When the mighty refuse to fall

What on earth can we learn from the hearings around Roger Clemens' possible use of HGH? The jury is out as the hearings are on today, and the analyses of his passionate commitment to clearing his name spill out daily on sports and other news media outlets.

I cannot guess how this will turn out, but it's not looking good for Roger. Brian McNamee has retained in his basement the syringes from 2001 (seven years old, ladies and gentlemen!) and DNA may still be on these articles. With physical evidence, the "he said, he said" means nothing.

News reports say Clemens spent Tuesday (2/12) on Capital Hill lobbying various members of the congressional committee investigating him. Why? Without condemning someone whom I increasingly feel sorry for, I wonder what there is that leads anyone to believe that personal charm, persuasive lobbying, can matter when the cards are stacked at this level.

If in fact Clemens is forced to admit that he didn't understand the rules (say, what?), what makes him think that this investigation is simply a matter of interpretation? This smells of an Enron, (at least the hubris of the CEOs), or any number of events in the past decade, which indicate that sometimes when we rise to the top, we are insulated from holding fast and strong to ethics, logic, or examining the consequences of breaking or bending the rules to fit our need to stay on top of our game, maintain our status, or protect our reputation.

It's enough to make me grateful for my puny place in life, for my lack of climbing a ladder whose perch I could never have sustained. But still I look to my own hubris. I ask where am I assuming a special forgiveness where I can talk my way out of scrutiny. Is this embedded arrogance an outcome of a litigious society where a good lawyer can slice and dice the issues so well that anyone wealthy enough or fortunate(?) enough can get by with murder?