SANCTIMONY'S TURN AT BAT

What's been heralded as a "showdown" -- the appearance of baseball
pitcher Roger Clemens before the House Committee on Oversight and
Government Reform tomorrow-- is more likely to be a show. The purpose
is to scour for more information regarding the " Report to the
Commissioner of Baseball of an Independent Investigation into the
Illegal Use of Steroids and Other Performance Enhancing Substances by
Players in Major League Baseball." In the lingo of dugouts and
bullpens, they want to get the dope on doping.

This is the congressional committee, chaired by Rep. Henry Waxman,
that in recent months has held hearings on the status of corruption
in the Iraqi government and the threat of global warming. From
matters of statecraft, now it's Roger Clemens's tush. Was he injected
with steroids? In a Jan. 7 press conference in Houston, Roger the
Rocket asserted that he had used only vitamin B-12 and lidocaine.

Clemens has asked the public to give him "the benefit of the doubt"
as he tries to clear his name. I'll benefit. I was delighted when he
refused to be bullied by reporters that day. He was angry and
defiant, unwilling to hunker down and allow scribes to preen in their
favorite role as truth-detectors. The New York Times, out to mow down
Clemens with a bean ball, located three " body language analysts" to
judge the pitcher's behavior during an interview with "60 Minutes":
"The analysts noticed that Clemens swallowed hard, looked down and
licked and pursed his lips when answering questions -- all signs,
they said, that he might not have been telling the truth."

Hard swallowing, looking down and the rest: That's the gritty Clemens
on the mound, a perfectionist throwing baseballs as few ever have.
Why be different because it is reporters, not batters, you are up against?

This is the second time members of Congress have posed as
drug-busters cleaning up the great American pastime. Except that drug
use -- whether involving legal or illegal drugs -- already is the
American pastime, and it is far bigger than baseball.

I'm hoping that Roger Clemens polls the members of Waxman's committee
on their use of performance-enhancing drugs. Start with Viagra. Or
Cialis, ready for action "when the moment is right" -- say, a
congressman stumbling home after a late-night floor vote on an
earmark bill. Clemens might ask the members how many need shots of
caffeine drugs to get themselves up and out every morning. He might
ask the members how often they reach for another shot of Jack Daniels
to enhance their performance while grubbing for bucks from lobbyists
at fundraisers. And before leaving Capitol Hill, he should grill the
allegedly clean-living baseball reporters on how many of them sit in
the press box enhancing their bodies with alcohol, nicotine and
caffeine drugs. And a blunt or two when night games go extra innings
and deadline nerves need steadying.

I see steroids, and all drugs, as an issue of personal freedom. Is
there a difference between fans at big-league baseball games stoned
on alcohol while cheering athletes on the base paths juiced with
steroids? What's the difference between scoring with Viagra and
scoring with steroids? What's the difference between people freely
abusing their bodies with one drug but not another, as long as no one
else is harmed and the consequences are self-sustained?

No difference but one. Some protectors of the public good --
reluctantly, the 30 big-league team owners and now the Waxman
committee and the sanctimonious sports media posing as guardians of
baseball's purity -- have decreed a crackdown. Go get 'em, Congress.
Pass a law.

First, though, let's check in with calmer legal minds. In the 5 to 4
decision last summer that upheld the suspension of an Alaskan high
school student for holding a sign -- "Bong Hits 4 Jesus" -- during a
parade, a dissenting Justice John Paul Stevens wrote: "The current
dominant opinion supporting the war on drugs in general, and our
anti-marijuana laws in particular, is reminiscent of the opinion that
supported the nationwide ban on alcohol consumption when I was a
student. While alcoholic beverages are now regarded as ordinary
articles of commerce, their use was then condemned with the same
moral fervor that now supports the war on drugs."

Any chance of this wisdom seeping in? Don't hold your breathalyzer.