Friday column: Roger Clemens beat rap? Fat chance

Narrow-faced men: Rejoice — you are trustworthy and true.

Or more likely to be, anyway.

Fat-faced men: Rejoice, too.

Yes, you're more likely to lie than your slim-faced brethren but, on the other hand, you're probably more successful in business.

This according to a study reported in The Independent.

The British newspaper said that the study, which tested 192 business students to see how readily they were prepared to lie or cheat in order to gain an advantage, showed "that the width of a man's face relative to his facial height is an indicator of how powerful he feels and of his willingness to surreptitiously break social rules to achieve his goals."

Why? Well, according to the director of the University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee study, "Men with larger facial ratios feel more powerful, and this sense of power then leads them to act unethically."

Said The Independent: "The findings suggest that the width-to-height ratio of the face could be an ancient evolutionary signal of a man's aggressiveness when dealing with competitors."

Willingness to bend the rules and to lie might be a selective advantage in Darwinian terms, but it's got to have its drawbacks.

Witness the plight of one William Roger Clemens, whose aggressiveness on the mound helped propel him to 354 big-league wins over a 23-year career. If you believe Major League Baseball's Mitchell Report, many of those wins were also the result of Clemens' willingness to bend the rules when it came to using performance-enhancing drugs.

Was all this good for business? You bet — to the tune of $150 million in career earnings.

On the other hand, Clemens' aggressiveness and sense of power led him to inexplicably charge before Congress and make a number of bald statements — under oath — about never having used steroids or human growth hormone.

His performance was, to put it charitably, a little less than believable, and this week resulted in Clemens being put on trial for perjury.

To a large degree, Clemens' likelihood of becoming a guest of a federal institution depends on the believability of his main accuser, former trainer Brian McNamee, who presented prosecutors with syringes that connect Clemens' DNA with steroids and HGH.

Clemens has an explanation, and of course, it's just possible the pitcher could be telling the truth when he claims that McNamee doctored the syringes in order to blackmail him. We'll wait to see the evidence presented.

In the meantime, let's check the evidence we already can see, keeping the UWM study in mind: Look at Clemens' melon, and now McNamee's.

Hmmm ...

Is it too late for a plea deal?

Is he EVER going to learn?

Team Clemens has done it again.

The masterminds that sued Brian McNamee (leading to the release of damaging personal information about Roger Clemens), the brains that wanted Clemens to testify before Congress (leading to what very well might become perjury charges against the former pitcher) have now sent Roger out to discredit the just-released book American Icon: The Fall of Roger Clemens and the Rise of Steroids in America's Pastime.

This was a book getting very little play in the press — until Clemens attacked it. Now, references to it are everywhere you look.

Way to go, guys.

Now this is a tough call

So.

A judge in Houston is deciding whether to throw out Roger Clemens’ defamation suit against Brian McNamee.

If the judge does toss it out, McNamee, whom I believe is telling the truth about his former boss’ use of illegal, performance-enhancing drugs, is spared further legal expense — which he certainly can’t afford — and justice prevails.

On the other hand, if the case goes forward, we move to the discovery phase, which almost certainly means more embarrassing revelations about Clemens, including his alleged fling with a teenage Country-Western singer.

So.

What should we root for here? Justice or dirt? Justice or dirt? Justice or …?

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/11/04/sports/baseball/04clemens.html?scp=2&sq=roger%20clemens&st=cse