens and, ultimately, his going on the offensive is what led to him being called before Congress which led to his criminal prosecution. It also spawned this lawsuit, of course, which McNamee filed as a defensive measure when Clemens sued him first. Turns out Clemens’ suit was a dud. McNamee, though he never would’ve filed it if all things were equal, still has a viable case years later.
My guess is that there is some pretty bad stuff in those emails Clemens doesn’t want to let loose. Stuff that can’t hurt him criminally anymore like they could have a couple of years ago, but stuff that will show him to be a liar and a cheater. Which, yes, everyone thinks he is anyway. But it’s one thing to hold that as a personal opinion. Another thing altogether to have it laid out before you in black and white.
The Oakland Athletics ballpark saga has dragged on for years and years and years. They’ve considered San Jose, Fremont and at least three locations in Oakland as potential new ballpark sites. The whole process has lasted almost as long as the Braves and Rangers played in their old parks before building new ones.
In the past several months the Athletics’ “stay in Oakland” plan has gained momentum. At one point the club thought it had an agreement to build a new place near Peralta/Laney College in downtown Oakland. There have been hiccups with that, so two other sites — Howard Terminal, favored by city officials — and the current Oakland Coliseum site have remained in play. There are pros and cons to each of these sites, as we have discussed in the past.
One consideration not mentioned before was mentioned by team president David Kaval yesterday: sea level rise due to climate change. From the San Francisco Chronicle:
Kaval mentioned twice that the Howard Terminal site would have to take into account sea-level rise and transportation concerns — and he said there have been conversations with the city and county and the Joint Powers Authority about developing the Coliseum site.
The Howard Terminal/Jack London Square area of Oakland has been identified as susceptible to dramatically increased flooding as a result of projected sea level rise due to climate change. On the other side of the bay both the San Francisco Giants and Golden State Warriors have had to consider sea level rise in their stadium/arena development plans. Now it’s the Athletics’ turn.
Sports teams are not alone in this. Multiple governmental organizations, utilities and private businesses have already made contingency plans, or are at least discussing contingency plans, to deal with this reality. Indeed, beyond the Bay Area, private businesses, public companies, insurance companies and even the U.S. military are increasingly citing climate change and sea level rise in various reports and disclosures of future risks and challenges. Even the Trump Organization has cited it as a risk . . . for its golf courses.
Fifteen of Major League Baseball’s 30 teams play in coastal areas and another five of them play near the Great Lakes. While some of our politicians don’t seem terribly concerned about it all, people and organizations who will have skin the game 10, 20 and 50 years from now, like the Oakland Athletics, are taking it into account.