The book, although engaging and filled with good gossip, is dragged down by a very palpable agenda to be contrarian (“Everything you know is wrong!”) and salacious rumors.

For instance, in defiance of everything Roger Clemens has always said, the author tries to portray his biological father as a great man and his mother the one at fault in their separation.  He then goes on to sadistically mock Clemens’s step-father on repeated occasions (he actually sneers at the step-father because he promised to prioritize his adopted children first, his wife second, and himself last; isn’t that a good thing?)  The author even seemed to be laughing as he discussed Clemens’s step-father’s heart attack.

I think that the Roger Clemens “steroid” issue is totally fascinating.  Unlike the government’s dogs—t case against Bonds, the feds actually have an airtight case against Clemens but, because he’s white, the impotent Republicans in the “Justice” Department are hesitant to charge him….and they DEFINITELY won’t pursue any jail time - contrast that with the $60+ mil they’ve spent on their hilariously bogus witch-hunt on Bonds.

But the author didn’t get into any of that.  He was too busy making fun of his step-father and wagging his finger at Clemens for “steroids” while striking a morally superior pose.

Also: the book COMPLETELY contradicts itself.  It persistently purports to know exactly when Clemens used steroids simply by looking at his stats.  If Clemens pitched a good game, then there’ll be something like “That Saturday, Clemens vanished from the hotel from 11 P.M. to 1 A.M.  The following Wednesday he had 7 K in 6 IP.  Clearly, he was on steroids.”

But then….he never once provides ANY evidence of “steroid” use for Clemens’s very best seasons: 1997, 2004, 2005.  How could all of Clemens’s late-career success be attributable to “steroids” if he wasn’t even using them in the best of those years?  And how come he didn’t express skepticism about Curt Schilling’s freakish mid-30’s surge and sudden health? 

Anyway!  The long-winded point I’m making is that the book is nothing more than a hardcover tabloid, and simple logic suggests that the bulk of its original postulations are bogus.