Congressional Hearing on Steroids in Baseball Just Got Interesting by Rob Trahan

Home Log In Sign Up FAQ's Contact ProBlogs About ProBlogs

Become a ProBlogger!

Be a part of the professional blogging community at ProBlogs.com!

Signup Now! | Log In

Featured Bloggers

Creative^(51,496)

Robert Melaccio, sr^(25,902)

CatherineYen^(18,330)

Mike Fak^(17,921)

Danny Davids^(13,026)

Alf Gordon^(13,015)
Rob Trahan^(12,251)

beanerywriters^(11,203)
CarolynCHolland^(8,901)

BJChips^(5,364)

Home » Categories » Sports » Baseball » Congressional Hearing on Steroids in Baseball Just Got Interesting

Congressional Hearing on Steroids in Baseball Just Got Interesting

By Rob Trahan^(12,251)

Posted Wednesday, January 09, 2008
View All Blog Posts submitted by Rob Trahan

Ladies and gentlemen, bar your doors and hide your children. The steroids issue in baseball just got a lot hairier. Congress is involved and this time they're in it for more than just grandstanding.

In March 2005, The congressional committee that interviewed Mark McGwire, Sammy Sosa, Rafael Palmeiro and others did little actual investigating. They asked questions, sure. But none of them were probing, none of them were hard-hitting.

They had originally scheduled a similar meeting with Roger Clemens, Andy Pettitte, Brian McNamee, Jason Giambi and others for this week. The House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform (the committee conducting the interviews) announced today that they have postponed the meetings to February 13 and they will take sworn testimony from each person involved before the hearings.

This bipartisan move (both the Democratic chairman, Rep. Henry A. Waxman of California, and its ranking Republican member, Rep. Tom Davis of Virginia, made the decision together) suggests that the committee is digging deeper even than the Mitchell report did. In addition to the depositions, the committee staff will be gathering other material.

The players can certainly have their lawyers with them during the depositions, but the union will not be involved (the same union that discouraged the players from cooperating with Mitchell and his team). All signs point to some very hard-hitting questions regarding information in the Mitchell report and more.

With the information gathered in the depositions and other information obtained before the public hearings, don't expect to see many comments like McGwire's from 2005. "I'm not here to talk about the past" just isn't going to cut it this time.

This Blog Post has been read 524 times.
Posted to ProBlogs.com on Wednesday, January 09, 2008
View other posts by Rob Trahan

Comments on this blog post:
No comments yet.

Leave a Public Comment or Question:

Wrigley Field: What’s in a name is plenty to Cub Fans.
Clemens on 60 Minutes January 6, Does It Matter?
Mitchell Report Is Out: Who's Responsible?
Florida Marlins to Willis, Cabrera: See Ya Later!
Where Did Competition Take Barry Bonds?
MLB General Managers Recommend Instant Replay
Barry Bonds Boycotts the Hall of Fame

Most Recent Related Posts

Just how do people justify voting for these candidates?

Chinese Heparin Bleeds America Like the Fed; Where is Ron Paul?

The Popular Home Surveillance Choice

Online Auctions: Love Them or Loath Them?

Chi Mei Musuem in Taiwan, the collectable world renowned violins and others

Passion versus 2nd Ambition

New Migration of Immigrants in Northern Virginia.

John McCain The Neo con

Home alone - fending off robbers or working?

Building a PC for Dummies...Dummy