Hearing could be influential

Roger Clemens and Brian McNamee won’t be there, raising their right hands and swearing to tell the truth about the “He said, he said” steroids saga that has gripped the baseball world.

No, the testimony of those two celebrities before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform has been delayed until Feb. 13, so the public may not find itself enthralled with today’s appearance by Bud Selig, Don Fehr and George Mitchell on Capitol Hill.

But perhaps the testimony this morning of the baseball commissioner, the head of the players union and the former senator who published the 400-page report on the use of performance-enhancing drugs in the sport will prove more significant than next month’s star-studded follow-up hearing.

“You’ve got heavy hitters here who will play an enormous role in what direction baseball takes from this moment on,” said Michael McCann, assistant professor at Mississippi College of Law and contributor to the Sports Law Blog and Sports Illustrated. “And it will be under the spotlight, with members of Congress asking perhaps very difficult questions. I think this hearing will end up being much more important than the Feb. 13 hearing, although I’m sure that hearing will get more attention.”

The committee, chaired by Rep. Henry Waxman, California Democrat, first will hear testimony from Mitchell about his report that fingered 92 major league players as users of illegal performance enhancing drugs. Mitchell has been widely respected on the Hill for decades, but committee members critical of the methods he used to produce his report could take him to task.

Mitchell could be asked to explain why certain evidence he obtained was enough to name some players but not others and why the vast majority of the information he received came from two less-than-reputable sources: McNamee, the former Yankees trainer who said he injected Clemens and Andy Pettitte with steroids and human growth hormone, and Kirk Radmoski, the former Mets clubhouse attendant who supplied steroids and HGH to dozens of players around the league.

“Even though he’s a former and very distinguished member of Congress, I think the hearing would lose some of its credibility if they tossed softballs at Sen. Mitchell,” McCann said. “I think they will ask tough questions.”

Selig and Fehr will follow Mitchell at the microphone, and if this joint appearance is anything like their March 2005 one before the same committee, both should be prepared to be grilled.

Congress has criticized both men before, insisting they haven’t done enough to address the problem of steroids in baseball. Though both Selig and Fehr said they will readdress the issue after the Mitchell report’s release, House members likely will push them to act now.

“I don’t think it’s going to have that great of an impact in the end,” Rick Karcher, director of the Center for Law and Sports at Florida Coastal School of Law, said of today’s hearing. “But if they can get both sides to agree to sit down and talk about this some more, maybe that has some value in and of itself.”

Committee members figure to press Selig and Fehr to implement the changes Mitchell proposed in his report. Baseball has already taken some steps on its own, requiring tighter security in clubhouses and creating a department of investigations to look into all steroid use allegations.

But most of Mitchell’s recommendations are subject to collective bargaining with the players union and thus can’t be implemented without the support of both Selig and Fehr.

Today’s hearing could provide committee members an opportunity to pressure Fehr into agreeing to reopening the collective bargaining agreement and negotiating new policies aimed at reducing the use of steroids in the sport.

But interested observers don’t expect many dramatic developments out of this session.

“This is going to be a long process,” Karcher said. “It’s not going to happen overnight. They’re probably going to sit down and negotiate some more.”